*Pages 1--9 from  Microsoft Word - 35703*
 Written  Statement  of 
 Kevin  J.  Martin 
 Commissioner,  Federal  Communications  Commission 

 Before  the  Committee  on  Commerce,  Science  and  Transportation 
 United  States  Senate 

 Protecting  Children  from  Violent  and  Indecent  Programming 
 February  11,  2004 
1
 Summary  of  Written  Statement  Kevin  J.  Martin 
 Television  today  contains  some  of  the  coarsest  and  most  violent  programming  ever  aired  and  more  of  it.  Indeed,  the  networks  appear  to  be  designing  programs  to 
 push  the  envelope  and  the  bounds  of  decency.  At  the  FCC,  we  used  to  receive  indecency  complaints  by  the  hundreds;  now  they  come  in  by  the  hundreds  of  thousands. 
 Consumers,  particularly  parents,  are  increasingly  frustrated  and,  at  times,  outraged. 
 Something  needs  to  be  done.  We  need  to  provide  parents  with  better  tools  to  help  them  navigate  the  entertainment  waters.  The  FCC  needs  to  be  more  responsive.  We 

 need  to  provide  parents  with  more  tools  to  watch  television  as  a  family  and  to  protect  their  children  from  violent  and  indecent  programming.  I  propose  four  steps: 

 1.  Aggressively  enforce  the  law.  For  over  a  year,  I  have  been  calling  on  the  Commission  to  aggressively  enforce  our  statutory  mandate  against  obscene,  indecent  and 
 profane  language.  Our  fines  have  been  inadequate.  We  need  to  make  the  decision  to  air  indecent  or  profane  language  a  bad  business  decision.  The  Commission  should  levy 
 higher  fines  by  fining  violators  per  utterance,  not  per  program.  I  also  strongly  support  the  pending  legislation  to  increase  fines.  We  also  should  enforce  the  statutory  prohibition 
 against  profanity,  and  respond  to  the  hundreds  of  thousands  of  pending  complaints.  It  doesnt  matter  how  tough  our  fining  authority  is  if  we  dont  actually  enforce  the  rules. 

 2.  Affirm  local  broadcasters  ability  to  reject  inappropriate  programming.  We  need  to  grant  the  network  affiliates  request  to  clarify  that  our  rules  protect  a  local 
 broadcasters  ability  to  refuse  to  air  programming  that  is  unsuitable  for  its  local  community.  This  ability  is  critical  to  those  local  broadcasters  that  want  to  keep  coarser 
 network  programming  off  the  air  in  their  communities.  Network  affiliates  provide  a  natural  check  on  the  control  of  network  programming  in  the  marketplace,  rather  than 
 through  direct  government  oversight  of  network  content. 
 3.  Urge  broadcasters  to  reinstate  the  family  hour.  For  over  a  year,  I  have  been  urging  broadcasters  to  devote  the  first  hour  of  prime  time  to  family-  friendly  programs 

 that  parents  and  children  could  enjoy  together.  The  Commission  also  should  put  out  for  comment  Paxson  Communicationss  proposed  voluntary  Public  Interest  Code  of 
 Conduct,  which  includes  the  concept  of  a  Family  Hour. 
 4.  Address  cable  and  satellite  programming.  With  more  than  85%  of  homes  receiving  their  television  programming  from  cable  and  satellite  providers,  we  need  a 

 comprehensive  solution.  Over  a  year  ago,  I  urged  cable  and  satellite  operators  to  help  us  address  this  issue.  Thus  far,  there  has  been  no  response.  Something  needs  to  be  done. 
 Cable  and  satellite  operators  could  offer  an  exclusively  family-  friendly  programming  package.  Alternatively,  cable  and  DBS  operators  could  offer  programming  in  a  more  a  la 
 carte  manner;  they  could  permit  parents  to  request  not  to  receive  certain  programming  and  reduce  the  package  price  accordingly.  I  am  sympathetic  to  the  many  people  calling 
 for  the  same  rules  to  apply  to  everyone  for  a  level  playing  field.  If  cable  and  satellite  operators  continue  to  refuse  to  offer  parents  more  tools  such  as  family-  friendly 
 programming  packages,  basic  indecency  and  profanity  restrictions  may  be  a  viable  alternative  that  also  should  be  considered. 
2
 1 
 Written  Statement  of  Kevin  J.  Martin 
 Thank  you  for  this  invitation  to  be  here  with  you  this  morning.  I  look  forward  to 
 listening  to  your  comments  and  to  answering  any  questions  you  may  have. 

 Most  consumers  today  can  choose  among  hundreds  of  television  channels, 
 including  some  of  the  best  programming  ever  produced.  But  television  today  also 
 contains  some  of  the  coarsest  and  most  violent  programming  ever  aired  and, 
 unfortunately,  more  and  more  of  it.  Indeed,  the  networks  appear  to  be  increasing  the 
 amount  of  programs  designed  to  push  the  envelope  and  the  bounds  of  decency.  For 
 instance,  a  recent  study  found  that  the  use  of  profanity  during  the  Family  Hour 
 increased  95%  from  1998  to  2002.  1  Another  study  found  that  two-  thirds  of  television 
 shows  in  the  2001-  2002  season  had  sexual  content.  2  This  trend  becomes  even  more 
 disturbing  in  light  of  the  studies  that  have  documented  the  harm  that  such  programming, 
 particularly  violent  television,  can  have  on  young  people.  At  the  FCC,  we  used  to  receive 
 indecency  complaints  by  the  hundreds;  now  they  come  in  by  the  hundreds  of  thousands. 
 Clearly,  consumers    and  particularly  parents    are  increasingly  frustrated  and,  at  times, 
 outraged. 

 Parents  who  want  to  watch  television  together  with  their  children  too  often  feel 
 that,  despite  the  large  number  of  viewing  choices,  they  have  too  little  to  watch.  As  the 
 broadcast  networks  become  edgier  to  compete  with  cable,  prime  time  on  broadcast 
 television  has  become  less  family  friendly.  Cable  and  satellite  television  offer  some  great 

 1  See  Nell  Minow,  Standards  for  TV  language  rapidly  going  down  the  tube,  Chicago  Tribune,  Oct.  7, 
 2003  at  C2  (discussing  study  by  the  Parents  Television  Council)..  2  Kaiser  Family  Foundation,  Sex  On  Television  3:  Content  And  Context,  Biennial  Report  Of  The  Kaiser 

 Family  Foundation  at  14  (Feb.  2003). 
3
 2 
 family-  oriented  choices,  but  parents  cannot  subscribe  to  those  channels  alone.  Rather, 
 they  are  forced  to  buy  the  channels  they  do  not  want  their  families  to  view  in  order  to 
 obtain  the  family-  friendly  channels  they  desire  (e.  g.,  they  must  buy  the  Touch  the 
 Hooker  episode  of  Spike  TVs  Joe  Schmo  show  in  order  to  get  the  Discovery  Channel). 

 We  need  to  provide  parents  with  better  tools  to  help  them  navigate  the 
 entertainment  waters.  A  year  ago,  I  gave  a  speech  and  wrote  an  article  about  the  need  to 
 provide  parents  such  tools,  and  I  have  attached  that  article  for  your  consideration.  I  am 
 even  more  concerned  about  this  issue  today. 

 I  support  Chairman  Powell  and  his  recent  efforts  with  respect  to  the  Super  Bowl 
 half  time  show.  I  also  agree  with  Chairman  Powell  that  the  Enforcement  Bureau  is 
 wrong  when  it  finds  profanities  acceptable  merely  because  they  are  used  as  adjectives.  I 
 also  agree  with  him  that  our  nations  children,  parents  and  citizens  deserve  better. 

 We  at  the  FCC  can  be  more  responsive  to  these  complaints  and  frustrations.  We 
 need  to  provide  parents  with  more  tools  to  enable  them  to  watch  television  as  a  family 
 and  to  protect  their  children  from  violent  and  indecent  programming.  We  need  to  do 
 more.  I  believe  there  are  four  steps  we  should  take  now  to  begin  to  address  this  problem. 

 1.  We  Should  Aggressively  Enforce  the  Law.  Congress  has  charged  the 
 Commission  with  protecting  families  from  obscene,  indecent,  and  profane  material.  Our 
 rules  need  to  serve  as  a  significant  deterrent  to  media  companies  considering  the  airing  of 
 such  programming.  To  achieve  that  goal,  we  need  serious  fines  coupled  with  aggressive 
 enforcement. 
4
 3 
 I  strongly  support  the  pending  legislation  to  increase  fines  for  airing  inappropriate 
 material,  and  I  believe  such  authority  is  critical  to  making  the  decision  to  air  indecent  or 
 profane  language  a  bad  business  decision.  Indeed,  in  almost  every  indecency  case  that 
 has  come  before  us,  I  have  found  the  fine  inadequate  and  urged  the  Commission  to  do 
 more.  I  have  argued  that  there  is  action  we  can  take  now    within  our  existing  authority   
 to  get  tougher  on  broadcasters  who  violate  the  law.  Last  March,  I  began  urging  the 
 Commission  to  use  our  full  statutory  authority  to  fine  broadcasters  per  utterance,  rather 
 than  per  show.  Using  such  an  approach,  the  fines  I  proposed  were  several  times  higher 
 than  the  fines  the  majority  imposed.  For  instance,  in  a  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability  from 
 last  April  dealing  with  a  Detroit  radio  show,  the  fine  would  have  been  $247,500  instead 
 of  only  $27,500;  in  the  most  recent  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability  against  Clear  Channel, 
 the  fine  would  have  been  well  over  a  million  dollars. 

 In  addition,  the  FCC  should  use  its  statutory  authority  to  address  the  broadcast  of 
 profanity.  The  indecency  statute  we  enforce  prohibits  obscene,  indecent  and  profane 
 language,  but  the  Commission  appears  to  have  read  the  last  word  out  of  the  statute.  I 
 have  not  yet  found  even  a  single  instance  in  which  the  Commission  concluded  a 
 broadcast  was  profane.  Yet,  profanity  on  television  and  radio  appears  to  be  widespread. 

 Finally,  we  should  respond  to  the  thousands  of  complaints  that  are  pending  and 
 make  quick  responses  a  matter  of  course.  Last  year,  the  Commission  and  the 
 Enforcement  Bureau  combined  issued  only  three  notices  of  liability,  and  only  one 
 forfeiture  order.  Yet  we  received  tens  of  thousands  of  complaints.  It  doesnt  matter  how 
 tough  our  fining  authority  is  if  we  dont  actually  enforce  the  rules.  Consumers  should  not 
5
 4 
 have  to  wait  years  to  have  their  complaints  heard.  And  broadcasters  should  expect  that  if 
 they  violate  our  rules,  we  will  respond  swiftly. 

 2.  We  Should  Affirm  Local  Broadcasters  Ability  to  Reject  Inappropriate 
 Programming.  Several  years  ago,  local  broadcasters,  through  the  Network  Affiliated 
 Stations  Alliance,  complained  that  the  networks  were  restricting  their  ability  to  reject 
 inappropriate  programming.  They  asked  us  to  clarify  our  rules  and  reaffirm  this  right  and 
 responsibility.  Our  rules  should  protect  a  broadcasters  ability  to  refuse  to  air 
 programming  that  is  unsuitable  for  its  local  community.  This  ability  is  critical  to  those 
 local  broadcasters  that  want  to  keep  coarser  network  programming  off  the  air  in  their 
 communities.  Last  week,  for  example,  there  were  news  reports  of  ABC,  CBS,  and  NBC 
 affiliates  pressuring  their  networks  to  use  tape  delays  in  upcoming  Awards  shows  and  not 
 to  air  certain  programming  so  that  indecent  material  and  profanity  could  be  avoided.  In 
 this  respect,  the  affiliates  provide  a  natural  check  on  the  control  of  network  programming 
 in  the  marketplace,  rather  than  through  direct  government  oversight  of  network  content. 
 We  should  grant  the  broadcasters  request,  clarifying  immediately  that  local  broadcasters 
 have  this  opportunity    and  obligation    when  serving  their  local  communities. 

 3.  We  Should  Urge  Broadcasters  to  Reinstate  the  Family  Hour.  Over  a  year 
 ago,  I  called  on  broadcasters  to  reestablish  the  Family  Hour,  devoting  the  first  hour  of 
 prime  time  to  family-  friendly  programs  that  parents  and  children  could  enjoy  together. 
 Such  a  Family  Hour  used  to  be  standard  and  was  even  incorporated  into  the  National 
 Association  of  Broadcasters  Code  of  Conduct.  When  the  Code  was  abandoned  due  to 
 unrelated  antitrust  concerns,  the  Family  Hour  went  with  it.  Broadcasters  should  bring 
6
 5 
 back  the  Family  Hour.  They  should  give  families  at  least  one  hour,  five  days  a  week, 
 when  they  can  turn  to  broadcast  television  with  comfort,  confidence,  and  enthusiasm. 

 While  I  will  continue  to  call  for  this  industry  action,  the  Commission  can  take 
 action  on  its  own.  A  year  ago,  Paxson  Communications  urged  the  Commission  to  issue  a 
 notice  on  a  voluntary  Public  Interest  Code  of  Conduct,  which  included  the  concept  of  a 
 Family  Hour.  Broadcasters  could  voluntarily  opt  into  this  Code  and  the  accompanying 
 public  commitments.  The  Code  also  could  include  a  commitment  to  provide  a  certain 
 amount  of  family  programming  and  to  limit  coarse  programming  to  certain  hours.  We 
 should  put  this  request  out  for  comment  and  publicly  endorse  the  importance  of  the 
 Family  Hour.  Such  a  voluntary  code  could  serve  as  an  easy  indicator  for  parents 
 searching  for  a  way  to  determine  which  channels  are  appropriate  for  family  viewing. 

 4.  We  Should  Address  Cable  and  Satellite  Programming.  I  believe  the 
 previous  steps  could  help  address  the  amount  of  indecent  and  otherwise  coarse 
 programming  on  broadcast  television,  but  broadcast  cannot  be  the  end  of  the  story. 
 Today,  children  do  not  distinguish  between  channels  4  and  40,  and  cable  and  broadcast 
 programming  compete  aggressively  for  the  same  viewers  and  advertisements.  In  a  world 
 in  which  more  than  85%  of  homes  receive  their  television  programming  from  cable  and 
 satellite  providers,  we  need  a  comprehensive  solution. 

 Over  a  year  ago,  I  urged  cable  and  satellite  operators  to  take  action.  Thus  far, 
 there  has  been  no  response.  I  continue  to  believe  something  needs  to  be  done  to  address 
 this  issue. 
7
 6 
 As  I  suggested,  cable  and  satellite  operators  could  offer  an  exclusively  family-friendly 
 programming  package  as  an  alternative  to  the  expanded  basic  tier  on  cable  or 
 the  initial  tier  on  DBS.  This  alternative  would  enable  parents  to  enjoy  the  increased 
 options  and  high-  quality  programming  available  through  cable  and  satellite  without 
 having  to  purchase  programming  unsuitable  for  children.  Parents  could  get  Nickelodeon 
 and  Discovery  without  having  to  buy  MTV  and  other  adult-  oriented  fare.  A  choice  of  a 
 family  friendly  package  would  provide  valuable  tools  to  parents  wanting  to  watch 
 television  with  their  families,  and  would  help  them  protect  their  children  from  violent  and 
 indecent  programming.  Other  subscribers,  meanwhile,  could  continue  to  have  the  same 
 options  they  have  today. 

 Alternatively,  cable  and  DBS  operators  could  offer  programming  in  a  more  a  la 
 carte  manner.  For  example,  they  could  permit  parents  to  request  not  to  receive  certain 
 channels  and  reduce  the  package  price  accordingly.  Under  this  second  option  as  well, 
 parents  would  be  able  to  receive  (and  pay  for)  only  that  programming  that  they  are 
 comfortable  bringing  into  their  homes. 

 Finally,  I  am  sympathetic  to  the  many  people  asking  why  our  indecency 
 regulations  apply  only  to  broadcast.  Indeed,  today  programming  that  broadcast  networks 
 reject  because  of  concerns  about  content  may  end  up  on  competing  basic  cable  networks, 
 and  radio  personalities  that  we  have  fined  for  indecency  violations  just  move  to  satellite 
 radio.  Increasingly,  I  hear  a  call  for  the  same  rules  to  apply  to  everyone  for  a  level 
 playing  field.  If  cable  and  satellite  operators  continue  to  refuse  to  offer  parents  more 
 tools  such  as  family-  friendly  programming  packages,  basic  indecency  and  profanity 
 restrictions  may  be  a  viable  alternative  that  also  should  be  considered. 
8
 7 
 *  *  * 
 In  conclusion,  I  share  your  concern  about  the  increase  in  coarse  programming  on 
 television  and  radio  today.  Something  needs  to  be  done.  I  hope  that  the  proposals  for 
 action  that  I  have  made  today  can  help.  I  also  welcome  your  guidance. 

 Thank  you,  and  I  look  forward  to  answering  any  questions  you  may  have. 
9