**[MEDIA VIOLENCE -- THE GOVERNMENT RESPONSE]{.underline}**

**Remarks of FCC Commissioner Gloria Tristani**

**Emory University**

**March 2, 2000**

Next month will mark the one-year anniversary of the killings at
Columbine. I often ask myself why that particular tragedy continues to
have such a hold on the American psyche. After all, as many children are
killed *every day* by gun violence in this country as were killed at
Columbine. The answer, I think, is twofold. First, Columbine, a white,
suburban school, shattered any sense of security among white, suburban
America that "it can't happen here." Second, the tragedy made us ask
what's happening to our children. That led to a lot of finger-pointing.
The *parents* were to blame. The easy availability of *guns* was to
blame. And, of course, the *media* was to blame for flooding our
children with violent images and desensitizing them to the consequences
of violence. We're going through a similar finger-pointing in the wake
of the tragic school shooting in Michigan on Tuesday.

My role today is to talk about the government response to media
violence, and how we respond to parents who are pleading for some way to
protect their children from harmful influences in the media. Of course,
when it comes to government efforts to address media violence, the First
Amendment is always an important consideration, as I hope will become
clear. I'd like to talk first about the V-Chip, and then discuss a few
other efforts that are underway on Capitol Hill and in the
Administration.

[V-CHIP]{.underline}

The videotape we just saw was a good introduction to the V-Chip and how
it works with the TV ratings system. Let me give a little historical
context so you can see how the V-Chip came to be. The V-Chip statute was
enacted as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. In its findings,
Congress recognized that children watch a lot of TV and that a lot of
what children watch is violent. Congress found that there is a
"compelling governmental interest" (language designed to help defeat any
First Amendment legal challenge) in giving parents a way to shield their
children from programming that they consider objectionable.

In the V-Chip statute, Congress directed the FCC to *require* that
virtually all new television sets contain a V-Chip that can be
programmed to block certain shows. This part of the statute is about
hardware and not content, so Congress clearly felt that it had more
leeway in mandating that TV sets include the physical V-Chip device.
But, standing alone, the V-Chip can't block anything. It can only block
shows if they come encoded on the Vertical Blanking Interval with a
*rating* that allows the V-Chip to distinguish the objectionable shows
from the unobjectionable ones. So Congress recognized that a *ratings
system* was needed that would tell the V-Chip what the *content* was of
a particular show.

Given the First Amendment, Congress handled the ratings system
differently than it handled the V-Chip. Instead of *mandating* a ratings
system, Congress gave the TV industry a year to come up with its own
ratings system that would work with the V-Chip. If the industry failed
to do so, the FCC was directed to convene an advisory group to come up
with its *own* ratings system. Interestingly, though, Congress did not
require the TV industry to actually *use* the FCC's ratings system -- it
only required that *if* a programmer chose to rate its programming, that
it be required to transmit those ratings to parents.

Of course, the industry did develop its own voluntary ratings system, so
the FCC never had to develop its own system.

The voluntary industry system has evolved over time. When it was first
proposed, it looked much like the movie ratings system, based solely on
age-based categories, like TV-PG. Family and child advocacy groups
objected to that approach, arguing that parents not only want to know
that a program may not be suitable for children under a certain age
because it *may* contain violence, sex or coarse language, but that
parents want to know which of those the show *actually does* contain. In
other words, they argued that parents want to know the *content* of the
program that led to the rating.

After a series of discussions, the industry agreed to revise its ratings
system. To their existing ratings system, the industry added content
indicators \-- \"S\" for sex, \"V\" for violence, \"L\" for language and
\"D\" for suggestive dialogue. So now, for example, a show could be
rated TV-PG-V, which means that it was rated PG because of its violent
content. The industry also added a content label to programming designed
especially for children \-- \"FV\" for fantasy violence.

Even though the ratings system is a voluntary industry effort, some
still insist that the ratings and the V-chip somehow amount to
government censorship. I disagree. The V-chip does not empower the
*government* to censor speech; it empowers *parents* to decide for
themselves what programs their children should see. The V-chip reflects
the modern reality that parents cannot always monitor what their
children watch on TV. Nowadays there aren\'t just three channels to
monitor, there are dozens. No parent can possibly know what\'s on all of
them all of the time. And in this age of single parent families and
families in which both parents must work to make ends meet, it just
isn\'t possible for parents to always be at home to monitor their
children\'s television viewing. If the V-chip is unconstitutional, so is
a remote-control device -- and so, too, are parents who control what
their children watch by turning off the television or restricting what
they watch. I\'m a strong believer in free speech. But I\'m also a
strong believer in the health and well-being of our children. I do not
believe that these goals are mutually exclusive.

That's not to say that government doesn't have a proper role in ensuring
the V-Chip's success. As head of the FCC's V-Chip Task Force, I had
three goals for the past year. Number one, make sure that the V-Chips
are in the sets according to schedule. That goal has been accomplished
-- as of last January 1, all new sets with screens 13" or greater have a
V-Chip. Number two, make sure that the ratings information is actually
being encoded and transmitted so that the V-Chip has something to read.
This has proven a little more difficult. Last year, we were finding that
while many programmers had focused on rating their shows -- and even
included the little icon in the corner of the screen -- they hadn't
focused on encoding the information that was necessary for the V-Chip to
work. A lot of progress has been made over the past year. As of today,
almost all the major broadcast and cable networks are encoding, as are
all major syndicators. I have copies of our latest survey, for those who
are interested, which shows the networks that are currently encoding and
those that have not yet begun.

And three, the Task Force is working to educate parents about how the
V-Chip can be used to guide their children's TV viewing. We've been
working with retailers and manufacturers to provide point-of-sale
information and instruction on using the V-Chip. I'm pleased to report
that Circuit City, in conjunction with the Kaiser Family Foundation and
the Odyssey network, is printing 700,000 V-Chip informational brochures
for distribution in Circuit City stores. I'm also pleased that several
industry groups, including the top four broadcast networks (ABC, CBS,
Fox and NBC) have all produced public service announcements to inform
parents about the V-Chip.

But this is a long process, and we face some tough hurdles in getting
the word out to parents. One hurdle is follow-through. For instance,
while the top four networks all have *produced* PSAs, the real question
is how often the PSAs have *run*. The latest tracking data I've seen
from the Kaiser Family Foundation showed that in February, ABC did not
run its PSA at all. NBC ran its PSA only once in February, at the
network level, and not at all at the affiliate level. In January, NBC
did not run its PSA at all at either level. In contrast, CBS ran its PSA
30 times in February at the network level.

Here's another hurdle we face -- now that the V-Chip is standard-issue
in all new sets, I'm not sure that manufacturers and retailers have much
commercial incentive to use the V-Chip as a selling point. Yet another
difficult hurdle in getting the word out to parents is newspaper TV
listings. Many papers aren't carrying the ratings information in their
listings, so parents don't see them and don't become familiar with them.
I've heard papers say they don't run the ratings because no one is
asking for them. Which, of course, begs the question, because how can
parents ask for something when they don't know about it? So it's going
to be a slow, gradual process. We need to be patient and not listen to
the naysayers who are ready to declare defeat at the outset.

[Violence Safe-Harbor Bill]{.underline}

Beyond the V-Chip, there are a couple of other ideas percolating on
Capitol Hill that deal with media violence. One is a violence "safe
harbor" bill, of which Senator Fritz Hollings is the chief sponsor. The
bill basically would prohibit the airing of any violent programming when
children are reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of the
audience. It would be similar to the FCC rules on indecency, which says
if you show indecent material after 10 p.m., you're in a "safe harbor."
In other countries, the BBC in Britain and the Canadian Broadcast
Standards Council have made 9 p.m. the "watershed" point after which
violence unsuitable for children can be aired. At the time the violence
"safe harbor" bill was introduced, Senator Hollings argued that the
V-Chip was "totally ineffective" and would continue to be "inadequate
for years to come." The bill did not advance very far last session,
amidst arguments that the V-Chip and TV ratings system should be given a
chance to work.

[Voluntary Code of Conduct]{.underline}

Another effort I wanted to note is the movement to get the industry to
adopt a voluntary code of conduct. Several Senators, including John
McCain, Joseph Lieberman, Sam Brownback, Kay Bailey Hutchison and Kent
Conrad have signed onto an appeal to Hollywood to voluntarily commit to
things like: an overall reduction in the level of entertainment
violence; a revival of the "family hour" and a ban on the targeting of
adult-oriented entertainment to young people.

[FTC/DOJ]{.underline}

Speaking of marketing, that brings me to the final government effort I
wanted to mention -- a study being conducted by the Federal Trade
Commission and the Department of Justice on the marketing of violence to
young people in movies, video games and recordings. The study is not
looking at content, but at industry self-regulation and marketing
practices to answer a question put by President Clinton: are products
that are intended for adults being advertised or promoted to audiences
composed primarily of young people? In other words, is the entertainment
industry complying with its own standards regarding who should have
access to its products, or can more be done? The study got underway last
June, and I understand that it may be released late this summer.

The marketing of violence to children concerns me greatly. One
particular concern I have is TV wrestling, which is wildly popular with
teens and younger children. And when you look at the marketing of
wrestling products, it's not hard to see why. Toy companies, for
instance, now make "action figures" (which is what they call "dolls" for
boys) based on all the TV wrestling stars. The Steve "Stone Cold" Austin
action figure comes with his own metal folding chair for hitting
opponents over the head. The Rock comes with a trash can and lid to use
as weapons. And the Undertaker comes with his own shovel to swing at
opponents and send them "to an early grave." These dolls are marketed to
children 4 years of age and up.

One has to wonder what these toy companies are thinking. It's not like
the metal chair permits the child to use his or her imagination. Its
sole purpose is to permit a child to imitate TV wrestlers by hitting
another action figure over the head. As one educator put it, "If kids
are saturated with media violence and they're given toys that are linked
to that violence, then that's going to dictate their play."

This danger was tragically demonstrated by an event in Dallas, Texas
last May. A 7-year-old boy killed his 3-year-old brother by copying a
wrestling move he saw on TV. According to the police, the older boy
slammed his little brother to the floor with a running straight-armed
punch to the neck, a move called a "clothesline" in the wrestling world.
Asked to show what he had done, the boy ran at a life-size doll from
about ten feet away. As he got close to the doll, he stuck out his arm
at shoulder-height and struck the doll in the neck, knocking it
backwards. The 3-year-old boy died from brain swelling caused by his
head striking the carpeted concrete floor. The 7-year-old was
devastated, crying to the police that he didn't mean to hurt his
brother.

I've heard from many parents -- some with children as young as 3 --
worried about the levels of sex and violence on TV wrestling. I can't
blame them. I look at the huge ratings for wrestling. I look at the fact
that it often airs early in prime time, when lots of children are
watching. I look at the extreme levels of violence that rarely show any
real consequences (the wrestlers are always back the next week, ready
for more punishment). And then I look at the marketing to young
children. It's a troubling combination.

In summary, let me say that all of these efforts -- from the V-Chip to
the "safe harbor" approach to the voluntary code of conduct to the
marketing study -- are attempts to balance our concern about the
negative effects of media violence on our children, and our respect for
the First Amendment.

I'd like to leave you with something from this morning's *New York
Times* and *Washington Post* regarding the six year-old boy who shot and
killed six year-old Kayla Rolland. The prosecutor was discussing how the
little boy was incapable of forming an intent to shoot his classmate:
"Especially after the detectives say that he has not appreciated what
has happened, that he takes this as, well, this is something that
happens like on television."