When looking into the New 52 I wrote this, reacting to some of the violence I was seeing in certain DC Titles:
"I've really enjoyed almost everything about the new DCU Reboot. The comics are fresh and exciting again - but there is one noticeable stain upon the whole initiative: the Batman books. I like the Batman books. I tried two of them this month - and while the issues I tried where good, and not too violent -- that cannot be said for the likes of Detective Comics #1, which had a final page showing the carved-off face of the Joker nailed to a wall. That just added to my disappointment with the Batman-office in general lately, as the previous Detective Comic arch was utterly inappropriately labeled - as it featured cannibalism. I kept hearing how good the story actually was; but I for one was quite disgusted by it - and I'm not even a little kid, which Batman books are more than likely to be given to. The less said about the utterly pornographic Catwoman #1, the better. It's a rather large disappointment to see - that such violent content is being mislabeled as either "T", or "T+" - when it's content that should be getting an "M" rating. Yet DC doesn't want to put an "M" rating on a Batman book - which begs the question why they are allowing such content on one of their lead characters to begin with?! I for one would like to read a Batman book that isn't marred by psychologically scarring violence and sex. I was intending to buy the new Jonah Hex book -- but I put it right back after seeing the prominently displayed dead hooker, nailed to the rafters as a warning for Hex to get out of town. I quite frankly don't know whether to trust the Batman books in the coming future, or the title Green Lantern Corps, written by Batman and Robin writer Peter J Tomasi, which stacked a mountain of dead bodies up as warning to the GL Corps, in addition to slicing up disposable Green Lantern characters every which way. Seriously - DC - get the violence under control!"
Five months in, what I've been reading hasn't been overly violent or worthy of controversy in any way. So I've been pretty happy.
At the time I emailed and told DC what I thought -- asking them to tone down the violence. I said to DC "Does some right-wing family values group need to make an outrage of this kind of content, before you finally start toning things down?" Well, unexpectedly, here's FOX News.
This news report, while making a valid point about violence in books kids have easy access to - also makes some wrong headed assumptions; that comics are only for kids and that violence in media cause aggression in children. That kind of mentality is a holdover from Fredric Wertham and the 1950s Senate Hearings -- all of which was largely debunked, and now considered a sad example of the worst kind of government censorship.
Comics aren't just for kids -- it's a medium, especially for the last four decades, that can easily be compared to the likes of TV and Movies. Yet DC has indeed dropped the ball in regards to their own rating system -- and neglected to remember that little kids do indeed get their hands on these titles regardless: especially the likes of Batman. I'm in no way advocating any kind of censorship -- just some common sense; especially in the face of over-reacting news organizations.