[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22847-22849]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                     MARKETING VIOLENCE TO CHILDREN

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Americans are rightfully horrified and 
alarmed at the news reports and stories about so-called ``child 
soldiers'' pressed into service in paramilitary armies around the 
world. In Cambodia, the Sudan, Lebanon, and elsewhere, we gaze into the 
hard-eyed stares of barefoot ten-year-olds cradling well-worn rifles 
and machine guns. These children have known nothing but violence. It is 
hard to imagine how they will ever be able to move beyond such 
violence, should peace ever be established in their homelands. They do 
not know how to live under the rule of law, only under the rule of 
might makes right. They have a very casual attitude about killing other 
human beings.
  We certainly would not want our own children to experience such a 
life, and we would not want such a generation of casual killers to grow 
up amongst us. Yet, in the midst of all of our affluence, we are 
rearing a generation that is appallingly casual about violence, a 
generation that is appallingly self-centered about getting--or taking--
what they want. Too many of our children live lives heavily influenced 
by a completely unrealistic set of expectations and examples. In the 
movies, when something bad happens to someone, does he or she turn to 
the police for help and then retire to the background while the police 
deal with the problem? No, of course not. Our hero grabs a gun and 
gives chase. Bullets fly, explosions and car crashes ensue, and the 
audience is treated to every gory detail. There is no fading to black 
anymore to let our imaginations fill in the details. No, our hero 
leaves a bloody trail of death and destruction in his wake and goes 
home with the girl--and none of those details are left to our 
imagination, either.
  Now, instead of the aforementioned action-adventure, one could opt 
instead for some other movie genre but many are worse. Horror movies 
have taken violence against the innocent to new, ever-more-squeamish 
lows. The realistic and grisly visuals are, no doubt, a tribute to the 
talents of makeup and special-effects artists, but, nevertheless, I 
remain unconvinced that putting these nightmares on the silver screen 
does anything but tarnish the screen and the imaginations of the 
viewers. Some of the subject matter in these films is so misogynistic, 
so filled with contempt for societal order, and so filled with 
invective and hate, that it should set the alarm bells ringing in 
peaceable folks and incite them to demand greater responsibility from 
the entertainment industry.

[[Page 22848]]

  I have always instinctively, intuitively felt that people who can 
look with equanimity on this kind of violence, even on screen or on the 
radio, might themselves be open to such action. In fact, this does seem 
to be the case in practice. We surround our children with these so-
called ``role models,'' and then, for amusement--and I use that term 
lightly--we let our children play games in which they get to act out 
this lifestyle.
  What are we doing? We send our children the message that real life is 
dull, and that this is what we do for fun. We allow them to watch so-
called movie stars create mayhem without ever facing the consequences. 
Then we allow our children to listen to music that may also be filled 
with violent lyrics. Then we let our children amuse themselves by play-
acting that they are the killers. We allow them to have hours, 
sometimes, of simulated target practice--and we pay for the privilege. 
Should we then be surprised when our children come to believe that 
violence against others is just one stop along the continuum of 
acceptable behavior?
  Our children may go to school every day. They may have a roof over 
their heads at night. Perhaps they have nice clothes to wear. They may 
have parents who love them. They may have, in short, everything, but 
they have, in too many cases, developed the same hard-eyed stare that 
those Cambodian child soldiers have. They have developed the same 
casual attitude about violence and in far too many cases, they act out 
these violent impulses, with tragic results.
  I have long shared the concerns of many parents and grandparents that 
young people are being exposed to far too much violence through the 
media--through the movies, through television, rock music--if you can 
call it music--and video games. The entertainment industry, however, 
has generally rebuffed criticism about the content of its programs and 
products, and about concerns that too much exposure to violence is 
harmful to our young people. The industry, in fact, has repeatedly 
claimed to be making efforts to reduce the exposure of young people to 
violence, including instituting a system of labeling program content so 
that parents are supposedly better able to evaluate the programs, and 
video games and what goes for music that their children watch and play.
  Now it seems as though the entertainment industry has been caught 
with its hand in the cookie jar.
  Just a few days ago, the Federal Trade Commission--the agency 
responsible for enforcing consumer protection laws--released a report 
finding that the entertainment industry aggressively markets violence-
ridden materials directly to young people. This report details how 
companies, on the one hand, stamp ``mature audience'' ratings on their 
products that contain violent material, while on the other hand, these 
same companies peddle these ``mature''-rated products to young people.
  Let me just read a passage of the FTC report: ``Two plans for games 
developed in 1998 described its target audience as `Males 17-34 due to 
M rating. The true target is males 12-34.' '' In other words, not 17 to 
34, but 12 to 34. There it is--in black and white! Video game marketers 
acknowledge that they are giving a quick wink to their own standards 
and then they state their true target. This is especially significant 
since only the electronic game industry has adopted a rule prohibiting 
its marketers from targeting advertising for games to children below 
the age designations indicated by their rating. So the FTC has knocked 
a huge hole in the industry's pious statements of concern by 
highlighting its hypocritical marketing practices.
  You may recall to memory the story of Hansel and Gretel--a story that 
is not without its own share of violence. Just as Hansel and Gretel 
were enchanted by the evil witch's gingerbread house, our children are 
dazzled by the entertainment industry's lurid images. The industry 
beckons our children with advertising and once they are in the 
industry's clutches, the children are fattened up with more violent 
material. Of course, in the story of Hansel and Gretel, the children 
realize they are about to be cooked and eaten, and they trick the witch 
and shove her into the oven. Would we could do that with the 
entertainment industry. But I am not suggesting that we shove the 
entertainment industry into the oven--but perhaps we do need to turn up 
the heat!
  The impact of media violence on our children is of great concern. 
Numerous studies conducted by the nation's top universities in the past 
three decades have come to the same conclusion: namely, there is at 
least some demonstrable link between watching violent acts in movies, 
television shows, or video games and acting aggressively in life.
  As parents, policymakers, and citizens and legislators, we should all 
be worried about this. The amount of entertainment violence witnessed 
by American children is alarming.
  Film makers, striving to turn profits in the competitive film 
industry, display more and more explicit violence, and programmers 
devise increasingly violent computer and video games that have children 
take on roles in which they are rewarded for the number of enemies they 
kill. Is it any wonder, then, that children become numb to the horrors 
they witness daily in their entertainment? Is it a surprise that these 
same children have a world view that incorporates violence as an 
acceptable means for settling conflict? Of course not.
  If the industry is unwilling to address the concerns of parents by 
continuing to market inappropriate material to children, and then to 
broadcast that material at times when children are most likely to be 
watching, then I think it is incumbent upon Congress to act. We cannot 
be passive about this issue. We cannot say how awful it is--``How 
awful''--but then fail to take action. If the entertainment industry 
will not act responsibly, if the industry will not work with parents to 
craft commonsense approaches to curbing inappropriate programming, then 
it will fall to Congress to address the situation. Will it? Reducing 
the violence placed before America's children in the guise of 
entertainment is an important task. Images seen in childhood help to 
shape attitudes for a lifetime.
  I know that I am not alone in recognizing the threat to our society 
created by producing our own generation of child soldiers, of young 
people indifferent to the suffering they cause by their violent acts. 
This FTC report merely provides evidence that, like the tobacco 
companies, the violent entertainment industry is targeting our children 
to build a nation, not of addicts, but of indifference to excessive 
violence. We cannot let this continue. But will we?
  If the entertainment industry cannot abide by, and will not enforce, 
voluntary guidelines to regulate media violence, then it is time for 
the rest of us to insist that those guidelines be enforced.
  That might be a good question for tonight's debate. I wonder if all 
the questions have already been determined. Why not some questions of 
this nature?
  I realize that legislation to address this issue is unlikely to see 
action in the very few days remaining in this Congress. In fact, I 
would not like to rush such legislation and risk doing it poorly. Of 
course, it will not be done and cannot be done in the few days that 
remain. I would rather finish the critical appropriations work that 
still remains. But I do hope that this report will not be lost in 
Olympic and election hoopla. I intend to revisit this issue next year, 
and I hope that other Members will join me in a sincere and bipartisan 
effort to find a way to protect our children and our society.
  It is the same old story, Mr. President, the same old story. We talk 
about it. We wring our hands. We wail and gnash our teeth and moan and 
groan about the entertainment industry. But we welcome those 
contributions from the entertainment industry. They are great. They are 
great. But we are paying for it with the denigration of our children.
  When will America awaken? When will the candidates be asked piercing 
questions about their stands on matters such as this? I would like to 
hear their answers. Tonight, in that townhall meeting, would be a good 
place for those, wouldn't it?

[[Page 22849]]

  What are you going to do, Mr. Candidate, about the entertainment 
industry? How much money have you already accepted? Are you going to 
accept money from the entertainment industry? If you do, then how can 
you turn around and do something in the interests of our children? A 
good question.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania is recognized.

                          ____________________