[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE EFFECT OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE ON CHILDREN: WHAT POLICYMAKERS NEED
TO KNOW
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET
of the
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 13, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-116
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
96-095 WASHINGTON : 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
RALPH M. HALL, Texas Ranking Member
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
FRED UPTON, Michigan EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CHRISTOPHER COX, California SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia BART GORDON, Tennessee
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ANNA G. ESHOO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BART STUPAK, Michigan
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona GENE GREEN, Texas
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
Mississippi, Vice Chairman TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
VITO FOSSELLA, New York DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
STEVE BUYER, Indiana LOIS CAPPS, California
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania TOM ALLEN, Maine
MARY BONO, California JIM DAVIS, Florida
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
LEE TERRY, Nebraska HILDA L. SOLIS, California
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
DARRELL E. ISSA, California
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
Bud Albright, Staff Director
James D. Barnette, General Counsel
Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida Ranking Member
Vice Chairman ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
CHRISTOPHER COX, California MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia JIM DAVIS, Florida
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico BART GORDON, Tennessee
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
Mississippi BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
VITO FOSSELLA, New York ANNA G. ESHOO, California
STEVE BUYER, Indiana BART STUPAK, Michigan
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MARY BONO, California JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
GREG WALDEN, Oregon (Ex Officio)
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
JOE BARTON, Texas,
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Testimony of:
Blackman, Rodney Jay, DePaul College of Law.................. 24
Davis, Ronald M., Member, Board of Trustees, American Medical
Association................................................ 16
Everett, John, Principal, Neal F. Simeon Career Academy...... 1
Kunkel, Dale, Professor, Department of Communication,
University of Arizona...................................... 21
McIntyre, Jeff J., Senior Legislative and Federal Affairs
Officer, Public Policy Office, American Psychological
Association................................................ 13
Slutkin, Gary, Director, Chicago Project for Violence
Prevention, Professor, Epidemiology and International
Health, UIC Chicago School of Public Health................ 9
Additional material submitted for the record by:
American Academy of Pediatrics, prepared statement of........ 36
(iii)
THE EFFECT OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE ON CHILDREN: WHAT POLICYMAKERS NEED
TO KNOW
----------
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2004
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet,
Chicago, IL.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m.,
Neal F. Simeon Career Academy, 8147 South Vincennes Avenue,
Chicago, Illinois, Hon. Fred Upton (chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Upton, Shimkus and Rush.
Staff present: Kelly Cole, majorty counsel; Will Norwind,
majority counsel and policy coordinator; Howard Waltzman,
majority counsel; Andy Black, deputy staff director; and Peter
Filon, minority counsel.
STATEMENT OF JOHN EVERETT, PRINCIPAL, NEAL F. SIMEON CAREER
ACADEMY
Mr. Everett. Let me have your attention for a minute,
please. First, I'd like to welcome my distinguished guests. And
I say good morning to my favorite students. It's really a
pleasure to have affair of this magnitude here at Simeon. We
had a groundbreaking ceremony, I mean a rivetting-breaking
ceremony last year at this time. And we had the Mayor out, and
we had all the dignitaries. And now we have our favorite
Congressman, Bobby Rush, and some more dignitaries out.
So, Simeon is known to have dignitaries. But let me say
that this is a real, real educational experience for our
students. They don't have civics, per se in the high schools
anymore. But this is a true, true civics lesson. So, please
enjoy yourself and learn something from this. Because this is
what it's all about. Thank you, and let's have a good day.
Thanks.
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you very much. My name is Fred
Upton. I'm a Congressman from across Lake Michigan, in St. Joe/
Benton Harbor. And the first thing that I noticed when I walked
in the school was the name Wolverine. I am a Wolverine, I just
wanted you to know. And I know our Wolverines here and in
Michigan took a tough loss on Saturday. But with all of that, I
know that there will be a better week next week. But good
morning, today's hearing is entitled ``The Effect of Television
Violence on Children: What Policymakers Need to Know.''
I'm honored to be here today with my good friend Bobby
Rush, in his district, and I am pleased that John Shimkus,
another Congressman from downstate Illinois, is with us today
as well. I want to thank the administrators, faculty, and
especially the students, you all, of this academy, for help
hosting us here this morning. And just so that we are all on
the same page, this is a field hearing, an official hearing of
the U.S. Congress, The House of Representatives, Energy and
Commerce, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
This subcommittee will receive all of the communication
issues, including television. Of course, most of our hearings
occur in Washington, DC, but sometimes we do try to get out and
bring our government back to the people. Because Bobby Rush has
such a deep concern for the young people across this country,
and in his congressional district, not only did he suggest that
we hold a hearing on this topic, but that we also hold it here
today. It was his choice of where we held the hearing.
We know that there are many types of these, television,
radio, video games, movies, Internet, music. And without a
doubt, the media has a tremendous influence on the children of
America. We probably all agree that the media has both its
upsides and its downsides for children in terms of education
and entertainment. And today, we are focusing on the effects on
children of one aspect of the media, television, and one aspect
of that media, violence.
Television is the most common source of information
available to children growing up in our country. Children are
not only being entertained, but they're also being educated by
TV. Nearly all children, 99 percent, live in a home with a TV.
Half have three or more TVs, and over a third have a TV in
their bedroom. It is estimated that children today watch 3 to 4
hours of TV every day.
And in light of the growing amount of time children find
themselves in front of the TV, the issue of what they're
watching becomes increasingly important. Many settings detail
the growing incidence of violence on TV, even in children's TV
shows.
It has been shown that these scenes of violence do have an
impact on children. It is generally accepted that information
children receive from these programs cannot help but affect the
way that they interact with and view sides. Since 1960, a body
of evidence coming from both laboratory research and survey
studies has confirmed that there is a causal relationship
between the observation of aggression and violence on TV and
subsequent aggressive and violent behavior on behalf on the
part of the viewer.
And that appears to be especially true for young kids, as
much of the research shows that the effect may not just be
temporary, but may be sustained over the years. In fact, a
number of national committees composed of scholars will review
all of the available studies, and come to a similar conclusion,
there is a casual relationship between viewing violent TV and
subsequent behavior. And when it comes to the impact of TV
violence, the number of groups, including the American
Psychological Association, The American Medical Association,
The U.S. Surgeon General, The National Institute of Mental
Health, has confirmed that violence on TV has an influence on
aggressive behavior, which it can lead into adulthood.
The three main effects of viewing TV violence include: One,
learning aggressive attitudes and behaviors; two,
desensitization to pain and to violence; and three, increased
fear of being victimized by violence. Interestingly enough,
studies have also shown that not all TV violence poses the same
degree for harmful effects. There are many ways to portray
violence and the consequence of that violence.
For instance, some examples will glorify violence and the
perpetrator, others will focus on the negative ramifications of
committing a crime. Some experts suggests that not all the
portrayals of violence are bad. Some examples can actually have
a positive impact on kids. Contectual features, such as the
attractive perpetrator, an attractive victim, graphic or
extensive violence, rewards and punishments, and humor, can all
increase or decrease the risk of harmful effects.
Looking at it another way, do scenes of gunfights in old
episodes of Gunsmoke, or Roadrunner pushing Wile E. Coyote off
a cliff, has the same effect on kids as grim scenes in ``NYPD
Blue'' or ``Law and Order.'' What about the violent contact of
broadcast of the NFL Football, or NHL hockey, or scenes of
military firefights in Iraq on the nightly news? How about
scenes where the violent actor gets caught by the good guys?
Certainly, TV violence is neither the sole, nor even the
most significant cause of restless or violent behavior in kids.
But it has been shown to have an effect nonetheless. So, today
we want to learn more about those harmful effects, and learn
what the parents, educators, and what the communities will do
to protect their kids from harmful effects. Ultimately, we will
take the information that we learn here back to Washington so
that we can see what the government should do, if anything.
In that regard, a number of years ago Congress passed, and
I supported the V-Chip Legislation, which paved the way for
industry to establish ratings for violence to be incorporated
into the TV set so that the parents could know what, if any,
content their kids might be exposed to, and to make the
decision about what their children could watch accordingly, or
even block those shows.
I hope to learn from our witnesses today about their views
on this as well. But as we debate the need for any further
governmental action, we are compelled to seriously consider the
significant limits which the First Amendment of the
Constitution imposes on us. We will learn more about that
today, too. Because of the significant limits on government
action, I suspect it will place an even heavier burden on all
of us parents, teachers, religious and community leaders, the
TV industry itself to take greater care to address that issue.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. And I now
recognize that for an opening statement, my friend, great
Congressman and good colleague, Mr. Bobby Rush from Illinois.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Fred Upton, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet
Good morning. Today's hearing is entitled: ``The Effect of
Television Violence on Children: What Policymakers Need to Know.''
I am honored to be here today in my good friend Bobby Rush's
congressional district. I am pleased John Shimkus from ``down state''
is with us today, too.
I want to thank the administrators, faculty--and especially the
students--of the Neal F. Simeon Career Academy for hosting us.
Just so we're all on the same page, this is a field hearing of the
U.S. House of Representative's Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet. This Subcommittee oversees all
communications issues, including television. Of course, most of our
hearings occur in Washington, D.C., but sometimes we do try to get out
and bring our government to the people. And, because Bobby Rush has
such deep concern for the young people across this country and in his
congressional district, not only did he suggest that we hold a hearing
on this topic, but also that we hold it here today.
We know that there are many types of media: television, radio,
video games, movies, the Internet, and music. Without a doubt, the
media has tremendous influence on the children of America. We'd
probably all agree that the media has both its upsides for children in
terms of education and entertainment, but it also has its downsides.
Today, we are focusing on the effects on children of one aspect of
the media: TELEVISION and one aspect of that medium: VIOLENCE.
Television is the most common source of information available to
children growing up in the United States. Children are not only being
entertained, but are also being educated by television. Nearly all
children (99%) live in a home with a television, half (50%) have three
or more televisions, and over one-third (36%) have a television in
their bedroom. It is estimated that children today watch three to four
hours of television every day. In light of the growing amount of time
children find themselves in front of a television, the issue of what
they are watching becomes increasingly important.
Many studies have detailed the growing incidence of violence on
television, and even in children's television shows. It has been shown
that these scenes of violence have an impact on children. It is
generally accepted that the information children receive from these
programs cannot help but affect the way they interact with and view
society. Since 1960, a body of evidence coming from both laboratory
research and survey studies has confirmed that there is a causal
relationship between the observation of aggression and violence on
television and subsequent aggressive and violent behavior on the part
of the viewer. This appears to be especially true for young children,
as much of the research shows that the effect may not just be
temporary, but may be sustained over the years.
In fact, a number of national commissions composed of scholars who
have reviewed all of the available studies have come to a similar
conclusion--that there is a causal relationship between viewing violent
television and subsequent behavior. When it comes to the impact of
television violence, a number of groups, including the American
Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the U.S.
Surgeon General, and the National Institute of Mental Health, have
confirmed that violence on television has an influence on aggressive
behavior which can lead into adulthood. The three main effects of
viewing televised violence include: (1) learning aggressive attitudes
and behaviors, (2) desensitization to violence, and (3) increased fear
of being victimized by violence.
Interestingly, studies have also shown that not all television
violence poses the same degree of risk for harmful effects. There are
many ways to portray violence and the consequences of that violence.
For instance, some examples will glorify the violence and the
perpetrator; others will focus on the negative ramifications of
committing a crime. Some experts suggest that not all portrayals of
violence are the same, and some examples can actually have a positive
impact on children. Contextual features, such as an attractive
perpetrator, an attractive victim, justified violence, extensive or
graphic violence, rewards and punishments, and humor, can all increase
or decrease the risk of harmful effects.
Looking at it another way, do scenes of gunfights in old episodes
of ``Gun Smoke'' or the ``Road Runner'' pushing ``Wile E. Coyote'' off
a cliff have the same effect on kids as grim scenes in ``NYPD Blue'' or
``Law and Order''? What about violent contact in broadcasts of NFL
football or NHL hockey? Or scenes of military firefights in Iraq on the
nightly news? How about scenes where the violent actor gets caught by
the good guys?
Certainly television violence is neither the sole, nor even the
most significant, cause of aggressive or violent behavior in children,
but it has been shown to have an effect nonetheless. So, today, we want
to learn more about those harmful effects and learn what parents,
educators, and communities can do to protect children from those
harmful effects.
Ultimately, we will take this information back to Washington with
us as we debate what, if anything, the government can do. In this
regard, a number of years ago, Congress passed, and I supported, V-CHIP
legislation, which paved the way for industry-established ratings for
violence to be incorporated into television sets so that parents could
know what, if any, violent content their children might be exposed to
and make decisions about what their children watch accordingly, or even
block those shows completely. I hope to learn from our witnesses about
their views on this as well. But as we debate the need for any further
governmental action, we are compelled to seriously consider the
significant limits which the First Amendment of the Constitution
imposes on us, and we will learn more about that today, too. Because of
these significant limits on government action, I suspect it will place
an even heavier burden on all of us as parents, teachers, religious and
community leaders--and the television industry itself--to take greater
care to address this issue.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses on this important
topic, and I appreciate them being here to help us examine it.
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr.
Chairman, I want to say, first of all, how delighted and
gratified that I am that you will come to Simeon High School,
to the 4th Congressional District, in hopes to conduct this
most important hearing. I want all of us who are present today,
all the students to know, that the Chairman didn't have to
agree to come here. But he did because he's concerned about
this particular issue. He's concerned about what happens to our
young people. He's concerned about the effects of violence in
America.
Mr. Chairman, I want you to know that, although we come
from different political parties, and that what you are doing
today shows your character as an individual, as a concerned
American, it shows that you have risen above and can rise above
partisan differences to make sure that we come together to do
those things, and to hear from witnesses, and to really involve
ourselves in solving some of the problems that America faces.
And again, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to you that you
are the kind of chairman that will push and pull and make this
an issue, a much, much, better Nation. Thank you so much for
coming to Simeon High School this morning. I want to thank our
inductor, the CEO and the Superintendent of the Chicago Public
Schools, and Michael Scott. And I want to thank Dr. Everett for
hosting this here at Simeon Academy.
This school is a remarkable school. This school has had its
share of violence. I recall so vividly some 20 years ago, the
mid-1980's, and the No. 1 college--rather, the No. 1 high
school player in the Nation, the basketball player in the
Nation was gunned downed not too far from where we're sitting
at today. Simeon has risen above those kinds of incidents. But
violence is still a part of the day-to-day likely experiences
of too many young people, not only here at Simeon, but across
this city and across this Nation.
This hearing today is important because it will help us to
determine how we can, as Members of Congress, and as members of
the telecommunication subcommittee how we can address our
responsibility to try to decrease the incidents about violence,
particularly as it affects young people today.
Mr. Chairman, you mentioned certain statistics. And I just
want you to know that I was alarmed after I looked at some of
the studies. The National Television Violence Study indicated
that violence was found to be more prevalent in children's
program, 69 percent, than any other type of program on TV,
which occur at a clip of about 57 percent. The average child
who watches 2 hours of cartoons a day may see nearly 10,000
violent incidents a year.
An average city estimated that the averages in pre-school
and school-age child, who watch television 2 to 4 hours per
day, would have seen 8,000 murders and over a hundred thousand
additional acts of violence on television by the time they
finished elementary school. These are alarming statistics, Mr.
Chairman. We're getting to a point in our society, in fact, we
might have already reached that point, where we glorify
violence. And these, Mr. Chairman, I believe that we're living
in a culture that is violent, so violent, that desensitize our
responses, desensitize our activities and desensitize our
approach to violence.
And, Mr. Chairman, I want to say to you, again, that I am
very glad, grateful, I really believe that this is going to be
one of those types of hearings that will be one of our greater
achievements of our subcommittee, and our subcommittee has
achieved many great achievements over the past years, and I
want you to know that this is an important hearing, and thank
you so much for being here.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois
Good morning, and welcome to Chicago. I would like to thank
Chairman Upton for holding this important hearing in my home city of
Chicago. I also would like to thank Arne Duncan, CEO and Superintendent
of Chicago Public Schools, Michael Scott, President of the Chicago
Board of Education and Principal John Everett for hosting us here today
at the exquisite Neal F. Simeon Career Academy a brand new state of the
art learning center.
As many of you know, the pervasiveness and effects of television
violence continue to be an issue of considerable concern to me. It is
well documented that violent programming has an adverse effect on human
behavior and attitudes. It encourages violent behavior and influences
moral and social values and violence in daily life. However, what
concerns me more is the affect that violent programming has on
children. There is a strong body of evidence that suggest that exposure
to violent acts on television increases aggressive behavior in children
in the short-term and long-term.
Study after Study have shown a causal link between violent
programming and violent behavior in children. The National television
violence study indicated that violence was found to be more prevalent
in children=s programming (69%) than in other types of programming
(57%). The average child who watches 2 hours of cartoons a day may see
nearly 10,000 violent incidents each year. Similarly, a study conducted
by researchers from the Annerberg school of communication in
Pennsylvania, estimated that the average preschooler and school aged
child who watched television two to four hours per day would have seen
8,000 murders, and over 100,000 additional acts of violence on
television by the time the child finished elementary school.
As you can see these statistics are alarming. What we have is a
society that is not only glorifying violence but it is also becoming
desensitized to violence. Gone forever are the days when a parent could
simply sit a child in front of the television without adult
supervision. Television today requires that responsible parents be pro-
active in the selection and monitoring of materials that their children
are permitted to watch. The issue for us today as policy makers,
academia, parents and teachers, is not only how do we shield our
children from excessive TV violence but how do we help parents
understand and control the programs their children watch.
In 1996, Congress passed legislation as part of the 1996
Telecommunications Act that required television sets to be equipped
with an electronic device, called the V-chip, which allowed parents to
block certain programming. In addition, Congress encouraged the video
and distribution industry to establish an age-based rating system.
However, since the advent of the V-chip technology and the age-based
ratings system, it was reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation that
only half the parents surveyed used the television ratings system to
guide their children=s viewing. Also, it was found that only 7% of all
parents were using the V-chip technology.
Apparently many parents were not aware that television rating
system existed. As for the V-chip many parents who knew about it did
not know how to use the technology. It seems that the system Congress
has in place is not working. As legislators, we have a responsibility
to improve our existing safeguards but also to create better safeguards
that will shield our children from inappropriate programming. Currently
in Congress, there is pending legislation that would create a safe
harbor provision that would restrict excessively violent programming
that is harmful to children during the hours when children are likely
to be a substantial part of the viewing audience. This ``safe harbor''
provision is worth examining. That said, I would like to welcome the
witnesses and thank them for being with us this morning. Each of you
has done considerable work on the issue of TV violence, and I thank you
for your time and effort for appearing here today.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Rush. I just want to say, too, as
I look at my tenure as chairman, who's been able to do a whole
number of issues in bipartisan debates of republicans and
democrats working together, I'm very proud of that record. And
I recognize now, a good friend also from the State of Illinois,
downstate Illinois, and a fellow who really helped lead the
charge of getting back his son, which I'm really here to talk
about. I never go anyplace without saying something about it.
And I would note that I think every member, including you, were
a co-sponsor of that, and passed that with honorable, noble men
to support this. So, with that, Mr. Shimkus, please give an
opening statement.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also want to
thank our panelists, who we'll hear from in a minute, and along
with my friend, Bobby Rush, for the warm hospitality. I also
want to take time to speak to our guests in the audience there.
I taught high school before for years, government history. So,
to lay out what's occurring here is, this is an official
hearing of your Federal Government on violence on TV. And we're
politicians, right here. These are the experts in different
fields, and we're going to look to them as they tell us what's
right or what's wrong. And maybe give us advice of how we can
fix it, or how we can't. How we might not be able to touch it.
And hopefully, we take this back, and you see a stenographer
over there taking the official recordings, so, then we take the
testimony back to Washington. We distill it, and maybe there is
a place where, especially if we want to be successful in a
bipartisan manner, then get the legislation drafted to try to
fix it if it's a possibility. And so, that's what this is. It's
not just, you know, coming here, but it's actually the work
that we do in Washington, especially in our committee, on a
weekly basis. We're just holding a hearing.
Now, Bobby represents the First Congressional District; I
represent the 19th District in Illinois. So, we're on the south
side of Chicago. My District also goes through Springfield,
Illinois, all the way down to Paducah, Kentucky. I represent 30
counties. So, the other important thing to remember is a great
diversity that you see from Members of Congress that they're
trying to tackle the issues and problems that relate to a
national concern. The urban areas and the suburban areas
sometimes might have a different approach to rulings, many
times they're very simple. And so, it's narrowing those great
differences across and dividing them, and hopefully be
successful.
I will put in my applaud for putting on my marketing hat,
which I've gotten through and will do of one such success. And
interestingly more panelist are knowing about it, because
that's why I always mentioned it. We have the same concern on
what's going on over the TV that we have on the Internet. In
fact, the Internet is even a more dangerous place because you
can have interaction. And a lot of young men and women get
caught up in it, and a lot of harm has been done, especially by
adult predators to children. That's why we were able to pass in
signing a law a Web site the State prohibits. And I know those
people who deal with the Internet say, Well, it helps them.
Well, it's not. You can go to www.kids.us, go to the site for
kids. There is no hyperlinks, no chat rooms, no instant
messaging. It's information-based only, and it is, hopefully--
and it hasn't been challenged to the courts yet--suitable for
minors under the age of 13.
And my young son, Daniel, who--my 9-year-old and 11-year-
old, they're probably too old for this site, even though we
made it for kids under 13. My 4-year-old, he'll be 5 in
October, is an expert on the kids.us Web site. And there he
will go, he will go to Nick Junior, and he'll play the games.
And so, he can surf the Web like his big brother. But I can
monitor him without the fear that something will pop up that
will be very damaging to a 4 or 5-year-old child.
So, that's the part of the success that we have done
through hearings, and testimony, and passing legislation. And
it is hoped that, as we move forward, that we're able to do
that in other venues. And I appreciate the Chairman calling the
hearing and, of course, Bobby Rush, and I look forward to the
comments from my panelists. And I think that's the one,
.kids.us, so we'll see if they go on it.
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Congressman Shimkus. At this
point, we're going to hear from our five witnesses. Their
statements are made part of the record in their entirety. If
you limit your remarks to not more than 5 minutes or so, and
summarize what you have to say. You've got a lot of good
listeners. And then after that, we're going to follow up with
questions. And the three of us will have some questions. But I
also understand that last week the students were given an
opportunity to write some questions. We're going to let those
questions in the written form come up to us, and we'll be able
to ask the panelists answers to those questions.
We are joined by Dr. Gary Slutkin, Director of Chicago
Project for Violence Prevention, Professor for Epidemiology and
International Health, from the UIC Chicago School of Public
Health, obviously, here in Chicago. Mr. Jeff McIntyre, Senior
Legislative and Federal Affairs Officer, with the American
Psychological Association in Washington, DC. Dr. Ronald Davis,
Member of the Board of Trustees for the American Medical
Association in Washington, DC, Professor Dale Kunkel at
Department of Communications from the University of Arizona,
Tucson, Arizona. And Professor Rodney Blackman, DePaul College
of Law here in Chicago.
Dr. Slutkin, you will start. Make sure that the mics are
close so that the students and everybody can be able to hear.
STATEMENTS OF GARY SLUTKIN, DIRECTOR, CHICAGO PROJECT FOR
VIOLENCE PREVENTION, PROFESSOR, EPIDEMIOLOGY AND INTERNATIONAL
HEALTH, UIC CHICAGO SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH; JEFF J. McINTYRE,
SENIOR LEGISLATIVE AND FEDERAL AFFAIRS OFFICER, PUBLIC POLICY
OFFICE, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION; RONALD M. DAVIS,
MEMBER, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION; DALE
KUNKEL, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION, UNIVERSITY OF
ARIZONA; AND RODNEY JAY BLACKMAN, DePAUL COLLEGE OF LAW
Mr. Slutkin. Chairman Upton, Congressman Rush, Congressman
Shimkus, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak with
you today. I'm Gary Slutkin, I'm a physician trained in
internal medicine and infectious disease control. I worked for
a health organization for 10 years in its behavioral of
epidemics.
I now run the Chicago Project for Violence Prevention,
which is a multi-prong setting interventions to reduce
shootings in Chicago and other Illinois neighborhoods. We have
a 45 to 65 percent drop in shootings using this new technology
for reducing violence. I wanted to quickly go to three items
for the evidence, what we can do about it, and then a little
bit about the larger picture.
The evidence to television and other video violence affect
children and adolescent behavior is, in my opinion, unequivocal
and certain. It is serious and dangerous matter, and not
trivial. The industry may argue that not every study shows
these effects to their kids. Well, almost every study does, and
the best reviews of studies done by George Comstalker
(phonetic), totally unbiased senior, one of the most senior
epidemiologist in, frankly, the world, has come to the same
conclusions.
Both short-term and long-term effects that's been stated
repeatedly, why does a case, as obvious for our chairman to
mention the kind of effects, I'll review them briefly, but why
is this the case? It's absolutely obvious, the extraordinary
regularity, the magnitude and intensity of the violence make it
appear as if it's normal. Imitation and modeling are of many
ways that face these in young children and adolescence learned.
That's how they select behaviors. We use this very well in
advertising. That is, again, why the cigarette industry wanted
to have cigarette smoking on the television regularly, and
that's why it was removed.
And, in fact, as you might imagine for very young children,
and perhaps even others who are watching, may differentiate
very, very little from things that are commercials, to things
that are television, as you blockview, just sit there and let
images come in. The way to promote anything, any behavior,
whether it's immunizing your children, using Gatorade, drinking
Coke, or violence, is to show it over and over and over and
over, as if it were normal. This is the way to do it. If
someone else, for example, from another country or from another
society were to be seeing this on types of our programming, and
into our homes, I would probably find a way to do something
about it.
What to do about it? This is more up to you than up to us.
I realize that the media is principally driven by commercial
return. Now, since the media is driven by commercial return,
the use of violence, sex and graphically changing images, those
are things that grab the eye and the brain, and make it up
stiff like Velcro. And so, it's very hard to look away when
violence is happening, sex is happening, or when images change
fast. So, that's the technology that they use to hold your eye
to the screen, so that you'll be there for the commercial
effects. And this is the principle reason why it's done.
I think that regulation is desirable, I think a completely
unregulated society that is driven purely by commercial return
has got to turn into an unhealthy society. I mean, we have to
put our values into somewhere. And I'm sure there is going to
be a lot of discussion on this. I would like to add an
additional suggestion that I learned from work at World Health,
that it's also possible.
I remember being there myself, personally or professionally
involved in the bashing of an industry. And I won't do that
now. But principally, it's for professional and technical
reasons, as well as I'm not going to speak against. And I've
learned that it's possible to change behavior by positive new
programming on a small level. And for just by way of example,
in Europe where there is somewhere in the tens of thousands of
daily episodes on subjects slightly sexual, acts that are
either shown or implied without a condom, by getting a certain
amount of condom promotion shown to a certain level, is uptake
to 70 percent condom used was achieved through European
countries. So, that it's possible to overcome some of this
because people will begin to evaluate the others in the
context. But this has to be done in a professional way with
credible knowledge and alternative shown.
The last thing I want to spend a minute on is just talk
about the larger context. The U.S. Has the highest homicide
rate of all developed countries in the world. In fact, it's not
higher by a small amount, it's higher by five to twenty times
more. So, we have a global reputation that independent of
international behavior, but surely on the basis of our domestic
behavior, our homicide rates are high. We're known as a very
aggressive and violent society statistically and in other ways.
The media took a part of this. But there also needs to be a
national strategy to reach this. I've worked on national and
global strategy, and we don't have one. I mean, we do not have
one. Having more police and having more afterschool programs,
are not all that's needed. I mean, there has to be specific
outreach programs, community disapproval programs, and things
that show results, programs to a sufficient scale, and we're
trying to do. And anything other than increasingly more
dangerous society that we're living in. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Gary Slutkin follows:
Prepared Statement of Gary Slutkin, Director, The Chicago Project for
Violence Prevention
EFFECTS OF TELEVISION AND MEDIA VIOLENCE ON CHILDREN
I am Gary Slutkin. I am a physician trained in internal medicine,
and infectious diseases. I worked for the World Health Organization for
7 years and was responsible for reversing epidemics such as
tuberculosis, cholera, and AIDS, and have special training in designing
interventions and reversing behavioral epidemics. I supported the
Uganda AIDS control program--the only country in Africa to have
reversed its AIDS epidemic and I now run the Chicago Project for
Violence Prevention and CeaseFire Illinois which is reliably obtaining
45-65% reductions in shootings in some of the highest risk communities
in the country.
I would like to talk about three things--the evidence that
television and media play a role in affecting children, what we can do
about it, and thirdly, look at the larger picture of what we will need
to do to substantially reduce the violence in our society.
1. The evidence
The evidence that television and other media violence affect child
and adolescent behavior is now unequivocal, and certain. Violence, in
particular repeated violent events on television and in the movies,
increases the likelihood of children engaging in violent acts
themselves. This is serious and dangerous and not a trivial matter. The
industry can argue that not every study shows this; in fact almost
every study does.
Media images of violence especially the extraordinary regularity of
it, makes it appear as if this is normal behavior. Babies and young
children look for models, and what to imitate for social approval; the
media provide some of this ``guidance'' for their behavior. This is not
a small matter--this is the usual way of learning--and what we see
others do is more powerful than what we are told to do and told not do.
We--people--are driven by what we think other people do--and what we
think will ``get'' us something--from money to prestige to other forms
of attention or approval.
Behaviors are driven by social expectations--i.e. ``norms,'' this
means by what you think other people do. This is true for all
behaviors. This is one of the reasons we began to limit cigarette
smoking on television--this was considered important--and I agree--
because of the bad effects in particular for the health of children.
We show or promote what behaviors ``we'' want to be performed--
immunizing children, buying gym shoes, drinking Coke, eating a cereal,
bringing children for immunization, using seat belts, using designated
drivers, smoking or not smoking, or performing violence. Whatever you
promote will be taken up, and in some proportion to the amount or
intensity of promotion. Advertisers know this and public health
professionals know this--whether it is for good or bad, or for this or
that--whatever is promoted will be taken up to some degree. We are that
susceptible. And the mind, and especially the young mind, does not
easily sort between programming, real life and even commercials.
The literature on the effects of violence on television on children
is more compelling than most people think. There is a near unanimity of
scientific opinion on the effects. And further, besides encouraging
violent behaviors themselves, and resulting in more aggression
following watching violent programs, other important negative mental
health consequences are also being seen in the research now. These
effects--which have also been well demonstrated--include children
having more anxiety, more fear, more isolation, and desensitization to
violence--which causes children to care less and help others less. This
has been shown in playground experiments.
It would be hard to better design something to promote violent
behavior and to interfere more with our values and with how our society
functions, than to consciously ``program'' violence over and over again
beaming into our homes each night from an electric screen onto our
minds. If persons outside of our own citizens, for example another
government, were projecting these images to us, we would find a way to
stop it immediately.
2. What to do about it.
The feasibility of constraining this programming is probably
limited by the success of commercial return. We know that the
television viewing system is designed to compete for your eye and mind
through ``visual stickiness'' to the viewing screen, so that your eyes
and other senses then remain available during the paid advertising
slots, which are similarly designed to keep you present. You can check
this yourself--as you are stuck as if by Velcro in the time period,
while these images are inserted into your brain. Three things keep your
eyes fixed most intently (and thereby your brain fixed). Eye--brain
research shows that your are best kept ``focused'' involuntarily--for
reasons that are instinctive, by images of violence or sex, and by
rapidly changing images/screens (which in ``real life'' might be scenes
of danger). The media are using this knowledge to manipulate our
attention, and thereby arguably unfairly taking advantage of what keeps
us stuck. This is why violence is used in programming.
Regulation is desirable. I realize that we are not today in a
climate of increasing regulation. I realize that further regulation of
many harmful events may be less feasible today as our society is even
more permissive of these effects, despite actual and known dangers,
since there is a desire to not interfere with commercial activity.
However it is probably worthwhile to consider why this violent
programming is so prevalent, and more tolerated than other matters, for
example consensual sex. Is there regulation of showing sex on
television? How was this distinction drawn? What is more harmful
consensual sex or murder? Which should be considered more normal and
acceptable? How does murder compare with smoking cigarettes?
A direction of even further loss of government regulation will have
serious consequences for our society. A society that is motivated
without sufficient attention to research despite capital gain, and
without more guidance or regulation may be heading for even further
disastrous consequences.
3. Other possible solutions
I am not the one to say whether regulation in this area is legal or
politically practical, despite commercial gains by the industries that
advertise competitively using violence as a tactic, to keep our
attention. But we do need to be awake to this.
I would like to bring forward one other parallel track that we
should very seriously pursue if we share the objectives of maintaining
free speech under any and all conditions, despite consequences that we
know are present, but still trying to reduce violence and the
acceptability of violence in our society. Programming which promotes
alternatives to violence and shows the unacceptability of violence if
programmed at the 5% level from credible role models could off-weigh a
substantial part of the effects if performed in a specific and pre-
designed way. It is beyond the scope of this testimony to describe
this, but success in other fields has been performed from similar
approaches. I am not talking about ``shows about non-violence,'' but a
specific type of social marketing toward deglamorizing and discrediting
violence with endpoints that would be agreed upon by the industry and
by government. I would be happy to discuss this with interested
persons.
4. The larger context--homicide and violence in America
Last, I want to spend just a minute to put this in a larger
context. The U.S. has the highest homicide rate of all rich countries.
In fact this rate is not just larger but substantially larger (5-20
times), and is not due to guns alone. This is a global anomaly that is
remediable. It is clear that the media violence is drastically
excessive and should not really be acceptable in particular for
children, but we must recognize that we as a society, country, and
nation have a particular problem. This is both within our borders and
otherwise. We must develop a strategy for dealing with this. There is
at this moment no strategy for dealing with this that would be
considered an actual strategy, and even 100,000 more cops would not be
a ``strategy,'' but just one piece of what is needed. This view is
accepted even by Chief Bratton, previously of New York City and now of
Los Angeles. More is needed than police.
The community piece of violence reduction and the intervention
component are now scientifically grounded and there are now
opportunities for developing a much more specific and reliable set of
methods that should reduce urban and other homicides by 40--70%. This
would result in reduced crime, reduced costs of crimes, better use of
state budgets than for prisons, release of funds for education
spending, and urban renewal and economic development for many urban and
rural communities. It is urgent for public health and community benefit
that the country develop a specific outcome based, scientifically
grounded, and already community demonstrated approach to reducing
violence, and take this to scale for the benefits of dozens or hundreds
of communities.
At a minimum, we need to immediately develop in our most violent
cities, active outreach, public education, high-risk alternatives, and
community involvement strategies that are specific, measurable and show
results. Even after the more cops on the street programs, rates of
violence still remain enormously higher than should be the case in our
society. CeaseFire type programs as are now being applied in Chicago
and other sites throughout the country, and are urgently needed in more
cities. A National CeaseFire Partnership is in the early stages of
development. For the younger children, I think specifically designed
social marketing approaches could also add substantially.
I am very grateful for this opportunity to speak with you about all
of our concerns about the violent nature of our society today, the
rapidity in which we as individuals and groups move into this
predictable pattern, and how we are continuing to teach this to our
children. Unless we fully accept the trend that is in process, and take
the specific actionable steps--with or without regulation of the
media--we will be living in an even much dangerous world.
References
Comstock, G. 1991. Television in America. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Donnerstein, Edward and Linz, Daniel. 1995. ``The Mass Media: A
Role in Injury Causation and Prevention.'' Adolescent Medicine: State
of the Art Reviews vol. 6, no.2:271-284. Philadelphia, PA: Hanley &
Belfus, Inc.
Hornik, Robert C. 2002. Public health communication: evidence for
behavior change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Huston, A.C., Donnerstein, E., Fairchild, H., Feshbach, N.D., Katz,
P.A., Murray, J.P. Rubinstein, E.A., Wilcox, B. and Zukerman, D. 1992.
Big World, Small Screen: The Role of Television in American Society.
Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Liebert, R.M. and Sprefkin. 1998. The Early Window: Effects of
Television on Children and Youth. New York: Pergamon.
Murray, J.P. and Salamon, G. 1984. The Future of Children's
Television: Results of the Markle Foundation/Boys Town Conference. Boys
Town, NE. The Boys Town Center.
National Institutes of Mental Health. 1982. Television and
Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the
Eighties vol. 1. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.
Mr. Upton. Thank you very much.
Mr. McIntyre.
STATEMENT OF JEFF J. McINTYRE
Mr. McIntyre. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet. I am Jeff McIntyre, and I'm honored to be
here in Chicago to represent the American Psychological
Association.
I've conducted years of work related to children and the
media as a negotiator for the development of a television
rating system. As an advisor to the Federal Communications
Commission's V-Chip Task Force, as a member of an informal
White House Task Force on navigating the news media, as a
member of the steering committee for the Decade of Behavior
Conference on Digital Childhood, and most importantly, as a
representative of the research concerns of the over 150,000
members/affiliates of the American Psychological Association. I
also have an appointment on the Oversight Monitoring Board for
the current television rating system.
At the heart of the issue of children and the media is a
matter long addressed by psychological research. The effects of
repeated exposure of children to violence. The media violence
issue made its official debut on Capitol Hill in 1952 with the
first of a series of congressional hearings. That particular
hearing was held in the House of Representatives before the
Commerce Committee. The following year, 1953, the first major
Senate hearings was held before the Senate Subcommittee on
Juvenile Delinquency, who convened a panel to inquire into the
impact of television violence on juvenile delinquency.
There have been many hearings since the 1950's, but there
has only been limited change until recently. Media violence
reduction is fraught with legal complications. Nevertheless,
our knowledge base has improved over time with the publication
of significant and landmark reviews. Based on these research
findings, several concerns emerge when violent material is
aggressively marketed to children.
Foremost, the conclusions drawn on the basis of over 30
years of research contributed by American Psychological
Association members, including the Surgeon General's report in
1972, National Institute of Mental Health's Report in 1982, and
the industry-funded 3-year National Television Violence Study
in the 1990's, show that the repeated exposure to violence in
the mass media places children at risk for: Increases in
aggression; desensitization to acts of violence, and
unrealistic increases in fear of becoming a victim of violence,
which results in the development of other negative
characteristics, such as mistrust of others, et cetera.
Now, if this sounds familiar, it is because it is the
foundation upon which representatives of the public health
community comprise of the APA, the American Academy of
Pediatrics, and the American Medical Association issued a joint
consensus statement in the year 2000 on what we absolutely know
to be true regarding children's exposure to violence in the
media. Certain psychological facts remain and are well
established in this debate. As APA member Dr. Rowell Huesmann
stated before the Senate Commerce Committee, just as every
cigarette you smoke increases the chances that some day you
will get cancer, every exposure to violence increases the
chances that some day a child will behave more violently than
they otherwise would.
Hundreds of studies have confirmed that exposing their
children to a steady diet of violence in the media made our
children more violence prone. The psychological processes here
are not mysterious. Children learn by observing others. Mass
media and the advertising world provide a very attractive
window for these observations.
The excellent children's programming such as Sesame Street,
and prosocial marketing such as that around bicycle helmets
that exists, is to be commended and supported. Psychological
research shows that if what is responsible for the
effectiveness of good children's programming and prosocial
marketing is that children learn from their media environment.
And if children can learn positive behaviors via this medium,
they can learn negative ones as well.
The role of rating systems in this discussion merits
attention. There continues to be concern over the ambiguity and
the implementation of the current television rating system. It
appears that rating systems are undermined by the marketing
efforts of the very groups responsible for their implementation
and effectiveness. That, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
subcommittee, displays a significant lack of accountability and
has to be considered when proposals for industry self-
regulations are discussed.
Also undermined here are parents and American families. As
the industry has shown a lack of accountability in the
implementation of the existing rating system, parents have
struggled to manage their family's media diet against
misleading and contradictory information. For instance,
marketing an R-rated film to children who are under 17. While
the industry has made some information regarding the ratings
available, more information regarding content needs to be made
more accessible more often. Just as with the nutritional
information, the content labeling should be available on the
product and not hidden in a distant Web site or in the
occasional pamphlet.
Generally speaking, most adults see advertising as a
relatively harmless annoyance. However, advertising directed at
children, especially in young children that features violence,
generates concern. The average child is exposed to
approximately 20,000 commercerials per year And that's only for
television. It doesn't include print or the Internet. And much
of this is during weekend morn or weekday afternoon
programming. Most of the concern stems not from the sheer
number of commercial appeals, but from the inability of some
children to appreciate and defend against the persuasive intent
of marketing. Especially advertising featuring violent product.
A recent Federal Trade Commission report on the marketing
of violence to children heightens these concerns. As a result
of the Children's On-Line Privacy Protection Act, the Federal
Trade Commission has ruled that parents have a right to protect
their children's privacy from the unwanted solicitation of
their children's personal information. We would argue that,
based on the years of psychological research on violence
prevention and clinical practice in violence intervention,
parents also have the right to protect their children from
material that puts them at risk of harm. With the
considerations that are in place for children's privacy, the
precedent for concern about children's health is well
established.
Decades of psychological research bear witness to the
potential harmful effects on our children and our Nation if
these practices are continued. Chairman Upton and subcommittee
members, thank you for your time, and please regard the
American Psychological Association as a resource to the
committee as you consider this and other issues.
[The prepared statement of Jeff J. McIntyre follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeff J. McIntyre on Behalf of The American
Psychological Association
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the House Energy and
Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. I am Jeff
McIntyre and am honored to be here in Chicago to represent the American
Psychological Association.
I have conducted years of work related to children and the media as
a negotiator for the development of a television ratings system, as an
advisor to the Federal Communications Commission's V-Chip Task Force,
as a member of an informal White House Task Force on Navigating the New
Media, as a member of the steering committee for the Decade of Behavior
Conference on Digital Childhood, and most importantly, as a
representative of the research and concerns of the over 150,000 members
and affiliates of the American Psychological Association. I also have
an appointment on the Oversight Monitoring Board for the current
television ratings system.
At the heart of the issue of children and the media is a matter
long addressed by psychological research--the effects of repeated
exposure of children to violence. The media violence issue made its
official debut on Capitol Hill in 1952 with the first of a series of
congressional hearings. That particular hearing was held in the House
of Representatives before the Commerce Committee. The following year,
in 1953, the first major Senate hearing was held before the Senate
Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, who convened a panel to inquire
into the impact of television violence on juvenile delinquency.
There have been many hearings since the 1950's, but there has been
only limited change--until recently. Media violence reduction is
fraught with legal complications. Nevertheless, our knowledge base has
improved over time, with the publication of significant and landmark
reviews. Based on these research findings, several concerns emerge when
violent material is aggressively marketed to children.
Foremost, the conclusions drawn on the basis of over 30 years of
research contributed by American Psychological Association member--
including the Surgeon General's report in 1972, the National Institute
of Mental Health's report in 1982, and the industry funded, three-year
National Television Violence Study in the 1990's--show that the
repeated exposure to violence in the mass media places children at risk
for:
increases in aggression;
desensitization to acts of violence;
and unrealistic increases in fear of becoming a victim of violence,
which results in the development of other negative
characteristics, such as mistrust of others.
If this sounds familiar, it is because this is the foundation upon
which representatives of the public health community--comprised of the
American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics,
and the American Medical Association issued a joint consensus statement
in 2000 on what we absolutely know to be true regarding children's
exposure to violence in the media.
Certain psychological facts remain are well established in this
debate. As APA member Dr. Rowell Huesmann stated before the Senate
Commerce Committee, just as every cigarette you smoke increases the
chances that someday you will get cancer, every exposure to violence
increases the chances that, some day, a child will behave more
violently than they otherwise would.
Hundreds of studies have confirmed that exposing our children to a
steady diet of violence in the media makes our children more violence
prone. The psychological processes here are not mysterious. Children
learn by observing others. Mass media and the advertising world provide
a very attractive window for these observations.
The excellent children's programming (such as Sesame Street) and
pro-social marketing (such as that around bicycle helmets) that exists
is to be commended and supported. Psychological research shows that
what is responsible for the effectiveness of good children's
programming and pro-social marketing is that children learn from their
media environment. If kids can learn positive behaviors via this
medium, they can learn the harmful ones as well.
The role of ratings systems in this discussion merits attention.
There continues to be concern over the ambiguity and implementation of
current ratings systems. It appears that ratings systems are undermined
by the marketing efforts of the very groups responsible for their
implementation and effectiveness. That, Chairman Upton and members of
the Subcommittee, displays a significant lack of accountability and
should be considered when proposals for industry self-regulation are
discussed.
Also undermined here are parents and American families. As the
industry has shown a lack of accountability in the implementation of
the existing ratings system, parents have struggled to manage their
family's media diet against misleading and contradictory information.
(For instance, marketing an R rated film to children under 17.) While
the industry has made some information regarding the ratings available,
more information regarding content needs to be made more accessible,
more often. As with nutritional information, the content labeling
should be available on the product and not hidden in distant websites
or in the occasional pamphlet.
Generally speaking, most adults see advertising as a relatively
harmless annoyance. However, advertising directed at children,
especially at young children, that features violence generates concern.
The average child is exposed to approximately 20,000 commercials per
year. This is only for television and does not include print or the
Internet. Much of this is during weekend morning or weekday afternoon
programming. Most of the concern stems not from the sheer number of
commercial appeals but from the inability of some children to
appreciate and defend against the persuasive intent of marketing,
especially advertising featuring violent product.
A recent Federal Trade Commission report on the Marketing of
Violence to Children heightens these concerns. As a result of the
``Children's On-Line Privacy Protection Act'' the Federal Trade
Commission has ruled that parents have a right to protect their
children's privacy from the unwanted solicitation of their children's
personal information. We would argue that, based on the years of
psychological research on violence prevention and clinical practice in
violence intervention, parents also have the right to protect their
children from material that puts them at risk of harm. With the
considerations in place for children's privacy, the precedent for
concern about children's health and safety is well established.
Decades of psychological research bear witness to the potential
harmful effects on our children and our nation if these practices
continue. Chairman Upton and Subcommittee members, thank you for your
time. Please regard the American Psychological Association as a
resource to the committee as you consider this and other issues.
Mr. Upton. We certainly have in the past. Thank you very
much.
Dr. Davis.
STATEMENT OF RONALD M. DAVIS
Mr. Davis. Chairman Upton and members of the subcommittee.
My name is Ronald Davis, I'm a preventive medicine physician
practicing in Detroit, and residing in East Lansing, and I'm a
member of the Board of Trustees of the American Medical
Association. On behalf of the AMA, I am pleased to be here
today to discuss the effects of television violence on
children.
As one that was born in Chicago, and who attended medical
school just a few miles from where we are today, at the
University of Chicago, I'm particularly pleased to be in this
city and in this wonderful school for this hearing this
morning. I speak to you not only as a physician, but also as a
father of three sons. And like most parents in the United
States, my wife and I have had a hard time patrolling around
the violent entertainment that comes into our own household.
As we all know, television has a huge presence in most
children's lives. Almost every home in America has a
television, and most homes have more than one. Studies show
that kids, on average, watch television 3\1/2\ hours a day. One
in five kids watches more than 35 hours of TV each week. Our
children today are constantly bombarded with violence in TV
shows, movies, video computer games and music. Media violence
has increased and is more and more graphic. The AMA has been
concerned for years about violence on TV and its impact on the
physical and mental health of children and teens.
The AMA first expressed concern about the public health
impact of violent television in the early 1950's. Since then
the AMA has adopted strong policy opposing TV violence. Our
policy also recognizes that TV violence is a risk factor and
threatens children's health and welfare.
In July, 2000, as mentioned by Jeff McIntyre, the AMA
joined with the American Academy of Pediatrics, American
Psychological Association, and other prominent groups. In
particular, a joint statement of Entertainment, Violence, and
Children. A copy of that statement is attached to our written
testimony. The joint statement recognizes that TV programs can
be an important educational tool for children. But it points
out that the lessons learned from violence in TV programs and
other entertainment media can be very destructive.
Research for more than one thousand studies indicates that
watching entertainment violence can increase aggressive values,
attitudes, and behavior. The effect on children is complex and
vary. And some kids are affected more than others. But it is
clear that children who seek a lot of violence are more likely
to think that violence is acceptable and is the way to settle
conflicts. And younger children are always the most affected.
Viewing violence may lead to real life crimes.
TV violence by itself, as has been mentioned, is not the
only factor that leads to youth aggression, anti-social
attitudes and actual violence. There are other causes, such as
family breakdown, peer pressure and easy access of guns and
other weapons. But there is no question that TV violence has
negative effects on children and adds to the level of violence
in our society. Violence is a public health threat, and we need
to confront all of its causes.
What is the physician's role in all of this? First,
physicians should educate themselves about the harmful effects
of TV violence on children. Second, as educators, physicians
should talk to their patients, the children themselves, if old
enough, or their parents about television. They need to ask how
much TV is watched and the type of programs. As physicians we
need to counsel our patients that watching violent TV shows can
be bad for the children. The parents need to monitor and
control their children's exposure to violence through TV and
other entertainment media.
Physicians should consider the role of media when treating
patients. For example, with children who are hyperactive or
aggressive, or who complain of nightmares or other sleep
problems, physicians should ask about their TV viewing habits.
Limiting rotation to the types of programs the patient watches
may be part of a recommended treatment plan Finally, as
advocates, physicians should be involved in community and
school activities, if possible, just like we're doing here
today. They can speak to parents or school groups, or directly
to children about the impact of TV violence. They should also
speak out for more responsible TV programs.
Chairman Upton, all of us have important roles to play in
curving the harmful exposure of our children to accepted
violence on TV and in other entertainment media. The AMA and
our physicians look forward to working with you and the
subcommittee and others to implement strategies to make that
happen.
[The prepared statement of Ronald M. Davis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ronald M. Davis, Member, American Medical
Association Board of Trustees
Good morning Chairman Upton, and Subcommittee members. My name is
Ronald M. Davis, MD, and I am a member of the Board of Trustees of the
American Medical Association (AMA). I am a preventive medicine
physician and serve as Director of the Center for Health Promotion and
Disease Prevention at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit,
Michigan. I am pleased to be able to testify today on behalf of the
AMA. The AMA commends the Subcommittee for holding today's hearing on
television violence and its effects on children.
Television and other forms of visual media play an enormous role in
everyday life, particularly in the lives of children and adolescents.
While television serves in the education and socialization of children,
there are also a number of health problems associated with the
excessive watching of television--independent of content--such as the
rising rates of childhood obesity. In addition, an extensive body of
research documents a strong correlation between children's exposure to
media violence and a number of behavioral and psychological problems,
primarily increased aggressive behavior. The evidence further shows
that these problems are caused by the exposure itself.
Physicians, particularly those who treat children, are only too
aware of the pervasive effects of television, movies, music videos, and
computer and video games on modern life and the concern felt by many
over the violent content of these media. There is an established body
of evidence documenting the troubling behavioral effects of repeated
exposure to media violence. For the past several decades, the physician
and medical student members of the AMA have been increasingly concerned
that exposure to violence in media is a significant risk to the
physical and mental health of children and adolescents. America's young
people are being exposed to ever-increasing levels of media violence,
and such violence has become increasingly graphic.
Today 99% of homes in America have a television. American children,
ages 2-17, watch television on average almost 25 hours per week or 3\1/
2\ hours a day, with almost one in five watching more than 35 hours of
TV each week. Twenty percent of 2 to 7-year-olds, 46% of 8 to 10-year-
olds, and 56% of 13 to 17-year-olds have TVs in their bedrooms, a
practice which the AMA urges parents to avoid. Studies have shown that
28% of children's television shows contain four or more acts of
violence, and that before he or she reaches the age of 18, the average
child will witness more than 200,000 acts of violence on television,
including 16,000 murders. One survey revealed that of the shows that
contained violence, three quarters of them demonstrated acts of
violence that went unpunished.
Violence in all forms has become a major medical and public health
epidemic in this country. The AMA strongly abhors, and has actively
condemned and worked to reduce, violence in our society, including
violence portrayed in entertainment media. The AMA has long been
concerned about the prevalent depiction of violent behavior on
television and in movies, especially in terms of its ``role-modeling''
capacity to potentially promote ``real-world'' violence. We have
actively investigated and analyzed the negative effects that the
portrayal of such violence has on children, and for almost 30 years,
have issued strong policy statements against such depictions of
violence.
Concerns about the public health impact of violent television
emerged relatively soon after its development as an entertainment
media. In 1952, the AMA first expressed its concerns over the potential
impact of violent television programming on children in an editorial in
the Journal of the American Medical Association. At its 1976 annual
meeting, the AMA adopted a policy supporting research on the impact of
media violence. A resolution was also adopted at the same meeting that
declared the AMA's ``recognition of the fact that TV violence is a risk
factor threatening the health and welfare of young Americans, indeed
our future society.'' In 1982, the AMA reaffirmed ``its vigorous
opposition to television violence and its support for efforts designed
to increase the awareness of physicians and patients that television
violence is a risk factor threatening the health of young people.''
This policy remains in force, and has been expanded to include violence
in entertainment media other than television, such as movies, videos,
computer games, music and print outlets.
Since the AMA first raised the issue in 1952, a compelling body of
scientific research has confirmed that our original concerns were well-
founded. Over 1000 studies, including reports from the Office of the
Surgeon General, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the
National Academy of Sciences, as well as research conducted by leading
figures in medical and public health organizations, point
overwhelmingly to a causal relationship between media violence and
aggressive behavior in some children. The research overwhelmingly
concludes that viewing ``entertainment'' violence can lead to increases
in aggressive attitudes, values and behavior, particularly in children.
Moreover, exposure to violent programming is associated with lower
levels of pro-social behavior.
The effect of ``entertainment'' violence on children is complex and
variable, and some children will be affected more than others. But
while duration, intensity and extent of the impact may vary, there are
several measurable negative effects of children's exposure to such
violence:
Children who see a lot of violence are more likely to view violence
as an effective way of settling conflicts and assume that acts
of violence are acceptable behavior.
Viewing violence can lead to emotional desensitization towards
violence in real life. It can decrease the likelihood that one
will take action on behalf of a victim when violence occurs.
``Entertainment'' violence feeds a perception that the world is a
violent and mean place. Viewing violence increases fear of
becoming a victim of violence, with a resultant increase in
self-protective behaviors and a mistrust of others.
Viewing violence may lead to real life violence. Children exposed to
violent programming at a young age have a higher tendency for
violent and aggressive behavior later in life than children who
are not so exposed. Longitudinal studies tracking viewing
habits and behavior patterns of a single individual found that
8-year old boys, who viewed the most violent programs growing
up, were the most likely to engage in aggressive and delinquent
behavior by age 18 and serious criminal behavior by age 30.
In July 2000, at a Congressional Public Health Summit, the AMA
joined the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Family
Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association and the American
Psychological Association in issuing a ``Joint Statement on the Impact
of Entertainment Violence on Children.'' The Joint Statement
acknowledges that television, movies, music and interactive games are
powerful learning tools and that these media can, and often are, used
to instruct, encourage and even inspire. The Joint Statement, however,
also points out that when these entertainment media showcase violence,
particularly in a context which glamorizes or trivializes it, the
lessons learned can be destructive. A copy of this joint statement is
attached to our testimony.
Entertainment violence is certainly not the sole, or even
necessarily the most significant, factor contributing to youth
aggression, anti-social attitudes and violence. Family breakdown, peer
influences, the availability of weapons, and numerous other factors may
all contribute to these problems. However, there is no question that
entertainment violence does have pathological effects on children, and
the AMA believes that because violence is a public health threat,
careful consideration must be given to the content of entertainment
media. As part of its strategy to reduce violence, the AMA has
supported past efforts by network broadcasters in adopting advance
parental advisories prior to airing programs that are unfit for
children, strong and effective television and movie ratings systems,
``V'' Chips that can screen out violent programming, and most recently,
DVD-filtering devices.
We are not advocating restrictions on creative activity. In a free
society, there must be a balance between individual rights of
expression and societal responsibility. We do believe, however, that
the entertainment industry must assume its share of responsibility for
contributing to the epidemic of violence in our society, and should
exercise greater responsibility in its programming content.
Physicians have important roles to play in reducing children's
involvement with violent media by serving as educators, advisors and
advocates. All physicians need to recognize that violence in America is
a major public health crisis, and that media violence contributes to
this crisis. Physicians need to educate themselves about the harmful
effects on children of viewing or listening to violence in
entertainment media, and discuss these effects with parents and
children old enough to understand such information. Patients can then
make more informed choices about the amount and type of television they
watch. Patients will better understand the need for parental
involvement in decisions about movie, music, video, computer and video
game content and the impact of various forms of media on eating habits,
physical activity, and family life in general. Physicians should serve
as role models by using television sets in office and clinic waiting
rooms for educational purposes only and having media literacy materials
available.
As clinicians, physicians have the opportunity to consider the role
of media as part of a broader biopsychosocial evaluation when
evaluating specific presenting problems. For example, in children being
evaluated for aggressive, oppositional or hyperactive behaviors or for
nightmares or other sleep complaints, inquiring about the child's
violent media-related activities may identify a contributing factor
that could be modified as part of a treatment plan.
As advocates, many physicians are involved in community activities
that seek to reduce the public's over-utilization of media and/or the
amount of violent and other problematic content in media materials.
This may include such things as speaking about this topic at medical
meetings, to parent or school groups, or directly to children; joining
local ``media watch,'' ``media literacy,'' or other groups; or
participating in national organizations, such as the AMA, that promote
these goals.
The AMA will continue to speak out about violence in the media,
especially its role in contributing to the overall level of violence in
our society. We will continue to urge the media industry to reduce the
amount of violence in television programming, movies, music, video
games and the Internet; depict successful nonviolent solutions for
anger and conflict; and depict accurately the pain, remorse, and other
consequences of violence and violent behavior on individuals, families
and society.
We appreciate the opportunity to share our views on a matter of
such importance to the health of Americans.
______
[Below is a document signed in July by the American Academy of
Pediatrics (AAP) and five other prominent medical groups about the
connection between media and violent or aggressive behavior in some
children. Please also access the AAP Media Matters page.]
Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children
Congressional Public Health Summit
July 26, 2000
We, the undersigned, represent the public health community. As with
any community. there exists a diversity of viewpoints--but with many
matters, there is also consensus. Although a wide variety of viewpoints
on the import and impact of entertainment violence on children may
exist outside the public health community, within it, there is a strong
consensus on many of the effects on children's health, well-being and
development.
Television, movies, music, and interactive games are powerful
learning tools, and highly influential media. The average American
child spends as much as 28 hours a week watching television, and
typically at least an hour a day playing video games or surfing the
Internet. Several more hours each week are spent watching movies and
videos, and listening to music. These media can, and often are, used to
instruct, encourage, and even inspire. But when these entertainment
media showcase violence--and particularly in a context which glamorizes
or trivializes it--the lessons learned can be destructive.
There are some in the entertainment industry who maintain that 1)
violent programming is harmless because no studies exist that prove a
connection between violent entertainment and aggressive behavior in
children, and 2) young people know that television, movies, and video
games are simply fantasy. Unfortunately, they are wrong on both counts.
At this time, well over 1000 studies--including reports from the
Surgeon General's office, the National Institute of Mental Health, and
numerous studies conducted by leading figures within our medical and
public health organizations--our own members--point overwhelmingly to a
causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in
some children. The conclusion of the public health community, based on
over 30 years of research, is that viewing entertainment violence can
lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values and behavior,
particularly in children.
Its effects are measurable and long-lasting. Moreover, prolonged
viewing of media violence can lead to emotional desensitization toward
violence in real life.
The effect of entertainment violence on children is complex and
variable. Some children will be affected more than others. But while
duration, intensity, and extent of the impact may vary, there are
several measurable negative effects of children's exposure to violent
entertainment. These effects take several forms.
Children who see a lot of violence are more likely to view violence
as an effective way of settling conflicts. Children exposed to
violence are more likely to assume that acts of violence are
acceptable behavior.
Viewing violence can lead to emotional desensitization towards
violence in real life. It can decrease the likelihood that one
will take action on behalf of a victim when violence occurs.
Entertainment violence feeds a perception that the world is a violent
and mean place. Viewing violence increases fear of becoming a
victim of violence, with a resultant increase in self-
protective behaviors and a mistrust of others.
Viewing violence may lead to real life violence. Children exposed to
violent programming at a young age have a higher tendency for
violent and aggressive behavior later in life than children who
are not so exposed.
Although less research has been done on the impact of violent
interactive entertainment (video games and other interactive media) on
young people, preliminary studies indicate that the negative impact may
be significantly more severe than that wrought by television, movies,
or music. More study is needed in this area, and we urge that resources
and attention be directed to this field.
We in no way mean to imply that entertainment violence is the sole,
or even necessarily the most important factor contributing to youth
aggression, anti-social attitudes, and violence. Family breakdown, peer
influences, the availability of weapons, and numerous other factors may
all contribute to these problems. Nor are we advocating restrictions on
creative activity. The purpose of this document is descriptive, not
prescriptive: we seek to lay out a clear picture of the pathological
effects of entertainment violence. But we do hope that by articulating
and releasing the consensus of the public health community, we may
encourage greater public and parental awareness of the harms of violent
entertainment, and encourage a more honest dialogue about what can be
done to enhance the health and well-being of America's children.
Donald E. Cook, MD, President, American Academy of Pediatrics;
Clarice Kestenbaum, MD, President, American Academy of Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry; L. Michael Honaker, PhD., Deputy Chief
Executive Officer, American Psychological Association; E. Ratcliffe
Anderson, Jr. MD, Executive Vice President, American Medical
Association; American Academy of Family Physicians; and the
American Psychiatric Association
Mr. Upton. Professor Kunkel.
STATEMENT OF DALE KUNKEL
Mr. Kunkel. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
testify today. I've studied children and media issues for over
20 years, and am one of the senior researchers who led the
National Television Violence Study in the 1990's, a project
widely recognized as one of the largest scientific studies of
media violence. In my remarks here today, I will briefly report
the key findings in that project, as well as summarize the
state of knowledge in the scientific community about the
effects of media violence.
I was impressed with all the opening statements from
members this morning, and particularly yours, Mr. Chairman. You
echoed one of the lines that I often present, and that is to
list the major organizations of public health agencies that are
already drawn a conclusion that you're hearing from the panel
here today. The Surgeon General, The National Academy of
Science and so on. We might add to that list that the
broadcasting industry, the BMAE, the National Cable Television
Association, your friend, Jack Lempke, who heads the MPAA, all
of these individuals and organizations have also acknowledged
that media violence contributes to real world violence and
aggression.
And I encourage the committee to hold them accountable for
those statements and for behavior that is consistent with that
knowledge. Because we heard so much about some of the
summaries, I'm going to skip some of my remarks and only
include in the record the documents that research reviews, and
turn directly to a research that I've been involved with the
National Television Violence session. Much of that work
emphasized the importance in examining differences in the ways
in which violence is presented on television and the
implications that those differences hold from the effects that
result from viewing violent material.
Simply put, not all violence is the same in determining the
potential for harmful effects on child viewers. The nature of
the context that surrounds the violence matters, and that is
important. For example, consider a violent act that has the
following feature. It is committed by a repugnant character who
no one would wish to imitate. It clearly depicts part of the
sufferings by victims, and it results in strong negative
consequences for the perpetrator of the violence. That kind of
portrayal would actually minimize the risk of the most harmful
effects for viewers, because it does not glamorize nor sanitize
the depiction of violence.
In contrast, consider a very different type of violent
portrayal. One that is committed by an attractive or popular
character, who is a potential role model for children, that
depicts unrealistically mild harm to the victim who is
attacked. And that conveys power and status for the perpetrator
or attracts the approval of others in the program. This type of
portrayal, by glamorizing and sanitizing the depiction of
violent behavior, has a much stronger risk of leading to
harmful outcomes in the viewer.
Research conducted by myself and colleagues at four
universities as part of the National Television Violence Study
documents a very unfortunate trend in the context surrounding
most violent depictions on the television. Our final report,
which was based on the analysis of roughly 10,000 programs
across three television seasons, concluded that the manner in
which violence is presented on television follows the latter
example that I just traced. That is to say, that the most
pattern associated with violent portrayal on TV involved
contextual features such as: Not showing a realistic degree of
harm for the victim; not showing the pain and suffering that's
realistically associated with violent attacks; and not showing
the serious long-term negative consequences of violence.
These patterns were present in the large majority of
violent portrayals across all channels and at all times of the
day. In contrast, programs that included a strong anti-violence
theme accounted for less than 4 percent of all shows containing
violent content.
Now, these data are troubling, but they're not new. They
serve to underscore that the way in which most violence is
depicted on television does, indeed, pose a serious risk of
harm for children. Whether or not violence on television might
be reduced in quantity, it could certainly be presented in more
responsible action, thereby diminishing the risk of harm to
child viewers. This is one potential avenue for addressing
concerns in this area that, in my view, has not been actively
explored.
In sum, the research evidence clearly establishes that the
level of violence for TV is a substantial cause for concern.
Content analysis demonstrates the violence of a potential
aspect of TV programming that enjoys remarkable consistency and
stability over time. And effect research, including
correlational, experimental, and longitudinal design, all
converge to document the risk of harmful psychological effects
on child viewers is very potent.
Collectively, these findings from the scientific community
make clear that television violence is a troubling problem. I
applaud this subcommittee for considering the topic and
exploring potential policy options that may reduce or otherwise
ameliorate the harmful effects of children's exposure to
television violence.
[The prepared statement of Dale Kunkel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dale Kunkel, Department of Communication,
University of Arizona
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today before the
Subcommittee.
I have studied children and media issues for over 20 years, and am
one of several researchers who led the National Television Violence
Study (NTVS) in the 1990s, a project widely recognized as the largest
scientific study of media violence. In my remarks here today, I will
briefly report some key findings from the NTVS project, as well as
summarize the state of knowledge in the scientific community about the
effects of media violence on children.
Media Violence: The Importance of Context
Concern on the part of the public and Congress about the harmful
influence of media violence on children dates back to the 1950s and
1960s. The legitimacy of that concern is corroborated by extensive
scientific research that has accumulated since that time. Indeed, in
reviewing the totality of empirical evidence regarding the impact of
media violence, the conclusion that exposure to violent portrayals
poses a risk of harmful effects on children has been reached by the
U.S. Surgeon General, the National Institutes of Mental Health, the
National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, the
American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics,
and a host of other scientific and public health agencies and
organizations.
In sum, it is well established by a compelling body of scientific
evidence that television violence poses a risk of harmful effects for
child-viewers. These effects include: (1) children's learning of
aggressive attitudes and behaviors; (2) desensitization, or an
increased callousness towards victims of violence; and (3) increased or
exaggerated fear of being victimized by violence. While exposure to
media violence is not necessarily the most potent factor contributing
to real world violence and aggression in the United States today, it is
certainly the most pervasive. Millions of children spend an average of
20 or more hours per week watching television, and this cumulative
exposure to violent images can shape young minds in unhealthy ways.
Much of my research has emphasized the importance of examining
differences in the ways in which violence is presented on television,
and the implications such differences hold for the effects that result
from viewing violent material. Simply put, not all violence is the same
in terms of its risk of harmful effects on child-viewers. The nature
and context of the portrayal matters. For example, consider a violent
act that has the following features:
--it is committed by a repugnant character who no one would wish to
emulate;
--it clearly depicts the harms suffered by victims;
--and it results in strong negative consequences for the perpetrator.
This type of portrayal would actually minimize the risk of most harmful
effects for viewers, because it does not glamorize or sanitize its
depiction of violence. In contrast, consider a different type of
violent portrayal;
--one that is committed by an attractive or popular character who is a
potential role model for children;
--that depicts unrealistically mild harm to the victim who is attacked,
--and that conveys power and status for the perpetrator or attracts the
approval of others in the program.
This type of portrayal, by glamorizing and sanitizing the depiction of
violent behavior, has a much stronger risk of leading to harmful
outcomes in the viewer.
Research conducted by myself and colleagues at four universities as
part of the National Television Violence Study documents an unfortunate
trend in the context surrounding most violent depictions on TV. Our
final report, which was based on the analysis of approximately 10,000
programs across three television seasons, concluded that the manner in
which most violence is presented on television actually enhances rather
than diminishes its risk of harmful effects on child-viewers. That is,
the most common pattern associated with violent portrayals on TV
involved contextual features such as:
--not showing a realistic degree of harm for victims;
--not showing the pain and suffering realistically associated with
violence attacks;
--and not showing the serious long-term negative consequences of
violence.
These patterns were present in the large majority of violent portrayals
across all channels, and at all times of day. In contrast, programs
that included a strong anti-violence theme accounted for less than 4%
of all shows containing violent content.
Implications of the Findings
These data are troubling, though they are not new. They serve to
underscore that the way in which most violence is depicted on
television poses a serious risk of harm for children. It does not have
to be that way. Independent of whether or not violence on television
might be reduced in quantity, it could certainly be presented in more
responsible fashion, thereby diminishing its risk to child viewers.
This is one potential avenue for addressing the concern about media
violence that, in my view, has not yet been adequately explored.
In sum, the research evidence in this area establishes clearly that
the level of violence on television poses substantial cause for
concern. Content analysis studies demonstrate that violence is a
central aspect of television programming that enjoys remarkable
consistency and stability over time. And effects research, including
correlational, experimental, and longitudinal designs, converge to
document the risk of harmful psychological effects on child-viewers.
Collectively, these findings from the scientific community make clear
that television violence is a troubling problem for our society. I
applaud this Subcommittee for considering the topic, and exploring
potential policy options that may reduce or otherwise ameliorate the
harmful effects of children's exposure to television violence.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Professor Blackman.
STATEMENT OF RODNEY JAY BLACKMAN
Mr. Blackman. I would like to express my pleasure for being
here. And I teach constitutional law and First Amendment
issues, and I taught these subjects for many years. The
question of violence can be examined in the context of various
forms of anti-social communication and how the court deals with
it. The explicit sexual graphic, sexual material in its
(inaudible) and expressions of violence. At one time, the court
allowed plaintiffs to recover for what was called a group libel
expression of hatred directed at a particular group.
In more recent years the Supreme Court has refused to
allow--or seemed to refuse to allow recovery for new libel or
hate scenes directed at a group. The lesson constitutes rare
and specific individuals, or I want to say it constitutes the
defamatory material directed at specific individuals. With
respect, it is sexually explicit material. The court has
limited sex issue, sexually explicit material to that which is
regarded as it seems that which is happening appeals to the
parameter of this and lacks artistic--literary, artistic,
scientific valu taken as a whole. Pornography that is out of
scene is allowed in the media.
The question of what would be the key question toward
violence has not been resolved. But it looks as though the
Supreme Court would be very remarkable to allow me for
contacting--researching the prohibition expression to violence
with one exception with the broadcast media where the broadcast
suggest a monopoly sense of the broadcast band return it
connects with the broadcaster that the broadcast majority rules
the pieces and the statements.
George Carl gave a talk in which he use several of the
verdicts that are not ordinarily used in the broadcast media.
And the Supreme Court held a sanction of the broadcaster, the
broadcaster center on two o'clock in the afternoon. Violence
that promotes anti-social act, killing or suicide in
adolescences, has not been found to justify a tort of action
against the broadcaster. Because the causal relationship
between the broadcast of the anti-social message and the act is
not sufficiently close. A group of women have attempted to
get--sustain an ordinance that prohibited violence against
women. And the courts have held that unless the material comes
within the definition of obscenity, fewer (inaudible) has
offensive likely to look at the political--I'm sorry--literally
artistic liberal sector governing, taken as a whole, it could
not be prohibited.
So, the road of those who would engage in content-base
restrictions on violence is for others to seek one. That does
not mean, however, that all reforms and activity on the part of
those who wish to restrict violence in school.
John Stewart, a proponent of listing fair government action
involving self-regarding harmful acts is not only the kind of
thing that he believes, namely, a worthy opponent to the
harmful violence. And I believe that the depiction of violence
can be harmful. The idea of promoting V-Chips that are
requiring salespeople to inform customers of how to use a V-
Chip. That, too, will be possible. Go into Hollywood and see
the producer and directors produce violence that will
technically lead to the kids, that, too, would be harmful. So,
would not all of us would run (inaudible) analysis. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Rodney Jay Blackman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rodney Jay Blackman, Professor, DePaul College of
Law
I would like to express my opposition to any broad based
governmental restriction of media and internet violence. I would like
to do so for several reasons.
First, I will admit that depictions of violence on TV, the movies
or on the internet, available to children, particularly repeated
depictions, increases the likelihood of children engaging in acts of
violence. But I am still opposed to any broad based censorship of the
media and the internet to protect children.
One reason is that it gives the impression of government acting as
Big Brother. It was Joseph Stalin who claimed to be the engineer of
human souls. To a minor degree and in a seemingly benign way, broad
based censorship of media and internet violence available to children
lends itself to this approach. The assumption underlying this approach
is that the government should mold what images children receive in
order to create a more socially adjusted child. While having social
well adjusted children is a laudable goal, any broad based censorship
in one area has the potential for encouraging other restrictions (the
slippery slope argument). Are depictions of violence that children can
see any more justified than depictions of sex or hatred? Once
government starts down this road in one area, any logical limit to
governmental regulation in other areas is weakened. The sum of such
regulations, though not each individual one taken separately, could
move our citizenry, and not just the young, toward a substantially
restricted ability to see images and express thoughts.
A second reason is that, over the long run, it may restrict our
liberty without being effective. The underlying assumption is that it
is only external stimulus that causes people, children and adults, to
act in an anti-social way. If we could only eliminate the external
stimulus, we would solve the problem of anti-social behavior. But this
view seems simple minded. Ted Bundy said that his violent acts against
women were triggered by looking at violent pornography. This cannot be
the whole story. The vast majority of men could look at depictions of
violent acts against women and would likely become disgusted or bored
and stop looking. While the external stimulus might be the immediate
cause in specific instances, something in the human brain of some
people is also going on. Could anyone seriously argue, for example,
that the neo-Nazi, Matthew Hale, developed his views because of some
Nazi film that he saw? Under the view that I am espousing some people
(mostly boys and men) have either been poorly raised by their parents
or parent substitutes or else have some genetic flaw that makes them
particularly violent. If this is so, then censoring the images that
children (or adults) receive in the media or internet would have little
or no long term effect on such people.
A third reason is that any broad based restriction is likely to be
ineffective because it restricts what children and adults can see more
completely than the public would tolerate. If children cannot see
violent cartoons on TV, then they might gravitate to violent cartoon
comics. If children and adults, cannot see or read violent material
more generally, they will gravitate even more to violence in sports--
boxing, wrestling, football, hockey even baseball and basketball. In
order to protect children fully, the government would have to regulate
what appears on news broadcasts. No images of people shooting people in
Iraq would be allowed. Then too, the Bible and Koran contain depictions
of violence. Should these be barred as well?
A fourth reason is that efforts to protect children through broad
based restrictions of violence on TV or the internet are likely to run
afoul of the Supreme Court's understanding of the First Amendment.
While the Court has allowed government to restrict depictions of
obscene material (pornography that appeals to the prurient interest, is
patently offensive and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or
scientific value) and sexual depictions of children (whether obscene or
not), it has so far not allowed for media restrictions of violence. The
one case I am aware of in this area was a city's effort to prohibit
degrading or violent depictions of women. Since the ordinance was not
limited to the narrow obscenity exception to First Amendment protected
speech, the federal courts struck it down. The Court has also struck
down statutes that restrict what adults can see even though they have
been enacted ostensibly to protect children. As the Court puts it,
adults cannot be limited to what is fit for children. Thus, if the net
result of a broad based restriction so as to limit what adults can see
on TV or in the movies, I believe it would run afoul of similar Court
pronouncements. As to the Internet, the Court has not yet determined
whether it would accept a restriction on what children can access based
on community standards when the result would enable the most
restrictive community to determine what children could access in the
most permissive communities.
What I would call a narrowly based statute, one that, for example,
requires that salesmen selling TVs explain to buyers how to use the V-
Chip (assuming the TV has one), a labeling statute as to what is unfit
for children, or a statute that prohibits depictions of violence in
cartoon shows in the morning hours, probably would be upheld by the
Court and would not unduly restrict our First Amendment liberties.
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you very much.
What we're going to do at this point, I think that each of
us here on the panel, members of the panel, usually ask a
question, and then we go to the question the students have
submitted. I'm going to play Devil's advocate here for a
moment. I'm a dad, I've got two kids. I've got a high school
junior and I've got a seventh grader. And as parents, my wife
and I are always very concerned about what they do, what shows
they watch, computer, and all of that, and we're nice people,
we're very good parents. And I know that parental influences is
a major, major element.
And I concur with the studies that have been done. My wife
and I are so concerned about the access that our kids have in
making sure that they are properly handling what they're
seeing. In fact, today's USA Today newspaper, I don't know if
any of you saw it, and I would say off the top, I'm 51 years
old, it's still hard for me to say that, and I have watched TV
shows, from my viewing as a teen, it's a great escalation in
terms of violence and for our kids. And all those specific
scenes, we're exposed to the specifics and have a lot more
violence than their parent's kids see on TV at all the
different hours, et cetera.
Things are much more violent today than they were, 20, 30
years ago. But yet, the USA Today, today's story, list the
crime rates in the paper. It said that the crime rates have a
steady low last year. And looks at crime statistics go back
into the early 1990's. A comparable number in 1993, the violent
crime rate was 50 per a thousand people. In 2003, there was, it
says here, that ``amounts have grown from a violent crime rate
of an assault, intentional assault, armed robbery'', it stood
at 22.6 victims for every thousand, age 12 and up to about
double. It was double in 1993 than it is today.
So, we see a real climb in crime rates. Yet, at the same
time, we see, at least in my view, the amount of increase in
the kind of violence. If they are exposed to it, and all people
are exposed. I just--and all people are exposed, I just welcome
the democratic to be here, and to advise: Why do you get that,
those numbers are the way that they are? Dr. Slutkin.
Mr. Slutkin. The overall crime rate is unlikely to limit
the amount on television as it is. Because as it's been pointed
out, there is other influences, too. I would like----
Mr. Upton. Grand Auto Theft wasn't a game that is on the
videos.
Mr. Slutkin. I would like to point out, though that these
rates, that albeit somewhere between a fourth and a half down
from what they were at their highest peak, are still 25 times
higher than they are in other countries. And it's a situation
that is substantially different than that in other developed
countries. So, we have a completely out of control situation
that is not only out of control, you know, it is like having
the police not doing anything, and then suddenly they're doing
some pieces of their job. But the community aspect of this, the
parental aspect of this, the advertising and promotion of the
violence, all that stuff is still in there. So, I think that
some interventions have been put into place. But there is no
complacency of where the rates are now.
Mr. Upton. It does make a point, by the way, that there are
more people in jail than ever before.
Mr. Slutkin. And as you've pointed out, so, what have we
got there? We have a society in which we're promoting violence,
regularizing violence, and catching those who do it, and
putting them in jail. So, it's obviously not a correct
situation.
Mr. Upton. Anybody else have a comment?
Mr. Kunkel. Yes, please. Mr. Chairman, when you talk about
crime rates and so forth, it's important to underscore that no
one is suggesting that media violence is the sole or even the
primary contributor to real world violence and aggression. We
are asserting it is a significant contributor. Let's draw a
little comparison here. If you wanted to reduce heart attacks
in this country, how would you do that? Well, you would look at
what are the risk factors that contribute to heart attacks. And
those that include cigarette smoking is one risk factor. If
you're over a certain weight, then you're obese, and that's a
risk factor. If you have high stress in your job, that's a risk
factor. There can be a history of heart disease in your family,
that's a risk factor.
Now, from the medical perspective, the way you're going to
reduce heart attacks is to diminish those risk factors. If you
took away one risk factor in the United States, there was
never--no smoking was allowed in this country, we're going to
increase it and say if no one smoked, then would you still have
heart attacks? Absolutely, you still would.
Now, let's look at the situation with the crime rate and so
forth. Your suggestion is that there is more violence, or there
is certainly more graphic violence in the media today. But the
data that we have from content studies, if you look over the
last 4 years, actually show that the violence in the media and
in the television is very consistent and stable. In fact,
that's one of the most interesting points, remarkably stable.
And if you look at the big picture, yes, I think crime rate and
violence in the real word is down, but I believe that that is
because the progress in the country is engaged in a large
number of initiatives and efforts to reduce violence. But I
don't think that you can use that as an argument to say that
real world violence isn't affected by the violence that we see.
Research is far too compelling in the other direction.
Mr. Blackman. I would like to get out of the area and talk
more generally. There are a number of reasons why there are
more crimes in the United States than there are in other
countries. One is the fact that we have a society that people
are different. And when you're--everybody that has crime rates
have the same background, you might think that they are related
to you. Go back a few hundred years and you might be less prone
to engage in violence if you're around it. It's a very
disciplinary action. We don't have that in this country. We
also have a very mobile society where people with relatively
polished backgrounds can move up. We, in our society where
there are jobs available, we have a society where, at least to
some extent, there are drugs available, there is alcohol
available. And we have a society with a high rate of breakdown
in family life. And all of those factors contribute to the
amount of violence.
How much is the--the thought of the violence in the main
aspect of the human mind to create the young adolescent, and--
and teenage, and young adults they (inaudible). I remember
reading an article that I had, pages of the New York Times, by
a novelist, Michael Shovone, some months ago, when he said that
children have violent thoughts. They will be independent of the
amount of media about violence, true the media market increases
the likelihood of violence. But it's a multi-dimensional
problem I suspect in focusing only on this one aspect which has
a potential for limiting what adults can watch. It may not be
the appropriate approach.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. And a quick comment, and then Mr.
Rush has some questions.
Mr. Davis. Chairman Upton, I just wanted to make a point
that violence in the media may have other effects besides those
criminal activities. I think we heard about research linking
violence in the media and aggressive behavior or abusive
behavior. We've seen statistics showing an increase only in
activity, for example, through the years, and this is something
that the AMA has been speaking out on in recent years. The
published studies in the Journal of the American Medical
Association on voting, and pointing out how for too long we've
taken that problem for granted. And we need to take it
seriously and have a zero tolerance approach to bully activity
in the schools, and in other places where youth congregate,
because of its serious aspects on our children.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Rush.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, first of
all, I'd like to take a moment to thank all of you panelists
for coming from across the Nation here for this hearing. And I
also want to thank my colleague, Mr. Shimkus, for his presence
here also.
I want to concur with some of you. That's a compliment. Mr.
Chairman, 4 years ago I lost my son from a violent act. And the
thing that really I focus on determines the type of violences
that are occurring almost on a daily basis. In some of our
homes, in our streets, is that we are desensitized to something
that we see, and the television portrayals of violence. We
don't see the effects of after that. One of the things that
really It just hit me so hard, that that kind of pain and
tragedy, the kind of gut-wrenching reaction to violence for my
family, not only for those convicted, but also for the
perpetrators of violence, and the kind of trauma, the ongoing
trauma that occurs, that never gets portrayed; the mothers in
pain. The pride of the mothers get portrayed. So, the kind of
textual aspects of a violent act, and the result of the violent
act, never gets away. But I believe that you pick your own in
terms of the contextual responsibility that we have here.
I want to just tell the students here some of the questions
that you had per your remarks. And I'm going to start with just
trying to answer some questions. But I would like to ask the
panelist, Mr. McIntyre, if you will comment on the parent's
responsibilities. Where does the parental responsibilities come
in as we discuss TV viewership which portrays violence? What is
my responsibility as a parent?
Mr. McIntyre. I would say that they start day one, and
perhaps even a little before day one, to start thinking about
how to prepare healthy viewing habits for your kids. The thing
that can be tricky for parents in this is two points. One is
that, you know, everybody is different, all individuals are
different. And so all kids are different, too. And so the
parent really needs to be in touch with where their own child
or children are so that they can kind of monitor and help with
the healthy media habits around the kids. What strengths, their
weaknesses or virtues that they want their child to develop. If
the child is showing some instances of pleading, or increased
fear, of being a victim, then they're going to want to be aware
of the violence that they're looking at over in the media. Part
of the good thing about the ratings that we have now, is that
parents can tweak their preferences based on whatever decisions
they make about their kid, if they are concerned about
violence, if they're concerned about sexual behavior, then it's
up to the parents to honor those paths. But the parents do need
to have reliable information to be able to do that. We do think
that the television industry can do a little in providing more
accurate and more reliable information. But ultimately, it's
the parents that we're trying to empower this.
Mr. Kunkel. Would you indulge in another response, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Rush. Sure.
Mr. Kunkel. I think that everyone concurs that parents have
a significant role, primary role to play in protecting their
children from TV violence. You have got to look at the data,
however, to appreciate that many parents are not sensitized to
this topic. Indeed, there is a substantial proportion of homes
in America that there is always constantly a television on in
homes. And what that we need to keep in mind is that a
household where the television set is basically left on all day
whether anyone is watching it or not. Television is on during
meals and so forth. And whatever programming is coming along
the channel that it's on, is allowed to play regardless of its
activity in the content. Those are numbers that represents
millions of homes in this country. So, if you believe all the
data that you've heard today, if you believe that media
violence has contributed to real world violence and aggression,
then while it's important to look for parents to play a role
here, parents can't be the only solution.
If there are representatives from the television industry
here today, they would advocate that it's the parent's
responsibility, not their responsibility. And that the parents
have to do their job, and we have a big problem here. And I
don't think that realistically because we are up against a
multi-billion dollar industry that now permeates our culture
such that to engage in your immediate consumption. You cannot
like media violence. And I think one of the real shames is,
that just as you point out that we are desensitized, we don't
respond to see violence in the media on television.
In fact, when you read stories of a murder or a crime,
unless we know the victim, we don't respond with the pain and
grief and anguish that we should, because we read those stories
too often. The only time we respond with great sensitivity is
when the numbers of people killed are so high that they grab
our attention because they have what, a new record. And it's a
shame that things have come to that point. We need to be more
sensitive to media violence, and this dramatic part that we
need to give parents the tools and the training to help them do
their job to sensitize their children.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman, I just want to see something just
for a moment. I really want to ask the audience, just by the
raising of hands, how many students here in this auditorium in
the last year know someone, either a relative, or a friend, or
a friend of a friend, knows someone who has been killed by
violence in the last year? Would you raise your hands?
[Students raise hands.]
Mr. Rush. Okay. Thank you. How many students here in the
last year know someone or is either a friend, or knows someone
who knows someone, or a family member who has had a violent
act, who has been injured by a violent act in the last year?
[Students raise hands.]
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much. I ask that because this is,
indeed, a problem that we are constantly experiencing. I know
in my experiences that between the hours of 12 and 2 o'clock--
well, let's say 10 and 2 p.m., every Saturday, most young--a
lot of young--significantly young to what I prefer, of someone
who has been killed, are attending funerals. It's probably one
of the major gathering places for someone who has been killed.
On Saturday it's a place for young people to gather between 10
a.m. and 2 p.m. Thank you.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
my colleague, Bobby Rush here, for doing that. I was going to
ask the question, too. But I think his question really
highlights the challenges that we have in the national level on
different areas. If you ask that in my high school in my
district, I don't think you would get a hand. You wouldn't get
a hand raised. Now, we would have kids who are drinking and
driving, who have other activities of violent crimes. So, I
thank you for asking that. Let me follow along with the
panelists, like you did last, and I'll look around, of the
students here, poke your friends next to you because I want to
get hands up on this. How many of you all have a TV in your
household, one TV?
[Students raise hands.]
Mr. Shimkus. How many, one or more, one or more?
[Students raise hands.]
Mr. Shimkus. Okay. How many have three TVs in your home?
[Students raise hands.]
Mr. Shimkus. How many of you have--this is a question the
chairman let me ask before. How many have a TV in your bedroom?
[Students raise hands.]
Mr. Shimkus. How many of you watch more than 3 hours of TV
a day?
[Students raise hands.]
Mr. Shimkus. More than 2 hours a day?
[Students raise hands.]
Mr. Shimkus. Okay. I'm not done. How many know or
understand that there is a TV rating system out there?
[Students raise hands.]
Mr. Shimkus. Can anyone explain it to me?
Mr. Rush. Just one person.
Mr. Shimkus. Can anyone explain the rating system to me,
anyone out there? Yes, right there in the white. Stand up, I
can't hear you. Speak from the upper diaphragm.
Unidentified Speaker. Well, on TV it will tell you what
it's rated, like, PG, or PG-13, or rated R.
Mr. Rush. What does it mean?
Unidentified Speaker. Uh?
Mr. Rush. What does it mean?
Unidentified Speaker. PG-13 is for little kids, rated R is
for big kids.
Mr. Shimkus. All right. How many of you know anything about
what they call a V-Chip? Has any of you ever had problems
watching something you wanted to watch because your parents
turned it on, or used it? How many never heard of V-Chip, raise
your hands.
[Students raise hands.]
Mr. Shimkus. This is good for us. I mean, we read, we do
surveys, we can hear testimony. But really, we have audiences
that are here from Washington, DC. We don't usually ask these
questions. But the difference is, they are tailored to students
and are being paid to sit in and listen to what you all have
just listened to. Or there are visitors, and they can leave at
any time they want, and they just listen for a few minutes, and
they get bored, and they usually walk out.
Although, there are some public interests that are
concerned about what we're going to do. So, this is really--you
are experiencing what happens in Washington on a hearing. And I
appreciate your asking questions. The last thing I would say is
for the folks who need AMA, and anyone else concerned, there is
legislation this year ongoing, which is another major problem
in our schools, probably we're not successful into moving in
this year, but we call ``teeing it up'' for the realization of
next year, and if you're interested in involving with that as
it pertains to this issue, we would really encourage your
participation. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Well, Congressman Rush has with him a
list of questions that the students have prepared. And it is at
this point we'll take the next 15 or 20 minutes, if there is
that many questions. And, Bobby, we will let you read the
questions and get a response, and at which point, then we'll
conclude.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to take a note that
these questions, and there are some outstanding questions, I
want to congratulate the students here at Simeon High School
for very insightful questions. Question No. 1, and any of the
panelists, if you will, if you can respond to this: ``Do you
feel the government has a right to regulate what is shown on
television?''
Mr. Upton. Just do a yes or no answer.
Mr. Slutkin. Yes, I think they have some responsibility.
Mr. McIntyre. Yes, they have some responsibility.
Mr. Davis. I would say, yes, in terms of rating systems and
possibly controlling the content of child programs.
Mr. Kunkel. Are there limits to what the government can do?
Yes. But can the government convene and rate some regulations
in this area? Yes.
Mr. Blackman. I would agree that the time regulation might
be feasible. And I would be opposed to comment other than that.
But a rating system might also be too small.
Mr. Rush. The next question is: ``What are your ideas of
what parents should do to limit their children from watching
violence on television?'' How can parents limit their children
from watching violence on television? And I guess maybe we can
talk a little more about the V-Chip and what the V-Chip does.
Mr. Shimkus. Take them out of the bedrooms.
Mr. Upton. Let's start over here.
Mr. Rush. This time let's start over here. Professor
Blackman, what ideas do you have for what parents should do to
limit their children from watching violence on television?
Mr. Blackman. My understanding is that there is a
significant set of parents that don't know how to use the V-
Chip. They have brought TV fairly recently into the V-Chip and
this is going to be there. So, perhaps through the schools
educating parents who have televisions on how to use the V-Chip
would be a helpful concern. And also requiring that televisions
sold with the V-Chip, that the salesperson is trained to
explain how to use them.
Mr. Kunkel. I'll be brief. But I'd like to make two points.
And the first is that most television viewing is not planned.
That is to say, the most common way to view television is to go
to the set when you have available time, turn it on, and on the
channels that they show us. The odds are better than 50/50,
you're going to encounter a violent program. So, what a parent
can best do is to plan their children's viewing with the child.
That is to say, you open up the TV Guide every week; you find
the programs that are going to be valuable; you either adjust
your schedule and watch it that time, and take advantage of new
technology, like the digital video records, so you can capture
that program, and watch it at your convenience. If you were
going to take a trip to the library, you wouldn't walk into the
library aimlessly, go up a particular aisle and pull a book off
at random. It's not how we read. Why is that the way we watch
television? So, that would be one point.
My second point here is, that in the context of a
discussion about the V-Chip, the V-Chip is an important tool
for parents. But it may not be the tool for the age range that
we're meeting with here today. Young people at this age are
going to be, I think, negotiating with their parents what's
appropriate to view, and being in agreements with the context
with the parents, assuming the parents is proactive in keeping
that responsibility.
The V-Chip is really designed more for the younger child
audience, when the parent can't always be at the TV set, but is
nearby in the home. And so, it's an aid, I think, primarily to
younger children rather than the older group.
Mr. Rush. Dr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. I would say that the parents, first of all, need
to know what their kids are watching. And I won't be popular
with the kids in the audience here in saying this, but having
televisions in the bedrooms, as a parent of three sons, I don't
think is a great idea, because you don't know what they're
watching. I think total time in front of the television, or
playing video games, or playing computer games, needs to be
controlled by their parents. Having a television on during
meals is something we always avoid in our own household.
Because that's the time where parents and their children
connect and find out about their day, talk about issues that
might be prominent.
And I think parents need to set limits on the kind of shows
that kids are allowed to watch. As has been mentioned, it's
hard to find any program that doesn't have some violence in it.
But some programs have expensive and gratuitous violence that
runs throughout the program, and those are the kinds of
programs that parents need to have their children avoid
watching.
Mr. McIntyre. I'm going to step in and say, you know, I
think the biggest thing the parents can do is to know their
kids. That so many times parents get distracted by jobs and
bills and whatnot. And they're not familiar with what's going
on in their kids' lives. And if they get their kids look the
way I see, the parents think that there is something to talk
about in the kitchen or in the refrigerator. You know, you got
to know what your kids are about. You don't know your kids. You
think that, you know, for one child, you know, the parents may
approve of them watching Jackie Chan or Jet Li, or those sort
of movies. But for another kid, I think that represents
significant risks, and the parents are too distracted by the
things going on in their world, and don't have tons of patience
with their kids in the media, and that's what we address.
Mr. Slutkin. Yeah, I think the planning and the limiting of
time and knowing are such a--I just would like to add one
particular thing. And not every parent will be there or agree,
but I think it might be useful that you have a conversation
about what television is. And for those of us who watch a
little bit of television, to ask ourselves, are we just
squawking down and being lazy and letting ourselves be in the
situation we're in. The television is stronger than you are. In
other words, the television is larger than your mind. Whether
than you being larger than it, and being able to control it, so
you can be able to turn it off, which you become a little
stronger.
Mr. Upton. I have a quick question for the audience again.
And that is: Well, there are three ways you can get TV, one is
satellite, one is cable, the other one is over the air. So, I'd
like to know where they are. How many people have watched their
TV through cable? Raise your hands.
[Students raise hands.]
Mr. Upton. Okay. And how many people watch through
satellite?
[Students raise hands.]
Mr. Upton. All right. And is there anyone here that has
just over-the-air, just an antenna?
[Students raise hands.]
Mr. Upton. All right. Thank you. Next question.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman, I think most of the questions are,
again, are the same type. Well, let me ask this, and this is a
good one here. It says, ``Violence is part of everyday life,
not just on television.'' If violence is taken off the TV
because of children, what will the government, or what should
the government do to retain--not retain--to reduce violence in
our community on a daily basis with for our children?
Mr. McIntyre. There is a large array of programs that we
can discuss, and discuss the merits and values of--that can
address the problems as much as individuals vary, communities
vary, and those that seek violence and individual communities
have to be approached as well. Everything from educational
programs to prenatal health, to the presence of guns.
One of the concerns that we have at the APA is a
qualitative increase in violence. Not necessarily that the
numbers are going up, but we're saying that violence isn't
about getting out back in the schoolyard, punching each other,
giving each other a black eye. But it's about, you know,
whipping out a nine millimeter and settling it that way. That,
there is a wide variety of.
Mr. Davis. As a physician, I'd like to mention a couple
examples of what we in the medical profession can do. One is
for physicians to look for signs of violence when their
patients come in with problems. For example, physicians need to
be attuned to domestic violence when a woman comes in with
trauma. And then we put out guidelines for what other
physicians need to be doing to look for that kind of thing.
What they also mention is a program we had in LaPorte
Hospital in Detroit, we've seen some horrible statistics on
kids coming into the emergency room with trauma. Initially,
they might be a victim of an assault, and then a year later
they might be back with a stab wound, and then a year after
that with a gunshot wound. And our statistics show that a few
percentage that we were discovering were dead in 5 years. So,
we said to ourselves, why not intervene with these kids the
first time we can, or they go down that inevitable cascade of
worse and worse trauma and violence.
And so, we had a program in LaPorte Hospital where we
connect kids after they presented a trauma, we call it, The
Teen of Enrichment Program. And we bring it in once a week, we
bring in speakers. Experts on gang violence. We connect them in
the community, based on organizations, so that they can mentor,
talk to these kids, find out what their home environment is,
and then that's the kind of thing that we can do.
Mr. Blackman. One of the lessons I believe we might learn
from the war is that showing not just the bombs falling, but
the victims of the shooting that hasn't been seen today. I will
need to emphasize as to the increase, the interest is, insofar
as we can encourage it. An awareness of what the victims suffer
rather than on the bombing and the shootings. All that
encourages in the media and in the schools to try to get people
to (inaudible) in after the tour. To the extent we can do that,
I think people will be less problematic to engage in private
gangs. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it's my round of
questioning, and I just have one comment. First of all, I want
to thank all the witnesses, and I want to thank all the
students for their involvement. I think you should give
yourselves a round of applause.
There is one area, of course, I wanted to get into, and
that is what I'm really concerned about, and I want us to think
about it as we proceed with additional Chairman hearings in the
field, and that is: The increasing incidences of violence
committed--violence committed by one young female as opposed to
males. And maybe we can get into that real soon at some
additional point in time.
But again, these questions, we asked you, of course, for
your participation, and your presence, Mr. Chairman, is really,
really well noted, and it's very, very important to us as a
community, and also as a citizen of this Nation, and I want to
thank you for bringing this subcommittee to Simeon High School
and for taking the time out. You didn't have to do this, but
you did anyhow, and we certainly appreciate you for your
commitment and for your leadership on this issue that faces our
Nation. Again, thank you so much.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Let me say in conclusion, and in
addition to chairing this subcommittee, I serve on the
Educational Committee. And I've been to a school every week,
whether it would be an elementary school, like I did at St.
Mary's last Friday, or a high school class, or a college
university. And often, I can tell as I walked in the door, the
quality instruction, the students are receiving good teachers.
And I got to say, looking through these questions that were
presented today, I know this is a great school. And I'm really
proud of each of you in the issues that you have to be a
wonderful American. And that's the appreciation that Bobby Rush
is the leader for. He doesn't shine just today, he shines every
day.
He is an active participant in every issue that we have had
over the years, and he has had over the years in our
subcommittee, and it was a great joy that we can pick a date
out. He actually picked the day and the site. And for me to
come, and Mr. Shimkus's participation, as well. This is an
issue of concern, finally a Member of Congress puts in an
appearance. And as you look to the future, I can assure you
that we're getting paid to work shoulder to shoulder on the
issues that confront our Nation every which way.
Thank you all, and thank you panelists for being here and
sharing your testimony and taking the opportunity to be a part
of this record. We look forward to interacting with you. And
with that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Prepared Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics
The American Academy of Pediatrics, representing 60,000
pediatricians, regrets that an AAP member could not testify in person,
but we would like to submit this statement for the record. We
appreciate your leadership and interest in how the media, particularly
television, impacts the health and behavior of children and
adolescents.
Our three main points are:
Although there are potential benefits from viewing some television
shows, many negative health effects in children can also
result. These include aggressive behavior, desensitization to
violence, nightmares and fear of being harmed. By knowing how
television affects children, we can make TV viewing for
children less harmful and still enjoyable.
It is not violence itself but the context in which it is portrayed
that can make the difference between learning about violence
and learning to be violent. Studies show that the more
realistically violence is portrayed, the greater the likelihood
that it will be tolerated and learned.
Parents, health professionals, the entertainment industry and
policymakers all have critical roles in discussing and
addressing television violence.
The Academy recognizes exposure to violence in media, including
television, movies, music, and video games, as a significant risk to
the health of children and adolescents. The young people of this
country drink in media all day, every day. What would we do if we
discovered that the water our children drink was full of factors toxic
to their physical and mental health? The question for consumers and
producers of media is simple: in what kind of environment do we want
our children to grow up?
Over the last 20 years, the AAP has expressed its concerns about
the amount of time children and adolescents spend viewing television
and the content of what they view. Although there are potential
benefits from viewing some television shows, such as the promotion of
positive aspects of social behavior (e.g., sharing, manners,
cooperation), many negative health effects also can result. Extensive
research evidence indicates that media violence can contribute to
aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence, nightmares and fear
of being harmed. Children and adolescents are particularly vulnerable
to the messages conveyed through television, which influence their
perceptions and behaviors. Television can inform, entertain and teach
us. However, some of what television teaches may not be what parents
want their children to learn. TV programs and commercials often show
violence, alcohol or drug use, and sexual content that are not suitable
for children or teenagers. By knowing how television affects children,
we can make TV viewing for children less harmful and still enjoyable.
IMPACT OF MEDIA ON HEALTH AND BEHAVIOR OF CHILDREN
Starting from when we are very young, we get the majority of our
information from media. While media offers us, including children, many
opportunities to learn and to be entertained, how people interpret
media images and media messages also can be a contributing factor to a
variety of public health concerns. Among children and adolescents,
research shows that key areas of concern are:
Aggressive behavior and violence; desensitization to violence, both
public and personal
Substance abuse and use
Nutrition, obesity and dieting
Sexuality, body image and self-concept
Advertising, marketing and consumerism
This morning we are focusing specifically on television violence.
Research in a variety of circumstances and settings has shown that the
strongest single correlate with violent behavior in young people is
previous exposure to violence. Before age 8, children cannot
discriminate between real life and fantasy. On-screen violence is as
real to them as violence that they witness at home or in their
community. From childhood's magical thinking and impulsive behavior,
adolescents must develop abstract thought and social controls to
prepare them to deal with adult realities. If this development process
occurs in a violent environment, it can become distorted. Media, with
which children spend more time than with parents or teachers, have
great potential for shaping the hearts, minds, and behaviors of
America's young people, and we need to take this potential very
seriously.
Entertainment violence is not the sole factor contributing to youth
aggression, anti-social attitudes and violence. Family breakdown, peer
influences, the availability of weapons, and numerous other factors may
all play a part. But entertainment violence, including television, does
contribute. The media are an area of clear risk that we, as a
compassionate society, can address.
VIOLENCE IN CONTEXT
It is not violence itself but the context in which it is portrayed
that can make the difference between learning about violence and
learning to be violent. Serious explorations of violence in plays like
Macbeth and films like Saving Private Ryan treat violence as what it
is--a human behavior that causes suffering, loss and sadness to victims
and perpetrators. In this context, viewers learn the danger and harm of
violence by vicariously experiencing its outcomes. Unfortunately, most
entertainment violence is used for immediate visceral thrills without
portraying any human cost. Sophisticated special effects, with
increasingly graphic depictions of mayhem, make virtual violence more
believable and appealing. Studies show that the more realistically
violence is portrayed, the greater the likelihood that it will be
tolerated and learned.
Children learn the ways of the world by observing and imitating--
they cannot help but be influenced by media. Exposure to media violence
results in an increased acceptance of violence as an appropriate means
of conflict resolution. Media exaggerate the prevalence of violence in
the world and offer strong motivation to protect oneself by carrying a
weapon and being more aggressive. Perhaps the most insidious and potent
effect of media violence is that it desensitizes viewers to ``real
life'' violence and to the harm caused its victims. The more realistic,
comic, or enjoyable the media violence, the greater the
desensitization. Given what we know through research, why is violence
marketed to children? To quote Dr. David Walsh, author of Selling out
America's Children, ``Violent entertainment is aimed at children
because it is profitable. Questions of right or wrong, beneficial or
harmful are not considered. The only question is `Will it sell?' ''
As medical professionals, pediatricians want parents and the
television industry to understand that TV programs can have powerful
positive and negative effects on child health. They can be used to
teach wonderful, enlightening and entertaining lessons to children but
also can show graphically violent, cruel, and terrifying images that
can lead to aggressive behavior in some children and nightmares,
fearfulness or other emotional disturbances in others.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Free speech and open discussion of society's concerns protect our
liberty. We do not want censorship, which is both unconstitutional and
ultimately unsuccessful in a free society. However, we need to help
children make the best media choices, just as we try to do with the
food they eat. Parents, health professionals, policymakers and the
entertainment industry each bear some responsibility. For example,
parents should set content and time limits on media use, monitor and
discuss the media their children consume, and take televisions out of
the children's bedrooms. Pediatricians should alert and educate parents
when positive media opportunities arise, either educational or
informational. Policymakers need to enforce and in some cases,
strengthen laws and regulations that protect children as media
consumers. They should also increase the funding available for media
research. The AAP endorses legislation in the Senate, ``Children and
Media Research Advancement Act,'' to fund and generate more research on
how media impacts children. We should also support media education
programs in American schools that have been demonstrated to be
effective.
ROLE OF TELEVISION INDUSTRY
Lastly, the entertainment industry needs to acknowledge that it is
an important and powerful force in American society, one that affects
all of us in many ways. Too often scientific research on the effects of
media on children and adolescents is ignored or denied by some in the
entertainment industry. Yet the leading medical groups in this country,
including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical
Association, American Psychological Association and the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Health, all echo the same conclusion.
Based on decades of research, viewing entertainment violence can lead
to aggressive attitudes, values and behavior, particularly in children.
It is time for everyone in the entertainment industry to join us in
protecting and promoting the health of our children.
Many in the industry are parents, grandparents, aunts or uncles
themselves. As individuals they care deeply about children and youth.
We are simply asking them to take their personal values into the
workplace as they pursue their business. Though many producers and
consumers of entertainment media express helplessness to change the
flood of violence, this problem will only be solved through the efforts
of media producers and media consumers who decide to reject violent
media. As the entertainment audience we must focus on what we want our
young people to learn and how we want them to behave. To do so, we must
support positive entertainment products and reject negative and
dangerous media products, including violent TV programming.
If the television industry accepts our invitation, we can start
talking about reasonable and practical solutions. The AAP and its
members have been working on many fronts to help parents and children
glean the best from unending media exposure. The AAP launched its Media
Matters campaign (www.aap.org/advocacy/mediamatters.htm) seven years
ago to help pediatricians, other health professionals, parents and
children become more knowledgeable about the impact that media messages
can have on children's health behaviors. Public education brochures on
the media have been developed and distributed, including one that
explains how the various ratings systems work. In addition, the Academy
established a Media Resource Team (www.aap.org/mrt) in 1994 to work
with the entertainment industry in providing the latest and most
accurate information relating to the health and well being of infants,
children, adolescents and young adults.
Until more research is done about the effects of TV on very young
children, the American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend
television for children younger than 2 years of age. During this time,
children need good, positive interaction with other children and adults
to develop good language and social skills. Learning to talk and play
with others is far more important than watching television. For older
children, the AAP recommends no more than 1 to 2 hours per day of
quality screen time.
The AAP has supported federal legislation and regulation when
necessary over the years to help address TV violence. We supported the
v-chip to help parents control which programs their children see and
negotiated with the industry to revise their TV ratings system.
However, we still have a lot to work on. Parents don't know much about
the v-chip and how to use it, nor can they easily decipher the TV
ratings system. Many parents find the ratings unreliably low, with an
objective parental evaluation finding as much as 50% of television
shows rated TV-14 to be inappropriate for their teenagers. The ``TV Y7
FV'' rating is often thought to mean ``family viewing'' instead of
``fantasy violence'' for children age 7 and older. The ratings are
determined by industry-sponsored ratings boards or the artists and
producers themselves. They are age based, which assumes that all
parents agree with the raters about what is appropriate content for
their children of specific ages. Furthermore, different ratings systems
for each medium (television, movies, music and video games) make the
ratings confusing. We have called for simplified, content-based media
ratings to help parents guide their children to make healthy media
choices. Until we achieve that, the v-chip and current ratings system
should be extensively publicized by the industry.
In our ``Media Violence'' policy statement, we have also urged the
industry to:
Avoid the glamorization of weapon carrying and the normalization of
violence as an acceptable means of resolving conflict.
Eliminate the use of violence in a comic or sexual context or in any
other situation in which the violence is amusing, titillating
or trivialized.
Eliminate gratuitous portrayals of interpersonal violence and
hateful, racist, misogynistic, or homophobic language or
situations unless explicitly portraying how destructive such
words and actions can be.
If violence is used, it should be used thoughtfully as serious
drama, always showing the hurt and loss suffered by victims and
perpetrators.
DIGITAL TELEVISION
The AAP, as part of the Children's Media Policy Coalition, has been
urging the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to adopt new public
interest obligations for children's television programming for the
transition to digital television. This transition offers the best
opportunity to shape how this new technology can serve children. Some
of what we have called for includes more educational and informational
(E/I) programming for children, consistent icons denoting E/I programs,
on-demand ratings to be called up at any time during the program (with
a brief explanation as to why for example, a show has a ``V for
violent'' rating), and an open v-chip to accommodate any new ratings
systems in addition to the industry's rating system.
CONCLUSION
Ultimately, we are all in this together and we should seek a
collective solution. Parents, health professionals, the entertainment
industry and policymakers have critical roles in discussing and
addressing television violence, particularly when it comes to the
health of children and adolescents.
Given the overwhelming body of research indicating the danger posed
by media violence to the normal, healthy development of our human
resources, we need to focus on nurturing and preserving those
resources, our children and our nation's future.
Should you need any additional information, please do not hesitate
to contact us at 202-347-8600. Thank you.