Putting Action Behind The Words

In 1987 the Caucus added a new objective, condemning censorship while asking those in television to "act responsibly by not giving the appearance of condoning substance abuse, racism, sexism, gratuitous violence, sexual exploitation, or any other inherently anti-social behavior."

As the Caucus attempts to implement these most important goals, it will not be a time for timidity.

It will be a time when all elements of the entertainment industry will be called upon to recognize--as they once did--that the television set is a magical instrument through which each home and each family can share in the treasure of our culture.

All those who seek the privilege of entering America's homes will be asked to remember a commitment--once formally recognized by broadcasters--that they are guests in America's homes not for an hour or so of their own choosing, but for every second of every hour that a television set is in use. Further, they must recognize that their freedom to have such access carries with it a responsibility to respect that privilege.

The entertainment industry must recognize that it is in their interest, as well as in the public interest, to voluntarily dedicate itself to elevating program quality and to acknowledge that free over-the-air television has purposes quite apart from its ability to sell goods and services.

Congressmen and Senators are once again rushing into hearings about television violence. They have heard from their constituents. They have read the withering comments of Pulitzer Prize television critics like Howard Rosenberg and Tom Shales. They have heard from academicians and they have heard from angry groups of citizens who want something better not only for themselves but for their children. They have also heard from the members of the Caucus who spoke out in the spring issue of The Caucus Quarterly.

Does this attention by government--an intrusion not favored by the Caucus--but precipitated by the indifference of the top leadership of all four networks--have any real significance? Will it only result in some face saving gestures as was the case when Newton Minow, one-time FCC Chairman, once accused network programming of being "a vast wasteland." Or will it lead to constructive efforts on the part of those in television? Or will it lead to unwanted restrictive government legislation?

On Friday, May 21st, the United States Senate, through its Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, met with high ranking officials from the four networks. The subject was television violence. I listened to Senator Paul Simon as he deferred to and cajoled the network officials whose companies had met to devise a set of broad guidelines to minimize the excessive use of violence in network programs, freed from their fear of collusion in talking with one another and possibly violating the antitrust laws. (The almost identical periods set aside for commercial breaks, and having the same basic license fees and interspersing entertainment bits into their news programs on their owned and operated stations is all, of course, simply a matter of copycat coincidence.)

I listened to Senator Howard Metzenbaum, who recently played himself in a bit part in the movie, Dave, as he glowered at the four network officials and issued threatening words of possible government action to revoke broadcast licenses if the issue of violence was not corrected. (Could the Senator recite one instance of where his rhetoric was ever matched by such government action?) I listened, too, to the four executives. No, not the chief executive officers, but their designated hitters--each doing a respectable job in catering to the Senators and in confessing to a modest awareness that, yes, violence has become something of a problem.

I had a sense of deja vu. I'd been a designated hitter myself some thirty years ago on the very same subject before another Senatorial Judiciary Committee, this one chaired by Thomas H. Dodd of Connecticut. Dodd, a former FBI agent and Nuremberg prosecutor, was later to be censured for conduct which brought "dishonor and disrepute" on the Senate for cheating on expense accounts and pocketing campaign funds.

Senator Dodd, under pressure, suddenly terminated his television investigation into sex and violence, with no explanation, despite the committee's early findings that violence on television had a damaging impact on young people and that these elements had been ordered into Network TV by NBC's President Robert E. Kintner.

The Senate Ethics Committee censured Dodd for his expense accounting, but many in Washington believed Dodd should have been censured for the larger crime of submitting to network executive pressure to curtail his investigation.

But, perhaps, things may be changing. Congressman Edward Markey, who chairs the House Telecommunications subcommittee, held his own hearing on May 12th of this year. He confronted his witnesses with familiar charges that children spend more time watching television than they do in the classrooms. Like Dodd, Congressman Markey paraded statistics and academicians to prove his point about the deleterious impact of much of network television and that recent studies "have brought a new sense of urgency" to the issue. Urgency? Mr. Markey was doing a rerun of his own hearings conducted some 16 years earlier.

Mr. Markey first raised the possibility of a ratings system for television, and Senator Simon's campaign recently resulted in parental advisory warnings on the networks. Congressman Marky continues with his hearings and Senator Simon is convening a hearing in early August in Los Angeles. He and his committee will meet with the creative community.

In short, the congress is on to a good thing--sex and violence not only promises good ratings for television shows, but promises headlines for congressmen and senators who need self-promotion. (Thomas Dodd, before being exposed for his malfeasance, had very real aspirations to be Lyndon John-son's 1964 running mate.)

But hold on--is there more here than publicity-seeking congressional leaders? Can these investigations by Mr. Markey and Mr. Simon have substance? The answer could be yes. First, there is a rumbling across the country in which the cultural pollution of our society is being equated with the environmental pollution. That accounts for the rise of many groups like Terry Rakolta's Americans for Responsible Television, who threatened to use a consumer boycott to force advertisers to take action. There is George Gerbner's continuing denunciation of violence, which he initiated as Dean of the Annenberg School of Communications at the University of Pennsylvania. (The fact that his definition of violence as it pertains to children's programs and prime-time programs is flawed in the judgment of some observers, does not detract from his fundamental argument. He believes that the cultural environment is being dangerously affected by decisions primarily made by those who use the television medium solely as a means to sell products.)

Eventually, of course, the various hearings will broaden their inquiry. Network television no longer lives in a vacuum. Cable is available to millions and the NAB, in a hollow defensive gesture, has been quick to point out that in a recent Roper study, "Americans think cable has more violence than broadcast television." And if cable is caught in the congressional web, then the motion picture industry will also be a target.

Those powerhouse producers who keep pressing "to push the envelope", to use their worn-out phrase for greater license (which they proclaim as their right of freedom of expression), will quite likely soon be told that the time is ripe to seal that envelope. The government just might say. . . enough is enough.

Television: Art or Commerce? Of course, it's both. Yesterday's leaders were men of vision and they participated in their network activity. Art: General Sarnoff liked fine music and the NBC Symphony and the production of old and new operas came about because he felt they contributed to the public interest. Commerce: General Sarnoff, overriding the objection of his network president, gave his approval to the in-house production of "Bonanza" despite the presence of some thirty or so westerns then on the air, because it was not only a different kind of western, but because it was in color and General Sarnoff wanted to sell more RCA color TV sets.

And public service: CBS CEO William Paley and Sarnoff, bitter commercial rivals in raiding each others' talent roster, competed daily in building their non-profit network news operations. Their efforts were vigorously championed by NBC's Robert E. Kintner, then its president, and by Richard Salant at CBS NEWS. Leonard Goldenson, whose powerful sales ability broke the prejudice of Hollywood's major studios toward television, not only brought Warner Bros. and Disney into their first television operations, but also developed a news department which was not expected to earn a profit.

And what of today's CEO'S, all conspicuously absent from the Markey and Simon hearings? Art doesn't seem to be in their lexicon, but commerce is: CBS CEO Laurence Tisch was reported in the May 10 issue of "Electronic Media" as stating "that the opportunities for CBS as a broadcaster are as great as they have ever been." He also said that over the next five years CBS would work to enhance its position by owning more of the programming on the CBS network. If there were words about the creative community, about program quality, about fresh innovative ideas, they were not reported. Dan Burke, CapCities/ABC's CEO in the May 17th issue of "Electronic Media" said to the shareholders that, "We are looking for ways to generate new growth internally and to continue to seek and invest in attractive acquisition opportunities both domestic and international. . . It is clear to us that the more programming we produce ourselves, the more control we will have over our future." If there were words of his about the creative community, about program quality, about fresh, innovative ideas they, too, were not reported.

If the television community can condemn Chairman James Quello for placing the emphasis on Commerce when he championed the demise of the FISR, consider how he feels about television quality. In a speech on March 23, he quoted Senator Robert Byrd, President Clinton and Newton Minow. Byrd hoped the media "would heed his outrage before the medium of TV is beyond self reform and self correction. The sex trash, vileness and violence flooding TV and radio today could in egregious cases be considered a violation of public trust." President Clinton had said, "There's no question the cumulative impact of the banaliza-tion of sex and violence in the popular culture is a net negative for Americans." In a speech before the National Press Club in Washington last year, Newton Minow said, "In 1961 I worried children would not benefit much from television, but now I worry that my grandchildren will actually be harmed by it."

Strong words. And well received by the Caucus membership in attendance at a meeting on April 14 that was billed as perhaps the most important meeting ever held by the Caucus. At that meeting, we found general agreement, in harmony with Paddy Chayefsky's challenging words from Network (quoted in the Spring issue of The Caucus Quarterly): "I'm mad as Hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

We'll be taking it, but the public will know we don't like it. That will be an important difference.

The Caucus is determined to implement its Aims and Objectives dealing with program quality, hopefully with the fullest cooperation of all of the guilds, the stations, the networks, the advertisers, the cable industry, and--since their product impacts all of television--with the producers of theatrical films.

This position takes courage; it may also call for sacrifice. But, a simple fact remains: The responsibility for quality television rests on all of us who play a role in creating the final program. Individual commitment is called for; but it is just that kind of commitment that defines our members and others in the creative community who share our concern.

If we don't do it, who will? If this is not the time, when? We do not need government to prod us along or to impose legislation. Each of us in the entertainment industry can--and should--acknowledge his/her individual responsibility to the many publics who constitute the American viewing audience.

David Levy, former Vice President in charge of programming at NBC, is currently developing We The People as a series, with Robert Guenette, Ray Katz and Herman Rush.