Until 1978, public criticism of the Cultural Indicators project had mostly come from researchers who worked for the television industry, and was focused on various aspects of message system analysis. Not surprisingly, these critiques were directed at the definition and measurement of violence (industry critics thought the CI definition was too vague and too liberal), along with sample size, sample universe, reliability, validity, coding procedures, unitization and numerous related issues. Several lengthy colloquies ensued in the pages of the Journal of Broadcasting (see Coffin & Tuchman, 1972–73a, 1972–73b; Eleey, et al., 1972–73a, 1972–73b; Blank, 1977a, 1977b; Gerbner, et al., 1977a, 1977b). The industry had an obvious interest in discrediting the research, in wanting to declare that its estimates of the amount of violence on television were grossly overstated. So they focused on such issues as whether “comic” violence and “accidents” should be included (as if there are ever any “accidents” in fiction). At times, both sides adopted indignant and antagonistic tones, but these interchanges were mild in comparison with what was to come over cultivation.

By the late 1970s, the cultivation method was established as a strategy for assessing the contribution of television's messages to conceptions of issues relevant to social power. Not everyone interpreted it that way, however, and basic disagreements over what cultivation was saying began to contribute to a rising tide of discord, discussion and diatribe. We now turn our attention to some of the specific criticisms.