[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 14 (Thursday, February 1, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E124-E125]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          TELEVISION VIOLENCE

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, January 31, 1996

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington 
Report for Wednesday, January 17, 1996 into the Congressional Record:

                          Television Violence

       Most of us have seen something offensive on television--
     portrayals of casual sex, talk shows which glorify all the 
     wrong values, or graphic violence. Adults can, and often do, 
     turn off the set in disgust; but these images can be both 
     powerful and confusing to children. While many parents try to 
     closely monitor what their children watch, in this age of 
     cable television they are frequently confounded by the 
     proliferation of new programs.
       TV has become a very strong competitor to families, 
     schools, and other community institutions in shaping young 
     people's attitudes and values about acceptable behavior. 
     Television is cheap, accessible and convenient. Most research 
     on the effects of television on children has centered on 
     violent programming. Congress has also discussed a number of 
     approaches to lessen TV violence.


                                research

       Virtually every American household has at least one 
     television set, and children are among the most avid viewers. 
     The average pre-schooler and school-aged child watches two to 
     four hours of TV per day. By the time children finish 
     elementary school, they have on average viewed 8,000 murders 
     and over 100,000 additional acts of violence on television. A 
     1994 report analyzed ten television channels for 18 hours one 
     day and found over 1,800 acts of violence--more than 10 
     violent scenes per hour, per channel, all day. But perhaps 
     most disturbing is the finding that TV violence is most 
     common on Saturday morning, when children are most likely to 
     be watching.
       No one believes that television by itself causes 
     aggression, but research indicates convincingly that violent 
     programming contributes to the problem. Most of the 1,000 or 
     so studies on TV violence show that it can influence viewers 
     of all ages and socioeconomic levels toward more violent and 
     aggressive behavior. Watching the more violent shows can 
     easily lead a person to develop an image of a mean world in 
     which people cannot be trusted and in which violence is 
     commonplace, even acceptable.


                            what can be done

       The public has increasingly demanded that broadcasters show 
     more restraint, but progress was slow. The industry for many 
     years denied that violent programming was harmful to 
     children, and argued that restrictions could limit creativity 
     and interfere with First Amendment protections on free 
     speech. However, the four major television networks agreed in 
     1993 to place parental warnings on programs that might 
     contain excessive violence. In early 1994, network and cable 
     television executives agreed to have their programming 
     independently monitored for two years.
       Meanwhile, pressure for greater government involvement in 
     limiting violent programming has also mounted. The federal 
     government generally has imposed only limited restrictions on 
     the content of television shows. The Supreme Court this month 
     upheld federal regulations that ban indecent programming 
     between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. However, this ban has 
     usually been enforced against programming which is sexually 
     explicit or contains vulgar language--not against violent 
     programming.
       Attention has recently focused on the so-called ``V-chip,'' 
     which would allow parents to block violent programming. Under 
     this proposal, television programs would be rated much as 
     movies are. These ratings would be electronically transmitted 
     to the V-chip, a receptor inside the television set. Parents 

[[Page E125]]
     could then program their TVs not to receive programs with certain 
     ratings.
       During consideration of a telecommunications reform bill in 
     August 1995, I voted for an amendment to require that all 13-
     inch and larger TVs sold in the United States include a V-
     chip. The measure, which was approved by the House, would 
     give broadcasters one year to establish voluntary rules for 
     rating video programming and to begin transmitting such 
     ratings. If the industry failed to act, the Federal 
     Communications Commission (FCC) would develop its own 
     guidelines. A House-Senate conference committee has agreed to 
     the V-chip provisions.
       Critics of the V-chip charge that it would impose 
     unconstitutional restrictions on TV programming. However, the 
     V-chip proposal does not bar broadcasters from showing 
     violent programs--it simply allows consumers to regulate the 
     reception of such programs in their homes. Just as the system 
     of voluntary movie ratings has survived legal scrutiny, I 
     believe that the V-chip will as well.
       In addition, the Chairman of the FCC has proposed greater 
     requirements on broadcasters to air educational programs for 
     children. Some schools have also begun media literacy 
     programs to encourage students to view TV more critically.


                                outlook

       Many parents feel bombarded by ideas and images hostile to 
     the values they want to instill in their children. Television 
     is not the only source of trouble--music, video games, 
     movies, and the Internet can also be conduits for violence or 
     vulgarity. But TV remains by far the most influential type of 
     media, and how we deal with it will be instructive in dealing 
     with other types.
       Many questions remain: How can the V-chip technology be 
     made more affordable? What distinctions should we make 
     between different violent images--for example, Wile E. Coyote 
     attacking the Road Runner vs. a documentary on the Holocaust? 
     How should violence depicted on television news be treated? 
     Not all instances of violent programming are necessarily 
     inappropriate, but we must figure out how to protect children 
     from violence that is clearly excessive. I think it might 
     help to require each broadcaster to say when it applies to 
     the FCC for renewal of its license what it intends to do for 
     the children that it serves and how it intends to discourage 
     violence.
       It is clear that there are no easy solutions to this 
     problem, but we cannot abandon our children to the wasteland 
     of television violence. I believe the V-chip can come to be 
     an important tool for parents to use in combatting the 
     effects of TV violence. But I do not believe that technology 
     will ever serve as a substitute for the role parents play in 
     screening the programs their children watch and discussing 
     with them what they see. Right now, violence sells. It is up 
     to the public to remove this perverse economic incentive by 
     voting with our feet--or more accurately, with our remote 
     controls. Without any doubt public pressure will be more 
     important than a federal statute to make the purveyors of 
     media violence display good judgment and exercise self-
     restraint.

                          ____________________