[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 75 (Friday, May 24, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5653-S5654]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            HOWARD STRINGER

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, recently Howard Stringer, chief 
executive officer of Tele-TV, received the First Amendment Leadership 
Award presented by the Radio and Television News Directors Foundation 
at their annual banquet.
  In his remarks, he comments about the need for sensitivity and 
realism in dealing with the problems of television violence.
  In working with television executives on this problem, I have found 
none superior to Howard Stringer. He is both sensible and sensitive.
  I urge my colleagues to read his remarks, which I ask to be printed 
in the Record.
  The remarks follow:

   Radio and Television News Directors Foundation Annual Banquet and 
                   Celebration of the First Amendment

                          (By Howard Stringer)

       This is an interesting moment for any broadcaster to accept 
     an award attached to the 1st Amendment. Just weeks ago, 
     President Clinton and a number of television executives 
     assembled in The White House to collaborate on a ratings 
     system which would measure and proclaim the intensity of sex 
     and violence on their programs. The President endorsed the V-
     chip as a device that would, ``hand the remote control back 
     to America's parents.'' It would be one small step for 
     broadcasters, but a giant step for viewers. Some observers 
     found the quid-pro-quo a little cynical--free use of the 
     spectrum for digital compression on one side, election year 
     political advantage for the other, but all in all, surely a 
     positive gesture.
       Some observers are concerned that the government has at 
     least nudged its unholy way into content. Remembering 
     President Nixon's use of the IRS as a weapon against 
     political enemies, some day a President could recognize that 
     in the digital future, whoever controls the chip not only 
     controls V for Violence, but V for Voters.
       In the near term, I'm more worried that this new political 
     contract will do two things. Firstly, it will engender 
     cynicism if it has no impact at all, and secondly, it will 
     let programmers off the hook, especially if by gladly 
     accepting the V-chip they abdicate further responsibility for 
     content.
       The cynicism factor is no small consideration. Since I came 
     to America, successive governments have trumpeted a grand 
     solution to whatever ails the country. The war to end 
     communism in Vietnam, the war on poverty, the war on hunger, 
     the war on racism, the war on drugs, all created a level of 
     expectation, only to be followed by let down. After World War 
     II, America became, in Robert Samuelson's words, ``a nation 
     of enthusiastic problem solvers'' with the expectation that 
     everything could be easily solved. When solutions fail, he 
     observed, we sink into an atmosphere of ``free floating 
     gloom.'' The ranks of the cynical grow ever larger.
       In 1993 I attended hearings on Capitol Hill on the subject 
     of violence. With the valiant exception of Senator Paul 
     Simon, most of my interrogators clearly hadn't watched 
     television, couldn't differentiate between network and cable, 
     and weren't terribly interested in debating the issue on its 
     merits. One Congressman told me that he was going to vote for 
     the V-chip because he was fed up with network news reporters 
     attacking Congressional junkets.
       On the evening after the hearings, I received a telephone 
     call from that remarkable reporter, Jimmy Breslin. He told me 
     he'd just spent the night in Bedford Stuyvesant, where kids 
     were out on the streets, armed to the teeth, dealing in 
     drugs, joining gangs and dropping out of school. ``Trust me'' 
     said Breslin, ``those kids aren't watching your network.'' Of 
     course he was right. The street kids of urban America aren't 
     glued to ``The Nanny,'' ``Friends,'' ``Touched by an 
     Angel.'' We'd be a lot safer if they were. The gutter body 
     count is more accurately represented in movies like ``Die 
     Hard'' or ``Terminator,'' which are `R' rated, than on 
     television, though even in those movies at least the good 
     guys win and the bad guys lose.
       Ratings systems are valuable to the child with responsible 
     parents. They're not much of an obstacle to the latch-key kid 
     with nothing but time on his hands. So even if we accept that 
     the V-chip will help some parents, let's not fool ourselves 
     that it will diminish violence on the street. Otherwise, the 
     letdown will, as I've said, promote yet more cynicism all 
     round.
       My second point is that all of us in the broadcasting or 
     cable or telephone programming community have a higher 
     responsibility that the government cannot and should not 
     enforce. Instead of debating the issue of TV's relationship 
     to violence, let's turn the question on its head. Can we help 
     society fight violence? Can we do more? Bill Moyers said 
     recently, ``What we need is a strategy of affirmation by 
     society as a whole, from homes, schools, churches, synagogues 
     and all the institutions that transmit values.'' What about 
     from our entertainment institutions?
       There has been violence in great literature and in great 
     drama beyond Shakespeare to the ancient Greeks. Blood is the 
     ink of much theatrical history, but great writers understand 
     great consequences. Villains are doomed. Victims mourned. The 
     audience is taught accountability, responsibility, 
     sensitivity and compassion. It's not enough for the audience 
     to leave the stage or screen just thrilled or amused. The 
     true artist can teach us to care, and of course, to feel.
       If the sociopaths who parade through our news clips show no 
     remorse, then maybe our entertainment programs should. If the 
     eyes of killers reflect only the chill of arctic wastes, then 
     maybe we should offer warmer vistas. If dozens of people die 
     unrecognized and unmourned in our movies, then maybe we 
     should shed tears for them.
       If we perceive the loss of life as unremarkable, then the 
     absence of love will also be unremarkable. Death stings, pain 
     hurts, loss devastates, fear terrifies. If we complain that 
     television merely mirrors reality, then let us try to reflect 
     our reality more skillfully and honestly. Violence is not 
     poetic or balletic. It is ugly. Violence inspires more tears 
     than cheers on the streets of our cities. True artists have 
     the power to move not only their audiences, but also their 
     times.
       America won more than the Cold War. It's also winning the 
     global infotainment war. We export popular culture to the 
     world. With that victory comes some responsibility. We can 
     give audiences only ``What they want'' and cynically wait for 
     the cash registers to ring, or we can challenge our creative 
     minds to reach further into their souls. We can certainly do 
     more than shelter gratefully behind labels, and allow taste 
     to evaporate.
       In the end industry leaders must take personal 
     responsibility for what goes on the screen. If we separate 
     like church and state, our artistic values from our personal 
     values, then we create programs for others we would not be 
     willing to share with our own family

[[Page S5654]]

     and friends. If we produce dreadful entertainment just 
     because we automatically assume they, the viewers, will like 
     it, eventually the viewers will turn on us, challenge our 
     cynicism and demand not just the V-chip but the C-chip-C for 
     censorship.
       The greatest threat to all our hard won freedoms, whether 
     freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press 
     or the right to petition is cynicism. I accept this award on 
     behalf of my colleagues, my collaborators and my comrades, 
     especially those of you I know in this room who are anything 
     but cynical. If all of you are to be custodians of the new 
     world cultural order, then you have a clear duty to try to 
     protect and cherish its citizens.

                          ____________________