FCC INQUIRY FOCUSES ON IMPACT OF VIOLENT TV SHOWS

The FCC asked what the impact of violent programming has on children, after being urged by Congress to tackle the issue. In a 14-page notice of inquiry Wed., the FCC asked a plethora of questions, including whether the FCC can extend its definition of indecency to include violent programming. Comments are due Sept. 15, replies Oct. 15.

The notice is in response to a March 5 letter from House Commerce Committee Chmn. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) and other members of Congress asking the FCC to examine violent TV shows and its impact on children. FCC Chmn. Powell said he shared many of the Commerce Committee’s concerns (CD May 21 p10). Almost all the questions are in line with Congress’ letter on what the FCC should seek comment on. “Wanton violence on the people’s airwaves has gone unaddressed for too long,” said Comr. Copps in a statement: “This is why Congress is moving on this on a number of fronts.” Violent TV programming content has been a private and govt. concern since the early 1950’s, the FCC said. The Commission in the notice cited numerous studies from the Surgeon Gen., FTC and the Parents TV Council.

The Commission sought comment on how much violent programming is on the airwaves and what the trends are. It asked whether there are differences between broadcast and non-broadcast media and the effects of viewing violent programming on kids and other segments of the population.

The FCC wanted to know how to define and classify violent, excessively or gratuitously violent programming: “There are definitional difficulties because not all violence is created equal. From a policy standpoint, is there a need to define all violence, or simply gratuitous or excessive violence?” The Commission cited studies that attempt to define violent programming and concluded that context should be greatly weighed when determining violent content. The FCC asked what kinds of portrayals of violence are the greatest concern, how much TV violence is portrayed in a way that is most likely to harm children, and what age groups qualify as children that would be harmed by TV violence. The FCC asked whether it would be in the public interest for the agency to define excessively violent programming. “We also seek comment on how such a standard could be implemented in a manner that is both clear to the industry and practical to administer.”

Attorney Robert Corn-Revere said the notice dangerously steps upon First Amendment interests. “There are insurmountable constitutional barriers here.”

The FCC sought to explore regulatory and statutory bounds in light of the relevant constitutional constraints, in its inquiry. The congressional letter asked the FCC whether Congress should provide the agency with the authority to create a “safe harbor” for violent programming and define violent programming. “Could the commission expand its definition of indecency to include violent programming?” the FCC asked. The FCC also asked if it should have broader authority to regulate cable and other non-broadcast subscription services on airing violence.

The FCC questioned the effectiveness of TV Parental Guidelines and the V-chip to protect children and asked whether other mechanisms are available. It also asked whether it should restrict broadcast of violence that’s harmful to children during hours kids are likely to be watching, creating a safe harbor similar to that in FCC indecency rules, the Commission said.

The PTC said the notice was long overdue and should have been initiated long ago. “It’s unfortunate that it required Congress to get them to do that,” said Lara Mahaney, PTC dir.-corporate & entertainment affairs.

Several members of the House and Senate raised media violence as an issue during the hearings and debate on indecency, though sexual and obscene content got much more attention from members than violence. After House Telecom Subcommittee hearings on indecency, 39 members of the House Commerce Committee signed a letter asking the FCC to open an inquiry on violent programming. The March 5 letter laid out several specific requests, many adopted by the FCC. The letter also asked that the FCC present a report to Congress by Jan. 1, 2005, on: (1) Whether the FCC can form a definition of “excessively violent programming that is harmful to children.” (2) Whether the FCC had determined it to be in the public interest for the Commission to formulate such regulations. (3) What measure would be best suited, and sustainable in court, for constraining violent TV broadcasts.

A spokesman for Sen. Brownback (R-Kan.), an outspoken critic of violent TV programming, said Brownback supported the FCC’s actions. “Senator Brownback is very supportive of any formal efforts to study and quantify the effects of media on the cognitive development of children,” the spokesman told us. Brownback has for years raised issues of violence during Senate hearings on indecency and on media ownership, as concentrated media is often blamed for rising violence and indecency on TV. Brownback is a co-sponsor of S-2447, from Sen. Lieberman (D-Conn.), which would fund studies of the effects of media on children.

Also, the Senate recently passed legislation designed to curb TV violence -- though many believe the measure won’t survive conference. In passing the Defense Dept. authorization bill (S-2400), Senate Commerce Committee ranking Democrat Hollings’ (S.C.) violence “safe harbor” measure (S-161) was added to the package, along with fine increases for indecency (CD June 23 p1). Hollings has unsuccessfully pushed the measure for more than a decade. The bill would require the FCC to study the use of the V- chip. If it’s found ineffective (which most sources said was almost a certainty), the FCC would then have to establish a family time safe harbor when networks couldn’t broadcast content deemed violent. But Brownback has said he worried the measure would be found unconstitutional, and several sources speculated it would be removed when Congress holds its conference on the bill.