GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN BROADCAST CONTROL
Parents, politicians and social scientists say too much
violence, sex and vulgar language routinely appear in movies, television shows
and recordings accessible to children. It's an age-old concern, but now the
government appears ready to intervene. Congress is considering legislation that
would require the broadcasting industry to create a universal ratings system
for TV programs, and manufacturers to produce new TV sets with the technology
to let viewers block out offensive programs. Broadcasters would have a year to
create the ratings system; then the government would step in and devise the
standards. The entertainment industry traditionally has resisted what it sees
as censorship, but now it may be willing to respond on its own, rather than
have government impose guidelines.
Television producers put some
surprises in their line-up of new shows this fall. But for families with
children, all the surprises may not be pleasant. Prime time promos scheduled
during, say, the evening news, can ambush viewers with eyebrow-raising
references. Take the woman on “Bless This House” who announces she “was out in
the hall taking a leak.” Or the co-star of “Cybill,” who always hoped that
“love would be head over heels, but instead it's just heels over head.” Or the
character on “Seinfeld” who refers to men and women sleeping together with
“their genitals aligned.” Call it frankness or call it crudeness, but the trend
is cleverly calculated. To capture the younger, 18-49-year-old audience that
advertisers covet, TV executives have showcased some of the raunchiest fare in
years during early evening hours.
A comparison of prime time shows in 1990 vs. 1994 by
Southern Illinois University researcher Barbara Kaye revealed that profanity,
epithets and scatological dialogue rose 94 percent during the 8-9 p.m. time
slot. An oft-cited example of prime-time raunchiness is the Fox Television
network's risque “Married . . . With Children,” which was moved to 9 p.m. from
a later time slot. “This season, so much of what officially or unofficially
used to be the family hour has been overrun with material that is hardly
appropriate,” says Kathryn Montgomery, president of the Center for Media
Education. “When the public is up in arms about violence, and the politicians
have gotten into it, TV then moves into sex, which is one of the easy elements
to hype the ratings.” Robert Lichter, co-director of the Center for Media and
Public Affairs, agrees that TV nowadays depicts “a lot more foreplay than gunplay.”
And the context of sex has changed dramatically, according to his monitoring of
more than 1,000 shows from the 1950s to the 1990s. “Before 1970, sex on TV was
left to people who were in love,” he says. “After 1970, recreational sex was
OK, and by the 1990s it was happening 20 times as often and being presented as
a positive, even among teens.”
“Hollywood views America as dominated by repressive,
1950s-era puritans and prudes,” Lichter adds. And so the industry has been
ingenious at including sex through “earnest social commentary on such issues as
date rape, homophobia and prostitution.” Not that violence has moved
off-screen. Indeed, the continuing splatter of gore, bullets and car-chase
scenes - particularly in children's cartoons, movies on cable and movie
previews - is largely the reason Congress is nearing passage of a plan to
require that new TV sets be outfitted with a device to allow parents to block
out offensive programs. “It's not that violence is going down, it's that the
entertainment industry is combining sex and violence,” says Leonard Eron, an
expert on TV violence at the University of Michigan. “That's not something you
saw during the 1960s.”
A recent example is the MGM/United Artists film
“Showgirls,” which contains, among other things, a brutal rape scene and almost
nonstop nudity. Despite a rating of NC-17 - often the kiss of death for a
mainstream movie - it was marketed to 1,388 theaters with an elaborate public
relations campaign that included posters on taxicabs, 250,000 free eight-minute
video samples and even a promotional site on the Internet. “There is a
swelling sense in America that culture has become a threat to the well-being of
kids and society,” says Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn. “Just to go to a
movie increases trepidation that values and sensibilities will be assaulted.
People are looking to elected officials to be protected - that's how bad it has
become.” A whopping 83 percent of Americans say the entertainment industry
should make a serious effort to reduce sex and violence, according to a June
Gallup Poll for CNN and USA Today. A poll of children ages 10- 16 by the Los
Angeles-based advocacy group Children Now found that 77 percent say there is
too much premarital sex on television, while 62 percent say sex on TV and in
movies influences kids to have sex when they are too young. Predictably, the
public was receptive last May when Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., the leading
Republican presidential candidate, delivered a scathing speech in Hollywood
about the “nightmare of depravity” evident in the country's films, television,
music and advertising. But such concerns are not confined to conservative
politicians. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP) this year petitioned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
deny a broadcast license to Fox network owner Rupert Murdoch, saying Fox “has
brought the greatest debasement in taste, character, quality and decency in
television history.” The advertising industry, so vital to the health of
television, is watching closely. “We've crossed the line on televised violence,
and we're moving decidedly in the wrong direction,” Richard Garvey, then
chairman of the Association of National Advertisers, said in a 1994 speech.
“All three branches of the federal government have gone on record on this
issue, and the good, old days of deregulation are behind us. There are several
new sheriffs in town, and it looks as if they'll be with us for some time to
come.”
Citing moral concerns, religious critics such as the Rev.
Donald Wildmon, head of the American Family Association in Tupelo, Miss., have
organized boycotts of advertisers who sponsor sexy or violent shows such as
ABC's “NYPD Blue.” Tackling the issue from a different angle are various
women's groups concerned that irresponsible portrayals of sex thwart campaigns
to reduce teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. The tactic they
favor is offering the industry positive alternatives. “I hear less about
censorship and morality than I do a longing for a loving context,” says Jane
Delano Brown, a professor of journalism and mass communication at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “People are distressed by the
hostility in sexual relationships [portrayed by Hollywood and television].
There's a longing for Bogart and Bacall.” Finally, there is sharp disagreement
among critics of the entertainment industry over whether greater threats to
society are posed by media sex or media violence. The impact of each “probably
varies by audience, and people who are at the emotional extremes are likely to
react” to either, says Douglas Besharov, head of the Social and Individual
Responsibility Project at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). “But
different people worry about whether broader groups in society will react.
Average middle-class kids who see violence on TV aren't likely to go out and
shoot anyone up. But those in disadvantaged neighborhoods who see violence will
interpret it as normative behavior.” With sex, by contrast, he adds, “it's very
possible that middle-class kids, too, will see sex in entertainment as
normative.”
Parents, politicians and social scientists say too much
violence, sex and vulgar language routinely appear in movies, television shows
and recordings accessible to children. It's an age-old concern, but now the
government appears ready to intervene. Congress is considering legislation that
would require the broadcasting industry to create a universal ratings system
for TV programs, and manufacturers to produce new TV sets with the technology
to let viewers block out offensive programs. Broadcasters would have a year to
create the ratings system; then the government would step in and devise the
standards. The entertainment industry traditionally has resisted what it sees
as censorship, but now it may be willing to respond on its own, rather than
have government impose guidelines.
Television producers put some
surprises in their line-up of new shows this fall. But for families with
children, all the surprises may not be pleasant. Prime time promos scheduled
during, say, the evening news, can ambush viewers with eyebrow-raising
references. Take the woman on “Bless This House” who announces she “was out in
the hall taking a leak.” Or the co-star of “Cybill,” who always hoped that
“love would be head over heels, but instead it's just heels over head.” Or the
character on “Seinfeld” who refers to men and women sleeping together with
“their genitals aligned.” Call it frankness or call it crudeness, but the trend
is cleverly calculated. To capture the younger, 18-49-year-old audience that
advertisers covet, TV executives have showcased some of the raunchiest fare in
years during early evening hours.
A comparison of prime time shows in 1990 vs. 1994 by
Southern Illinois University researcher Barbara Kaye revealed that profanity,
epithets and scatological dialogue rose 94 percent during the 8-9 p.m. time
slot. An oft-cited example of prime-time raunchiness is the Fox Television
network's risque “Married . . . With Children,” which was moved to 9 p.m. from
a later time slot. “This season, so much of what officially or unofficially
used to be the family hour has been overrun with material that is hardly
appropriate,” says Kathryn Montgomery, president of the Center for Media
Education. “When the public is up in arms about violence, and the politicians
have gotten into it, TV then moves into sex, which is one of the easy elements
to hype the ratings.” Robert Lichter, co-director of the Center for Media and
Public Affairs, agrees that TV nowadays depicts “a lot more foreplay than gunplay.”
And the context of sex has changed dramatically, according to his monitoring of
more than 1,000 shows from the 1950s to the 1990s. “Before 1970, sex on TV was
left to people who were in love,” he says. “After 1970, recreational sex was
OK, and by the 1990s it was happening 20 times as often and being presented as
a positive, even among teens.”
“Hollywood views America as dominated by repressive,
1950s-era puritans and prudes,” Lichter adds. And so the industry has been
ingenious at including sex through “earnest social commentary on such issues as
date rape, homophobia and prostitution.” Not that violence has moved
off-screen. Indeed, the continuing splatter of gore, bullets and car-chase
scenes - particularly in children's cartoons, movies on cable and movie
previews - is largely the reason Congress is nearing passage of a plan to
require that new TV sets be outfitted with a device to allow parents to block
out offensive programs. “It's not that violence is going down, it's that the
entertainment industry is combining sex and violence,” says Leonard Eron, an
expert on TV violence at the University of Michigan. “That's not something you
saw during the 1960s.”
A recent example is the MGM/United Artists film
“Showgirls,” which contains, among other things, a brutal rape scene and almost
nonstop nudity. Despite a rating of NC-17 - often the kiss of death for a
mainstream movie - it was marketed to 1,388 theaters with an elaborate public
relations campaign that included posters on taxicabs, 250,000 free eight-minute
video samples and even a promotional site on the Internet. “There is a
swelling sense in America that culture has become a threat to the well-being of
kids and society,” says Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn. “Just to go to a
movie increases trepidation that values and sensibilities will be assaulted.
People are looking to elected officials to be protected - that's how bad it has
become.” A whopping 83 percent of Americans say the entertainment industry
should make a serious effort to reduce sex and violence, according to a June
Gallup Poll for CNN and USA Today. A poll of children ages 10- 16 by the Los
Angeles-based advocacy group Children Now found that 77 percent say there is
too much premarital sex on television, while 62 percent say sex on TV and in
movies influences kids to have sex when they are too young. Predictably, the
public was receptive last May when Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., the leading
Republican presidential candidate, delivered a scathing speech in Hollywood
about the “nightmare of depravity” evident in the country's films, television,
music and advertising. But such concerns are not confined to conservative
politicians. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP) this year petitioned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
deny a broadcast license to Fox network owner Rupert Murdoch, saying Fox “has
brought the greatest debasement in taste, character, quality and decency in
television history.” The advertising industry, so vital to the health of
television, is watching closely. “We've crossed the line on televised violence,
and we're moving decidedly in the wrong direction,” Richard Garvey, then
chairman of the Association of National Advertisers, said in a 1994 speech.
“All three branches of the federal government have gone on record on this
issue, and the good, old days of deregulation are behind us. There are several
new sheriffs in town, and it looks as if they'll be with us for some time to
come.”
Citing moral concerns, religious critics such as the Rev.
Donald Wildmon, head of the American Family Association in Tupelo, Miss., have
organized boycotts of advertisers who sponsor sexy or violent shows such as
ABC's “NYPD Blue.” Tackling the issue from a different angle are various
women's groups concerned that irresponsible portrayals of sex thwart campaigns
to reduce teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. The tactic they
favor is offering the industry positive alternatives. “I hear less about
censorship and morality than I do a longing for a loving context,” says Jane
Delano Brown, a professor of journalism and mass communication at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “People are distressed by the
hostility in sexual relationships [portrayed by Hollywood and television].
There's a longing for Bogart and Bacall.” Finally, there is sharp disagreement
among critics of the entertainment industry over whether greater threats to
society are posed by media sex or media violence. The impact of each “probably
varies by audience, and people who are at the emotional extremes are likely to
react” to either, says Douglas Besharov, head of the Social and Individual
Responsibility Project at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). “But
different people worry about whether broader groups in society will react.
Average middle-class kids who see violence on TV aren't likely to go out and
shoot anyone up. But those in disadvantaged neighborhoods who see violence will
interpret it as normative behavior.” With sex, by contrast, he adds, “it's very
possible that middle-class kids, too, will see sex in entertainment as
normative.”
