[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 146 (Tuesday, September 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13810-S13812]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRIME TIME TELEVISION--THE NEW FALL TV PROGRAM LINEUP
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to bring the attention of the
Senate an article entitled ``Sex and Violence on TV'' from the most
recent issue of U.S. News & World Report--September 11, 1995. The
article reviews television network programming for the upcoming fall TV
season. I am particularly troubled by the direction of the networks.
The lead in the article describes the season as ``to hell with kids--
that must be the motto of the new fall TV season.'' The article
suggests that the family viewing hour--the 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. period--is
dead, and that sex, vulgarity and violence rules prime time.
Tom Shales in his review this weekend of fall television network
programming in the Washington Post makes similar observations. He
remarked, ``vulgarity is on the rise. Sitcom writers make big bucks
coming up with cheap laughs. Buried in the dust of competition is the
old family viewing concept that made the 8 p.m. hour--7 p.m. on
Sundays--a haven from adult themes and language.''
As my colleagues are aware, earlier this summer, the Senate and House
of Representatives debated at length the issue of television violence
as part of the telecommunications bill, S. 652 and H.R. 1555. Both the
House and Senate bills include provisions requiring that new television
sets be equipped with technology to permit parents to block television
programming with violent, sexual or other objectionable content. The
measure also encourages the development of a voluntary rating system by
the television industry, a system that would enable parents to make
informed decisions about television viewing for their children.
Mr. President, with all the attention focused on television violence
over the past few months--including a recent pledge by my distinguished
colleague senator Robert Dole to clean up television and movies--it is
astonishing that television networks are promoting a fall TV season
that demonstrates so much disregard for the wishes of American families
and the clear majority of the House and Senate. American people want
television networks to develop programming with considerably less
violence, sexual and indecent content. The new fall television schedule
is a tragedy.
Time and time again, I, and members of the Citizens Task Force on
Television Violence have been told by the media that Government
intervention to reduce violent and objectionable television programming
is not necessary. We were assured that the media will act responsibly.
The networks argue that the technology for parents to block programming
and a rating system for programming are not necessary.
Mr. President, the U.S. News & World Report's review of fall TV
programming suggests otherwise. It is regrettable that the networks are
demonstrating such disregard for the wishes of American families. The
UCLA Center for Communications Policy's Network Violence Study released
earlier today confirms some of these continuing concerns regarding
violent programming. The UCLA study points out that while some
programming shows improvement in the overall reduction of violence, the
study identified serious problems regarding the level of violence in
theatrical films on television, on-air promotions, children's
television and the lack of parental advisories. I urge the American
public to let their Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives know their views on programming for the upcoming fall
TV season, and to express strong support for the v-chip legislation
when it is considered by the House-Senate Conference on the
telecommunications bill. I ask unanimous consent Mr. President, that
the text of the article from the U.S. News & World Report be printed in
the Congressional Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I just want to conclude by saying the
evidence is, really, overwhelming. I have been working on this issue
for 5 years. I have put together a national coalition that involves
church groups, law enforcement, all of the children's advocacy groups,
the principals of America, the teachers, the National Education
Association, group after group after group who have said, ``Enough is
enough. Let us reduce the mindless, repetitive violence that is on
television. Let us reduce that objectionable sexual content. Let us
have television realize the promise that it offers the American people,
to uplift, to educate, to inform.'' That is what our society
desperately needs.
And over and over the networks have told us, ``Be patient, just wait.
We are going to act.''
Now, we have the fall schedule and we can see how hollow those
promises are. Over and over we have been told, ``We are going to do
better. We are going to reduce the level of violence. We are going to
reduce other objectionable content.''
Mr. President, they have not kept the promise. I call on my
colleagues to stand fast. We passed here, by 73 to 26, the ``choice
chips'' that will permit parents to decide what their children are
exposed to. That is the appropriate response.
I, once again, call on the networks to take action to keep their
promises and, hopefully, to support this legislation that will provide
``choice chips'' in new television sets so parents can choose;
[[Page S13811]]
so parents can decide what their children are exposed to.
Exhibit 1
[From U.S. News & World Report, September 11, 1995]
Sex and Violence on TV
(By Marc Silver)
The family hour is gone. There's still a splattering of
guts in prime time, but the story of the fall lineup is the
rise of sex. Will the networks ever wise up?
To hell with kids--that must be the motto of the new fall
TV season. You want proof? Look at the network lineups. Many
of the wholesome sitcoms that once ruled the 8 p.m.-to-9 p.m.
hour have gone to the TV graveyard, replaced by racier fare
like ``Cybill'' and ``Roseanne.'' As a Wall Street Journal
news story put it in a recent headline, ``It's 8 p.m. Your
Kids Are Watching Sex on TV.''
Vulgarity also rules in the first hour of prime time. In
``Bless This House,'' an 8 p.m. CBS show starring shock comic
Andrew Clay as a blue-collar dad, the mom accuses her 12-
year-old daughter of ``spend[ing] all morning staring at your
little hooters.'' Chatting with a promiscuous chum who's said
to be so eager for sex that she'd ``do it on the coffee
table,'' the mother wonders, ``My God, don't you ever get
your period?''
Say goodbye to the ``family hour,'' the 8 p.m.-to-9 p.m.
period ABC, CBS and NBC once reserved for you and the kids,
and say hello to the Fox in the henhouse. The success of
sexually frank programs like the Fox network's ``Beverly
Hills 90210'' at 8 p.m. has uncorked a wave of me-tooism in
the quest for a young (but not too young), hip and urban
audience. As Alan Sternfeld, an ABC senior vice president,
says of shifting ``Roseanne'' and ``Ellen'' to 8 p.m.: ``We
get reimbursed by advertisers when we deliver adults 18 to
49.''
Despite the outcry over TV violence this year, it is the
rise of sex on TV that is the real story of the fall lineup.
Some media critics are pointing to moralistic plots on shows
like ``ER,'' ``Roseanne'' and ``Seinfeld'' as evidence that
network TV is becoming as wholesome and earnest as The Little
Engine That Could. But that's just a small part of what's
happening in prime time.
``A lot of Hollywood says, `If you criticize us about
violence, then let's have some good, wholesome sex at 8
p.m.,''' says Lionel Chetwynd, a prominent writer, director
and producer who has worked in TV for 20 years. ``The idea
that family viewing includes some sense of sexual propriety
doesn't seem to have sunk into the Hollywood community.''
Chetwynd sees a defensive reaction from his colleagues.
They complain that they're an easy target, and also believe
that only someone on the far right could possibly be upset by
sex on TV. But that's not so. Plenty of ``lifestyle
conservatives''--a term coined by film critic Michael
Medved--are fed-up viewers despite their moderate or liberal
political views.
Those lifestyle conservatives have plenty to grouse about.
A groundbreaking study by Monique Ward, a postdoctoral fellow
in education at the University of California at Los Angeles,
tracks and analyzes sexual content in the 1992-93 prime-time
shows most popular among youngsters 2 to 12 and 12 to 17. On
average, 29 percent of all interactions involved sex talk of
some kind. ``Blossom'' at 58 percent and ``Martin'' at 49
percent led the pack. Sex is most often depicted as a
competition, a way to define masculinity and an ``exciting
amusement for people of all ages,'' Ward found. Looks are
everything. In an episode of ``Blossom,'' a teenager's
grandfather says of a blind date: ``In case she's a dog, I
can fake a heart attack.'' Ward's study will appear in the
October Journal of Youth and Adolescence.
Then there's soap-opera sex, talk-show sex chatter, sex
crimes on the news--how do kids process all that? Little
academic work has been done in this area. Yet, researchers
are moving ahead gingerly, and certain conclusions are
emerging. In a study of how middleclass teenage girls react
to sex in the media, Jane Brown, a professor in the school of
journalism and mass communications at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, identified three types of viewers:
sexually inexperienced teens who find the whole thing
``disgusting'': ``intrigued'' girls who ``suck it up,''
buying into the TV sex fantasy, and ``critics,'' who tear
irresponsible sexual messages to shreds. ``but the media are
so compelling and so filled with sex, it's hard for any kid,
even a critic, to resist,'' says Brown. ``I think of the
media as our true sex educators.''
Kids agree. This year, Children Now, an Oakland, Calif.,
advocacy group, polled 750 children ages 10 to 16. Six out of
10 said sex on TV sways kids to have sex at too young an age.
Some shows to promote teenage abstinence or conversations
about the consequences of sex, but that's the exception. One
suggestion endorsed by Douglas Besharov, a scholar at the
conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute: Force TV
honchos to show their products to their spouses, kids and
parents.
Murder at 8 p.m.--Violence also is barging into the early
evening this fall. Fox's ``Space: Above and Beyond,'' a 7
p.m. sci-fi spatterthon, features flamethrowers, stun guns
and, for nostalgia buffs, a crowbar and a noose of chains.
``John Grisham's The Client,'' an 8 p.m. CBS drama, serves up
two corpses and two bloody, on-screen murders in the first 15
minutes. That's more grist for politicians on the warpath
about TV violence.
The ``V-chip'' is currently a favorite solution. Both
houses of Congress have supported legislation requiring that
new TV sets come with a chip enabling parents to block
violent programs. The technology is a snap. Deciding which
shows deserve a ``V'' for violence is the problem. The
networks aren't eager to cooperate. A government committee
raises the specter of censorship, along with thorny
questions--for example, would violence in ``M*A*S*H'' be in
the same category as shootings in ``The Untouchables''?
In any event, the V-chip is a few years away. In the
interim, children will see thousands of violent acts on TV. A
study by the American Psychological Association figures that
the typical child, watching 27 hours of TV a week, will view
8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence from age 3 to age
12. (Of course, that wouldn't apply to fans of ``Mister
Rogers' Neighborhood'' or sitcom viewers.)
An upcoming report by the UCLA Center for Communication
Policy sees some improvements on the TV-violence front. ``The
networks know what the public is looking for,'' says Jeffrey
Cole, director of the center, which was hired by the networks
to conduct what is arguably the most thorough review ever of
violence in prime-time media. Looking at nearly 3,000 hours
of television, the report concludes the overall level of
violence is dropping.
Bloody promos.--But gratuitous violence is on the rise.
``All violence is not equal,'' says Cole. ``Context is
everything, and in some instances, violence is unwarranted
and not helpful to the plot. Some movies and made-for-TV
movies about crime are just vehicles for violence.'' Promos
for violent shows are especially prone to ``condensed
violence'' with no context.
Hollywood isn't convinced that media mayhem inspires the
real thing. ``When I was little, I went to the movies every
week and saw violent cartoons and two or three Westerns in
which the entire Sioux nation was massacred by the cavalry,''
recalls Steven Bochco, creator of ``NYPD Blue.'' ``I never
had a question that what I was watching was make-believe,
because I was raised by a family that gave me a moral
compass.''
On the other side of the debate stand 1,000-plus studies
establishing links between TV violence and the way people
behave in real life. In a 1970 study at Pennsylvania State
University, psychologist Aletha Huston and a colleague
regularly showed cartoons of fist-flying superheroes to one
group of 4-year-olds and bland fare to another. Among kids in
both groups known to be above average in aggressive behavior,
those who saw the action heroes were more likely to hit and
throw things after watching. Nor do the effects of TV
violence fade after childhood. Psychologist Leonard Eron of
the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research
has tracked 650 New York children from 1960 to the present,
looking at viewing habits and behavior. Those who watched the
most violent television as youngsters grew up to engage in
the most aggressive behavior as adults, from spouse abuse to
drunk driving.
The flaw in Bochco's argument, Eron says, is that not all
homes have a moral compass. Besides, no one's saying that all
violence is inspired by television. One estimate, based on an
analysis of 275 studies by George Comstock, S. I. Newshouse
professor of public communication at Syracuse University, is
that perhaps 10 percent of antisocial and illegal acts can be
linked to TV. ``But wouldn't it be great if we could reduce
the occurrence of violence in this nation by 10 percent?''
asks Eron.
Family fare?--Fans of family TV won't find much to cheer
about in the fall 1995 season. ``More channels doesn't mean
more choices,'' says Kathryn Montgomery of the Center for
Media Education, an advocacy group in Washington, D.C. In
fact, one of the best family dramas on television, CBS's
``Christy'' was canceled this spring despite a slew of
awards. ``Christy,'' the story of a young teacher in
backwoods Tennessee in 1912, had superb writing and acting--
and lovely lessons about life with nary an ounce of schmaltz
or sex, violence or swearing. The audience of about 10
million weekly viewers was ``fairly substantial and intensely
loyal,'' says David Poltrack, executive vice president of
research and planning for CBS. But the young adults whom
advertisers crave weren't watching in force, so ``Christy''
got the ax. Reruns will air on the Family Channel on
Saturdays at 7 p.m. starting in October.
Since most new network shows weren't designed with a family
audience in mind, Warner Bros. new WB network is trying to
fill the 8 to 9 p.m. void with ``family friendly'' fare. On
the menu this fall: a fairly clever carton called ``Steven
Speilberg Presents Pinky & the Brain'' on Sundays at 7 p.m.,
about a smart lab rat trying to take over the world, and
supposedly wholesome sitcoms that are, in fact, generally
mediocre and occasionally offensive. In ``Kirk,'' the lame
tale of an older brother who assumes custody of three
siblings, the younger brother brags of peeping into a nearby
apartment and seeing a beautiful woman in a ``Wonderbra and
nothing else.'' Turns out the gal is a guy, even though he
has ``girl things.''
Raunchy family fare is nothing new. In an episode of CBS's
``The Nanny,'' a returning show that pitches itself to kids
with promos during cartoons, the nanny comes home
[[Page S13812]]
drunk and mistakenly stumbles into bed with her cold-ridden boss. The
next day, neither can recall if they had sex. ``We try to do
a sophisticated 8 p.m. show,'' says ``Nanny'' Co-executive
Producer Diane Wilk. ``We wouldn't want to put anything on
the air we wouldn't want our children to see.'' Counters
Debra Haffner, president of the Sexuality Information and
Education Council of the United States: ``I wouldn't let my
10-year-old daughter watch. `The Nanny'--or practically any
other prime-time show--without me, so I can discuss the
sexual messages with her.''
Smart TV.--On Saturday mornings, network cynicism is
symbolized by ABC's canning of ``Cro,'' one of the few
genuinely educational cartoons around. ``Cro'' wasn't the
greatest show ever produced by the Children's Television
Workshop, creators of ``Sesame Street.'' But it managed to
tuck science lessons into the adventures of a prehistoric
tribe and did win its time slot last season. ABC says the
show ``underperformed.'' As ``Cro'' bowed out, an animated
version of the movie Dumb and Dumber joined ABC's Saturday
lineup. ``This is beyond irony,'' says Reed Hundt, chairman
of the Federal Communications Commission. ```Dumb and Dumber'
is a description of this decision, not just a title.''
PBS still has a fine roster of educational fare. But
``Ghostwriter,'' a popular show for ages 6 to 11 that
stresses reading skills in the mysteries it weaves, will have
no new episodes, just reruns. Corporate money dried up for
the series, and two commercial networks weren't interested in
new episodes for Saturday mornings. ``Wishbone,'' a new PBS
daily series, debuting October 9 and aimed at the same age
group, is a strong breed. The eponymous star is a terrier who
imagines himself in literary works like Romeo and Juliet. The
dog is appealing, yet a purist might wonder if this is the
best way to introduce kids to great literature.
But ``Wishbone'' is a gem compared with Disney's new,
allegedly educational syndicated series ``Sing Me a Story:
With Belle.'' To keep costs down, Disney is recycling old
cartoons with new didactic voice-overs. In one episode, the
lesson is: Friends are good, friends are good, friends are
good. The live-action host is Belle, star of Beauty and the
Beast.
Nonetheless, Disney could be the salvation of family-
friendly television when it takes over ABC. Dean Valentine,
president of Walt Disney Television and Television Animation,
predicts the glut of adult-oriented 8 p.m. shows will provide
an opening for something different. ``In the next year or
two, the hit shows will be family programs from Disney at 8
p.m.,'' he says.
Parents don't have to just sit and wait for better TV.
Public outrage can play a role in reforming the media--that's
why Calvin Klein decided last week to pull controversial ads
for jeans depicting young people in various stages of
undress. Then again, few have lost money being crass in the
vast wasteland.
a guide to media literacy--what tv-savvy parents can do to help their
kids
As TV gets wilder and wilder, more parents are opting to
junk television altogether. Those not ready for this drastic
step can find solace in media literacy--the art of
deconstructing television. Schools in Canada have taught
media literacy for years, explaining to students that
programs exist to deliver an audience to advertisers, that
sex and violence sell and that TV news isn't all the news
that's fit to air--it's more likely the news that gets the
best ratings. American schools are just beginning to catch
up. Here are six key precepts for a crash course at home.
1. Rethink your image of TV.--Newton Minow, former chairman
of the Federal Communications Commission, suggests imagining
a stranger in your house blathering on to you and your
children about sex and violence all day long. No one dares
interrupt or tell the stranger to shut up or get out. That
stranger is your TV set.
2. Keep a diary.--Ask your kids how much TV they think they
watch. Then have them write down everything they watch for a
week. Parents might do the same. Both generations may be
shocked by the results. A reasonable goal for kids: two hours
a day. Several primers help with this and other steps: The
Smart Parent's Guide to Kids' TV by Milton Chen (KQED Books,
1994, $8.95); ``Taking Charge of Your TV,'' from the National
PTA and the cable-television industry (free copies from 800-
743-5355 or http://www.widmeyer.com/ncta/home.htm on the
Internet); and guides from the Center for Media Literacy
(call 800-226-9494 for a free catalog).
3. Be choosy.--You wouldn't stroll into a library and pick
up the first book, and you shouldn't just turn on the TV and
watch whatever's on. Media literacy mavens suggest choosing a
week's worth of programs in advance. Sorry, no channel
surfing.
4. Watch with them.--Unless parents are confident that a
show is safe for youngsters (rarely the case these days),
they should watch with their kids, then talk about
controversial content. Sample queries: ``Why was that the
lead story on the news?'' ``Could a cop really be back at
work a week after being shot in the chest?'' ``When the star
of the sitcom decided to have sex with a woman he just met,
should she have suggested that he use a condom?''
5. Just say no.--And also why--which means you first need
to watch the series in question. ``My daughter, who's 11,
wanted to see `Married . . . With Children,''' says Karen
Jaffe of Kidsnet, a children's media resource center in
Washington, D.C. ``I said no. I don't like the way the
parents talk to the kids or the kids talk to the parents.''
6. Media literacy isn't a cure-all.--No child can be
immunized against all the bad stuff on TV. So parents (and
children) need to make their objections known. Letters to the
local station, with a copy to the local newspapers and the
FCC, can carry weight, especially if you use the words feared
by TV executives: ``failing to serve the public interest''
and ``doesn't deserve to have its license renewed.''
does kids' tv need fixing?
Officials are debating whether to toughen the Children's
Television Act: Should they require stations to air more
quality kids' programming?
The Children's Television Act is either the last best hope
for children's programs or an irksome symbol of how
government meddles where it shouldn't. Enacted in October
1990, the act requires local stations to meet the
``educational and informational needs of children'' to renew
their licenses. The act's supporters want to strengthen its
terms by requiring, among other things, that a specific
number of hours be devoted to children's programming; its
critics say Uncle Sam has no business regulating a local
station's schedule.
Pro:
Without government intervention, the television industry
will not produce enough quality children's programming.
Broadcasters must serve the public.--They use spectra owned
by the public and it's only right that their work benefit the
public interest. ``The law requires that broadcasters uphold
public-interest standards regardless of the share of 18-to-
49-year-olds that they capture for advertisers,'' said
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Reed Hundt in a
recent speech.
Children need an advocate.--Federal courts have already
recognized that government has a role in protecting kids'
interests that extends beyond the constitutional protections
of free speech. One recent decision affirmed that role when
it upheld the FCC's regulations restricting ``indecent''
programming to certain hours.
Broadcasters cut corners.--The children's Television Act
vaguely defines educational as furthering ``the positive
development of the child in any respect.'' Broadcasters love
that loophole. The Center for Media Education says some
station license renewal applications have listed cartoons
like ``Casper'' and ``GI Joe'' as educational. The definition
of the word educational must be firmed up so that shows
airing prior to 7 a.m. should not qualify and local stations
are required to air a certain number of hours per week.
Threats of regulation bring results.--When presidents
threaten to regulate the television industry, more
educational shows are produced for children. Former ABC
children's television chief Squire Rushnell has charted the
relationship: Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford both advocated
that there should be more educational children's programming
or else the government would insist on it. As a result, the
networks averaged almost 10 hours of such programming per
week by 1975. By the end of Jimmy Carter's term, in 1980, the
total was up to 11\1/4\ hours. By 1990, after Ronald Reagan's
tenure, it dropped to 1\3/4\ hours. (Broadcasters dispute
Rushnell's counting methods.)
Con:
While there is industry support for the Children's
Television Act, the free market does a good job of creating
quality shows without government edicts.
Strict regulations violate free speech.--When government
tells broadcasters how much children's educational television
they should produce and what time slots they should use for
such programs, the First Amendment rights of those
broadcasters are violated. ``It takes away the discretion of
the broadcasters,'' says Jeff Baumann, general counsel for
the National Association of Broadcasters.
Government cannot make children watch ``educational
programming.''--If TV producers have to scramble to produce
educational shows to fulfill a requirement, the result will
be a spate of mediocre programs that won't capture the
imagination of children.
Broadcasters have responded to the act.--FCC Commissioner
Rachelle Chong points out that since the act took effect,
children's educational fare has increased from about one hour
per week to three hours on average. She believes that
broadcasters are getting the message about educational fare
and plans to follow up with broadcasters who promise her that
the trend will improve. Quantitative guidelines should be
``our last resort.''
The free market works.--Cable stations like the Disney
Channel, the Learning Channel and Nickelodeon and several
satellite and online services have all come into being to
serve children (though 36 percent of American homes do not
have cable). With new players entering the entertainment
business, the choices for children will only increase. ``If
there's a program niche there, the marketplace will find
it,'' says Ben Tucker, president of Retlaw Broadcasting and
chairman of government relations for the CBS affiliate's
advisory board.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
____________________