[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 30 (Thursday, March 7, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1631-S1632]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      JOINT STANDARDS ON VIOLENCE

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, last week the major leaders of the 
television and movie industries in the United States met with President 
Clinton, Vice President Gore, and in separate meetings with several of 
us in Congress to address the issues of glamorized violence and sexual 
exploitation.
  President Clinton and the industry leaders are to be congratulated 
for coming together, an indication that both the leaders of Government 
and the industry take this issue seriously.
  Second, while I opposed the Federal Government mandating the V-chip 
and the ratings system that goes with it, the fact that the industry 
has decided to address the pressure in the telecommunications bill for 
them to voluntarily set up a system rather than oppose the proposal in 
the courts will do some good. It is a signal to the American people 
that the industry is willing to show self-restraint and that good 
citizenship can prevail over the profits-at-any-cost philosophy.
  My experience with this issue suggests that progress can continue to 
be made without Government entering the constitutionally dangerous 
field of regulating content and without the industry impairing either 
its profits or its effectiveness. But because this field that is 
entered is new in the United States for the industry, there will be 
some stumbling along the way. The path of real progress is rarely easy 
in any type of endeavor.
  The television-movie leaders deserve our congratulations not only for 
the step just announced but for a series of positive actions that have 
been taken over the past few years. The industry initially moved in a 
more conservative direction somewhat reluctantly, but as more and more 
leaders started self-examination and found pride and satisfaction in 
the good they were doing, the progress has become more measurable.
  In 1986, when I began talking about violence on television, I was a 
lonely voice. The entertainment industry responded to my calls for a 
reduction in gratuitous and glamorized violence on television with 
almost universal denials of any link between violence on television and 
violence in our society. For even suggesting such a link, I was loudly 
and enthusiastically denounced by some.
  When I asked that they work together to establish joint standards on 
violence, the networks told me that antitrust laws precluded them from 
doing so. When I introduced and Congress passed an antitrust exemption 
in 1990, signed into law by President Bush, to allow them to discuss 
this issue, they spent the first year and a half of the exemption doing 
nothing. Finally, halfway through the exemption, I took to the Senate 
floor to call the Nation's attention to this issue and the industry's 
inaction. Public hearings were held in the House and the Senate.
  In response to this public pressure, the networks announced joint 
standards on violence in 1992. The broadcast networks led the way on 
this, followed by cable and the independents. The standards they 
developed were not as strong as I would have liked, not as strong as 
the British standards, for example, but a positive step forward.

  In the summer of 1993, the networks established a parental advisory 
system. They took significant nonpublic actions to change the shape of 
things. The President of one of the broadcast networks told me that he 
viewed a film they had paid $1.5 million for, and after viewing it he 
decided the network should take a loss and not show it because of its 
violence.
  When the officials of one network met, initially, one or two sharply 
criticized what I was doing. Then one of the officers asked the 
question, ``Do you let your children watch what we are producing?'' He 
reported that question changed the whole tone of the meeting and what 
they would produce in the future.
  Jack Valenti, head of the Motion Picture Association, and others, 
arranged for me to meet with the Writers Guild and the Directors Guild, 
the creative people who help to shape what we view. A few of them were 
hostile, some reluctant, and others clearly welcomed a slightly 
different thrust.
  In August 1993, the first-ever industrywide conference on the issue 
of gratuitous television violence was held. At that conference, I urged 
the industry to select independent monitors, not censors, to make any 
reports to the public about television programming. In early 1994, both 
the broadcast and cable networks announced they would do it and 
announced their selection for independent monitors.
  These monitors, the UCLA Center for Communication Policy and 
Mediascope, have now each issued their first annual reports. Many 
critics dismissed these monitors as pawns of the industry because the 
industry is paying for their work.
  These first reports clearly belie that suspicion. They are solid, 
critical examinations of television programming. They make concrete 
suggestions for ways to improve. The reports exceeded my greatest 
hopes.
  These studies show that television violence is still a problem, but 
the very existence of the reports should encourage everyone concerned 
about this issue. The networks invested significant sums to fund this, 
and they have respected the independence of the monitors' work.
  The industry has proposed a voluntary rating system to provide the 
public with more information about their programming. I applaud this 
voluntary effort. The question is where we go from here.
  Laudable as the most recent step by the industry is--though I voted 
against that V-chip in the version that passed the Senate as an unwise 
and probably unconstitutional intrusion of the Federal Government in 
the field of content--I have concerns that some in industry and 
Government are looking to this as the answer to the question of 
gratuitous violence. It will help concerned parents. Perhaps of greater 
influence, it will affect advertising for those who accept that form of 
sustenance.
  I have these concerns:
  First, it will take years before the V-chip is in most American 
homes.
  Second, the recent report on television by Mediascope suggests that 
while ratings help parents and are helpful with young children, boys 
between the ages of 11 and 14 are attracted by an R rating, not 
repelled by it. If the study had included young people between the ages 
of 15 and 19, my instinct is that the R rating would prove to be even 
more of a magnet.

  Third, teenagers are mechanically very adept. Many will find their 
way around the V-chip, if by no other means, by going to a friend's 
home.
  Fourth, and most important, the homes that most need to use the V-
chip will not use it. Children in high-

[[Page S1632]]

crime areas watch half again as much television as in areas where crime 
is less prevalent. Too often, the children of those parents are 
desperately just trying to get by, and if watching more violence on 
television keeps the children off the streets, it will strike many 
parents as a reasonable tradeoff.
  So I welcome the industry's considerable effort to assist the 
American public with ratings and the V-chip, but I view it as a mixed 
blessing.
  Let me close by issuing a challenge to the industry and to my 
colleagues. To the leaders of television, I applaud the progress you 
are making. Broadcast entertainment TV is measurably less violent than 
5 years ago and cable TV is slightly less violent. If this progress 
continues, 10 years from now people will look back on today's 
television as we now look back on old movies that have the heroes and 
heroines smoking and drinking heavily. Moving away from that stereotype 
did not hurt the movies and television, and it helped the American 
public.
  I urge all industry leaders to read the two fine monitoring reports 
that the broadcast and cable industries authorized. I particularly call 
your attention to the statistic in the more recent report that 73 
percent of violence in entertainment television has no immediate 
adverse consequences for the perpetrators of the violence.
  The message to children and adults from that: Violence pays. The same 
report notes that only 4 percent of violent programs emphasize an 
antiviolence theme. It should not be difficult for television 
executives to tell your writers and directors and other creative people 
to shift this emphasis. We do not need to wait for a V-chip for that.
  To my colleagues in Government, I urge patience. As one of the 
harshest critics of the industry, let us acknowledge that progress has 
been made even before this latest announcement and congratulate the 
industry for it. It is no accident that the top five in the network 
ratings on television today are not violent shows.
  Let us applaud the progress that has been made, and let the dust 
settle a little, viewing carefully and not emotionally where we are, 
and not pass more legislation at this time. President Clinton and 
Senator Bob Dole deserve some of the credit for the progress that has 
been made, as do many other of my colleagues of both parties in the 
House and the Senate. Periodic hearings should be held to determine 
what is happening, but let us not derail a train that is now headed in 
a better direction.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________