I find it hard to tell the difference between things that cause children to be bad, and those that merely help them decide which way to be bad.
I recall the fuss made over BBC's "Grange Hill".
It covered some of the bad things that kids (and teachers) did, and upset those who feel it their role in like to be offended.
I never saw anything in GH that I haven't seen in real life, indeed it all seemed a bit toned down.
My kids see other kids do bad stuff and often get away with it. They see that every single day.
The worst behaviour I have seen in my kids are things that I know for a fact they could not have seen in books or in real life, and certainly not on TV.
I just don't follow the logic of most "censorship" applied to kids. My older DS is just starting to read those parts of history where people behave far far worse than horrid Henry, and where he will observe that some very cruel, dishonest and rude people did very well. Indeed a plausible interpretation of historic figures is that not only do nice guys finish last, they generally are cruelly finished by efficient bad people.
I see my job as a parent to put "spin" on the inputs my kids get. IE put it in context, and explain the consequences of things.
To me, about the worst TV programme is the "A Team". I am in a timy minority here of course.
In the ATeam, guns are used with great abandon, cars are driven recklessly and also used as weapons.
The lesson a child would draw from this is that violence has no permanent or even very unpleasant consequences. That strikes me as a far worse thing for a kid to see than something where people are seen to suffer, but of course kids are supposed to be kpet away from images of "real" violence.