Part I. Introduction

PART I. INTRODUCTION A. Overview The past 12 months have been the most momentous period in the history of the television violence issue. A year ago there were no V-chips, television content ratings, minimum air time requirements for educational television or public discussions about the context in which television violence occurs. Now these developments frame the television violence issue. In September 1995 the UCLA Center for Communication Policy released its first report on the state of television violence. Rather than examining a one- or two-week sample that might contain unusually light or heavy concentrations of violence, the Center thoroughly examined every series, television movie, theatrical film and Saturday morning children’s program on broadcast network television. In addition, we monitored every on-air promotion and advertisement aired during this programming. Our report found that while there were positive signs in the areas of network television series and television movies, there were significant problems in the areas of theatrical films shown on television, on-air promotions and children’s television. Last year’s report concluded with an analysis of the 1994-95 television season, a series of recommendations that we felt would significantly address television violence and an invitation to the broadcast networks to work with us over the next year on this issue. Upon its release, the four networks promised to carefully study the report and its recommendations and accepted the offer to work together on this very difficult and contentious problem. While much work remains to be done over the third and subsequent years of this process, we are happy to report that the broadcast networks were serious in their desire to work with us to improve the ways in which they deal with television violence. Each of the networks carefully examined the first report and responded directly to us regarding which recommendations could be easily addressed and which would require much more effort, sacrifice and time. A series of meetings, out of the spotlight and the glare of the press, took place in which the networks frankly described the efforts they were making to address television violence. Subsequently, the Center continued to offer suggestions and recommendations. These discussions were unprecedented in the history of the violence debate. While the networks were tied to the monitoring process and, through their public statements after the report’s release, were committed to working with us on the problem, the Center remained fully independent throughout the process. A climate of mutual respect produced, as this second report will demonstrate, some real and tangible progress. Throughout this period, extraordinarily important events were taking place on the political scene. Late in the summer of 1995 the United States House of Representatives joined the Senate in requiring that V-chips be placed in newly manufactured television sets. The V-chip, invented by Tim Collings of Canada, is an electronic device that addresses a line of the television picture (there are 525 lines) called the vertical blanking interval (vbi). The vbi is the place where the electronic signals for closed captioning for the hearing impaired are found. Each television program can be encoded with a rating or label running from 0 to 5 or, if the motion picture ratings are used, from G to NC-17. Parents can set the V-chip at level 3 or PG-13 and any signals that exceed that rating will be electronically blocked from appearing on the set. The Canadians originally envisioned that the V-chip would only address the area of television violence. By the time the V-chip was field tested, it also included the areas of sexual content and language. In 1 order for the V-chip to have any usefulness at all, it required the development of a television rating or labeling system. In the United States a V-chip requirement was included in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which in February of this year was signed into law. The Act requires television manufacturers to install V-chips in all television sets with screens larger than 11 inches by February 1998. The Act also calls on television programmers to create a labeling system for their programs. If they do not do so by February 1997, the FCC was directed to appoint a non-governmental committee to develop such a system, though the broadcasters are not be obligated to carry that system in their signals. Though a small part of the Telecommunications Act (which opened almost all of America’s cable, phone and telecommunications industries to competition), the V-chip requirement was enormously important to the broadcast and cable industries. The broadcasters considered challenging the V-chip legislation in court as a violation of the First Amendment. They were concerned that advertisers would shy away from any programming that had a mature rating and that producers would alter their programming if necessary to ensure a tame rating. Broadcasters were also concerned that the V-chip would give an unfair advantage to pay cable. Broadcasters have to sell every program to an advertiser and therefore live and die by the Nielsen ratings. Pay services such as HBO charge a monthly fee and do not have to sell any of their programming to advertisers. Therefore they do not have to worry about advertisers pulling out of a program. In his State of the Union address in January 1996, President Clinton invited broadcasters and cable companies to come to a White House Summit on February 29 to discuss the recently enacted Telecommunications Act. Each of the networks and cable companies sent its top executives to the President’s summit. Despite their concerns about the V-chip, the broadcast and cable industries decided not to go to court. Instead, they committed to develop by January 1997 a labeling system for television content under the guidance of Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) Chairman Jack Valenti. The MPAA was the organization that developed the well-known motion picture ratings system in the late 1960s. Since the February White House Summit, the broadcast and cable networks have formed an implementation committee to develop the television labeling system. The committee has met several times throughout the year and is committed to announcing its system by the end of 1996. In another development regarding television programming, through the spring and summer of 1996 FCC Chairman Reed Hundt attempted to adopt a rule requiring all broadcasters to carry at least three hours of children’s educational programming each week as a condition of renewal of their broadcast license. As they are not licensed by the FCC, cable programmers were not affected by this proposal as they were with the V-chip legislation. (Since approximately 70% of the nation now receives broadcast stations through cable, the importance of distinctions between broadcast and cable are becoming less significant every year.) Though broadcasters claimed they were willing to create new educational programming, they did not like the idea of the FCC imposing a quantitative requirement. It was not until another Presidential Summit on July 29 that broadcasters again came to the White House, and an agreement for three hours of educational children’s programming was reached. 2 In the history of television there has never been a year like the last one. The next year, however, promises to be just as momentous and contentious. The labeling system will be unveiled. It remains to be seen what effects the content ratings will have on the creative community and television advertisers. Broadcasters will begin to air what they consider to be educational programming. Some forces in Congress are calling for even more regulation of television programming. And perhaps most significantly, the audience for the television networks continues to erode as cable’s audience increases. Never could there have been a more important time to monitor the state of television violence. This second report is committed to continuing the significant work of the first report and to injecting into this heated and confusing discussion some much needed light in the form of an objective, comprehensive and accessible analysis of the state of television violence. 3 B. Historical Background Concerns about media violence have been with us since long before the advent of television. Throughout the nineteenth century, moralists and critics warned that newspapers were the cause of juvenile crime. There was concern that the great flow of stories about crime and vice would lead people to imitate the vividly described immoral behavior. In the 1920s many were alarmed at what they saw as rampant sex, violence and general lawlessness on the movie screen. During that era the motion picture industry was not protected by the First Amendment. This protection did not come until the Supreme Court’s Miracle decision in the 1950s. To forestall governmental regulation the film industry created its own production standards under the supervision of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA). The man the MPPDA chose to supervise the film industry, Harding Administration Postmaster General Will H. Hays, became so powerful that the organization became known as the Hays Office. The Hays Office Codes, which discuss sexuality as well as violence, established the following standards regarding criminal violence: 1. Murder (a) The technique of murder must be presented in a way that will not inspire imitation. (b) Brutal killings are not to be presented in detail. (c) Revenge in modern times shall not be justified. 2. Methods of crimes should not be explicitly presented. (a) Theft, robbery, safe-cracking and dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, etc. should not be detailed in method. (b) Arson must be subject to the same safeguards. (c) The use of firearms should be restricted to essentials.

Load more