[Senate Report 104-234]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
104th Congress 2d Session SENATE Report
104-234
_______________________________________________________________________
Calendar No. 336
TELEVISION VIOLENCE REPORT CARD ACT OF 1995
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
on
S. 772
February 9 (legislative day, February 7), 1996.--Ordered to be printed
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred fourth congress
second session
LARRY PRESSLER, South Dakota,
Chairman
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina TED STEVENS, Alaska
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
WENDELL H. FORD, Kentucky CONRAD BURNS, Montana
J. JAMES EXON, Nebraska SLADE GORTON, Washington
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West VirginiaTRENT LOTT, Mississippi
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana OLYMPIA SNOWE, Maine
RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota BILL FRIST, Tennessee
Patric G. Link, Chief of Staff
Kevin G. Curtin, Democratic Chief
Counsel and Staff Director
Calendar No. 336
104th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 104-234
_______________________________________________________________________
TELEVISION VIOLENCE REPORT CARD ACT OF 1995
_______
February 9 (legislative day, February 7), 1996.--Ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Pressler, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany S. 772]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation to
which was referred the bill to provide for an assessment of the
violence broadcast on television, and for other purposes,
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
S. 772, the ``Television Violence Report Card Act of
1995'', provides for an assessment of violence on television.
Under the legislation, the Secretary of Commerce would award
grants to a private, not for profit entity to conduct
assessments of violence on television and make the assessments
available to the public. The legislation would require that
assessments be done periodically and made available to the
public at least once every 90 days.
S. 772 would impose no regulation nor penalties on the
television industry. Rather, the legislation takes the approach
of providing consumers with information necessary to monitor
television viewing in their homes. S. 772 achieves the goal of
protecting children through empowering consumers with
information as opposed to other approaches that use regulation
or government mandates such as requiring television set
manufacturers to build sets containing a ``V-Chip.''
Background and Needs
Congressional concern over the amount of violence on
television extends back over forty years. As early as the
1950's, researchers believed that the spread of television was
partly to blame for the significant increase in violent crime
in the early part of that decade. Congress first began to
examine the link between television and violence with hearings
in the 1950s, holding hearings concerning violence in radio and
television and its impact on children and youth in 1952 and
1954.
Concern arose again in the late 1960s and early 1970s after
the wave of urban unrest caused some to question the effect of
television on violent behavior. Since the early 1960's, the
Committee has held eighteen hearings on the subject of
television violence.\1\ However, no legislation was reported
out of the Committee.
\1\ S.Hrng. 91-6 (March 12, 19, and 20, 1969); S.Hrng. 92-32
(September 28, 1971); S.Hrng. 92-52 (March 21, 22, 23, and 24, 1972);
S.Hrng. 93-76 (April 3, 4, and 5, 1974); S.Hrng. 94-62 (February 13,
1976); S.Hrng. 95-60 (May 9, 10 and 11, 1977); S.Hrng. 101-221 (June
12, 1989); S.Hrng. 103-852 (October 20, 1993); and S.Hrng. 104--- (July
12, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to public concern over the urban riots of the
1960's, President Lyndon B. Johnson established the National
Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. The
Commission's Mass Media Task Force looked at the impact of
violence contained in entertainment programs aired on
television and concluded that (1) television violence does have
a negative impact on behavior and (2) television violence
encourages subsequent violent behavior and ``fosters moral and
social values about violence in daily life which are
unacceptable in a civilized society.'' \2\
\2\ U.S. National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of
Violence. To Establish Justice, To Insure Domestic Tranquility. Final
Report of the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of
Violence. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., December 1969, p. 199.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1969, Senator John Pastore, Chairman of the Senate
Subcommittee on Communications of the Committee on Commerce,
petitioned the Surgeon General to investigate the effects of TV
violence. In 1972, Surgeon General Jessie Steinfeld released a
study \3\ demonstrating a correlation between television
violence and violent behavior and called for Congressional
action. The five-volume report concluded that there was a
causal effect from TV violence, but primarily on children
presupposed to be aggressive. The then-FCC Chairman, Dean
Burch, declined to regulate violence, saying that the FCC
should not ``make fundamental programming judgments.''
\3\ U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare. The Surgeon
General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social
Behavior. Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence.
Report to the Surgeon General. U.S. Public Health Service. Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1972, p. 279.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several more hearings were held after the release of the
Surgeon General's report in the 1970's. Despite studies showing
an increase in violent programming, little regulatory or
Congressional action was taken. Discussions continued regarding
the relationship between violence in society and what was shown
on television. The continued concerns prompted Congress to
request the FCC to study possible solutions to the problems of
television violence and sexually-oriented materials.
On February 20, 1975, under the direction of then-Chairman
Wiley, the FCC issued its Report on the Broadcast of Violent
and Obscene Material. The report recommended statutory
clarification regarding the Commission's authority to prohibit
certain broadcasts of obscene and indecent materials. However,
with regard to the issue of television violence, the FCC did
not recommend any congressional action because the industry had
recently adopted a voluntary ``family viewing'' period.\4\ The
Television Code, however, fell out of use in the 1980's.
\4\ On February 4, 1975, the National Association of Broadcasters
(NAB) Television Code Review Board adopted a code implementing a family
viewing period between 7 and 9 p.m., viewer advisories, and warnings to
publishers of the advisories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The growth of violence in our society has prompted Congress
to look for as many solutions as possible to reduce the extent
of this problem. Each year, over 20,000 people are murdered in
the U.S.--one person is killed every 22 minutes. While France
has a murder rate of two homicides per 100,000 people; the U.S.
has 9.4. The U.S. murder rate is four times the rate of Europe
and 11 times higher than that of Japan. The U.S. homicide rate
is rising 6 times faster than the population. Violence is the
second leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of
15 and 24, and is the leading cause of death for African-
Americans of that age group.
Each time the issue was raised in Congress, however, the
industry continually promised to regulate itself while at the
same time urging against Congressional action. In 1975, Richard
Wiley, Chairman of the FCC, announced that he had reached an
agreement with the broadcasters that made Congressional action
unnecessary. This agreement provided that the television
industry would voluntarily restrict the showing of violent
shows during the ``family hour.''
research on tv violence
During the 1980s, the amount of violence on television
increased substantially. One study found up to 32 acts of
violence on television on children's programming. Another study
found that the amount of violence on television tripled in the
1980's. The increase in violence coincides with an increase in
the amount of time children spend watching television. Children
spend, on average, 28 hours per week watching television, which
is more time than they spend in school. The average child
watches 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence on
television before finishing elementary school.
A 1982 study observed that in a sample of 81 hours of
television programs, there were approximately 1,500 acts of
aggression and that 69% of these aggressive actions were judged
unnecessary to the plot.\5\ A comparison between crime
portrayals on television and the FBI's crime statistics found
that since 1955, television characters have been murdered at a
rate of 1000 times higher than real world victims. Television
crime not only presents a higher rate of violent crime than in
the real world, it portrays a different type of crime. Guns are
more pervasive on television and violent crime is more often
calculated and felony in nature on television than in real
life.\6\
\5\ Williams, T., Zabrack, M. & Joy, L., The Portrayal of
Aggression on North American Television, Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 12, 1982, pp. 360-380.
\6\ S. Robert Licther, Linda S. Lichter and Stanley Rothman, Prime
Time: How TV Portrays American Culture, (Regnery Publishing, Inc.,
Washington, D.C., 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between 200 and 3000 independent research studies have now
been conducted that demonstrate a causal link between viewing
violent programming and aggressive behavior. Several national
organizations, including the National Institutes for Mental
Health, the American Psychological Association, and the
National Parent-Teacher Association, believe that legislation
is necessary to help parents protect their children and to
protect unsupervised children from the negative effects of
television violence.
Research has consistently shown a link between viewing
violence on television and violent behavior. In 1956, one of
the first studies of television violence reported that 4-year-
olds who watched the ``Woody Woodpecker'' cartoon were more
likely to display aggressive behavior than children who watched
the ``Little Red Hen.'' Following the Surgeon General's 1972
report, significant research was conducted detailing the
correlation between viewing violent television and later
aggressive behavior. Several of the leading medical
associations published similar conclusions, including the
American Medical Association, the American Psychological
Association, the American Pediatric Association, and the
American Academy of Pediatrics.\7\
\7\ Centerwall, Brandon S., Television and Violence: The Scale of
the Problem and Where to Go From Here. JAMA, v. 267, no. 22, June 10,
1992, p.3059.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For instance, a study by Tanis Williams supports the
conclusion that there is a direct correlation between
television violence and aggressive behavior in children.
Williams, a researcher at the University of British Columbia,
studied the impact of television on a small rural community in
Canada that received television signals for the first time in
1973. The researchers observed forty-five first and second
graders for signs of inappropriate aggressive behavior. Two
years later, the same group was observed and it was found that
the aggressive behavior in the children increased by 160
percent as compared to a control group that saw no noticeable
increase in aggressive behavior.\8\
\8\ Centerwall, Brandon. Television and Violent Crime, Public
Interest, No.111, Spring 1993, p.56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A survey of over 800 children in 1972 found that frequent
viewers of television violence expressed a greater willingness
to resort to violence to resolve conflict situations than did
infrequent viewers.\9\ A survey of 3,500 students (ages 9 to
18) linked high amounts of television viewing and preference
for violent programs and juvenile delinquency \10\ and another
1984 study demonstrated that childhood television viewing
habits are related to adult criminal behavior.\11\
\9\ G. Comstock & E. Ruberstein (Eds.), Television and Social
Behavior: Vol. 3. Television and Adolescent Aggressiveness, (Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1972), pp. 314-335.
\10\ Thornton, W., & Voigt, L., Youth & Society, vol. 15, n. 4,
1984, pp. 445-468.
\11\ Huesman, L., Eron, L., Lefkowitz, M., & Walder, L.,
Developmental Psychology, 1984, vol. 20, pp. 1120-1134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1982, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
produced a new report entitled Television and Behavior: Ten
Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties.
In contrast to the Surgeon General's 1972 report, the NIMH
concluded that TV violence affects all children, not just those
predisposed to aggression. The 1982 report reaffirmed the
conclusions of the earlier studies stating:
After 10 more years of research, the consensus among
most of the research community is that violence on
television does lead to aggressive behavior by children
and teenagers who watch the programs. This conclusion
is based on laboratory experiments and on field
studies. Not all children become aggressive, of course,
but the correlations between violence and aggression
are positive. In magnitude, television violence is as
strongly correlated with aggressive behavior as any
other behavioral variable that has been measured. The
research question has moved from asking whether or not
there is an effect to seeking explanations for the
effect.\12\
\12\ The NIMH Report, p. 6.
Not all research, though, supported this conclusion. In
1982, NBC sponsored a study of the issue and reported there was
no correlation. In addition, a 1984 analysis of all the
available studies by Jonathan L. Freedman, of the Department of
Psychology at the University of Toronto, concluded that the
published studies did not support the hypothesis that viewing
habits of children resulted in subsequent changes in behavior
in children. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports
that both the NBC study and the Freedman studies have been
discounted by additional research. In fact, a re-analysis of
the NBC study revealed a direct correlation between viewing
violence and harmful behavioral changes in children.
More recent research adds credibility to the findings of
the NIMH. Two of the most widely publicized empirical studies
adopt two different methodologies, but arrive at the same
result. In one of the studies, Dr. Leonard Eron followed a
group of children in upstate New York State and examined them
at ages 8, 19 and 30. The study found that the more the
participants watched TV at age 8, the more serious were the
crimes of which they were convicted by age 30, the more
aggressive was their behavior when drinking, and the harsher
was the punishment which they inflicted on their own children.
Similar experiments were conducted in Australia, Finland,
Israel, and Poland, and the outcome was the same in each
experiment.
Another study was conducted by Dr. Brandon Centerwall, a
Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Washington. He
studied the homicide rates in South Africa, Canada and the
United States in relation to the introduction of television. In
all three countries, Dr. Centerwall found that the homicide
rate doubled about 10 or 15 years after the introduction of
television. According to Dr. Centerwall, the lag time in each
country reflects the fact that television exerts its behavior-
modifying effects primarily on children, whereas violent
activity is primarily an adult activity. Dr. Centerwall
concludes that ``long-term childhood exposure to television is
a causal factor behind approximately one-half of the homicides
committed in the United States.'' This report \13\ concerning
the harmful impact of viewing television violence on
preadolescent children found that extensive exposure to
television violence could lead to chronic effects extending
into later adolescence and adulthood.
\13\ Centerwall, p. 3059-3063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These studies explore the link between violent television
and violent behavior. However, violent behavior may not be the
only harm caused by television violence. The American
Psychological Association believes that the harm caused by
violent television is broader and includes fearfulness and
callousness:
Viewing violence increases fear of becoming a victim
of violence, with a resultant increase in self-
protective behaviors and increased mistrust of others;
Viewing violence increases desensitization to
violence, resulting in calloused attitudes toward
violence directed at others and a decreased likelihood
to take action on behalf of the victim when violence
occurs (behavioral apathy); and
Viewing violence increases viewers' appetites for
becoming involved with violence or exposing themselves
to violence.
anecdotal evidence of the effect of tv violence
In addition to the research, there are several compelling
examples of the effects of television on children. In May 1979,
Johnny Carson used a professional stuntman to ``hang'' Carson
on stage. After a ``noose'' was placed around Carson's neck, he
was dropped through a trap door and emerged unharmed. The next
day, a young boy, Nicholas DeFilippo, was found dead with a
rope around his neck in front of a TV set tuned to NBC. The
parents of the child sued NBC for negligence, but lost their
suit. Twenty-six people died from self-inflicted gunshot wounds
to the head after watching the Russian Roulette scene in the
movie ``The Deer Hunter'' when it was shown on national TV.
U.S. courts heard 15 cases in which youths were victims of
violent incidents triggered by the media between 1977 and 1987.
In nine of these cases, children or teenagers were injured or
killed themselves while imitating something they had read about
or seen on television.\14\
\14\ Lee, J., Journal of Communication, vol. 37, v. 2, 1987, pp.
106-138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the growth of tv violence
According to several studies, television violence increased
during the 1980s both during prime-time and during children's
television hours. Children between the ages of 2 and 11 watch
television an average of 28 hours per week. According to a
University of Pennsylvania study, in 1992 a record 32 violent
acts per hour were recorded during children's shows. The
American Psychological Association estimates that a typical
child will watch 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence
before finishing elementary school.
A similar story exists for prime-time programming. The
National Coalition on Television Violence (NCTV), a monitoring
and advocacy group, found that 25 percent of the prime-time
shows in the 1992 fall season contained ``very violent''
material.
In August 1994, the Center for Media and Public Affairs
released the results of a new survey showing an increase in the
amount of violence on a single day of television in Washington,
D.C. As it did in 1992, the Center monitored 10 channels of
programming (six broadcast channels and 4 cable programs) on a
single day in April. The Center found a 41% increase in
television violence over the findings of its 1992 study. The
Center counted 2605 violent scenes in that day, an average of
almost 15 scenes of violence per channel per hour. Life-
threatening violence increased by 67% and incidents involving
gun play rose 45%. The Center found that the greatest sources
of violence on television came from ``promos'' for upcoming
shows and movies, which were up 69% from 1992. Only toy
commercials saw a reduction in violence; violence in toy
commercials dropped 85%.
Sponsors of these studies believe that there are several
reasons for this increased TV violence. One cause is the
increase in ``reality shows'', such as Top Cops, Hard Copy, and
A Current Affair. These shows describe or provide tape footage
from actual police activity, including efforts to subdue
suspects resisting arrest. Another reason is the increase in
violence shown on the nightly news programs, which may in part
result from the increase in violent acts in society. A very
significant factor is the increase in cable programming that
seeks smaller, niche audiences. According to one study, 3 of
the top 4 most violent channels were cable channels, while the
three major network affiliates and the public broadcasting
affiliate were at the bottom of the list--the 144 music videos
on MTV included almost as much violence as the three network
affiliates combined.
Some believe that the most violent programs are cartoons.
The inclusion of fantasy or animated characters in the
compilation of violent programming is controversial. Some
observers believe that cartoon violence should be distinguished
from ``real-life'' violence that may glamorize violence. Many
child psychologists, however, believe that young children are
especially vulnerable to violent programs because they are
unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality.
An example of this problem involved MTV's cartoon, ``Beavis
and Butt-head'', which used to air every day at 7:00 p.m. The
cartoon is a parody of two young teenagers and their view of
daily life. The two characters engage in what some observers
view as irresponsible activity, including cruelty to animals.
In particular, the show occasionally has the two characters
suggesting that setting objects on fire is ``cool''. It has
been alleged that the cartoon's depiction of unsafe fireplay
led one 5-year-old in Ohio to set his family's mobile home on
fire, causing the death of his 2-year-old sister in 1993.
Although MTV denies any connection, it has removed all
references to fire for future episodes, and has rescheduled the
program to 10:00 p.m.
response by the television community
Although the broadcast community now admits that there is
some link between violent television and violent behavior, the
broadcasters join with the other sectors of the industry in
believing that these findings exaggerate the importance of
television violence. They argue, for instance, that the Eron
and Centerwall studies contain methodological problems because
they fail to take into account other factors that may
contribute to the violent behavior. They argue that income
level, socioeconomic status, and especially the amount of
supervision by parents have a greater impact on violent
behavior than television. One study noted that an increase in
violent behavior by children also was found after children
watched Sesame Street, perhaps the most successful educational
television show. They note that the homicide rate for white
males in the U.S. and Canada stabilized 15 years after the
introduction of television and did not increase in the 1980s
despite the increase in the amount of television violence.
Other efforts being undertaken include a series of public
service announcements (PSAs). For example, in November 1993,
NBC launched a campaign called ``The More You Know'' focusing
on teenage violence and conflict resolution.
In an effort to address the increase of television violence
during the 1980s, Congress passed legislation proposed by
Senator Simon providing the television industry a three-year
exemption from the antitrust laws to give it an opportunity to
develop common standards to reduce violent programming. In
December 1992, three networks (ABC, NBC, and CBS) adopted a
common set of ``Standards for the Depiction of Violence in
Television Programs.'' Some observers have criticized these
efforts because the standards adopted by the networks appear
weaker than the networks' own standards.
In June 1993, the networks also decided voluntarily to place
``warning'' labels before any show which the networks believed
to contain violent material. The three networks committed that,
before and during the broadcasting of various series, movies,
made-for-TV movies, mini-series and specials that might contain
excessive violence, the following announcement would be made:
``Due to some violent content, parental discretion is
advised.'' The warning label has been tested for the past two
years. The warning is also included in advertising and
promotional material for certain programs and is offered to
newspapers and magazines that print television viewing
schedules.
A similar advisory program was adopted by the Independent
Television Association (INTV--the trade group representing many
of the 350 television stations not affiliated with one of the
three networks). All the station members of INTV have adopted
this voluntary code.
In January 1994, both broadcast network and cable television
executives announced that they would hire independent monitors
to assess the amount of violence on television. The cable
television industry chose Mediascope, a non-profit California-
based group, to monitor its programming for violent content and
provide a report for the public that is expected in the spring
of 1996. On June 29, 1994, the four broadcast networks (ABC,
NBC, CBS, and Fox) selected the University of California at Los
Angeles (UCLA) Communication Policy Center to analyze, assess,
and report on television violence.
In February 1994, the National Cable Television Association
(NCTA) adopted an industry policy called ``Voices Against
Violence.'' The cable industry agreed to reduce and eliminate
the gratuitous use of violence, implement a parental advisory
system, and develop, in cooperation with broadcasters, a
violence ratings system that endorses viewer discretion
technology.
actions in other countries
In 1994, the Canadian broadcasters, under pressure from the
Canadian Government, instituted a new voluntary Code Against
Violence for television that took effect this year. The code
bans shows with gratuitous violence and limits those shows that
include scenes of violence suitable for adults only to the
hours after 9 p.m. The code places limits on children's shows
by requiring that violence not be a central theme. Also, it
stipulates that, in children's programs, violence not be shown
as a preferred way of solving problems and that the
consequences of violence be demonstrated. Similar measures have
also been adopted by the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, New
Zealand, Australia, and Colombia.
constitutional analysis
While S. 772 does not impose any limitation on speech
protected under the First Amendment, the Committee recognizes
that there is a clear governmental interest in protecting
children and society in general from the harmful affects of
television violence.
The Government has several compelling interests in protecting
children from the harmful effects of viewing violence: an
interest in protecting children from harm, an interest in
protecting society in general, an interest in helping parents
raise their children, and an interest in the privacy of the
home. Each of these are discussed below.
Government has a compelling interest in protecting children
from the harm caused by television violence. As several
witnesses testified, there is little doubt that children's
viewing of violence on television encourages them to engage in
violent and anti-social behavior, either as children or later
as adults. Somewhere between 200 and 3000 independent studies
demonstrate a causal connection between viewing violence and
violent behavior.\15\ These studies have included ``field''
studies of the effect of television on persons in real life and
laboratory studies. While the studies concluded in 1972 by the
National Institute of Mental Health concluded that there was a
causal relationship between viewing violence and behavior
primarily among those children predisposed to violence, more
recent research demonstrates that violent television affects
almost all children. Dr. Eron stated in his testimony before
the Committee as follows:
\15\ Only one researcher has called into question the conclusions
of these studies. See, Testimony of Jonathan Freedman, Professor of
Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Ontario,
Canada, Hearing on Television Violence before the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation, July 12, 1995. While Prof.
Freedman questions the conclusions drawn by these studies, Prof.
Freedman admits that he has not performed any research of his own on
this topic. The Committee is not aware of any study finding no linkage
between viewing television violence and violent behavior. As noted
earlier, the Congressional Research Service found that Prof. Freedman's
criticisms were answered by further research.
One of the places violence is learned is on
television. Over 35 years of laboratory and real-life
studies provide evidence that televised violence is a
cause of aggression among children, both
contemporaneously, and over time. Television violence
affects youngsters of all ages, both genders, at all
socio-economic levels, and all levels of intelligence.
The effect is not limited to children who are already
disposed to being aggressive, and it is not restricted
to the United States.\16\
\16\ Oral Testimony of Dr. Leonard Eron on behalf of the American
Psychological Association, Institute for Social Research, University of
Michigan, before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, Communications Subcommittee, July 12, 1995.
While it is perhaps axiomatic that children who become
violent because of television suffer harm, it is worth noting
that such children suffer harm in many ways. For example, they
can become anti-social, distant from others, and unproductive
members of society, especially if their actions arouse fear in
other people. They can suffer from imprisonment or other forms
of criminal punishment if their violence leads to illegal
behavior.
Violent behavior may not be the only harm caused by viewing
violent television. According to the American Psychological
Association, viewing violence can cause fearfulness,
desensitization, or an increased appetite for more
violence.\17\ In other words, as with ``obscenity'' and
``indecency'', the harm from television violence may result
simply from viewing violent material, even if no violent
behavior follows such viewing.
\17\ See, Testimony of Shirley Igo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A related compelling Governmental interest is the need to
protect society as a whole from the harmful results of
television-induced violent behavior. A child who views
excessive amounts of television violence is not the only person
who suffers harm. As Dr. Eron testified, children who watch
excessive amounts of television when they are young are more
``prone to be convicted for more serious crimes by age 30; more
aggressive while under the influence of alcohol; and, harsher
in the punishment they administered to their own children.''
\18\
\18\ Written Testimony of Dr. Eron, p. 2. Dr. Eron further warns
that ``. . . like secondary smoke effects, . . . don't think that just
because you have protected your child from the effects of television
violence that your child is not affected. You and your child might be
the victims of violence perpetrated by someone who as a youngster, did
learn the motivation for and the techniques of violence from
television.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Government's interest in protecting the privacy of the
home from intrusion by violent programming may provide a fourth
compelling Governmental interest. The Supreme Court has
recognized that ``in the privacy of the home * * * the
individual's right to be left alone plainly outweighs the First
Amendment rights of an intruder''.\19\ The right to privacy in
one's home was recently used to uphold legislation limiting
persons from making automated telephone calls to residences and
small businesses.\20\ Just as subscribers to telephones do not
give permission to telemarketers to place automated telephone
calls, the ownership of a television does not give programmers
permission to broadcast material that is an intrusion into the
privacy of the home.
\19\ FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 748 (1978).
\20\ See, Moser v. FCC, 46 F. 3d 970 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied
by Supreme Court on June 26, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some in the broadcast industry, for instance, argue that the
industry should be trusted to regulate itself to reduce the
amount of violence. Parents should bear the primary
responsibility for protecting their children, according to some
observers. Others say that the warnings and advisories that
many programmers now add to certain shows are a lesser
restrictive means of protecting children. Finally, some believe
that parental control technologies, such as the so-called ``V-
chip'' technology, would protect children without imposing as
much of a burden on the First Amendment rights of the
television industry.
S. 772 provides a non-regulatory and unintrusive approach to
addressing the problem of television violence. The legislation
imposes no limit on the television community's right to free
speech.
As discussed earlier, the television industry has been told
to improve its programming by Congress for over 40 years. The
first Congressional hearings on television violence were held
in 1952. Hearings were held in the Senate in 1954 and again in
the 1960's, the 1970's, and 1980's. At each hearing,
representatives of the television industry testified that they
were committed to ensuring that their programming was safe and
appropriate for children. In 1972, the Surgeon General called
for Congressional action, but this call was ignored after the
broadcast industry reached an agreement with the FCC to
restrict violent programs and programs unsuitable for children
during the ``family hour''.
There is substantial evidence, however, that despite the
promises of the television industry, the amount of violence on
television is far greater than the amount of violence in
society and continues to increase. According to one study,
``[s]ince 1955, television characters have been murdered at a
rate one thousand times higher than real-world victims. Indeed,
television violence has far outstripped reality since the
1950s.'' \21\ As noted earlier, the American Academy of
Pediatrics recorded a threefold increase in the amount of
violence on television during the 1980's. The most recent
survey of television in one city found a 41% increase in two
years.
\21\ S. Robert Lichter, Linda S. Lichter and Stanley Rothman, Prime
Time: How TV portrays American Culture, (Regnery Publishing, Inc.,
Washington, D.C., 1994), p. 275.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Shirley Igo noted in her testimony before the Committee
on behalf of the National Parent-Teachers Association, the
broadcast networks have drastically reduced the amount of
educational programming for children:
* * * it was found that in 1980, the three major
networks combined were showing 11 hours of educational
shows per week, but by 1990 such programming had
diminished to less than two hours per week. Yet, there
was more non-educational programming targeted at
children than ever before. * * * It is clear to the
National PTA and should be clear to members of this
Committee that if our collective goal is to reduce
violence on television, voluntary efforts by the
industry will not get our nation to achieving that
goal.\22\
\22\ Testimony of Shirley Igo, National PTA Vice-President for
Legislation, before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, July 12, 1995.
The incentives of the television industry can be
illustrated by a quote from a memo giving directions to the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
writers of the program ``Man Against Crime'' on CBS in 1953:
It has been found that we retain audience interest
best when our stories are concerned with murder.
Therefore, although other crimes may be introduced,
somebody must be murdered, preferably early, with the
threat of more violence to come. \23\
\23\ Quoted in Eric Barnouw, Image Empire: A History of Broadcast
in the United States, Vol. III, p. 23.
The latest attempt to allow the industry to regulate itself
came in 1990, when Sen. Paul Simon authored legislation to give
the television industry a three-year exemption from the
antitrust laws to develop a common code to limit television
violence. In December 1992, the four broadcast networks
released a common code of conduct that many criticized for
being weaker than the networks' own code of practices. In any
case, the code appears to have had little effect on the amount
of violence on television.
Some observers argue that a requirement to put warnings or
parental advisories before certain violent programs would be a
less restrictive means of satisfying the Government's interest
in protecting children. The Committee has received no evidence,
however, that such warnings accomplish the purpose of
protecting children.\24\ Indeed, there is some reason to
believe that advisories may increase the amount of violence on
television, if the television industry believes that it has
provided notice to parents to protect itself from criticism.
Some observers believe that programmers may want a warning
label to be placed on a program in order to attract
viewers.\25\
\24\ The Committee notes that it has received no evidence
indicating that the warning labels on music records and compact discs
has reduced the exposure of children to inappropriate lyrics.
\25\ For example, Ms. Lindsay Wagner, a television actress,
testified in 1993 that filmmakers sometimes lobby to get an ``R''
rating. ``We now have a couple of generations that have been reared on
violence for fun and many flock to the films with warnings.'' Testimony
of Ms. Lindsay Wagner, Hearing on S. 1383, the Children's Protection
from Violent Programming Act of 1993, before the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, p. 81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some observers believe that a variety of technologies that
are now available to television consumers can assist parents in
controlling the programs that their children watch. The
Committee received testimony from a number of manufacturers
during which they demonstrated how these technologies could be
used. The television industry believes that there is no need
for government action because parents can purchase technologies
on the market that will allow them to screen out undesirable
programs. In addition, the Committee also received testimony in
favor of mandating that certain of these technologies be placed
in every television set manufactured after a certain date (the
so-called V-chip legislation).
For several reasons, it is not clear that any of these
approaches will be effective.
First, each of these alternatives requires that parents
spend money to purchase either a box, a service, a new
television set, or software programs to conduct the screening.
In other words, these alternatives place the burden on the
parent, rather than on the industry that is generating the
violent programming. Often, parents either cannot afford or
choose not to spend the money to purchase these technologies.
The developer of the Telecommander technology, for instance,
received a patent for his television screening device in 1978,
but has not been able to obtain capital to bring the product to
market, presumably because of the uncertain demand for the
product.
For the V-chip approach to be effective, parents would need
to purchase new television sets with the chip before the
parents could block out objectionable programs. According to
the Electronics Industries Association, television sets are
replaced every 8 to 12 years. For those families that have not
yet replaced their televisions, and for those that retain old
televisions even after they purchase a new television set, the
V-chip may approach may not have much impact.
Second, there are significant questions about the ability
of parents to program the technologies effectively. Any such
technological approach must be easy enough for parents to use,
but must be difficult enough to prevent the children from
unblocking the program. In many households, however, the
children often are more comfortable with the technologies than
the parents.\26\
\26\ It is worth noting that one of the witnesses at the July 12
hearing before the Committee had difficulty operating the technology
that his company had developed. See, Oral Testimony of Mr. Wayne C.
Luplow, Vice President, Zenith Electronics Corporation, Hearing on
Television Violence before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, July 12, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the V-chip legislation already adopted by the Senate
and House in the comprehensive telecommunications bills passed
by each body (S. 652 and H.R. 1555) would not require
programmers to encode each signal. Without such a requirement,
however, it is uncertain whether programmers would rate the
programs voluntarily and, if not, whether the legislation would
be effective.
The ``report card'' approach, by comparison, would not
require the programmers to rate each and every program, but
would simply provide consumers with information with which to
make their own choices about what should be viewed in their
homes.
Legislative History
In October 1993, the Senate Commerce Committee held a
hearing on television violence to consider a variety of
legislative proposals. Attorney General Janet Reno testified
that the legislation currently pending before the Committee,
including S.973, the ``Television Violence Report Card Act of
1993'', would be constitutional. The broadcast networks and
other industry representatives argued that the amount of
violent programming was less than in previous years. The
industry also testified that the industry should be given more
time to implement its warning labels before legislation should
be considered.
On July 12, 1995, the Committee held its second hearing on
television violence to consider pending measures, including
S.772 (104th Congress), a measure similar to S. 973 (103rd
Congress). In open executive session on August 10, 1995, the
Committee ordered reported S.772, without amendment, by a
recorded vote of 13 yeas and 4 nays, with two Senators not
voting.
Estimated Costs
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, October 25, 1995.
Hon. Larry Pressler,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
reviewed S. 772, the Television Violence Report Card Act of
1995, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation on August 10, 1995. CBO estimates
that enacting S. 772 would not result in any significant cost
to the federal government. Because enactment of S. 772 would
not affect direct spending or receipts, pay-as-you-go
procedures would not apply to the bill. The bill also would not
affect the budgets of state or local governments.
S. 772 would direct the Department of Commerce to award
grants to one or more not-for-profit organizations for the
purpose of evaluating and reporting on the violence contained
in television programs at least once every 90 days during
fiscal years 1996 and 1997. The bill would authorize the
appropriation of such sums as necessary to award the required
grants. CBO expects that the Domestic Policy Division of the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) would award and monitor the grants. We estimate that the
costs to NTIA to administer the grants and the amounts awarded
would total less than $500,000 per year, subject to the
availability of appropriated funds.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Rachel
Forward.
Sincerely,
June E. O'Neill, Director.
Regulatory Impact Statement
In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the
legislation, as reported.
This legislation will have little, if any, impact on the
television and cable industries. The legislation simply
authorizes the Department of Commerce to make grants to not-
for-profit entities to assess the level of violence in
television programming. The legislation does not require or
suggest any action to be taken by the FCC in regulating these
industries and does not impose any obligation on the industries
themselves. The purpose of the legislation is to provide
viewers with information that they may use in deciding what
programs to watch.
The legislation will have no impact on the personal privacy
of consumers or the industries. The recipients of grant money
will assess television programs made available to the public
and will not scrutinize business records or proprietary
information of the companies involved in airing these programs.
The legislation will not affect any persons in the television
and cable industries. The employees of the Department of
Commerce will face the added responsibility of administering
the grant program. This burden is likely to be small because
the Department already conducts several grant programs
involving much greater amounts of money than is involved in
this legislation. The Department of Commerce is expected to
receive applications by interested not-for-profit entities to
receive the grants, which will result in a slight increase in
the amount of paperwork at the Department of Commerce.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title
This section states the short title of the bill as the
Television Violence Report Card Act of 1995.
Section 2. Findings
Section 2 of the bill states Congressional findings.
Section 3. Television violence report cards
Section 3 requires that the Secretary of Commerce make grants
during fiscal years 1996 and 1997 to not-for-profit entities
for the purpose of assessing the nature and extent of
television violence.
The guidelines for carrying out an assessment are set forth
in subsection (b) of section 3. An entity receiving a grant is
required to (1) review current broadcast and cable television
programs to determine the nature and extent of violence
depicted in each program, (2) prepare an assessment that
describes and categorizes that violence, and (3) make its
assessment available to the public. The program review shall be
carried out at least once every 90 days. When publicizing the
assessment, the entity must identify the sponsor or sponsors of
each television program covered.
Subsection (c) directs the Secretary of Commerce to use
competitive procedures to determine which entities will be
awarded grants under this section.
Subsection (d) authorizes the appropriation of such sums as
may be necessary to make the grants.
Rollcall Votes in Committee
In accordance with paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following description of the record votes during its
consideration of S. 772:
At the close of debate on S. 772, the Chairman announced a
rollcall vote on the bill. On a rollcall vote of 13 yeas and 4
nays as follows, the bill was ordered reported:
YEAS--13 NAYS--4
Mr. Hollings Mr. Pressler
Mr. McCain 1 Mr. Stevens 1
Mr. Gorton Mr. Ashcroft 1
Mr. Lott Mr. Breaux
Mrs. Hutchison
Ms. Snowe
Mr. Inouye 1
Mr. Ford
Mr. Exon 1
Mr. Rockefeller
Mr. Kerry 1
Mr. Bryan 1
Mr. Dorgan
\1\ By proxy
MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR PRESSLER
S. 772 would institute government-sponsored ``report
cards'' on television programming. By categorizing programming
on the basis of its content, the government would establish
what is tantamount to a ``black list'' of programming it does
not like, and as such, violates the First Amendment under
established U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
The bill also authorizes the Commerce Department to provide
grants to one or more nonprofit organizations sufficient to
fund a review of current television programs to determine the
nature and extent of violence depicted in each program,
describe and categorize those determinations, and make that
information, as well as the identity of the programs
advertising sponsors, publicly available. Such review, the
legislation mandates, should take place at least every ninety
days.
Under S. 772, the government, through the grant program,
would categorize some programming disfavorably on the basis of
its content. By publicizing the advertisers of disfavored
programming in an attempt to bring down the public's wrath upon
them, the legislation intentionally pastes a ``scarlet letter''
on those who would dare sponsor ``violent'' programming. This
government-sponsored black-listing of programmers and
advertisers will chill--if not freeze--the broadcast of
``disfavored'' programming. The constitutional infirmities of
such a proposal are substantial and well established.
Putting content labels on television programs through
government-sponsored report cards is not the same as requiring
Food and Drug Administration labels on food products, as
proponents have argued. Television programs qualify as speech
protected by the first amendment, food products do not.
As recently as last summer in Rosenberger v. University of
Virginia,\27\ the Supreme Court recognized that ``the first
danger to liberty lies in granting the State the power to
examine publications to determine whether or not they are based
on some ultimate idea and if so for the State to classify
them.'' The ``second, and corollary, danger'' to free speech
comes from ``the chilling of individual thought and
expression.'' S. 772's proposal to categorize programming
according to violent content, and then disclose the advertisers
of such programming, directly implicates the ``[v]ital First
Amendment speech principles'' that concerned the Court in
Rosenberger.
\27\ Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 115 S.Ct.2510 (1995)
*This case has not yet been published in the official Supreme Court
Reporter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One certain result from S. 772--indeed, it is the hope and
intention of the sponsors--is that advertisers will be
discouraged from sponsoring programs deemed high in violent
content. The Supreme Court in Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members
of the N.Y. State Crime Bd.\28\ found such a result places a
financial burden on programming that is presumptively
unconstitutional. Simply put, the legislation, by design, would
have a chilling effect on speech sufficient to render it
``censorship effectuated by extralegal sanctions.'' Bantam
Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963).\29\ As the Supreme Court
recognized in its 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling, such
impermissible sanctions are cognizable ``even if any deterrent
effect on the exercise of First Amendment rights arises, not
through direct government action, but indirectly as an
unintended but inevitable result of the government's conduct
requiring [the report cards.]'' \30\.
\28\ Simon & Shuster, Inc. v. Members of the N.Y. State Crime
Victims Bd. 502 U.S. 105 (1991).
\29\ Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 72 (1963).
\30\ Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 65 (1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While S. 772 poses as a First Amendment-friendly proposal
that, unlike other proposals, does not ban any programming or
mandate the transmission of government ratings, the offenses to
the First Amendment are equally offensive. In order to survive
judicial scrutiny, the reporting system established must be
unrelated to any desire to suppress free speech. S. 772, which
is clearly intended to suppress free speech, albeit indirectly,
obviously fails that test.
Moreover, the fact that non-profit organizations, rather than
the government, would classify the programs does not save this
legislation from violating the First Amendment. Under S. 772,
the Commerce Department will award grants to groups based on
their ability to meet criteria for classification set by the
government. This is clearly the government speaking through
federally funded private entities. The Commerce Department,
through its grant decision-making, will in effect define the
kind of violent expression that will be targeted, the type of
programming that is deemed inappropriately or deleteriously
violent, and the fundamental nature of the report card. This
control over the nature and extent of the report, as well as
the means of carrying it out, makes this whole approach one of
state action, rather than private activity.
Of course, there is no First Amendment violation if private
organizations wish to take the tack of this legislation, i.e.,
categorize television programming and urge boycotts against the
sponsors of violent programming. However, such efforts are not
to be led, encouraged or paid for by the government, as S. 772
explicitly would do.
In fact, a variety of organizations currently publish
ratings, reviews and content summaries of television
programming. Congress should not squander taxpayer money on new
studies to generate information about the content of television
programming that the private sector already is generating on
its own in a competitive market.
As the committee hearings demonstrated, the inherent
subjectivity of defining violence is inescapable when applied
to analysis of actual programming. The Concordia College study,
which was put forth as a demonstration of how a report card
study would work, yielded incredulous results. For instance,
the Helen Keller film, the ``Miracle Worker'' was rated on par
with ``Beavis and Butthead,'' while an Arts and Entertainment
channel documentary ranked nearly five times worse in terms of
violent content.
The task of categorizing violence is fraught with unintended
consequences. One clear result will be a black-listing of
programmers and advertisers who sponsor programming the
government does not favor. The American public utterly rejected
black-listing when it was used against individuals in the
entertainment industry decades ago. We in the Senate must not
begin to go down this path again. Congress would do well to
leave viewing decisions where they belong, in the hands of
parents, and avoid transgressing the First Amendment of the
Constitution.