STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN
APPROVING IN PART & CONCURRING IN PART
Re: Violent Television Programming and Its Impact on Children, Report, MB Docket 
No. 04-261
America is hooked on violence.  That manifests itself in news coverage with the 
credo, if it bleeds, it leads. To an alarming extent, the same credo applies to much
entertainment programming and even some commercials.  The top ten highest rated 
broadcast programs consistently have programs with violent content leading the pack.1  
In the primetime ratings game, violence sells and our children are innocent bystanders.  
This very unfortunate state of affairs is the shared responsibility of networks, 
broadcasters, cable operators and programmers, advertisers, and ultimately viewers.
There is considerable evidence in the social science literature that violence in the 
media can cause children to act more violently or aggressively.  Particularly in light of 
the spasm of unconscionable violence at Virginia Tech, but just as importantly in light of 
the excessive violent crime that daily afflicts our nation, there is a basis for appropriate 
federal action to curb violence in the media.
This is an issue of deep personal significance to me as a parent of small children.  
I am particularly fortunate that my career choice has sensitized me to the relentless 
assault of violent content on television that confronts me and my children.  A turning 
point for me came at my first confirmation hearing for this position, when Senator Sam 
Brownback showed me a study about how the brain scans changed for people while they 
were watching violent programming.  Ever since, I have viewed, particularly over my 
childrens shoulders in those instances when I let them watch, the cavalcade of violence 
that afflicts childrens and adult programming alike.
It is clear that parents are the first, last and best line of defense against all forms 
of objectionable content.  Speaking as a parent, the problem is that in todays media 
landscape, families have to navigate through a sea of violence.  Making a bad situation 
worse, most parents dont know about the navigational tools available to them, so they 
are like 17th Century sailors subject to the whims of an angry sea when they could be 
using more modern techniques.  The following chart, which simply reflects the casual 
observations of me and my staff, is meant to illustrate the volume of violent shows on 
television during the current primetime line-up.   
  
1 See Nielsen Media Research ratings for week of March 19 through 25, 2007, which reveal that six of the 
top ten broadcast shows among all households and five of the top show among adults 18-49 contained 
graphic violent content.
2
Primetime Broadcast Shows with Violent Content
Aired 8-10pm
The problem with this Report we are presenting to Congress is that it is not clear 
from reading it which if any primetime shows are being recommended for regulation.  
Are we saying Law and Order should be banned during hours when children are 
watching?  It is anyones guess after reading this Report.  The Report is not a model of 
clarity.
Like most parents with young children, I live in perpetual fear of the shows and
commercials to which my son or daughter will be exposed to on any given evening. 
Whether it is a primetime show with a violent scene or merely a commercial with a 
violent preview, inappropriate material pops up much too often for my comfort.  I am 
sure my children are not the only ones who have difficulty sleeping after they are 
inadvertently exposed to violence on television.  
I fully understand that it is my choice to turn the television on or off, and 
similarly, it is the viewing publics responsibility to refrain from watching shows that 
they consider objectionable or harmful to their families and children.  Sometimes, 
though, it is a trailer for a news show or a promotion for a horror movie that comes on 
during what was considered safe family programming, like the Super Bowl.  As a parent 
and policymaker, I am profoundly concerned by the general lack of accountability, 
compassion, and thoughtfulness of some in the media entertainment industry. Yet this 
Report offers no discussion or suggestions as to what to do about violence in advertising 
DAY PROGRAM (NETWORK)
Monday 24 (FOX)
International Fighting League  Battleground (MY Network)
Prison Break (FOX)
Tuesday American Heiress (MY Network)
Law & Order: Criminal Intent (NBC)
NCIS (CBS)
The Unit  (CBS)
Wednesday Bones (FOX)
Criminal Minds (CBS)
Crossing Jordan (NBC)
Saints and Sinners (MY Network)
Thursday CSI (CBS)
Greys Anatomy (ABC)
Friday Close to Home (CBS)
Ghost Whisperer (CBS)
Greys Anatomy (ABC)
Raines (NBC)
Smallville CW)
Supernatural (CW)
Saturday Cops (FOX)
Americas
Law & Order (NBC)
Most Wanted (FOX)
WWE Smackdown (CW)
Sunday Cold Case (CBS)
Desperate Housewives (ABC)
3
and promotional spots during shows when children are watching, which is one of the 
biggest complaints we hear from parents in the real world.  At a minimum, this is an issue 
worth confronting through a public-private partnership with the major media outlets.
Studies have shown, and my personal observations support, that by age 18, an 
American child will have seen upwards of 15,000 simulated murders and about 200,000 
acts of violence. Clearly, there is something wrong with this picture.  Government has an 
important role to support parents who are struggling to protect the well-being of their 
children.  
Borne out of this concern and responsibility, over three years ago, the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce of the U.S. House of Representatives sent a letter requesting 
that the Commission study media violence and its impact upon children.  The Committee 
asked the Commission to formulate and propose a definition of excessively violent 
programming that would be able to withstand constitutional scrutiny. Specifically, the 
Committee wanted the Commission to analyze whether there are any constitutional 
limitations in defining excessively violent programming that is harmful to children, or 
in constraining or prohibiting broadcast of such material during hours when children are 
likely to be a significant part of the broadcast viewing audience.  The Commission 
further asked for measures that [could] facilitate a consumers use of the television 
rating system.
This Report is part of a national dialogue between the American people, 
Congress, regulatory agencies, public interest organizations, the courts and the 
entertainment industry. In light of this national interest, this Report should include an 
objective, authoritative discussion of the constitutional and regulatory challenges of 
regulating media content based on our experience with regulating indecent speech. The 
Report should provide a complete and thorough analysis of all parental control 
technologies and resources that are currently available to families and households.  
Overall, this Report should weigh the national interest of protecting children from violent 
content against the cumulative effect of all available parental control technologies and 
resources, and the constitutional concerns. It should provide a working definition most 
likely to sustain judicial scrutiny. In so doing, the Report should make recommendations 
that would empower parents and families, and provide Congress with a set of options 
not just content and price regulation. In short, the Report should do what Congress 
asked.
To my disappointment, this Report does not fully display the experience and 
informed judgment of an expert federal agency that has regulated media content over 
thirty years. Specifically, this Report does not deal adequately with the constitutional 
dimensions of regulating violent content on free over-the-air TV, or subscription-based 
cable and satellite TV services.  In fact, it muddies the issues and legal distinctions that 
the courts have made regarding the ability of the government to intervene in different 
media formats.  Nor does this Report discuss fully how federal courts have ruled in 
numerous cases involving the regulation of violence. Oddly enough, the Report does not 
even discuss the full menu of parental assistance tools that are available today to millions 
4
of families.  And, as a result of this incomplete analysis, the recommendations made in 
this Report are not fully responsive to the specific questions presented by the Committee,
or inadequate to provide parents, like me, with the necessary support to protect our 
children. Like a financial consultant who advises a client that he could win the lottery, 
this Report discusses an optimal conclusion, but does not provide a complete analysis or
a sound plan.  
Congress asked the Commission to study media violence and to propose a 
definition of violence that would be best suited, and most likely to be sustained in 
court.  Rather than acknowledge that, after three years, the Commission has been unable 
to so, the Report passes the buck, declaring that Congress could do so. The definitional 
difficulties here should not be dealt with in such a casual, dismissive manner.  After all, 
this is a protected constitutional right under the First Amendment that we are 
recommending Congress to curtail without any thoughtful legal analysis.  We shirk our 
responsibility by saying that we can define violence that should be banned since the 
guidelines developed by the television industry contain categories of violence for ratings 
purposes.  Which of those categories do we propose to ban during hours when children 
are watching?  Given that we are not able to offer a definition ourselves, it does not
appear to be as easy to define as some suggest.
The fact of the matter is that not all violence is created equal.2 The 
Commission has not been able to formulate and recommend a definition of violence that 
would cover the majority of violent content that is inappropriate for children, provide fair 
guidance to programmers, and stand a decent chance of withstanding constitutional 
scrutiny, in light of judicial precedent.  While we may want to define prohibited-violence
and regulate it in conformance with constitutional standards, the Report does not refer to 
any court or judicial scholar that has suggested such definition is available or probable.
To the contrary, the Report diminishes the extent to which courts have either 
expressed serious skepticism or invalidated efforts to regulate violent content.3 I believe 
we have an obligation to provide Congress with the complete analysis of this 
jurisprudential quagmire, whereby any regulation of television violence confronts an 
inherent tradeoff between precision and effectiveness and any restriction in this area 
that is neither overboard nor vague will leave unregulated so much violent programming 
that it will no longer accomplish a compelling interest.4
  
2 UCLA Center for Communication Policy, The UCLA Television Violence Report 1997.
3 Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 510-11 (1948);  Interactive Digital Software Assoc. v. St Louis 
County, 329 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2003); American Amusement Machine Assn v. Kendrick, 244 F.3d 572 (7th
Cir 2001), cert denied, 122 S.Ct. 462 (2001); Eclipse Enters. v. Gulotta, 134 F.3d 63 (2nd Cir. 1997); Video 
Software Dealers Assn v. Webster, 968 F.2d 684 (8th Cir. 1992); Allied Artists Pictures Corp. v. Alford, 
410 F. Supp. 1348 (W.D. Tenn 1976).
4 Harry T. Edwards and Mitchell N. Berman, Regulating Violence on Television, 89 NORTHWESTERN U.L.
REV. 1487, 1502-03, 1555 (1995)
5
The central tension we face is that adults access to violent programming is 
protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  The difficult question is 
precisely which violent programming, if any, the government can regulate in the interest 
of protecting children.  That question  the most challenging Congress faces  is never 
answered here.
Providing Congress with a complete record should be the central objective of this 
Report, but sadly that is not accomplished.  In 2003, the Commission found that new 
modes of media have transformed the landscape, providing more choice, greater 
flexibility, and more control than at any other time in history.  In todays Report, 
however, the Commission simply ignores many of the developments that empower 
parents and viewers with more control over their programming choices.  Cable 
subscribers, for example, have various options available, depending on if they have 
digital or analog cable.  Digital cable set-top boxes allow parents to block shows with 
certain ratings, titles, or by time or date, and analog cable subscribers can use their set-top 
or lockbox technology that locks specific channels so that channel can no longer be 
viewed.  Digital and personal video recorders, and video-on-demand permit families to 
time-shift or watch programming whenever they deem appropriate.  Similarly, satellite 
TV subscribers have access to the Locks & Limits feature on DirecTV and Adult Guard 
on Dish Network. In addition to these operator-provided control technologies, TV 
manufacturers have been required since 1997 to install a V-Chip in all TV sets larger than 
13 inches, giving parents the ability to block certain content based on age- and content-
based rating. Parents and viewers may find that these tools provide varying degrees of 
effectiveness but this Report fails to explore these issues adequately.
The Commission is justifiably concerned about the limited consumer use of the 
V-Chip, the limited consumer understanding of the rating system and the limited 
deployment of digital cable set-top boxes and their accompanying advanced parental 
control features.  However, these tools  and the online resources  provide a good basis 
from which to build.  Instead of rushing to conclude that the TV ratings system  whether 
voluntary or mandatory  is and will always likely be unworkable, and that blocking 
technology does not adequately promote parental supervision and protect the well-being 
of children, the Commission has an obligation to advise Congress how we can attempt to 
improve their effectiveness.  We fail to do so here.
While this Report recommends content and price regulation as the only legislative
remedies to address violence on TV, I believe the Commission is missing a historic
opportunity to discuss a host of meaningful consumer choice recommendations that 
would truly enhance and facilitate parents effort to safeguard their children from the 
exposure to violent programming.  From developing enforceable public interest 
obligations to implementing a national consumer education campaign, there are other 
recommendations that should be part of the national dialogue on media violence.
If we were able to craft a constitutionally-sustainable definition of violence, 
presumably it would apply to only the most extreme and gratuitous depictions of 
violence.  While that might help parents navigate past a few icebergs in a sea of violence, 
6
they would still be faced with sailing a pretty stormy sea on their own.  Our own 
experience in regulating indecency demonstrates that regulation only applies to the most 
egregious cases, and there is a vast array of sexually explicit television that many parents, 
including myself, would find inappropriate for their children but which does not rise to 
the level of indecency.  In the case of violence, I certainly would not want my children 
watching the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan, but I doubt any court would uphold 
us banning it during evening hours. I do not even like my kids watching a cartoon of an 
anvil falling on the coyotes head, but I do not think any court would let us ban it.  So our 
narrowly focused recommendations might help on the margins, but do little to deal with 
the vast problem parents confront on a daily basis. 
One of our few recommendations, a la carte, which is primarily a price-regulation 
mechanism, is far too blunt an instrument to provide much help to beleaguered parents 
who already have the ability to block any cable channel they want, whether they are 
analog or digital subscribers. The History Channel, for example, sometimes broadcasts 
war scenes far too violent for young children, but dropping it would deprive them of 
valuable educational content it often airs.  TV violence is not viewed in the record as a 
channel-by-channel problem.  Perhaps that is why leading experts have not suggested a la 
carte as a solution. It makes its debut here with little explanation as to why or how it 
would be of any practical use to parents.
Given how much of the concern about violence arises from what is on broadcast 
television, it is not even clear how a la carte price regulation would help parents avoid 
violent programming unless it applied to each broadcast channel, which this report does 
nothing to clarify.  I suppose a parent could choose to receive only Home and Garden 
Television and the Food Channel to avoid violent programming, since there are so few 
other channels devoid of violence, but I do not see how that helps parents much.  
A recent study from the Parents Television Council (PTC) found that, in midst of 
the unprecedented wave of media consolidation between 1998 and 2006, violence on 
television during the hours of 8:00 p.m., 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. grew by 45, 92 and 167 
percent, respectively.5 This finding is highly relevant to the Commissions current 
review of the broadcast media ownership rules.  The apparent correlation between 
increased media concentration and media violence questions whether any effort to permit 
further concentration of ownership can be squared with the public interest.  Furthermore, 
this finding reinforces the substantial need of Congress and/or this Commission to 
develop enforceable public interests obligations for general audience broadcast 
programming.6 Despite repeated requests from Members of Congress, consumer and 
  
5 Dying to Entertain: Violence on Prime Time Broadcast Television 1998 to 2006, Parents Television 
Council, Special Report, January 2007, at 6.
6 As the Supreme Court has held, and this Commission has argued passionately in court, a licensed 
broadcaster is granted the free and exclusive use of a limited and valuable part of the public domain; when 
he accepts that franchise it is burdened by enforceable public obligations. CBS v. FCC, 453 U.S. 367, 388 
(1969).
7
childrens advocacy organizations, Commissioner Copps and me, this Commission has 
failed to complete a proceeding to address this important concern since 1999. 
So while this Report focuses its recommendations on the novel and questionable 
approach of mandating a la carte, and constitutionally-difficult content regulation, it 
neglects to provide much discussion of a host of tools that could clearly provide parents 
some relief.  Rather than focusing solely on the sliver of violent programming that may or 
may not be amenable to regulation, we should have also focused on the real, everyday 
problems parents face which are more fully addressed by more comprehensive solutions 
that sometimes involve working with media executives to set better standards to protect 
children from exposure to TV violence.
Other recommendations that do not implicate constitutional protections, but are 
noticeably missing from this Report, include the need for a coordinated and sustained 
national effort to educate parents, engage industry and encourage the development of new 
technologies.  Such an effort could include an education campaign, authorized and 
funded by Congress, would seek to improve consumer awareness and understanding of 
all existing parental controls technologies and resources, especially the V-Chip and 
content descriptors. A multi-faceted campaign would: (1) expand existing industry-led 
and private efforts, such as TVboss.org. and Pause Parent Play, to further educate parents 
and families; (2) require manufacturers set new TVs to receive only TV-G children 
programming, until consumers and parents reset or opt-in for programming that is
appropriate for their household; (3) rate all programming, including news, promotions 
and commercials;7 (4) use audio, in addition to visual, ratings and descriptors of all rated 
programs; (5) promote media literacy at schools; (6) encourage more positive childrens 
programming; and (7) encourage the development of enhanced V-Chip software and 
blocking technologies to filter objectionable content.
Congress could also consider legislation that explicitly exempts a television code
and a family hour from antitrust law.  This measure could permit the broadcast, cable,
satellite and advertising industries to establish an inter-industry code on the subject of 
television violence.  Such an approach, along with the national coordinated effort and 
education campaign, I believe, would help reduce childrens exposure to media violence. 
Accordingly, these ideas deserve consideration by Congress, even though they are not 
mentioned in this Report. 
Unfortunately for those who care passionately about this issue, as I certainly do, 
this Report could do much more.  I vote for it because it is a start and better than nothing, 
but we leave much of the real work to Congress to tackle the tough issues Congress asked 
us to help them with.
  
7 A 2004 study of commercials during major sporting events found that almost one in five displayed 
behavior deemed unsafe or violent, and, as a result, urged parents to limit and supervise their children 
exposure to televised sports.  See Robert F. Tamburro, Patricia L. Gordon, James P. DApolito and Scott C. 
Howard, Unsafe and Violent Behavior in Commercials Aired During Televised Major Sporting Events, 114 
Pediatrics (Dec 2004), at 694-698.