FCC Report: TV Violence Should Be Regulated

[DeadPoolX 9]

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.

"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."

Original Source

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Has anyone proved conclusively that television violence is 'harmful'?

[pedroh 21]

Has anyone proved conclusively that television violence is 'harmful'?

it's bs... it's just dumb parents that let their kids watch dumb tv sh!t, ergo, kids become dumb..

[dalegg 143]

Has anyone proved conclusively that television violence is 'harmful'?

If you look at the increasing trends of violent scenes on television, you will see that it directly coincides with the rate in which the glaciers have receded and temperatures on the Earth have risen. As you can see, TV violence has caused global warming-

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Most TV's these days have built-in parental controls. Regulating the content of programme makers seems to be a bit of a red herring IMO. The violence in shows like The Sopranos and The Shield isn't gratuitous - and is justifiable given the context of the show. My bugbear (as far as quality goes) is bad writing - 24 while the 'context' argument still applies is a badly written show IMO in which torture violence is an overused plot device. Character runs into a wall - and surprise, surprise - torture is the solution.

Perhaps they should be asking whether people should be making TV shows and movies about bent cops, secret agents and people in the mafia.

After all, some of the old 50-60's westerns were pretty violent, even by today's standards.

Edited February 18, 2007 by erekose

[pedroh 21]

Has anyone proved conclusively that television violence is 'harmful'?

If you look at the increasing trends of violent scenes on television, you will see that it directly coincides with the rate in which the glaciers have receded and temperatures on the Earth have risen. As you can see, TV violence has caused global warming-

ROFL

[Heracles 417]

Anyone 21 or over should be able to watch most things. Programs for viewers under the age of 21 should be regulated.. That said, we all know that kids will find a way to watch in anyway..

[Heracles 417]

After all, some of the old 50-60's westerns were pretty violent, even by today's standards.

So a John Wayne film has the same detail and level of violence as, lets say Hostel??

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

After all, some of the old 50-60's westerns were pretty violent, even by today's standards.

So a John Wayne film has the same detail and level of violence as, lets say Hostel??

I didn't mention John Wayne...

The article is about TV, and as we know graphic movies like Hostel are severely censored on almost all cable channels.

Edited February 18, 2007 by erekose

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Anyone 21 or over should be able to watch most things. Programs for viewers under the age of 21 should be regulated.. That said, we all know that kids will find a way to watch in anyway..

Two questions:

Outside of obvious children's programming, how are you going to define what is intended for someone under 21?

Secondly, as network TV already has a ratings system, how exactly are you going to regulate programming?

[choji 0]

I am going to stick out my neck a bit by saying that there are only two things which bring up ratings for TV shows: sex and violence.

Sex is a no-no, already ruled out by the FCC. (Please do not start a discussion about the moral point of view here, it has nothing to do with the discussion on hand, this is merely stating a fact.)

The handle left to push ratings is violence/thrills.

Ratings are important. Low ratings, sliding ratings lead to non-booking or a fall in booking of advertising seconds. The average TV consumer is a fickle animal, easily bored, looking for a new thrill. Hence to keep the average TV consumer interested in a certain show the rate of violence has to go up.

You see this even in shows not associated at first sight with violence. Take “American Idol.” The contestants have been treated more and more viciously. That is thrilling to see. Somebody else has to take the sh.. Joe Average usually has to put up with. Take “Big Brother”, the same applies here: the contestants are being put under more and more pressure to make them react. That too is violence, it is thrilling. “Wife Swap” – the goal was to bring people together who would react in violent ways, because they were so ill-suited to spend time together. They did not kill each other, sure, but the reactions were violent brawls and vicious verbal lashing outs at each other. Even shows like “Gray’s Anatomy” have stepped the level up – right now it’s a three-part episode, masses of injured people, heads are being drilled open with power drills, not one body bag is being shown but corridors filled with them. Violence/thrills.

Violence is not only torture, bloodshed, murder. Violence begins at a much lower level and the average TV viewer has been slowly nurtured to not only accept, but to expect more violence to feel thrilled and enthralled. The levels have been raised, slowly but surely.

Today we are at a threshold where even many average people start scratching their heads, asking themselves “what is going on here?” The level of violence has risen to a height which makes some of the most popular TV shows almost unbearable to watch for some.

Enter the FCC. The TV stations, the producer of shows will not make it easy to have the last instrument to push ratings wrestled from their hands.

It will be interesting to see how this particular battle is going to end.

[Heracles 417]

Very interesting point of view..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I am going to stick out my neck a bit by saying that there are only two things which bring up ratings for TV shows: sex and violence.

Sex is a no-no, already ruled out by the FCC. (Please do not start a discussion about the moral point of view here, it has nothing to do with the discussion on hand, this is merely stating a fact.)

The handle left to push ratings is violence/thrills.

Ratings are important. Low ratings, sliding ratings lead to non-booking or a fall in booking of advertising seconds. The average TV consumer is a fickle animal, easily bored, looking for a new thrill. Hence to keep the average TV consumer interested in a certain show the rate of violence has to go up.

You see this even in shows not associated at first sight with violence. Take “American Idol.” The contestants have been treated more and more viciously. That is thrilling to see. Somebody else has to take the sh.. Joe Average usually has to put up with. Take “Big Brother”, the same applies here: the contestants are being put under more and more pressure to make them react. That too is violence, it is thrilling. “Wife Swap” – the goal was to bring people together who would react in violent ways, because they were so ill-suited to spend time together. They did not kill each other, sure, but the reactions were violent brawls and vicious verbal lashing outs at each other. Even shows like “Gray’s Anatomy” have stepped the level up – right now it’s a three-part episode, masses of injured people, heads are being drilled open with power drills, not one body bag is being shown but corridors filled with them. Violence/thrills.

Violence is not only torture, bloodshed, murder. Violence begins at a much lower level and the average TV viewer has been slowly nurtured to not only accept, but to expect more violence to feel thrilled and enthralled. The levels have been raised, slowly but surely.

Today we are at a threshold where even many average people start scratching their heads, asking themselves “what is going on here?” The level of violence has risen to a height which makes some of the most popular TV shows almost unbearable to watch for some.

Enter the FCC. The TV stations, the producer of shows will not make it easy to have the last instrument to push ratings wrestled from their hands.

It will be interesting to see how this particular battle is going to end.

The reason there are so many Reality shows is mainly because they are incredibly cheap to produce.

Now as far as scripted shows go - unless we're discussing specific examples, things haven't really changed that much. The shows which are the most popular today (and which tend to be the most violent) are the same kind of shows that were popular 30 years ago.

Regulation as far as the OP article goes - seems to be a euphemism for censorship.

Perhaps the FCC should be more concerned with the fact that 90% of network TV is complete #######, but they don't seem too bothered about imposing some sort of quality programming standards as they are about the content of a select few TV shows or video nasties.

I'm still suspicious of the entire argument - which seems to be a mainly political one. I for one question Hillary Clinton's jumping on the bandwagon for that "Hot Coffee" mod to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

Edited February 18, 2007 by erekose

[Heracles 417]

Perhaps the FCC should be more concerned with the fact that 90% of network TV is complete #######, but they don't seem too bothered about imposing some sort of quality programming standards as they are about the content of a select few TV shows or video nasties.

Great point..

Edited February 18, 2007 by Infidel

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think violence on TV should be regulated as with adult content. The airwaves belong to the public, but are licensed out. Nobody has a right to air whatever they want.

Erekose, there have been studies that demonstrate harmful effects to young children who are exposed to violence on television.