MUSINGS AND JOTTINGS

We are planning to have a second Symposium on November 9, 1996 on MEGA-MERGERS, their impact on our society for good or for evil, at least potential evil. Wonder what a Theodore Roosevelt, who launched "trust-busting" that challenged the oligopolies of Big Oil and Steel, would think about Big Media? Steel and oil were components of everything manufactured for use by the people. Question: Should the mass media -- national television, cable, magazines, newspapers, books, music-- those inventions of man designed to entertain/illuminate/educate young and old--be controlled by a half a dozen gigantic conglomerates who together determine what enters the American Mind? Is such a concentration of media power in the public interest? Think about it.

***

Aren't you always impressed by the vitality and the appeal of the National Rifle Association, its undisputed power among politicians, liberal and conservative alike, and its ability to raise millions of dollars from millions of Americans? But, we forget its largest contributor. Who, one might ask, could that be? Answer? The major networks, those organizations which have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars of support through the simple device of exhibiting demonstrations of a commercial product in use -- which is the major purpose of every television commercial.

Ever see a paid commercial for guns or revolvers? Demonstrating their conventional use in sports and in hunting? Of course not. The networks allow the free demonstration of these lethal products in use without a word from their Standards & Practices Departments. Maybe some modest disarmament should start on our television screens. Think about it.

***

Did you know that the MPAA, headed by Jack Valenti, utilizes a board of eleven people who determine the classification system applied to motion pictures produced here? Do you know who these people are? Mr. Valenti will not reveal their identity for fear they'll be "badgered," as he put it recently, by the industry and by the people the board purportedly serves in the public interest -- the rest of us. Maybe the identity of members of the Supreme Court should be concealed since they, too, hand down decisions that have some modest impact on American society that often arouse the hostility as well as the support of millions of Americans. Should we and our children be guided by judgments of an elite, anonymous, secret group that affect our motion picture attendance and our children’s? Should we have the ability, and do we have the right, of taking issue with members of such a board? Think about it.

***

Recent announcements by two of the major networks, ABC and NBC, indicate their disinterest in how many households watch their programs -- useless figures in their judgment. Their concentration is on a specific segment of that total audience -- ignoring the minds and rights of children, teens, the late middle-aged and the older segments of society -- specifically, the 18-49 year old group. Why? Because they are convinced that they are the ideal target audience, the major buyers of products and services promoted on television. Question: But, is that the fundamental purpose of television, to serve, in the main, one specific group? Wasn't television, one of mankind's great achievements, invented to serve the public interest, not just the advertiser’s interest? What ever happened to the concept of a balanced schedule of programming, current in years gone by, where all of the interests of all of the viewers were served, not just a chosen few --and chosen by whom? By Madison Avenue. Should there not be a clearly defined national policy statement supported by all of the people, not determined by a handful of network and advertising officials, that advances the concept that daily programming should be designed in content and time period to satisfy the intellectual needs of all age groups? Think about it.

***

In a letter dated June 13, 1996, Vice President Al Gore wrote to the Caucus that "the President and leaders of the entertainment industry have agreed to put in place a voluntary rating system for every program that appears on television." He did not exempt news or sports or documentaries. The word he used is "every." His statement is worth a second reading.

It is entirely likely that the Vice President, on further reflection, might agree that clearly defined news programs and sports might simply be labeled "news" and "sports."

When Jack Valenti states, as he did in an interview in BROADCASTING & CABLE (March 1996) in response to a question about sex on television, "As you surf through your cable channels and you see all the terrestrial stations (I assume he means broadcast stations) as well as the cable programs, where is the sex? Not very much of it on television. I'm just trying to find out where it is." (Jack -- look at the daytime serials, look at the situation comedies, look at the made-for-TV movies. You'll find it.) Mr. Valenti goes on, "I can't think of a single series where there's gratuitous violence." (Jack -- ever watch WALKER, TEXAS RANGER?) Mr. Valenti goes further, "There are a lot of people who are genuinely upset in this country about what they think is the use of offensive language. I don't know any such language being used on television, or only rarely." Question: does Mr. Valenti watch any network television?

At the recent VARIETY SHOWBIZ EXPO, I asked Mr. Valenti if he knew how many young people, age 12-17, watch FRIENDS in the L.A. metered market area, the Nielsen Station Index. The figure is an astonishing 233,000! And there are 143,000 children aged 2 to 11 also watching! And remember, this is the L.A. area only--not the USA! Do children in these age groups watch soap operas? Talk shows such as Ricki Lake? Leno and Letterman?

The Vice President has it right. To protect children's interest, every program has to be rated.

On March 25, 1996, ELECTRONIC MEDIA reported that "the networks want the rating system to follow the MPAA code almost to the letter." NBC West Coast President Don Ohlmeyer confirmed that sentiment. CAP/CITIES ABC President, Robert Iger, on March 30, 1996 told TV GUIDE the system will have no effect on programming at all. "This won't change scheduling or standards."

It's a puzzlement, right? Are too many major players sounding off far too early? Are they aware of the facts listed above--that children are watching TV day and night. Does that matter to them? Think about it.

***

The First Amendment has been hailed as everyone's number one "right." But, it was not part of the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount--it was written on parchment, not chiseled in stone. There have been some distinguished voices, notable among them Newton Minow, who have raised the spectra of the almost unimaginable--the amending of the First Amendment. In an era of Hugh Hefner titillation (he certainly contributed to some of the loss of innocence and romance by exercising his First Amendment rights), of indecent/obscene language perverting the airwaves, it is interesting to contemplate whether some of our forefathers, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Adams, even the tolerant Franklin -- suddenly projected into our times -- would earlier have had some modest reservations about total freedom, or is it freedom sans responsibility? Every day someone's so-called freedom of speech is "checked"--by editors, standards & practice personnel, executive producers, etc.--even the Supreme Court has placed limitations. Is a bit more necessary? Think about it.

***

Periodically, ageism comes to the fore. All of us know gifted writers who have been excommunicated by less gifted executives. Why? Because the latter see the gray hairs on top and ignore the gray matter underneath. Question: Why does the television system allow some of its most gifted creative talent to be discriminated against solely because of age? Why are network executives so blindsided in not realized that they are subjecting themselves, eventually, to the same discrimination they now practice? Whatever respect is given to creative talent with proven experience in the network television field? Why is it that baseball cannot wait until a 68 year old man, Tommy Lasorda is back on the bench at Chavez Ravine? No 30 year old substitute? Why is it that there are no 20 or 30 year olds sitting on the Supreme Court? The words that fit: Lack of experience. Why don't the big moguls of television -- no twenty/thirty year geniuses there--why doesn't a 65 plus Rupert Murdoch speak out? Or a 50 plus Ted Turner? Or a Westinghouse mogul named Michael Jordan, or GE's John Welch -- why don't they publicly champion creative talent, everyone's, instead of -- by their silence -- endorsing age discrimination? Think about it.

***

I just saw the HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, G-rated by the MPAA’s anonymous 11. My 12 year old daughter, Kate, enjoyed it, but she said, "Dad, that picture should be rated PG."

Sure. Can you imagine the MPAA Board reviewing the lustful scene of Esmeralda going up in smoke while her tormentor is salivating about what he can offer instead of fire, can you imagine that Board deciding that a Disney animated film should receive a PG rating? Could the MPAA have survived? Top critics at the L.A. TIMES shared my daughter Kate's judgment. Should the MPAA furnish us at the very least with the names and qualifications of its 11 man board which deals with children's concerns -- and welfare? Think about it.

***

At the recent VARIETY SHOWBIZ EXPO, I asked Jack Valenti, who'd been quoted in a news story as having no problem in viewing NYPD BLUE with his youngest child, "How old is that child?" "Twenty-seven," was his response.

I countered that I would not watch it with my 12 year old.

I asked him whether, when he was feeding his young children baby food, he took time to study the contents described on the label -- first; whether, when one of them had a headache or an upset stomach he read the directions and contents of the label on the bottle or box of medicine before he placed a tablet in his child's mouth? Just so, I argued, what goes into a child's mind is every bit as important as what goes into his/her body -- the sine qua non of why labeling is so preferable over the vague, cautionary warnings of the MPAA classification system that purportedly advises parents about a motion picture's content, but has been designed especially to avoid that very subject -- the element of truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Mr. Valenti angrily charged that the V-Chip was a charade, that labeling is a charade -- this surprising outburst from the man charged with designing a system that will work with the V-Chip--the V-Chip and a "rating" system now the law of the land.

Let's look at "labeling" which I have advanced, versus "classification," which Mr. Valenti champions. The MPAA set of symbols, which connote nothing by themselves, is at best a minimal system designed primarily to please exhibitors and distributors of motion pictures. Do the explanatory MPAA words that accompany these MPAA symbols--"caution," "unsuitable," "inappropriate" -- provide the necessary, specific information parents should have before taking a child into a theater, or is it just enough to induce a parent to say "well, I've been warned about something (vague, not specific) so I'll just chance it?"

Would proper labeling that points to sex, violence, questionable language help parents?

The truth is that if the MPAA system had merit for TV there would be no need to search for a "rating" system.

What this search may do is stimulate a re-examination of the MPAA's own thirty year charade and invigorate a ground swell to replace it.

A moment's digression: TV GUIDE is American's national guide to TV viewing and listings. It's worth noting that TV GUIDE has a separate section at the back of the issue that is devoted to Premium Channels--Pay TV--and in this section the magazine lists every movie offered by the pay channels, including its official MPAA classification plus, in its own words, "We also offer advisories about content (adult themes, sexual situations, strong language, violent or nudity), but parents should be aware that films containing adult themes or sexual situations frequently involve nudity, even though our advisory may not explicitly say so." Clearly TV GUIDE does not depend on the MPAA classification system where Pay-TV movies are involved: the GUIDE spells out details of program content. The same system applies to its listing of movies to be found in video stores.

Unfortunately, this careful spelling out of content which goes far beyond the simplistic symbols of the MPAA, is not to be found in movies that play on network TV or on local stations. Why? Because a TV GUIDE listing official explained that the magazine relies on the dubious theory networks' standards and practices departments deleting all questionable material--some assumption! All that TV GUIDE does for those movies is to rate them by stars--four for excellent, three for good, two for fair, one for poor. These evaluations are based on the "consensus of leading critics, quality of cast and director, awards earned and box office performance." My own conviction is that TV GUIDE should examine those features with the same standards they employ for Pay-TV, rating all network/local movie fare with the same standards listed above.

We should acknowledge that there never has been a more successful, carefully designed and promoted scheme perpetrated on the American people than the anemic, virtually meaningless charade (to use Mr. Valenti's designation of labeling) of the MPAA's own classification system. Does it really satisfy movie goers? Only if you give credence to the industry's own research carefully designed to elicit minimal data -- research which purposely does not probe deeply into movie-goers needs or desire for more specific data on content. That word, content, and its related word, labeling, are anathema to Mr. Valenti and his powerful crowd--the crowd he is obligated to serve first -- the member corporations of the MPAA -- not the mothers, fathers and children of the United States.

All of this leads to a fundamental challenge: can someone, who has already vehemently condemned major opposition to his MPAA system who has airily dismissed the V-Chip and labeling as charades, be counted upon to lead a hand-picked committee, which constitutes the so-called Implementation Group that will determine the system to be in effect this year--can he be counted on to give fair and reasoned respect to alternative proposals or has his outburst, perhaps, disqualified him for this sensitive role? Think about it.

Did you know that the FCC appointed an advisory committee to design an Advanced Television (ATV) system for the United States? Do you know how many representatives of foreign owned consumer electronics companies are on that advisory committee? How many broadcast engineers? Do you know how many producers, writers, directors, cinematographers and others who create program content are on the advisory committee? The answer to my last question rhymes with hero.

Do you know how many hundreds of billions of dollars the new television system would cost the public? Do you know which consumer electronics companies and broadcast conglomerates would make the biggest profits?

Did you know that a coalition of filmmakers, American computer companies and consumer advocates oppose the recommendations made by the FCC’s advisory committee? The list includes the Directors Guild of America, the American Society of Cinematographers, Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Todd-A-O and such individuals as Bill Gates, Steven Spielberg, Clint Eastwood, Dustin Hoffman, Bill Blinn, Richard Donner, William Friedkin, Gil Cates, Arthur Hiller, Robert Wise, Warren Beatty, John Frankenheimer, Mike Medavoy, Robert Redford, Richard Schickel, Martin Scorsese, Richard Zanuck and hundreds of others. Did you know the coalition has endorsed an alternate digital television system that would put higher quality images on the screen without requiring alterations in the original composition of films? Did you know that this alternate digital TV system would link the computer to the TV set and enable consumers to select the programs they want to see, when they want to see them? Did you know that Jack Valenti declined an invitation to see a demonstration of the digital technology proposed by the coalition? Did you know that the MPAA is the only organization in the motion picture industry to side with the consumer electronics companies/ broadcasters? Think about it.

***