The "V" Chip

Rep. Edward J. Markey has proposed legislation which would dictate the inclusion of a "V" chip in every new television set which would enable parents to block out programming they think their children should not see.

Following are portions of two letters to Rep. Markey; the first is from CAUCUS Steering Committee Chair, Gerald Isenberg, on behalf of himself and the Steering Committee. The second is from CAUCUS member, Leonard Hill.

The Steering Committee has urged its 230 members to write Rep. Markey to express their views on the subject. Rep. Markey's address is HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Room H2-316, Ford House Office Building, Washington D.C. 20515-6119.

Mr. Isenberg wrote in part:

The Caucus is supportive of technology that would empower parents to control what their children see at those tines when parents or adult supervision is not present. We support technology that empowers the parent to make informed decisions and which accomplish the end of protecting the child without damaging and restricting the programming options open to adults in adult viewing times.

We believe strongly that the proposed "V-chip" is a seriously flawed, clearly inefficient and perhaps dangerous way to accomplish the ends. Its single-minded, on-off, good-bad, no thinking mechanic will paint a vastly wide swath that can only result in substantial damage done to free television and its ability to communicate ideas and carry meaningful dramatic programming. As presently constructed, it will not attack the core of the problem, but will leave the vast bulk of the most offensive programming intact. Rather, it will divert the public from an appropriate solution, lull them into false security and certainly spawn additional special interest groups which will, for their own reasons, begin the inevitable process of adding new chips for different kinds of programming deemed objectionable to other segments of our society. From our knowledge of the industry, we predict that the "V-chip's" most important effect will be to shut down quality dramatic programming without materially improving the level of violence available to children. This result is a disservice to the American public and to our children.

Unless the "V-chip" is applied to syndicated programs, local news, network promos and theatrical movie reruns in the 3 to 9 p.m. time period, there will be no material diminution of the violence our children are exposed to. As important to us as its inefficiency in not solving the problem, its potential to create a nightmare scenario for free television as a communications and entertainment medium. The "V-chip" depends upon a singular rating without regard for time slot or quality. "Hamlet," "Star Wars," and "Terminator II" all might deserve a "V" if one were attempting to protect small, unsupervised children. But certainly these are projects that are acceptable at various ages and to different parents. Yet, the attractiveness of the chip is its nonthinking component. The parent can block out everything with a "V" and the "V" to be effective must be applied with a wide and largely inclusive definition. Whereas, it is being put forth as a device that can relieve the parent of the need to examine what is on, it can only act as a taint on the program that gets the rating applied to it. From there it is a short step to envision the pressure exerted upon advertisers to avoid anything with a "V" and from there we end up with a system that refuses to even investigate or develop properties that will get the rating because the rating is of itself a mark of infamy."

Leonard Hill wrote:

I believe the "V" rating system to be ill-advised and counter productive. The system would cure one problem while creating yet another.

The prospect of rating programs as "violent" presents an Orwellian nightmare. What cultural commissariat will be constructed to rate the thousands of programs that air on television and what standards will they employ? How will the ratings gurus account for context or political intent or sexuality?

The "V" Chip would make it impossible for the commercial networks to underwrite the production of high-quality programming geared to the adult audience. Landmark mini-series such as "Roots" and "Lonesome Dove," or classic television movies such as "Burning Bed" and "The Execution of Private Slovak" would never have been able to attract major national advertisers had the proposed "V" chip been in place.

Vital news and information programs often contain material which would likely cause a "V" rating. Shows such as "Street Stories" or "48 Hours" would disappear or lose their relevance. It may be difficult for people to watch the beating of Rodney King or the casualties of the Gulf War, but it may also be necessary and even desirable.

A strong, free system of national over-the-air broadcast networks provides a common denominator which cuts across social and economic boundaries. Network television helps knit together a society which is otherwise likely to split along economic, racial and regional lines. While a passive "V" chip would have little or no effect on the premium cable systems, it would undermine both the financial base and the program diversity of the commercial networks.

A passive, single-letter rating system would also have a deadening effect on the creative community. It would replace diversity with timidity. If networks fail to challenge the public with controversial programs, the best creative talent will migrate to pay cable. Over-the-air broadcasting will become a wasteland of far vaster proportion than we now know.

The simple reality is that television programs cannot be graded like so many sides of beef. The bean-counters who seek to quantify violence fail to distinguish honest motivation from random mayhem and invariably lump the simply silly with the overtly salacious.

There is no doubt that the public is inflamed by the issues surrounding violence on television. The "V" chip may quiet the issue for a time, but it will seriously undermine the general health of broadcasting.

The vast majority of complaints with regard to television have to do with programs that appear in syndication and not on network. Shows like "Geraldo" or "Hard Copy" present the most sensationalistic material during the most accessible time periods - but these tabloid shows are not the product of network broadcasting nor is their degrading content likely to qualify as violence.

Local stations who buy syndicated sleaze should be held accountable under the terms of their broadcast licenses. The abuse of the access time period by overly-aggressive station managers is a legitimate cause for concern. And, the FCC already has the tools to deal with such abuse through the license renewal process.

In a true democracy, we need the courage to embrace a broadcasting system that promotes diversity, encourages dissent and is capable of reaching all the citizens. We need to fuel the tribal fire and not smother it.

I urge you, Congressman Markey, to rethink the Draconian implications of a passive "V" chip. I encourage you to embolden the FCC to reassert the public interest standards which were largely gutted by the Reagan-Bush crusade for deregulation at all costs. Censoring television is the least painful and the least productive means of addressing your very legitimate concerns about violence in our society.