[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 94 (Friday, June 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8077-S8078]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXERCISING GOOD CITIZENSHIP
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, last week, I ventured out to Hollywood and
called upon the executives of the entertainment industry to exercise
some good citizenship and put an end to the steady flow of mindless
violence and loveless sex they serve up each day to our young people. I
said that a ``line has been crossed--not just of taste, but of human
dignity and decency. It is crossed every time sexual violence is given
a catchy tune. When teen suicide is set to an appealing beat. When
Hollywood's dream factories turn out nightmares of depravity.''
Although I made it very clear that government censorship was not the
answer, the response to my remarks has been predictable and predictably
ferocious. All the usual suspects--Oliver Stone, Ed Asner, Norman
Lear--have been out in force, rushing to Hollywood's defense and
lashing out at anyone who would dare criticize the entertainment
industry for its excesses.
I will continue to speak out because people like Bill Bennett, Paul
Simon, Pete Domenici, Bill Bradley, and C. Delores Tucker all happen to
be right: cultural messages can and do bore deep into the hearts and
minds of our impressionable young. And when these messages are negative
ones--repeated hour after hour, day after day, week after week--they
can strip our children of that most precious gift of all: Their
innocence.
Apparently, the American people share this concern, particularly when
it comes to television, perhaps the most dominant cultural force in
America today. A recent survey conducted by USA weekend magazine
revealed that an astonishing 96 percent of the 65,000 readers surveyed
are ``very or somewhat concerned about sex on TV,'' 97 percent are
``very or somewhat concerned'' about the use of vulgar language on
television shows, and another 97 percent are ``very or somewhat
concerned'' about television violence. Jim Freese, the principal of
Homestead High School in Fort Wayne, IN, put it this way: ``I'm seeing
more instances of inappropriate language around school. It is part of
the vocabulary, and often they do not think about some of the words
because they hear them so often on TV. It is a steady diet. Program
after program has this inappropriate language.''
According to a study commissioned by USA Weekend, 370 instances of
``crude language or sexual situations'' were recorded during a five-
night period of prime-time programming, or one every 8.9 minutes. Two
hundred and eight of these incidents occurred between 8 and 9 p.m., the
so-called family hour.
Of course, we have more to lose than to gain by putting Washington in
charge of our culture. Instead, it is my hope that the decision-makers
within the entertainment industry will voluntarily accept a calling
beyond the bottom line and help our Nation maintain the innocence of
our children.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cover article from
the USA Weekend magazine be reprinted in the Record immediately after
my remarks.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From USA Weekend, June 2-4, 1995]
Turned Off
(By Dan Olmsted and Gigi Anders)
It was, in its crude way, a perfect TV moment for our
times: 9 p.m. ET on a Wednesday this spring on Grace Under
Fire, the top-5 ABC sitcom. Divorced mom Grace is talking in
the kitchen with 10-year-old Quentin, who has been visiting
his dad. Let's listen in, along with the 28.3 million people
watching the show on a typical night, 5.6 million of them
under age:
Grace: How come your daddy didn't come in and say hey?
Kid: Aw, he was in a hurry. He had a date with some slut.
Grace: Quentin? I'm going to wash your mouth out with
fabric softener. Where did you hear that word?
Kid: Dad's house. It was a cable.
These days, that episode neatly demonstrates, the raw stuff
isn't on just cable anymore. Sex, and what your mother called
``vulgar language,'' now play nightly on the four major
networks--for laughs, shock value, sizzle and ratings, and
because producers say viewers want verisimilitude, and this
is how reality looks and sounds in 1990s America.
But such programming may turn off a sizeable number of
viewers--including 97 percent, or 63,000, of the 65,142
readers who took part in USA Weekend's survey on TV violence
and vulgarity. The key finding: Many viewers want to wash out
TV's mouth with something stronger than fabric softeners.
They're especially upset that much of the unclean stuff is
coming out of the mouths of relative babes like Quentin and
into the eyes and ears of kids.
The written survey, which ran in our March 3-5 issue,
follows a similar one two years ago that drew 71,000
responses. The earlier survey came amid concern about TV
violence and congressional hearings on the subject; is showed
violence was readers' top concern, with sexual content a
close second.
This year the figures are reversed (see chart, opposite
page): Sexual content tops the list of ``troublesome
programming,'' with violence second.
The results are not scientific, but they're over-whelming--
make for a comparison with two years ago. Viewers still find
TV violence troubling but seem increasingly concerned about
rawness, especially on the networks' prime-time shows.
Concern over violence remains high, to be sure: 88 percent
of readers who responded to the write-in are ``very
concerned'' about it, compared with 95 percent in 1993.
``We limit our kids' TV viewing because of the violence,
and because too much TV of any kind turns their minds to
jelly,'' says Sue Sherer, 40, of Rochester, N.Y., a mother of
three (ages 11, 9 and 7) and PTA president who filled out the
survey. ``We rob kids of innocence when we expect them to
grow up so fast and mirror kids like those on Roseanne. I
don't want them to be naive, either, but I'd like them to be
children. And TV is a great vandal of that.''
Responding to the concern over vulgarity, USA Weekend
monitored five evenings of prime-time network TV (8-11 p.m.
ET). We enlisted journalism students from The American
University School of Communication in Washington, DC., who
videotaped each program and noted incidents of crude language
or sexual situations (see chart below).
The result: 370 incidents over five nights--after giving
the tube the benefit of the doubt on close calls. ``I was
surprised,'' said Alan Tatum, one of the AU students who
helped us. Even on ``family'' shows, ``it almost seems the
producers feel they need to throw in bodily humor every so
often.''
Every 8.9 minutes, on average. And 208 incidents--well over
half--occurred in ``the family hour.''
A cultural Rubicon of sorts was crossed in the past few
weeks, when ABC moved Roseanne to 8 p.m. ET and two family-
hour staples, Blossom and Full House, went off the air.
First sanctioned by the National Association of
Broadcasters code in the early 1970s, the family hour (8-9
p.m. Eastern and Pacific time; 7-8 p.m. elsewhere) was long
considered the proper time to appeal to kids. It meant Happy
Days and Laverne & Shirley, The Cosby Show and Family Ties.
But in more recent years, thanks largely to competition from
cable and the emergence of the Fox network in 1986,
programmers have been so eager to recapture a dwindling TV
audience that the family hour has become inhabited by adult
and young-adult hits such as Mad About You, Martin, Melrose
Place and Beverly Hills, 90210. In fact, following the
stunning success of NBC's Thursday night comedy blitz, ABC
has been trying to create a solid block of its own on
Wednesday by reshuffling two of its edgier sitcoms, Roseanne
and Ellen, into the family hour.
For all the national discussion about values, even such
family-hour shows as Fresh Prince of Bel-Air and The Nanny
are laden with sexual innuendo and hot-blooded humor. And
Martin has all the subtlety of a Friar's Club roast.
There's a sense that TV, which in the '50s and early '60s
made happily married couples like Ricky and Lucy and Rob and
Laura sleep in separate beds, is making up for lost time.
Programmers say it's not that simple. ``TV is changing,''
says James Anderson, a vice president of Carsey-Werner, which
produces Roseanne. ``The show reflects the climate we're in.
There's a big discussion going on over what should be shown
during the family hour. It's necessary, I guess, but any show
that pushes the envelope usually gets penalized in some way.
And Roseanne does push it.''
He cites the show's complex treatment this season of
Roseanne's pregnancy--worrying whether there was something
wrong with the baby she was carrying--as an example of
provocative but responsible programming. ``Parents who say
they dislike the show and [[Page S8078]] wouldn't let their
kids watch are uncomfortable about having to discuss the
issues raised on the show with the children.''
But, he suggests, the genie isn't going back into the
bottle. ``The face of TV is going to be seriously redefined
over the next couple of years. I mean, Melrose Place is on at
8, and they have way more T&A than Roseanne does.'' Fox and
Melrose Place did not respond to requests for comment.
CBS senior vice-president Martin Franks defended his
network's programming, while acknowledging some early-evening
broadcast fare is inappropriate for kids. ``I have a 13-year-
old and an 11-year-old, and I don't let them watch The
Simpsons [Fox, 8 p.m. ET Sundays]. I don't want my kids
talking that way.''
He compared the high level of dissatisfaction recorded by
the USA Weekend survey to asking viewers if they dislike
``attack ads'' during political campaigns: ``Of course the
answer is going to be yes, yet people watch them and are
being affected.'' Many people who complain about network
programs also would complain ``if we pre-empted them for a
presidential press conference,'' Franks argues.
``Adults ought to be able to watch something. Someone at
this point who is surprised by The Simpsons or Roseanne or
Seinfeld is living under a rock.''
All four networks have offices of standards and practices
that monitor shows for taste and content. (The industrywide
National Association of Broadcasters code is defunct.) ``You
can argue they miss something or their judgment is different
from yours,'' Franks says of the censors, but they take the
job seriously: ``They make suggestions to change scripts
before they're even shot.''
The bigger question: Is it worth wondering whether course
language and risque fare have any social impact? Or is that
like Dan Quayle attacking Murphy Brown, easy to dismiss as an
overblown attack on a fictional character? Educators, for one
group, don't think it's
far-fetched.
``I've been a principal for 20 years, and I've seen
significant changes. And one of the factors is TV,'' says Jim
Freese of Homestead High School in Fort Wayne, Ind., where
students filled out the survey. ``I'm seeing more instances
of inappropriate language around school. It's part of the
vocabulary, and often they don't think about some of the
words because they hear them so often on TV. It's a steady
diet: Program after program has this violence and
inappropriate language.''
Last month, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas,
proposed legislation giving parents access to a ``report
card'' rating the violence in TV shows. Funded by the
government and compiled quarterly by a neutral organization
such as a university, the report would list the most violent
shows and their sponsors; viewers could then pressure the
sponsors to withdraw their ads.
The movies' rating system ``has worked very well,''
Hutchison told USA Weekend, adding that the magazine's survey
reinforces other studies, as well as comments from her
constituents. ``Parents are sitting with their children
thinking a show will be all right, and all of a sudden there
is something very inappropriate.'' The report card would
offer parents a ``comfort level,'' knowing certain programs
would not contain violence or vulgar language.
Not surprisingly, the older our survey respondents, the
greater the concern. For instance, 95 percent of those over
65 are ``very concerned'' about TV violence, vs. 70 percent
of those under 36. Older readers worry that younger viewers
aren't concerned. ``Most of my students find the issues under
question acceptable,'' says Nancy Movall of Newell, Iowa,
whose high school visual communications class took the
survey. ``I wonder if it's because they have been raised in a
world that sees violence far too often and thus have become
more tolerant of it.''
Also filling out the survey: 14 inmates at the South Dakota
State Penitentiary, who marked ``very concerned'' about
either sex, violence or vulgarity on TV a total of 20 times.
Some language in prime time is now so strong, we've chosen
not to print it on our cover:
From The Wright Verdicts, 9 p.m. ET Friday on CBS: ``You
lousy bastard!''
From NYPD Blue, 10 p.m. ET Tuesday on ABC: ``You're lucky I
don't kick your ass.''
From the CBS movie With Hostile Intent, 9-11 p.m. ET: ``. .
. kiss my butt a little harder . . . probably getting laid .
. . Let's go get naked . . . Aw, hell, I'm stuck with a bitch
tonight . . . Roberta's on the rag . . . ''
From Fox's Melrose Place, 8-9 p.m. ET: ``. . . I want you
to go home with me . . . I want you to unbutton my blouse and
pull up my skirt . . . I'll be up for hours unless I can find
a way to relieve my tension.''
From NBC's Friends, 9:30 p.m. ET: ``Now we need the semen
of a righteous man.''
Of course, Friends is a smash: Melrose fans aren't likely
to picket Aaron Spelling because of too-steamy plots; and
Roseanne, in many critics' eyes, is quality TV.
``Thinking adults are hardly going to turn into a heaping
pile of gelatin because they hear the word ``ass' on the
air,'' argues Los Angeles Daily News television critic Ray
Richmond. ``I don't see this `vulgarity' as a loosening of
standards, but rather as a reflection of the reality around
us.''
Plus, more than two-thirds of U.S. homes now have cable, he
notes, and the government's ``set of rules for network TV
doesn't apply to cable or pay-per-view programs, and they're
all on the same remote control in people's living rooms and
bedrooms. People who believe TV's going to hell in a
handbasket are overreacting.''
But is there a middle ground between prudery and prurience?
Beneath the comic coarseness of Grace's response to Quentin's
use of ``slut'' is advice that's hard to disagree with. ``You
shouldn't use that word,'' she tells her son. ``It's
demeaning to women, and men who say it. And furthermore, if
it weren't for women like them, I wouldn't know how to rat my
hair real big and put on blue eyeshadow.
``So show a little respect.''
____________________