**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | MB Docket No. 04-261         |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Violent Television Programming   | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| And Its Impact on Children       | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**NOTICE OF INQUIRY**

**Adopted: July 15, 2004 Released: July 28, 2004**

By the Commission: Commissioner Copps issuing a statement.

**Comment Date: September 15, 2004**

**Reply Comment Date: October 15, 2004**

# INTRODUCTION

1.  We initiate this *Notice of Inquiry* ("*NOI*") to seek comment on
    issues relating to the presentation of violent programming on
    television and its impact on children. Violent television
    programming content has been a matter of private and governmental
    concern and discussion from at least the early 1950s.[^1] Congress'
    response, in 1996, was adoption of Section 551 of the
    Telecommunication Act 1996, which resulted in the Commission's
    implementation of the companion elements of the voluntary television
    rating system[^2] and associated "V-chip" technology in 1998.[^3]
    More recently, the Commission has received continuing expressions of
    Congressional concern with respect to violent programming. On March
    5, 2004, thirty-nine members of the U.S. House of Representatives,
    Committee on Energy and Commerce, requested the Commission to begin
    a "Notice of Inquiry on the issue of excessively violent broadcast
    television programming and its impact on children."[^4] This
    proceeding is designed to be responsive to these concerns and to
    update the record on issues related to programmatic violence.[^5]

2.  Through this proceeding we seek comment and information along the
    following lines of inquiry. How much violent programming is there,
    and what are the trends? What are the effects of viewing violent
    programming on children and other segments of the population? If
    particular portrayals of violence are more likely to cause
    deleterious effects than others, what specific kinds of programming
    should be the focus of any further public policymaking in this area?
    Should any further public policymaking address all violence or just
    excessive or gratuitous violence, and how should that be defined?
    Are the ratings system and the V-chip accomplishing their intended
    purpose, or are there additional mechanisms that might be developed
    to control exposure to media violence? Finally, are there legal
    constraints on either Congress or the Commission to regulate violent
    programming?

# DISCUSSION AND REQUEST FOR COMMENT

## Incidence of Violent Programming

3.  We seek specific information concerning how much televised violence
    there is on broadcast and non-broadcast television and whether the
    amount of violent programming is increasing or decreasing. The
    National TV Violence Study, which appears to be of the most
    extensive content analyses to date, involving the efforts of more
    than 300 people recording and watching more than 10,000 hours of
    television programming from 1994 to 1997, indicates that more than
    half of all television programming contains violence.[^6] More
    specifically, during the period of the study, the proportion of
    programming with violence consistently hovered around 60%.[^7]
    During prime time, the proportion rose from 53% to 67% on broadcast
    networks, and from 54% to 64% on basic (*i.e*., non-premium) cable
    channels.[^8] In addition, cartoons include an average of
    approximately one "high-risk" portrayal of violence per cartoon, as
    categorized by the researchers.[^9] There have been more recent
    reports on television violence. For example, the Parents Television
    Council ("PTC") conducted a content study finding that on all the
    television networks combined, violence was 41% more frequent during
    the 8:00 p.m. Family Hour in 2002 than in 1998 and during the second
    hour of prime time (9-10:00 p.m.), violence was 134.4% more frequent
    in 2002 that in 1998.[^10]

4.  We seek additional information on the frequency of televised
    violence. The National TV Violence Study reports the results of
    study during the three-year period 1994-1997. What more recent
    information, aside from the PTC Study noted above, is available
    about the incidence of violence on television programming? What are
    the trends? Are there differences between broadcast and
    non-broadcast media (*i.e.,* cable and satellite)? Are there
    differences between premium and non-premium channels on cable or
    satellite?

## Effects of Viewing Violent Programming

5.  At its core, concern about media violence derives from concern about
    deleterious effects, particularly on children, that may result from
    exposure to it. Over the course of several decades, much research
    has been developed to examine and study these effects. Much of the
    research within the public health and scientific communities
    suggests that exposure to media violence can be associated with
    certain negative effects.[^11] Three types of studies have generally
    been described in the literature; (1) field experiments in which
    subjects are shown video programming with their short-term
    post-viewing behavior monitored by researchers; (2) cross-sectional
    studies involving a survey of a sample of individuals at one point
    in time and their conduct correlated with the amount and type of
    their television viewing; and (3) longitudinal studies that survey
    the same group of individuals at different times over many years to
    determine the effects of television viewing on subsequent behavior.
    Through these studies efforts have been made to establish a cause
    and effect relationship between the viewing of "violent" programming
    by "children" and subsequent aggressive behavior on the part of
    these individuals. Various definitions of violence and various age
    groups have been involved. Some of the studies also involve the
    effects of television viewing of all types rather than just violent
    programming. Some involve the behavior of college-age or older
    viewers. The researchers have tended to focus on three possible
    harmful effects: (1) increased antisocial behavior, including
    imitations of aggression or negative interaction; (2)
    desensitization to violence; and (3) increased fear of becoming a
    victim of violence.[^12]

6.  A year 2000 review of the scientific research on the effects of
    entertainment media violence on children, which appears as part of
    the Federal Trade Commission's report on *Marketing Violent
    Entertainment to Children,* summarized the research as follows:

    A majority of the investigations into the impact of media violence
    on children find that there is a high *correlation* between exposure
    to media violence and aggressive and at times violent behavior. In
    addition, a number of research efforts report that exposure to media
    violence is correlated with increased acceptance of violent behavior
    in others, as well as an exaggerated perception of the amount of
    violence in society. Regarding *causation*, however, the studies
    appear to be less conclusive. Most researchers and investigators
    agree that exposure to media violence alone does not cause a child
    to commit a violent act, and that it is not the sole, or even
    necessarily the most important, factor contributing to youth
    aggression, anti-social attitudes, and violence. Although a
    consensus among researchers exists regarding the empirical
    relationships, significant differences remain over the
    interpretation of these associations and their implications for
    public policy.[^13]

    A 2001 report from the United States Surgeon General's 2001 *Youth
    Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General* summarized the research
    thus:

    In sum, a diverse body of research provides strong evidence that
    exposure to violence in the media can increase children's aggressive
    behavior in the short term. Some studies suggest that long-term
    effects exist, and there are strong theoretical reasons why this is
    the case. But many questions remain regarding the short- and
    long-term effects of media violence, especially on violent behavior.
    Despite considerable advances in research, it is not yet possible to
    describe accurately how much exposure, of what types, for how long,
    at what ages, for what types of children, or in what types of
    settings will predict violent behavior in adolescents and
    adults.[^14]

    Research has continued since the completion of these two Reports,
    including new longitudinal studies buttressing the conclusion that
    childhood exposure to media violence lasts into adulthood and
    increases aggressive behavior.[^15] In addition, researchers have
    developed new methods of measuring the impact of exposure to media
    violence on children, including MRI brain mapping research conducted
    at the Indiana University School of Medicine and elsewhere.[^16]
    According to testimony given in 2003 before the Senate Committee on
    Commerce, Science & Transportation, a comprehensive bibliography of
    research and publications in this field includes 1,945 reports on
    children and television, approximately 600 of which deal with the
    issue of TV violence.[^17]

7.  As indicated above, numerous studies have demonstrated the harmful
    effects of media violence on children. We seek comment on any
    additional recent research in the field. We seek additional comment
    on the debate and how the private sector, members of the public, and
    academia are continuing to address the net effects of media
    violence.[^18] Is there a correlation between exposure to violence
    and aggressive behavior? If so, what are the implications? Are there
    particular harms children suffer as a result of exposure to violent
    programming? What other factors contribute to observed aggressive
    behavior? Do depictions of violence in video programming have an
    identifiably different effect on children or adults than do
    descriptions of violence in other media, including print? How
    important is exposure to electronic media violence relative to other
    sources of exposure; *i.e*., does watching Wile E. Coyote fall off a
    cliff in a cartoon have more or less an impact on a child's psyche
    than reading about Hansel and Gretel forcing a witch into a hot oven
    in Grimm's fairy tales? Are there countervailing benefits that flow
    from televised violence? Does the inclusion of violent events in
    fictional accounts help individuals understand and process actual
    incidences of violence they may encounter, experience, or learn of?
    Does violence serve any artistic function that should be considered,
    or are all depictions of violence necessarily gratuitous?

## Defining Violent or Excessively or Gratuitously Violent Programming for Public Policy Purposes

8.  The above discussion assumes a well established definition of
    violence in terms of measuring both the amount and effect of violent
    programming. This is not necessarily the case. There are
    definitional difficulties because "not all violence is created
    equal."[^19] From a public policy standpoint, is there a need to
    define all violence, or simply gratuitous or excessive violence?

9.  For the purpose of determining, as a general matter, whether a
    program contains violence, researchers have used broad definitions.
    For example, one researcher defined violence as "the overt
    expression of force intended to hurt or kill" in a content analysis
    conducted in the 1960s as part of the National Commission on the
    Causes and Prevention of Violence.[^20] The National TV Violence
    Study defined violence as "any overt depiction of a credible threat
    of physical force or the actual use of such force intended to
    physically harm an animate being or group of beings. Violence also
    includes certain depictions of physically harmful consequences
    against an animate being or group that occur as a result of unseen
    violent means."[^21] The UCLA Violence Reports defined violence as
    "the act of, attempt at, physical threat of or the consequences of
    physical force."[^22] As the *1997 TV Violence Report* explains,
    such broad definitions "include violence, cartoon violence,
    slapstick violence -- anything that involves or immediately
    threatens physical harms of any sort, intentional or unintentional,
    self-inflicted or inflicted by someone or something else."[^23] We
    seek comment on whether these definitions are appropriate.

10. At the same time, however, researchers have often attempted to
    identify the context, or qualitative nature, of a portrayal of
    violence. The *1997 TV Violence Report* explains:

    While parents, critics and others complain about the problem of
    violence on television, it is not the mere presence of violence that
    is the problem. If violence alone was the problem and V-chips or
    other methods did away with violent scenes or programs, viewers
    might never see a historical drama like Roots or such outstanding
    theatrical films as Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, Forrest
    Gump and Schindler\'s List. In many instances, the use of violence
    may be critical to a story that actually sends an anti-violence
    message. Some important stories, such as Shakespeare\'s Hamlet, the
    history of World War II or the life of Abraham Lincoln, would be
    impossible to convey accurately without including portrayals of
    violence.

    For centuries, violence has been an important element of
    storytelling, and violent themes have been found in the Bible, The
    Iliad and The Odyssey, fairy tales, theater, literature, film and,
    of course, television. Descriptions of violence in the Bible have
    been important for teaching lessons and establishing a moral code.
    Lessons of the evils of jealousy and revenge are learned from the
    story of Cain and Abel. Early fairy tales were filled with violence
    and gruesomeness designed to frighten children into behaving and to
    teach them right from wrong. It was only when fairy tales were
    portrayed on the big screen by Walt Disney and others that the
    violence contained in the stories was substantially sanitized.[^24]

    In other words the study suggests, "\[t\]he issue is not the mere
    presence of violence but the nature of violence and the context in
    which it occurs. Context is key to the determination of whether or
    not violence is appropriate."[^25] The National TV Violence Study
    similarly emphasizes that "the way in which violence is presented
    helps to determine whether a portrayal might be harmful to
    viewers."[^26]

11. But distinguishing one form of violence from another based on
    context is a difficult exercise. Again, in explaining how the
    researchers involved in the UCLA violence studies determined which
    programs raised "concerns" about violence, the *1997 TV Violence
    Report* illustrates the problem:

    No matter how well the definitions were drawn, there would be those
    who felt that some aspect of violence should or should not have been
    included. Almost everyone has his or her own definition of violence.
    People have often attempted to validate or invalidate quantitative
    research based on how much the scholar's definition resembles their
    own. Animation for children is a good example of this phenomenon.
    Consider a cartoon in which a character is hit over the head with a
    two-by-four, a funny sound effect is heard, the character shakes his
    head and merrily continues on his way. Some people might consider
    this the worst type of violence because it is unrealistic, there are
    no consequences and it might encourage children to imitate it
    precisely because it shows no consequences. Others feel they watched
    these cartoons growing up and did not imitate them because they knew
    these cartoons obviously were not "real." Scholars have had to
    decide whether to count this type of violence and usually have
    included it. Anyone who feels this inclusion is silly would reject
    the entire definition and might ignore the conclusions of the
    research. The same is true with slapstick humor. Sports programming
    provides yet another example. Many feel that violent spectator
    sports or hockey make violence an acceptable or even desirable part
    of American life. Whether to count unrealistic cartoon violence,
    slapstick humor or sports within a definition of violence is itself
    a difficult decision.[^27]

    We seek comment on these issues.

12. Against the backdrop of these definitional difficulties, what kinds
    of portrayals of violence are of greatest concern, particularly with
    respect to children? The National TV Violence Study states that
    "\[i\]f the consequences of violence are demonstrated, if violence
    is shown to be regretted or punished, if its perpetrators are not
    glamorized, if the act of violence is not seen as justifiable, if in
    general violence is shown in a negative light, then the portrayal of
    violence may not create undesirable consequences. But if violence is
    glamorized, sanitized or made to seem routine, then the message is
    that it is an acceptable, and perhaps even desirable, course of
    action."[^28] More specifically, the National TV Violence Study
    indicates that the portrayals that pose the greatest risk for
    learning aggression contain attractive perpetrators, morally
    justified reasons for engaging in violence, repeated incidents of
    violence that appear realistic, violence that is rewarded or
    unpunished, and violence that does not show harm or pain to a victim
    or is presented in a humorous context. According to the study,
    portrayals that pose the greatest risk for desensitization contain
    repeated incidents of violence or violence presented in a humorous
    context. Portrayals that pose the greatest risk for audience fear
    contain attractive victims, violence that appears unjustified,
    repeated and realistic, and unpunished.[^29] In addition, the *1997
    TV Violence Report* provides as examples of "inappropriate or
    improper uses of violence" those "which glorify the act or teach
    that violence is always the way to resolve conflict."[^30] That
    report further states that "the consequences of violence should be
    shown and those persons using violence inappropriately should be
    punished. We would also note that when violence is used
    realistically, it is more desirable to accurately portray the
    consequences than to sanitize the violence in a manner designed to
    make it acceptable." On the other hand, some might argue that a
    television program such as "The Three Stooges" does not pose a great
    risk to children even if the violence is presented humorously and
    without obvious consequences. Similarly, some might argue that more
    graphic violence is potentially more harmful to children than
    violence in which, for example, a body falls from a gunshot wound
    but the wounds are not shown. We seek additional comment on the
    types of portrayals that are of greatest concern, particularly with
    respect to children.

13. How much televised violence is portrayed in a way that is most
    likely to harm children? For example, the National TV Violence Study
    states that 40% of the violent incidents studied were initiated by
    characters with qualities that make them good role models; 70% of
    violent scenes do not show penalty or remorse for violence at the
    time it occurs; roughly half of violent incidents do not show
    physical harm or pain; at least 40% of violent scenes include
    humor.[^31] The UCLA reports also identify particular shows that
    raised "concerns" about violence, according to a variety of
    contextual factors.[^32] We seek additional information on what type
    of programming is potentially the most damaging, and how frequently
    it occurs.

14. As we consider definitional issues, we also ask commenters to
    identify with precision the age groups that qualify as "children"
    when they discuss whether violent programming is harmful to them.
    Some scholarship suggests that children under the age of seven or
    eight are especially impressionable because they have difficulty
    distinguishing between fantasy and reality.[^33] We seek additional
    information on research that evidences and explains the particular
    age groups that are of concern.

15. Finally, in the context of possible regulation in this area, we note
    that members of the House Commerce Committee have asked the
    Commission to examine whether it would be in the public interest for
    the agency to define "excessively violent programming that is
    harmful to children," and if so, how we might do so.[^34] 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. We
    seek comment on these issues to be responsive to the Committee's
    concerns.

## TV Parental Guidelines and V-Chip

16. A regulatory system already exists to help parents and viewers
    control the exposure of children to media violence. The television
    industry rates programming using the TV Parental Guidelines, and
    encodes programming accordingly; in addition, the Commission has
    required that, by January 1, 2000, all television sets manufactured
    in the United States or shipped in interstate commerce with a
    picture screen of thirteen inches or larger be equipped with a
    "V-chip" that can be programmed to block violent, sexual, or other
    programming that parents believe harmful to their children.[^35]

17. We seek comment on the status of the existing rating and V-chip
    system as tools to help parents and viewers screen out violence. To
    what extent is programming in fact rated, using both the age-based
    ratings, and the additional content labels for violence? Are the
    ratings consistent and accurate? A 1998 Kaiser Family Foundation
    study indicates that, during the first year the ratings system was
    in use, only 20% of programs that contained violence, sexual
    material, or adult language actually used the appropriate content
    label.[^36] This same study found that 79% of violent programming is
    not specifically rated for violence."[^37] Moreover, a 2001 Kaiser
    Family Foundation study indicates that 40% of parents who use the
    rating system do not believe programs are rated accurately.[^38]
    According to that study, more than half of all parents use the
    ratings system to decide what programming that their children may
    watch. In light of these findings, we seek comment on whether the
    lack of a content rating for violence renders ineffective any
    technology-based blocking mechanism, built into television sets,
    designed to limit violent programming.

18. We seek comment on these findings of the Kaiser Family Foundation.
    Is more recent information available on these issues? To what extent
    is use being made of the rating system? Do the TV Parental
    Guidelines now in use give parents sufficient information to make
    educated programming decisions for their children?

19. We also seek comment on the usefulness of the V-chip. Although as
    many as 40% of parents have television sets equipped with a V-chip,
    more than half of them are not aware of it, and two thirds of those
    who are do not use it.[^39] The Kaiser Foundation, in a recent
    study, has found that parents have not used the V-Chip even after a
    concerted effort to inform them about it.[^40] We seek comment on
    recent initiatives to educate parents about the V-Chip's
    availability. What can be done to enhance the usefulness of the
    V-chip? Are there ways to improve the ratings system?

##  Possible New Regulatory Solution: "Safe Harbor"

20. If the TV Parental Guidelines and V-chip are not adequate to protect
    children from any identifiable dangers of exposure to media
    violence, what other mechanisms are available? In their recent
    letter, members of the House Commerce Committee specifically asked
    how the Commission "might restrict broadcast of 'excessively violent
    programming that is harmful to children' during the hours when
    children are likely to be a substantial part of the viewing
    audience, so that it might supplement the TV ratings system, such as
    by creating time of day restrictions and measures that facilitate a
    consumer's use of the television ratings system."[^41] The
    legislation pending in Congress also involves a "safe harbor"
    provision and the Senate has adopted language to that effect.[^42]

21. A starting point for considering a "safe harbor" solution is our
    indecency rules. Indecent speech is entitled to constitutional
    protection, and so cannot be prohibited entirely. However, to
    protect children, the Commission's rules prohibit the broadcast of
    indecent speech from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., when children are
    likely to be a substantial part of the viewing audience. The
    Commission may fine television and radio stations for broadcasting
    indecent content during this time period. At other times of the day,
    during the "safe harbor" of the late night and early morning hours,
    the Commission permits the broadcast of such speech.[^43] Obscene
    speech on cable and other subscription television services, as well
    as on broadcast services, is a criminal offense at all hours.[^44]
    Indecency regulation is only applied to broadcast services.[^45]
    Would it be in the public interest to have "safe harbor"
    restrictions on violent programming content? Should it apply to the
    broadcast medium only?

22. Alternatively, the Congress or the Commission could tie the
    application of any "safe harbor" to the television ratings system,
    as the bill pending before the Senate Commerce Committee does. That
    bill would declare it "unlawful for any person to distribute to the
    public any violent video programming not blockable by electronic
    means specifically on the basis of its violent content when children
    are reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of the
    audience."[^46] The Senate bill would also require the Commission,
    upon finding in ongoing review that the television ratings system
    and the V-chip were not accomplishing their intended purposes, to
    "prohibit the distribution of violent video programming during the
    hours when children are reasonably likely to comprise a substantial
    portion of the audience."[^47] In other words, the bill would
    restrict violent programming to a "safe harbor" only if the
    programming has not been rated violent, or if the Commission finds
    that the ratings system and V-chip are not accomplishing their
    intended purpose. The bill does not distinguish between broadcast
    and non-broadcast media, and specifically notes that "\[b\]roadcast
    television, cable television, and video programming are (A) uniquely
    pervasive presences in the lives of all American children; and (B)
    readily accessible to all American children."[^48] We seek comment
    on whether the V-Chip is accomplishing its intended purpose, and if
    not, whether the safe harbor approach represents the least
    restrictive means to protect children.

    **F. Statutory and Constitutional Issues**

23. We seek to explore here the bounds of permissible action, both
    regulatory and statutory, in light of the relevant statutory and
    constitutional constraints. In their recent letter, members of the
    House Commerce Committee have asked whether the Commission currently
    has the authority to adopt a "safe harbor" for the broadcast of
    violent programming, "or whether Congress would need to provide the
    Commission with statutory authority to do so, and whether Congress
    could provide the FCC with that authority in a constitutional
    fashion."[^49] Members of the House Commerce Committee has also
    asked about constitutional limitations on our ability to define the
    phrase "excessively violent programming that is harmful to
    children," or to create a "safe harbor" for such programming. If
    such a mechanism were adopted, should there be an exception for news
    or other types of unrated programs? Should there be an exception for
    cultural, historical, or artistic merit?

24. The Communications Act gives the Commission broad authority to
    regulate the broadcast medium as the public interest requires.[^50]
    In order to grant a radio license, Title III of the Act requires the
    Commission to determine "whether the public interest, convenience,
    and necessity will be served by the granting of such application,"
    and to issue a license only upon making an affirmative finding.[^51]
    Title III likewise directs the Commission, "as the public interest,
    convenience, and necessity requires," to "\[m\]ake such rules and
    regulations and prescribe such restrictions and conditions, not
    inconsistent with law, as may be necessary to carry out the
    provisions of this Act. . . ."[^52] However, Section 326 in Title
    III also states: "Nothing in this Act shall be understood or
    construed to give the Commission the power of censorship over the
    radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station,
    and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the
    Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by
    means of radio communication."[^53] Is the Commission's general
    public interest authority sufficiently broad to regulate any form of
    violent programming, in light of Section 326? Does the D.C.
    Circuit's recent decision in *Motion Picture Association of
    America v. FCC* ("*MPAA*") suggest that the Commission's public
    interest authority does not extend to regulation of violent program
    content?[^54]

25. The statutory prohibition against "obscene, indecent, or profane
    language,"[^55] upon which our ban on obscene speech and safe harbor
    for indecent and profane speech are based,[^56] does not implicate
    Section 326.[^57] Given the interest of members of the House
    Commerce Committee in creating a "safe harbor," and its question
    whether we currently have the authority to adopt such a mechanism to
    regulate violence, could the Commission expand its definition of
    indecency to include violent programming? The Commission has
    traditionally defined indecency in terms of sexual or excretory
    organs and activities, but the Supreme Court has concluded that the
    term indecent "merely refers to nonconformance with accepted
    standards of morality"[^58] and that "neither our prior decisions
    nor the language or history of § 1464 supports the conclusion that
    prurient appeal is an essential component of indecent
    language."[^59] Certain commentators go even further and argue that
    violent programming qualifies as obscene speech, which is not
    entitled to any First Amendment protection.[^60] In this regard, we
    note an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    declining to conflate obscenity and violence in the context of a
    particular ordinance regulating violent video games, yet suggesting
    that a demonstrated link between exposure to such games and
    deleterious effects could possibly provide a basis for regulation of
    violent "pictures."[^61] We recognize that an interpretation of
    indecency or obscenity as encompassing violence would be novel, but
    we seek to determine the scope of existing standards to regulate
    violent programming, as members of the House Commerce Committee
    request.

26. How does Title V of the 1996 Act, entitled "Obscenity and Violence,"
    affect the Commission's general authority in this area? Section 551
    directed the Commission to prescribe "guidelines and recommended
    procedures for the identification and rating of video programming
    that contains sexual, *violent, or other indecent material* about
    which parents should be informed before it is displayed to
    children,"[^62] if the television industry itself did not establish
    "voluntary rules" for rating such programming that were "acceptable
    to the Commission."[^63] Does the reference to "violent or other
    indecent material" indicate that indecency encompasses violence, or
    otherwise suggest that Congress intended to empower the agency to
    regulate violent programming? Was the Commission's authority under
    this provision at an end once it found the industry guidelines
    acceptable? In other words, does the statutory scheme suggest that
    Congress has occupied the field of media violence, such that the
    Commission cannot act without new legislation?

27. What is the extent of the Commission's current authority over cable
    television in this area? Title VI of the Act states that "\[a\]ny
    Federal agency, State, or franchising authority may not impose
    requirements regarding the provision or content of cable services,
    except as provided in this title."[^64] As indicated above,
    transmission of obscene and other speech is "unprotected by the
    Constitution of the United States" and is a criminal offense.[^65]
    Title VI also states that, "\[i\]n order to restrict the viewing of
    programming which is obscene or indecent, upon the request of a
    subscriber, a cable operator shall provide (by sale or lease) a
    device by which the subscriber can prohibit the viewing of a
    particular cable service during periods selected by that
    subscriber."[^66] Title VI further states that "\[u\]pon request by
    a cable service subscriber, a cable operator shall, without charge,
    fully scramble or otherwise fully block the audio and video
    programming of each channel carrying such programming so that one
    not a subscriber does not receive it."[^67] The Supreme Court has
    found this latter provision could be a less restrictive means than a
    "safe harbor" or "time channeling" requirement to protect children
    from sexually explicit programming.[^68] We seek comment on whether
    the Commission has authority to regulate violent programming on
    cable television other than as specifically provided in Title VI.
    Does the Commission have broader statutory authority to regulate
    violent programming on DBS and other non-broadcast subscription
    services, which are not covered by Section 544(f), than on cable
    services?

28. Assuming the Commission has or is granted statutory authority to
    regulate violent programming, what constitutional limitations apply?
    For example, given the definitional issues discussed above, how
    could Congress or the Commission define some form of violent
    programming in a way that is not unconstitutionally vague or
    overbroad?[^69] In addition, what standard of constitutional review
    should apply to broadcast regulation in this area? To non-broadcast?
    Even if protecting children from some form of violent programming is
    deemed a sufficiently important government interest,[^70] is a "safe
    harbor" the appropriate and most tailored means to accomplish that
    public policy?[^71] Given the mechanisms available to cable
    subscribers to block programming under Title VI, could a "safe
    harbor" constitutionally be applied to cable services? We seek
    comment on how Congress might legislate and the Commission might
    regulate in this area, consistent with applicable constitutional
    principles.

**III. POSITIVE IMPACT OF CERTAIN TELEVISION PROGRAMMING**

29. We recognize that television programming may have a positive
    influence on individual behavior, especially educational and
    informational material directed at children.[^72] The literature
    suggests that consumption of educational television programming
    correlates positively to children's school preparedness and may also
    encourage beneficial social skills and behavioral development.[^73]
    Are there recent studies analyzing the pro-social effects of
    television programming that we should be aware of? What broadcast or
    non-broadcast services carry such material? How are parents made
    aware that such programming is available? We seek comment on what
    actions Congress or the Commission may take to encourage more
    programming choices that have a positive effect on children's
    development.

# iv. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS {#iv.-administrative-matters .unnumbered}

30. [*Ex Parte* Rules]{.underline}. Pursuant to section 1.1204(b)(1) of
    the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1204(b)(1), this is an exempt
    proceeding. *Ex parte* presentations are permitted, and need not be
    disclosed.

31. [Comments and Reply Comments]{.underline}. Pursuant to sections
    1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415,
    1.419, interested parties must file comments on or before
    **September 15, 2004**, and reply comments on or before **October
    15, 2004**. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
    Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. *See
    Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings*, 63 Fed.
    Reg. 24121 (1998). Accessible formats (computer diskettes, large
    print, audio recording, and Braille) are available to persons with
    disabilities by contacting Brian Millin, of the Consumer &
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 418-7365,
    or at brian.millin@fcc.gov.

32. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
    via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Generally,
    only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In
    completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their
    full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable
    docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic
    comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail
    comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and
    should include the following words in the body of the message, "get
    form \<your e-mail address\>." A sample form and directions will be
    sent in reply.

33. Parties who choose to file by paper must file and original and four
    copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger
    delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or
    overnight U.S. Postal Service (although we continue to experience
    delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's
    contractor, Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or
    messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at
    236 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The
    filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
    deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
    envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
    Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express
    Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive,
    Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail,
    Express Mail, and Priority Mail, should be addressed to 445 12^th^
    Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to
    the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission.

34. [Additional Information]{.underline}. For additional information on
    this proceeding, contact **Ben Golant** at 418-7111.

# V. ORDERING CLAUSE {#v.-ordering-clause .unnumbered}

35. Accordingly, **IT IS ORDERED** that, pursuant to the authority
    contained in sections 4(i), 303(g), 303(r), and 403 of the
    Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303, and 403 , this Notice
    of Inquiry **IS ADOPTED**.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Marlene H. Dortch

    Secretary

STATEMENT OF

COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS

*Re:* *Violent Video Programming*

I am pleased that the Commission is launching this proceeding to
determine ways that we can tackle violence on the airwaves. It is only
unfortunate that it took a request from Members of the House of
Representatives for us to consider this important issue. Hundreds of
studies over decades document the harmful impact that exposure to
graphic and excessive media violence has on the physical and mental
health of our children. The US Surgeon General, the American Academy of
Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical
Association, and virtually every other leading medical and scientific
organization that has studied this issue have reached the same
conclusion about the harmful impact of media violence. Yet, the
Commission today seems to ignore this wealth of scientific data even
going so far as to ask in this Notice whether there are benefits of
exposure to televised violence by our children.

It is our job and the one asked of us by the House Members to examine
how best to address this most pressing problem. I look forward to a full
record on these issues and to an expeditious resolution of this
proceeding. Wanton violence on the people's airwaves has gone
unaddressed for too long. That is why Congress is moving on this on a
number of fronts.

[^1]: U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
    *Investigation of Radio and Television Programs.* 82^nd^ Cong.,
    2^nd^ sess. (1952); *National Commission on the Causes and
    Prevention of Violence* (1969); *Surgeon General's Scientific
    Advisory Commission on Television and Social Behavior* (1972);
    Federal Communications Commission, *Report on the Broadcast of
    Violent, Indecent, and Obscene* Material, 1975 WL 30212 (1975);
    *Youth Violence; A Report of the Surgeon General* (2001); Federal
    Trade Commission, *Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children: A
    Review of Self-Regulation and Industry Practices in the Motion
    Picture, Music Recording & Electronic Games Industries* (2000). The
    FTC has issued several follow-up reports to its original 2000
    release, the latest of which was issued on July 8, 2004. *See
    Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children: A Fourth Follow-up
    Review of Industry Practices in the Motion Picture, Music Recording
    & Electronic Game Industries* (July 2004).

[^2]: Section 303(w) of the Communications Act (added by section
    551(b)(1) of the 1996 Act) directed the Commission to "\[p\]rescribe
    (1) . . . guidelines and recommended procedures for the
    identification and rating of video programming that contains sexual,
    violent, or other indecent material about which parents should be
    informed before it is displayed to children . . . and (2) with
    respect to any video programming that has been rated, and in
    consultation with the television industry, rules requiring
    distributors of such video programming to transmit such rating to
    permit parents to block the display of video programming that they
    have determined is inappropriate for their children." 47 U.S.C. §
    303(w). Section 551(e) stated that the provisions codified in
    section 303(w) would take effect one year after enactment of the
    1996 Act, "but only if the Commission determines . . . that
    distributors of video programming have not, by such date, (A)
    established voluntary rules for rating video programming that
    contains sexual, violent, or other indecent material about which
    parents should be informed before it is displayed to children, and
    such rules are acceptable to the Commission; and (B) agreed
    voluntarily to broadcast signals that contain ratings of such
    programming." The television industry submitted its TV Parental
    Guidelines to the Commission in 1997; the Commission found them
    acceptable, and found that the industry had agreed to broadcast
    signals containing the ratings. *Implementation of Section 551 of
    the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Video Programming Ratings*, 13
    FCC Rcd 8232 (1998) (*TV Parental Guidelines Order*).

[^3]: Section 303(x) of the Communications Act (added by Section 551 of
    the 1996 Act) directed the Commission to "\[r\]equire, in the case
    of an apparatus designed to receive television signals that are
    shipped in interstate commerce or manufactured in the United States
    and that have a picture screen or 13 inches or greater in size
    (measured diagonally), that such apparatus be equipped with a
    feature designed to enable viewers to block display of all programs
    with a common rating. . . ." The Commission adopted implementing
    rules in 1998. *Technical Requirements to Enable Blocking of Video
    Programming Based on Program Ratings*, 13 FCC Rcd 11248 (1998).

[^4]: Letter from Hon. Joe Barton, Chairman, U.S. House of
    Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, *et al*., to Hon.
    Michael K. Powell, Chairman, FCC (Mar. 5, 2004) ("House Commerce
    Committee Letter"). In addition, the U.S. Senate Committee on
    Commerce, Science, and Transportation adopted S.161, the "Children's
    Protection from Violent Programming Act," as part of S. 2056, which
    the Committee voted to favorably report on March 9, 2004. S.161
    would require the Commission to examine the effectiveness of the
    ratings system and the V-chip and to take certain actions in the
    event it finds the V-chip ineffective. Recently, the Senate passed
    S. 2400, "The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
    2005", which included, *inter alia*, S.161. S.2400 passed the Senate
    by a unanimous vote of 97-0. After passage, this bill was
    incorporated, as an amendment, into H.R. 4200. A conference
    committee has been constituted to resolve the differences between
    the House and Senate legislation.

[^5]: The Commission last reviewed the voluntary rating system and
    V-chip technology in 2000. News Release, *FCC V-Chip Task Force
    Updates V-Chip Encoding Survey* (2000).

[^6]: Executive Summary, 3 *National TV Violence Study* 27 (Joel
    Federman ed.) ("*Third National TV Violence Study Summary*"). This
    study involved media researchers at four universities and an
    oversight council, and was funded by the National Cable Television
    Association (now the National Cable & Telecommunications
    Association). The study was not limited to broadcast television, but
    also included subscription services (including some premium
    channels).

    The UCLA Center for Communication Policy also conducted a content
    analysis from 1994-1997. *See, e.g.,* UCLA Center for Communication
    Policy, *1997 TV Violence Report* ("*1997 TV Violence Report*"). The
    four largest broadcast networks funded this study. The UCLA studies
    are discussed more below.

[^7]: *Id*.

[^8]: *Id*. at 29.

[^9]: *Id*. at 30-31. Under that study, "high risk" portrayal of
    violence included a blend of contextual features, defined in the
    study, that the researchers believed would most encourage aggressive
    behavior in children under 7. Some of the contextual criteria used
    in the study included, *inter alia*, the kinds of weapons used by
    the actors and the graphic nature of the violence being portrayed.
    *Id.* at 12-13.

[^10]: *TV Bloodbath:* *Violence on Prime Time TV, A PTC State of the
    Television Industry Report* at 4-5,
    http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/stateindustryviolance/main.asp
    ("PTC Report") (last visited June 29, 2004).

[^11]: *See* *1997 TV Violence Report* at 7 (The many different media
    and violence studies point to "a statistically significant
    connection between watching violence on television and behaving
    aggressively."). *See also*, Haejung Paik & George Comstock, *Effect
    of Television Violence on Antisocial Behavior: A Meta-Analysis*,
    Communication Research 21:4, 516-46 (1994).

[^12]: *Third National TV Violence Study Summary*, *supra* note Error:
    Reference source not found, at 5, 7.

[^13]: Federal Trade Commission, *Marketing Violent Entertainment to
    Children* (2000*),* Appendix A (footnotes omitted.)

[^14]: *Youth Violence: Report of the Surgeon General* (2001), Appendix
    4-B.

[^15]: *See* L. Rowell Huesmann, et. al., *Longitudinal Relations
    Between Children's Exposure to TV Violence and Their Aggressive and
    Violent Behavior in Young Adulthood: 1977-1992*, Developmental
    Psychology, Vol. 39, No. 2, 201-221 (2003).

[^16]: *See* Yo Wang, et. al., *Effects of Violent Media on Adolescents
    With Disruptive Behavior Disorder As Compared to Control Subjects:
    MRI Activation Patterns in Frontal Lobe*, paper presented a the
    88^th^ Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the Radiological
    Society of North America, December 2002; *see also*, Vincent P.
    Mathews, et. al., *Brain Activation and Violent Video Games*. This
    study was also presented at the 2002 Radiological Society of North
    America annual meeting. *See also*, David Surface, *Imaging Video
    Violence*, Radiology Today, March 31, 2003 (reporting on the same).

[^17]: Testimony of Dr. John Murray before the Science, Technology and
    Space Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation
    Committee. (April 10, 2003). A June 2000, joint public statement by
    representatives of six public health organizations, including the
    American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological
    Association, and the American Medical Association concluded that
    "Well over 1000 studies -- including reports from the Surgeon
    General's office, the National Institute of Mental Health, and
    numerous studies conducted by leading figures within our medical and
    public health organizations -- our own members -- point
    overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and
    aggressive behavior in some children."

[^18]: We note widely different statements concerning not just the
    nature and quality, but even the amount, of scholarship in this
    field. *Compare, e.g.,* American Academy of Pediatrics, *Media
    Violence*, 108 Pediatrics 1222, 1223 (Nov. 2001) ("\[m\]ore than
    3500 research studies have examined the association between media
    violence and violent behavior; all but 18 have shown a positive
    relationship") *with* Edward Donnerstein, *Mass Media Violence:
    Thoughts on the Debate*, 22 Hofstra L. Rev. 827, 828 (1994) ("There
    are not three thousand studies on television violence. There are
    perhaps three thousand studies on television. But there probably are
    approximately two hundred or two hundred and fifty studies directly
    related to violence in the media.").

[^19]: *1997 TV Violence Report*, *supra* note Error: Reference source
    not found, § II.D.1.

[^20]: *See, e.g., id.* § I.B (discussing George Gerbner's work).

[^21]: *Third National TV Violence Study Summary*, *supra* note Error:
    Reference source not found, at 18.

[^22]: *1997 TV Violence Report*, *supra* note Error: Reference source
    not found, § II.D.1.

[^23]: *Id*.

[^24]: *Id.*

[^25]: *Id*.

[^26]: *Third National TV Violence Study Summary*, *supra* note Error:
    Reference source not found, at 8.

[^27]: *1997 TV Violence Report*, *supra* note Error: Reference source
    not found, § II.D.1.

[^28]: *Third National TV Violence Study Summary*, *supra* note Error:
    Reference source not found, at 5. *See also id*. 7-10.

[^29]: *Id*. at 10.

[^30]: *1997 TV Violence Report*, *supra* note Error: Reference source
    not found, at § II.D.1.

[^31]: *Third National TV Violence Study Summary*, *supra* note Error:
    Reference source not found, at 26.

[^32]: The *1997 TV Violence Report* states that "\[t\]he ultimate
    decision as to whether the program raises concerns depends upon
    whether the violence is deemed contextually appropriate," which, in
    turn, was determined by the application of a host of criteria,
    broken down into approximately fifteen different categories. *1997
    TV Violence Report*, *supra* note Error: Reference source not found,
    § II.D.1 (listing and explaining criteria in general) and Appendix B
    (setting forth "Scene Evaluation Form" programming reviewers used to
    evaluate portrayals of violence).

[^33]: *Third National TV Violence Summary*, *supra* note Error:
    Reference source not found, at 11, 30. *See also* American Academy
    of Pediatrics, *Media Violence*, 108 Pediatrics 1222, 1222-23
    (2001).

[^34]: House Commerce Committee Letter, *supra* note Error: Reference
    source not found.

[^35]: *See supra* note Error: Reference source not found; 47 C.F.R. §
    15.120(b).

[^36]: Dale Kunkel, et. al.., *Rating The TV Ratings: One Year Out, An
    Assessment of the Television Industry's Use of V-Chip Ratings*, (A
    Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation Report) (September 1998).

[^37]: *See id.* at 2.

[^38]: Kaiser Family Foundation, *Parents & the V-Chip 2001: A Kaiser
    Family Foundation Survey* (2001) 1-2.

[^39]: *Id*. at 1. The most popular reasons parents gave for not using
    their V-chip were that adults were nearby when their children watch
    television (51%), and that parents trust their children to make
    their own viewing decisions (25%). *Id*. at 3.

[^40]: Joel Federman, Ph.D., *Rating Sex and Violence in the Media:
    Media Ratings and Proposals for Reform*, (A Henry J. Kaiser Family
    Foundation Report) (November 2002) 10.

[^41]: House Commerce Committee Letter, *supra* note Error: Reference
    source not found, ¶ 5.

[^42]: *See* note 4, *supra*.

[^43]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999. Title 18 of the U.S. Code criminalizes
    "obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio
    communication." 18 U.S.C. § 1464. As a result of several judicial
    and legislative decisions, the Commission has adopted its
    prohibition on obscenity, and its safe harbor for indecency. *See
    Industry Guidance On the Commission's Case Law Interpreting 18
    U.S.C. § 1464 and Enforcement Policies Regarding Broadcast
    Indecency*, 16 FCC Rcd 7999, 7999-8001 (2001).

[^44]: 18 U.S.C. § 1468(a) ("Whoever knowingly utters any obscene
    language or distributes any obscene matter by means of cable
    television or subscription services on television, shall be punished
    by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or by a fine in accordance
    with this title, or both."). *See also* 47 U.S.C. § 559 ("Whoever
    transmits over any cable system any matter which is obscene or
    otherwise unprotected by the Constitution of the United States shall
    be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more
    than 2 years, or both.")

[^45]: By its terms, the criminal code restriction on indecency applies
    only to "means of radio communication," and therefore not cable
    communications. 47 U.S.C. § 1464. Likewise, our rules regarding
    Section 1464 regulate only the "licensee of a radio or television
    broadcast station." 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999.

[^46]: S. 2056, *supra* note Error: Reference source not found, §
    204(a).

[^47]: *Id*. § 203(b).

[^48]: *Id*. § 202(2).

[^49]: House Commerce Committee Letter, *supra* note Error: Reference
    source not found, ¶ 6.

[^50]: *See FCC v. National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting*, 436
    U.S. 775 (1978) (upholding cross-ownership rules as an exercise of
    Commission's authority under Section 303(r) of the Communications
    Act).

[^51]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(a).

[^52]: *Id*. § 303(r).

[^53]: *Id*. § 326.

[^54]: 309 F.3d 796 (D.C. Cir. 2003). In this case, the court held that
    the Commission did not have authority under Sections 1, 4(i), and
    303(r) of the Act to adopt "video description" rules.

[^55]: 18 U.S.C. § 1464.

[^56]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999.

[^57]: *FCC v. Pacifica Foundation*, 438 U.S. 726, 738 (1978) ("§ 326
    does not limit the Commission's authority to impose sanctions on
    licensees who engage in obscene, indecent, or profane
    broadcasting").

[^58]: *Id.* at 749.

[^59]: *Id*. at 741.

[^60]: *See e.g.*, Kevin W. Saunders, *Regulating the Access of Children
    to Televised Violence*, 2002 L. Rev. Mich. St. U. Det. C.L. 813, 817
    (2002).

[^61]: *American Amusement Machine Ass'n v. Kendrick*, 244 F.3d 572
    (7^th^ Cir. 2001).

[^62]: 47 U.S.C. § 303(w) (enacted as section 551(b) of the 1996 Act)
    (emphasis added).

[^63]: Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, § 551(e)(1)(A) (1996).

[^64]: 47 U.S.C. § 544(f)(1).

[^65]: *Id*. § 559.

[^66]: *Id*. § 544(d)(2).

[^67]: *Id*. § 560.

[^68]: *See* *United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc*., 529
    U.S. 803 (2000) (striking down the more restrictive Section 641 of
    the Act).

[^69]: *See, e.g., NAACP v. Button*, 371 U.S. 415, 433 ("Because First
    Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive, government may
    regulate in the area only with narrow specificity.").

[^70]: The Supreme Court has found that "\[i\]t is evident beyond the
    need for elaboration that a State's interest in safeguarding the
    physical and psychological well-being of a minor is compelling."
    *New York v. Ferber*, 458 U.S. 747, 756-57 (1982). Lower courts have
    questioned, however, whether regulating the access of minors to
    violent media, in the contexts of trading cards and video games, for
    example, in fact promotes the physical and psychological well-being
    of minors. *See, e.g., Interactive Digital Software Ass'n v. St.
    Louis County*, 329 F.3d 954 958-59 (8^th^ Cir. 2003); *Eclipse
    Enterprises, Inc. v. Gulotta*, 134 F.3d 63, 67-68 (2^nd^ Cir. 1997).

[^71]: For broadcast precedent, s*ee* *FCC v. League of Women Voters*,
    468 U.S. 364, 380 (1980) (government regulation of broadcast content
    will only be upheld if "the restriction is narrowly tailored to
    further a substantial governmental interest, such as ensuring
    adequate and balanced coverage of public issues."); *See also*,
    *Action for Children's Television v. FCC,* 58 F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir.
    1995) (In reviewing the constitutionality of the broadcast indecency
    provisions, the D.C. Circuit held that a restriction on speech will
    survive First Amendment scrutiny if the \"Government\'s ends are
    compelling \[and its\] means \[are\] carefully tailored to achieve
    those ends."). For cable precedent, *see* *United States v. Playboy
    Entertainment Group, Inc*., 529 U.S. 803 (2000) (holding that
    mandatory scrambling of programming required by Section 641 of the
    Act was not the most narrowly tailored means to protect children
    from exposure to sexually explicit material.)

[^72]: *See generally*, *Policies and Rules Concerning Children's
    Television Programming and Revision of Programming Policies for
    Television Broadcast Stations*, 11 FCC Rcd 10660, 10664 (1996).

[^73]: *See* J.C. Wright and A. Huston, *Effects of Educational
    Television Viewing of Lower Income Preschoolers on Academic Skills,
    School Readiness and School Adjustment One to Three Years Later.*
    University of Kansas (1995) (finding that the viewing of educational
    programs plays a \"positive causal role in \[a child's\] development
    of readiness for school\" and appears to relate to later success
    with reading and school adjustment.). *See also*, Coates, Pusser &
    Goodman. *The Influence of Sesame Street and Mr. Roger's
    Neighborhood on Children\'s Social Behavior in Preschool.* Child
    Development 47, 138-144 (1976) (finding that both programs have
    positive effects on children's social behavior); A. Huston & J.C.
    Wright, \"*Contributions of Television Toward Meeting the
    Informational and Educational Needs of Children.*" Annals of the
    American Academy of Political and Social Science, 557, 9-23 (1998).