The Australian Family, November 2002, p. 3
Toxic Television
Suzanne Chamberlin is a culture studies analyst at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. This article first appeared as an Insight publication from the FRC in June 2002
Long hailed as the cheapest form of family entertainment, television has cost us our imagination, our conversation, and our children's innocence. As Dr. George Gerbner puts it, "The roles [young people] grow into are no longer home-made, hand-crafted, and community inspired." Instead, they are developing a worldview based on television and not their own experience.
While researchers and parents alike acknowledge the dangers of excessive violence and promiscuity on television, few are motivated to change their families' appetites. Immorality is normalized. And adolescents, who are most likely to imitate television's value system, become youth at risk for copy-cat violence, desensitization, exaggerated fears, and false impressions of sexual intimacy, gender, and their place in society.
Thomas Hitz was only twelve years old when the accident happened. Having a natural, boyish curiosity about television stuntmen, he and a few friends decided to try a backyard feat of their own. After dousing both hands in bug spray, Thomas had his friends light a match and set them on fire. While they laughed from a safe distance, Thomas tried putting out the blaze in his shirt. Seconds later, the shirt burst into flames, and Thomas ran to a nearby pool and dived in. His sidekicks, visibly shaken when they saw what was left of his raw arms and torso, began sobbing. That afternoon, Thomas was listed in critical condition for second and third degree burns. It would take him months to recover.
Parents and psychologists alike have rightly speculated that what prompted these stunts was more than mere adolescent curiosity. Instead they attribute the impetus to a little television show called Jackass (not surprisingly an MTV production). The host, Johnny Knoxville, landed his gig when executives saw video footage of his signature, life-threatening antics - willingly being pepper sprayed in the eyes, for instance. Although Jackass has never solicited tapes from the viewing audience, Thomas Hitz and others trusted their copycat stunts would air on the show regardless. Before the accident, Thomas and his friends attempted backflipping off a church roof and pogo sticking into traffic. Now he says, "I kind of blame the show. . . . We did it because we saw [it] on [TV] and we were copying the show. In real life, kids don't think. They think they're invincible, so they don't worry about what will happen. . . . Kids are watching, and they're getting ideas."
News of what had happened to Thomas and other teenagers provoked a national dialogue about television violence. The result was a concession by the network to air written and verbal warnings about the show's content. In their words: "The following show features stunts performed by professionals and/or total idiots under very strict control and supervision. MTV and the producers insist that neither you nor anyone else attempt to recreate or perform anything you have seen on the show."
However, like the well-intentioned "parental advisory" adages of old, MTV's cautionary note has done little more than generate heightened interest in the show, and ultimately, a larger, more youthful, viewing audience.
Jim Henson once said that "Television is . . . teaching whether you want it to or not."
In a country where the people who own a television outnumber the households with indoor toilets, visual media exposure is all but guaranteed. Despite the pace of modern life, the average family still has time to tune into television over fifty hours a week, which is ten hours more than the typical work week. In fact, millions of Americans are so addicted to television that they meet the criteria for "substance abuse" in the official psychiatric manual.
Yet, sadly enough, research proves that people "don't respect themselves for watching television, don't enjoy it much, and by and large wish they would quit." Children, on the other hand, are naturally oblivious to the dangers of visual media's effects, taking in over 18,000 hours of television by the time they graduate from high school - over 5,000 more hours than they spend in school from kindergarten through twelfth grade. In fact, American children spend more time watching television than they do on any other activity, except sleeping. With today's children being born into the information age, Robert Sylwester contends, "'Teenagers emotionally understand electronic media in ways that adults don't - as a viral replicating cultural reality, instead of a mere communicator of events."
This becomes problematic when the majority of children's programming does not teach kids what most parents would prefer they learn. With only 14 percent of the networks' schedules devoted to children, young people often resort to adult programs that, more often than not, feature adult topics such as violence, drunkenness, and promiscuity. Even amidst shows devoted solely to children, such as cartoons, violence is the most pervasive element. According to the Education Consumer Guide, the incidents of violence on primetime television occur five times an hour, whereas the level of violence in Saturday morning programs is about twenty to twenty-five acts per hour. As the documentary TV, Violence, and Youth suggests, "Violence is a major course in TV's curriculum."
Not including the latest statistics from the "reality TV" explosion, children will be subjected to and affected by over 8,000 murders and 100,000 other acts of violence by the seventh grade, according to a study by the American Psychological Association. A Washington Post article suggests that evidence from over 3,000 research studies, spanning three decades, shows that the violence on television influences the attitudes and behavior of children who watch it.
Psychologist Brian Wilcox suggests that the proliferation of cruelty and brutality on television has the following effects:
Copy-cat Violence. Some viewers will tend to directly imitate or copy aggressive behavior seen on television.
On April 25, 2001, three young daredevils raced a car toward their friend who stood in the middle of a deserted Kentucky road. The boy, who was told to jump out of the way at the last possible second, was unable to move in time. Video cameras mounted on the car dashboard captured footage of the teenager bouncing off the hood after the automobile slammed into him. Doctors marveled that the boy survived, suffering a broken leg and internal injuries. The teenagers later admitted they were repeating a stunt they had seen on MTV's Jackass.
Borrowing a phrase from the latest reality game show, Christopher Bishop sent a bomb to his wife in July, 2001, with the message, "You are the weakest link, Goodbye," on the package. The bomb did explode, giving Tracy Kilgrow-Bishop minor burns.
In October 1993, a young girl was killed in a mobile home fire that was set by her five-year-old brother, who had been watching the lead characters on Beavis and Butthead meddle in pyrotechnics.
One six-year-old boy wearing a turtle costume stabbed a friend in the arm for not returning a borrowed toy. In another incident, a three-year-old boy picked up the family cat and swung it around his head like a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle hero wielding a weapon. When his mother tried to intervene, the boy said, "It's just like Michelangelo."
Exaggerated Fears. People who watch more violent television tend to believe that the world is a more dangerous and threatening place than those who watch less television.
In Dr. George Gerbner's TV Violence Profile, Gerbner and others found that long-term regular exposure to television can contribute to people's sense of vulnerability, dependence, anxiety, and fear.
Of the children Gerbner observed who watched six hours or more television a day, most have grown up with the "mean world" syndrome. They feel a need to protect themselves and buy more guns, watchdogs, security systems, and locks compared to those who watch three hours of television or less per day.
Desensitization. Perhaps the most destructive and pervasive effect of television violence, desensitization causes viewers who watch repeated acts of violence to be less horrified by it in real life. Some may even develop a "bystander" mentality, in which real violence is considered unreal.
According to author H. Featherstone in the Harvard Education Letter, children who watch a lot of television are less bothered by violence and less likely to see anything wrong with it. In several studies, children who watched a violent program were less quick to call for assistance or intervene when, afterwards, they saw younger children fighting.
Leading child psychologist Dr. George Gerbner notes that children who watch violent shows are more likely to strike at a playmate, bicker, or disobey authority, and are less willing to share than those children who watched non-violent programs. A study in Canada showed that two years after television was introduced to a remote city called Notel, reports of physical aggression by children increased 160 percent.
Researchers Liebert and Sprafkin found that steady consumption of violence on television creates anti-social attitudes in all individuals and a perception that violence is the first-resort in problem solving.
Another study by Psychologist L. R. Huesmann revisited adults who watched an above-average amount of violence on television as youths. What he found was that 59 percent of those who were interviewed as children had been involved in more than the typical number of aggressive acts later in life - including domestic violence and traffic violations.
To argue that millions of people watch violent television without becoming criminals holds as much water as the argument that not all smokers get lung cancer. As Dr. Leonard Eron puts it, "The only people who dispute the connection between smoking and cancer are people in the tobacco industry. And the only people who dispute the television and violence connection are people in the entertainment industry." He goes on to say, "Television violence affects [people] of all ages, of 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 is not restricted to this country."
Ironically, the entertainment industry is congratulated for reducing, and in some cases eradicating, the presence of cigarettes in movies and television. In that instance, producers admitted that glamorizing them gives the wrong idea to children. But, as Gregg Easterbrook points out, the glamorization of firearms, which is far more dangerous, continues.
Unfortunately, the rash of so-called "reality TV" has intensified the debate over television violence and promiscuity. While a wealth of research has proven dramatized violence to be harmful, few studies have measured the consequences of violent programs that represent - or purport to represent - the real world.
Genres. To discuss violence in "reality TV," it is important to first recognize the range of reality genres:
The definition of televised violence for reality programs is the same as it is for fictional programs with one exception - in reality TV, any verbal recounting of violent threats or acts are also considered in research. Previous studies have revealed that while fictional programs usually depict visual violence, reality programs tend to orally describe or report on violence instead.
NTVS Research. The most prominent analyses of reality TV violence to date have been produced by the University of Texas. There the National Television Violence Study (ntvs) Research Team studied over 494 "reality" programs in the 1995-1996 season. In one year, researchers saw a 26 percent increase in the number of reality shows alone. Five years later, the amount of such programs had doubled. Their subsequent findings are as follows:
How much time is devoted to violence in reality programs? Very little, according to NTVS, only two minutes of violence per show. Police programs, on the other hand, devote five times more of their broadcast to violent sequences than the average reality show. More than half of the sequences aired visual violence instead of verbal descriptions of violence.
What demographic is typically involved in violent sequences? Over 70 percent of the perpetrators and victims in reality television programs were aged twenty-one to forty-four. The team also notes that a majority were of African-American descent.
Which weapons are typically used in reality TV's acts of violence? Most programs show visual violence sequences involving guns, with shootings as the most common form of violence, punching and fighting ranks second. Teenagers are the most likely to use knives and commit sexual assaults. Yet for all of the police show research, NTVS recorded only one instance in fifty-three segments in which an alternative to violence was presented.
Impact. Not only are there more reality shows these days and an even bigger reality show following, the violence-related content has skyrocketed. And, although relatively few research projects have focused on the American reality television phenomenon, what evidence there is suggests that realism as a feature of these shows heightens involvement, arousal, and aggression.
A common complaint about the genre is that the final product is not real at all, but a tightly-edited, controlled environment where "everyday people" are subjected to extreme circumstances, with producers vying to elicit the most dramatic response. As Michael Whitcraft writes in Tendential Revolution, "It is a new medium where contestants are filmed without privacy and their natural defenses fall. They are frequently humiliated by the manufactured circumstances of the show master. . . . In such an atmosphere, the spontaneity of the primary reactions is prized over reasoned logic."
Meanwhile, Hollywood's drive to sensationalize "ordinary people," is nothing but false advertising. In an interview with Larry King, Mary-Ellis Bunim, producer of the long-running reality hit The Real World, says, "We watch [reality TV] because it holds a mirror up to ourselves." Guest Paul Romer agrees. "It tells us that we are curious [about] other human beings. We want to know what other people do, how other people think, how other people live. That's the success of these shows."
However, the authenticity of "Reality TV" matters little in light of the viewers' faith in its authenticity. Their perception of reality is extremely important in calculating its effects. If the audience sees an act of violence committed by an ordinary person (in place of an actor), they are more likely to feel capable of attempting something themselves. What these shows communicate to the viewer is much more deadly than the desensitization dilemma of the last three decades. Instead, the reality shows perpetuate a feeling of invincibility - which is far more dangerous than an audience that is merely less affected by violence. It breeds an "if ordinary people can do it, then I can" mentality. Meanwhile, those "ordinary people" are equipped with a number of physical and emotional safety nets unavailable and unknown to the viewers watching at home.
In other words, their televised lives are devoid of the inevitable consequences their audience would experience in duplicating what they have seen. "Real," yet sanitized. Even the free will of association becomes distorted. According to Burim, producers typically choose the most unique or abrasive people they find. And people typecast for their extreme personalities and abilities only mirror a minority of the population. To say that watching this programming is like holding up a "mirror to ourselves" is grossly misleading.
Game Show Stunts. Few ordinary people wallow in snake pens or dine on sheep eyes. Yet, in the name of competition, this is the newest breed of reality game shows. All nbc's Fear Factor has succeeded in communicating is the reality of society's greed. Contestants have stooped to donning swimming suits, strapping themselves to tables, and letting a bucket of scorpions wander around on their exposed flesh. The studio audience laughs in the background. Another man lies down in a pit while four hundred live rats are poured onto his body - with the assurance that he will automatically advance to the next round if bitten.
The object? Survive this and other sadistic stunts in hopes of winning $50,000. Like MTV, NBC was asked to circulate a warning about the show's content. Their website cautions, "The stunts described on this web site were designed and supervised by trained professionals. They are extremely dangerous and should not be attempted by anyone, anywhere, anytime." The warning may be designed to protect the network as much as the viewers - MTV's Jackass was recently forced off the air due to the sheer number of lawsuits filed against it. At least five incidents of copy-cat violence resulted from the Jackass stunts - four of which left children in critical medical condition.
Reality game shows like Big Brother, in which a contestant recently pulled a knife on his housemate, are worth the risk, according to CBS executives. The program, which shuts people in a camera-filled house for three months, dismissed Justin Sebik after he held a knife to his fellow contestant and asked, "Would you get mad if I just killed you?" When asked if the series would be canceled if a stabbing occurred, cbs President Leslie Moonves declined to answer.
As sociology professor Mark Fishman puts it: 'The Germans have a word for it, the appeal of some of these shows,' he says. 'It's called 'schadenfreude.' It means taking delight in the misfortunes of others. It's a guilty pleasure. You feel you shouldn't be watching. It's always been in good taste not to look at these things. . . . It's a moral envelope that's being pushed. . . . We seem to be in a new age of making public what [we used to think] shouldn't be seen. . . . There's a huge push for ratings, and new technology makes the opportunities for voyeurism greater than ever.
Today's children have been raised to perceive screen violence as play, excess, and spectacle - but otherwise harmless. In comes "Reality TV" which quietly undoes the assumption that plots are dramatized. What becomes problematic, then, is that this new violence is truly harmful, but still considered play. Enter video games where there is virtual participation in violence, practiced success at it, and rampant adrenaline. The entertainment industry cannot help but perpetuate a zero-consequence mentality that is then carried over into real life.
In an article for the National Review, Kate O'Beirne says that the damage goes well beyond the widely-criticized violence and immorality. "Television bombards [us] with messages encouraging impatience, self-pity, insecurity, and pessimism." As a result, kids are developing a worldview and emotional posture based on television and not their own experiences.
Aggression Unlearned. Over 1,000 studies reinforce the notion that the more violent media children watch, the more aggressive they become. Now, thanks to the work of Dr. Thomas Robinson of Stanford University, there is proof that aggressive behavior can actually be unlearned by limiting television exposure.
His study, the first of its kind, involved about two-hundred grade school students in two public San Jose schools. Half of those students received six months of "intervention" classes, which taught about media influence and "intelligent" usage. Later, those same one hundred students were asked to abstain from television, videos, and video games for ten days, after which they were limited to seven hours of those activities per week. To prevent children from accessing the television above their pre-established limit, parents agreed to have their televisions hooked up to a special device.
The other 100 students were part of a control group who received no intervention. By the end of six months, students who limited their use of television and videos reported about 25 percent fewer acts of aggression and half the amount of threatening and teasing on the playground compared to those in the control group. For parents, this is compelling evidence that reducing the amount of television consumption will work to decrease kids' aggressive behavior.
"One man's vulgarity is another man's lyric."
- U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan
A decade ago, syndicated columnist Mike Royko said, "I enjoy TV trash as much as the next slob. But the quality of truly trashy trash has declined." Imagine his disgust now, as television producers not only celebrate gratuitous violence, but gratuitous sex as well. It should come as no surprise that Hollywood, which celebrates infidelity, promiscuity, and homosexuality on an hourly basis, has brashly corroded every moral standard. What is surprising, however, is the lack of resistance they have met in doing so.
When the Kaiser Family Foundation released its 2001 biennial "Sex on TV" report, it revealed that television's sexual content has grown from pervading about half of all shows in 1998 to two-thirds in 2000. Ironically, the Kaiser study was released one day after the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that parents limit kids' television viewing to two hours of "quality programming a day and not to put televisions in kids' bedrooms." The most offenses occurred in programs that were, for obvious reasons, some of the most popular series: Sex in the City, Will & Grace, Dawson's Creek, Ally McBeal, and The Young and the Restless.
But, as one policy analyst commented, even explicit sex among consenting adults has become "downright dull." Recognizing the trend, networks have slowly eased into scripts that involve sex between students and teachers, two men, two women, two young men, multiple partners, orgies, bisexuals, and so on.
The line-up for the fall 2001 series' premieres included an episode that featured nude lovemaking in the shower and moved on to discuss masturbation before the opening credits have finished rolling. Specifically, high school students are shown asking a teacher (on prime-time television) if fantasizing about classmates is an acceptable way to "get off." The answer from the teacher is yes, by the way. Switch channels and a woman is telling her friend about an ex-boyfriend's technique for pleasuring her. "Well, he would take his little finger and tickle my uterus!" she says happily.
Believe it or not, neither show is on HBO, a cable network that consumers pay additional fees to view. Both are products of Fox television, raising questions about the limits of the family hour and free-access network entertainment. Ally McBeal and Boston Public also air from 8-9 p.m. and 9-10 p.m. One critic, who reviewed the premieres, said their newspaper is not permitted to print the words used in later dialogue. Apparently, a similar self-restraint has not made its way into the corporate culture at Fox headquarters, he says.
Also in fall, 2001, ABC partnered with Victoria's Secret for the first time in television history. The network agreed, not only to air a lingerie "fashion show" during the family hour, but to a multi-million dollar marketing campaign for the event, targeted at young men. These days, commercials are so provocative that they are uncomfortable for families to watch together. Imagine a one-hour special of scantily-clad models on network television. Impropriety is not only real on television, it is cancerous.
Dawson's Creek, a fairly new teen drama, has featured graphic sexual dialogue and teenage characters with long sexual histories. Plots have included anything from teenage boys experimenting with homosexuality to a boy having sex with his buddy's mom. With help from this show and others, studies indicate that intercourse-related scenes involving teens have increased from 3 percent of the programs two years ago to 9 percent in the year 2000. As New York Post reporter Jane Hammerslough pointed out: "While Dawson's Creek revolves around a foursome of fifteen-year-olds, chances are that the show will . . . reach much younger kids. Already in Westport, Connecticut, it's the talk of the fourth grade."
Yet none of those shows are, arguably, as devastating to sexual innocence as the latest dose of reality programming. MTV paved the road with Real World, a smash hit since 1992. The show features seven co-eds thrown together in a posh house for six months. Cameras capture around-the-clock interaction between the roommates, including sexual escapades and dialogue.
But even MTV's foibles are tame compared to shows like CBS's Big Brother, which broadcasts from every area of the house (including the bathroom) on a webcam, twenty-four hours a day. In an interview with producer Paul Romer, Larry King prods him about contestant impropriety:
"Romer: 'Well, they hate each other, but they love each other too. We have some love affairs in the houses.'
King: 'Had sex in the house?'
Romer: 'We had sex in the house, in all the countries.'
King: 'Cameras get to see that, too?'
Romer: 'Well, we show it to the audience, but in a way that you don't see explicit shots . . . [but] you'll see [a lot].'"
What do audiences expect? L. Brent Bozell, chairman of the Parents Television Council, said, "[Nothing] is considered . . . honorable anymore. It tells me that the people participating are pathetic, the network and producers putting this together are shameless, and the public that would sit down and watch this ought to be embarrassed."
Not embarrassed enough to stop watching, unfortunately. This was proven by one of the latest shows, Temptation Island, which earned one of the highest ratings in recent television memory - with 16 million Americans tuning in at the show's premiere. Fox Network, unscathed by criticism, aired the show despite claims that the producers were responsible for a nationwide "assault on marriage." Their idea was to send four unmarried couples to a remote island for two weeks, separate them, and entice each of them with twenty-six eligible singles. The couples were then set up on dates with three singles who best reflected their ideal mates. At the end of their getaway, the couples decided whether or not to stay together. Later, the network was heavily criticized, but only when it was learned that one of the couples had a young child.
Other profitable ideas included the Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire debacle, which featured the ill-fated TV marriage of two strangers - Rick Rockwell and Darva Conger. The program was tasteless, but tolerated, until the media discovered that a former fiancee of Rockwell had filed a restraining order against him. Conger moved for an annulment after a brief honeymoon stint and consoled herself by appearing in Playboy.
One of the most offensive aspects of reality television is the lack of a moral standard.
As Michael Whitcraft says, "There is a pervasive sensuality that works on the imagination and breaks down moral barriers; a disturbing amorality that sidesteps the whole question of decency and virtue."
Survivor, one of the most successful television shows of all time, "reality" or otherwise, gained popularity when its winner ran up and down the beach naked. Kaia from MTV's The Real World was famous for walking around the house topless. Besides nudity, most - if not all - reality shows attract audiences with their scantily clad contestants. If nothing else, the producers aim to shock an unshockable society.
In the Parents' Television Council (PTC) report on the 2000-2001 television season, vulgarity and profanity are more prominently displayed on television's family hour than ever before. The results were particularly shocking where sexual topics were concerned. The PTC report indicated that oral sex and pornography, which were virtually absent from television a decade ago, are now becoming commonplace in the family hour.
Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) said, "You have to ask, how [much] worse can it get? The losers here are America's families and America's children." He alludes to the thousands of families who are suffering the consequences of this "anything goes" mentality. The trends in television are no different than that of the fashion or music industries. Society is encouraging children to take on the responsibility of being an adult and acting sexually mature. Meanwhile, most moms and dads are finding parenting increasingly difficult in a culture where sex sells. Thanks to the efforts of Hollywood, the media, and sex education, children are getting the wrong message - and they are getting it early - that sexual attractiveness and experience is a measure of self-worth.
In addition to these prime-time travesties, cable television continues to traffic explicit sex. But operators have succeeded in defending this practice by insisting that their products are available only to people who pay for them.
In a Wall Street Journal column, social commentator Irving Kristol asks, "Can anyone really believe that soft porn in our Hollywood movies, hard porn in our cable movies, and violent porn in our 'rap' music is without effect? Here the average overall impact is quite discernible to the naked eye. And at the margin, the effects in terms most notably of illegitimacy and rape, are shockingly visible."
Exaggerates Infidelity. Gone are the days of true censorship - in their place, a wholesale shamelessness that has made public sexuality commonplace. How else does the television industry explain over 65,000 references to sexual behavior a year? Or, why the references to intercourse between unmarried partners occur five times as often as married couples, and intercourse with prostitutes comes in second. Hollywood has raised a generation of viewers who do not recognize the importance and contribution of the traditional marriage and family, a generation that excuses infidelity, and sex with multiple partners.
Omits Consequences. While promiscuity runs rampant on television, the dangerous side effects of such behavior are conveniently ignored. The audiences are exposed to graphic sexual activity and discussions thereof, but producers fail to include the real-life potential for sexually transmitted disease, unwanted pregnancy, or relational discord in their scripts. In the Kaiser Foundation report, only 10 percent of those shows featuring sexual content made a passing reference to the risks and responsibilities of sexual activity.
Promotes Pornography. Most sociologists would agree that it is only a matter of time before graphic nudity becomes commonplace on network television. Already, cable TV has crossed the lines of decency in late night programming and now with prime-time shows such as hbo's Sex in the City and mtv's Undressed. But promiscuity is no longer contained by cable television. Recent forays into network television such as Love Cruise stem from a prime-time fixation on casual sex. Is it any wonder that men treat women as objects or that young women measure their self-esteem by the amount of sexual attention they receive? With rampant, graphic sex acts on cable, many parents wonder how long until those same scenes - that stem from specials like abc's "Victoria's Secret Fashion Show" - find their way to prime-time television.
A decade ago, sociologists conducted a low profile survey on Hollywood's elite. One hundred and four of the most influential television writers and producers were asked a host of ideological questions. Considering Hollywood's latest forays, the findings are quite predictable:
It is no wonder Americans endure the shows they do, with only a small fraction of Hollywood producers personally driven to respect traditional family values.
The mainstreaming of deviancy, as Bob Dole calls it, will only end when the gatekeepers of the entertainment industry recognize and shoulder their responsibility to harness shows - and that includes imposing moral and traditional limits. Millions of Americans recognize the destructive force of popular culture, but feel powerless to stop it.
Roughly three years have passed since the Columbine school massacre, and violence still pays off big in Hollywood, primarily because its marketers target children. Congressmen and social conservatives who used Columbine as a rallying point to curb television and film brutality lost steam. After all, as Dade Hayes said, "Aside from the Michael Medveds of the world, who really cares [anymore], especially if the films are entertaining?"
Despite the fact that Americans are concerned about both sex and violence on television, recent congressional activity has been almost exclusively targeted to TV violence. The increasingly explicit sexual content of prime-time programs is ignored. It seems Congress finds it easy to become incensed by violence, but loses its voice when it comes to the flood of promiscuity that is steaming up the nation's television screens.
However, with the inconsistent treatment of the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech in the nation's judicial system, lawmakers have by and large resisted the urge to regulate content. In 1992, under President Clinton, the Federal Communications Commission (fcc) enacted a 24-hour ban on indecent programming. The problem, however, was a government consensus on the definition of "indecency." Shortly thereafter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down the ban as unconstitutional. As a compromise, Congress ordered the FCC to restrict programming between midnight and 6 a.m. The same court also found this order unconstitutional.
As part of the settlement agreement over the constitutionality of a similar measure, the fcc agreed to better explain the criteria for program "indecency." However, since the Clinton Administration headed the fcc and had little interest in confronting the entertainment industry, the agreement was latent for seven years.
After President Bush took office, he appointed Michael Powell to run the fcc. Now, eight years later, the Commission has released a relevant policy statement. It reads that "patently offensive" material includes: "explicitness or graphic nature"; "whether the material dwells on or repeats at length [sexual or excretory] descriptions"; and "whether the material appears to pander or is used to titillate, or whether the material appears to have been presented for its shock value." Now, the question is not if the government and FCC can regulate standards, but when.
Dr. Jerom Singer, of Yale University, said, "Parents have to realize that there is a stranger in your house. If you came home and you found a strange man . . . teaching your kids to punch each other, or trying to sell them all kinds of products, you'd kick him right out of the house. But here you are; you come in and the television is on; and you don't think twice about it."
Monitor Television Exposure. Some parents may wish to remove television and its influence from their homes altogether. Most, however, will learn that they need not be anti-TV, but pro-TV management. Find out what your children are watching. The easiest way to do so is to place the television in a central location. Even the American Academy of Pediatrics advised parents to remove TVs from children's rooms, in addition to creating a planned schedule of family viewing. If you want your kids to watch less television, start by watching less yourself.
Encourage Alternate Activities. When we watch television, we are consciously choosing not to do something else. Obviously, the best idea is to spend time with your children instead. Some suggestions are sports involvement, reading, hobbies, or time with friends. Having a supply of art materials, board games, magazines, musical instruments, or jigsaw puzzles can help wean children off TV.
Contact the FCC and Station Managers. If you or your family are exposed to objectionable show content, call you local station manager. Coordinate boycotts of those programs that refuse to curtail violence and promiscuity in tandem with the American Family Association, Clear-TV, Americans for Responsible Television, Parents Television Council, and other groups. This sends a message to other producers who may be tempted to push the envelope where indecency and violence are concerned. Remember, the FCC itself does not monitor programs, but responds to listener and viewer complaints.
Contact Your Congressmen. Let your representatives know that the family viewing hour should be reestablished for the protection of innocent children. That means all PG-13 material is shown after midnight and before 6am. R-rated content should have no place on network television. Encourage Congress to offer tax advantages for those families who use TV lockboxes that filter out entire channels or time slots at a parent's discretion.
Tolerance as an ideology has gone well beyond race, gender, and sexual orientation. Tolerance of self-expression is America's newest religion, enjoyed by a minority of the population at the cost of the majority's conviction. What was once acceptable in private now demands public approval, and Hollywood is no exception. Nowadays, censorship is considered an artistic trespass, and one that a powerful liberal lobby refuses, ironically, to tolerate.
In 1938, E.B. White made a prophetic statement. He said, "I believe that television is going to be the test of the modern world, and in this new opportunity to see beyond the range of our vision, we shall discover either a new and unbearable disturbance of the general peace or a saving radiance in the sky. We shall stand or fall by television, of that I am sure."
Sixty-three years later, the question now is not have we fallen, but how can we stop? Stay tuned.
(Note: References available upon request.)