QUOTE
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Television networks are free to sprinkle their programs with shootings, slashings, torture and other gore because the government has no regulatory authority over violent programming.
But a draft report being circulated at the Federal Communications Commission says Congress can change that, without violating the First Amendment.
The long-overdue report suggests Congress could craft a law that would let the agency regulate violent programming much like it regulates sexual content and profanity -- by barring it from being aired during hours when children may be watching, for example. (Watch why people are concerned about torture on "24") Video
"In general, what the commission's report says is that there is strong evidence that shows violent media can have an impact on children's behavior and there are some things that can be done about it," FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said Thursday.
The issue is bipartisan. Martin, a Republican, gave a joint interview to The Associated Press with Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps.
"The pressure to do something on this is building right now," Copps said, noting that TV violence comes up regularly during media ownership hearings he conducts across the country. "People really feel strongly about this issue all across this land. This is not a red state or a blue state issue."
The report also suggests that cable and satellite TV could be subjected to an "a la carte" regime that would let viewers choose their channels, a measure long supported by Martin.
"We can't just deal with the three or four broadcast channels -- we have to be looking at what's on cable as well" Martin said.
The report cites studies that suggest violent programming can lead to "short-term aggressive behavior in children," according to an agency source who described the report and asked not to be named because it has not yet been approved.
The recommendations are sure to alarm executives in the broadcast and cable industries, members of the creative community and First Amendment advocates.
"Will it count on the news?" asked Jonathan Rintels, executive director of the Center for Creative Voices in Media. "Will it count on news magazines like '60 Minutes' and 'Dateline'? What about hockey games when the gloves come off and people start punching each other?"
Rintels said such rules would create "huge gray areas of censored content."
"The fact that it's difficult should not take this issue off the table," Copps said, when asked about the potential difficulty.
A bipartisan group of 39 House members nearly three years ago requested a report by Jan. 1, 2005, discussing whether the FCC could define "exceedingly violent programming that is harmful to children." It also asked whether the agency could regulate such programming "in a constitutional manner."
Broadcasters are expected to object strenuously to any anti-violence regulatory regime, but have been skittish in going on the record.
Generally, broadcasters and cable companies say parents should take responsibility for what their children watch and take advantage of blocking technology, like the V-chip. Broadcasters also claim their shows are becoming edgier to keep up with increasingly violent fare on cable networks.
Dan Isett, director of corporate and government affairs for the Parents Television Council, said the industry's campaign to make parents the violence police is "purely designed to convince the Congress that they (programmers) are being responsible."
The parental blocking technologies are insufficient due to a flawed television rating system, he said. As for the argument that cable is pressuring broadcasters to be edgier, Isett believes that's nonsense.
"Virtually all content is owned by six major media conglomerates," he said. "They own what's on cable."
The commission could vote on the report at any time. Martin, Copps and Republican Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate are expected to vote in favor. Democratic Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein was not immediately available for comment. Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell is the potential wild card.
McDowell, a father of young children, issued a statement saying he is "deeply concerned about the effects of television violence" but added the "first line of defense rests with parents."
But a draft report being circulated at the Federal Communications Commission says Congress can change that, without violating the First Amendment.
The long-overdue report suggests Congress could craft a law that would let the agency regulate violent programming much like it regulates sexual content and profanity -- by barring it from being aired during hours when children may be watching, for example. (Watch why people are concerned about torture on "24") Video
"In general, what the commission's report says is that there is strong evidence that shows violent media can have an impact on children's behavior and there are some things that can be done about it," FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said Thursday.
The issue is bipartisan. Martin, a Republican, gave a joint interview to The Associated Press with Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps.
"The pressure to do something on this is building right now," Copps said, noting that TV violence comes up regularly during media ownership hearings he conducts across the country. "People really feel strongly about this issue all across this land. This is not a red state or a blue state issue."
The report also suggests that cable and satellite TV could be subjected to an "a la carte" regime that would let viewers choose their channels, a measure long supported by Martin.
"We can't just deal with the three or four broadcast channels -- we have to be looking at what's on cable as well" Martin said.
The report cites studies that suggest violent programming can lead to "short-term aggressive behavior in children," according to an agency source who described the report and asked not to be named because it has not yet been approved.
The recommendations are sure to alarm executives in the broadcast and cable industries, members of the creative community and First Amendment advocates.
"Will it count on the news?" asked Jonathan Rintels, executive director of the Center for Creative Voices in Media. "Will it count on news magazines like '60 Minutes' and 'Dateline'? What about hockey games when the gloves come off and people start punching each other?"
Rintels said such rules would create "huge gray areas of censored content."
"The fact that it's difficult should not take this issue off the table," Copps said, when asked about the potential difficulty.
A bipartisan group of 39 House members nearly three years ago requested a report by Jan. 1, 2005, discussing whether the FCC could define "exceedingly violent programming that is harmful to children." It also asked whether the agency could regulate such programming "in a constitutional manner."
Broadcasters are expected to object strenuously to any anti-violence regulatory regime, but have been skittish in going on the record.
Generally, broadcasters and cable companies say parents should take responsibility for what their children watch and take advantage of blocking technology, like the V-chip. Broadcasters also claim their shows are becoming edgier to keep up with increasingly violent fare on cable networks.
Dan Isett, director of corporate and government affairs for the Parents Television Council, said the industry's campaign to make parents the violence police is "purely designed to convince the Congress that they (programmers) are being responsible."
The parental blocking technologies are insufficient due to a flawed television rating system, he said. As for the argument that cable is pressuring broadcasters to be edgier, Isett believes that's nonsense.
"Virtually all content is owned by six major media conglomerates," he said. "They own what's on cable."
The commission could vote on the report at any time. Martin, Copps and Republican Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate are expected to vote in favor. Democratic Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein was not immediately available for comment. Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell is the potential wild card.
McDowell, a father of young children, issued a statement saying he is "deeply concerned about the effects of television violence" but added the "first line of defense rests with parents."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/16/t...e.ap/index.html
After reading in this entire article the only part that I totally agree with is the final statement:
QUOTE
McDowell, a father of young children, issued a statement saying he is "deeply concerned about the effects of television violence" but added the "first line of defense rests with parents."
This takes me back to April 20th, 1999 in Columbine, Colorado when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold murdered their classmates and teachers at Columbine High School. The media as well as political, administrative, law, and parental figures immediately pointed the finger at music, movies, television, literature, and video games. Yet further investigation into the entire matter revealed that it wasn't really those things that caused the tragedy. In fact that it was because of parents who greatly lacked involvement in their teenager's lives, teachers who commonly overlooked the erratic behavior of both teens as well as passively dismissed the problem with them being constantly ridiculed by their peers. Not to forget the fact that there were deeply concerned students and parents that contacted both the police and school about the teen's website that had their hit-list and plans on what they were going to carry out; with both establishments passively dismissing how serious the matter at hand was.
I think it was a year ago when finally all the information and documents related to the teens' were released to the general public on a website. I viewed all of the documents including video and sound bites. After viewing these articles it was very clear. Neither Harris or Klebold mentioned anything about music, literature, video games, movies etc. being their inspiration. They mentioned the same thing over and over again, saying things like, "You made us this way.", "You allowed them to make our lives hell" so on and so forth.
Now when it comes to myself, ever since I was a kid my parents allowed me to watch, listen, read, play, whatever I wanted. They even gave me a blockbuster card that didn't have a block on it on what type of movies I could rent. My parents were an active part of my life when it came to this and were always there for me if I was angry about something at school and would always be there and offer the option of them going to school and talking to the teachers about whatever problem I was having. I wore all black and a trench coat, listened to Marilyn Manson, read Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles and Edgar Allen Poe, played Mortal Kombat, and watched rated R movies like Die Hard and Lethal Weapon. My parents in fact didn't really like my choices of this type of lifestyle but were always somewhat supportive of it, because they knew that it wasn't really a bad thing, but indeed a phase I was going through in order to identify myself and my character. I remember for Christmas in 1998 they got me the anti-christ superstar Marilyn Manson t-shirt, a couple of NIN and Marilyn Manson albums as well as the Lost Highway OST, The Vampire Armand book by Anne Rice, a really cool Marilyn Manson calender for 1999, and The Crow as well as The Crow: City of Angels movies.
Now my parents did make comments on my negative demeanor at times; more my fathre than my mother. I remember that I was so negative about things that it got to the point where at dinner my father finally lashed out and said to me, "From now on I want you to sit and think of something positive that happened during your day and talk about it to us at dinner, rather than say one negative thing after another, you're starting to depress me son" Well now that I think of it, he really didn't lash out, he just simply stated cause he was concerned about my mental state.
They were also involved with who my friends were. They were really cool about my friends, but if they felt I had a friend that was really a bad influence, that is where they would step in and put their foot down, and like the obedient and honorable son I was I complied. I always knew that my parents were right, whether I could believe it or not at that time. I remember out of all of my friends, the one that they like/loved the most (who they still talk to even though I'm living far away from them) is my best friend Tony. Tony was even more of a freak than I was, with piercings and dog chains/collars etc. Yet they liked him and respected him, because he was always honest with them and polite and never did anything wrong, or if he did do something wrong he would always fess up and take full responsibility without ever, EVER, pointing the blame at someone else or make up some lame excuse like some bad friends I had in the past. They respected him more when I developed an OTC pill popping problem that got so bad that Tony thought I was going to either OD or kill myself cause I was so depressed. So one night Tony and his older brother Randy devised a plan to have me distracted at their house playing video games with Randy while Tony snuck out and went to my parents house to sit down and talk to them about this. The next morning my parents sat down and talked to me about it and my dad even said, "You can be pissed at your friends all you want, but you should be thankful that you have friends that care this much about you Ken, and I'm glad to know that you have friends that are responsible like this."
Anyways, all I'm really saying is that the fault lies with the parents completely. They need to be more involved with their children's lives and it will greatly reduce "violent or erratic" behavior. Yes, tv has gotten more racy, but with parents who are an active part of their children's lives, they can teach them rationality rather than overlooking everything to where the kid believes its rational to be brutal.
