Violent Television in the Forefront of Public Comments

The media groups said there’s no evidence that “exposure to violent imagery leads to desensitization. Although the evidence in support of a link is often described as ‘overwhelming,’ in fact the evidence is weak and inconsistent.” The media coalition -- which included the American Ad Federation, American Assn. of Ad Agencies, Assn. of National Advertisers, MPAA, NAB and the Satellite Bcstg. & Communications Assn. -- pointed to the FCC’s own uncertain premises: “This inquiry is as much a national Rorschach Test as it is a public policy proceeding. Revealing a gift for understatement, the Commission acknowledges it ‘is not necessarily the case’ that there is ‘a well established definition of violence’ or ‘violent programming.'”

Sesame Workshop said education was the proper way to teach children about violence, as well as protect them from violent images. Sesame CEO Gary Knell said: “We agree with the Commission that ‘consumption of educational television programming correlates positively to children’s school preparedness and may also encourage beneficial social skills and behavioral development.'” Pointing to the success of helping children cope with the aftermath of 9/11, he said: “The Commission should strongly encourage broadcasters to produce and air programming that teaches children positive strategies for coping with violence, both in the real world and as depicted and reported in the media.”

While the NCTA agreed that education is one way to protect children, it stressed there were others. The Assn. pointed out that the multitude of services and cable channels available allows parents to choose the right programming for their children. It also stressed that the V-chip is a valuable means of protecting children from violent images. “These steps give parents the tools to determine whether programming available on cable systems is suitable for their family and to decide when and whether such programming may be viewed by their children,” said the NCTA: “And they do so without censoring or restricting the content that adults may choose to watch or allow their children to watch, even if other adults choose not to allow such content into their homes. This is critically important, since violent content, notwithstanding its potential adverse effects on children, is not always (or even usually) wholly gratuitous and often arises in artistic expression or newsworthy material. Prohibiting censorship of such material lies at the core of constitutionally protected speech.”

The NCTA said the Commission would exceed its authority if it took away parental control of cable TV. “They have asked whether the Commission has authority -- or should be given authority -- to take matters out of parents’ hands by prohibiting ‘excessively violent programming that is harmful to children’ during the hours when children are likely to compromise a substantial part of the viewing audience. The Commission does not have such authority. Nor is it necessary or appropriate -- or constitutionally permissible -- to impose such a ’safe harbor’ requirement on cable television operators and programmers.”

The govt. has a “legitimate interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors,” law prof. Geoffrey Stone of the U. of Chicago said in the NCTA filing. However, Stone added: “Any direct regulation of violent themes and images on cable television would constitute a content-based regulation of high value speech in violation of the First Amendment.”

Others worried that an FCC measures would also target such fare as nature videos, newscasts, and boxing and hockey. “The National Hockey League (NHL) feels that it is improper to even consider whether a sport like hockey would fall into any definition of televised ‘violence.’ In the first place, even the legislation being considered by Congress recognizes that sports (and news) are sui generis and may be specifically exempted from the provisions of the proposed law,” said NHL attorney Philip Hochberg.

The NHL also said including sports would blur the distinction between real team sports and scripted “sports” shows. Also, the league said critics should remember that hockey violence is punished with penalties, fines, and suspensions; violence in games is unscripted; there are vague definitions of violence; and it would be a violation of free speech principles to regulate violence in the context of sports. “Researchers have noted that when violent behavior is shown to be punished, it is less likely to be imitated than when it is rewarded,” said Hochberg: “For practical, policy, and Constitutional reasons, the Commission should not attempt to adopt regulations affecting sports telecasts.”