TELEVISION: THE LOOMING REGULATORY CRISIS

The nature and quality of television through the next century will be determined within the next few months -- if not weeks.

The consequences of decisions now being made will shape the popular culture for a generation or more. Yet this is happening with virtually no public debate. It should be clear that a matter of such epic proportion deserves a place on the national agenda and should receive a full public hearing The critical areas include-- but are not limited -- to the following:

1) The mechanics of the system now being established: Broadcast television is about to be regulated more closely than any public forum in the history of America. This control will rest on two legs:

a) Implementation of the "V" Chip: Legislation has been enacted requiring that all future television receivers marketed in the United States be equipped with a device that can, upon being implemented by the owner, screen out material deemed "offensive." The term "V" chip was derived from the notion that violence on television is a main cause of the social pathologies undermining civil society in the United States. But the regulatory span has been expanded to include sex, language, and, possibly, content not yet identified.

b) The construction of a parallel "ratings" system: Legislation has already been enacted requiring broadcasters to identify their programs in a manner that will enable implementation of the V-chip's "blackout" capacity. This legislation provides that if the Industry does not develop a ratings system prior to February 1st, 1997, then the FCC will be empowered to promulgate and enforce its own scheme. An ad hoc committee of industry executives and professional lobbyists has been formed to establish the type and range of these ratings. This has occurred without any meaningful engagement of the creative community.

2) The substance of the proposed system: Several issues need to be carefully addressed before the national consensus signs off on this proposition; some of the more important questions are:

a) The need for control of broadcast television: Broadcast television - as distinct from premium cable channels -- are more free of violence then at any time since the mid-fifties It is interesting to note that the generation of Americans who, grew up on Father Knows Best, The Brady Bunch, and Leave it to Beaver were the same generation that rebelled in the Sixties and, in other cases, began the epidemic of violence that still afflicts us The experiment known as "The Family Hour" dramatically reduced violence on television, yet the incidence of violence in the culture at large grew exponentially at the same time. So, the question needs to be asked, is television truly the root cause of this or simply a target of opportunity in a particularly political age?

b) The feasibility of the V-chip: As indicated above, programs will need to be classified into several categories -- violence, language, sexual explicitness, and so on. 'The combinations will be complex and will require a great deal of attention by the adult responsible for engaging or not engaging the V-chip's black-out ability. Arguably, it will be far more difficult to program the V-chip then a simple time-delayed VCR, a task that already daunts millions of Americans.

c) The nature of exclusion: This is related to the point above. A diligent parent will have to make regular selections. For example, even the most perfectly wholesome series will occasionally have an episode that deals with matters of sexuality candidly or might include violence, or sometimes include language considered offensive to many. In order to be useful. A Parent will need to monitor programming on a daily basis. Also, not all children react in the some way, in a given household. One child might be able to deal with certain content, others might not. Should we, as one wit suggested, install the V-chip in each child?

d) What of niche channels: What of MTV and BET, two networks that depend largely on music videos aimed at a younger audience? They are cable channels as opposed to broadcast television. Should rap videos be banned?

e) What of violence with a redeeming purpose: How does one rate Schindler's List, a clearly violent film -- yet one of the highest moral quality? The anti-war genre? The anti-racist genre?

With regard to the four points, b through e above, it can be argued that in households where this type of close parental supervision and involvement exists, television poses no danger. The problem exists largely because of unsupervised viewing by children. Anything as complicated as a V-chip-plus-ratings-system does nothing to address this issue. Can television regulation compensate for the general breakdown of familial authority in contemporary American Society?

f) Do ratings ease or exacerbate the problem: Many in the creative community believe that a ratings system often pushes product into unwanted areas. The reasoning is that a writer or producer or director. faced with the certain knowledge that their product will receive an "R" rating (as in the existing MPAA Feature Film system) feels they might as well go all the way. It’s the "as-easy-to-be-killed-for-a-sheep-as-a-lamb" mentality. Some believe that the headlong tumble of feature films, into the darkest of themes and language was the result of just this "push-pull" phenomenon. Before an over-the-top ratings was devised, filmmakers tried to stay within the bounds of what was considered generally acceptable. Once they were let off the hook for guarding against material that might be harmful or offensive to certain elements of the audience, an "anything goes" mentality took over.

g) What of serious programs that need nurturing: Presumably, an "R" rating will discourage advertisers anxious to reach the key young demographic audiences. Thus, it will be extremely difficult -- if not impossible -- to nurture programs that begin amidst controversy but often grow into serious social commentary. Examples of this would be Hill Street Blues, Chicago Hope, NYPD Blue, and so many others. Indeed, a poorly-administered system might end up extending the vast wasteland.

Finally, but most importantly, two issues cry out for close examination:

1) What is to be included: The proposed system states it will exclude news

programming, presumably on the grounds of First Amendment Privilege. Ignoring the question of whether free speech should be allowed to only certain types of approved speech, how will one define "news"? Is Current Affair news? Hard Copy? Dateline?

2) Who should define and administer the system: Is government, even in cooperation with a self-appointed industry body, the proper participant? Should the coercive power of the state be invoked to control what is available on a mass medium such as television? Governments change; while some might be comfortable with our currently-elected leaders. what if the McCarthyites of yesteryear gained control? What then?

It should therefore be clear that the matter of ratings, supported by technology, is too serious a matter to be dealt with in the absence a full public hearing. The issues raised -- free speech, civil rights, government responsibility -- are too enormous to be decided by bureaucratic decree.

It is to such a debate that we commit our efforts.

***