[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.
____________________