[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 146 (Tuesday, September 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13813-S13814]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




[[Page S13813]]


                     THE STATE OF TELEVISION TODAY

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am, again, glad to join my colleague 
from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, in commenting on the state of 
television today. I do not know that the Conrad-Lieberman review of the 
fall television season will rival Siskel and Ebert's review of movies. 
But I would say Senator Conrad and I are quite clearly saying we give 
this fall TV season two thumbs down. That is, really, what I want to 
talk about today.
  Three months ago this body voted overwhelmingly, on a bipartisan 
basis, in support of V-chip--or C-chip, C for choice--legislation that 
Senator Conrad and I initiated. With that vote we said, in effect, that 
too much of television in America today has become so wild, so vulgar, 
so morally repugnant that it has actually become a threat to our 
children, a threat from which they need protection.

  As Senator Conrad indicated, there is new evidence out today on the 
extent of violence in television in the form of a study released by the 
Center for Communication Policy at UCLA which, while it does note some 
improvement, shows by its content that violence remains a serious 
problem in TV programming. But the American people do not need a study 
to tell them what they already know about the state of television 
today. Not only does violence remain a problem, but vulgarity is 
increasing as a problem.
  I hear complaints whenever I go home and talk about this subject. 
Poll after poll depicts a citizenry fed up with the plummeting 
standards of the TV industry and the constant barrage of foul 
programming that is being thrown at our children.
  Mr. President, our purpose--Senator Conrad's and mine--in raising 
this issue today is to call our colleagues' attention to the industry's 
curious reaction to the public's anger about the state of television 
programming. For the fact is that the broadcast networks this week are 
embarking on a new fall season that is far more crude, more rude, and 
more offensive than anything we have seen before.
  That is the conclusion reached by the television critic at 
Connecticut's largest newspaper, the Hartford Courant, James Endrst, 
who characterized a collection of new series this fall as the product 
of a ``slow but steady slide into the gutter involving the Nation's 
most pervasive and persuasive medium.'' He went on to say that 
``viewers may be struck not so much by the shows, but by the scenes--TV 
moments signaling an aggregate acceptance of rude language, foul 
imagery and gross behavior in the entertainment mainstream.''
  It reminds me of Senator Moynihan's searing and profound comment that 
we are defining deviancy down by lowering the standards of what we 
accept on television, particularly in what used to be family 
programming hours. We are lowering the standards of what is acceptable 
in our society, and we are sending a message to our children.
  The Cincinnati Enquirer's editorial page bluntly talked about the 
``reeking crud of puerile trashcoms'' that are so common this fall 
season. And Tom Shales, respected critic from the Washington Post, used 
the words ``depraved'' and ``soul-killing'' after viewing some of the 
same shows.
  Mr. President, I would encourage my colleagues to watch some of these 
new shows, new shows that are premiering this week. Those of you who 
once may have watched ``Car 54, Where Are You?'' will probably end up 
asking ``Common Decency, Where Are You?'' on television today.
  Mr. President, I am going to reference and read from a few lines from 
these shows, and perhaps I should issue a warning to any children that 
may be watching on C-SPAN or their parents to remove them from the 
sets. So I am going to quote from shows that are shown in the family 
hour on television today. It makes me feel like my childhood was a long 
time ago, and I am sure parents are yearning again for the time when 
they could turn on the television and not worry about being embarrassed 
to sit there with their children and hear what they hear--being worried 
about letting their children watch without them.
  So let me cite from some of the shows that are new to the television 
this year.
  ABC's ``Wilde Again'' in which the lead character advises her 
stepdaughter to ``call me what you called me when we first met, 
`Daddy's little whore'.'' Or, you can watch another ABC offering, a 
nighttime soap called ``The Monroes,'' which in its premier last week 
showcased a woman making what we once referred to as an obscene gesture 
with her middle finger. That may be the most fitting symbol to 
characterize what too much of television is saying to the American 
public today, and also to our concerns about the degradation of our 
culture.
  One of the most controversial new shows is a sitcom on CBS called 
``Bless This House.'' And it is controversial for good reason. On its 
premier last Monday night, the mother on the show tells her daughter 
that she would not need her own bathroom if ``you didn't spend all 
morning staring at your little hooters.''
  What makes the crassness of ``Bless This House'' profoundly 
disturbing is that the network has made a decision to air the show at 8 
p.m. during what we once thought of as the traditional family viewing 
hour.
  Some of this stuff is obviously appropriate for adult viewing. But to 
put it on at 8 p.m. when families have been watching television is an 
insult to those families. The networks' commitment to that concept of 
the family television viewing hour has obviously eroded. But the fall 
season has slipped even further, as is evident from the number of what 
I would call sophomoric sitcoms that are being aired between 8 and 9 
p.m. For instance, joining ``Bless This House'' is another CBS series, 
``Can't Hurry Love,'' which has featured in its premier episode some 
truly outrageous language from the lead characters.
  Mr. President, the abandonment of the family viewing hour is evident 
also in the networks' decision to shift the number of established 
sitcoms with adult themes--such as ``Cybill'' on CBS and ``Friends'' on 
ABC--to this earlier time period. Those two shows which I have watched 
can be very engaging, very witty, and very entertaining. But they are 
often clearly not appropriate for children, particularly younger 
children. That is exactly the point which Senator Conrad and I are 
trying to make.
  I must say just as jarring as the language on new shows are some of 
the comments from network officials to justify their programming 
decisions. One high-ranking official at ABC said, ``The society to some 
extent, has become crasser, and we move with that.'' That is not what I 
understood the purpose of entertainment to be, particularly not in the 
family viewing hours.
  An executive from NBC explained that ``life includes sexual 
innuendoes.'' And another NBC official also went so far as to say, 
``It's not the role of network television to program for the children 
of America.'' But the children of America are watching those programs. 
That official added that most small children ``are watching Nick at 
Nite.'' Most of them do not watch network television in prime time.
  If many young children are indeed watching Nickelodeon or the Disney 
Channel, it's because their parents are deeply troubled by the content 
of the major network's programming, and are searching for refuge from 
the tawdriness that characterizes too much of television today.
  But the reality is that many children are watching broadcast 
television and these tasteless trashcoms, and the legion of perverse 
and near-pornographic talk shows that air each afternoon. No matter how 
hard parents work to monitor their children's viewing, habits, and no 
matter how many technological gadgets they have at their disposal, many 
children will continue to watch these channels, and their behavior will 
continue to be influenced by what they see on TV.
  Mr. President, I realize that the TV industry is not a monolith. 
There are many responsible leaders in that community, just as there are 
some outstanding. thought-provoking series on the major networks. Some 
of them, such as the hit ABC comedy ``Home Improvement,'' showed that 
you can be successful and funny, without being vulgar.
  PBS obviously continues to offer both adults and children a number of 
engaging, challenging, thought-provoking, and entertaining series. And 
even among the new network offerings NBC 

[[Page S13814]]
is earning favorable reviews for a family-oriented program called 
``Minor Adjustments,'' a show about a child psychologist which will 
appear on Sunday nights.
  But there is a clear direction that the networks are moving in. It is 
not just Senator Conrad and I who see it. It is all or most of the TV 
critics who have reviewed this current fall season. We have reason to 
be deeply troubled about it. I can tell you that I am troubled about it 
not just in my capacity as an elected representative, but as a father 
of four kids, one of whom is 7 years old. Television executives need to 
recognize that they are part of a larger civil society to which they, 
like we, have obligations, and that the first amendment is not a 
constitutional hall pass that excuses them from their responsibilities 
to that civil society.
  Mr. President, in the end, the new fall season I hope will clear up 
any doubts that our colleagues have about the need for the leadership, 
or the V-chip, and the need to help parents protect their kids as best 
they can from the messages that television is sending them that are so 
often inconsistent with what the parents are trying to send and teach 
their own children.

  When the telecommunications bill comes out of conference, I hope my 
colleagues will join us in calling on the networks to acknowledge their 
responsibility to society and the impact that they have on our society 
and to remember this important point. They are obviously private 
businesses, but they are using the public airwaves, and they should not 
use those airwaves to hurt the public. The networks need to be reminded 
that they would not exist if the public and we, their representatives, 
did not grant them access to those airwaves.
  No one here wants to talk about censorship. No one here wants to talk 
about constraining the freedom of the networks to program. But the 
reality is that the networks are moving so far away from reflecting the 
values commonly shared by most people in this country, let alone the 
interests of most people in this country, that they are inviting a 
reaction unless they discipline themselves.
  Mr. President, one of television's finest moments was the Edward R. 
Murrow documentary ``Harvest of Shame,'' which was broadcast four 
decades ago. I am afraid that the 1995 fall season might also be titled 
the ``Harvest of Shame.'' I hope its excesses will inspire a reaction 
from the American people, a reaction from us, their representatives, 
here in Congress, and ultimately a reaction from those who can do most 
to diminish this problem, and that is those who own, operate and 
program our television networks today.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a 
quorum.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I withhold my notation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

                          ____________________