[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 184 (Saturday, November 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17445-S17446]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           DAYTIME TALK SHOWS

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, last month, I joined my colleagues, Senator 
Lieberman and former Secretary William Bennett, who was the former 
Secretary of Education, at a news conference in which they were shining 
a spotlight on what I believe is the problem that for too long has been 
ignored by television executives, corporate advertisers, the news 
media, as well as the American people. The problem is the content of 
some of our television programming and the corrosive effect this 
programming is having on our culture. Nowhere is this cultural erosion 
or ``cultural rot,'' in the words of Secretary Bennett, more evident 
than in the content of many of today's daytime talk shows.
  The news media are finally beginning to report on these issues, even 
though many Americans have been voicing their concern for a long time. 
I know that I have been speaking out on these matters for a number of 
years, as have a number of my colleagues, and as have Americans from 
all walks of life and all parts of the country. The media has not been 
listening until recently, but they are listening now, and I think that 
is having a real effect.
  I would not be speaking out today, or in the past, if I believed 
television was not important. It is very important.
  According to the World Almanac for 1995, Americans watch 
approximately 16\1/2\ hours of television per week; teenagers watch 
about 12 hours per week. I think the number is higher than that, but 
that is what this says. Our children watch approximately 13 hours per 
week. For adults, this amounts to two full 8-hour working days of 
television viewing per week. For children and teenagers, this amounts 
to 2 extra days of ``television school.'' For children, this is far 
more time than they devote to homework. The second most widely 
circulated magazine in America is TV Guide, a magazine about 
television. Billions and billions of dollars are spent on television 
advertising. We all know that market forces would not pour that kind of 
money into television if it did not have a powerful impact on the 
people watching it. All of these statistics point to the fact that 
television has a powerful and profound affect on all of our lives.

  Given the tremendous impact of television on American culture, the 
content of our television programming is important. To illustrate this 
point, I refer my colleagues to the June 1992 edition of the Journal of 
the American Medical Association, which reported on a study that 
concluded there was a direct relationship between the level of violence 
on television and the growth of violent crime in our society. The 
study--headed up by Dr. Brandon Centerwall, a Seattle, WA, 
psychiatrist--concludes: ``The epidemiological evidence indicates that 
if, hypothetically, television technology had never been developed, 
there would today be 10,000 fewer homicides each year in the United 
States, 70,000 fewer rapes, and 700,000 fewer injurious assaults.''
  Neither I, nor Senator Lieberman, nor former Secretary Bennett is 
talking about turning back our technological clock by 50 years. There 
are many good programs on television. There is much education on 
television in a positive sense. However, violent television programming 
is not a necessary part of television technology, and the logical 
conclusion from Dr. Centerwall's study, and numerous other such studies 
along this line, is that a reduction in the level of violence in 
television programming will, over the long term, lead to a reduction in 
violence in our society.
  Nowhere is the content of television more depraved and more 
sensational, nowhere does television unapologet- ically appeal to 
people's most prurient interests and worst instincts than on daytime 
talk shows. These are shows that do not even pretend to excuse 
themselves under a disclaimer that they present fantasy or fiction. 
They pump up their ratings by portraying their contents as ``real 
life.'' As a consequence, they demean and exploit real people. By 
implication, they tell their audiences that men, women, and children 
who have serious problems in life are an object of freak-show 
fascination. I doubt that many of the producers or sponsors of these 
shows will tell you that they are proud of what they do. If you asked 
them why they do it, in private, and if they were honest, I imagine 
they would confess they do it purely for money.
  During the Lieberman-Bennett press conference last month, which I 
joined, some clips from these shows were shown to illustrate our point 
that much of this programming has gone far beyond the pale, and that we 
as citizens, as leaders, and as consumers should let television 
executives know and should let companies who advertise know that we 
believe it is unacceptable for those shows to continue to cultivate the 
seeds of cultural and moral decline in our Nation.
  In subsequent responses to these comments we made at the news 
conference, and in an effort to defend this medium, some defenders of 
daytime talk shows suggested that we were out of line by speaking out 
against the content of these shows. They even raised the question of 
the first amendment. Some suggested that daytime talk shows were the 
victims of broad generalizations, perhaps suggesting that we found a 
few sensationalized, anomalous episodes and were holding those up as 
the standard daytime talk show fare.
  To follow up on this issue, one member of my staff voluntarily 
conducted an unscientific survey of the topics of daytime talk shows. 
Every hour or so, he would scan the television on his desk and see what 
the day's topics were for the daytime talk shows. The results added to 
the concern that I already had.
  The first day, one show was called, ``Stop Pretending To Be a Girl'' 
and featured young boys whose parents were upset that their sons 
dressed and acted like a girl. Another show offered a show entitled 
``Boys Who Only Have Sex With Virgins.'' Yet another show featured a 
girl dumping her boyfriend on national television and asking her new 
``significant other,'' another girl, to commit to her.
  Mr. President, I thought that surely the next day's shows would pale 
in comparison to these. I was wrong. Subsequent days' reviews of these 
shows found titles such as ``One-night Stand Reunions.'' Another show 
was entitled ``I'm Ready To Have Sex With You Now.'' And another show 
was called, ``I Cheat and I'm Proud of It.'' One show featured a woman 
who chose to tell her fiance on national television that she cheated on 
him with her sister's boyfriend and that she lied to him about a 
miscarriage which was actually an abortion. Another show reunited 
pornographic stars, strippers, and transvestites with their past 
lovers. Perhaps the most appropriately titled show of all was the one 
entitled ``You Look Like a Freak.''
  Quoting again from Dr. Centerwall, babies ``are born with an 
instinctive capacity and desire to imitate adult human behavior.'' 
Continuing the quote, ``It is a most useful instinct, for the 
developing child must learn and master a vast repertoire of behavior in 
short order.'' The problem is that children do not possess an instinct 
for gauging a priori whether a behavior ought to be imitated.
  Therein, Mr. President, lies the problem. We should not hesitate to 
speak out against things we feel are harmful to our children and to our 
society. The people that produce television and radio and newspapers 
have a first amendment right; no doubt about that. We all hold it 
sacred. But we also have a constitutional guarantee of free speech as 
citizens. We do not have to be Senators to have that right. Citizens 
have that right in America. While our guarantee under the first 
amendment allows programs such as these to exist, it also allows them 
to be criticized. Further, it allows us to encourage the corporations 
and businesses whose advertising dollars make these broadcasts possible 
to rethink their sponsorship. That is what I have been doing for at 
least the last 5 years. If they do not rethink their sponsorship of 
these programs, the first amendment and our marketplace allows us, as 
consumers, to no longer support the products of the corporations that 
fund programs 

[[Page S 17446]]
that we find offensive. That is our right as citizens.
  I believe that corporate executives need to pay attention to what 
their dollars are sponsoring, and I believe they need to rethink 
whether or not they want their firms associated with many of these 
shows. Indeed, the point is not whether such shows can be shown on 
television. They can be. We know that. The question is whether such 
shows should be on television. For too long, this second question has 
been ignored.
  It appears that this question may finally be getting the attention it 
deserves. In recent days, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington 
Times, and NBC News have reported that companies, including Procter & 
Gamble, the Nation's largest television advertiser, are withdrawing 
their advertising support from some daytime talk shows because they do 
not meet company standards of quality and decency.
  Mr. President, this is precisely the kind of corporate effort that 
can have a significant impact on the content of television programming. 
All of this is run by money, and if the money starts shifting, believe 
me, there will be a response. I applaud Procter & Gamble officials, and 
those in other companies, who are beginning to realize--too slowly in 
my view, but finally--that they have an obligation beyond getting 
rating points. They have a responsibility as citizens for the kind of 
America we live in and how we raise our children.
  As a final note, the heavy sexual content in soap operas, the 
excessive gratuitous violence, profanity, and sex in prime time shows 
and, most importantly, the lack of parental supervision should not 
escape this debate over television. We all have our responsibilities. 
These are aspects of television that are just as important as the 
content of the daytime talk shows.
  Mr. President, I have spoken out before against these negative 
aspects and I will have more to say in the months ahead.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, we are in morning business now and we can 
for a specific length of time, is that the way we are proceeding?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.

                          ____________________