[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FROM IMUS TO INDUSTRY: THE BUSINESS OF STEREOTYPES AND DEGRADING IMAGES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE,
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 25, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-67
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-459 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California JOE BARTON, Texas
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts Ranking Member
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey FRED UPTON, Michigan
BART GORDON, Tennessee CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
ANNA G. ESHOO, California ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
BART STUPAK, Michigan BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
GENE GREEN, Texas JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
Vice Chairman Mississippi
LOIS CAPPS, California VITO FOSSELLA, New York
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania STEVE BUYER, Indiana
JANE HARMAN, California GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
TOM ALLEN, Maine JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois MARY BONO, California
HILDA L. SOLIS, California GREG WALDEN, Oregon
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas LEE TERRY, Nebraska
JAY INSLEE, Washington MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
______
Professional Staff
Dennis B. Fitzgibbons, Chief of Staff
Gregg A. Rothschild, Chief Counsel
Sharon E. Davis, Chief Clerk
David L. Cavicke, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois, Chairman
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois CLIFF STEARNS, Florida,
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
JOHN BARROW, Georgia ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
BARON P. HILL, Indiana CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts Mississippi
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia VITO FOSSELLA, New York
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas MARY BONO, California
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas LEE TERRY, Nebraska
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JIM MATHESON, Utah MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio)
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 1
Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, opening statement.................................. 2
Hon. Jan Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 4
Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina, opening statement..................... 5
Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, opening statement.......................... 7
Hon. George Radanovich, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California............................................ 8
Hon. Anthony D. Weiner, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York, opening statement........................... 10
Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas................................................. 11
Hon. Edolphus Towns, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New York, opening statement................................. 12
Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 14
Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement............... 15
Hon. Mary Bono, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California, opening statement.................................. 16
Witnesses
Philippe P. Dauman, president and chief executive officer, Viacom
International, Incorporated, New York, NY...................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Edgar Bronfman, Jr., chairman and chief executive officer, Warner
Music Group, New York, NY...................................... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Doug Morris, chairman and chief executive officer, Universal
Music Group, New York, NY...................................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Alfred C. Liggins III, president and chief executive officer,
Radio One, Incorporated, Lanham, MD............................ 35
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Strauss Zelnick, chairman of the board, Take Two Interactive
Software, New York, NY......................................... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Levell Crump, a.k.a., ``David Banner''........................... 55
Prepared statement........................................... 58
Percy Miller, a.k.a. ``Master P'' \1\............................ 61
Michael Eric Dyson, Georgetown University, Washington, DC \2\.... 63
Tracy Sharpley-Whiting, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN..... 85
Prepared statement........................................... 88
Andrew Rojecki, University of Illinois-Chicago, Chicago, IL...... 92
Prepared statement........................................... 94
Faye Williams, national chair, National Congress of Black Women,
Incorporated, Washington, DC................................... 96
Prepared statement........................................... 99
Lisa Fager Bediako, president, Industry Ears, Odenton, MD........ 101
Prepared statement........................................... 105
Karen Dill, Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC.................... 114
Prepared statement........................................... 117
----------
\1\ Mr. Miller did not submit a prepared statement for the
record.
\2\ Mr. Dyson did not submit a prepared statement for the record.
FROM IMUS TO INDUSTRY: THE BUSINESS OF STEREOTYPES AND DEGRADING IMAGES
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby L.
Rush (chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Schakowsky, Butterfield,
Barrow, Markey, Towns, Gonzalez, Hooley, Weiner, Stearns,
Fossella, Radanovich, Pitts, Bono, Terry, Myrick, Burgess, and
Blackburn.
Staff present: Consuela Washington, Christian Fjeld,
Valerie Baron, William Carty, and Chad Grant.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Rush. The committee will come to order. The Chair
recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. I
want to begin by thanking our witnesses who have come from far
and near to be a part of this hearing, and I want to assure
everyone present that this hearing is not a head-hunting
hearing. This hearing will be a positive hearing. I hope to
come away from this hearing on this day with a foundation to
move forward in our Nation. This is not the end. This is just
the beginning.
We have a crisis in our communities throughout this Nation.
There is a culture of death that permeates our society. It is
the responsibility of this Congress as it is the responsibility
of each and every one of you to be a part of the solution as
opposed to being part of the problem. So I am looking forward
to developing and to engaging in a coalition of concern and
compassion and commitment to address the issue of violence,
hate, degradation that has reduced too many of our youngsters
to automatons, those who don't recognize life, those who don't
value life, and those who don't look forward to a future of
hope in this life.
I have heard too many of our young people looking and
expressing a future that ends before they are 25 years old.
They don't think that they will live to be 25 years old, indeed
some say as early as 22. They don't expect to see 22 years of
age. The statistics according to the Department of Justice bear
them out. The greatest cause of death for youngsters 18 to 24
years old is homicide in our communities. I am not blaming
anybody. We all are part of the problem, and we all must be
part of the solution.
This hearing is not anti-hip hop. Let me be real clear. I
am a fan of hip hop. I have got children who love hip hop. I
admire and respect the hip hop artists who have created an art
work, an industry, and an environment where they can employ
thousands of people who might not have received employment
opportunities were it not for them. I respect the first
amendment, and I know that great art is always controversial,
but we must also take responsibility in our freedom of
expression.
I want to conclude by saying and stating the obvious, that
the pendulum is beginning to swing, and I am convinced that so-
called gangster rap and misogyny is on its way out of the hip
hop culture. This committee has a profound responsibility,
immense jurisdiction, and it is within the purview and the
power of this committee and has to be within the purpose of
this committee to make sure that we engage in a conversation
that deals with this issue that confronts the fabric of this
Nation and threatens the fabric of this Nation, its families,
its communities, its institution, indeed its foundation. We can
do no more or nothing greater than to open up this discussion,
remove the biases, the hypocrisies, and the hype. We have got
to have an honest discussion. Our future depends on it.
I yield now to the ranking member, my friend from Florida,
Mr. Stearns, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Stearns. Good morning. And, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
just want to echo your sincere comments that you speak from the
heart. We all have interest in this subject, and I want to
thank you for calling this hearing.
Looking at the witness list on panel 1, and looking at all
these CEOs, we can certainly appreciate how much their hourly
rate together would be for their time, so we appreciate you
taking your time to come to speak to us this morning. The
chairman talked about the violence, the hate, and the
degradation that exists, and why it continues to flourish.
I think it is worthwhile to discuss this in light of some
of the entertainment we see in a very small segment but an
important segment, and obviously it is disappointing for
Members of Congress to have to have this issue brought before
us in terms of decency in our civil society, and to see how it
continually profoundly affects our country. But this committee
has jurisdiction in this area. We should be looking at this. I
had a hearing when I was chairman of this subcommittee dealing
with the video game industry and how it impacted our children,
and many of you will note at that time that Grand Theft Auto
was the subject of that hearing, and in particular a segment of
that video game dealing with hot coffee which a portion of that
was imported into the Grand Theft Auto to create pornography.
And I note that because of our hearing the video game
industry seemed to respond to the pressure we provided and the
outrage from the public and from this committee. In the wake of
hearings I held in the Congress last session the rating board
has strengthened its review process and the industry is
offering many new tools to parents to help them. Indeed, the
Federal Trade Commission has found that the video game industry
is policing itself from production to the retail stores. So I
commend them for their good work, and I note, Mr. Chairman,
that these hearings do provide pressure in themselves.
Sometimes we look to perhaps legislate. Perhaps we look
sometimes to influence, and perhaps this hearing will bring
influence into this vital area.
Music and images can be powerful influences on our
children's mind, and I think Congress has been down this road
many times debating regulation of speech and commerce. Many of
us wonder whether it would be appropriate for Congress to issue
a legislative solution. I am not sure we are able to do it to
this difficult problem. We are a nation founded on the
principle, as you mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, of freedom
of speech, and we are usually united in our efforts to export
that core principles to countries and governments that censor
their people and their media.
So obviously we don't want to ban the liberty and freedom--
the idea of liberty of freedom of speech. We want to be able to
have people to express themselves, particularly in oppressive
regimes perhaps like China. But, however, there is today a lot
of vulgarity in both the entertainment and the video game
industry that we are concerned about which has a major
influence on our children, and the problem is often a decision
of what is package and what is market, but that primarily is
determined by what sells, so a lot of what we see in our
culture is perhaps something that these companies and other
companies are providing because that sells.
Whenever it sells quickly it is imitated, and across the
industry other people come up with new favorites. I don't
necessarily believe there is a conscious decision to determine
the content companies will sell before market analysis shows
what is popular, and that is perhaps a key question of this
hearing. Numerous examples demonstrate that consumers in the
United States have certain tastes that the entertainers cater
to. Content that does not sell usually disappears. However,
there are other forms of entertainment that still survive and
sell well. Nursery rhyme books, animated movies, and religious
books all have their audiences and are produced precisely
because publishers and producers know they will sell. It is
rate that a successful business is set up solely to satisfy a
market niche without some indication first that the product
will sell and will be well received.
Business failures are often attributable to poor planning
and poor research that never finds its market as big as it
hoped. The successful ones are often the businesses that either
know their market beforehand or readily adapt to it.
So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I, like yourself, have
some serious objections to much of the content that is sold and
concerned about the effects it has on our society. I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses and obviously asking them
some pertinent questions on their opinions. Obviously, American
consumers can make their own decisions, but they need
information first, and perhaps the biggest thing to do is
provide transparency for the consumer so that certainly the
parents know beforehand the product they are getting.
There is obviously another concern this committee has
always had, and that is privacy and protection of the
individual's privacy. And in many universities they provide
broadband Internet for their students. Now a lot of these
universities do not set up privacy safeguards so the music
can't be stolen. I am happy to say that the University of
Florida, that I represent in my district, works actively with
the recording industry to stop piracy on their broad band
networks so I hope more universities that university's
indication and recommendation. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes the
gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, for 5 minutes for
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAN SCHAKOWSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILINOIS
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I too want to
thank you for your opening statement both in its tone and its
substance. I want to focus particularly on the treatment of
women in our communities, and the role of corporations and the
media and the entertainment industry and consumers in that
treatment. Like everyone else, I am sure I want my
granddaughters to be brought up in a society that values their
worth and teaches them to be confident and empowered members of
our community. I want them to grow up free from physical and
verbal abuse. Unfortunately, we have not yet created a society
in which that is guaranteed.
Girls and young women of color in particular are faced with
repeated onslaughts of disrespect and bigotry. As we saw so
dramatically with Don Imus' remarks even those who accomplish
great things are not immune. All of us have a responsibility to
work to end racism and sexism and bigotry in all forms. And I
am glad that industry representatives, artists, academics, and
women's advocates have gathered here today to begin a
productive dialog. I believe that all parties at this hearing
bear a special responsibility to insure that the culture in
which our children and grandchildren grow up is a tolerate one.
There are several fundamental questions here. What kind of
culture do we want for our children? How do we determine
whether certain words and pictures and values are appropriate?
What is the Government's role? None of these questions is easy,
which is why this discussion is so important, not just here but
more importantly in communities and in homes across the Nation.
The sexist and racial stereotypes in much of today's media
are culturally poisonous. Many of us see its effects in our
neighborhoods every day. But the hallmark of an open society is
the right to speak and to create art without governmental
interference. Like Chairman Rush, I respect the first
amendment, and I am wary of interfering in a way that stifles
free expression. Censorship of media that we find offensive is
a dangerous game. Who decides what music or movies merit fines
or restrictions? Why, for instance, does Wal-Mart ban the sale
of explicit music with parental advisory warnings and yet
continues to sell Grand Theft Auto in which players are
encouraged to stomp on and rape women?
Government censorship would be equally arbitrary and it is
a slippery slope down which I don't want to go. This hearing
recognizes the power of entertainment and culture in our lives.
I believe art both reflects and influences society. Artists and
corporations need to understand that role and take it
seriously. I don't believe in censorship, but I also don't
believe that corporations should reap financial rewards by
promoting intolerance and bigotry. Consumers too need to take
responsibility. Consumers, we have seen, can have a major
impact, as we saw on the pressure that resulted in the firing
of Don Imus, with the growing demand for more positive lyrics
and less violent videos.
I want my four grandchildren to grow up in a society that
treats all of its members with respect but I am equally
concerned with protecting their freedom of creativity. This is
why I thank the chairman for calling this hearing and giving
all stakeholders here the opportunity to start a dialog that
can achieve both goals. I don't think that is impossible. I
take this issue very seriously, and I look forward to the
discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentlelady. The gentleman
from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, is recognized for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
Mr. Terry. Thank you, and I will waive.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Butterfield, is recognized for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank
you and I thank the ranking member for arranging this hearing
today. I understand that you had some difficulty in getting it
arranged. You told me a few months ago that you were going to
do it, and finally the day has come. And so thank you very much
for your work in this area. In reading the material that we
received in our offices a couple days ago, I noticed that the
title of this hearing is ``From Imus to Industry.'' I am not
sure that that is the best title for this hearing. I wish we
had had some discussion about that. We probably could have come
up with another title that would have been less antagonistic to
the industry, but having said that we are here today and
hopefully we will have a productive hearing.
Mr. Chairman, Americans have forever enjoyed being
entertained whether through music, movies or video games. These
devices have made their way into the homes of nearly all
Americans where music lyrics are mimicked, movie lines are
quoted, and video game characters are emulated. Through these
various media outlets stereotypes of exaggerated and women are
at times degraded, and that is most unfortunate. Are these
lyrics and images a sign of the times? Are the producers of
these products merely responding to society's status quo or is
our increasingly tumultuous society causing these offensive
trends in entertainment.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is a cyclical problem. It
raises larger societal issues than what is being addressed with
this hearing. Music is playing a larger part than ever in
American society. It is without question that the artists who
perform these songs with questionable lyrics or suggestive
themes pull from the personal experiences that they have had in
their lives in order to arrive at their final product. Whether
we like it or not, this is the culture that we find ourselves
in today. I attended a hip hop summit a few weeks ago at A&T
State University in my home State of North Carolina, and just
on a few days notice there were thousands of students attending
this hip hop summit. Some of those could not even enter the
coliseum.
And so, Mr. Chairman, I fully believe in the first
amendment. Certainly we all do. I have been in the legal
profession for many years, many years as a judge, and years
before that as a lawyer, and so I for one certainly believe in
the first amendment right that we have under our Constitution.
And so the chairman is correct, we must uphold the first
amendment rights that we have in this country. Our society is
nothing without the first amendment. With that said, however, I
think the artists, and two of those artists are here today and
perhaps more, they are here and they have the knowledge that
millions of Americans would idolize them and imitate them and
emulate them. And so they have an obligation. Yes, they have an
obligation to record music and to make their movies and to make
their videos in a responsible fashion.
The artists need to know that their positions are power and
they have positions of power. If you think Members of Congress
have positions of power, I want you to know that the artists
have profound positions of power. They are attractive to our
youth so their influence should be positive. The artists whose
music we are exposed to on a daily basis are driven by powerful
record labels and they too have a fiduciary responsibility to
their stockholders to produce what sells. That is basic
corporate law 101. Corporations are in the business of
producing a profit for their stockholders, and none of us want
to diminish that. But the record labels have a large
responsibility and they have a responsibility to our society
that they not sit idly by and allow these lyrics and the music
video images from invading impressionable minds.
Studies suggest that exposure to media violence increases
levels of aggression leading to increased crime in music and
movie and video games that promote gang activity and crime and
degradation of women have a direct impact on the way
impressionable individuals lead their lives. The entertainment
industry as a whole, the artists and the actors and the record
labels and video game designers and large media conglomerates
must work together. I have a daughter who is a hip hop
executive, and I have told her on numerous occasions we all
have a responsibility and an obligation to society, and so we
must all continue to work together to try to solve the problem
that we are facing today.
But the responsibility does not terminate with the
industry. Parents and children and consumers must be vigilant
about what they are buying for themselves and their families.
The only way to solve this problem of stereotypes and degrading
images in the media is to work together. That is the message
that I am delivering today. We must all work together and not
engage in a confrontation. I am going to yield back, Mr.
Chairman. I will submit my remaining statement for the record.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The gentlelady
from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, is recognized for 5 minutes for
an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the
hearing. We appreciate this, and want to welcome all of our
witnesses who are here from media, entertainment, academia. We
appreciate your time. I especially want to give a welcome to
Dr. Tracey Denine Sharpley-Whiting. She is from Vanderbilt
University and will be with us on one of our panels today.
Today's topic, as you are hearing, is extremely sensitive.
Many people have strong feelings regarding the lyrical and
visual content portrayed in popular music, and these are not
altogether positive. As a mother for my children as they were
growing up, and I understand and share many of the concerns
that you are hearing expressed here today.
However, there are equally passionate voices on the other
side of the issue that cherish the purity of the creative
process and view today's proceedings as an assault on a
artist's first amendment rights. So I anticipate that we are
going to hear from both sides of this before the day is done,
and my hope is that we are going to have a better understanding
and probably a bit more nuance perspective as we look at the
issue going forward. After all, I cannot and will not begin to
read back many of the lyrics written by the two gentlemen that
are going to be on the second panel. They are obscene
regardless of when they were written and to what audience they
were directed. And in my opinion they do not deserve the
dignity of this committee's time.
It raises a good question though for these individuals.
Where and how did society fail you to the point that you would
choose to write such filth? I find it very sad. I find it very,
very sad that there would be such a societal failing that you
would choose to write such filth. Yet, no matter what I think
of the lyrical quality, I cannot and will not begin to consider
legislative remedies that put on the slippery slope of
silencing our Nation's creators. But that does not absolve
policymakers, community leaders, and families from taking an
active role in combating the pervasive influence that perverse
misogynist and racially insensitive pop culture content plays
in our society today. We must do our part in explaining to our
children that what they see on TV and hear on the radio may not
always reflect reality.
And the job doesn't stop there. Our friends and partners in
the corporate entertainment industry must remain actively
involved in the fight to promote artists and entertainer who
carry a positive image. One of the things we have to remember
is that as corporate executives--and you work with the
understanding that choices have consequences. You also
understand that your standards reflect the core values for your
company. We will be interested in talking about those core
values. I do not pretend to fully understand the pressures that
the recording industry faces today from epidemic piracy to the
transition to the digital platform but I do understand that
corporate leaders in the music business are our partners in
helping to build a better community. They are rising to the
challenge.
We will be interested to know what you are doing for
charities and with charities and with education on how to
properly use entertainment products. I also understand that
much of the world forms their perception of America by what
they see on the screen and stage and what they hear across the
air waves. In this regard, you do hold the world in your hands.
My hope is that you are going to handle it very carefully, and
remember that with our great Nation perception is many times
reality in the eyes of those beholders. Mr. Chairman, I thank
you for your diligent work. I look forward to visiting with our
witnesses as we proceed through the day. I welcome them all,
and I yield the balance of my time.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The gentleman
from Georgia, Mr. Barrow, is recognized for the purposes for an
opening statement for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barrow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
and Ranking Member Stearns for calling this hearing. I want to
thank you for taking this subject on. There are some problems
where the only thing worse than talking about the problem is
not talking about the problem, so I commend you for your
willingness to take this subject on. I can't think of anything
I could add to your statement, Mr. Chairman, to set the stage
for this, so in the interest of time, I am going to yield the
balance of my time. I want to thank you once again for calling
this hearing.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
from California, Mr. Radanovich, is recognized for 5 minutes
for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
efforts and Ranking Member Stearns, and appreciate the fact
that you are holding this hearing today. As the parent of a 9-
year-old daily interaction with my son, with people he meets,
and things he sees and hears are constant influences on his
development. Children are particularly impressionable and often
do not understand the difference between fact and fiction, the
real and surreal. Naturally I want to make sure that my son is
not exposed to that which he is either not mature enough to
understand or content that is just simply inappropriate for his
age.
To be honest, some of the content available today whether
in music, video games, TV or movies can be downright
disgusting, and in my view is inappropriate for any age group.
Certainly I don't enjoy it, and I also understand that there
are things that I enjoy that other people do not. However,
whether I like the content or not, we live in a country where
the very foundation of our society rests on the freedom to
express ourselves and that is something I hope we all keep in
mind during today's discussion.
Fortunately, we also live in a time when there is an
abundance of tools, technology, and messaging designed to keep
the public informed of content and enable parents to control
what their children are exposed to. TV shows now have a rating
system that is prominently displayed during the show. Also,
technology such as V chip are available through cable and
satellite companies that allow parents to block certain shows
that they may not want their children watching based on the
show's rating. At the end of the day, no matter how many tools
are available to control content the responsibility ultimately
lies with the individual or the parent.
I recognize that there is room for almost every interest in
the market place, and diversity makes it easy to filter who is
exposed to what. One of my favorite public service
announcements was created by the Ad Council in conjunction with
industry leaders and broadcasting cable satellite as well as
other consumer electronics community. The commercial starts
with a model who walks into her living room with a Soprano-like
character sitting in front of her, and mom says, ``Remember
last week when you hit Vinnie on the head with a shovel? Well,
it was pretty graphic, too graphic for my kids, so I am going
to have to block you.'' The TVboss.org ad is a perfect example
of how the system should work with the tools that are provided
to parents.
All the industries represented here today, and some that
aren't, have made great strides and have gone to great lengths
to address the concern of inappropriate content. My son loves
to play video games. The gaming industry through rating systems
and the ability to block certain games from being able to be
played on my son's device has made my job as a parent more
doable. I know that with a few clicks of a button I can insure
only games with an ``E'' for everyone can be played on his
machine. Whether it is the ability to block programs, producing
edited versions of CDs or the diversity of having channels that
you know all content will be acceptable for certain viewers, I
commend the industry's foresight and innovation. The only thing
I would ask is that as the market evolves, that technologies
improve, keep giving parents more tools to make their job
easier because I think we can all agree that raising a child in
today's world is not an easy task.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the ranking member for
holding what I think will prove to be a productive discussion
between industry leaders, artists, lawmakers, and parents on
how we can all work to continue to produce and improve the best
controls possible that make my life as a parent more
manageable. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman. I want to just
make a point. There is a fine line between the jurisdiction of
this subcommittee and the jurisdiction of the subcommittee that
Mr. Markey chairs, the Telecommunications Subcommittee. I want
to remind Members that this subcommittee's jurisdiction rests
with the content and the interstate commerce which includes
products, CDs, video games, et cetera. The public airwaves are
under the jurisdiction of Mr. Markey's subcommittee, the
Telecommunications Subcommittee. Please be mindful of that. Ed
is my friend and we don't want to battle over jurisdiction. The
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY D. WEINER, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Weiner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I too want to
thank you for holding the hearing and the tenor of your opening
remarks. There is almost no doubt that we are experiencing a
coarsening of discourse in our country, an increase in the
amount of violence and sex and degradation that is going on in
our public consciousness and our public debate, and in the
media that goes along with it. There is no doubt that for
whatever reason the music industry is not creating and
rewarding acts like Tribe Called Quest, and Grand Newby, and De
La Soul, and acts that once upon a time celebrated a different
type of conversation in the communities of our country.
There is no doubt that Dance Hall is also affected and
other parts of music, and there is no doubt that the traditions
of Studio One that created the Barrington Levys of the world
and the Bob Marleys of the world have given way to the Buju
Bantons of the world, the misogyny and homophobia that they
communicate. There is no doubt that when you look at the
artists that are being celebrated in the market place today,
extraordinarily successful artists like 50 Cent, you see the
promotion of records like Get Rich or Die Trying in some of the
communities most ravaged by handguns, giant posters with the
artist holding a handgun in his hand extended outward clearly
sending a message and communicating a message that is a violent
one.
But this is also the extension of a debate we have been
having in this country for generations and generations. The
names might be different but it is no different than the
conversation we had about sex on television and curse words on
television. I remember being shocked when I was a young kid and
Alan Alda on MASH said ``son of a b * * * *'' during a MASH
episode. You would probably not be able to get through a
Sopranos episode without hearing a curse word in every other
scene. It is no different than the conversations we have had
about all forms of communication and conversation. I don't know
who is going to solve the problem. I don't know to what degree
it represents a problem or the natural outgrowth of a vibrant
market place of ideas. I can tell you we aren't. I can tell you
Congress isn't. It is good that we are having this hearing to
continue the discussion because it is important that we
understand. Only when lines are egregiously broken and crossed
like they were in the case of Don Imus do we really engage in
this conversation. We go long periods of time before we are
shocked at the consciousness and start thinking about it again.
I can tell you that we, an institution of 435 members of
America's elite, most of us white, most of us well-to-do, most
of us not exactly the creators of art, we are not going to be
solving the problem. It is good for us to have the
conversation. Ultimately it is going to most likely begin with
the artists and their customers. I would have liked to see the
first panel be the artists. I would like to hear a little bit
about what are in the thoughts and minds of someone who creates
are that is so violent, that is so misogynistic, that is so
angry and coarse. I can tell you that most likely, and I take
some exception and disagreement with Mr. Butterfield, I think
this is ultimately going to be a business decision.
I think when Chamillionaire makes a decision on his second
record not to use the ``N'' word and not to use curse words to
some degree it is a business calculation. To some degree he is
saying what, the market place is pretty well occupied with
people cursing and yelling and saying nasty things.
Chamillionaire, who is clearly a very shrewd businessman, is
saying, you know what, I am going to try to occupy a different
place and see if there is a market place for people who want to
exhale a little bit, let their shoulders slump because there is
finally some music that doesn't say these things. He is clearly
making a political statement, and this is what artists have
done through generations.
I can tell you that it is going to be very easy for us to
say, well, maybe if Universal didn't promote something or
Warner didn't promote something or maybe if Viacom didn't put
it in a video on MTV, although I must admit I haven't seen a
video on MTV in forever, maybe then we will be able to solve
this problem. But, there was an article in today's the Daily
Swarm, which is a blog online that talks with the music
industry, about Amazon's new service it is going to sell, MP3s.
It had a remarkable statistic. It said they are going to have 2
million songs from 180,000 artists represented by 20,000 major
and independent labels. So if you think that Mr. Morris or Mr.
Bronfman or anyone can say, you know what, I think this is so
violent, that is it, you are done, I am taking you off of my
label, there are only 19,999 other places for those artists to
go.
And we all are familiar with the idea that now one of the
most important ways to promote your music is not to have a
label at all, just go to the clubs with your CD. You get an
influential enough DJ to play your music. Before you know it,
you don't need a label at all. So it is probably not going to
be Congress to solve this coarsening of society problem. It is
probably not going to be the suits that represent the labels. I
believe ultimately we need to have a conversation that includes
the artists and their customers about why these messages are
becoming so popular, why it is that it is so much the popular
message. When the artist Shinehead, during the explosion of the
crack epidemic, put out a record that was almost entirely
devoted to the idea that crack was killing their communities.
It sold. Maybe that will begin again. Maybe the Shineheads will
emerge again. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess, for the
purposes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Burgess. Mr. Chairman, I thank you also for holding
this hearing. I agree this is an extremely important discussion
that we need to have. The discussion needs to be in the board
rooms. It is appropriate to discuss it in Congress, and quite
honestly it is a discussion that needs to be had within the
family, but I thank you for bringing it to the forefront of
this committee. Now the topic of today's hearing, the business
of stereotypes and degrading images, affects communities
throughout the country. This past weekend back in my district
at Fort Worth, TX, I had the honor of hosting an economic
development summit in my district. It really didn't take long
for the conversation of this committee's hearing to come up.
A civic leader in Fort Worth, Mr. Eddie Griffin, who
frequently engages me in conversation on a variety of subjects,
he is, as he pointed out, a member of the Afrosphere Bloggers
Association, we talked about this at some length and about the
impacts that the art is having on his community. He sent me an
e-mail yesterday knowing that this hearing was going to be
happening, and I found his statement to be really very simple
and very profound. He said, ``We will use our collective powers
to negatively impact the profitability of those companies who
cross the line.'' Mr. Chairman, the Constitution wisely limits
what we in Congress can do legislatively regarding what we may
consider objectionable material in art or media, but consumers,
and as a nation of consumers, we hold tremendous power and we
can stop buying the degrading music and video games.
We all know that if there weren't a profit, if people
weren't buying into the line of products then they would no
longer be on the shelves in our local stores for purchase. As
Mr. Griffin said, we, everyone in this room and everyone
watching this hearing on television can collectively use our
power of our individual purse to no longer make this a
profitable business for anyone including the companies
represented in this room. Some of the artists who are here with
us today who pen the lyrics are the retailers who sell the
depravities that come into our homes disguised as a simple CD
or video game. It is really the most powerful recourse that we
have.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Griffin also said in his e-mail that
there is only so much that we as African Americans or other
Americans can take. I personally don't think that we as
Americans should take this type of performance art any longer.
It is up to us as citizens to put an end to it. Mr. Chairman,
it is my hope this hearing will help us do just that. I thank
you for your leadership on this essential issue, and I will
yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman for the brevity of
his opening statement, and now recognizes the gentleman from
New York, Mr. Towns, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank
you and Ranking Member Stearns for bringing us together and
indicating that we must work together to find the proper
balance, and I am a strong supporter of the first amendment. I
am glad that these fine witnesses are willing to engage us in a
discussion of the negative effects of degrading images and
stereotypes in our culture. We all should have taken some
responsibility to help combat the negative effects as we
respect important freedoms. I believe this hearing will serve
as an important function in that regard. I am especially
pleased to see the video game industry represented here today
as it continues to provide consumers with innovative technology
and products. Over the course of my years on this subcommittee,
I have come to know the video game industry well. I know
publishers like you, Mr. Zelnick, have contributed a great deal
to the industry's overall success in building parents trust and
the industry's voluntary rating.
In fact, this very subcommittee, as the gentleman from
Florida indicated earlier, commissioned a report by the Federal
Trade Commission on the practices of the industry. In that
report released in April of this year the agency applauded a
number of measures taken by the industry to increase parental
awareness, retail enforcement and advertising best practices,
and I salute you for that. The agency found that nearly nine in
10 parents are aware of the rating system that cut the number
of minors who could purchase M-rated games nearly in half.
These findings support my view that the industry is taking
responsibility for the product it makes and gives parents the
supportive tools they need to make informed decisions about
what games come into their homes. Regarding the media industry
as a whole, there has been an explosion of options available to
consumers. We have gone from three networks at PBS to hundreds
of channels of diverse content. The main complaint these days
is that there is too much to choose from rather than not
enough. However, among all of the available content options
there are definitely things that I don't care for. I am pleased
that the industry has created a rating system that offers
parents more information so that they can block degrading
images from their kids. There should be a far greater effort to
teach parents how to use these controls on their televisions.
There is surely something for everyone among the hundreds
of channels and iPods and satellite radio programs and DVDs so
watch what you like, and don't watch what you don't like. That
is a pretty simple theory. As far as lyrics and adult content
are concerned, it is a cultural conversation, and we need to be
careful not to look like we are advocating censorship of
artists whose creative expression reflects their lives and
experiences. Those things are what shapes our young people's
lives that experiences have forced them to think.
I am pleased that we have two successful artists here today
to tell their stories. Let us make certain that we respect
those important freedoms. This is a complicated subject matter,
and the most important thing we can do is convene these forums
and engage in a serious, civil conversation that heightens
everyone's sensitivities to the problem, not the problem of rap
music but the problems facing our community each and every day.
This is not about legislating or pointing fingers at anyone. It
is about a serious thought for dialog, and I thank you all for
furthering the national debate in this forum, and it is really
about working together to see in terms of what we might be able
to do because you admit, and I admit, that there is a problem.
On that note, Mr. Chairman, I almost yield back but I am out of
time so I can't yield anything back.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, is recognized for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit my entire
statement for the record but I would like to make a few points.
First of all, thank you for holding this important hearing, and
thank you for your leadership on this issue. It is very much
appreciated. A number of the images and actions, profanity, and
overall messages promoted by the music and entertainment
industries today are deeply disturbing. Violence, devaluation
of life, the degradation of women permeate much of the visual
and vocal products circulating in our market place. What people
see and hear absolutely does affect them, and that is why
marketers spend billions of dollars every year on media
advertising. They know that people, particularly kids,
internalize what they see and hear, especially when they see
and hear it over and over.
Companies are in business to make a profit. That is clear,
but is it only when there is a public outcry, for example, over
lead tainted toys, that companies make changes? Or look at
cigarette production. It took a long time for cigarette
companies to admit that nicotine was addictive despite a
plethora of cited evidence because they did not want to admit
the health risk associate with their lucrative products. In
terms of degradation in music videos and other forms of
entertainment sadly profanity and violence do seem to sell
well. Tragically when a product promotes violence it does
impact individuals' lives and community lives, even our
Nation's life. Take Columbine, for example. We know that the
young men who took other students' lives listened to very
violent music.
One of the songs they listened to repeats six times in one
song, ``If I had a shotgun, I would blow myself straight to
hell.'' If a child listens over and over and over to lyrics of
a song the message begins to sink in and becomes part of the
perspective through which he or she views life. In addition to
violence in general, a deeply disturbing message promoted by
certain songs and videos treats women as objects, not people.
These images foster an environment that can be permissive in
terms of attitudes of domestic violence against women. Domestic
violence statistics in our Nation are horrible, and incidents
of violence across all sectors and economic levels of society.
According to the University of Minnesota's human rights
library, ``Domestic violence also contributes to other forms of
violence against women. Women who experience violence at home
may be more willing to look for and accept an uncertain and
potentially risky job abroad placing them in danger of being
trafficked.'' In 2004 there was a briefing in Capitol Hill
focusing on domestic trafficking and sexual exploitation. The
main panelists were not adult experts, but were five young
women from various backgrounds who had lived through years of
abuse both at home and on the streets from pimps, police
officers, foster care, and others.
Even after receiving assistance, the girls were afraid to
testify against the pimps who had caused such great harm in
their lives because the men would only get 6 months in prison.
The girls all knew of others who had testified but who had been
beaten up afterwards or even killed. Basically, pimps are sex
traffickers. Unfortunately, the music messages we are
discussing today promote domestic violence and trafficking in
humans. Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe that the
responsibility for messages promoted in a particular music
album, music video, video game or the like lies at all stages
of development and production. Artists, managers, producers,
sales representatives, upper level management, and CEOs all
bear culpability for the messages that are promoted and affect
our youth.
There are those performers who are taking a stand to help
stop promoting negative messages to our youth. I applaud them.
I also commend our distinguished witness, Mr. Percy Miller, on
his efforts to produce albums with positive message. We need
more individuals like these. I look forward to hearing from our
distinguished witnesses, and I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Markey. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I commend you
for this most welcome inquiry and discussion. Whether it is rap
or hip hop or any other musical genre, it is vital that artists
can freely express their talent and convey their messages. This
is true of any art form, the spectrum of what it is to be
human, what the experience may be for a particular person at
this time in history, and whatever circumstances they find
themselves discovers following an expression in art. This
should be celebrated and revered even if such art or messages
occasionally make people uncomfortable.
What our popular mass media does, however, is to take
certain artists' works and essentially put them on steroids.
Quite often the art that is marketed and sold reflect the
personal experiences of artists, their neighborhoods, and their
understanding of the world in which they have grown up. On the
other hand, some of the art that is chosen by large commercial
companies for marketing back into such neighborhoods has the
power to reinforce messages and bestow acceptability upon
themes, actions, and words that no parent and no community
leader would ever deem to endorse. Such products can be mean
and degrading, and repeated over and over again represent an
incessant undermining of human dignity.
It was brought into focus most recently for me by comments
made by former NBA star Isaiah Thomas. In a taped video Isaiah
Thomas said that if a white male referred to a white female by
a vulgar term it would be highly offensive. If a while male
referred to a black female by the same term it would also be
highly offensive. But if a black male referred to a black
female by the same vulgar term, Isaiah Thomas said it wasn't so
bad. That is repugnant because he is such a role model for so
many young people in our country. What a hideous double
standard he is promoting.
This hearing is tapping into something that is long
overdue. Like Isaiah Thomas' comments the subjects for this
hearing indicate a moral failing. What responsibility do media
companies exercise when they select artists and songs and
videos to promote and to mass distribute. I remember when BET
was launched. It was supposed to be the black sophisticated
educational and entertainment channel full of high-minded fare
invoking the best of the Harlem renaissance and the great
diversity of the community. Instead it became the lowest common
denominator of cheap and tawdry music videos and other
questionable programming.
I was encouraged to see today's article about some of the
new programming BET will be putting out. That is wonderful.
But, frankly, it has a long way to go to make up for such a
long history of previous programming. And I understand that the
music industry is prepared to make its rating system more
useful to parents by implementing a mechanism whereby parents
can block inappropriate songs. This is something that warrants
much further exploration and implementation. In short, I hope
that today's hearings result in a dramatic reassessment by
media companies as to their overall responsibility and as to
the criteria they use to select what they choose to promote and
to air. I want to again commend Chairman Rush for calling this
hearing, and I thank our witnesses for joining us here today.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady from California is recognized for
5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARY BONO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Bono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
holding this hearing today on this very important topic. As you
know, I have a connection to, and an affinity for, the
entertainment industry, but as a mother and as a Member of
Congress, I also have concerns about some of the entertainment
products that are delivered to our families in the form of
games, television shows, movies, and music. As a result, I
believe the industry has a responsibility to provide parents
with easily identifiable information and access to the best
technology available so they as parents can decide what is seen
in their households.
In many respects, the industry is addressing its
responsibility through available technologies and parental
notifications. It seems to me though that the true challenge is
continuously connecting parents to this information. For that
reason, I am pleased that you have convened this hearing. It is
important that the subcommittee be a part of the national
conversation about whether artistic expression can go too far
and what too far is or said another way whether there are
additional actions that entertainers and industry should
consider in order to insure that they can continue to innovate,
freely express themselves, and provide ample notice to
consumers, particularly parents about the products being sold.
Of course, this debate has been going on for as long as
there has been music or even teenagers for that matter. I
remember a while back after a controversial appearance by Two
Live Crew a conservative Republican senator from Florida made
news and turned heads when he said, ``Under our form of freedom
of speech words are protected. Once we begin selectively
defining which words are acceptable, we enter a slippery slope
where freedom is compromised.'' And that senator had it exactly
right. Last night when I was reviewing the panel's testimony, I
was pleased to see that some of you made similar points. I was
also pleased to notice that you all seem to take this issue
seriously and that you take your responsibilities just as
seriously.
Our founders understood that we are healthier as a nation
if we don't silence words that offend or provoke but instead
use them to encourage the very dialogs and discussions like we
are having today. I share this belief and am glad you are all
engaged in a dialog with us, with your colleagues throughout
the entertainment industry, and most importantly with parents.
I would like to thank our panelists for being here today. Mr.
Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. I am just going
to take prerogative right now. There are two people in the
audience that I really have to recognize. One is my friend, Mr.
Dick Gregory. He is in the audience. I want to thank you, Dick,
for being a part of this hearing. And another struggling
entrepreneur from this city, Mr. Anton Mohammed. Mr. Mohammed,
thank you for your participation in this hearing. Now the Chair
recognizes the witnesses. Again, I want to thank you for the
generous use of your time. You have been very, very patient
with us, and we certainly thank you.
And the Chair now recognizes Mr. Philippe Dauman. He is the
president and CEO of Viacom, Incorporated. As we all know,
Viacom is one of the largest media companies in the world and
owns MTV network and Black Entertainment network, both of which
feature music videos along with original programming. Mr.
Dauman, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening
statement. Thank you for your presence.
STATEMENT OF PHILIPPE P. DAUMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, VIACOM
INTERNATIONAL INC., NEW YORK, NY
Mr. Dauman. Thank you, Chairman Rush, and Ranking Member
Stearns. My name, as you said, is Philippe Dauman. I am
president and CEO of Viacom, home to some of the world's most
iconic television entertainment brands including MTV, Comedy
Central, Nickelodeon, Spike, Logo, and BET, as well as
Paramount Pictures, which produces and distributes motion
pictures across the globe. The success and popularity of these
and our other entertainment brands is rooted in the innovative
spirit of our organizations. Viacom has two of the most
experienced, well-respected leaders in the business running our
TV programming divisions, Judy McGrath, chairman and CEO of MTV
Networks, and a 20-year veteran of the company, and Debra Lee,
who has spent the past two decades at BET Networks, and today
serves as chairman and CEO, each a trail blazer in her own
right. Judy and Debra oversee diverse executive teams that are
the stewards shaping the content of our channels.
We understand that with influence comes responsibility and
we take our responsibilities seriously. We have a
responsibility to entertain. If we fail to fulfill this most
basic responsibility we don't have a business. We have a
responsibility to speak authentically to our viewers. Our
entertainment has to engage the audience. Believe me, this is
no simple task. Boomers, generation X, progressives,
conservatives, parents, children, and every race and ethnic
background, we cover a lot of ground. The fact is that none of
these distinct audiences is monolithic. That is why we spend a
lot of time, effort, and money researching what our audiences
want. A one size fits all approach cannot succeed. That
explains why ``Juvies'' a real-life portrayal of the juvenile
criminal justice system, aired on MTV along side ``The Hills''
a show about affluent young adults living the good life in LA.
While on BET, you will see Sunday Best, a search for the
next great gospel singer, as well as Baldwin Hills, a reality
series focused on the lives of upper middle class African
American high school students. Rather than stifling creativity
in pursuit of consensus, we seek balance, a balance of content
that entertains and reflects the full spectrum of our diverse
audiences' interests but every show is not for every audience.
This is why we have standards and practices that govern all of
our programming and guide our ratings. Every show and every
music video are reviewed by a diverse group of employees before
they are seen on a lot of our networks.
We play no role in producing or creating videos. That is
within the exclusive purview of the artists and record labels.
We do, however, take a very proactive role, which is why some
videos are edited and some are rejected. Once programming meets
our standards it is given a rating. Videos are rated in blocks.
Parents and viewers can then rely upon these ratings to make
informed decisions and use existing technology to block
programming they don't want or simply turn off the TV.
That brings me to an equally important responsibility, the
responsibility to engage, educate, and empower our viewers. We
continually strive to make a positive difference in our lives
and in our world. This commitment is part of our DNA, and I am
proud to say we do it very well. Some of our most successful
efforts include Viacom's worldwide KNOW HIV/AIDS initiative,
VH1's Save the Music Foundation, BET's HIV/AIDS Rap It Up
campaign, mtvU's fight to raise awareness about the genocide in
Darfur, and an exciting new venture Think.MTV, an online site
designed to encourage and enable young people to get involved
in public service, which launched just last week with the
generous support of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Finally, we have a responsibility to listen to both fans
and critics, and engage in a constructive dialog that will help
us fulfill all of these missions. That is why I am here today.
And we don't just listen to our audiences and our critics, we
provide a platform for their voices to be heard. That is why
tonight BET will premiere the first of a three-part news
special, Hip Hop vs. America, a wide-ranging, insightful
discussion of the impact of hip hop on our culture. For nearly
three decades, Viacom has created compelling, entertaining and,
yes, sometimes controversial programming. But as you will see
in this clip from Hip Hop vs. America, we intend to continue to
engage our audiences in a productive dialog and create
programming that reflects our dynamic popular culture.
[Video clip shown.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dauman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. Our next witness is Mr. Edgar Bronfman, Jr.,
president and CEO of Warner Music Group. Warner Music Group
recently separated from Time Warner, Inc., and owns the hip hop
label Asylum Records under the independent label group. Mr.
Bronfman, thank you for coming. You have 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF EDGAR BRONFMAN, JR., CHAIRMAN AND CEO, WARNER
MUSIC GROUP, NEW YORK, NY
Mr. Bronfman. Thank you, Chairman Rush, and Ranking Member
Stearns, and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the men
and women of Warner Music Group, I want to thank you for
inviting me to testify here today. We at Warner recognize that
we have a responsibility for the content we distribute and
present to the public. Mr. Chairman, we welcome your convening
this hearing and we hope it will allow us to engage in a
thoughtful approach, a dialog among artists, media companies,
community leaders and public officials, that is best able to
examine an issue of importance and civic interest.
How we grapple with issues of humanity, including race and
gender, ultimately comes to define what we, as a nation, stand
for and who we, as a people, are. The history of our country
is, in one sense, the unfolding story of how we have dealt with
these issues. Often, artists who deal with the topics of race
and gender in their works are seen as not only casting a
spotlight on those issues but sometimes as being part of the
problem themselves. Creative works in any medium, not just
music, can be controversial. In fact, they are often
intentionally controversial in order to shed light on a social
problem and to try to bring about much needed change. Protest
art, whether music, literature, or the visual media has played
a long and distinguished role in the history of our country.
But we also recognize that some creative expression is
capable of being more than controversial. Some creative
expression can be offensive. At the same time, we recognize
that sensibilities are individual by their very nature and what
may be offensive or inappropriate to some is important and
necessary to others. As a result, when evaluating the content
we release the balance we have to strike requires us on the one
hand to protect and defend an artist's freedom of expression.
That is an activity we see as supporting not only our own
business but also our Nation's principles. At the same time, we
know that we must consider and very carefully consider the
impact on our society of the content that we are offering to
the public.
Striking the appropriate balance among these often
conflicting values, interests, and concerns is a complex and
ongoing challenge, and it is also a moving target. In the 1950s
many people were deeply offended by Elvis Presley, and a decade
later many more were scandalized by the Beatles and the Rolling
Stones. At various points in time, even entire musical genres
such as Rock and Roll, Rhythm and Blues and Jazz were branded
as the work of the devil. Thankfully, as years have gone by,
those perceptions have been altered.
Public tastes and distastes wax and wane, which is why it
is impossible to apply a uniform standard to any form of
creative expression. However, to try and maintain our
obligation as a responsible corporate citizen while dealing
with these very complex challenges, we have developed and
continue to evolve a set of practices to guide us. I would like
to give you a brief overview of our practices regarding
content. They begin with the creative process itself. The
executives at our record labels maintain an ongoing
relationship with our artists and their music. Our aim is not
to create art or to censor it, but rather to assure that our
artists are aware of the potential impact of what they have
created.
We are very careful to consider any potentially offensive
content, including matters of race, national or ethnic origin,
religion, age, gender, sexual orientation or physical or mental
disability. We also evaluate the societal context, cultural
value and artistic merit of the creative work, as well as the
reputation, background, personal history, and intent of the
artist, as well as how the work relates to, and compares with
other works. We label our content as explicit using RIAA
guidelines to alert the public, especially parents and
guardians of young people to the presence of explicit content.
Additionally, we offer edited versions of label product to
our retail, broadcast and digital partners, so as to broaden
the choices available to consumers. But reviewing our content
is not a simple job for many reasons, not the least of which is
that there are no absolutes. Every day we grapple with finding
the right balance. Different people draw the line between
acceptable and unacceptable in different places. What is
acceptable when it comes to creative expression is often
determined by our age or class, our education or religion, our
cultural surroundings, perspective or profession to name but a
few of the influences on our individual attitudes, and the line
keeps shifting.
As I mentioned earlier, it is abundantly clear that what is
deeply offensive to some people at a given moment in history
can become with the passage of time not only acceptable but in
some cases revered. So the message I with to convey to you
today is this, we recognize our responsibility with respect to
our content. It is one we do not take lightly. Meeting that
responsibility requires a delicate balance of many complex and
difficult issues, one that only be achieved through a
constructive dialog among artists, the industry and the
communities we live in and serve. And we are committed to being
a strong and thoughtful partner in that dialog. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bronfman follows:]
Statement of Edgar Bronfman, Jr.
Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Stearns and members of the
subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of Warner Music
Group, I want to thank you for inviting me to testify here
today.
We at Warner Music Group recognize that we have a
responsibility for the content we distribute and present to the
public.
Mr. Chairman, we welcome your convening this hearing and we
hope it will allow us to engage in a thoughtful approach--a
dialogue among artists, media companies, community leaders and
public officials--that is best able to examine an issue of
importance and civic interest.
How we grapple with issues of humanity, including race and
gender, ultimately comes to define what we, as a nation, stand
for and who, as a people, we are.
The history of our country is, in one sense, the unfolding
story of how we've dealt with these issues.
Often, artists who deal with the topics of race and gender
in their works are seen not only as casting a spotlight on
those issues but sometimes as being part of the problem
themselves.
Creative works in any medium--not just music--can be
controversial. In fact, they are often intentionally
controversial in order to shed light on a social problem and to
try to bring about much-needed change. Protest art--whether
music, literature or the visual media--has played a long and
distinguished role in the history of the United States, dating
back to our Revolution.
But we also recognize that some creative expression is
capable of being more than controversial. Some creative
expression can be offensive. At the same time, we recognize
that sensibilities are individual by their very nature and what
may be offensive or inappropriate to some is important and
necessary to others.
As a result, when evaluating the content we release, the
balance we have to strike requires us, on the one hand, to
protect and defend an artist's freedom of expression. That's an
activity we see as supporting not only our business, but also
our nation's principles. At the same time, we know that we must
consider--very carefully consider--the impact on our society of
the content that we are offering to the public.
Striking the appropriate balance among these often-
conflicting values, interests and concerns is a complex and
ongoing challenge. And it is also a moving target. In the
fifties, many people were deeply offended by Elvis Presley and
a decade later many more were scandalized by The Beatles and
The Rolling Stones. At various points in time, even entire
musical genres such as Rock and Roll, Rhythm & Blues and Jazz
were branded as the work of the devil. Thankfully, as years
have gone by, those perceptions have been altered.
Public tastes and distastes wax and wane, which is why it
is impossible to apply a uniform standard to any form of
creative expression. However, to try and maintain our
obligation as a responsible corporate citizen while dealing
with these very complex challenges, we've developed and
continue to evolve a set of practices to guide us.
I'd like to give you a brief overview of our practices
regarding our content.
They begin with the creative process itself. The executives
at our record labels maintain an ongoing relationship with our
artists and their music. Our aim is not to create art or to
censor it, but rather to ensure that our artists are aware of
the potential impact of what they've created.
We very carefully consider any potentially offensive
content, including matters of race, national or ethnic origin,
religion, age, gender, sexual orientation or physical or mental
disability.
We also evaluate the societal context, cultural value and
artistic merit of the creative work, as well as the reputation,
background, personal history and intent of the artist, as well
as how the work relates to, and compares with, other works.
We label our content as ``explicit'' using RIAA guidelines
to alert the public--especially, parents and guardians of
children and young people--to the presence of explicit content.
Additionally, we offer edited versions of labeled product
to our retail, broadcast and digital partners, so as to broaden
the choices available to consumers.
But reviewing our content is not a simple job. For many
reasons. Not the least of which is that there are no absolutes.
Every day we grapple with finding the right balance.
Different people draw the line between ``acceptable'' and
``unacceptable'' in different places. What's ``acceptable''
when it comes to creative expression is often determined by our
age or class, our education or religion, our cultural
surroundings, perspective or profession to name but a few of
the influences on our individual attitudes. And the line keeps
shifting.
As I mentioned earlier, it is abundantly clear that what is
deeply offensive to some people at a given moment in history
can become, with the passage of time, not only acceptable but
revered.
So the message I wish to convey to you today is this: we
recognize our responsibility with respect to our content. It is
one we do not take lightly. Meeting that responsibility
requires a delicate balance of many complex and difficult
issues, one that can only be achieved through a constructive
dialogue among artists, the industry and the communities we
live in and serve.
We are committed to being a strong and thoughtful voice in
that dialogue.
----------
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman. Now we will
recognize the president and CEO of the Universal Music Group,
Mr. Doug Morris. The Universal Music Group owns Interscope
Records, one of the most prominent, ground breaking hip hop
recording labels in the world. And at the conclusion of Mr.
Morris' opening statement, we will have to recess because there
is a vote on the floor, and we will reconvene--there are four
votes on the floor, and we will reconvene immediately at the
conclusion of those four votes. I thank you for your patience
as we go over to vote upon the conclusion of Mr. Morris'
statement. Mr. Morris, you are recognized. Thank you and
welcome.
STATEMENT OF DOUG MORRIS, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, UNIVERSAL MUSIC
GROUP, NEW YORK, NY
Mr. Morris. Thank you, Chairman Rush. Thank you,
Congressman Stearns. Thank you, Congressmen and women who are
present here today. My name is Doug Morris, and I am chairman
and CEO of the Universal Music Group. Thank you for this
opportunity to be part of a national dialog on the impact of
music in our lives and on our society. I certainly am not a
stranger to the subject matter of this hearing. Lyrics and
contents of songs are something that I have discussed with
artists and media executives a great many times over too many
years. I remember talking about it with my own parents and then
with my kids as part of the inevitable tug between parents and
teenagers.
There are problems in our communities, and it would be
disingenuous to act as if music and the media have no influence
on our culture.
The question that my colleagues and I regularly wrestle
with is what we should do when an artist chooses to push the
envelope. How can we balance the artist's right to express
himself or herself with our responsibility to parents,
employees, and society at large? These are really important
issues, and we thank the chairman for providing such a
prominent forum to further this conversation.
First some context. My company's music catalogue covers
everything from Motown and Mozart to U2, Pavarotti, Reba
McEntire, and Common. We distribute titles that range from High
School Musical to Cornel West's recent CD about contemporary
society.
Rap is but a small part of Universal's total release
schedule each year. Universal's mission, my mission, is to
offer music fans around the world a selection of voices and
sounds from as diverse and dynamic a group of artists as
possible, knowing full well that not everyone will like or
appreciate every artist or every work by every artist. The
reason I like working with artists is because they look at the
world a little differently than you and I. Their unique
perspective pushes us to consider things we might not otherwise
even consider.
From its inception rap has always been one of the most
reflective genres in our culture. Perhaps it is the artist's
willingness to hold up for review and scrutiny the more
disturbing elements of the human condition. There has been a
great deal of discussion about three particularly incendiary
words sometimes used in rap, the B, H, and N words. I should
point out that the overwhelming majority of the music in the
Universal catalogue does not contain those words. Some rappers
do use highly charged words, and that of course has led to this
debate. From rappers themselves--like Chamillionaire in his new
song which is quite funny, it is called the Hip Hop Police--
discussions on Oprah and BET, to op-eds, the words used by some
are prompting a very important dialog that will tell us some
things about ourselves, our society now, and the future of our
society.
While I am the chairman of my company, the artists' words
are certainly not my words. I have not lived their lives. I did
not grow up in their homes or neighborhoods, and I certainly do
not wish to control their emotions or their opinions. Much of
the music is made by young people, many struggling to find
their way. Like many young people their age they are
rebellious, angry, filled with testosterone. Unfortunately,
many of us grew up to be our parents. Maybe not unfortunately,
but that is a fact. Their words reflect this. Often times the
words are the most incisive commentaries on the problems
plaguing our communities.
I don't take credit for the observations and expressions
made in the songs that we love, nor for songs that contain
lyrics that you and I may find offensive, but I do have a
compact with every artist that we sign that I will support
their art and I will support their right to express themselves.
Importantly, this commitment extends to the public as well.
Whether it is parents, fans or critics, if artists choose to
use explicitly highly charged words, we will sticker the song
with a parental advisory label. We are committed to insuring
that music buyers get a heads up when a song contains words or
themes that might not be suitable for all audiences.
The people at our record labels who reviewed the lyrics
come from different walks of life. Their decisions are not made
in a vacuum. Context is important. The cultural climate has an
impact. There are regular conversations with retail outlets,
radio programmers, and TV executives. And if the labels decide
to sticker a song, edited versions are typically made available
for retail as well as radio and television. If a work contains
a parental advisory sticker our record companies follow the
RIAA guidelines that limit when and how we market our music. In
other words, we do not market explicit lyrics anywhere near
young people.
We believe we mostly get it right through the sticker
process and by making available edited editions, sanitized
versions that address the feedback that we get from consumers
and our distribution partners. I opened my remarks today by
talking about the national discussion taking place about the
impact of music in our culture and our responsibilities to the
company. I think it is really a healthy one for all concerned.
As we debate this issue, I am mindful of an important
principle.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Morris, you have exceeded your time. Please
conclude your comments. We do have to go vote so we have got
just a couple more--as a matter of fact, the time is up for us
to go vote. We got to run over there before they bang the
gavel, so would you please bring your comments to a close,
please? Please bring your comments to a close.
Mr. Morris. Certainly. I will just finish. I have one last
paragraph. We pay a price for the first amendment. The price
includes allowing highly charged words and images in our music
even if they sometimes offend and cause pain. But consider the
alternative. We pay a price but it is insignificant compared to
the ability to speak our minds. I thank you today for inviting
us.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Morris follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. Thank you. The subommittee stands in recess until
the conclusion of the last vote. We have got four votes. We
will begin again immediately after the conclusion of the fourth
vote.
[Recess.]
Mr. Rush. This subcommittee is called to order again. Let
me first of all remind the witnesses that your full written
statement will be entered into the record. If you can summarize
your statements in a matter of 5 minutes, then that would be
good. We have not had a problem so far. I think that we have
been very good as it relates to not going over the 5 minutes,
and I really respect and acknowledge that.
I want to call now to testify before the subcommittee Mr.
Alfred C. Liggins III. He is the president and CEO of Radio
One. Radio One is a minority-owned radio station and it is the
seventh-largest radio broadcaster and largely targets African-
Americans with urban-based programming. Welcome, Mr. Liggins,
and please take 5 minutes for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF ALFRED C. LIGGINS III, PRESIDENT AND CEO, RADIO
ONE, INC., LANHAM, MD
Mr. Liggins. Thank you, Chairman Rush and Ranking Member
Stearns and members of the subcommittee for allowing me to
testify here today. For those of you who I have not met, let me
formally introduce myself. I am Alfred Liggins III, chief
executive officer of Radio One Incorporated. Radio One
Incorporated is currently the largest media company in the
United States that primarily targets African-Americans. Our
media platform includes radio, print, satellite, Internet and
our nationally distributed cable channel, TV One. Our Radio One
network currently consists of 60 radio stations and can be
found in 19 mostly large cities around the Nation. Three of our
stations serve the Detroit market with music and talk formats
including the first nationally syndicated black talk network.
Five of our stations in Dallas and Houston provide music
formats including our innovative contemporary inspirational
format, which can now be heard on 12 FM radio stations across
the country including Charlotte and Augusta.
However, those numbers do not really paint the full picture
of who Radio One is. Radio One takes its responsibility to
serve its communities very seriously. For this reason, the
content broadcast on Radio One stations is a product and
reflection of the audiences we serve. We at Radio One pride
ourselves on our close-knit relationships with our listening
audience, and we and view them as members of our extended
family. This causes us to be responsive to and engaged in the
many public affairs issues facing the local communities where
we broadcast.
Just within the last week, two of our popular radio DJs who
host shows with a hip hop format, one of whom can be heard in
Dallas and Augusta and one of whom can he heard in Detroit,
played an instrumental role in bringing national attention to
the issues faced by the six black teenagers known as the Jena
6. We are proud to say that the efforts of many of our local
radio stations to raise awareness of the Jena 6 case and
organize bus caravans helped lead thousands of citizens, I
think 50,000 citizens, to journey to Louisiana and played a
pivotal role in making the rally for justice in Jena such a
resounding success. Also last week in response to the senseless
violence that is currently plaguing Philadelphia and causing
the city to lead the Nation in homicides, our local station
there, Praise 103.9, organized a sold-out gospel concert
featuring Yolanda Adams and Les Brown at Sharon Baptist Church,
focusing on the theme, black life has value. We broadcast the
concert live and also had personalities from our hip hop
station in attendance to show their support for this important
message.
I mention these events because they represent Radio One's
commitment to our audience and are important to truly
understanding who we are as a company. I applaud the
subcommittee and Chairman Rush in particular for tackling this
important topic. Throughout the course of our Nation's history,
there have been many debates and differing opinions regarding
musical content, freedom of speech and what constitutes art.
Some have claimed the Bible is too violent, that Mark Twain is
too racist, and I am willing to bet 100 years from now we will
still be debating these important issues.
When it comes to hip hop music, some may choose to focus on
particular artists or music that they found objectionable and I
believe that that sort of debate is healthy and ultimately good
for our society. However, it should be noted that hip hop music
is not representative of the bulk of the content that we at
Radio One provide. Only a small minority, 14 out of 60 total
radio stations, have an urban contemporary format and they play
hip hop music which often reflects the realities that many of
these audiences face and observe in their daily lives.
Radio One is also not in charge of creating content or in
the business of censorship or determining what is in good or
bad taste. However, while other media platforms do not have
public interest obligations, as the members of this
subcommittee know and are well aware, we are regulated by the
Federal Communications Commission. Radio One has always taken
great care to comply with FCC guidelines and standards in
regards to content. In fact, it should be pointed out that of
all the music platforms available to listeners today, only
broadcast radio is required to take steps to protect our
listeners.
It is Radio One's policy that no song can be broadcast over
the radio until it is listened to and the content is reviewed.
Also, every Radio One station has a program director who is
directly responsible for the music that is broadcast on that
station. Each of our radio stations receive radio edit versions
of songs which if necessary are further edited consistent with
FCC regulations and local community standards. Our program
directors participate in a conference call every other week
moderated by our senior vice president of programming to
discuss the content of music playing on our radio stations.
Part of the success of Radio One is based on the fact that
we as a company respond to the variety and diversity of musical
tastes of our audiences. If Radio One did not play hip hop
music, we would not be serving our audience. Radio in many ways
is a reflection of its community and what its listeners want to
hear. We pride ourselves on being local broadcasters with the
emphasis on ``local.'' It is broadcasters that offer the
localism that communities need and deserve. While hip hop music
is many different things to many different people, it is
important to remember this revolutionary art form has created a
multitude of opportunities and economic benefits for those who
may not otherwise have had such an opportunity. For example,
Snoop Dogg's success has allowed him to create a football
league intended to attract inner city youth to football and not
gangs, and David Banner has successfully used his star power to
raise funds and increase visibility for the victims of
Hurricane Katrina, which we participated in. We at Radio One
are proud of our track record and are committed to serving the
needs of our diverse audience and being responsible
broadcasters.
Again, I thank you for allowing me to testify before the
subcommittee today and I look forward to answering any
questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Liggins follows:]
Testimony of Alfred C. Liggins III
Thank you Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Stearns, and
members of the subcommittee for allowing me to testify here
today.
For those of you I have not met, let me formally introduce
myself. I am Alfred Liggins, chief executive officer of Radio
One, Inc. Radio One is currently the largest media company in
the United States that primarily serves African-Americans. Our
media platform includes radio, print, satellite, Internet and
our nationally distributed cable channel, TV One.
Our Radio One network currently consists of 60 radio
stations and can be found in 19 cities around the nation. Taken
together we reach over 12 million listeners across the country.
Three of our stations serve the Detroit market with music and
talk formats, including the first nationally syndicated Black
Talk Network. Five of our stations in Dallas and Houston
provide music formats, including our innovative Contemporary
Inspirational format which can now be heard on 12 FM stations
across the country. The Contemporary Inspirational format can
also be heard in Charlotte, where we have two stations, and
Augusta, where we have five stations.
However, those numbers do not really paint the full picture
of who Radio One is. Radio One takes its responsibility to
serve its communities very seriously. For this reason, the
content broadcast on Radio One stations is a product and
reflection of the audiences we serve. We at Radio One pride
ourselves on our close knit relationships with our listening
audience and view them as members of our extended family. This
causes us to be responsive to and engaged in the many public
affairs issues facing the local communities where we broadcast.
How we serve our audiences can be summarized with two
recent examples. Just within the last week two of our popular
radio DJs who host shows with a hip hop format, one of whom can
be heard in Dallas and Augusta and one of whom can be heard in
Detroit, played an instrumental role in bringing national
attention to the issues faced by six black teenagers known as
the Jena 6. We are proud to say that the efforts of many of our
local radio stations to raise awareness of the Jena 6 case and
organize bus caravans helped lead thousands of citizens to
journey to Louisiana, including the two DJs referred to above,
and played a pivotal role in making the rally for justice in
Jena such a resounding success.
Also, last week, in response to the senseless violence that
is currently plaguing Philadelphia, and causing the city to
lead the Nation in homicides, our local station Praise 103.9
organized a sold out gospel concert featuring Yolanda Adams and
Les Brown at Sharon Baptist Church focusing on the theme of
Black Life Has Value. We broadcast the concert live on 103.9
and also had personalities from our hip hop station in
attendance to show their support for this important message.
I mention these events because they represent Radio One's
commitment to our audience and are important to truly
understanding who we are as a company. It is important to note
that music is only one element of how we serve and entertain
our listeners.
I applaud the Subcommittee, and Chairman Rush in
particular, for tackling this important topic. Throughout the
course of our Nation's history there have been many debates and
differing opinions regarding musical content, freedom of speech
and what constitutes art. Some have claimed the Bible is too
violent, that Mark Twain is too racist--and I am willing to bet
100 years from now we will still be debating these important
issues.
When it comes to hip hop, some may choose to focus on
particular artists or music that they find objectionable and I
believe that sort of debate is healthy and ultimately good for
our society. However, it should be noted that hip hop music is
not representative of the bulk of the content that we at Radio
One provide. For instance, the vast majority of our stations do
not play hip hop at all. Only a small minority, 14 out of 60
total stations, have an urban contemporary format and they play
hip hop music which often reflects the realities that many in
the audiences face and observe in their daily lives
Radio One is also not in charge of creating content, or in
the business of censorship or determining what is in good or
bad taste. However, while other media platforms do not have
public interest obligations, as the members of this
Subcommittee are well aware, we are regulated by the Federal
Communications Commission, or the FCC. Radio One has always
taken great care to comply with FCC guidelines and standards in
regards to content. In fact, it should be pointed out, that of
all the music platforms available to listeners today only
broadcast radio is required to take steps to protect our
listeners.
Furthermore, it is Radio One's policy that no song can be
broadcast over the radio until it is listened to and the
content reviewed. Every Radio One station has a program
director who is directly responsible for the music that is
broadcast on that station. Each of our radio stations receive
radio edit versions of songs, which, if necessary, are further
edited consistent with FCC regulations and local community
standards. Our program directors participate in a conference
call every other week moderated by our senior vice president of
programming to discuss the content of music playing on our
stations.
That being said, part of the success of Radio One is based
on the fact that we as a company respond to the variety and
diversity of musical tastes of our audiences. If Radio One did
not play hip hop music we would not be serving our audience.
Radio in many ways is a reflection of its community and what
its listeners want to hear. We pride ourselves on being local
broadcasters, with the emphasis on ``local.'' It is
broadcasters that offer the localism that communities need and
deserve. Furthermore, while hip hop music is many different
things to many different people, it is important to remember
this revolutionary art form has created a multitude of
opportunities and economic benefits for those who may not
otherwise have had such an opportunity. Snoop Dogg's success
has allowed him to create a football league intended to attract
inner city youth to football, not gangs. And David Banner has
successfully used his star power to raise funds and increase
visibility for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
We at Radio One are proud of our track record and are
committed to serving the needs of our diverse audience and
being responsible broadcasters. Again, thank you for allowing
me to testify before this subcommittee today and I look forward
to answering any questions you may have.
----------
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much.
Our next and final opening statement will come from Mr.
Strauss Zelnick, who is the chairman of the board of Take-Two
Interactive Software Incorporated. Take-Two owns Rockstar
Games, which makes the popular and controversial Grand Theft
Auto video game series, and I might add, other kinds of
products also.
Mr. Zelnick, welcome and please take 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF STRAUSS ZELNICK, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, TAKE TWO
INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, NEW YORK, NY
Mr. Zelnick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Stearns. I have submitted my testimony to the record so if I
may, I am going to speak somewhat less formally to the
committee.
Chairman Rush, in the beginning you talked about forming a
coalition of concern, compassion and commitment, and I think
from everyone's comments today, I think it suggested we see the
world very much as you do. In fact, there is not a lot of
diversity of comments here. I am the chairman, as you said, of
Take-Two Interactive, one of the world's largest independent
publishers of interactive entertainment. Before that, I was the
chief executive of a big record company, BMG. Before that I was
the president of a big movie studio, 20th Century Fox, and I
started my career in television at Columbia Pictures. As
Representive Stearns said, our job is to make hits. That is
what I have had to do my whole career, and we make hits by
paying attention to what our consumers want and delivering them
a product that most people like. So in my career, my companies
have not only put out products like Grand Theft Auto but my
companies have released movies like ``Home Alone'' and been
responsible for artists like Whitney Houston.
This is a committee that is partially focused on commerce.
This is a big business. While the music business has faced some
declines of late and the movie business has basically been
flat, interactive entertainment has been growing rapidly. Today
it is an $18.5 billion industry. It is bigger than the box
office in America and around the world and we employ about
250,000 people. My own company, which some people probably have
never even heard of, does over $1 billion a year in sales and
we employ over 2,000 people around the world.
I take this topic really seriously. Like many others here,
I have children; I have three kids. My oldest took the subway
to school this morning in Brooklyn. I am really concerned about
my kids' safety, their opportunities, violence that they see
around them and that might affect them, and a culture of
civility which seems pretty stressed right now. So I agree that
this shouldn't be a discussion about finger pointing. In fact,
the evidence and common sense suggests that entertainment
doesn't create values and certainly doesn't create behavior. As
the interactive entertainment business has grown in the last 17
years, in fact per capita violence in America, as stunning as
it still is, is actually down 50 percent in those 17 years.
What is also pretty remarkable is all the entertainment we
produce is worldwide. It is a worldwide phenomenon but many of
the issues that we are discussing today are uniquely American
problems. So why are we so special? Well, the first is, sadly,
there is ready access to guns in America. Thirty-five percent
of American households have firearms. Despite our enormous
wealth in this country, there is inadequate educational
opportunity. There is domestic abuse, there are drugs, there is
gang activity and the list goes on. I am also pleased that
today's discussion isn't about the first amendment. Everyone
here agrees that the first amendment must be protected. It
seems to me that everyone here is proud that we live in a
country that guarantees freedom of speech, even speech we don't
like.
So I think the discussion should be about what are we doing
as an industry to address social concerns and what are we doing
when we bring our entertainment products out. Well, what are we
doing in the interactive entertainment business? The first
thing is, the average age of our players is 33 and it is
rising. The average age of our purchasers is 39. Ninety-two
percent of the industry's releases are for family and teens.
Only 8 percent are for adults. The FTC, directed by this
committee, reviewed our industry's rating system and said it is
the most rigorous in the business. Eighty-seven percent of
parents are satisfied with our system and all of our hardware
has parental controls which are easy to use and encourage
parents to make choices for their kids, and retailers comply
with our system at least as effectively as cinema owners comply
with motion picture ratings.
So it seems to me the discussion should be about our
responsibility, and I take that very seriously. We have three
jobs to do at my companies. We have to make great entertainment
because frankly, if we are not making hit entertainment that
everyone wants to consume, we are not relevant and I wouldn't
be sitting here today. We also make art. The reason I am in
this business is not just entertainment and certainly not just
to make money. I believe what we do is art and that is our
standard at all of our companies. If we don't believe it is
art, we will not put it out. But art is in the eyes of the
beholder and some art that some people consider beautiful,
other people don't even consider pretty or even tasteful or
acceptable. And finally, we are in the business of business and
that is just a truth. We are in commerce and that is why we are
all sitting here and that is also why we are relevant.
I think there is an enormous line between entertainment and
exploitation. We try to stand on the line of entertainment.
Sometimes we make mistakes. It is our job to be vigilant about
those and to correct them. And then when we make a product, we
need to let parents and consumers know what it is before they
get it home so they are not surprised and they don't consume
something that they don't want to consume. Having done that,
having tried to meet those standards, having reviewed our
products, having played our games, when we put them in the box,
I stand behind them fully and I take complete responsibility
for what we put out.
I welcome our dialog today. Thank you for having me.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zelnick follows:]
Statement of Strauss Zelnick
Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Stearns, and members of this
subcommittee: I welcome the opportunity to testify today. I do
so as the father of three children, as a concerned citizen, and
as the recently-named chairman of an industry-leading company
that produces a broad spectrum of interactive entertainment.
Today, I hope to provide some perspective on a vital
question: does entertainment influence violent behavior in our
society--or does it instead reflect a social environment that
has become unacceptably violent? This question is complex--and
the answers are elusive.
We in the entertainment industry must also ask ourselves:
how should we balance our right to free expression with our
responsibility to avoid exposing children to inappropriate
words and images?
Before considering those questions, let me address two
common misperceptions about our industry.
First, interactive entertainment is not predominantly
consumed by young people. In fact, the average age of our
players is 33.
Second, there is no evidence--none--of a direct link
between interactive entertainment and violent behavior.
We certainly can agree that the level of violence in
America today is unacceptably high. In 1990, the U.S. homicide
rate was approximately 10 in 100,000. According to the Bureau
of Justice Statistics, the rate dropped to 5.6 per 100,000 in
2006--an improvement, to be sure, but far from ideal.
This period of declining violence coincides with the
emergence and dramatic growth of a new form of art and
entertainment: the video game--clearly demonstrating a lack of
correlation between the consumption of our products and the
trend in violent behavior.
Then what is at the root of the unacceptably high level of
violent behavior in America today? Before we address this
question, we must, at a minumum, acknowledge that entertainment
produced in the U.S. is equally popular and available
worldwide--yet the per capita rate of violent crime in our
country is vastly greater than in any other developed nation.
What distinguishes us from our neighbors?
Nearly 35 percent of U.S. households have firearms, and our
regulations regarding the licensing, registration and
authorization of guns are among the most permissive in the
world.
Other social forces must also be considered. A 1999 article
entitled ``The Epidemic of Violence in America,'' in the
journal postgraduate medicine, cited several risk factors, such
as: domestic abuse, weakening community values, an inadequate
educational system, and gang activity.
Entertainment was not exempted from this list. While the
article did not mention music or interactive software, its
author noted: ``The average american child sees more than
200,000 violent acts on television before age 15.''
It is perhaps understandable that many citizens, frustrated
by intractable problems such as the widespread availability of
guns, domestic abuse, failing schools, fractured communities
and gang activity, would be tempted to fixate on a target that
seems somewhat more manageable: entertainment.
However, restricting ideas on the printed page, on the
movie screen, on the evening news, in audio recordings, or in
interactive entertainment will not eradicate violence in our
society--any more than covering up a mirror will eliminate the
reality it reflects.
The fact is, all forms of entertainment may contain words
or images that could be considered violent, and to some extent
they always have. That is because artists have--and indeed must
have--the freedom to explore all aspects of society--the good,
the bad and the controversial.
Some further believe that exposure to depictions of
violence can play an important role in the development of an
individual's moral and social outlook. As Judge Richard Posner
of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit wrote in
2001, ``Violence has always been and remains a central interest
of humankind and a recurrent theme of culture as anyone
familiar with classic fairy tales is aware.''
I think the issues involving entertainment and violence
might be clearer if we review the story line of one of our
products--grand theft auto: san andreas. It is often the case--
sadly--that an artwork's most vocal critics are those who have
not seen it. Playing san andreas, one finds that this cinematic
interactive work is more complex than most novels or movies--
and that there are serious consequences for violent acts.
Just as the Sopranos on television, or Goodfellas in film,
depict violent behavior as part of a dramatic narrative
involving crime and redemption, so does Grand Theft Auto: San
Andreas.
And, unlike tv, movies, or books, grand theft auto includes
instant feedback that demonstrates the dire results of anti-
social acts: the player immediately increases his ``wanted
level,'' which can make the game not just hard, but actually
impossible to play. At the highest level, the national guard is
mobilized against the player and there is no escape from the
long arm of the law. There are also explicit rejections of drug
use and racism--and a strong moral center in the African
American hero.
That said, the entertainment industry must operate in a
responsible manner. We are in the business of making art and
entertainment, and engaging consumers. To achieve these goals,
we aim to attract uniquely talented individuals and encourage
them to express freely their passion and creativity.
We must weigh our creative impulses and commercial goals
with the ballast of social responsibility. While we do not
create--and cannot prevent--violence, our companies must work
to ensure that society's youngest, most vulnerable and most
impressionable members are not exposed to inappropriate subject
matter in our products.
I am proud of the measures that my company and our industry
have taken to ensure that our products are enjoyed responsibly
by appropriate audiences.
First, our industry produces a broad range of
products, so that consumers of all ages have access to
compelling, engaging and age-appropriate entertainment. I know
that adult-themed entertainment draws a disproportionate level
of media attention. However, titles rated ``M for Mature'' made
up only 15 percent of total sales last year, as compared to 85
percent for those with youth-oriented ratings.
My own company publishes a wide range of products,
including ``E'' rated titles such as carnival games, rockstar
games presents table tennis, dora the explorer and sports
titles--just as major movie studios offer family fare as well
as ``R'' rated films.
Second, the interactive entertainment industry
operates within a voluntary rating system that is rigorous and
independent. An April 2007 report by the Federal trade
commission found that a high proportion of parents use--and are
very satisfied with--that system. The report also found that
retailers enforced the ratings as effectively as the movie
industry. Our product packages also include content descriptors
to inform consumers--and especially parents--as to the specific
subject matter of the products.
Third, we market our products in a thoughtful and
responsible manner. We design our advertising, marketing plans
and media buys to reach audiences of the appropriate age group,
in accordance with the ESRB's rules.
Fourth, today's interactive entertainment hardware
offers robust control options that enable parents to limit a
child's access to mature content. The controls also work for R-
rated movies, which means that these consoles provide parents
with tools that are not typically available on commercial DVD,
cd or mp3 players.
Fifth, the ESRB produces educational
advertisements regarding the ratings system, and has entered
into partnerships with state attorneys general and the national
parent teacher association to educate and inform parents.
Individual companies also are doing their part: Take-Two runs
banner ads for the ESRB on our homepage.
In my view, entertainment companies make a decision with
every release, and that decision must be well-considered,
thoughtful and sound. At Take-Two, every product is reviewed by
members of top management--myself included. We will not release
a title that does not meet our standards: as art, as
entertainment, and as a socially responsible product. Once we
do release a product, I stand behind it fully and completely.
We aim to distinguish creative and compelling story telling
that advances artistic expression from subject matter that
gratuitously exploits or glorifies violence. And all of our
products need to be rated and marketed appropriately.
We all must continue to be thoughtful and responsible
citizens, parents and executives. My children walked to school
in our Nation's largest city this morning. They are listening
to me right now. So I share your fundamental concern about
violence in america. I share your concern that we do everything
we can to protect our youth. And along with those concerns, i
also have confidence in my conviction: that the interactive
entertainment industry will remain vigilant in its efforts to
balance art and entertainment with sound judgment, and our
cherished and unfettered freedom of expression with social
awareness, sensitivity and responsibility. Thank you very much.
----------
Mr. Rush. I want to thank all of our witnesses. The Chair
recognizes himself for 5 minutes of questioning.
I am going to begin my questioning and I am going to
address it to each and every one of you. A prominent hip hop
executive and artist, Mr. Russell Simmons, and others have
suggested that the recording industry and artists ban or
refrain from the use of hateful words or hateful speech, the
``N'' word, the ``B'' word, the ``W'' word, other words that
are hateful as they depict racial and religious and sexual
orientation. Do you believe that this is a viable, quote,
unquote, business model? Can your industries and your
corporations profit from such a ban or indeed such a pledge? I
will start with Mr. Dauman.
Mr. Dauman. Mr. Chairman, in our standards and practice
which we have had in place for some time, we do in fact ban
those words, and when we have music videos submitted to us as
we consider them for airing, if they contain those words we
will not air them. We will air them if they get edited and we
choose them for creative reasons but it is part of our
standards and practices applicable across our networks to ban
those words and others that are derogatory terms from a racial
point of view, gender, sexual orientation and many other
reasons.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Bronfman.
Mr. Bronfman. Well, distinct from Mr. Dauman's role as the
distributor of content, we at Warner Music are creators of
content, and we don't think that banning expression is an
appropriate approach. We do of course sticker any content that
would include the words that you described, the ``N'' word, the
``B'' word, the ``H'' word. No content goes out of Warner Music
with those words contained that doesn't explicitly warn parents
that there is explicit content, and we make edited versions for
distribution partners like Mr. Liggins and Mr. Dauman who
standards and practices would not carry those words or explicit
versions of the content that we create. But hateful language,
sir, is in the eye of the beholder. It also is important that
it is contextualized, and it is important that our artists have
the opportunity to express the frustration that they have with
the problems in their communities with which they live, and if
you ask me were I fortunate enough to be in a position many
years ago whether I would have distributed or stood behind the
material of Lenny Bruce, I would have said yes. I think he is a
legitimate artist who did use hateful words in a different
context to express his opinion and that is why I said, I think
this is a very contextual argument, but as I said, at the end
of the day as much as we understand people's concerns and
frustrations with the use of this language, it is very
difficult as a producer of content to censor or limit artists
and so what we choose to do is to sticker that product so that
parents and other guardians can make informed decisions about
the content that we create.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Morris?
Mr. Morris. I agree with Mr. Bronfman. I think they are
horrible, evil words. I would never ban any word. If I can
digress one little bit, Mr. Chairman, what I think bothers
everyone on this committee is the feeling that standards within
the companies have deteriorated, and that is what the benefit
of this meeting for me really is, that we will take these
discussions back to our company and we will ask them, do you
feel the standards are very different, that they are lower than
they were 10 years ago or 20 years ago, and if so, can we
improve them. I don't think you can improve anything to ban
three words from any kind of musical or theatrical production.
It just makes ``The B * * * * is Back'' by Elton John--you are
not going to ban that song so it is--but I do think we will
take this back with us and deal with it in the proper manner.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Liggins, I have about 5 seconds. Can you
just----
Mr. Liggins. I guess if somebody like Russell Simmons was
able to convince artists not to use those words, there would
still be a coalition or a faction of renegades that, through
technology, are increasingly able to even bypass the record
companies and get straight to the consumers through digital
technology. So I think even if you have an effort by everybody
up here and Radio and Viacom, you are still going to have a
leak in terms of exposure to the consumer.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Zelnick?
Mr. Zelnick. I suppose I have less than 5 seconds. Mr.
Chairman, I don't think a ban is a good plan. As Mr. Bronfman
said, it depends on the context. If we are portraying good guys
and bad guys, maybe the only way you can portray a bad guy is
to put terrible language in that person's mouth. But I am very
much opposed to glorifying those kinds of stereotypes and
images. And interestingly, this is a conversation we have at
our companies all the time. We had a conversation about one of
those words you mentioned quite specifically, utterly without
regard to this hearing, a couple of weeks ago. Degrading words
and images shouldn't be glorified, they shouldn't be put in the
mouths of characters that people are going to admire. But it is
possible that a work of art can't possibly be seen as realistic
if we eliminate every allusion to what is actually going on in
the streets. So it is a complicated discussion but no, I
wouldn't suggest we ban the words.
Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes the ranking member, Mr.
Stearns, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Morris, did I
hear you just say that you would not ban any word? I thought
you just said that. Mr. Morris?
Mr. Morris. I am trying to think if there is any word that
I would ban.
Mr. Stearns. What I understand you to say is you would not
ban any word, which means in this case Universal Music Group
under your leadership would not ban any word in any of the
publications. Is what you implied? That is what your statement
was.
Mr. Morris. Well, it depends on the context it would be
used in, Congressman.
Mr. Stearns. Well, I am going to hand out to you some
lyrics. It took me 30 seconds to pull up some lyrics for 50
Cent, and you can read just the first two paragraphs of that.
It has, as the chairman mentioned, it has the ``F'' word, the
``S'' word, the ``N'' word. We are also giving you lyrics we
picked up in 15 seconds, Cameron lyrics, which talk about
explicit sex, and my question to you, in your mind, is this
free speech to use these words and to talk about explicit sex
in the song the way it is? You are welcome to read a few of
those lyrics.
Mr. Morris. Yes, in my mind, this is free speech and this
is what he wanted to say. It is not my place in this life to
tell him what to say.
Mr. Stearns. And you feel that when a person uses those
words which almost everybody in this room would be appalled----
Mr. Towns. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Stearns. No, I will not yield.
Mr. Towns. I wanted to get a copy of what you are talking
about.
Mr. Stearns. Oh, sure, I will be glad to give you a copy. I
think everybody in the room would be appalled to hear those
words in a public forum yet you are saying here today that you
would support and not ban any of that word in any of your
publications at Universal Music is what you are saying.
Mr. Morris. That is correct, Congressman. I believe he has
the right to say whatever he wants. That is my point of view.
By the way, in my testimony as I said before, all of this
is reviewed by different committees within the company.
Mr. Stearns. Yes. Mr. Bronfman, you said in your opening
statement that you don't believe in any absolutes. Is that
correct? You used those words, ``I don't believe in any
absolutes,'' and you go on to talk about this contextual
argument and everything has to be framed and you talked about
the Beatles and Elvis Presley, and I think Mr. Liggins talked
about Mark Twain, but in your opinion, there is really no
absolutes at all in your business that you can have the total
freedom for an artist to say or do anything they want with no
absolutes in terms of our culture?
Mr. Bronfman. Well, I think that it is difficult to draw an
absolute. We do review work. We are in constant dialog with our
artists, and as I said, this material that you are referring to
here specifically, Congressman, does get stickered. It is not
generally available.
Mr. Stearns. But can't you go on satellite radio and hear
this and it is not stickered, it is not deleted, and all these
words on satellite radio you can hear? Isn't that true?
Mr. Bronfman. Satellite radio is regulated by someone other
than----
Mr. Stearns. I understand, but Warner Music publishes this.
In fact, the Cameron lyrics is published by Warner Music in
which it talks all about explicit sex, and so you said that
this is OK, we will publish it, but if it comes to the radio,
we will dub it out, but when it gets on satellite radio it is
the full information, isn't it?
Mr. Bronfman. There may be explicit channels on satellite
radio. You can listen to their comedy channels, you can listen
to any number of things where language like this is found, Mr.
Chairman, and I think what is important also to remember is
that while the language that you might find offensive here and
in fact many people including myself might find offensive in
content that is produced by any number of entertainment
companies, that is not true for everyone, and the relevance of
this content in some communities is very different than----
Mr. Stearns. Oh, I know. You can go across the spectrum and
find people that have different tastes, and I understand that,
but you as a publishing executive, you are saying that you are
going to not censor anything if it has the ``N'' word in it or
the ``F'' word or the ``S'' word or explicit sex. In your
opinion today, that is OK and it is a freedom of expression.
Mr. Bronfman. That is not what I said nor is it what I have
testified to, Congressman. What I said is to the question would
I put a ban on all work containing those words, I said no, and
I wouldn't.
Mr. Stearns. Do you support the Cameron lyrics as free
speech?
Mr. Bronfman. I do.
Mr. Stearns. OK. So then you condone the words that are in
here as free speech?
Mr. Bronfman. I recognize my responsibility----
Mr. Stearns. Even though the cultural abhorrence of what--
--
Mr. Bronfman. Congressman, I recognize that my role as a
citizen and my role as a corporate executive are two different
things.
Mr. Stearns. OK. Here is a question for you, Mr. Bronfman
and Mr. Morris. Have you ever consulted with one of our artists
about lyrics that they should or should not put in their work?
Mr. Bronfman. The answer to that is yes.
Mr. Stearns. Yes? Mr. Morris?
Mr. Morris. Yes.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Chairman, before my time is off, it is
possible that I could go across the aisle to answer that same
question whether they consult with their artists about the
lyrics that should or should not be put in the work? Mr.
Dauman?
Mr. Dauman. I do not. I trust programming decisions to the
people who run our networks. As I mentioned in my prepared
remarks, Debra Lee oversees BET networks and people below her,
Judy McGrath as well as people who run their networks, and I
believe they do their job very responsibly.
Mr. Stearns. So you have no interface then with the
artists?
Mr. Dauman. I personally do not.
Mr. Stearns. And Mr. Liggins?
Mr. Liggins. I don't either. All of our programming is----
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Zelnick?
Mr. Zelnick. Yes, the buck stops on my desk. I certainly
do. I do it all the time. Sometimes I annoy people when I do
it.
Mr. Stearns. So you will actually call the artist up
himself and----
Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time is up.
Mr. Butterfield is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This 5
minutes has a tendency of going so fast and so I am going to
try to read my question in the interest of time. Let me start
with Mr. Dauman. Thank you very much for coming forward today.
You have a great company. I know a lot about your company and
thank you so very much.
Mr. Dauman. Thank you.
Mr. Butterfield. Viacom subsidiaries, according to our
research, reaches over 500 million households worldwide and
Viacom owns the top music entertainment stations currently
broadcasting in this country. Do you think that your company
goes far enough with its standards and practices to ensure
content is being properly reviewed for offensive content before
it is broadcast to these households or could those standards
and practices be more rigorous so as not to be derogatory to
women or other individuals?
Mr. Dauman. We continually review our standards. We evolve
with the culture. We both reflect the culture and try to inform
the culture and we are very proud of that. Because we appeal to
young people, you mentioned our 500 million-plus viewers around
the world, we have a responsibility not only to the U.S. but
around the world as we reach young people. We are very proud of
many of the issues we have. I mean, for example, we talked
about gaming, our MTV youth site. We put out a free game on the
Internet called ``Darfur is Dying'' which was downloaded 3
million times. So we feel we have an important role and a very
pro-social role in impacting youth today and we impact youth by
entertaining them, and then once we entertain them, we reach
out to them. You can always do better. Domestically in our
networks, just to give you an idea, these are 24-hour-a-day
networks. We run over 100,000 hours of programming a year on
just our major domestic networks, hundreds of thousands of
hours across the globe, across all out networks.
Mr. Butterfield. But are you satisfied with----
Mr. Dauman. Some things slip by occasionally and we review
what occurs but if you look at the totality of what we do, we
are extremely proud.
Mr. Butterfield. But you are satisfied with your standards
as they are currently written?
Mr. Dauman. We believe we have appropriate standards. As I
said, we review them all the time and we have diverse group of
employees reflecting their constituencies and they think about
issues that get brought up. We meet with our critics and we
meet with consumers, and I am satisfied we have a good process.
Mr. Butterfield. Let me spend a couple of minutes with you,
Mr. Bronfman. Thank you very much also for coming, and I want
to equally salute your company for the work that you do as
well. Sir, you speak about Warner Music's practices regarding
content and you say that your aim is not to create or censor
art but to ensure that your artists are aware of the impact of
their creation. But what do you do, sir, in an instance where a
young individual doesn't care about the impact of their music
or the effect that it is going to have on a certain portion of
our society when their only interest is making money and not in
the social consequences of their music? Can you help me with
this?
Mr. Bronfman. Well, sir, it is very difficult to answer a
hypothetical question. As I mentioned in my testimony, we
review content and we review that content with an eye towards
the personal history of the artist, the artist's history as a
recording artist and the context in which the piece of work is
being created and we take that responsibility seriously. It is
very difficult to answer, as I said, a hypothetical question
and very difficult to determine sitting at a time that a record
is produced what its impact on society will be.
Mr. Butterfield. Do you concede that there are artists that
you deal with who don't care about societal consequences?
Mr. Bronfman. I think the majority of artists that we work
with are good American citizens who are primarily concerned
with their art. That is what they do. And I am not sure that is
different in any work or any genre.
Mr. Butterfield. All right. Mr. Morris, let me conclude
with your, sir. While the parental advisory label on music sold
in stores gives the consumer, be it a young person or a parent
a heads-up on the music, what more can be done to make sure
that impressionable young minds are truly educated about the
potential impact that music can have on their lives?
Mr. Morris. Well, this is a discussion we have endlessly at
our company, and----
Mr. Butterfield. Please push the button, or pull it closer
to you. Thank you.
Mr. Morris. Would you repeat your question, Mr.
Congressman?
Mr. Butterfield. Yes. Let me phrase it this way. The
parental advisory label that is on your music that is sold in
the stores gives the consumer a heads-up, if you will, about
what type of music they are to expect, and my question is, what
more can be done to make sure that this young person is
educated about the consequences of the music?
Mr. Morris. We are in continual discussions about how to
improve getting that word out to the parents. As I said, all of
our explicit music is stickered with an RIAA certified sticker,
and it shines out like a neon bulb. Then it is up to the
parents to understand what it is in that. There is parental
responsibility in all of this.
Mr. Butterfield. Yes, we all need to work together to
better educate our families about the consequence of the music.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
our witnesses for bearing with us while we run to the floor and
vote and we thank you that you are hanging with us on this
hearing because it is important, and the more I listen to you,
the more I think that what we are talking about nibbling around
the edges of the symptoms. We are not getting at the root
causes, and Mr. Rush and I visited for a few moments while we
were off at votes about, we may want to come back to you with
some more questions once we have heard from the next panel, and
I agree with my colleague from New York that what we may have
wanted was to have that panel first and then come to you. And
Mr. Chairman, if it is agreeable with you, I would like the
opportunity for us to come back to them with written questions.
Mr. Rush. Without objection, we will make sure that we have
30 days to submit written questions to the witnesses and we
will ask them to properly respond to the written questions.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate
that.
We keep coming back to the things that I mentioned in my
opening statement, that choices have consequences and that your
standards are based on your core values from which your
companies operate, and what I would like to know from each of
you is how you facilitate that. Mr. Bronfman is dealing with
creators of the content. Mr. Dauman and Mr. Morris are deciding
what they are going to censor and put together. Mr. Liggins
makes choices about what he puts on the air, Mr. Zelnick, what
he is going to drop into a game, and I assume that most of you
are either parents or grandparents, and you don't make these
choices in a vacuum, that you have kind of an internal little
thermometer more or less as you look at different things and
that is for you personally but I would like to hear from you
how you vet this within your company. Do you have a committee,
do you pull together your division heads? Is it just a hey, we
think this is going to make money or is there this thoughtful
process that goes into your choices, and I would like to hear
from you on that simply because I do think that we are talking
about symptoms and causes when we look at the content. But the
other component of this is, you have that pressure of the
Internet and many times I think some of you probably get blamed
for releasing an uncut version of something that gets put onto
YouTube or loaded into the Internet and then it is there for
all the world to see. So I want to hear from you each on
standards and kind of your best practices and also I would like
to know, and you may need to submit to me in writing and if you
want to punt this one and get back to me with a percentage, how
much of your annual operating budget, annual operating budget
are you spending on education and charitable work and doing
some goodwill in the community to help fight the root causes
that may lead some of these content creators to write and
create some of this content that they are bringing forward. So
we have got a minute and 10 seconds left. Mr. Dauman, I will
start with you.
Mr. Dauman. Let me start with your last point because we do
an awful lot. I mentioned some of the initiatives that we have
across out networks. Let me just talk about this week.
Mrs. Blackburn. Very quickly.
Mr. Dauman. We put $2 million of airtime as well as $1
million in cash to raise money for the Martin Luther King
Memorial. This Saturday on Nickelodeon, we are going off air on
a ``Let's Just Play'' campaign where we are the only network
who goes blank to encourage kids to go play. We have any number
of initiatives across the globe----
Mrs. Blackburn. I am going to cut in and hand it to Mr.
Bronfman.
Mr. Bronfman. Congresswoman, I will get back to you on the
exact dollars that we spend but we have a number of initiatives
across the company that the company spends money on and then
further that our executives also invest in.
Mrs. Blackburn. And best practices or vettings?
Mr. Bronfman. Yes, and then the process that we follow at
the company is our labels in accordance with the RIAA
guidelines determine what is potentially going to be stickered.
Mrs. Blackburn. Let us restate that. RIAA guidelines?
Mr. Bronfman. RIAA guidelines.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you for clarity.
Mr. Bronfman. That material, those lyrics----
Ms. Blackburn. I am going to punt to Mr. Morris, please.
Mr. Morris. Our system is very similar to Mr. Bronfman's.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Liggins?
Mr. Liggins. We are regulated by the FCC so we are the only
entity that actually----
Mrs. Blackburn. All right. Mr. Zelnick?
Mr. Zelnick. We have a quarterly product review process
where the creative team meets with the executive team to go
through the products and----
Mrs. Blackburn. Quarterly?
Mr. Zelnick. Quarterly, every quarter, every product that
is in development. Our products take 2 or 3 years to develop.
We have ongoing discussions about what we think we should or
shouldn't do creatively. As I said, we are opposed to
glorifying----
Mrs. Blackburn. So it is a part of your everyday ongoing
process?
Mr. Zelnick. Every day, and before a game is released I
look at it, I play it----
Mrs. Blackburn. My time has expired. Mr. Chairman, thank
you and I yield back.
Mr. Rush. And the Chair requests that the witnesses, would
you please put the full context of your responses to that
question in writing to the committee, please? Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Gonzalez.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My
apologies to the chairman and to my colleagues for not being
present during the testimony, and to the witnesses, obviously
we have to be in five different places at one time and I
apologize and I am hoping that in your testimony you may have
covered some of this and I apologize again if in fact it is
redundant.
But it seems there are some considerations here. First of
all, you have individuals that have raised this to a question
of free speech, first amendment, artistic expression and so on,
and when we deal with that, we all kind of retreat and we get
kind of concerned. I am not real sure that is true or not so
the first question is, from your perspective, the individuals
that provide the videos, the music and such, is it really an
issue of first amendment, artistic expression, freedom of
expression and so on? Is it really about censorship? There was
an article last week on the 19th in the Post and it was about
Reverend Coats being over with Black Entertainment Television
and protesting and they said oh, nice try, reverend, but we
call that Talibanning, that's censorship and such, and I just
wondering from your perspective if that really is a factor in
making your decision about what you put out there. The other
thing is, are you factoring in that there is not as much
control as to what young people get to view, listen and
download? It is a whole new age. It is the age of squint TV.
Your mobile devices, what we are doing with those. Do you
factor that in, that there is a tremendous audience out there
that has expanded exponentially? People don't have control over
what young people--it is one thing what you have at home and
you can supervise and such. The last thing, truly, it is just a
matter of dollars? If it is going to make money, does anything
else really matter? Those are the three questions, and if you
can just real short answers, let us see if we can get through
with it, and we will start with the first gentleman. Thank you.
Mr. Dauman. Congressman, again we do listen to different
voices in the community. You mentioned Reverend Coats. We have
met with many, many people and we listen to critics and that
informs our programmers as to what they put out. I am not sure
it is quite appropriate to harass one of our executives at her
home but that is what we contend with. As far as the way we
look at our content and our mission, yes, we are here to make
money. There is the business part of show business. But we also
use our power to entertain very responsibly in our view and we
look for opportunities to reach young people, and I do find it
ironic that we run a company and my colleagues run companies
where there are standards and practices, where there is a
review, and we live in a world, as you point out, where there
is infinite ability on the part of young people, old people to
access any content, objectionable or not. We try to put it in
context but there is a larger problem here that is not just
about the media, it is about societal problems and there is no
way to control all content whether we find it objectionable or
not, so the role that we play putting it in context is
important.
Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Bronfman?
Mr. Bronfman. Congressman Gonzalez, I would say that the
first amendment and more importantly, freedom of artistic
expression, is very important and remains very important to us.
But at the same time, and in my testimony I said that dose not
absolve us of our corporate responsibility. We cannot rest only
on the fact that our artists have a right to express
themselves. I would also say to you, sir, that in terms of
distribution, it is dramatic how our works are now available
legally and illegally on almost every possible distribution
device and distribution network. On many of those networks, our
work sits side by side with all kinds of pornography and other
kinds of reprehensible content that has not been overseen, laws
are not being observed, and frankly, we could use your help in
trying to police the amount of pirated material that is
circulating everywhere including on Sprint devices and any
other mobile or online device. And lastly, I would admit to the
same truth that Mr. Dauman did which is yes, we run a business,
yes, we have owners. We are charged with making a profit, but
nowhere in our core values does making a profit come ahead of
being proud of what we do and what are proud of what we do as a
company and we stand behind what we do even though there are
going to be products from time to time that people, different
people and different walks of life will find difficult to deal
with.
Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Morris?
Mr. Morris. Congressman, I really feel that the music
mirrors society. It reflects what is going on in the world. It
is very interesting that 95 percent of music we put out has
nothing to do with rap music, but I am of the position that
music is really a narrator of what is going on in the world and
that is what we have to deal with. I am particularly angry at
the fact that the music business is the only business I have
ever heard of that is being destroyed by criminal behavior and
no one has even discussed that. Our business has deteriorated
because of the work of criminals who steal most of it, and if
you would go to Limewire, you would have something that would
shock you beyond belief. Every song is taken off for free. All
the people who work at our company, we used to have 12,000
people working at the company. We have now 6,000. Tower
Records, hundreds of stores have closed because of this. In
between our music, which is now stolen and everyone loses the
money, is an amazing array of child pornography and it is
incredible to me that Congress has not looked into this
Limewire situation, which is truly----
Mr. Gonzalez. And I am not saying that we haven't failed in
certain respects but we are just looking today in particular to
you and to some of the artists and such in a particular area,
and I don't actually think we actually are failing there. But I
will tell you, you are saying that music sometimes will reflect
society and such but you have tremendous influence, and what
you promulgate, you can legitimize that which is illegitimate.
You can make that acceptable which is truly unacceptable. That
is what marketing is all about, and we are kidding ourselves,
especially in the society that we live today, that the power of
the product and the service that you put out expands markets,
makes things acceptable and such. My time is up and we may have
some additional time where the other individual witnesses may
respond.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
witnesses.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Fossella is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fossella. I will waive, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Weiner, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Weiner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that we should
also recognize that we in political life are part of the
passion play around this issue. We benefit also from our
ability to stand up and thump our chest about outrageous music
that we hear and we can talk about how it is degrading our
society and we respond as well. We are part of this echo
chamber that goes along with this debate. But I would caution
my colleagues who are looking for magic words that sometimes it
is very difficult to do it absent a context.
If someone wrote in a song ``I shot a man in Reno just to
watch him die,'' would that be seen at outrageous, over-the-
topic music advocating someone just murdering someone for sheer
joy? I don't think anyone would argue that Johnny Cash somehow
had a corrosive effect on American culture. But I also think
that sometimes you get into areas where I am not sure I want
the gentlemen who are at that table making these calls. I mean,
at the explosion of west coast rap, there was a band called
NWA. I am actually curious, does anyone know, did they choose
to abbreviate their name or did the label force them do? Does
anyone happen to know that? I am just curious. Never mind. We
will talk about it later.
A band called NWA has had a very popular song called ``F
the police.'' You know, Dr. Dre and Snoop had a chorus ``187 on
an mf cop'' as a chorus to their songs. Now, it is outrageous,
I mean really it makes your blood boil, the idea that a chorus
of a song would talk about murdering a police officer. But if
you look at the context of what was going on in L.A. and police
brutality and that is what people were screaming about and
protesting about and talking about, I am not sure the place to
adjudicate it is here or even there. I am not sure what you do.
As troubling as these things are, if you start to say we are
going to look at a word absent the context of those words,
absent a real debate and discussion about those words, I am not
sure how you do it. I can tell you something that when the
argument and the public debate was going on about those lyrics,
it was the first time many in my social circle were even having
these discussions. To some degree the music did drive a whole
discussion about how you deal with issues of police brutality
and relationship with all communities in this country.
So I would be very careful laying the responsibility at
anyone's desk. I don't know. When my colleague, my good friend
from Florida asked that question, I was thinking to myself, I
don't know which answer I would like more, yes, we stop the
words from being used, or no, we don't stop the words from
being used or some variation like convene a panel of people to
decide. It is outrageous and mind-boggling to me that there
would be a theme and songs and music and on the Internet people
saying don't cooperate with police investigations of crime that
are ravaging the same communities these people come from. It is
mind-boggling to me. It is mind-boggling that when you ask an
artist about don't snitch and he says I wouldn't--how would you
respond about a mass murderer moved in next door to you. He
said I would move. I mean, that is mind-boggling to me. Now,
should I be the one who says that is outrageous? No, I
shouldn't. But if I can just use my time to ask a question that
has come up in the context of Mr. Gonzalez' question, there is
no one here representing the Internet service providers where I
would argue a larger and larger portion of the music is being
distributed, promoted, shared, stolen, and Mr. Morris, you
clearly are unaware of a lot of the hearings we have done here
and how responsive we have been to the industry's complaints
about this and how many hearings we have had both in this
committee and the Judiciary Committee. But if you decide
tomorrow to take the admonitions of some of my colleagues and
say we are done, any song that has the ``F'' word, if your
artist says OK, I will take my master and go to the Internet,
is there anything stopping them from doing that? I guess the
music guys are the best to answer that. Mr. Bronfman?
Mr. Bronfman. There is essentially nothing stopping an
artist from doing that.
Mr. Weiner. Mr. Morris, is there anything stopping an
artist from doing that?
Mr. Morris. From going to the Internet?
Mr. Weiner. Yes, from taking and saying if you don't want
to put it out, that is fine, Mr. Morris, I will bypass you and
I will go--I will take my music and put it up on
dirtylanguagerapper.com and distribute it that way?
Mr. Morris. If the artist is signed to one of our labels,
we would own that master, but the truth of the matter is, it
would be out, and by the time the courts adjudicated the
matter, it would be history. All the music is up on the
Internet.
Mr. Weiner. Right, and there is a thousand different points
of contact with citizens at this point and you can choose----
Mr. Morris. Music is being stolen from the Internet.
Mr. Weiner. I understand, Mr. Morris, and with all--I love
you and I appreciate you being here and everything. If you want
to start a different hearing, we can come back for that one and
it is right down the hall, Judiciary is. I am a member of that
committee and we can have that discussion there. This is
something we wrestle with as well and frankly it is the subject
for a different conversation. But my time is expired. I thank
the panel.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentleman.
Let me just ask, I sit here and I hear you and I understand
what you are saying and I appreciate all your testimony, but do
you agree that there is a problem? And if there is a problem in
terms of negative images, then how do you become a part of the
solution to that problem? Given your business, the limitations
of your business, but also given the extraordinary power that
your businesses have over the minds of particularly young
people, how do you become a part of the solution to the problem
in our neighborhoods throughout the city--throughout the
country? Art imitates life. The images that I see and hear are
only a slice of life in the hood. I live in the hood. Where is
my slice at in the 'hood and where are other productive
American citizens who are struggling to get--young people, the
Rutgers basketball team--where do they get represented in these
commercial images? Mr. Morris?
Mr. Morris. Well, I think that this was a very--a good
opening to starting a communication with--I can only speak for
my company and I like the way this has all been done. I feel
that it has been done in a respectful, fair manner and I intend
to respond in a respectful, fair manner and I certainly
appreciate the way that you have handled this and you will hear
from us, and I believe everything starts somewhere and we did
that today.
Mr. Rush. Is there any other response? Mr. Liggins?
Mr. Liggins. Yes, I have got two points. One, I think that
just as in financial markets, consumer markets also tend to
self-regulate themselves so as you stated at the outset of the
committee gathering here that you believe that gangster rap is
on the downside. In fact, hip hop sales are significantly
tailing off and I can tell you from an organization that
actually plays this music, is immersed in it, that the tastes
of the community are sort of waning on the current state of hip
hop and that is not something that we are causing, that is
something that the consumer is actually causing and getting
tired of and it is showing in the record sales. Second, to Mr.
Morris's point, the Internet technology, a lot of the
opportunity created here on the Hill, has let the horse out of
the barn in terms of any of these platforms being able to
shield young people from images. It is just that is the nature
of the Internet. That is the nature of digital technology. So
from my perspective, if you actually want to sort of police the
impact that these images have on kids, you should probably
start thinking about curriculums in public schools about pop
culture, all right, and analyzing pop culture entities,
analyzing and dissecting pop culture entities and phenomena and
explaining the difference between Britney Spears' activities as
we currently see them and a normal activity or a rap song that
has something in it that might be misogynistic or violent in
terms of police officer activity and what a normal behavior
might be, and if you start doing that with 7th, 8th and 9th and
10th graders, even if they don't get it at home, at least they
are going to get it at school. So you can have a backup for
what is not occurring at home. And I think that that is sort of
the policing that you guys could really focus on that I think
would make a big difference.
Mr. Rush. Anyone else? Mr. Dauman?
Mr. Dauman. Mr. Chairman, I think these are complex issues
that were raised here today. These are societal issues.
Certainly it is the ruling media which both reflects and
impacts what takes place. You can legislate things like gun
control or other issues that affect our youth today and we
certainly air a lot of those issues. We are very proud--there
was a mention earlier about BET's history. We are very proud
that we have authorized the largest programming expenditure in
BET's history to fund diverse programming ranging from shows
like ``Sunday Best'' where we try to find the best new gospel
singers around the country, or ``Exalted'' where we celebrate
some of the great preachers in our country, to a show called
``Made'' on MTV where we highlight the efforts of youths to
find themselves, and so forth. So we think there is an
important dialog and we listen to people. We have very
segmented audiences. We reach kids with Nickelodeon and we try
to teach them healthy lifestyles but our schools play a role in
that as well, parents play a role. We reach older kids through
MTV and other networks and we reach young adults through Comedy
Central. So we try to take a look at all the different
audiences we address and there is always room for improvement.
Mr. Rush. My time is up, unless anyone else wanted to
respond to the question, but my time is up now, and is there
anybody else who has a second question they want to ask?
I want to really thank this panel. You have done an
extraordinary job. We thank you so much for your time and your
participation. Thank you very much, and we will be in
discussion with you. Again, this is just the beginning. We
intend to engage you in more dialog and participation and
action on this particular problem. Thank you so much.
Our next panel will be seated now. Will the second panel
please be seated? Mr. Levell Crump, also known as David Banner,
Mr. Percy Miller, also known as Master P, and Dr. Michael Eric
Dyson, please be seated. Will the second panel be seated, Mr.
Banner, Master P?
Let me begin by welcoming our second panel. Let me also
thank you for your patience. You didn't have to be here, you
were not subpoenaed, you have come voluntarily, and we
certainly appreciate that. You are here because you are
concerned about the issues that are under consideration this
morning and afternoon in this subcommittee. You are here
because you want to do, quote, unquote, the right thing and
have done, quote, unquote, the right thing. Again, I want to
thank you so much for your generous use o f your time. You have
been very, very patient to the members of this subcommittee.
Let me begin by welcoming our first witness, Mr. Levell
Crump, also known as David Banner, a hip hop artist. David
Banner, who is the Republican witness on this panel, is a
prominent rapper whose biggest hits were ``Like a Pimp'' and
``Play.'' He will offer his insights as a hip hop artist whose
lyrics and videos are controversial.
Our second witness is Mr. Percy Miller, also known as
Master P, the founder and CEO of No Limit Records. Master P is
a hip hop icon as a rapper, producer and label executive. While
he was famous for promoting ``gangster rap'' and ``bounce hip
hop'' of the ``dirty South,'' he is currently engaged in
forming a record label that promotes positive hip hop messages.
And lastly, our witness on the second panel is Mr. Michael
Eric Dyson, Ph.D., who is a professor at Georgetown University.
My friend, Michael Eric Dyson, is the author of ``Know What I
Am: Reflections on Hip Hip,'' and the other book is ``Is Bill
Cosby Right or Has the Black Middle Class Lost Its Mind?''
Professor Dyson teaches theology, English and African-American
studies and is one of America's premiere academic scholars on
hip hop. Again, I welcome you and we will open up now with 5
minutes of testimony from Mr. David Banner.
STATEMENT OF LEVELL CRUMP, A.K.A. ``DAVID BANNER''
Mr. Crump. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Stearns and members of the committee. My name is David Banner.
I am an artist for Universal Recordings, a producer and a label
executive. Thank you for inviting my testimony.
This dialog was sparked by the insulting comments made by
Don Imus concerning the Rutgers women's basketball team. Imus
lost his job but later secured a $1 million contract with
another station.
While it seems that he has been rewarded, the hip hop
industry is left under public scrutiny. As this dialog played
out in the media, the voices of the people who created hip hop
music were silenced. We were not invited to participate in most
of the panels nor given the opportunity to publicly refute any
of the accusations hurled at us. It is of the utmost importance
that the people whose livelihood is at stake be made a vital
part of this process. That is why I thank you guys today.
I am from Jackson, Mississippi. Jackson is one of the most
violent cities in the United States. Much like DC, Jackson
stays in the murder capital run. When I was growing up, it was
always ranked as one of the top 10 cities for the highest
number of murders per capita.
Honestly, rap music is what kept me out of trouble.
Statistics would never show the positive side of rap because
statistics don't reflect what you don't do, if you don't commit
a murder or a crime. When I would feel angry and would want to
get revenge, I would listen to Tupac. His anger in a song would
replace my anger and I would live vicariously through his
music.
Rap music is the voice of the underbelly of America, and in
most cases America wants to hide the negative that it dose to
its people. Hip hop is that voice, and how dare America even
consider not giving us the opportunity to be heard. I am one of
the few artists who went to college, and to this day I see my
friends who also attended college with me and graduated unable
to get jobs. The truth is, what we do sells, and oftentimes
artists do try to do different types of music and it doesn't
sell. In America, the media only lifts up negativity.
People consider me to be a philanthropist. I give away a
quarter of my yearly earnings to send children from
impoverished neighborhoods to different cities, to Disneyland.
This gives them another vision. Rap music has changed my life
and all of those around me. It has given me the opportunity to
eat. I remember sending 88 kids from the inner city on a trip.
I went to the local newspaper and the television stations only
to be told that the trip was not newsworthy, but if I shot
somebody it would be all over the news. I threw the largest--
listen to me. I threw the largest urban relief concert in
history for Katrina. That never made the front cover of a
magazine. But as soon as I say something negative and rise up
against my own or be sharp at the mouth--no pun intended--I am
perceived as being disrespectful to my black leaders. The
negativity always overshadows all the positive things that we
do as rap artists.
Some might argue that the content of our music serves as
poison to the minds of our generation. If by some stroke of the
pen, hip hop were silenced, the issues would still be present
in our community. Drugs, violence, sexism and the criminal
element were here long before hip hop. The Crips, the Bloods,
the Vice Lords and the gangsters were here before rap music.
Gang violence was here before rap music. Our consumers come
from various socioeconomic backgrounds and cultures. While many
are underprivileged, a large percentage of those people are
educated professionals. The responsibility for their choices
does not rest on the shoulders of hip hop.
Still others may raise the concern that the youth having
access to our music. Much like the ratings utilized by motion
picture associations, our music is given a rating which is
displayed on the packaging. This serves to inform the public of
the possible adult content.
As such, the probability of shocking the unsuspecting
consumer's sensibility is virtually impossible. If the consumer
is disinterested or offended by the content of our music, don't
buy the CD. Cut the radio off.
Some may argue the verbiage used in our music is
derogatory. During slavery, those in authority used the word
``n * * * * *'' as a means to degrade or emasculate. There was
no question of censorship then.
The abuse, accompanied by the label ``n * * * * *,'' was
forced and internalized. We had to internalize it. This made
the situation easier to digest. Our generation has since
assumed ownership of the word, and now that we are capitalizing
off the word, now they want to censor it. That is amazing to
me. Wow.
The same respect is not often given or extended to hip hop
artists as those in other areas. Stephen King and Steven
Spielberg are renowned for horrific creations. These movies are
embraced as art. Why then is our content not merely deemed
horror music. Mark Twain's literary classic ``Huckleberry
Finn'' is still required reading in our classrooms across the
United States. The word ``n * * * * *'' appears approximately
215 times. While some may find this offensive, the book was not
banned by all districts because of its artistic value. The same
consideration is not given to hip hop music.
As consumers we generally gravitate to and have a higher
tolerance for things that we can relate to. As such, it is not
surprising that the spirit of hip hop is not easily understood.
In 1971, the case of Cohen v. California, Justice Harlan noted
that one man's vulgarity is another man's lyric.
Our troops are currently at war under the guise of
liberating other countries while here in America our rights are
being threatened daily. This is illustrated by Homeland
Security, extensive phone tapping and ill-placed attempts at
censorship. If we are not careful, we will find ourselves
getting closer to a dictatorship.
And in closing, traditionally multibillion dollar
industries have thrived on the premise of violence, sexuality
and derogatory content. This capitalistic trend was not created
nor introduced by hip hop. It has been here. It is the American
way, and I can admit that there are some problems in hip hop
but it is only a reflection of what is taking place in our
society.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Crump, would you please bring----
Mr. Crump. Oh, yes, this is the last sentence.
Mr. Rush. OK, last sentence.
Mr. Crump. Can I go back, because this is very powerful. I
can admit that there are some problems in hip hop but it is
only a reflection of what is taking place in our society. Hip
hop is sick because America is sick.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crump follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. Mr. Miller, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
testimony. Thank you so much for your participation and your
overall work. Thank you so much.
STATEMENT OF PERCY MILLER, A.K.A, ``MASTER P''
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Congressman. I want to thank
everybody for allowing me to be here. I am not here to put down
hip hop because I want everybody to know, I didn't prepare a
speech. What I am going to say is coming from the heart and I
think after we leave today we should come up with some type of
solution. I watched the first panel, and I want to commend
David Banner for being here and I think he is an educated
brother, and hip hop is being educated. I think we are on the
same premises. My whole goal for being here is to preserve hip
hop, and I know this is a culture that is involved--and I
watched the first panel. We talked about society. It is
definitely a problem from society but we are inflaming this
problem but not being responsible, and I want to take that
responsibility.
First I want to tell everybody here that I was once part of
the problem, and hopefully as I move on in life and I raise
kids, I want to be a part of the solution, and the reason why
we have such a big problem right now is that nobody wants to
take responsibility. And I made a lot of money off of hip hop,
gangsta rap music. That was all I had in my community so I feel
Mr. Banner's frustration because people are only looking at the
artist, and I am going to tell you guys right now, it is not
the artist. Because when you look at society, I have been on
both sides, the business side and on the artist side, and I
think that is why I can really explain where we are right now
in society.
Right now we stop focusing on the artist because to me, in
this business, you look at society as a hip hop artist, this is
a business. When I watch everybody get up here and talk about
this, this is a financial business. Hip hop is a $4 billion
business, but is the artist benefiting from that? No, we can
set up things to where the artist is being a puppet and we have
puppet masters. So what I am saying by that is, if we stop
focusing on each other--and I watched a bunch of these guys go
in the back and me and Mr. Banner I hope after this that this
is not a debate for me and him, that we could sit down as
brothers and sisters, the audience. The other guys and their
business, when they went in the back, they all communicate.
They understand the big picture, and once we get us to
understand the big picture, we definitely can save our kids and
our community, and this is about relief, it is about growing
up.
Growing up in society is so important, and can I be here 10
years ago and tell you the same thing I could tell you? No.
Will we all get to that where we can grow up and understand the
valuable part that we could play to preserve hip hop because to
us and our kids, this is the way of life. This is the way we
take our kids out of the ghetto, and for me, I could honestly
say I was only in it for the money. I had nobody to pat me on
the back to say P, you could do something else with your life.
Think about the music, think about the content. Kids are
listening. When I changed my life, I understand that my kids--I
was in a car with my own kids and I turned on the radio and we
turned my CD on and I noticed when my kids were in the car, I
had to turn the music down, and I say you know what, I need to
fix my own problem. We have to start fixing it as an
individual.
And I am hopeful after today everybody that was on his
panel earlier, they all have the same intents, I mean, that we
can all communicate and start putting some great property, some
great music, some great visuals. I want to meet with these guys
and say what can we do, let us fix the problem, because even
these executives are not the problem. People haven't realized
Debra Lee is not the problem. Everybody has a job to do. But
what I am saying is if we start thinking about what we are
doing and understand just like Mr. Banner said, when you look
at society, gang violence, 800,000 gang members are born right
now. Twenty-five percent of the murders and the crimes are
committed by gang bangers, and my thing is, with my music, I
can say music do put you in a mood. I look at my past history
of music and I say to myself, wow, I wasn't thinking. I was
thinking about my own feelings. My brother died, so I was
angry. My cousin died. I had 12 other friends that got murdered
in my community so I just made the music that I felt, not
realizing that I am affecting kids for tomorrow. And so if I
can do anything today and change that, I am going to take a
stand and do that. I hope this society don't judge me by my
past.
And one thing I have for a solution, that we have to treat
the hip hop industry just like the NBA. I figure we have to
form some type of union, what we can control, because the
executives in this business right now can't control. We could
hit these kids' pockets. Anybody that have a money problem, say
if you put out this type of music or you don't change or think
about what you say, we are going to hurt your pockets with it.
People are going to change because most of these guys are in it
for the money, and it is a business.
And I also want to tell you that looking back at everything
that I did and said and taking this to the next level, us as
people, we have to figure out it is a lack of knowledge. It is
a lack of knowledge and it is a lack of vision. Back then I had
no vision, I had nobody to give me this vision. So if we start
getting with our kids and talking to our kids and figuring out
how can we give them this knowledge and this vision that we can
take our game to the next level, how we can prepare our kids
prepare for--right now we are preparing our kids to lose. That
is what the problem is. That is why we got so many angry
artists right now. We are preparing our kids once they get this
money, they don't know about taxes, they don't know about
handling this money. I watched a lot of guys up here. They are
able to transform to other different companies. After it is
over with a hip hop artist's career, he is going back to the
'hood and he is put in that environment with somebody who say
hey, man, you did all this and now you turn your back on us.
But I am not turning my back on my people. I want to help us
grow and I can figure out whatever solution I want to build. I
think if we look at the crime right now, we have to put
facilities up.
I want to challenge these executives. I want to challenge
the Government to say you know what, let us put some facilities
with a gymnasium and a library so to teach these kids how to
read and how to grow something more than just music. And let us
think about the consciousness that we are putting into our
music. So I figure we form some type of union like the NBA has.
They have a union that they talk about the music--I mean they
talk about what happens on and off the court and we start
fining kids for what they do, I think we could change our music
industry and preserve it and save hip hop and that is my goals
right now, to stop pointing the fingers and let us all get
together to figure out how to preserve this billion-dollar
industry and also teach our kids about equity funds, about
growing, about building a generation of wealth instead teaching
our kids, destroying them saying we are going to take the next
one out and put the next one in. When 50 Cent ain't hot no
more, we are looking for somebody else. Now, where do 50 Cent
go after this? Well, why is he not a company executive so now
he could understand the problem and say this is what I have
been through, let us save some of these kids. But I think the
problem is right now we are focusing on just the orders and we
have to take the focus off the orders and we got to come
together as what we are doing today but we have to get behind
the scenes and let us keep this going.
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much for your commentary and for
your testimony.
Dr. Dyson, 5 minutes, please. I am kind of liberal with my
5 minutes but 5 minutes, please.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL ERIC DYSON, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Dyson. Thank you, Congressman, Reverend Honorable Rush,
and to all of the members of the committee and to my fellow
panelists here, Misters Banner and Miller.
It is a deep and profound honor to be here today simply
because this is such an important subject, that is, to draw a
sharp and powerful distinction between edifying and intensely
uplifting art and art that lacks what some people say is
cultural and social imagination. But what is more interesting
and more provocative even still is the fact that we are
wrestling with ideas that transcend a particular art for or
aesthetic expression, because when you talk about misogyny, the
cruel hatred of women, sexism, sentiments directed against
women because they are women or patriarchy, which is the
conscious or unconscious belief that men's lives should
determine how everybody else lives and therefore establish
values, you can't start with hip hop to look at the origins of
that. We talk about religious institutions, we speak about
educational institutions and God forbid we speak about
political institutions. It would behoove us to have the same
self-critical impulse that hip hop has had within the walls of
these hallowed chambers. I think for me, it is a powerful and
necessary issue to speak about the way in which black women in
particular have been degraded and demonized in art forms that
claim to speak for the broader spectrum of African-American
thought culture or position.
But what is equally interesting is the fact that there are
deep roots of American culture when it comes to demonizing
women. It didn't start with Snoop Dogg. It didn't start with
anybody who has been associated with hip hop culture. That is
white supremacist ideology predicated upon capitalist expansion
of opportunity. Talk about commerce. We are in the right place.
American is built upon the degrading images perpetuated against
black men brought here as slaves, used for free labor to build
a country that they are presently denied.
So when we think in terms of opportunity, so when we think
about lethal misogyny, I don't want to dodge a bullet. Am I
offended by it and do I think that things within certain hip
hop communities have gone too far? Absolutely. I write about
it. I talk about it. I think about it. I argue with rappers.
But I don't begin there with them. When Jesus met the woman at
the well, he didn't have a conversation about her promiscuity,
alleged, because then she would have to account for the five
men who abandoned her. He said, give me a drink of water. You
start where people are. There is a conversation about misogyny
and sexism and we don't mention homophobia because polite
society agrees that gay and lesbian people shouldn't have too
much rights to begin with. So this is where hip hop may agree
with common civil society. So what is interesting is that the
gay and lesbian people don't even--it is ``B'' word, it is the
``N'' word, it is the ``H'' word but it is not the ``F'' word
or the ``L'' word.
So what is interesting is that all of us have blind spots
when it comes to articulating viewpoints that are edifying and
uplifting. Not only am I against censorship because I don't
want anybody to tell me what kind of book to write--when I
wrote a book arguing with Mr. Bill Cosby, ``How dare you argue
against an icon who has articulated positions that are critical
to our society's perpetuation in a good sense?'' I agree with
that. But I also think he said some stuff that qualifies for
gangsterism against black women. He said, ``Most of these women
are promiscuous, they name their kids the wrong things.'' He
said, ``I am trying to stop you from having sex with your
grandma. When she is 15, she has a baby, when she is 13, she
has a baby, you do the math.'' Now, that is not calling a woman
a ``B'' or ``H'' but it is scandalously misinterpreting
sociologically the context within which she emerges and what
she means.
So if we are going to deal with misogyny and sexism and
patriarchy and homophobia, we have got to dig deeper into the
archives of America culture and we have got to look at the
practices, the behaviors and the beliefs that are perpetuated
in Congress, that are perpetuated in business affairs and
perpetuated in entrepreneurial circles and in religious
institutions. Black women, let us not just march on the record
companies, let us march on churches that deny black women who
are 75 to 85 percent of the congregation access to leadership
positions that they give their money to to support. Let us ban
some preaching sermons that perpetuate--and they are worse than
hip hop because they get God involved. Now they are saying God
wants you to be a second-class citizen.
So I am appalled by the deep and lethal misogyny I see
expressed across the culture. I wouldn't want to quarantine the
crazy, the hip hop. Hip hop in one sense does us the service of
being explicit and articulate about its rage, although
misplaced against women where other sections of the culture
don't do so, and ultimately I think what we have to wrestle
with is that these images that are degrading certainly are
reflected in hip hop but did not begin there. Look at the self-
critique. Lauren Hill said, ``Even after all my logic and my
theory, I had to mf so you ignorant n* * * * * * hear me.''
Right? If you think about Tupac Shakur, ``Somebody wake me up
dreaming, I started as the semen swimming upstream, planted in
the womb while screaming. On the top was my pops, my mama
hollering stop from a single drop. This is what they get. Not
to disrespect my people, but my papa was a loser. Only plan he
had for mama was to blank her and abuse her and even as a seed
I could see his plan for me, stranded on welfare, another
broken family.'' I mean, listen to the cries. Even Master P
said he was unenlightened but I think he was enlightened when
he wrote the lyrics, ``I don't own no planes, I don't own no
boats, I don't ship no dope from coast to coast.'' I am telling
you that even in the mouths of young evolving artists like Mr.
Banner from Mississippi, Mr. Miller from Louisiana, they are
represented in Katrina's misery. The country cannot come to
their rescue to take them rooftops but want to now indict them
for the language they use in the aftermath of being abandoned.
I say that is a metaphor for what America has done, and thank
God for hip hop at its best.
At its best, hip hop has allowed the expression of
degraded, marginalized, yes, mostly young black men who often
see their expanse and their opportunity at the expense of woman
but that is no different than the black church or American
institutions of politics. I think we have to confront it. I
think we cannot limit it to African-American youth and I think
we have to be honest about the way in which this music, at its
best, mind you, has allowed the expression of young people who
have failed to be duly recognized and as a result of that have
little recourse except to use the language, the metaphors, the
similes, the analogies and the beautiful vernacular at hand.
So as I end, I think that what we must do is to constantly
pay attention to the self-critical impulses within the culture
itself. How come it is, why is it that ``these guys drink
champagne, toast death and pain like slaves on a ship, brag
about who got the flyest chain.'' Why isn't that music selling?
Now, some people say this. Well, the declining music sales
among hip hop artists prove that the American public is through
with them. Well, if that is the case, you are losing the
argument because the so-called positive rappers in hip hop are
even further behind, so what is the public saying there. When a
good movie like ``Talk to Me'' comes out, all the people who
clamor for positive expression, how come they didn't go see
that film? I think the crocodile tears of people who claim to
want edifying art is problematic because I don't want edifying
art, I want complex art. It is not positive versus negative.
Some people think that I if speak in defense of gay and lesbian
people within an ecclesiastical context, theologically that is
negative. So I could never rest upon negative versus positive.
Mr. Rush. Dr. Dyson, please----
Mr. Dyson. OK. Let me end here. Let me end by saying this
then. I think that hip hop culture at its best is a necessary
expression of degraded, demoralized young people who find the
cultural expression of their identities and the culture that is
fundamentally hostile to them as something they have to do, and
I think what we should be about doing is interrogating and
being more introspective about the practices that are negative
in our own communities than join with hip hop to clean up
across the board the negativity that we find there.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank the witnesses. I have heard a lot
of testimony and let me just be real clear as I stated at the
opening of this hearing. We are not here to indict hip hop nor
are we here to indict hip hop artists. I for one am very proud
of the hip hop genre. I know where it began. I know what it has
become. I am proud of some of the things that it has done. It
has created opportunities for young minority African-American
men and women to emerge from the depths of the ghetto to become
icons in the corporate world. It has created thousands if not
hundreds of thousands of jobs for people who are able to
express their gifts in this competitive, capitalistic society.
I find that it is an art form. However, given all that, I know
that there is a problem, a deep-seated, deeply rooted problem
that exists in our community, and a paycheck is not an excuse
for being a part of that problem. You have to emerge as all of
us do and as all of us did. Those who come from the same
communities, the same kind of neighborhoods, we all aspire to
get out of those neighborhoods. But there is a difference
between exploiting the pain and the problem and being a
solution to the problem.
I am looking today in this hearing for those again who are
committed to becoming a part of the solution as opposed to
being a part of the problem. I agree about the rage. I got
rage. I am a Member of Congress. I still have deep-seated rage.
Well, how is that rage channeled? Am I supposed to take my rage
and then spew it out in a counterproductive way so that I can
get paid by others to exploit my rage or do I have an overall
greater responsibility, a higher responsibility to try to take
my rage and be creative in an approach to becoming a part of
the solution as opposed to being a part of the problem.
Brothers, let me say this. You can't justify to me the use
of the word ``n* * * * *'' because my slave master used it.
There is no justification at all. My slave master raped my mama
and my ancestors. I am not going to buy into that, all right?
As a matter of fact, I can't condone that at all. I have to
deny that approach. I don't want to adopt the mores, the
metaphors, the machinations and the mentality of my slave
master. I want to move myself and my community from those kind
of anchors. I don't want to ape and imitate my slave master. I
want to create something more life giving, something that
affirms my dignity as opposed to affirming my death.
Let me just ask a question here. What is the responsibility
to our communities and to this Nation, what is the
responsibility of the hip hop art form, the artist, the record
owners, the consumer? What is the responsibility? What is the
shared responsibility in terms of solving these problems that
we all agree are problems in our community? What are the
responsibilities? Mr. Crump, do you want to start?
Mr. Crump. Yes. I want to start by first of all saying all
the philanthropy, all the things that I do in my neighborhood
have nothing to do with David Banner as a rapper. Now, I
represent the hip hop nation but I can honestly say, this is my
opinion and my opinion only, I don't feel that it is any
rapper's responsibility to do anything. I think it is your
responsibility as a man, not the type of rapper you are, the
type of man you are. I was that type of man when I was
hustling. I was that type of man when I was a teacher. You go
back and you look at my history, I have always cared about poor
people and children. I do what I do because I am that type of
man. It has nothing to do with my job. It is amazing to me that
the burdens of the world are placed on young black men who
don't have the power to move anything. We don't put that same
responsibility on our president. We don't put that same
responsibility on our Congressmen. We don't put that same
responsibility on our parents. We talk about children. It is
not really about rap music, it is about the fact that we are
having children when we are not prepared to raise them. So we
point the finger back at somebody else, America, and I don't
want to go into the war but America talks about weapons of mass
destruction but when I looked at it, I was like, don't we have
the most receipts and don't we have weapons of mass
destruction? If we want to talk about weapons of mass
destruction, let us get rid of ours. So and me saying that of
course, it is not right, but the thing is, when it comes down
to it, it is still just a song. Arnold Schwarzenegger can be
the Governor of California but in his movies, he killed half of
Cambodia, then he went to Mars and blew up Mars and then came
back and killed, but it is fine because he is a white man and
he is an actor, so that is OK, let him be the Governor. That is
just fine. But if Snoop Dogg talks about the things that he
actually sees in his community, whether fact or fiction, let us
see what we can do to him.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Well, my thing, I think it is a responsibility
for us to preserve and prepare the future which is our kids. We
got to take a stand. We can't just keep going where we are at
right now, not knowing that it is tomorrow. I think as an
artist, we only think about where we are now. We have no
vision. And I think right now what we are seeing here today is,
we have to understand that knowledge is the most important
thing and not education. I think that education where we are,
education is so important for our people but once we apply the
knowledge, it is like right now what David Banner is saying, I
think once we get the knowledge, we really can take what we are
doing to the next level because I think we are all on the same
mission. Because what he is saying, but we also have to think
about what we are doing, and I think if we give our kids that
vision, we can make that change. We got to start saying I can't
be the person that I used to be back in the day, I got to grow,
and I want to figure out some kind of way to teach these kids
to grow and realize that if I say a bad word, I am a parent, my
kids are not going to say that because I am going to teach them
to be better than me, and that is what I want to do. I want to
help my kids understand one thing in life, yes, your daddy can
only be an inspiration. But with my son, Romeo, he is going to
college because he never made any profanities. His TV shows
were on Nickelodeon. He could be better than me and that is
what I want to instill into my kids and I also want to instill
into them, let them know that you can live older than 25, you
can live older than 30. We want to build this next generation
to be better than us and I think that is what Martin Luther
King and all the other great people did for us, and I wanted to
give that back to my kids and the people that is coming after
me.
Mr. Rush. I am woefully over time, over my time, and I am
going to now recognize----
Mr. Butterfield. Mr. Chairman, if it is any consolation to
you, I am going to have to leave for a 2 o'clock meeting and I
yield my time to you, sir.
Mr. Rush. Well, thank you.
Mr. Dyson?
Mr. Dyson. I think that--look, there is no essential
contradiction between what David Banner is saying and what
Percy Miller is saying, that Master P and David Banner are both
talking about a trajectory of transformation and the
possibility of change, and that is to say, people are
constantly evolving as human beings. You can look at your own
life, Mr. Rush, as an extraordinary freedom fighter from the
very beginning. When you are part of the Black Panthers, you
are part of an organization that was demonized, that was
negatively portrayed. I am writing now the new introduction to
Huey Newton's revolutionary suicide volume. A lot of people put
the brother down. People made mistakes but essentially what the
Black Panthers were arguing for was for the reorganization of
the logic of American capitalism and the revolutionary
transformation of the society. I see what you are doing today
as an evolution along that same trajectory. As a minister and
Member of Congress, you have taken the challenge and
responsibility of evolving and changing and making that
transformation more coherent morally than perhaps before but
also with that same impulse. I see what these young men are
doing as extraordinary. I think artists do have a
responsibility, as Mr. Banner said, as a human being, as a
citizen of a global community. We all have a responsibility to
do the right thing and I think that doesn't mean that hip hop
should somehow be exonerated from that critique. Hip hop has a
huge amount of serious self-critical impulses going along with
it, but if you don't listen to hip hop, then you don't know
that a lot of people who are so-called underground are mad at
some of this commercial stuff. They are mad that they can't
even be heard, and I think that is very important.
Let me say one thing about the ``N'' word here. I know Mr.
Banner spoke about that. I think that we have to be complex
about the ``N'' word. It is not simply whether or not--and you
made a brilliant and eloquent testimony that you didn't want to
simply reproduce the pathology that was transmitted to you by
white supremacist overlords, and I think that is absolutely
right. But words are complex and meanings are flexible and I
think when black people have appropriated a term of derision--
the night he died, Martin Luther King, Jr., according to the
autobiography of Andrew Young, said to Mr. Young when he came
into his room, because he had not seen Mr. Young the entire
day, ``Little n * * * * *, where you been?'' I don't think
Martin Luther King, Jr., was a self-hating, degrading black
person. No, he did not stand up in public and deploy that term
because probably he would have found that offensive to the nth
degree and he understood the political context of language and
how that can be interpreted. But I am simply saying that the
use of the ``N'' word didn't begin with hip hop. I heard
ministers and preachers talk about it, bishops talk about it. I
heard respected members of the community talk about it. There
is a communication gap and a generational gap between young
people who have circulated that term for global expression out
of the political context in which it emerged so that means
there are some people in Japan who don't even understand that
that was a term of derision and are now using a term in a way
that we find offensive because they didn't understand it. So
all of us are responsible for being educated and enlightened.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Dr. Dyson. I must apologize because I
didn't recognize my Republican ranking member, and now I
recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just thank the witnesses for coming and I think it
is very interesting and enlightening I think for everybody to
hear your statements, so I appreciate you taking the time.
One of the questions that came up on this hearing when we
talked to the executives, how much influence they have on you,
perhaps not the CEO of Warner or the CEO of some of these music
companies but has there been in your relationship with them,
have the industry executives ever asked you to alter your music
or lyrics, and if so, if you can recollect under what
circumstances, and I will start with you, Mr. Crump, and then
Mr. Miller.
Mr. Crump. Actually they have, and I personally have a
problem with that, I must add, but they send our music through
all kind of boards and we have to write out our lyrics and
present our lyrics, and I can honestly say I am one of the
artists probably has the worst potty mouth than anybody could
ever see in the world and I do and I stand for that because the
situation in which I arose out of reflect that, and I am going
to answer your question, but I want to make this statement
before I forget it. If Congress wants to change hip hop, they
can start with Congress Heights. That is right down the block.
If you want to see why we rap the way that we rap, go to
Congress Heights. You don't even have to come to Mississippi. I
asked you to come to Mississippi and spend 2 days. Because it
is funny, you guys make these different speeches but when you
go home, you go home to a nice house and some pretty nice kids
who will probably get a job because of your influence. It is
not the case where we are from. But to answer your question,
yes, especially BET. It is so hard to get my videos on BET. It
is to the point I understand the disrespect of women but it
gets to the point where you can't even have a girl in the video
no more. They are going overboard. To me, it is OK to----
Mr. Stearns. So Mr. Crump, you are saying that when you
submit your music, your lyrics to the executives, they censor
it?
Mr. Crump. No, they don't censor it. What they do is, they
go through the music with a fine-tooth comb and make sure--and
I have seen the situation where they will bleep your music out
without you knowing. So I guess in a way they do sometimes, but
I know that it definitely goes through a board and especially
when it comes to the videos.
Mr. Stearns. Do they come back to you and say, Mr. Crump,
or----
Mr. Crump. No, sometimes it don't make it back to us. It
goes straight out to the public.
Mr. Stearns. OK.
Mr. Crump. I have heard music of mine that has been altered
without me saying that it was cool but that is how the game
goes.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Miller, how about you?
Mr. Miller. I have been listening to Mr. Banner. I will go
this part, and I will give you guys this real invaluable----
Mr. Stearns. Remember, the question is, have industry
executives asked you to alter your music or lyrics? If so,
under what circumstance? I think Mr. Crump answered that. I was
just hoping you could tell us.
Mr. Miller. I will explain that to you guys but I think I
want to go back to the subject and explain that to you. I keep
talking about education and knowledge. I think right now you
have to understand that education and knowledge is two
different things and I think Mr. Banner is right on, and we are
talking about the same thing but what I don't understand is, me
and him talking about the same thing and he is being here as a
Republican witness for this subject, and I think that we need
to really understand knowledge, what is so important about it.
I am going to give you knowledge from the record business. I
have been on both sides. On this side of the table is that they
have A&R departments and they can screen your music and say I
don't want to put this out, you guys can't say this, because
they have done this all the time, and I think after this here,
we really need to get together and understand because we all
talking about the same thing and we all are being scrutinized
for something that we have no participation in, because at the
end of the day this is about finance, this is about money, this
is an uncontrolled situation. So they really can screen your
music and they do. But we----
Mr. Stearns. Can you actually say in your case that you
wrote some lyrics and did you have to go through what Mr. Crump
said? Did they actually change the lyrics of yours?
Mr. Miller. I am kind of different because I had a
distribution deal and that is why I said I am sorry for the
stuff that I did and I understand it because I had nobody to
pat me on the back, but it has got to a point where somebody
could come and say you look at----
Mr. Stearns. I am talking about your lyrics now.
Mr. Miller. Yes, talking about my lyrics.
Mr. Stearns. He or she came to you and said da, da, da, da,
da and----
Mr. Miller. At a time in my life people say listen to this
song, you need to change this and I had to change it.
Mr. Stearns. You had to change it for----
Mr. Miller. Because think about what I said. Most kids
right now, they are just in it for the money. I was in it for
the money at the time, I could honestly say this.
Mr. Stearns. I understand.
Mr. Chairman, I just----
Mr. Dyson. And I want to say no record company has changed
my lyrics as of yet.
Mr. Miller. Not yet.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I have just a little
bit more time, considering the situation.
Mr. Rush. Yes, please.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Crump, I think just the creative process
of you coming up with your songs, are you responsible for the
initial content of your music or do you have like--you sit down
with friends or do you try out with a girlfriend or some----
Mr. Crump. I have--excuse me--the full responsibility of
everything that I say regardless of--it is one thing that I
always say, it is not Universal's responsibility, it is not my
friends' responsibility. It is solely my responsibility, and
there may be things that affect me but I am a man. I take full
responsibility for everything that I say.
Mr. Stearns. And so you wrote all the lyrics yourself, and
then if they get changed, it is because the executives of the
music----
Mr. Crump. No, but the fact is, that doesn't happen much,
and a lot of times if it is something that is actually changed,
it is something that has to do--like let us say if something
happened at 9/11 or something is going on with the president,
something of that magnitude, and it is really nothing--they are
not nitpicking on every different subject. It is not a
censorship at all.
Mr. Stearns. OK. Mr. Miller, this question is, in your
creative process, you are sitting here, you are a young man.
You came up with these lyrics. These are all your own content
that you created yourself or did you have----
Mr. Miller. Well, it is created from me, it is creating
from painting a picture, looking out my window, some of things
I went through, some of the things people that I know that went
through.
Mr. Stearns. So your life experiences and just sitting
there----
Mr. Miller. Well, I think mine is--to be honest with you, I
lost my brother at a young age so mine was more of a cry of
anger saying man, what could I do in this community, I mean,
why is this happening to us, why is my mother going to a
funeral, why am I going to a funeral, why am I in this
situation and what could I do to get out so I think at the end
of the day what is----
Mr. Stearns. It was a catharsis for you?
Mr. Miller. Yes. But think about it. I think at the end of
the day, what we are not doing is, we are not listening to the
end of the music. Just like he said, some of my music might
start off to get these people, but at the end of the day I am
going to try to leave with some type of message so they say I
want to make them think and I think it is a part of growing up
and maturing.
Mr. Stearns. Dr. Dyson, I have got a question that perhaps
goes to one of your books. You have written that the rapper
Tupac Shakur wanted to ``combat the anti-intellectualism of hip
hop.'' And I thought I would give you an opportunity to further
elaborate on that idea of his perspective, Shakur's
perspective, if you could.
Mr. Dyson. Yes, sir. Thank you very much for that. I think
that Tupac was in concert with Richard Hofstetter who wrote a
book in 19, was it 63 or before, about the anti-intellectualism
of America. He talked about the choice of Eisenhower over Adlai
Stevenson as a critical turn in the attribution of anti-
intellectual sentiments among the broad American populous. I am
not trying to make Tupac Shakur Richard Hofstetter. I am
suggesting, however, that anti-intellectualism is a species
that is not particular or peculiar to hip hop. It is an
American disease, one with somebody being tendentious and
negative could say this is the White House for ample evidence.
What I would suggest is that anti-intellectualism is deep and
problematic across the board and hip hop has elements of it.
This is why Tupac read deeply, thought critically, read many
books. I went to the home he shared with a woman and I read the
books for myself. I saw them for myself and I think that he did
combat the anti-intellectualism of this culture, not only in
hip hop but more broadly. But it is necessary to say that it is
an anti-intellectual strain that manifests itself there as it
manifests itself across the board, and I think the power of
what these two artists have done here today is to display that
you can be highly articulate and intelligent, use words in
productive and provocative ways and use those words to inform
and inspire. You think about a rapper like Mos Def who said you
can laugh and criticize Michael Jackson if you want to; Woody
Allen molested and married his stepdaughter. They show Woody
and Sunni at the playoff game. Now, sit back and think about
that. Would he get the same if his name was Woody Black? So
when you think about the use of words to combat anti-
intellectualism, Tupac was one of the greatest. He said,
``Somebody help me, tell me where to go from here because even
thugs cry but do the Lord care,'' but he also ``Just the other
day I got munched by some crooked cops and to this day them
same cops on the beat getting major pay. But when I get my
check they taking tax out so we paying the cops to knock the
blacks out.'' That is a powerful antidote to the anti-
intellectualism that prevails and I think we need more, not
less, then a guy like that.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky. I want to describe to you for a second how
I am feeling about this riveting debate. I am feeling like how
can I ask something that doesn't make me look like just
categorized as a privileged white woman who doesn't really get
it and who can't recite any of the rap music, and I think that
the way I feel in part describes the problem that we have in
all sitting down together and talking about the larger problem
or issue and the specific issue of rap music, is that in some
ways we come from very different perspectives and it is hard
really to get into each other's head. Writers are always told,
write about our own experience and then when young rappers do
that, well, the experience is painful and it is mean and
graphic and sometimes ugly and we don't want to really--we
don't really mean it. I started this morning thinking about it
from the standpoint of a woman and a mother and a grandmother
of three little girls and thinking about the music that they
listen to or that I hope they listen to, which is important in
their lives, and then the feelings they have about themselves
after they hear it, so I really--I was thinking not so much
about racism as sexism and how it--and so I guess I want to ask
the artists first, when you-well, I guess especially Mr. Crump,
when you sing these words which I assume--and I don't know
them--do use the ``H'' word and the ``B'' word, do you think
about the women who may be listening to this and what do you
think about that?
Mr. Crump. I am going to be very honest with you. Last year
I went through the worst depression that--I mean, I can't
describe it. And during that depression, I had the money, I had
the cars, but in this depression I was wondering if I was doing
my people more harm, and I went to a preacher that had 30
people in his congregation and then I went to a preacher in St.
Louis who had 5,000 people in his congregation, and it was
funny because when the congregation went away, both of them
said the same thing. They pulled me to the side and they said
boy, keep rapping. They said yes, there are some negative
things that come out the words that you say but you are from a
state of pain, you are coming from pain. My mother told me
once, she said Levell, she said if you close the door on your
hand regardless of what anybody say, nine times out of 10, and
excuse me, you are going to say ``s * * *'' When you slam your
door, you may not say it in here but when you are at home, that
is what you are going to say. If it describes the pain that our
people are going through, and the truth, if we stop talking
about it, the dialog stops.
Ms. Schakowsky. I guess I am not talking about the pain
that you feel but is there any sense of a pain that you may
inflict by putting down women through your music?
Mr. Crump. When we go to McDonald's, do we think about the
pain that we inflict making the United States unhealthy?
Everything that we do as Americans has some kind of consequence
to it.
Ms. Schakowsky. But----
Mr. Crump. And what I would say is, if a parent--like my
mother honestly told me when I was growing up in Mississippi,
and I am going to be honest with you, they still call us n* * *
* * in Mississippi. So my mother and my grandmother made sure
they told me every day that I was beautiful. So when people ask
me did I see right through them in Mississippi and maybe I was
blinded because of my parents. My parents made me feel so
beautiful that maybe yes, it was working. I thought it was. But
I did have those parents there to teach me then. So in me
saying that and what you also have to understand because we do
come from different cultures and I had this in my speech and I
skipped over it for time, but I said that the intent and spirit
of the word ``n * * * * *'' or ``b * * * *'' in rap music does
not even remotely carry the same meaning nor historical intent,
and attempting to censor the word that music depicts be
camaraderie is outrageous. In saying that, you may hear us say
the word ``n * * * * *'' and the word ``b * * * *'' and in some
situations, I will admit, it is meant in a negative way because
regardless of whether we admit it or not, those type of people
do exist in society and we are describing a certain type of
person, and we must admit that they do exist. But in most
cases, it is a form of camaraderie, and when people hear it
from the outside, then they are like, they are so mean to each
other, but it don't mean the same thing.
Ms. Schakowsky. Dr. Dyson, would you comment on that? I am
willing to acknowledge that maybe in some ways I don't get it
but when I hear these words I feel like women are being put
down in ways that are really bad.
Mr. Dyson. Yes, absolutely. I think that there is no
question that the rhetorical contempt that is aimed at women is
lamentable, should be talked about, should be confronted and
should be articulated without question. What is interesting is
that when I said earlier, and I have now a chance to explicate
it a bit, is that the virtue, if we can call it that, of hip
hop is that you don't really have to guess. If there is lethal
viewpoint expressed against women, which we should oppose,
which we should talk about, which we should explore, which we
should explain, which we should get at the root of----
Ms. Schakowsky. Or justify? I mean----
Mr. Dyson. No, not justify. I mean, you can----
Ms. Schakowsky. I feel like I am----
Mr. Dyson. There is no justification in my mind for it but
what is interesting is that we talked about quarantining the
crazy, the hip hop. There are ways in which polite society
reinforces negative values toward women but they don't call
them b * * * *, ho, skeaze or slut, chicken head, 'hood rat. I
am not suggesting that b * * * *, ho, skeaze, 'hood rat and
chicken head are not offensive. They are profoundly offensive.
What is interesting is that but if we take moral comfort in our
heart, we have now isolated the strain of virulent misogyny in
hip hop and therefore we have gotten at the root of it, no, we
have gotten a powerful manifestation of it that needs to be
dealt with. But what we have done at the same time is avoid the
way in which sentiments expressed against women are pervasive
in the society. This is why I mentioned--and I love the black
church. I am an ordained Baptist minister. I feel about the
black church the way Robert McAfee Brown said he felt about the
church. If it wasn't for the--it is like Noah's ark. If it
wasn't for the storm on the outside, you couldn't stand the
stink on the inside. So the church is an institution that deals
with the funkiness but it has its own kind of funkiness. Now, I
am not suggesting that there is a parallel between the
virulent, degrading emphasis upon women's bodies in hip hop and
what goes on in church but I am saying this: that if you are 75
percent of an institution, that you can do everything but run
and your money supports it, you are essentially an
ecclesiastical whore or a theological b * * * * at that level
without the explicit expression and articulation. That doesn't
justify it. I am not a person who is trying to justify
expressions of degradation against women at any level. Having
said that, I also know that what Mr. Banner said is interesting
in this sense. When you use the word ``b * * * *,'' many women
use the word ``b * * * *'' in and among themselves. Men don't
have the same register of access to that word that women do
except in hip hop, it does happen. See, there is not parallel.
Black men using the ``N'' word is different than men using the
``B'' word because now you are dealing with women who are being
degraded by your emphasis, and no matter how cool or down you
are as a black man, the ``B'' word means something that is
virulent and vicious and problematic, but at the same time, you
have men calling each other ``b * * * *'' so that means that
there is some terminological slippage going on there.
Ms. Schakowsky. I am looking forward----
Mr. Dyson. It is not as simple as it can be.
Ms. Schakowsky. I am looking forward to hearing from some
women on that point.
Mr. Dyson. Oh, absolutely. But I am not--that is what I am
saying. I am not defending the vehement denunciation of women
at all. I don't in any way concede that. I am simply saying
however, that if you ban the ``B'' word all together, you don't
even hear Queen Latifah saying ``don't you call me a b * * * *
or a ho'' and I am saying that there are women who find that
degrading and there are many men who find the ``B'' word
degrading as well, and I think that is what we have to put
forth.
Ms. Schakowsky. I was just asking permission of the
chairman if briefly Mr. Miller could respond.
Mr. Miller. Yes. I just think that we--as people that come
from the street, you need to be right or you are wrong, and I
just think right now, like I said, I want to apologize to all
the women out there, everybody that I did wrong. I was honestly
wrong and I accept full responsibility. Back in my days, we
used to fight if you said something bad about somebody's mama,
and I think my mama is a beautiful black queen. We got to start
putting that in our work and stop justifying why is it right or
wrong. It is wrong. I am going to do everything I can--and me,
I didn't have somebody to pat me on the back and tell me what I
can do and what I will do. I am making sure my son would not
do--he has never said a cuss word. He never talked bad about a
woman. I think if we start growing up and really understanding
how to take our game to the next level and take action, not
worry about what we did in the past, right now where are we
going, and I think most of where we are going right now, the
change is coming. It is not going to be quick. It is not going
to happen overnight but people are starting to wake up saying
you know what, I want something better out of life. When you
talk about women, because you either have a mother or a sister
or a woman that you are sleeping with that you would have to
say you know what, I don't want people talking about them like
that, I don't want nobody talking about mine like that, and I
don't want myself and I want to grow up and I am starting right
now. So I can tell you what I am doing as an individual. I am
going to take advantage of that and not be a part of doing that
because it definitely talking about somebody's mama, sister or
wife. So I am definitely going to do my part and I think we
shouldn't call women ``B's'' and we should grow up. We did it
for a while, we didn't know and we learned to understand. We
need to grow up, and I think that is the most important thing
that we are going to figure out today if we grow up, we are
going to be all right.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Gonzalez, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller, I think your last response probably captures
what we are really trying to do here. Legislating, it is almost
impossible to do anything. I think what the chairman seeks to
do in this dialog is to raise the consciousness of the
producers, the distributors, the artists to the influence that
you have. Now, you are speaking prospectively and into the
future. I think Mr. Crump was disagreeing with you because his
body language surely was that he did not agree with your
statements. So I only can assume that the distributors, the
producers, the writers, the artists are probably going to
continue along the same lines. So I just--we all agree on this:
you influence people.
Mr. Miller. Exactly.
Mr. Gonzalez. All right. And I understand that it is
reflecting a condition in America that is unacceptable, but you
are presenting it in a vehicle called entertainment.
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Gonzalez. You are trivializing it, and when I say
``you'' I don't mean you directly. I am talking about a whole
industry. I am talking about the artist and so on. You
glamorize lifestyles that you here today are saying should be
condemned and that young black men should seek and aspire to
something else, even though they may not have that opportunity.
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Gonzalez. What I don't see though is that in the lyrics
and in the videos, which is another issue, I don't see that
suddenly a solution, an answer, a pathway is being described.
What you are describing, Mr. Crump, is the present state of
affairs without giving hope to a different world or an out.
What you do privately I will say, sir, is commendable and
admirable but I say what you do publicly is viewed by so many
more people, and influence and impact so many more people by
your public persona than what you do privately, and I am saying
that in good faith to you. I guess what I really want to ask
you all is, is this entertainment?
And I want to ask Dr. Dyson, for all the young people that
view these videos and listen to this music, is it really going
to encourage and lead them to deal with the present situation
that needs a discussion and needs solution or is it going to
lead them to your classroom which is a much more legitimate
forum to have a meaningful debate on this than for us to be
legislating. That is the real issue here. We are all over the
map on this. We are trying to say that the music and the lyrics
reflect a condemnable condition. We all agree on that. My God,
I mean, we are not going to go back into history or even Mr.
Rush where we all started in the early days and where we are
today. Everyone agrees on it. What we are saying is, what are
we going to do about this entertainment forum that is promoting
an understanding and is perpetuating a present situation that
will remain the future because it really does have that kind of
influence. And I will start with Mr. Crump.
Mr. Crump. Thank you very much. First of all, one of the
problems is in most cases you guys don't listen to our music so
you don't know what I have actually done. My second single--
first of all, my first single was called ``Like a Pimp''--
rugged, rough, this, that and the other. I had prayed before I
actually got on it. I told God, I said, God, if you give me an
opportunity to make it out of the 'hood without drugs, without
having to go to somebody and get fronted some money, that I
will try to change my life. Right after that I got a deal. I
did ``Like a Pimp.'' I actually put my career on the line by
coming out with a song called ``Cadillac on 22.'' We made a
video and I will quote a half of a verse: ``God, I know that we
pimp. God, I know that we wrong. God, I know I should talk
about more in all of my songs. I know these kids are listening.
I know I am here for a mission but it so hard to get them when
22 rims are spinning.'' So in me saying that, I put that video
out. During that same album, I had--I gave $50,000 for
scholarships. The truth is, I put that music out there. I made
the effort. My career went down, down, down. When I went back
to the music that put me on-because what you have to
understand, people put us on for a certain type of music, and
for us to get up once we get rich, that is sort of like treason
to America. You call treason to the same people that put you
on. What I will say, and this ties in to what she said, it is
not about music. If you want to talk about degrading women, I
think it causes more of a problem to have a little bitty girl
on the sideline with a short skirt jumping up and down cheering
for a football player running a football with her being half
naked on the sideline has nothing to do with him running the
football or beer commercials where women have on bikinis and
they are selling beer and walking in McDonald's with her
cleavage open to sell a sandwich. Exactly. I think that is a
bigger problem. But what I want all of you guys to take home is
the fact that people know that young black men don't have
anybody to protect them so we will always put the drug problem,
the gun problem, the degradation of women on young black men
because we don't even protect ourselves, and I would say----
Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Crump, let me interrupt you 1 second
because my time is going to be up, and I appreciate where you
are coming from but what you just said, if people are really
listening, is, it is the almighty dollar.
Mr. Crump. Well, it----
Mr. Gonzalez. Now, wait a minute. I think you went to what
I think is a more substantive approach, giving young people
hope, giving them direction, but what you are saying, your
career was tanking and the only way you went up--now, let me
tell you that----
Mr. Crump. But it is all part--it is all a part of my life.
Mr. Gonzalez. No----
Mr. Crump. This is all part of my life.
Mr. Gonzalez. That is the problem.
Mr. Crump. And what I want you to know is that----
Mr. Gonzalez. It is you yourself and----
Mr. Crump [continuing]. is that I made an effort, but the
truth is, when it comes down to it, regardless of what we want
to say, if I do not keep myself current, it don't matter how
many CDs I put out, how much I stand on the corner and talk
about positivity, nobody will hear it. At least with me being
put in a position that I am, I am even here and have the
ability to take up for my people. If I am not current, it don't
matter no way.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Crump----
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. Have you completed your questioning?
Mr. Gonzalez. Well, I wanted the other members--again, I
mean, I think what the chairman is attempting to accomplish
here, and this is a step in the right direction, but we have
everyone simply saying nothing is going to change, and that is
the concern, and Mr. Miller and Mr. Dyson----
Mr. Miller. Well, what I wanted to tell you guys is, like
the Congressman said, it is definitely--we can't put a
stereotype on a dollar. I mean, that is why I am here today to
let us know how important knowledge is over money. Knowledge is
the most important thing that we can focus on, because if you
don't have the knowledge, you would never make the money
anyway. So my thing is with me, and I feel Mr. Banner's
frustration because I sold 75 million records and then as it
decreased, people say I wanted to do the right thing. I started
doing the right thing. They stopped buying my records at a
minimum, but what I said was, I am growing up, I am maturing, I
want to do the right thing. It has got to start right now with
me. I don't care if they don't buy my records because I am
going to keep doing the right thing. I don't care if they don't
play my videos. I am going to keep doing it because I
understand.
Somebody has to take a stand for what we are about to
build and I know we are focusing on what is right now but
something has to stop and it has to start right today to say,
you know what, we are not focusing on the dollar no more, we
are educating, and something is more important than music. We
don't need to focus on the music. We have got to teach these
kids how to get into other avenues. I am going to challenge the
networks and say you know what, we are going to put a financial
show and show our kids in these communities and see what
happens because I think that is the most important thing. We
have to teach them there are other avenues besides music, and
when we say we can make other avenues besides music, we can
make money financially doing finally literacy shows. Our kids
is going to change and say you know what, I don't care if they
don't play my music; if I got to do the right thing. I have to
make the right context of what he said about Tupac. Think about
Tupac's songs. Tupac had a lot of songs what he was going
through but he also had the dear mama's, the uplifting songs
that really stuck to our community and I think if we put more
songs out like that, we are going to be able to change our
communities and we have got to teach these kids how to make
money besides music. When we do that, the music is going to
change. And so I am going to challenge all these networks that
came and all these records companies, let us do some financial
shows because one thing about athletes and African-Americans,
we always lose the first go-round so we have that frustration.
Every athlete I know has cash problems the first go-round or
some type of financial problems so they are angry and they are
waiting for their second contract. We got to stop in the music
business waiting for that second contract so we can make some
changes. We have got to teach our kids and we got to prepare
them and grow them to be financially successful so they don't
have to look back and do the same thing they did back in the
past, and that is the only thing, Lord bless me, saying that go
seek that knowledge, and I want these kids now--I wrote a
book--pick up a book. Understand that we start reading and stop
just worrying about the music. The music is going to sound
better to us because now we have the knowledge.
Mr. Dyson. Can I just briefly respond? Tonight if you look
at BET, a two-part series, I challenge the rapper Nelly and TI
when Nelly swiped a credit card down the woman's gluteus
maximus and I said we don't reduce your career to that, that's
true, let us be honest because like Mr. Banner, he is a
philanthropist but I said to me, when I saw the crass
commercialization of the woman's body relating back to slavery
where they were sold on auction blocks, and as a result hip hop
has simply updated the stereotype that is deeply entrenched in
the American collective unconscious. And TI said--the other
rapper said it is really that deep. I said yes, you are a
rapper, you do the lyrics. I am an intellectual, I do the
analysis. We both can come together. So I don't justify the
visual injustice to which black women in particular are subject
in terms of--and I think the images are even worse so called in
terms of an influence than the lyrics themselves because now
you are getting past the conscious mind and the images
themselves create a universe of expectations and the like but
at the same time I think that we have to be much more complex.
Again, to scapegoat one segment of the society without looking
at how we all participate would be wrong.
Mr. Rush. Thank you. The gentleman from New York is
recognized.
Mr. Towns. Mr. Chairman, I am just going to ask one
question and then I have to leave. The question is, do you
think it is possible to be a positive role model and express
yourself with explicit lyrics at the same time? Just go right
down the line. Go ahead.
Mr. Miller. Well, I always said to myself that I come from
the streets and I was able to educate myself and clean my life
up. I always say to myself--and that is just me--I said I could
be an inspiration and I could teach my son to be a role model.
And I think we can't point the finger at hip hop and we can't
point the finger at David Banner and me. We are all speaking
the same thing. We have to grow to a certain level. Right now
without David Banner being where he is at, because I was there
one day, I couldn't get to where I am right now. I just think
that we got to stop stereotyping the whole community because we
got to put some balance out there right now. That is the only
reason I am here. I understand where he is at. He understands
where I am at. What I am here to put balance and say that we
can do some right and move on and still be successful. But I
just think that yes, maybe I can be a role model and I come
from the streets and I come from that type of music and I said
I am sorry but what I am going to do, I am going to make my
kids be role models. My son is not going to do that type of
music because I understand that we are destroying our
community. I understand that. That is me. Until everybody gets
to that level and see that, maybe we don't understand. I went
to 12 funerals so I know, I seen my cousin. It is a lack of
education. It ain't the music. Everybody is a cycle that I am
trying to break and if I can break that cycle to show kids put
some balance out there, we are going to get to where we need to
go at. And none of it is wrong. We all have the freedom of
speech, and I want people out there to know, if you make any
type of music, if you get to--it is like the guy on the street.
You say man, I am out here hustling but if I live tomorrow, I
want to try to get into something else to better myself and
that is the message I want to give to our kids, what about
tomorrow. What are we going to do if we survive? And we put the
tattoos all over our neck. We can't go into corporate America.
We got to understand, it might be tomorrow and that is when I
woke up with having a child. I have a son. I want to be there
for him. I want to be there for my kids. I want to be there for
my family and I don't want to be incarcerated, I don't want to
be dead. So the kids out there need to get that message too.
They have parental advisory stickers on the records that are
parental advisory but I just think if we put a balance and make
it work, we will be able to get to where we need to be at.
Mr. Crump. It is amazing to me that Ludicris can lose his
Pepsi deal and they go and get the Osbornes and that is OK. The
truth is, it is only music. Yes, it has an effect on children.
Yes, it can influence some people who have that deficit in
their personality in the first place. I had--the black caucus
gave me an award for my philanthropy and there was a big
uprising in Mississippi and it was strange to me because I told
some of the city officials in Mississippi, I said me being a
so-called gangsta rapper has nothing to do with the fact that I
gave away millions of dollars. This is not against the law for
me to speak my mind. So why is it that when young black men do
something and Martin Scorcese can make movies that talk about b
* * * * * * and n * * * * * * and it is fine and he can be a
role model. The Osbornes can do the same thing that Ludicris
can do but he get his Pepsi deal taken away. Same thing with
Don Imus. We are here in front of Congress but regardless, Don
Imus got that $1 million contract to go on to his next business
deal. The truth is, we have been demonized since day 1. Of
course I can be a role model. Look at Ice Cube. He is one of
the most powerful guys in the music industry. What if we were
to stop him in the NWA days? We wouldn't have given him the
responsibility to grow. It is the process that makes us men.
Yes, there may be some things that we are not doing right but
Snoop Dogg says the most powerful thing: I wonder why people
want to get us in front of Congress and talk to us, get in
front of the TV and talk to us. Why aren't they men and women
enough to pull us to the side and say maybe you didn't know no
better, maybe your mother was on crack, maybe you only saw your
mother being disrespected and his mother disrespected that
mother and it went on and it went on. Nobody comes to us and
talks to us. I talk to Nelly and that video that you are
talking about, I produced the song to, and regardless of--yes,
like Nelly says, that was an adult video for adult people and
it is just like everything that we do is always our fault. It
is only music.
Mr. Dyson. I think that, to be very brief, LBJ cussed like
a sailor. Richard Nixon, they got the tapes, him cussing like a
man going out of style. They are still presidents of the United
States. So yes, to be quite simplistic, obviously he can be a
role model. Look at Richard Pryor who used cursing in a very
creative and interesting fashion and yet who spoke about some
of the most powerful social problems that prevailed in American
culture. Here is what we have to come to grips with. To be
positive is not itself a virtue if it is not accompanied by
serious, powerful art that forces us to reflect upon our
society. All art should not make you feel good.
Some art should get in your face. Some art should be
irreverent. The point and purpose of art is not simply to make
you feel warm and fuzzy. Some art ought to make you change your
bigoted ways. Maybe you are a sexist. Some art can make you
think about it. Maybe you are a racist. Some art can make you
think about it. Some art then perpetuates the very legacy that
it claims to want to resist. Should we be critical of it?
Absolutely right. But I think if we are looking for either or,
black or white answers, that is not it. I think that yes, as
Kanye West, look at Kanye West who beat 50 Cent in this recent
scrimmage for hip hop supremacy. That is a mark of the maturity
and the evolution of hip hop whereas 50 Cent ``I don't know
what you heard about me but you can't get a dollar out of me''
was rejected in favor of a guy singing about Jesus, but even in
a song singing about Jesus, right after that says ``If this
manager keeps insulting me, I will be insulting him and after I
mess the manager up, I am going to shorten the cash register
up.'' Even after he is singing ``One glad morning, when this
life is over, I will fly away.''
That is the convergence of complex that manifests our
conflicted lives and I think that hip hop at its best, again,
both reflects the pathology that needs to be rooted out and
provides an answer through a scalpel of rhetoric to be able to
dig into the body of the problem and seek what the reality is,
and I think at its best it does that, and I think that yes, you
can be a positive, uplifting figure and not say anything and
you can be a so-called degraded figure who is not positive and
say something profound and intelligent, and I think that what
we have to do is to push forward self-criticism. Misogyny,
sexism, homophobia, racism and the like need to be dealt with,
articulated and wrestled with regardless of what color they
come in, regardless of what body they come in. But at the same
time, as Mr. Banner is suggesting, we must not somehow
quarantine the problem to young black people who when they
manifest the pathology are seen as its origins. They are
certainly at the worst seen as its continuation.
Mr. Towns. Let me thank all of you for your comments, and
let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, and of course, I really feel
that this discussion has been a very good one, and Mr.
Chairman, I look forward to continuing to work with you in this
regard.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Mr. Crump, there is a lot of sickness in American society.
This Congress has a lot of work to do. Washington, DC, has a
lot of work to do. We have No Child Left Behind but the money
isn't there. We are debating right now making sure that all
children get healthcare but the President is saying he will
veto that legislation. We have a lot of work to do in our
country, and here in Washington, in order to make sure that
every child in America is given the opportunity they need,
education, healthcare, protection in the community, there is no
debate over that. And I am a liberal Democrat from
Massachusetts so on those things, that is what I come here to
do every day, and we are fighting to make that possible, and
the work that you do for Katrina and books, that is great. It
really is. I guess the question I would ask you is, how can you
work to have a positive message? Because they have to hear a
positive message from Congress. There are people here fighting
to get that positive message out too. We are not successful in
the short run and we have to continue to fight. What can you
do? What you do in Katrina unfortunately, what you do and some
of these other things, kids in America don't hear about that.
They should but they don't. All they hear is your music. So
what can you do working with those of us here who are trying to
get out a positive message, to try to put positive programs
out, what can you do in your music to get out the positive
message, to accent that? What can you do?
Mr. Crump. I actually call my music a Bible with a Playboy
cover on it, and the one thing that I disagree with you about
is, kids know what I do because I make sure that I get on BET,
I make sure that I get on MTV, and as a matter of fact, one of
the reasons why my last album probably didn't reach the place
that it was supposed to reach even though I had one of the
biggest singles in the world is because I didn't spend time
promoting my album. I spent time promoting what was going on in
Mississippi and the fact that people in Mississippi were being
ignored. I think what happened, as a matter of fact, and I
think if you talk to people in the crowd, people look at me as
more of an activist than they do as a rapper and it sort of
hurts my pocket but that is fine.
Mr. Markey. Do you think that your music is consistent with
or undermining of the message you are sending----
Mr. Crump. Well, actually my music----
Mr. Markey. Is the music that you put out there consistent
with or undermining of the message you are sending on Katrina?
Mr. Crump. My message is very consistent. Actually, like I
said, I call my music a Bible with a Playboy cover. I start
here and I end in a different place, and what I will say real
quick, I think part of the problem I see in Congress right here
today. I look at the fact that we are debating about something
that is so very important in our society but our parents are
gone. I am looking at the seats. Our parents are gone. And as
more questions are being asked as important as people say that
this is, our parents are gone. So we are left here again.
Probably by the end of this day there is probably going to be
more of us than it will be of you guys. So once again we are
here to fend for ourselves again.
Mr. Markey. Let me say this to you. Every time one of your
video plays, there is not a video playing of your work in
Katrina. There is not a video playing of this other message.
All there is that one video and that is what the young people
in America see. What can you do in your videos, in your music
that helps to propel this more positive message out there at
the same time, this Katrina message? What can you do?
Mr. Crump. It is funny that you say that because people
always say that my videos are confusing because I always try to
put something in my videos that I should probably spend more
time being focused on the music at hand. What I will say is----
Mr. Markey. Can you----
Mr. Crump. Can I ask you a question?
Mr. Markey. Can you do more?
Mr. Crump. Yes, I can do more.
Mr. Markey. Let me ask you, will you do more?
Mr. Crump. No, I am doing more. I think it is better for me
to become as big as 50 Cent so instead of asking the Red Cross
to do our 'hoods right and which the Red Cross did not do our
'hoods right, I can do it myself with the finances that I have
made, and what I will say, I am--and I have to admit this.
After I talked it over with the preachers, I am like Stephen
King. I do better at horror music. Horror music is what I do,
and you don't ask Will Smith to do the same--well, why are you
acting, Will Smith? Can you please make sure that you put some
kind of message in your movie while you are acting and you are
being a killer? We are musicians.
Mr. Markey. Look, we here in Washington have work to do. I
come to work every single day trying to do better for the
people that you are sending your message to. My question to you
is, are you willing to try to do better in communicating a
message that is more positive?
Mr. Crump. What I will say, I am willing to work harder to
change the conditions in which I come out of so maybe I won't
have to talk about it. Maybe if we spent more time in New
Orleans, and being the fact that Mississippi is the most
impoverished State in the Union, maybe if my conditions change
I would have different things to talk about.
Mr. Markey. Can you get better?
Mr. Crump. I mean, I can get better if the situations get
better. Can we make the situations better? I am only speaking
about what I see in my neighborhood.
Mr. Markey. Well----
Mr. Crump. Change the situation in my neighborhood and
maybe I would have something----
Mr. Markey. Are you working to----
Mr. Crump. And I am not being combative. It is just painful
to me that we go through situations as African-Americans and it
is like we--first of all, we were brung here as slaves who were
thrown in situations and now we are talking about the stuff
that we see and it is like--it is a big problem. Everything
that--there is nothing that you can look at in my music and say
that it doesn't exist in my community. That is all I am asking
is let us really address the real problem because the truth is,
everyone will point a finger from that perspective. We can
probably trace something back to each and every family that
helped affect the music that I am talking about.
Mr. Markey. Children don't always see it every day the way
that you do, and the question that you have and that I think we
all have to do and Washington has a responsibility is to create
a sense that there is hope, that there is a real to believe,
that you can be optimistic, that it doesn't all have to be
negative, and that is all I am asking you to do is to try to in
your message, in your power to communicate that sense of
optimism and that there are people who are working to make
things better. Because you are looking at people here who work
every single day to do it, from our chairman through most of
the Members here. Now, we are not always successful because
there is a White House there but we need through you, through
your incredible power, because children don't hear the rest of
this, for you to play a role too.
Mr. Crump. And I will ask you to do more research on me and
you will see that I am doing it and instead of listening to the
curse words, just listen to the fact that we are asking for
help.
Mr. Rush. We want to thank you very much. We are going to
conclude this line of questioning and we are going to have to
conclude this testimony because we do have another panel that
has been just so patient. They have been here most of the day.
Mr. Miller----
Mr. Miller. Yes, I just want to elaborate on that. I think
what we have to get back to, I think where Mr. Banner is right
now where I understand what exactly is going on right now. We
have to understand that he has to realize what he is doing is
personal like in his views and what he does when he is in the
media. I see what the Congressman is saying. What exactly we do
in the media, it will affect the lives of other people so we
got to think about it, and that is why I say, education and
knowledge is two different things. I mean, we could be educated
but when we get the knowledge and understand that, we will
really be able to take our game to the next level, and that is
what I going to do. The kids out there right now really need
somebody to focus on the knowledge and what we can do to make
those changes because we do need that balance. But also there
is the media. We have to stop glorifying the negative stuff and
glorifying more positive things. Let us glorify the positive
people in hip hop and the kids are going to want to change.
But if we constantly keep glorifying the negative stuff--
and also we are in a panic mode right now. I want to leave you
all with this, that we are in a panic. I have to figure out how
to take my game to the next level because I want to help take
David and everybody else around me, to take us out of that
panic mode because all we got right now is just the way we eat,
just the way we feed our kids. I want to take hip hop to Wall
Street to understand how to put a balance so we don't have to
depend--and we really can say, understand that whatever we want
but knowing that it affects somebody and when we get to that
level of the game, and understand we are not talking about
building a union and start building benefits for hip hop, then
we can control what these kids are saying. I want to give these
kids some type of--I want to be like the commissioner, like the
NBA has.
Let us build a league for hip hop so now we could give
benefits, child care, make sure--because these kids are great.
They come from a great situation but we are not going to do
that because these guys are not going to sacrifice their
paychecks and their jobs right now unless we build some type of
financial literacy where they know that we change and it is not
just about the music. It is about something bigger. It is about
our kids. It is about them not being the way we are, and that
is what I am going to take--I will take full responsibility
right now for hip hop saying that I am a big part of the
problem. I say that I am the father of this. I sold 75 million
records and I wish I had somebody to wake me up in my prime to
where now I could get to one of these kids like Kanye West
saying people are watching what you do. If you could take your
game to the next level, you just took out 50 Cent and showed
that you could be something bigger. Now if you think about what
you sell this next record or the next person that becomes
powerful with a big record like Chamillionaire already started
to clean his lyrics up and I am not saying change the content
of the freedom of speech, I am just saying take out the
negative stuff that they won't play on the radio or TV anyway
and we can get some of these endorsement deals, we can get our
product into, we can be a part of the diversity programs. If
you look at like Wal-Mart, Target, these people got diversity
that we are not involved in because we are stereotyped by the
music. So it got to start today and I will be a part of that
mission. I will be out there fighting and I will be out there
making sure that we think about what we say and I can help some
of my colleagues around me and stay behind the scenes. We have
to get--like David said, we have to get what we need behind the
scenes and talk about it and--when those guys left, the first
panel, they was communicating. We are at each other's throats
and we don't need to be there anymore because we are empowering
these communities right now.
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much. We thank this panel. We
thank you so much for your time and for your testimony. You
have really done the entire Nation quite an excellent service.
You really provided some insight into your art form and insight
into your business. We thank you so very much. And now we will
ask the next panel to be please be seated. Thank you so very
much.
There is a vote that is going on on the floor. There are
three votes, at least three votes, so we will recess until the
vote is completed and then we will return, but I am going to
introduce the panel and possibly get to at least one opening
statement before we have to recess.
Our first panelist on the third panel is Tracy Danine
Sharpley-Whiting. She is a Ph.D. professor at Vanderbilt
University. Professor Sharpley-Whiting is the author of a book
entitled ``Pimps Up, Hos Down: Hip Hop's Hold on Young Black
Women,'' and she is a leading academic on, among other things,
feminists and critical race theory.
Our next panelist is Mr. Andrew Rojecki, who is also a
Ph.D. and associate professor at the University of Illinois-
Chicago. Professor Rojecki is the co-author of the book ``The
Black Image and the White Mind'' and has researched how media
portrayals of African-Americans reinforce stereotypes in the
minds of white Americans.
Faye Williams, also a Ph.D., is the chair of the National
Congress of Black Women. Dr. Williams is a valiant fighter,
always on the front lines, a remarkable woman. She continues
the legacy of the former NCBW chairwoman, the late Hon. Shirley
Chisholm, and the late Hon. C. Delores Tucker. She has targeted
misogyny in hip hop music as an area of much needed reform.
Lisa Fager is the president of Industry Ears. Ms. Fager is
a leading watchdog of commercial hip hop and has long sought to
reform hip hop and return it to its artistic roots as an
empowering art form for young people.
And our last witness is Ms. Karin Dill, also a Ph.D. She is
a professor at Lenoir-Rhyne College. Professor Dill is a
psychologist who specializes in gender stereotypes and misogyny
as perpetrated and reinforced by the popular media.
Again, in the interest of time, I am going to ask our first
witness, Dr. Whiting, would you please take 5 minutes for a an
opening statement?
STATEMENT OF TRACY SHARPLEY-WHITING, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY,
NASHVILLE, TN
Ms. Sharpley-Whiting. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Stearns
and other members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting
me here today to provide testimony on this very important
topic. It is a privilege to testify before the Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
Today, demeaning, degrading and objectifying black women
are undeniably profitable pastimes from the cross-dressing male
a la comedian Eddie Murphy's recent turn in the $50 million-
generating Hollywood vehicle ``Norbit,'' to the Don Imus
``nappy-headed hos'' kerfuffle, to Rush Limbaugh's referring to
the accuser in the Duke lacrosse rape case as a ``ho,'' to the
``we don't love them hos'' of much of commercial hip hop, a
culture of disrespect, with black women on the receiving end,
packaged as entertainment permeates American popular culture.
There are iPod commercials that allude to strip club
culture featuring an abundantly rumped black woman holding onto
a pole on a public bus. And then there is the Quentin Tarantino
ode to alpha females in the second film of the double feature
``Grindhouse'' where the lone black female character is the
only one to utter ad nauseum an expletive that describes a
female dog. Indeed, such antics have risen to the level of art,
whereby entertainers believe they should receive a ``free
pass'' because they are merely performing their craft, whether
it be crude, curmudgeonly shock jocks or grill-wearing pimped-
out rap artists.
Although most Americans associate this culture of
disrespect with hip hop culture, ironically such
characterizations find their roots in our Nation's beginnings.
In 1781, a mere 5 years after penning that hallowed document of
the new Nation, the Declaration of Independence, which prized
freedom while sanctioning perpetual bondage, our Founding
Father Thomas Jefferson put his sights on writing on his
beloved State of Virginia. In between pages on flora and fauna
in ``Notes on the State of Virginia,'' Jefferson delivered a
prophesy about race-based slavery in the United States. Of
slavery, he would write
It is a great political and moral evil
and that he
trembled for my country when I reflect that God is just,
that His justice cannot sleep forever . . . Deep-rooted
prejudices entertained by whites, 10,000 recollections, by the
blacks, of the injuries they have sustained will . . . divide
us into parties . . . end[ing] in the extermination of one or
the other races.
Of blacks in general, he concluded that, and I quote
Whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by
time and circumstance, [they] are inferior to the whites in the
endowments both of body and mind.
And of black women, he suggested that they were more
``ardent'' and preferred ``uniformly'' by the male
``Oranootan'' over females of ``his own species.'' There were
no orangutans to be found in Virginia to substantiate such an
observation. This fact was of little consequence to Thomas
Jefferson.
A deeply complicated and conflicted man, Jefferson, as is
widely acknowledged, had a prolonged intimate relationship with
the young slave girl, Sally Hemmings. With ``Notes on the State
of Virginia,'' our Nation's third president sealed an odious
radical-sexual contract within our national fabric regarding
black women. Jefferson's paradox has had an enduring legacy in
the United States. Against this unequivocal founding doctrine,
black women have continuously been struggling both in the
courts of law and public opinion, in our very own communities,
and as of late, on American's airwaves.
From slave narratives like Harriet Jacobs' ``Incidents in
the Life of a Slave Girl'' to post-emancipation writings such
as Anna Julia Cooper's ``A Voice from the South, by a Woman
from the South,'' black women have been steadfast in decrying
attacks on their character and morality. When after the
president of the Missouri Press Association wrote an open
letter addressed to an English woman attempting to cast
aspersions on the credibility of anti-lynching crusader Ida B.
Wells, he made plain that black women had ``no sense of
virtue'' and ``character''. In response, the black women's club
movement organized in July 1895 to defend their name.
Despite our strides in every area of American life, nearly
2 million college-educated black women out-earning their white
and Latina counterparts, 1 in 4 of us occupies managerial or
professional positions, the profits to be had at our expense
are far greater than the cost of caricaturing our personhood.
Our own complicity in our objectification requires some
scrutiny as well. Consumer culture seduces many of us into
selling ourselves short in the marketplace of ideas and
desires. The range of our successes and the diversity of our
lives and career paths have been congealed in the mainstream
media into video vixens, thanks to Karrine Steffans' best-
selling ``Confessions of a Video Vixen'' or shake dance's given
the frenzy surrounding the Duke rape case and hip hop culture's
collaboration with the multibillion-dollar adult entertainment
industry.
That sexism and misogyny appear to be working overtime in
America to box us into these very narrow depictions of black
womanhood are part and parcel of the Jeffersonian contract. Hip
hop culture certainly is certainly waist-deep in the muck of
this race-gender chauvinism. Male feelings of displacement in a
perceived topsy-turvy female-dominated world, increased
competition for women and girls in every facet of American life
contribute to black male on black female gender drive-bys, and
black women's seeming resiliency, despite America's continuing
race and gender biases, our strengths are flung back at us and
condensed into cliches such as the late New York Senator Daniel
Patrick Moynihan's ``emasculating superwomen,'' or better
still, that ``B'' word.
Though America drinks to the bursting from that
Jeffersonian well, it is imperative that women become
politically and socially conscious about the choices we make
and the opportunities we take. As a writer and scholar and
member of the so-called ``hip hop generation,'' I find aspects
of American popular culture with its global reach and
entrepreneurial and innovative spirit deeply gratifying and
simultaneously painfully disturbing. For what has become
abundantly clear that it is not so much that we women don't
count; we do in obviously various insidious ways. But we also
don't add up to much, certainly not more than the profits, in
the billions, to be had at our expense.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to
testify before this subcommittee today, and I look forward to
answering any questions you and others may have of me.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sharpley-Whiting follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. We want to thank you. We have to recess to go to
vote so we will recess until the conclusion of the last vote
and then we will come back. I want to thank you so much.
[Recess.]
Mr. Rush. We will ask our second panelists to give us 5
minutes of opening statements. Dr. Rojecki, am I pronouncing
that right?
Mr. Rojecki. Yes.
Mr. Rush. Please, 5 minutes, if you will. You have 5
minutes for opening statements.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW ROJECKI, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-CHICAGO,
CHICAGO, IL
Mr. Rojecki. On behalf of my students and the faculty at
the University of Illinois at Chicago, I would like to thank
the Chair and the panel for inviting my testimony.
The Don Imus affair is the most recent example of a pattern
in how Americans think about race. The civil rights movement of
the 1960s not only changed the legal framework for race issues,
it also changed the way Americans spoke in public about race.
In terms of the social sciences, the norms had changed. It
became socially unacceptable for white Americans to give voice
to black stereotypes in anger or in jest. By the early 1990s,
the term ``political correctness'' had been coined to make fun
of an exaggerated sensitivity to personal feelings attached to
group membership. The concept of political correctness is less
important for naming a hypocritical repression of speech than
for identifying an incomplete transformation. Specifically, the
change in public norms has not been accompanied by a change in
private attitudes. Political correctness could not exist absent
the tension between what is expected and what is believed or
felt. For example, large majorities of whites say that blacks
should have equal opportunity, but major American cities remain
highly segregated. Black children continue to get inferior
education and medical care and black unemployment remains twice
as high as white. How do whites explain these differences? In
the early 1940s, surveys found that majorities of whites
explained lower black achievement as evidence of intellectual
inferiority. Today only a small minority claim that as true.
The shift in perception from innate biological differences to
social injustice fueled the civil rights movement.
Unfortunately, it also gave whites license to discount
discrimination as an explanation for the continuing difference
between black and white success.
Majorities of whites now believe that the lesser position
of African-Americans is due to moral failing or flaws in black
culture itself. In our own research on the black image in the
white mind, whites we interviewed spontaneously referred to
media images of sexuality and violence that supported their
negative views. These images substituted for the absence of
sustained contact between whites and blacks, inevitable in a
society that remains segregated. This is especially true among
those persons whom we call the ambivalent majority, those
whites who are sympathetic to aspirations of black Americans
but who are influenced by images that highlight
irresponsibility and violence. In short, majorities of white
Americans have good intentions but not the subtle inner
convictions to put their ideals into practice, perhaps because
the forms of discrimination routinely experienced by African-
Americans have become less visible.
Social psychologists who study social cognition, how people
see and process the social world, explain this ambivalence by
invoking the premise that we need simplified mental
representations, they call them schemata, to deal with reality.
Schemata are simple mental shortcuts that let us economize on
brain power. They also distort our perceptions. So powerful are
these mental pictures that they may be activated without
conscious control or awareness, a phenomenon reported by
research in broad range of contexts. For example, whites take
less time to associate traits such as intelligence and kindness
for a white face than for a black face because those traits are
consistent with their mental representations of whites. These
experimental results have important real-world implications.
In one study, researchers sent resumes, identical resumes
except for stereotypically white or black names, to employers
in Chicago and Boston and found that Greg and Emily were 50
percent more likely to get call-blacks than Jamal and Lakisha.
In another experiment, an identical test was given to black and
white college students. In one condition students were told the
test would assess intelligence and the other students were told
the test would measure a problem-solving task. Blacks and
whites performed identically in the latter condition but blacks
did more poorly when they were told the test measured
intelligence. In other words, blacks may unconsciously hold the
same stereotypes as whites and behave accordingly. More
alarmingly, experimental research shows that police officers
both white and black are more likely to shoot at black suspects
than at white suspects.
There is a way out of the unconscious attitude bind:
consciously resist the stereotype. Research across a range of
disciplines converges on the same result: lessen the power of
the stereotype by bringing it out of the unconscious dark and
into the conscious light. Thus, the Willie Horton ad lost much
of its effectiveness when Jesse Jackson made a public issue of
its malicious intent. Social psychologists find that whites who
harbor unconscious stereotypes are able to overcome their
influence when they are made aware of them and they have
sufficient time to process those mental images. Thus, medical
researchers who do brain scan imaging find that the centers of
the limbic system, what we call the lizard brain, are
stimulated even among unprejudiced whites when the stimulus is
brief, 30 milliseconds of a black face. Lengthen the stimulus
to half a second and the power of that stereotype is resisted
by the conscious prefrontal cortex. This explains in part why
police officers who have little time to react are more likely
to be influenced by unconscious attitudes.
On the issue of hip hop music, we know that Don Imus did
not coin the phrase he used to describe the Rutgers women's
basketball team. It is also clear that he would have not used
that phrase had he thought about it for a second or two. That
image was planted in his mind through a complex sequence of
events that began in a culture of poverty that thrives in the
black ghettoes of America. Hip hop is a musical expression of a
segment of African-Americans who grew up under conditions of
privation. The daily lives of African-Americans have inspired a
range of musical innovation and artistic expression: jazz, the
blues. Sadness and tragedy are common to the human condition,
but in the United States they have been disproportionately
experienced by African-Americans who develop musical forms to
give artistic expressions to their life experience.
The music industry is always on the hunt for innovative
forms of music that may be marketed and sold to the largest
audiences. Hip hop has for over 25 years been an immensely
popular genre of music. Its largest audience is white.
Marketing to that audience follows the path of least
resistance. Sensational images of sex and violence are easier
to package and promote than more thoughtful and critical
messages, thus gangster rap has endured much more commercial
success than the more politically oriented conscious rap. DJs
use a mix of hip hop to manage the mood of a club but gangster
rap is catnip to an audience more interested in sexual release
than raising political consciousness.
So therein lie the incentives to artists, promoters,
industry executives and white consumers. The music industry
offers one of the few paths out of poverty available to
African-Americans. Sex and violence offer proven paths to
commercial success and black experience continues to provide
vicarious thrills for white audiences. Today's suburban
adolescents will in time move to influential positions within
corporate America. The question this panel needs to address is
whether the stream of imagery and language in gangster rap is
more likely to get Lakisha and Jamal a call-back. If the answer
is no, how can a system of incentives be changed to make that
more likely. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rojecki follows:]
Statement of Andrew Rojecki
The Don Imus affair is the most recent example of a
pattern in the way Americans think about race. The Civil Rights
movement of the 1960's not only changed the legal framework for
issues of race, it also changed the way Americans spoke in
public about race. In the terms of the social sciences, the
norms had changed. It became socially unacceptable for white
Americans to give voice to black stereotypes in anger or even
in jest. By the early 1990's the term political correctness
(PC) had been coined to make fun of an exaggerated sensitivity
to personal feelings attached to group identity.
The concept of political correctness is less important for
naming a hypocritical repression of speech than for identifying
an incomplete transformation. Specifically, a change in public
norms has not been accompanied by a change in private
attitudes. Political correctness could not exist absent the
tensions between what is expected and what is believed or felt.
For example large majorities of whites say that blacks should
have equal opportunity, but major American cities remain highly
segregated (the ten largest at 75 percent), black children
continue to get inferior education and medical care, and black
unemployment remains twice as high as white.
How do whites explain these differences? In the early
1940's surveys found that majorities of white Americans
explained lower black achievement as evidence of intellectual
inferiority (Kinder & Sanders, 1996). Today, only a small
minority claim that is true (Schuman et al., 1997). The shift
in perception from innate, biological differences to social
injustice fueled the success of the Civil Rights movement.
Unfortunately, it also gave whites license to discount
discrimination as an explanation for the difference between
black and white achievement.
Majorities of whites now believe that the lesser position
of African Americans is due to individual moral failing or
flaws in black culture itself (Sears & Henry, 2005). In our own
research on the black image in the white mind (Entman &
Rojecki, 2000), whites we interviewed spontaneously referred to
media images of sexuality and violence that supported their
negative views. These images substituted for the absence of
sustained contact between whites and blacks, inevitable in a
society that remains segregated by race (Massey & Denton, 1993;
Mumford Center, 2001). This is especially true among those
persons whom we call the ambivalent majority, those whites who
are sympathetic to aspirations of black Americans but who are
influenced by images that highlight irresponsibility and
violence. In short, majorities of white Americans have good
intentions but not the settled inner convictions to put their
ideals into practice, perhaps because the forms of
discrimination routinely experienced by African Americans have
become less visible (e.g. Feagin, 1991; Myers & Passion
Williamson, 2001).
Social psychologists who study social cognition--how
people see and process the social world--explain this
ambivalence by invoking the premise that we need simplified
mental representations (schemata) to deal with the social
world. Schemata are mental shortcuts that allow us to economize
on expenditures of brain power. They also distort our
perceptions. So powerful are these mental pictures that they
may be activated without the person's conscious control or
awareness, a phenomenon widely reported by research in a broad
range of contexts.
For example, whites take less time to associate traits
such as intelligence and kindness for a white face than for a
black face because those traits are consistent with their
mental representations of whites (see Gaertner & McLaughlin,
1983 for the pioneering study; see also https//
implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/). These experimental results
have important real world implications. In one study (Bertrand
& Mullainathan, 2004) researchers sent resumes, identical
except for stereotypically white or black names to employers
and found that the Greg or Emily were 50 percent more likely to
get callbacks than Jamal or Lakisha. In another, experimenters
gave an identical test to black and white college students. In
one condition students were told the tests would assess
intelligence; in the other students were told the tests would
measure a lab problem-solving task. Blacks performed
identically in the latter condition but did more poorly when
they were told the test measured intelligence (Steele, 1997).
In other words, blacks may unconsciously hold same stereotypes
as whites and behave accordingly. More alarmingly, experimental
research shows that police officers, both white and black, are
more likely to shoot at black suspects than white suspects
(Correll, et al., 2002).
There is a way out of the implicit attitude bind:
consciously resisting the stereotype. Research across a range
of disciplines converges on the same result: lessen the power
of the stereotype by bringing it out of the unconscious dark
into the conscious light. Thus the Willie Horton ad lost its
effectiveness when Jesse Jackson made a public issue of its
malicious intent (Mendelberg, 2001). Social psychologists find
that whites who harbor unconscious stereotypes are able to
overcome their influence when they are made aware of them and
they have sufficient time to process those mental images.
Medical researchers who do brain scan imaging find that the
fear centers of the limbic system (sometimes referred to as the
lizard brain) are stimulated even among unprejudiced whites
when the stimulus is brief--30 milliseconds of a black face
(Cunningham et al., 2004). Lengthen the stimulus to half a
second and the power of the stereotype is resisted by the
conscious prefrontal cortex. This explains in part why police
officers who have little time to react are more likely to be
influenced by unconscious attitudes.
On the issue of hip-hop music, we know that Don Imus did
not coin the phrase he used to describe the Rutgers women's
basketball team. It is also clear that he would not have used
that phrase had he thought about it for a second or two. That
image was planted in his mind through a complex sequence of
events that began in a culture of poverty that thrives in the
black ghettos of America. Hip-hop is a musical expression of a
segment of lived experience that resonates with a significant
number of African Americans who grew up under conditions of
privation. The lived experiences of African-American life have
inspired a range of musical innovation and artistic expression,
as in jazz and the blues. Sadness and tragedy are common to the
human condition, but in the United States they have been
disproportionately experienced by African Americans who have
developed musical forms to give artistic expression to their
lived experience.
The music industry is always on the hunt for innovative
forms of music that may be marketed and sold to the largest
audiences. Hip-hop has for over twenty-five years been an
immensely popular genre of music, and its largest audience is
white. Marketing to that audience follows the path of least
resistance: sensational images of sex and violence are easier
to package and promote than more thoughtful and critical
messages. Thus gangster rap has enjoyed much more commercial
success than the more politically oriented conscious rap. DJs
use a mix of hip-hop to manage the mood of a club, but gangster
rap is catnip to an audience more interested in sexual release
than raising political consciousness.
Therein lie the incentives to artists, promoters, industry
executives, and white consumers. The music industry offers one
of the few paths out of poverty available to African Americans,
sex and violence offer proven paths to commercial success, and
black experience continues to provide vicarious thrills for
white audiences. Today's suburban adolescents will in time move
to influential positions within corporate America. The question
this panel needs to address is whether the stream of imagery
and language in gangster rap is more or less likely to get
Lakisha and Jamal a callback. And if the answer is no, how can
the system of incentives be changed to make that more likely.
References
Bertrand, M. &, Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and
Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? National Bureau of
Economic Research, Working Paper No. 9873.
Correll, J., Judd, C. M., Park, B., & Wittenbrink, B.
(2002). The police officer's dilemma: Using ethnicity to
disambiguate potentially threatening individuals. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83: 1314-39.
Cunningham, W. A., Johnson. M. K., Raye, C. L., Gatenby,
C., Gore, J. C., & Banaji M. R. (2004) Separable neural
components in the processing of black and white faces.
Psychological Science, 15: 806-13.
Entman, R. M., & Rojecki, A. (2000). The black image in
the white mind: Media & race in America. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Feagin, J. (1991). The Continuing significance of race:
Antiblack discrimination in public places. American
Sociological Review, 56: 101-116.
Gaertner, S. L., & McLaughlin, J. P. (1983). Racial
stereotypes: Associations and ascriptions of positive and
negative characteristics. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44: 192-
203.
Kinder, D. R., & Sanders, L. M. (1996). Divided by color:
Racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1993). American apartheid:
Segregation and the making of the Underclass. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Mendelberg, T. (2001). The race card. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Mumford Center. (2001). Ethnic diversity grows,
neighborhood integration lags behind. Available online: http://
mumford1.dyndns.org/cen2000/WholePop/WPreport/MumfordReport.pdf
Myers, K A., & Passion Williamson, B. S. (2001). Race
talk: The perpetuation of racism through private talk. Race and
Society, 4: 3-26.
Schuman, H., Steeh, C., Bobo, L., & Krysan, M. (1997).
Racial attitudes in America: Trends and interpretations.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sears, D. O., & Henry, P. J. (2005). Over thirty years
later: A contemporary look at symbolic racism and its critics.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37: 95-150.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and
the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 69: 797-811.
----------
Mr. Rush. Professor Williams.
STATEMENT OF FAYE WILLIAMS, NATIONAL CHAIR, NATIONAL CONGRESS
OF BLACK WOMEN, INC., WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Williams. Chairman Rush, on behalf of the Women's
Coalition on Dignity and Diversity representing more than 11
million women and their families, we thank you for holding this
hearing. Even though many of the Members of Congress could not
be here, many of the cameras have left, many people have left,
we women have heard that someone said we will get over this and
they will just outwait us, they don't know us because we are
still here, we are still standing.
Our coalition is made up of a diverse group of women who
come from the National Council of Women's Organizations,
National Council of Negro Women, the Women of Rainbow PUSH, the
Women of National Action Network, National Organization for
Women, Feminist Majority, YWCA, the National Coalition on Black
Civic Participation, the National Congress of Black Women,
women from labor, women in sports, women from religion, women
from business and all walks of life, and I just want to say
that this is not about hip hop. It is not about just rap or us.
We are here because we are putting everybody on notice that
women are tired of the images of ourselves that we see out
there. Some of us educate ourselves. You will notice at this
table, everybody's name carries with it ``doctor'' and we work
very hard for the young people in our community and we are
tired of being denigrated in our society.
Mr. Chairman, we women, especially black women and our
children, have been bombarded with misogyny, violence and
obscenities day after day. In a society that claims that it is
fair and seeks justice for all, too many corporate leaders have
captured the rawness of the feelings of many black males and a
few black females who feel disenfranchised. Some rap and hip
hop music which began with a positive purpose now taps into the
psyche of black teens who have a sense that no one cares that
the young black males are routinely getting the short end of
the stick in America. They look at what is happening in Katrina
still, what is happening to the Jena 6 in my home State of
Louisiana, and they have reason to believe that they should be
angry with everybody including you and me, Mr. Chairman.
Instead of putting adequate funds into the education and
care of young people and the assurance of jobs and the chance
to build their own businesses, our system has failed them by
steadily diverting funds into war and destruction. We have not
always provided the kinds of options that would prevent our
young people from idolizing the lives of thugs and pimps and
warlords and negative images. Too many of us have criticized
young people for denigrating and disrespecting women and black
people in order to make a living when they are offered no
decent option. We have allowed greed to lead many of our young
people to believe that it is OK to entertain themselves by
destroying the culture of a people. We know all too well what
happened to our Native American brothers and sisters in movies
through the years. The obscenities we see and here today have
become commonplace to the point that it is being genocidal.
Even our babies have been subjected to horrifying language and
images on public airwaves by those who should know better but
are claiming that this is the only way to relate to our
children. If you haven't seen the so-called public service
advertisement that looks just like any other cartoon called
``Read a Book'' you need to see it to understand what we are
talking about and why we are still standing. What are teachers
to do when they hear the children repeat these words? Why
should our children be assaulted daily with garbage under the
guide of first amendment rights to say nothing about
responsibility? I challenge those are so supportive of
unlimited free speech without responsibility to question why
they have not spoken out for the right of Anton Mohammad to
testify here today and to speak out for independent media
outlets. The corporate executives that lure our young people
into believing it is all right to destroy the culture of people
seem to have targeted black women and our families who
contributed too much to this society.
We believe in freedom of speech but with every right goes a
responsibility. We have a right to earn money but we have a
corresponding responsibility to pay taxes. We have a right to
travel on public transportation but a responsibility not to
carry guns onto them. We have a right to have children but a
responsibility not to abuse and neglect them. Mr. Chairman,
using the public airwaves and public forums may be our right
but the line must be drawn and balanced by the responsibility
to refrain from painting an immoral image of an entire race of
people and of black women in particular.
Not only entertainment executives but advertisers must act
more responsibly. Why should we want to buy a product that pays
for our destruction? Mr. Chairman, those of us who use public
airwaves must be made to understand that there are consequences
for those who insist upon subjecting our children to songs like
``Read a Book,'' and the words are just too bizarre for me to
mention here today. When you see the video and hear the words,
you will understand why we are so highly disturbed. Along with
the right of freedom of speech goes the responsibility not to
bombard those airwaves and our public forums with filthy,
derogatory, offensive, indecent language that crosses the line
of decency. We are not objecting to what goes on in adult
nightclubs here. We are talking about what is brought to our
children and they deserve better images.
Nearly 15 years ago my predecessor, the late Dr. C. Delores
Tucker, warned us about where we were headed when we allow
unrestricted rights to spew vicious, hateful words about women
and how this contributes to violence and disrespect in our
society, and I know, Mr. Chairman, you would agree the results
have come to pass. On occasion we turn on our television and we
black women are embarrassed and humiliated by what we see when
we see women who are portrayed as gangsters and men who are
portrayed as pimps and women as prostitutes and the
thuggishness that we see there with no mention of the great
works of great black people, no balance whatsoever. What we are
often seeing on television, videos and elsewhere is not the
culture of the black people I know. Our culture has more to do
with respecting our elders, our sisters, our mothers, our
grandmothers, but where are those images? In our culture, the
gangster is the exception. The thug, the pimp, the prostitute,
those are the exceptions. Many black men and women serve this
country with honor and distinction and deserve better
treatment.
In conclusion, I would like to say black women have served
this country as Surgeons General, Secretary of Labor, Energy,
Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of State, in Congress,
as diplomats, as college presidents, in law, medicine and all
walks of life and rarely do we ever hear public officials even
speaking out about balancing rights with responsibilities when
it comes to the images portrayed of black women and our
families. Don Imus was wrong when he belittled the young women
at Rutgers. Cortland Malloy of the Washington Post is usually
right on the issues but he just plain got it wrong when he
belittled our efforts to demand better images of women and our
families in our Enough is Enough Campaign. Isiah Thomas, as
mentioned before, is wrong when he says that it is highly
offensive for a white male to call a black female the ``B''
word. Well, it is wrong then but it is always wrong.
Mr. Chairman, we in the Women's Coalition for Dignity and
Diversity respect the first amendment and we believe in the
right to free speech but we also believe in decent speech. Yes,
rights without responsibility should be labeled anarchy yet
that is much of what we see and hear on our public airwaves and
in public forums. It is time for Congress to stand up and to
insist upon responsibility and to insist that others take
responsibility and make that clear to the FCC and the FTC, what
their roles should be in making it happen. We can't and we
won't sit around and wait for gangster rap or hip hop or
anything else in our society with those vicious media images of
us to self-destruct. We are not just talking about BET here
either, and its parent company, Viacom, about bombarding our
community with vicious images. We are talking about everyone
who does it in all walks of life. Being credited with or blamed
for the diminishing sales of gangster rap, Mr. Chairman, and
offensive language and images is a banner we women proudly bear
but it is not happening because we allowed it to self-destruct.
It is happening because we have been intent on making it happen
for years, at least since the National Congress of Black Women
began this campaign nearly 15 years ago.
Again, Mr. Chairman, we thank you so much for having this
hearing today. We women are glad that we finally have our
chance to say something public because we witnessed so much
time when we were never called upon, so we appreciate you for
calling on us today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Williams follows:]
Statement of Faye Williams
Chairman Rush and members of the Subcommittee on Commerce,
Trade, and Consumer Protection, on behalf of the Women's
Coalition on Dignity and Diversity, representing more than 11
million women and their families, we thank you for holding this
hearing.
Our coalition is made up of diverse groups of women from
numerous organizations'such as the National Council of Negro
Women, Rainbow-PUSH, National Action Network, National
Organization for Women, Feminist Majority, the YWCA, the
National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, the National
Congress of Black Women, as well as women in sports, religion,
labor, business and all walks of life.
Mr. Chairman, we women, especially we black women and our
children, have been bombarded with misogyny, violence and
obscenity through public airwaves day after day. In a society
that claims that it is fair and seeks justice for all, too many
corporate leaders in the entertainment business have captured
the rawness of the feelings of many black males, and a few
black females, who feel disenfranchised. Some rap music which
began with a positive purpose, now taps into the psyche of
black teens who have a sense that no one cares that young black
males are routinely getting the short end of the stick in
America. They look at what is happening in the Jena 6 case in
my home State, Louisiana, and they have reason to believe they
should be angry with everybody--even with black women and black
elders who've given their all to try to make life better for
them.
Instead of putting adequate funds into the education and
care of young people, and the assurance of jobs and a chance to
build their own businesses, our system has failed them by
steadily diverting funds into war and destruction. We have not
always provided the kinds of options that would prevent our
young people from idolizing the lives of thugs, pimps, warlords
or other negative images. Too many of us have criticized young
people for denigrating and disrespecting women and black people
in order to make a living, when they are offered no decent
options.
We have allowed greedy corporate executives--especially
those in the entertainment industry--to lead many of our young
people to believe that is okay to entertain themselves by
destroying the culture of our people. We know all too well what
happened to our Native American brothers and sisters in movies
through the years. The profanity, vulgarity, and obscenity we
see and hear today have become common place to the point of
being genocidal.
Even our very young babies have become subjected to
horrifying language and images on public airwaves by those who
should know better, but are claiming that this is the only way
to relate to our children. If you haven't seen the so-called
public service advertisement that looks like just another
cartoon, called Read a Book, you need to see it to understand
what I am talking about. What are teachers to do when they hear
these children repeat these words?
Why should our children be assaulted daily with garbage
under the guise of First amendment rights that say nothing
about responsibility?
The corporate executives that lure our young people into
believing it is all right to destroy the culture of a people
seem to have targeted black women and our families who've
contributed so much to this nation. The same can be said
historically about our Native American sisters and their
families.
We believe in freedom of speech, but with every right goes
responsibility. We have a right to earn money, but we have a
corresponding responsibility to pay income taxes.We have a
right to travel on public transportation such as airplanes, but
a responsibility not to carry on or even mention guns or other
weapons while riding. We have a right to have children, but a
responsibility not to abuse or neglect them.
Mr. Chairman, using the public airwaves may be a right, but
the line must be drawn and balanced by the responsibility to
refrain from painting an immoral image of an entire race of
people--and of black women in particular. Not only
entertainment executives, but advertisers must act more
responsibly. Why should we want to buy a product that pays for
our destruction?
Mr. Chairman, those who use the public airwaves must be
made to understand that there are consequences for those who
insist upon subjecting our children to songs like Read a Book.
The words are too bizarre to mention in this hearing, but it's
easy enough to hear them on the Internet or on television.
When you see the video and hear the words, you will
understand why we are so highly disturbed about what is brought
to our children--while those who bring it castigate those of us
who object to it. We all want our children to read a book, but
our children are not so dumb that they need to be told in such
vile and bizarre language to do so. Along with the right of
freedom of speech goes the responsibility not to bombard those
airwaves with filthy, derogatory, offensive, indecent language
that crosses the line of decency and shocks the conscience of
all who hear or see it. We're not objecting to what goes on in
adult clubs here; we're talking about what is brought to our
children who deserve better images.
Nearly 15 years ago, my predecessor, the late Dr. C.
DeLores Tucker, warned us about where we were headed when we
allow unrestricted rights to spew vicious, hateful words about
women, and how this contributes to violence and disrespect. The
results have come to pass.
On occasion, we turn our televisions on and we are
embarrassed and humiliated to see so many black men and women
portrayed as gangsters, pimps, prostitutes, and thugs--with no
mention of the great works of our people--no balance what-so-
ever.
What we so often see on television, videos and elsewhere is
not the culture of the people I know. It's not the culture of
the majority of black people. Our culture has more to do with
respecting our elders, our sisters, our mothers and
grandmothers--but where are those images? In our culture, the
gangster is the exception; the thug is the exception; the pimp
is the exception; the prostitute is the exception. Many black
men and women serve this country with honor and distinction,
and deserve better treatment.
Black women have served this country as Surgeon General,
Secretary of Labor, Energy, Housing and Urban Development,
Secretary of State, in Congress, as Diplomats, as college
Presidents, in law, medicine and all walks of life--and too
rarely do we even hear many of our public officials speak out
about balancing rights with responsibilities when it comes to
the images portrayed of black women and our families on public
airwaves. Don Imus was wrong when he belittled the young women
at Rutgers. Courtland Milloy of the Washington Post is usually
right on the issues, but he just plain got it wrong when he
belittled our efforts to demand better images of women and our
families in our ``Enough is Enough'' campaign. Isiah Thomas is
wrong when he says that it's highly offensive for a white male
to call a black female a b * * * *, but it's okay for a black
man to do so. Well, Mr. Thomas would be surprised to know that
they're equally offensive and totally unacceptable to black
women.
Chairman Rush, we in the Women's Coalition for Dignity and
Diversity respect the First Amendment rights of every citizen.
We believe in the right to free speech, but we also believe in
decent speech.
Yes, rights without responsibilities should be labeled
anarchy; yet that is much of what we see and hear on our public
airwaves. It's time for Congress to stand up and insist upon
responsibility, and make it clear to the FCC and the FTC what
their roles should be in making it happen. That is what we in
the Women's Coalition for Dignity and Diversity are saying.
We can't, and we won't, sit around and wait for gangsta rap
and other vicious media images of us to self destruct. We're
not just talking about BET, and its parent company, Viacom,
about bombardment of our community with vicious images of women
and of black people. We call upon all media to be more
responsible. We also call upon advertisers to be more sensitive
to the pain these negative images cause those of us being
targeted.
I conclude by repeating what President Lyndon Johnson once
said, ``How incredible it is that in this fragile existence we
should hate and destroy one another!'' And I say that without
responsibility, that is exactly what happens to women and our
families each time someone decides to denigrate us on public
airwaves for the almighty dollar, and in the name of free
speech.
Being credited with, or being blamed for, the diminishing
sales of gangsta rap and offensive language and images is a
banner we proudly wear; but it's not happening because we
allowed it to self destruct. It's happening because we've been
intent upon making it happen for years--at least since the
National Congress of Black Women began our campaign nearly 15
years ago, with others joining us recently.
We have a long way to go, Mr. Chairman, and we still need
your help. We need Mr. Markey's help and the help of every
Member of this Subcommittee and the Committee on Energy and
Commerce to rein in what should and what should not be seen or
said so freely on public airwaves.
We need the Progressives, Conservatives, Democrats,
Republicans, Independents, and all others to talk not just
about rights of free speech, but also about the
responsibilities inherent in this great freedom. Again, we
thank you for your courage in holding these hearings.
----------
STATEMENT OF LISA FAGER BEDIAKO, PRESIDENT, INDUSTRY EARS,
ODENTON, MD
Ms. Bediako. Actually I am the only person up here without
a Ph.D.
Mr. Williams. That is all right. You are good. You have
good information.
Ms. Bediako. I have an M.B.A.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify
today on the business of stereotypes and degrading images. My
name is Lisa Fager Bediako and I am the president and cofounder
of Industry Ears. Industry Ears is a nonprofit, nonpartisan,
independent organization which is focused on the impact media
has on communities of color and children since 2003. My
cofounder, Paul Porter, and I have collectively more than 40
years of experience working in media and entertainment
companies including BET, Clear Channel Communications, Emmetts
Communications, Discovery Communications, CBS Radio, Capital
EMI Records, Def Jam Records and Radio One, to name a few.
Using our insiders' knowledge, we created Industry Ears and
IndustryEars.com to address the myths and misconceptions about
the media and entertainment industry and how they operate, and
more importantly, to develop effective means to combat the
negative consequences of harmful media images and messages on
children, particularly children of color.
The now-infamous Imus incident is intriguing in that it has
created strange bedfellows. It has unified both conservative
and liberal media invoking hip hop music as a veritable poster
child of all that is wrong with society. This is a popular
argument made in the throes of Imus oft-repeated ``nappy-head
hos'' comment. Such language pales in comparison to the content
of most commercialized hip hop music. The idea is that if radio
stations and Viacom music channels can play the b * * * *, n *
* * * *, ho content of gangsta rappers, then what is so bad
about the Imus comment. If the black community apparently
accepts such language from its own, then why get upset when Don
Imus says it.
What appears to be more difficult to understand, especially
to our friends in the news media, is there exists a large cadre
of individuals and organizations that represent communities of
color that also are in an uproar when media permit content that
is degrading to women and people of color. Note that unlike
conservative and liberal media hype, our concern is not
simplistically directed at the artists who produce such
material. Our concern is also directed towards the record
labels, radio stations and music video channels, i.e., the
corporations that are profiting from and allowing such material
to air. This is a fact that often gets overlooked in mainstream
media: not all black people and not all lovers of hip hop like
myself endorse materialism, violence and misogyny that
characterize commercial rap music. It is time to wake up and
see the real issue. The media conglomerates are the gatekeepers
of content and in essence control what opinions receive
airtime.
The deletion of the Fairness Doctrine and the passage of
the 1996 Telecommunications Act help to create incredibly big
media corporations by eliminating the requirements that balance
viewpoints be presented, and by relaxing rules, placing limits
on how much media a single corporation can own. Further, by
repealing the Tax Certification Program, which successfully, if
temporarily, increased ownership of media outlets by people of
color, we have ensured that these big media corporations do not
represent the diversity of society. With the control of so much
media concentrated in the hands of a very few, we are at the
mercy of big media and rely on companies to serve the best
interest of the public while also serving their bottom line.
And as might seem obvious, what best serves the public interest
and what best serves the bottom line are not always the same.
This is evidenced by the fact that CBS fired Imus only when
corporate sponsors started to pull out.
Commercial hip hop has flourished in this environment,
giving public perception that what you see and what you hear on
radio and TV has been set in the community standard. The
Federal Communications Commission states that it is a Federal
violation to broadcast indecent or sexually explicit content
between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. However, songs that
discuss explicit sexual situations including oral sex, rape,
casual sex and gang sex receive daily spins on radio stations
and video channels that cater to the 12-17 demographic.
Freedom of speech has been shown by the industry
conglomerates to mean the ``B'' word, the ``N'' word and ``ho''
while censoring and eliminating hip hop music that discusses
Hurricane Katrina, the Iraqi war, the Jena 6, dangers of gun
violence and drugs and songs that have contained words like
``George Bush'' and ``Free Mummia.'' In 2005, MTV and radio
stations around the country self-regulated themselves to remove
the word ``white man'' from the Kanye West hit song ``All Fall
Down.'' The lyrics demonstrated the far reach of capitalism by
explaining drug dealers like Jordans, crackheads like crack,
and a white man gets paid from all of that. When asked why they
decided to dub ``white man'' from the lyrics, the response from
MTV was, we did not want to offend anyone.
Today hip hop is bombarded by the demeaning images of black
male thugs and the sleazy video vixen. Record labels and their
executives choose to support and promote these images for
airplay solely as if these are the only images that represent
black people. I understand that payola is out of the scope of
the subcommittee. However, I think it is important to mention
because it is a major contributor to how music receives radio
and video airplay. The former attorney general Eliot Spitzer,
now governor of New York, made deals with four major record
labels totaling $30.1 million as with two broadcasters for
another $6.25 million in a statewide payola investigation that
also implicated many outside of the State of New York.
Meanwhile, the FCC settled with a consent decree that stopped a
Federal investigation of payola and allowed broadcasters to
avoid a finding of liability by this violation and entering
into a settlement agreement costing them a measly combined
total of $12.5 million, and then on top of that, they do not
have to admit guilt. All over the country, you have identical
play lists from station to station no matter the radio format,
and it is no coincidence. Payola is no longer the local DJ
receiving a couple dollars under the table. It is now an
organized corporate crime that supports the lack of balanced
content and demeaning imagery with no consequences.
A good example of records, radio and corporate partnerships
include the song on Virgin record label called ``Miss New
Booty'' and there is a sheet under your copies of this picture,
and this is what I am referring to. This song performed by a
white rapper was silly and tasteless but the promotion by the
record label and the partnership with Girls Gone Wild was truly
offensive. A local Washington DJ on an urban radio station in
Washington, DC, at 5 p.m. promoted the tune by suggesting he
would like to visit the MissNewBooty.com Web site to
masturbate. The Web site created by Virgin Records asks girls
to enter a contest for the best new booty. The girls are
required to take photos of their butts and post them online.
Each week people would vote for the best booty of the week and
the winner receiving a chance to be in a music video. It was
obvious that girls under 17 were entering the contest. Some
even listed their MySpace account, making it easy for the child
predator. The Girls Gone Wild partner was listed on top of the
Web site and linked and making it easy for preteens and others
to access. I wrote an open letter to Virgin Records and
Jermaine Dupree at the time, who was president of urban music
at Virgin, responded by saying it was all in fun, it wasn't
about sex. Later that same month Jermaine Dupree appeared in an
article in Billboard magazine and said that hip hop was
inspired by strip clubs. Go figure.
It is important to note that African-American children
listen and watch more radio and television than any other
demographic. Although top 40 and hip hop radio stations claim
to target 18-34 demographics as well as the MTV and BET
stations, their largest audience share are the 12- to 17-year-
old segment. Record companies, radio stations and Viacom are
aware of their audience but have chosen to put the bottom line
above the welfare of the audience.
In the hip hop documentary ``Hip Hop Beyond Beats,'' a
group of white teens are asked what they think about hip hop.
They explain hip hop gives us a better insight into black
culture and it is like how it is to grow up in the ghetto as if
all black people had the same experience. Bakari Kitwana,
professor and author of several books dealing with hip hop and
politics----
Mr. Rush. Ms. Bediako----
Ms. Bediako. I am going to wrap it up.
Mr. Rush. Please.
Ms. Bediako. I am going to tell you what he said. He was
doing research and he asked a group of white women if they were
offended by rappers using the term ``b * * * *'' to describe
women and they said no, because they are only referring to
black women.
In sum, I just want to say I am sure the industry will
shrug at the notion that these actions that they have done have
led or influenced any behavior and so I strongly suggest that a
research study look at these direct impacts of degrading and
stereotypical images on children and adults. This study will
help us understand the direct implications and back up the
policy and regulations that need to be implemented and
enforced.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Fager-Bediako follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much.
Dr. Dill, please, around 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KAREN DILL, PH.D., LENOIR-RHYNE COLLEGE, HICKORY,
NC
Ms. Dill. Chairman Rush, thank you so much for inviting me
here and I am very pleased that you are holding this hearing
today about this important subject. We Americans spend two-
thirds of our waking lives consuming media, be it television,
movies, video games or the Internet. Media consumption is the
No. 1 waking activity of choice for U.S. Americans, commanding
on average 3,700 hours of each citizen's time annually. The
average American child devotes 45 hours plus per week of what
we call screen time, which is combined television and others
forms of media. This alone I think America is putting serious
attention into looking at media education in our school system.
It is what children do with their time.
Since culture is our shared reality created and sustained
through common experience, American culture is now largely what
is shaped and maintained by the mass media be it television,
video games or music. Media creates meaning, it creates shared
beliefs and values and even rules for behavior. They all tell
us stories, project images and communicate ideas. Since we are
social creatures, it is natural for us to learn who we are, how
we should act, feel, think and believe through the stories of
our common culture. We were not created to have social
interactions on the media. We treat our interactions with the
media like they were real-life face-to-face interactions and
that is how we learn through that information. If we see a
black person behaving a certain way in the media, we think oh,
this is social information, this is real behavior.
This creation of culture through popular media was sadly
exemplified recently when radio personality Don Imus referred
to a college women's basketball team as ``nappy-headed hos.''
Sadder still, many responded that the racist and sexist
language was acceptable because that type of language is used
by minority members in rap music. Unfortunately, racist and
sexist slurs influence real people, for example, sending the
message to girls that this is how our society views you and
causing issues with self-esteem and with identity. Over and
over again I have had the chance to talk with people about
media and by and large what I find is that people do not
believe they are affected by media at all. Studies show this.
People do not believe they are affected by the media. As an
example, a recent study showed that the more violent video
games you play, the less you think people are affected by
playing violent video games.
There is a lot of reasons for these different
misperceptions about the media. I will name a few here. First
of all, we all have a natural tendency to not want to believe
that our habits are harmful. We don't want to believe that our
child playing a violent video game can have a negative
influence. That would make us a bad parent or a bad person. We
have a mistaken view of how media affects us. For example, we
think media effects need to be immediate and very extreme.
People say to me often, I play lots of violent video games and
I haven't picked up a gun and gone out and shot someone. Well,
that is not how media effects work. Media creates a culture and
for example, we are talking about rap lyrics today. That
creates a culture where we understand women, black women
particularly in a certain way. It is not a matter of where you
go out and shoot someone or behave in an extreme fashion. It is
a cumulative effect.
Also, we misunderstand that media are produced primarily to
entertain us. They are produced primarily to make a profit and
the content follows. And finally, we have a tendency to believe
that for an important event it must have an important cause so
if someone is violent, it can't be caused by watching
television or listening to a song. So there are lots of things
that we don't understand about how the media works and again
that just underlines the idea that we need a media education
curriculum in our schools so that kids can understand this.
Research on music has demonstrated that exposure to violent
rap videos increases adversarial sexual beliefs, meaning that
we view men and women as enemies in the sexual sphere. It also
increases the acceptance of relationship violence.
Additionally, violent music lyrics have been shown to increase
aggression.
The APA taskforce on the sexualization of girls just put
out a report in 2007. It is an excellent piece of work and we
have included in the written record that report for you to look
at. That report found that when girls are exposed to images in
the media of women as sex objects, a variety of negative
outcomes follow. Sexualization is linked to negative
consequences, both cognitive and emotional functioning, mental
health including eating disorders, low self-esteem and
depression, physical health and one's own sexual image also
develops less healthy than it would.
To understand the psychology behind these issues, one must
understand that aggression is in part motivated by a need for
power, dominance and coercion. For example, current research
characterizes domestic violence as being motivated by the need
to coerce and dominate. Theoretically, both sexism and racism
in the media are examples of social influence. Degrading women
and minorities through sexist and racist language and imagery
is a way to keep women and minorities quote, unquote, in their
place. It creates a culture in which this true. I have several
research examples summarized in my written testimony but I
wanted to tell you about one study I conducted recently with my
colleagues, Michael Collins and Brian Brown. We exposed young
people to either sexist stereotypes or to professional men and
women and then we had them read a story, a real-life story
about a woman who experienced sexual harassment from her
college professor, and then we asked them questions about this
and what we found was that the men who had been exposed to the
sexist images were less likely to say the event really was
sexual harassment, to say it was serious and damaging and to
show empathy for the victim. They were more likely to blame the
victim and choose less severe punishment for the perpetrator.
Today we heard that if you don't like a piece of music or a
television show, you can just turn it off, but you can't turn
off your culture. This kind of imagery pervades the culture.
In conclusion, we enjoy freedom of expression in this
country but no country can grant us freedom from consequences.
My message today is that violence, hatred, racism and sexism in
the media do matter and I would call for two things: one, more
research and more funding for research on this topic, and two,
as I have said, to implement a curriculum in our schools which
would be referred to as media literacy training, and I can give
more information on that if anyone is interested but is just a
basic education about how the media work and this helps young
people cope with those images that they see in the media.
Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dill follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. Thank you so very much. I am going to begin my
line of questioning with Professor Whiting.
Professor Sharpley-Whiting, in your testimony you talk
about the long, demeaning and tragic history of African-
American women all the way back to Thomas Jefferson, and you
basically state that some of the contemporary commercial hip
hop is simply continuing that unfortunate legacy. I had the
privilege and honor of going to visit Ghana this past summer
for their 50th anniversary. And we went to a slave castle and
our tour guide explained to us about the slave castle. And the
image that is implanted in my psyche is the image of the yard
where all the women in a certain time of day were gathered to
the yard, all the slave women, and on the balcony, like a
second-floor balcony, this is where the captain or the head of
the castle would come out invariably, the same hour every day,
and selected the women who he would exploit and abuse, and
there was a little contraption to the side and with a chain to
it and a ball and this is where the women who were used for
that moment would go. This is where they were held out in the
sun beaming down on them. It was a very hot place. So it seems
to me like it even goes beyond Thomas Jefferson. It seems to me
like there has been--that there are two types in the psyche of
slave culture. It is like modern-day culture to a great extent
in racist culture. There are two types of black women, those
who are asexual, the other kind of asexual women who are
portrayed in a comical sense by the movies, Tyler Perry's
movies, ``Big Mama.'' Those are the asexual types but then you
have the oversexed type that are portrayed in some of the hip
hop videos, and so I agree with you, there is a continuum that
exists. My question is, how do we effectively as a society, how
do we effectively intervene with this powerful, powerful
psychological force that creates a demeaning point of view,
referenced image of our women? Imus was speaking to that, as
far as I am concerned, and a lot of artists speak to that. Can
you expand on your concept?
Ms. Sharpley-Whiting. Well, that is a huge question,
Congressman. But let me say this. The reason why I wanted to
begin with Jefferson was because it is critical for us to have
historical context in thinking about the issues that women in
general are dealing with and black women in particular, and it
is very important for me to link Jefferson's ideas at the
moment of the founding of the Nation. This is very important.
And so I think although we can go back further, clearly the
transatlantic slave trade is the moment in which black women
were certainly denigrated, and as you have described that
history very vividly and oversexualized and sexualized. I think
what we are dealing with today, or what needs to happen today,
is that young women are being handed their sexuality. They are
being essentially told this is what it means to be sexy, to be
affirmed. The images are extremely seductive. As a woman with a
Ph.D., they are seductive to me even and I think we have to
admit that as human beings, they are very intriguing. They are
meant to be titillating, and so it is very difficult to resist
them. Ms. Fager-Bediako, as she has described, that a
particular demographic is very influenced by these images. It
is absolutely important to recognize that there is a particular
demographic being targeted and it is very susceptible to it but
I think we all in some ways are quite susceptible to it and
seduced by it. I think that what we do need to begin with is
with young women thinking about what does a healthy, affirming
sexuality look like.
I also think that we really need to explore what do
masculinity, male ways of behavior and manhood mean in this
country. I think that there is a movement in this country for
men to kind of reclaim masculinity or manhood, and part of that
move means that women are hypersexualized and men embody a
certain hypermasculinity, and this is not restricted to hip
hop. When you can have a writer and Ph.D., a professor at
Harvard, Harvey Mansfield, writing a book called ``Manliness''
in which he argues that men need to reclaim their manly space
and that they have been beaten down by the feminist movement on
C-SPAN ``Book Notes'' with Naomi Wolf, of all people, and argue
that men essentially don't like women much because we are very
different and that women, now that we have accepted that we are
equal, we should also be able to accept that we are not quite
equal. And so I think this is pervasive in the culture and we
have to explore these things in tandem. We have a tendency to
want to isolate certain musical expressions but I find Hooter's
offensive in a lot of ways as I do aspects of hip hop culture
and I find aspects of hip hop culture quite edifying in a lot
of ways. So I am very reluctant to denounce the culture. But
what I always like to say, and I will stop here, is that I am a
professor of course in a research institution in the South, a
very well-respected research institution and one that I am
quite proud of but I have come from various kinds of research
institutions and no one, particularly at Vanderbilt--let me be
clear--has ever called me a ``ho'' but that doesn't mean that I
haven't been treated like one or people have attempted to treat
me like one. What that essentially means is people have
attempted to box me into a category, to subordinate me in a
certain way, and so the language--I am a little--I don't want
us to go down the slippery slope of censorship because one
doesn't necessarily have to call me that. But one can certainly
attempt to treat me that way and so I think we need to explore
all of our ways of being and our ways of communicating and
disseminating ideas about what it means to be a woman and what
it means to be a man.
Mr. Rush. Dr. Rojecki, in a continuation of my initial
question, in your written testimony you write that the black
experience continues to provide vicarious thrills for white
audiences. What do you mean by that?
Mr. Rojecki. I think for the most part that black cultural
products have defined what it means to be hip, what it means to
be cool, and you only need look at young white males. My
nephew, who grew up in a town in upstate New York, a town that
has no African-Americans, started behaving kind of using kind
of a hip hop lingo and wearing certain kinds of clothes and so
on. That defines being cool and I think that has been the case
for a long time. Coolness comes from a notion of being
dangerous, sort of riding the line and so on, and that I think
is a function of the kind of culture that we live in. It is
very difficult I think to resist for hip hop artists not to
respond to a demand that I think in large part comes from that
kind of definition of what it means to be hip and cool. It is a
very difficult puzzle to solve.
Mr. Rush. I am kind of intrigued by something else that you
indicate in your testimony. You point out that the largest
audience for hip hop--and I think we probably for clarification
purposes, we need to talk about hip hop, is it the conscious
hip hop or the gangster hip hop? We need to kind of know which
hip hop we are really talking about. I think that is one of the
things that we have learned today that there different
variations of hip hop. Would you say the audience for hip hop
is white and that sensational images--and I quote you,
``sensational images of sex and violence are used to package
and promote the critical messages.'' Are you--can you quantify?
Are you saying that the biggest audience for hip hop is not the
urban African-American dweller but it is the suburban white
young person? Is that what you said? Clarify that for me, if
you will.
Mr. Rojecki. That is exactly what I am saying, and I can't
give you precise statistic because they are difficult to come
by but I have heard anywhere from 50 to 60 to 70 percent of the
market for this music is white.
Mr. Rush. And what do you feel as though the effect is on
the white consumer of this music?
Mr. Rojecki. Well, you are essentially creating a demand
within the white community for images of black stereotypes that
the black community is then creating and being marketed through
large corporations back out to those audiences. I think it is a
vicious circle.
Mr. Rush. Dr. Williams, you call for responsibility and
sensitivity in the use of free speech. How do we as a loosely
connected, well-meaning group of individuals and organizations,
a well-meaning coalition, how do we really rise up to your
challenge for sensitivity and responsibility? Where do we draw
the line and how do we exercise a sense of responsibility and
sensitivity while we also honor and respect the first
amendment?
Ms. Williams. Yes. I think, well, first of all, we said
that this is not just about hip hop or rap. We are talking
about all segments of our society. I believe that we can begin
to paint more positive pictures of black women and particular
and other women, of course, in whatever we do. I believe we can
stand up and we can defend and we can state the other side of
it when we hear these negative things. We can talk about what
we know. We can talk about our own culture. We can deny the
fact that this pimp, ho, prostitute, et cetera kind of thing is
a part of our culture or at least any big part of our culture.
We can also coalesce. I believe that all of us have to--we are
all guilty of it. We want our organization to be the one up
front so we talk about what we do but I think we need to bring
all of the organizations together that are looking for positive
things and working on positive things for our young people to
do and we can't wait until they grow up and teach them things
they need to know. I believe we have to start and we have to
stop blaming everything on the parents and saying well, the
parents ought to take care of their children, the parents ought
to decide what they look at. We have to understand that there
are many parents themselves who don't know what to do. Also,
there are many parents who are not wealthy like many of the men
we saw earlier today. These parents have to go out and work,
and when I say work, not just 9-5. Many of them are working a
second and a third job at night and they are not there to
supervise their children, not because they don't want to be,
but we need to begin to look at all families are our families,
and as the popular saying is, it takes a village to raise a
child. We just all have to accept more responsibility for doing
that. But again, because mass media can affect so many people,
I think we have to keep telling them that they have a
responsibility to show something else. They have a
responsibility to show that positive side of all of us and not
just do things that would put us down because that is what we
see so much. We know that, for instance, it was not intentional
today but women were last to come on. We have to start lifting
women up who are trying to do things and trying to better their
lives like in our community. We need to put them out front. We
went through it in the Imus incident. We saw people that I love
and respect out there speaking for women but they were all men.
We need to hear the voices of women more. We need to feel the
pain of women when these things are happening to us, and men
need to stand up more and be in defense of women just as we
often have to hurt sometimes but defend our brothers sometimes.
We want to see that same thing. We want to see the members of
this committee not making excuses as unfortunately I have heard
some Members of Congress today and defending. We have to forget
about the fact that somebody gives $5,000 or $10,000 to our
campaign or to our social event and we have to look at what is
right, not just what is expedient for us to do to get those
$5,000 and $10,000 or $20,000, whatever. The point is, we have
got to look at the harm that this is doing to the people and
listen to the voices of the women who are saying this hurts me,
this hurts me to all of the men who decide what hurts and what
does not hurt us. You can see the pain, and as you looked at
women today, I am sure you saw the expression on some of our
faces as we sat through hours of people deciding what is good
for us and what is not good for us. We need to be involved. We
have got to be at the table if we are going to make a
difference. But again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mean, I am
just preaching to the choir now, I know, but you asked the
question.
Mr. Rush. I sure did. Let me just say when I heard your
testimony about Isiah Thomas, I kind of cringed. I know the
Thomas family and I know that Isiah has to love his mama, all
right, and his mama is a strong woman. She is the reason why he
is Isiah Thomas, and so I don't know whether he made the
connection between his African-American mama and the person
that he was discussing when he made those unfortunate and I
think wrongheaded remarks. That is what some of us forget, that
be it not for black women, black men would not be even as far
along as we are, and I take my hats off to you black women who
have really carried the ball and were fathers and mothers for
us.
Ms. Williams. Yes. Dick Gregory was here this morning and
he often said that the two most important entities in our
community are the black church and black women. Now, the black
church obviously includes lots of men and so we are talking
about there are good people out there all over. We just have to
bring them out, force them to stand up and talk about this. I
don't think the black church has yet dealt with this issue. We
have to encourage them and challenge them and say you too have
a responsibility to deal with this issue. And on the other
hand, we often hear black women have some things that we have
to do in order for us to be treated differently. Well, that is
what those of us at this table and many in this audience are
trying to do. We try to be role models for our children. We are
not like many athletes who say I am not--it is not my
responsibility, I am not a role model. Every time a black
person is educated, man or woman, we have the responsibility to
give back to our community, to be a mentor for those young
people, to lift their horizons and to challenge them to be
better than they are. We wake up in the morning and of course
our breath smells a little bad or we don't look so great but we
put our best face on when we get ready to go out and that is
what we have to continue to show our children: you have a
responsibility to do something. My mother reared nine children
without the benefit of a father in our home and I will tell
you, my mother always told us, babies, you have to get up in
the morning and go places like you are somebody special. You
have to put on your best, whatever that is, look like somebody
special going to do something important, and she said I can't
be with you all the time. All I can do is teach you what you
need to know to survive but you have to live your own life and
die your own death and somewhere between you have to justify
your existence, and I find black women all across this country
justifying their existence every day, and I just think right
on, sisters, and right on to the good brothers who are helping
them.
Mr. Rush. I just want to add that there is--we tried
desperately----
Ms. Williams. That is why we in the National Congress give
a Good Brother award every year.
Mr. Rush. I tried desperately to get one of the women hip
hop artists to appear on the panel with the hip hop, with panel
2. There are no women, as far as I know, who are CEOs of the
parent companies. Now, we certainly could have had record or TV
presidents. We could have had one of them to participate but we
wanted to get the key decision makers, and that is the reason
why panel 1 didn't have a black women and panel 2, we just
couldn't get an artist.
Ms. Williams. Well, we just thank for bringing Master P
because I think he did speak for many of us and what we were
thinking and feeling here and he is offered to work with us and
we agreed to work with him and we just look forward to hearing
from more people like that. As you know, there is not even an
image of a black woman in the United States Capitol today in
remembrance of one and fortunately we are going to have one
soon and hopefully things like that can begin to make it clear
that black women are important, they have been important in the
society and we do many things to make this country work and we
are always willing to do what we ask someone else to do.
Sojourner Truth, by the way, is the woman who will be in the
Capitol soon.
Mr. Rush. Ms. Fager Bediako, can you explain, tell us a
little bit more about this contest?
Ms. Bediako. Yes, I did a couple media projects with
colleges and this particular project was done with the
University of Maryland-College Park where students were asked
to monitor local radio stations and then file complaints based
on what the FCC states is indecent, and somebody was like,
``you know, I heard this DJ like at 5:00 talking about this Web
site and this is when kids are listening,'' this is when the
middle schooler is calling up and giving shout-outs to his
friends and everything, so I was a little taken aback and here
is a 19-year-old concerned about this, and he said, ``Well do
we complain to the FCC about this and I am like, ``Sure. Did
you go the Web site? Let us check it out.'' Well, the Web site,
we were kind of freaked out by it because it is basically porn.
There was no restrictions. There was no, like, even a minimum
pop-up that says you have to be 18 didn't even pop up for them
to tell us contacting Virgin, this wasn't about sex, I mean
some of these girls, you don't even see their underwear, and
some of them are like looking in the camera and taking a
picture of their butts in the mirror, and it just takes you
back and you are like this is allowed to happen and they want
to keep telling us like it is not about sex it is a song about
booty, except that it was a white rapper and in the video it is
mostly black women and their butts and it is a silly song, and
so we complained. The Web site then went up with a little 18-
over thing but you can't keep kids off that, and the fact is,
all the DJs in the area were mentioning the Web site, so
somehow there was some promotion and it was like ``hey, go to
MissNewBooty.com. I mean, the Web site is not even up now. They
took it down and it goes right to the rapper's web page if you
try to access it. But this is part of a whole bunch of things.
The local radio station here, the Clear Channel one that does
top 40 music, has the ``Breast Year Ever.'' That have an over
20 share of 12- to 17-year-olds that listen to the radio
station. You never hear the radio stations bragging about, we
have a 20 share in 12- to 17-year-olds. They only brag about
their 18-34 or their 25-54 or whatever it is, and in reality
all the hip hop stations have double digits, usually in the
20s, for kids, and this is what they are--the songs that you
are hearing on the radio are the ones that David Banner was
talking about that he did called ``Play'' that the clean
version on the radio is talking about cleaning in your thong
and playing with your clit. These are the songs that are on the
radio. I don't know what slice of life--it is just like only
the strip club slice of life is being reflected in the music
that we are hearing on the radio like you never hear anything
else, like there is--there isn't anything else, and one of the
reasons you didn't have a female hip hop artist is because
those record executives aren't signing them.
The other thing that David Banner didn't say and he kind of
said but didn't say, when his--when he talks about his music
career going down the hill, he was told ``We need a hit song
and we want something like ``The Whisper Song.'' The ``Whisper
Song'' was a huge song. The hook was ``Wait until you see my d
* * *'' and sorry for the language, but this is what our kids
are hearing, we should be upset, and the fact is, his song is
very much that song and it went--and he was right, it was about
dollars, and it went straight up and that is what the
executives said that they wanted and that is what they got and
he made money and they made money, and this culture keeps going
but what happens with the females, MC Lyte can't get a deal,
Lauren Hill can't get a deal. Method Man made a son that
questioned BET. Do you think they are going to play that? No.
Nothing that talks about white men or questions their authority
gets airplay on the radio or supported by the record labels but
when we want to talk about each other, killing each other,
evaluate education, that is OK. Again, just like the book,
which I read and I loved, ``The Black Image in the White
Mind,'' it talks about basically we are entertainment for
this--and it makes sense when you are talking about the white
are buying more music, they are the larger population, and the
fact is, there is another study by Mead Productions that said
even our kids don't really even like hip hop after a certain
age, like when they get to be like 19, they start loving R&B
more than they like hip hop. So, it is not about us. We are the
entertainment.
Mr. Rush. Well, how do you deal with the images of Common
or Kanye West, what is the underpinning and the rationale for
their success? These would be hard hip hop artists.
Ms. Bediako. Well, what is happening, if I had $18 million
in my marketing budget like 50 Cent had, then I would be a
rapper too. When I was in the music industry, the common thing
is, if they play it, they will listen. The fact that they can't
even get on the radio, their record labels aren't putting money
behind them--Kanye is great because he made kind of a niche for
himself. He--because he is controversial makes him popular and
it is great. Common, he is still on the kind of underground
tip, as they say he is getting more exposure but his record
company doesn't put a lot of money behind him. Mos Def, the
Roots, their record labels aren't supporting them like they are
supporting the Young Jocks, Little Jeezy's and Little Waynes
and all these, 50 Cent, all these other folks. They are not
getting the same dollars and so it is all about marketing. If
you can get on MTV--and MTV--Viacom sets the standards. It is
at a point where if you get on BET or MTV, then radio will
follow. You can look at Billboard and you can track it. It
falls in line with each other, and it is not about sales.
Mr. Rush. Well, you kind of explained to me--I always
wondered what happened to Lauren Hill, she was one of my
favorites and I just----
Ms. Bediako. She is still out there.
Mr. Rush. She is still out there? And Erika Badyu is?
Ms. Bediako. Oh, yes, she is--Jill Scott----
Mr. Rush. And India Arie, I understand that she is not
promoted.
Ms. Bediako. She is still out there. They are all still
there and most of them realize that why should I be with a
record label when they are not going to support me, I might as
well go independent, and actually I would suggest that all
artists go independent because they don't make money selling
records. Record executives make money from these artists
selling records. They make money from all their endorsement
deals. The whole thing is, the record--they don't need the
record industry. I worked with Scarface when I worked at
Capitol EMI records and you know what? We never took him to
radio. We didn't really have the Internet at that time, it was
around 1995, and we always went to the club with his music.
That is where it went. His music, quote, unquote, wasn't
appropriate for radio because it is public airwaves and because
we weren't in the heat of consolidation, record--I mean radio
stations wouldn't play him, and you know what? He went gold and
platinum every time. You do not need radio airplay to sell
records. And he was doing it with clubs and name recognition,
and now that you have the Internet, you don't--you can bypass
all of this need to be on public airwaves.
Mr. Rush. Dr. Dill, in your testimony you state that
research on violent hip hop videos increases adversial sexual
beliefs of both men and women and acceptance of relationship
violence. How strong is this correlation? Is this in any way
disputed by other research? You also state that research shows
that violent music lyrics lead to more aggressive thoughts and
feelings. Does this translate into some of the aberrant
behavior that society is reeling from now in certain urban
communities?
Ms. Dill. I would say a couple of things about that. First,
the research on hip hop and video games as they evolve, there
is less of that than there is research on other forms of media
such as television and movies simply because they have been
around for a longer period of time and I do think that as we
are beginning to see changes in each media, we need to continue
to watch what the effects of those forums is but yes,
theoretically underlying all these different forms of media
when you look at either stereotypical messages or you look at
violent messages, it has been well documented over time and I
think mainstream psychology, we don't dispute that there are--
that there is a clear effect going on there. You asked me if
people would dispute it. As I say, I don't think mainstream
psychologists would but the industry seems to always be able to
find someone out there who is a psychologist who will speak for
their side. So I have learned in my career as a media
psychologist that there is always controversy following it, but
in my estimation, there is strong evidence out there of an
important link between those factors.
Mr. Rush. There seems to be a nexus between culture that
you spoke to, and I agree with you, you can turn the television
off but you can't turn the culture off. There seems to be a
correlation between the culture of violence, degradation,
misogyny, sexism and the drug culture. Is there a linkage? Have
you looked at any linkage between the drug culture which leads
to penitentiary culture that comes back out on the street? I
mean, it seems like this is a cyclical kind of deterioration
that we are engaged in as a society and as a community.
Ms. Dill. I haven't looked at drug culture per se. I know
that people have analyzed rap music and found that to be a
common theme along with criminality and sexuality as we have
been talking about here today but I would underline that there
is definitely a link between the stereotypical content and the
aggressive content, and I noted today during the testimony of
the artists that they called for the ability to express
themselves but I think that is all part of a power dynamic that
if you are in a marginalized group, you look for someone else
who is below you on the hierarchy to marginalize in order to
lift yourself up unfortunately so what we didn't hear in that
discussion is, they want to express themselves but at the cost
to what other groups, at the cost to black women in their
communities, for example. So I think it really is about power
and the drug factor may well be tied in to feelings of
powerlessness, but as I say, I am not an expert on that aspect.
Mr. Rush. Dr. Whiting, I am going to conclude. Discuss with
the committee the issue of power and powerlessness as a dynamic
in this whole hip hop degradation language that we are
discussing and the images that we are discussing today.
Ms. Sharpley-Whiting. I think what Dr. Dill said is
absolutely on point in terms of--and what I heard from the
second panel, and what I consistently heard repeated--was this
desire to express the turmoil, the degradation, the poverty in
the community as a kind of artistic rap music. This is what is
going on in our 'hood. But when the Congresswoman from Illinois
asked well, what is the impact on women, the argument just kept
coming back to what is going on in our 'hood and we need to do
something about that, and what expressly came through was that
women could be sacrificed as long as the larger, more important
issue was laid out on the table--poverty, police brutality,
drive-bys, et cetera, et cetera. What I have found is, or what
I think is particularly fascinating is the ways in which, as I
said, the cost to black women, to women in general. What we
have to concede is that hip hop is a global phenomenon--it is
multiracial and its impact is felt--it is pervasive as well as
other forms of sexism and misogyny and so the culture of hip
hop is certainly not alone. What I think is very interesting,
what I saw coming through more than anything is as one is
describing the deprivation and the degradation and the self-
hate, et cetera, that is going on in various communities as a
kind of rapping the reality or even fictionalizing or
performing for the marketplace, what I think is more troubling
is that if this is the way that women are being perceived or if
this is the way that women's lives are being characterized in
this music, then the lives of women and experiences of women in
their communities is one that is quite devastating. And so if
nothing else then, we will take the music as instructive and
therefore we need to do something about the ways in which women
are being treated in those communities. So if rapping one's
reality means exposing the very forlorn experiences that women
are undergoing in their communities, then we need to do
something about that. Obviously young black women or girls are
suffering a great deal in those communities.
And I want to kind of conclude as well by saying--getting
back to kind of the b * * * *, ``ho'' thing and the censorship
thing, there is a song by DMX, and I have to say, DMX is a
guilty pleasure for me, but there is a song by DMX and he
says--he has a line in there, ``If you have a daughter over 15,
I'mma rape her.'' Now, one does not mention ``b * * * *'' or
``ho'' or ``n * * * * *'' in that line but one certainly
describes something that is absolutely visceral and violent and
troubling and so we have to get beyond the beats and the
rhymes. We have to really think about what is going on in the
music and how it is depicting people's lives, because if
nothing else, as I said, it is instructive.
Mr. Rush. To a certain extent, I am familiar and I am not
shocked but I am flabbergasted, because in my community, I live
in the 'hood. I live right next to a public housing
development. I am right in the poorest community in the city of
Chicago and I am there for a reason because I want to be there,
and I know that there is a lot of pain that goes on. There is a
lot of pain that goes on in relationships between male and
female and it seems as though from your testimony, it is a lot
worse than we can imagine because of--and I am not trying to
make any excuses for anybody but it seems to me like women are
convenient targets for black men because they can't exercise
their sense of dignity and power as vis-a-vis white men. They
can't get to white men, so they will get to the person who is
closest to them and that is their women, and until we start
dealing with the issue of power relationships and get into
instructing our young men but primarily our young women, I
think that is where you start because they accept and they
expect and they--some of them--and that is not to blame them--
but they view it as being a mark or some kind of badge of
courage or badge of acceptance to be ill treated and
disrespected by men. I see it all the time when I look out my
window and I can see young women having boys pulling all over
them and cussing them and I just--I wanted to make sure that
this committee addresses this issue, that this committee gives
voice to this problem and all of its complexity as much as
possible because I really want the members of this committee,
myself included and everybody who participated and all those
who have gathered here, I really want us to engage and become a
part of the solution as opposed to being a part of the problem.
This is a very serious issue that is not on most of the
Congress's radar screen. We are never going to get called over
to vote on this issue. Most committees would never undertaken a
hearing based on these kind of issues but these are the kinds
of issues that are tearing the fabric of our community apart
and I really--again, I want to thank you all for participating
and for being a part of this hearing and I thank you and I
compliment you and I commend you for your noble work. We have
got a long way to go and we also have a short time to get
there.
Thank you very much, and the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:13 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]