U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

96–095PDF 2004

THE EFFECT OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE ON CHILDREN: WHAT POLICYMAKERS NEED TO KNOW

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND

THE INTERNET

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 13, 2004

Serial No. 108–116

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi, Vice Chairman

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

MARY BONO, California

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan

Ranking Member

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

BART GORDON, Tennessee

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

LOIS CAPPS, California

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana

TOM ALLEN, Maine

JIM DAVIS, Florida

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

HILDA L. SOLIS, California

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

BUD ALBRIGHT, Staff Director

JAMES D. BARNETTE, General Counsel

REID P.F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET

FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

Vice Chairman

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire

MARY BONO, California

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

JOE BARTON, Texas,

(Ex Officio)

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

Ranking Member

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania

JIM DAVIS, Florida

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

BART GORDON, Tennessee

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,

(Ex Officio)

(II)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Testimony of:

Blackman, Rodney Jay, DePaul College of Law ............................................ 24

Davis, Ronald M., Member, Board of Trustees, American Medical Association ................................................................................................................. 16

Everett, John, Principal, Neal F. Simeon Career Academy .......................... 1

Kunkel, Dale, Professor, Department of Communication, University of

Arizona ........................................................................................................... 21

McIntyre, Jeff J., Senior Legislative and Federal Affairs Officer, Public

Policy Office, American Psychological Association ..................................... 13

Slutkin, Gary, Director, Chicago Project for Violence Prevention, Professor, Epidemiology and International Health, UIC Chicago School

of Public Health ............................................................................................ 9

Additional material submitted for the record by:

American Academy of Pediatrics, prepared statement of ............................. 36

(III)

(1)

THE EFFECT OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE ON

CHILDREN: WHAT POLICYMAKERS NEED TO

KNOW

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS

AND THE INTERNET,

Chicago, IL.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., Neal F.

Simeon Career Academy, 8147 South Vincennes Avenue, Chicago,

Illinois, Hon. Fred Upton (chairman) presiding.

Members present: Representatives Upton, Shimkus and Rush.

Staff present: Kelly Cole, majorty counsel; Will Norwind, majority counsel and policy coordinator; Howard Waltzman, majority

counsel; Andy Black, deputy staff director; and Peter Filon, minority counsel.

STATEMENT OF JOHN EVERETT, PRINCIPAL, NEAL F. SIMEON

CAREER ACADEMY

Mr. EVERETT. Let me have your attention for a minute, please.

First, I’d like to welcome my distinguished guests. And I say good

morning to my favorite students. It’s really a pleasure to have affair of this magnitude here at Simeon. We had a groundbreaking

ceremony, I mean a rivetting-breaking ceremony last year at this

time. And we had the Mayor out, and we had all the dignitaries.

And now we have our favorite Congressman, Bobby Rush, and

some more dignitaries out.

So, Simeon is known to have dignitaries. But let me say that this

is a real, real educational experience for our students. They don’t

have civics, per se in the high schools anymore. But this is a true,

true civics lesson. So, please enjoy yourself and learn something

from this. Because this is what it’s all about. Thank you, and let’s

have a good day. Thanks.

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you very much. My name is Fred Upton.

I’m a Congressman from across Lake Michigan, in St. Joe/Benton

Harbor. And the first thing that I noticed when I walked in the

school was the name Wolverine. I am a Wolverine, I just wanted

you to know. And I know our Wolverines here and in Michigan

took a tough loss on Saturday. But with all of that, I know that

there will be a better week next week. But good morning, today’s

hearing is entitled ‘‘The Effect of Television Violence on Children:

What Policymakers Need to Know.’’

2

I’m honored to be here today with my good friend Bobby Rush,

in his district, and I am pleased that John Shimkus, another Congressman from downstate Illinois, is with us today as well. I want

to thank the administrators, faculty, and especially the students,

you all, of this academy, for help hosting us here this morning. And

just so that we are all on the same page, this is a field hearing,

an official hearing of the U.S. Congress, The House of Representatives, Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.

This subcommittee will receive all of the communication issues,

including television. Of course, most of our hearings occur in Washington, DC, but sometimes we do try to get out and bring our government back to the people. Because Bobby Rush has such a deep

concern for the young people across this country, and in his congressional district, not only did he suggest that we hold a hearing

on this topic, but that we also hold it here today. It was his choice

of where we held the hearing.

We know that there are many types of these, television, radio,

video games, movies, Internet, music. And without a doubt, the

media has a tremendous influence on the children of America. We

probably all agree that the media has both its upsides and its

downsides for children in terms of education and entertainment.

And today, we are focusing on the effects on children of one aspect

of the media, television, and one aspect of that media, violence.

Television is the most common source of information available to

children growing up in our country. Children are not only being entertained, but they’re also being educated by TV. Nearly all children, 99 percent, live in a home with a TV. Half have three or more

TVs, and over a third have a TV in their bedroom. It is estimated

that children today watch 3 to 4 hours of TV every day.

And in light of the growing amount of time children find themselves in front of the TV, the issue of what they’re watching becomes increasingly important. Many settings detail the growing incidence of violence on TV, even in children’s TV shows.

It has been shown that these scenes of violence do have an impact on children. It is generally accepted that information children

receive from these programs cannot help but affect the way that

they interact with and view sides. Since 1960, a body of evidence

coming from both laboratory research and survey studies has confirmed that there is a causal relationship between the observation

of aggression and violence on TV and subsequent aggressive and

violent behavior on behalf on the part of the viewer.

And that appears to be especially true for young kids, as much

of the research shows that the effect may not just be temporary,

but may be sustained over the years. In fact, a number of national

committees composed of scholars will review all of the available

studies, and come to a similar conclusion, there is a casual relationship between viewing violent TV and subsequent behavior. And

when it comes to the impact of TV violence, the number of groups,

including the American Psychological Association, The American

Medical Association, The U.S. Surgeon General, The National Institute of Mental Health, has confirmed that violence on TV has an

influence on aggressive behavior, which it can lead into adulthood.

3

The three main effects of viewing TV violence include: One,

learning aggressive attitudes and behaviors; two, desensitization to

pain and to violence; and three, increased fear of being victimized

by violence. Interestingly enough, studies have also shown that not

all TV violence poses the same degree for harmful effects. There

are many ways to portray violence and the consequence of that violence.

For instance, some examples will glorify violence and the perpetrator, others will focus on the negative ramifications of committing

a crime. Some experts suggests that not all the portrayals of violence are bad. Some examples can actually have a positive impact

on kids. Contectual features, such as the attractive perpetrator, an

attractive victim, graphic or extensive violence, rewards and punishments, and humor, can all increase or decrease the risk of harmful effects.

Looking at it another way, do scenes of gunfights in old episodes

of Gunsmoke, or Roadrunner pushing Wile E. Coyote off a cliff, has

the same effect on kids as grim scenes in ‘‘NYPD Blue’’ or ‘‘Law

and Order.’’ What about the violent contact of broadcast of the NFL

Football, or NHL hockey, or scenes of military firefights in Iraq on

the nightly news? How about scenes where the violent actor gets

caught by the good guys?

Certainly, TV violence is neither the sole, nor even the most significant cause of restless or violent behavior in kids. But it has

been shown to have an effect nonetheless. So, today we want to

learn more about those harmful effects, and learn what the parents, educators, and what the communities will do to protect their

kids from harmful effects. Ultimately, we will take the information

that we learn here back to Washington so that we can see what

the government should do, if anything.

In that regard, a number of years ago Congress passed, and I

supported the V-Chip Legislation, which paved the way for industry to establish ratings for violence to be incorporated into the TV

set so that the parents could know what, if any, content their kids

might be exposed to, and to make the decision about what their

children could watch accordingly, or even block those shows.

I hope to learn from our witnesses today about their views on

this as well. But as we debate the need for any further governmental action, we are compelled to seriously consider the significant limits which the First Amendment of the Constitution imposes

on us. We will learn more about that today, too. Because of the significant limits on government action, I suspect it will place an even

heavier burden on all of us parents, teachers, religious and community leaders, the TV industry itself to take greater care to address

that issue. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. And

I now recognize that for an opening statement, my friend, great

Congressman and good colleague, Mr. Bobby Rush from Illinois.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET

Good morning. Today’s hearing is entitled: ‘‘The Effect of Television Violence on

Children: What Policymakers Need to Know.’’

I am honored to be here today in my good friend Bobby Rush’s congressional district. I am pleased John Shimkus from ‘‘down state’’ is with us today, too.

4

I want to thank the administrators, faculty—and especially the students—of the

Neal F. Simeon Career Academy for hosting us.

Just so we’re all on the same page, this is a field hearing of the U.S. House of

Representative’s Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and

the Internet. This Subcommittee oversees all communications issues, including television. Of course, most of our hearings occur in Washington, D.C., but sometimes

we do try to get out and bring our government to the people. And, because Bobby

Rush has such deep concern for the young people across this country and in his congressional district, not only did he suggest that we hold a hearing on this topic, but

also that we hold it here today.

We know that there are many types of media: television, radio, video games, movies, the Internet, and music. Without a doubt, the media has tremendous influence

on the children of America. We’d probably all agree that the media has both its upsides for children in terms of education and entertainment, but it also has its

downsides.

Today, we are focusing on the effects on children of one aspect of the media: TELEVISION and one aspect of that medium: VIOLENCE.

Television is the most common source of information available to children growing

up in the United States. Children are not only being entertained, but are also being

educated by television. Nearly all children (99%) live in a home with a television,

half (50%) have three or more televisions, and over one-third (36%) have a television

in their bedroom. It is estimated that children today watch three to four hours of

television every day. In light of the growing amount of time children find themselves

in front of a television, the issue of what they are watching becomes increasingly

important.

Many studies have detailed the growing incidence of violence on television, and

even in children’s television shows. It has been shown that these scenes of violence

have an impact on children. It is generally accepted that the information children

receive from these programs cannot help but affect the way they interact with and

view society. Since 1960, a body of evidence coming from both laboratory research

and survey studies has confirmed that there is a causal relationship between the

observation of aggression and violence on television and subsequent aggressive and

violent behavior on the part of the viewer. This appears to be especially true for

young children, as much of the research shows that the effect may not just be temporary, but may be sustained over the years.

In fact, a number of national commissions composed of scholars who have reviewed all of the available studies have come to a similar conclusion—that there is

a causal relationship between viewing violent television and subsequent behavior.

When it comes to the impact of television violence, a number of groups, including

the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the U.S.

Surgeon General, and the National Institute of Mental Health, have confirmed that

violence on television has an influence on aggressive behavior which can lead into

adulthood. The three main effects of viewing televised violence include: (1) learning

aggressive attitudes and behaviors, (2) desensitization to violence, and (3) increased

fear of being victimized by violence.

Interestingly, studies have also shown that not all television violence poses the

same degree of risk for harmful effects. There are many ways to portray violence

and the consequences of that violence. For instance, some examples will glorify the

violence and the perpetrator; others will focus on the negative ramifications of committing a crime. Some experts suggest that not all portrayals of violence are the

same, and some examples can actually have a positive impact on children. Contextual features, such as an attractive perpetrator, an attractive victim, justified violence, extensive or graphic violence, rewards and punishments, and humor, can all

increase or decrease the risk of harmful effects.

Looking at it another way, do scenes of gunfights in old episodes of ‘‘Gun Smoke’’

or the ‘‘Road Runner’’ pushing ‘‘Wile E. Coyote’’ off a cliff have the same effect on

kids as grim scenes in ‘‘NYPD Blue’’ or ‘‘Law and Order’’? What about violent contact in broadcasts of NFL football or NHL hockey? Or scenes of military firefights

in Iraq on the nightly news? How about scenes where the violent actor gets caught

by the good guys?

Certainly television violence is neither the sole, nor even the most significant,

cause of aggressive or violent behavior in children, but it has been shown to have

an effect nonetheless. So, today, we want to learn more about those harmful effects

and learn what parents, educators, and communities can do to protect children from

those harmful effects.

Ultimately, we will take this information back to Washington with us as we debate what, if anything, the government can do. In this regard, a number of years

ago, Congress passed, and I supported, V-CHIP legislation, which paved the way for

5

industry-established ratings for violence to be incorporated into television sets so

that parents could know what, if any, violent content their children might be exposed to and make decisions about what their children watch accordingly, or even

block those shows completely. I hope to learn from our witnesses about their views

on this as well. But as we debate the need for any further governmental action, we

are compelled to seriously consider the significant limits which the First Amendment of the Constitution imposes on us, and we will learn more about that today,

too. Because of these significant limits on government action, I suspect it will place

an even heavier burden on all of us as parents, teachers, religious and community

leaders—and the television industry itself—to take greater care to address this

issue.

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses on this important topic, and I

appreciate them being here to help us examine it.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr.

Chairman, I want to say, first of all, how delighted and gratified

that I am that you will come to Simeon High School, to the 4th

Congressional District, in hopes to conduct this most important

hearing. I want all of us who are present today, all the students

to know, that the Chairman didn’t have to agree to come here. But

he did because he’s concerned about this particular issue. He’s concerned about what happens to our young people. He’s concerned

about the effects of violence in America.

Mr. Chairman, I want you to know that, although we come from

different political parties, and that what you are doing today shows

your character as an individual, as a concerned American, it shows

that you have risen above and can rise above partisan differences

to make sure that we come together to do those things, and to hear

from witnesses, and to really involve ourselves in solving some of

the problems that America faces.

And again, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to you that you are

the kind of chairman that will push and pull and make this an

issue, a much, much, better Nation. Thank you so much for coming

to Simeon High School this morning. I want to thank our inductor,

the CEO and the Superintendent of the Chicago Public Schools,

and Michael Scott. And I want to thank Dr. Everett for hosting this

here at Simeon Academy.

This school is a remarkable school. This school has had its share

of violence. I recall so vividly some 20 years ago, the mid-1980’s,

and the No. 1 college—rather, the No. 1 high school player in the

Nation, the basketball player in the Nation was gunned downed

not too far from where we’re sitting at today. Simeon has risen

above those kinds of incidents. But violence is still a part of the

day-to-day likely experiences of too many young people, not only

here at Simeon, but across this city and across this Nation.

This hearing today is important because it will help us to determine how we can, as Members of Congress, and as members of the

telecommunication subcommittee how we can address our responsibility to try to decrease the incidents about violence, particularly

as it affects young people today.

Mr. Chairman, you mentioned certain statistics. And I just want

you to know that I was alarmed after I looked at some of the studies. The National Television Violence Study indicated that violence

was found to be more prevalent in children’s program, 69 percent,

than any other type of program on TV, which occur at a clip of

about 57 percent. The average child who watches 2 hours of cartoons a day may see nearly 10,000 violent incidents a year.

6

An average city estimated that the averages in pre-school and

school-age child, who watch television 2 to 4 hours per day, would

have seen 8,000 murders and over a hundred thousand additional

acts of violence on television by the time they finished elementary

school. These are alarming statistics, Mr. Chairman. We’re getting

to a point in our society, in fact, we might have already reached

that point, where we glorify violence. And these, Mr. Chairman, I

believe that we’re living in a culture that is violent, so violent, that

desensitize our responses, desensitize our activities and desensitize

our approach to violence.

And, Mr. Chairman, I want to say to you, again, that I am very

glad, grateful, I really believe that this is going to be one of those

types of hearings that will be one of our greater achievements of

our subcommittee, and our subcommittee has achieved many great

achievements over the past years, and I want you to know that this

is an important hearing, and thank you so much for being here.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Good morning, and welcome to Chicago. I would like to thank Chairman Upton

for holding this important hearing in my home city of Chicago. I also would like

to thank Arne Duncan, CEO and Superintendent of Chicago Public Schools, Michael

Scott, President of the Chicago Board of Education and Principal John Everett for

hosting us here today at the exquisite Neal F. Simeon Career Academy a brand new

state of the art learning center.

As many of you know, the pervasiveness and effects of television violence continue

to be an issue of considerable concern to me. It is well documented that violent programming has an adverse effect on human behavior and attitudes. It encourages

violent behavior and influences moral and social values and violence in daily life.

However, what concerns me more is the affect that violent programming has on children. There is a strong body of evidence that suggest that exposure to violent acts

on television increases aggressive behavior in children in the short-term and longterm.

Study after Study have shown a causal link between violent programming and

violent behavior in children. The National television violence study indicated that

violence was found to be more prevalent in children=s programming (69%) than in

other types of programming (57%). The average child who watches 2 hours of cartoons a day may see nearly 10,000 violent incidents each year. Similarly, a study

conducted by researchers from the Annerberg school of communication in Pennsylvania, estimated that the average preschooler and school aged child who watched

television two to four hours per day would have seen 8,000 murders, and over

100,000 additional acts of violence on television by the time the child finished elementary school.

As you can see these statistics are alarming. What we have is a society that is

not only glorifying violence but it is also becoming desensitized to violence. Gone forever are the days when a parent could simply sit a child in front of the television

without adult supervision. Television today requires that responsible parents be proactive in the selection and monitoring of materials that their children are permitted

to watch. The issue for us today as policy makers, academia, parents and teachers,

is not only how do we shield our children from excessive TV violence but how do

we help parents understand and control the programs their children watch.

In 1996, Congress passed legislation as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act

that required television sets to be equipped with an electronic device, called the Vchip, which allowed parents to block certain programming. In addition, Congress encouraged the video and distribution industry to establish an age-based rating system. However, since the advent of the V-chip technology and the age-based ratings

system, it was reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation that only half the parents

surveyed used the television ratings system to guide their children=s viewing. Also,

it was found that only 7% of all parents were using the V-chip technology.

Apparently many parents were not aware that television rating system existed.

As for the V-chip many parents who knew about it did not know how to use the

technology. It seems that the system Congress has in place is not working. As legisVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:08 Nov 10, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 96095.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
7

lators, we have a responsibility to improve our existing safeguards but also to create

better safeguards that will shield our children from inappropriate programming.

Currently in Congress, there is pending legislation that would create a safe harbor

provision that would restrict excessively violent programming that is harmful to

children during the hours when children are likely to be a substantial part of the

viewing audience. This ‘‘safe harbor’’ provision is worth examining. That said, I

would like to welcome the witnesses and thank them for being with us this morning.

Each of you has done considerable work on the issue of TV violence, and I thank

you for your time and effort for appearing here today.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Rush. I just want to say, too, as I

look at my tenure as chairman, who’s been able to do a whole number of issues in bipartisan debates of republicans and democrats

working together, I’m very proud of that record. And I recognize

now, a good friend also from the State of Illinois, downstate Illinois, and a fellow who really helped lead the charge of getting back

his son, which I’m really here to talk about. I never go anyplace

without saying something about it. And I would note that I think

every member, including you, were a co-sponsor of that, and passed

that with honorable, noble men to support this. So, with that, Mr.

Shimkus, please give an opening statement.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also want to

thank our panelists, who we’ll hear from in a minute, and along

with my friend, Bobby Rush, for the warm hospitality. I also want

to take time to speak to our guests in the audience there. I taught

high school before for years, government history. So, to lay out

what’s occurring here is, this is an official hearing of your Federal

Government on violence on TV. And we’re politicians, right here.

These are the experts in different fields, and we’re going to look to

them as they tell us what’s right or what’s wrong. And maybe give

us advice of how we can fix it, or how we can’t. How we might not

be able to touch it. And hopefully, we take this back, and you see

a stenographer over there taking the official recordings, so, then we

take the testimony back to Washington. We distill it, and maybe

there is a place where, especially if we want to be successful in a

bipartisan manner, then get the legislation drafted to try to fix it

if it’s a possibility. And so, that’s what this is. It’s not just, you

know, coming here, but it’s actually the work that we do in Washington, especially in our committee, on a weekly basis. We’re just

holding a hearing.

Now, Bobby represents the First Congressional District; I represent the 19th District in Illinois. So, we’re on the south side of

Chicago. My District also goes through Springfield, Illinois, all the

way down to Paducah, Kentucky. I represent 30 counties. So, the

other important thing to remember is a great diversity that you see

from Members of Congress that they’re trying to tackle the issues

and problems that relate to a national concern. The urban areas

and the suburban areas sometimes might have a different approach

to rulings, many times they’re very simple. And so, it’s narrowing

those great differences across and dividing them, and hopefully be

successful.

I will put in my applaud for putting on my marketing hat, which

I’ve gotten through and will do of one such success. And interestingly more panelist are knowing about it, because that’s why I always mentioned it. We have the same concern on what’s going on

over the TV that we have on the Internet. In fact, the Internet is

8

even a more dangerous place because you can have interaction.

And a lot of young men and women get caught up in it, and a lot

of harm has been done, especially by adult predators to children.

That’s why we were able to pass in signing a law a Web site the

State prohibits. And I know those people who deal with the Internet say, Well, it helps them. Well, it’s not. You can go to

www.kids.us, go to the site for kids. There is no hyperlinks, no chat

rooms, no instant messaging. It’s information-based only, and it is,

hopefully—and it hasn’t been challenged to the courts yet—suitable

for minors under the age of 13.

And my young son, Daniel, who—my 9-year-old and 11-year-old,

they’re probably too old for this site, even though we made it for

kids under 13. My 4-year-old, he’ll be 5 in October, is an expert on

the kids.us Web site. And there he will go, he will go to Nick Junior, and he’ll play the games. And so, he can surf the Web like his

big brother. But I can monitor him without the fear that something

will pop up that will be very damaging to a 4 or 5-year-old child.

So, that’s the part of the success that we have done through

hearings, and testimony, and passing legislation. And it is hoped

that, as we move forward, that we’re able to do that in other

venues. And I appreciate the Chairman calling the hearing and, of

course, Bobby Rush, and I look forward to the comments from my

panelists. And I think that’s the one, .kids.us, so we’ll see if they

go on it.

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Congressman Shimkus. At this

point, we’re going to hear from our five witnesses. Their statements

are made part of the record in their entirety. If you limit your remarks to not more than 5 minutes or so, and summarize what you

have to say. You’ve got a lot of good listeners. And then after that,

we’re going to follow up with questions. And the three of us will

have some questions. But I also understand that last week the students were given an opportunity to write some questions. We’re

going to let those questions in the written form come up to us, and

we’ll be able to ask the panelists answers to those questions.

We are joined by Dr. Gary Slutkin, Director of Chicago Project

for Violence Prevention, Professor for Epidemiology and International Health, from the UIC Chicago School of Public Health, obviously, here in Chicago. Mr. Jeff McIntyre, Senior Legislative and

Federal Affairs Officer, with the American Psychological Association in Washington, DC. Dr. Ronald Davis, Member of the Board

of Trustees for the American Medical Association in Washington,

DC, Professor Dale Kunkel at Department of Communications from

the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. And Professor Rodney

Blackman, DePaul College of Law here in Chicago.

Dr. Slutkin, you will start. Make sure that the mics are close so

that the students and everybody can be able to hear.

9

STATEMENTS OF GARY SLUTKIN, DIRECTOR, CHICAGO

PROJECT FOR VIOLENCE PREVENTION, PROFESSOR, EPIDEMIOLOGY AND INTERNATIONAL HEALTH, UIC CHICAGO

SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH; JEFF J. McINTYRE, SENIOR

LEGISLATIVE AND FEDERAL AFFAIRS OFFICER, PUBLIC

POLICY OFFICE, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION;

RONALD M. DAVIS, MEMBER, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION; DALE KUNKEL, PROFESSOR,

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA; AND RODNEY JAY BLACKMAN, DePAUL COLLEGE OF

LAW

Mr. SLUTKIN. Chairman Upton, Congressman Rush, Congressman Shimkus, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak

with you today. I’m Gary Slutkin, I’m a physician trained in internal medicine and infectious disease control. I worked for a health

organization for 10 years in its behavioral of epidemics.

I now run the Chicago Project for Violence Prevention, which is

a multi-prong setting interventions to reduce shootings in Chicago

and other Illinois neighborhoods. We have a 45 to 65 percent drop

in shootings using this new technology for reducing violence. I

wanted to quickly go to three items for the evidence, what we can

do about it, and then a little bit about the larger picture.

The evidence to television and other video violence affect children

and adolescent behavior is, in my opinion, unequivocal and certain.

It is serious and dangerous matter, and not trivial. The industry

may argue that not every study shows these effects to their kids.

Well, almost every study does, and the best reviews of studies done

by George Comstalker (phonetic), totally unbiased senior, one of

the most senior epidemiologist in, frankly, the world, has come to

the same conclusions.

Both short-term and long-term effects that’s been stated repeatedly, why does a case, as obvious for our chairman to mention the

kind of effects, I’ll review them briefly, but why is this the case?

It’s absolutely obvious, the extraordinary regularity, the magnitude

and intensity of the violence make it appear as if it’s normal. Imitation and modeling are of many ways that face these in young

children and adolescence learned. That’s how they select behaviors.

We use this very well in advertising. That is, again, why the cigarette industry wanted to have cigarette smoking on the television

regularly, and that’s why it was removed.

And, in fact, as you might imagine for very young children, and

perhaps even others who are watching, may differentiate very, very

little from things that are commercials, to things that are television, as you blockview, just sit there and let images come in. The

way to promote anything, any behavior, whether it’s immunizing

your children, using Gatorade, drinking Coke, or violence, is to

show it over and over and over and over, as if it were normal. This

is the way to do it. If someone else, for example, from another

country or from another society were to be seeing this on types of

our programming, and into our homes, I would probably find a way

to do something about it.

What to do about it? This is more up to you than up to us. I realize that the media is principally driven by commercial return. Now,

since the media is driven by commercial return, the use of violence,

10

sex and graphically changing images, those are things that grab

the eye and the brain, and make it up stiff like Velcro. And so, it’s

very hard to look away when violence is happening, sex is happening, or when images change fast. So, that’s the technology that

they use to hold your eye to the screen, so that you’ll be there for

the commercial effects. And this is the principle reason why it’s

done.

I think that regulation is desirable, I think a completely unregulated society that is driven purely by commercial return has got to

turn into an unhealthy society. I mean, we have to put our values

into somewhere. And I’m sure there is going to be a lot of discussion on this. I would like to add an additional suggestion that I

learned from work at World Health, that it’s also possible.

I remember being there myself, personally or professionally involved in the bashing of an industry. And I won’t do that now. But

principally, it’s for professional and technical reasons, as well as

I’m not going to speak against. And I’ve learned that it’s possible

to change behavior by positive new programming on a small level.

And for just by way of example, in Europe where there is somewhere in the tens of thousands of daily episodes on subjects slightly

sexual, acts that are either shown or implied without a condom, by

getting a certain amount of condom promotion shown to a certain

level, is uptake to 70 percent condom used was achieved through

European countries. So, that it’s possible to overcome some of this

because people will begin to evaluate the others in the context. But

this has to be done in a professional way with credible knowledge

and alternative shown.

The last thing I want to spend a minute on is just talk about the

larger context. The U.S. Has the highest homicide rate of all developed countries in the world. In fact, it’s not higher by a small

amount, it’s higher by five to twenty times more. So, we have a

global reputation that independent of international behavior, but

surely on the basis of our domestic behavior, our homicide rates are

high. We’re known as a very aggressive and violent society statistically and in other ways.

The media took a part of this. But there also needs to be a national strategy to reach this. I’ve worked on national and global

strategy, and we don’t have one. I mean, we do not have one. Having more police and having more afterschool programs, are not all

that’s needed. I mean, there has to be specific outreach programs,

community disapproval programs, and things that show results,

programs to a sufficient scale, and we’re trying to do. And anything

other than increasingly more dangerous society that we’re living in.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Gary Slutkin follows:

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GARY SLUTKIN, DIRECTOR, THE CHICAGO PROJECT FOR

VIOLENCE PREVENTION

EFFECTS OF TELEVISION AND MEDIA VIOLENCE ON CHILDREN

I am Gary Slutkin. I am a physician trained in internal medicine, and infectious

diseases. I worked for the World Health Organization for 7 years and was responsible for reversing epidemics such as tuberculosis, cholera, and AIDS, and have special training in designing interventions and reversing behavioral epidemics. I supported the Uganda AIDS control program—the only country in Africa to have reversed its AIDS epidemic and I now run the Chicago Project for Violence Prevention

11

and CeaseFire Illinois which is reliably obtaining 45-65% reductions in shootings in

some of the highest risk communities in the country.

I would like to talk about three things—the evidence that television and media

play a role in affecting children, what we can do about it, and thirdly, look at the

larger picture of what we will need to do to substantially reduce the violence in our

society.

1. The evidence

The evidence that television and other media violence affect child and adolescent

behavior is now unequivocal, and certain. Violence, in particular repeated violent

events on television and in the movies, increases the likelihood of children engaging

in violent acts themselves. This is serious and dangerous and not a trivial matter.

The industry can argue that not every study shows this; in fact almost every study

does.

Media images of violence especially the extraordinary regularity of it, makes it appear as if this is normal behavior. Babies and young children look for models, and

what to imitate for social approval; the media provide some of this ‘‘guidance’’ for

their behavior. This is not a small matter—this is the usual way of learning—and

what we see others do is more powerful than what we are told to do and told not

do. We—people—are driven by what we think other people do—and what we think

will ‘‘get’’ us something—from money to prestige to other forms of attention or approval.

Behaviors are driven by social expectations—i.e. ‘‘norms,’’ this means by what you

think other people do. This is true for all behaviors. This is one of the reasons we

began to limit cigarette smoking on television—this was considered important—and

I agree—because of the bad effects in particular for the health of children.

We show or promote what behaviors ‘‘we’’ want to be performed—immunizing children, buying gym shoes, drinking Coke, eating a cereal, bringing children for immunization, using seat belts, using designated drivers, smoking or not smoking, or performing violence. Whatever you promote will be taken up, and in some proportion

to the amount or intensity of promotion. Advertisers know this and public health

professionals know this—whether it is for good or bad, or for this or that—whatever

is promoted will be taken up to some degree. We are that susceptible. And the mind,

and especially the young mind, does not easily sort between programming, real life

and even commercials.

The literature on the effects of violence on television on children is more compelling than most people think. There is a near unanimity of scientific opinion on the

effects. And further, besides encouraging violent behaviors themselves, and resulting in more aggression following watching violent programs, other important negative mental health consequences are also being seen in the research now. These effects—which have also been well demonstrated—include children having more anxiety, more fear, more isolation, and desensitization to violence—which causes children to care less and help others less. This has been shown in playground experiments.

It would be hard to better design something to promote violent behavior and to

interfere more with our values and with how our society functions, than to consciously ‘‘program’’ violence over and over again beaming into our homes each night

from an electric screen onto our minds. If persons outside of our own citizens, for

example another government, were projecting these images to us, we would find a

way to stop it immediately.

2. What to do about it.

The feasibility of constraining this programming is probably limited by the success of commercial return. We know that the television viewing system is designed

to compete for your eye and mind through ‘‘visual stickiness’’ to the viewing screen,

so that your eyes and other senses then remain available during the paid advertising slots, which are similarly designed to keep you present. You can check this

yourself—as you are stuck as if by Velcro in the time period, while these images

are inserted into your brain. Three things keep your eyes fixed most intently (and

thereby your brain fixed). Eye—brain research shows that your are best kept ‘‘focused’’ involuntarily—for reasons that are instinctive, by images of violence or sex,

and by rapidly changing images/screens (which in ‘‘real life’’ might be scenes of danger). The media are using this knowledge to manipulate our attention, and thereby

arguably unfairly taking advantage of what keeps us stuck. This is why violence is

used in programming.

Regulation is desirable. I realize that we are not today in a climate of increasing

regulation. I realize that further regulation of many harmful events may be less feasible today as our society is even more permissive of these effects, despite actual

12

and known dangers, since there is a desire to not interfere with commercial activity.

However it is probably worthwhile to consider why this violent programming is so

prevalent, and more tolerated than other matters, for example consensual sex. Is

there regulation of showing sex on television? How was this distinction drawn?

What is more harmful consensual sex or murder? Which should be considered more

normal and acceptable? How does murder compare with smoking cigarettes?

A direction of even further loss of government regulation will have serious consequences for our society. A society that is motivated without sufficient attention

to research despite capital gain, and without more guidance or regulation may be

heading for even further disastrous consequences.

3. Other possible solutions

I am not the one to say whether regulation in this area is legal or politically practical, despite commercial gains by the industries that advertise competitively using

violence as a tactic, to keep our attention. But we do need to be awake to this.

I would like to bring forward one other parallel track that we should very seriously pursue if we share the objectives of maintaining free speech under any and

all conditions, despite consequences that we know are present, but still trying to reduce violence and the acceptability of violence in our society. Programming which

promotes alternatives to violence and shows the unacceptability of violence if programmed at the 5% level from credible role models could off-weigh a substantial

part of the effects if performed in a specific and pre-designed way. It is beyond the

scope of this testimony to describe this, but success in other fields has been performed from similar approaches. I am not talking about ‘‘shows about non-violence,’’

but a specific type of social marketing toward deglamorizing and discrediting violence with endpoints that would be agreed upon by the industry and by government.

I would be happy to discuss this with interested persons.

4. The larger context—homicide and violence in America

Last, I want to spend just a minute to put this in a larger context. The U.S. has

the highest homicide rate of all rich countries. In fact this rate is not just larger

but substantially larger (5-20 times), and is not due to guns alone. This is a global

anomaly that is remediable. It is clear that the media violence is drastically excessive and should not really be acceptable in particular for children, but we must recognize that we as a society, country, and nation have a particular problem. This is

both within our borders and otherwise. We must develop a strategy for dealing with

this. There is at this moment no strategy for dealing with this that would be considered an actual strategy, and even 100,000 more cops would not be a ‘‘strategy,’’ but

just one piece of what is needed. This view is accepted even by Chief Bratton, previously of New York City and now of Los Angeles. More is needed than police.

The community piece of violence reduction and the intervention component are

now scientifically grounded and there are now opportunities for developing a much

more specific and reliable set of methods that should reduce urban and other homicides by 40—70%. This would result in reduced crime, reduced costs of crimes, better use of state budgets than for prisons, release of funds for education spending,

and urban renewal and economic development for many urban and rural communities. It is urgent for public health and community benefit that the country develop

a specific outcome based, scientifically grounded, and already community demonstrated approach to reducing violence, and take this to scale for the benefits of

dozens or hundreds of communities.

At a minimum, we need to immediately develop in our most violent cities, active

outreach, public education, high-risk alternatives, and community involvement

strategies that are specific, measurable and show results. Even after the more cops

on the street programs, rates of violence still remain enormously higher than should

be the case in our society. CeaseFire type programs as are now being applied in Chicago and other sites throughout the country, and are urgently needed in more cities.

A National CeaseFire Partnership is in the early stages of development. For the

younger children, I think specifically designed social marketing approaches could

also add substantially.

I am very grateful for this opportunity to speak with you about all of our concerns

about the violent nature of our society today, the rapidity in which we as individuals

and groups move into this predictable pattern, and how we are continuing to teach

this to our children. Unless we fully accept the trend that is in process, and take

the specific actionable steps—with or without regulation of the media—we will be

living in an even much dangerous world.

References

Comstock, G. 1991. Television in America. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

13

Donnerstein, Edward and Linz, Daniel. 1995. ‘‘The Mass Media: A Role in Injury Causation

and Prevention.’’ Adolescent Medicine: State of the Art Reviews vol. 6, no.2:271-284. Philadelphia,

PA: Hanley & Belfus, Inc.

Hornik, Robert C. 2002. Public health communication: evidence for behavior change. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Huston, A.C., Donnerstein, E., Fairchild, H., Feshbach, N.D., Katz, P.A., Murray, J.P. Rubinstein, E.A., Wilcox, B. and Zukerman, D. 1992. Big World, Small Screen: The Role of Television

in American Society. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Liebert, R.M. and Sprefkin. 1998. The Early Window: Effects of Television on Children and

Youth. New York: Pergamon.

Murray, J.P. and Salamon, G. 1984. The Future of Children’s Television: Results of the Markle

Foundation/Boys Town Conference. Boys Town, NE. The Boys Town Center.

National Institutes of Mental Health. 1982. Television and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific

Progress and Implications for the Eighties vol. 1. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you very much.

Mr. McIntyre.

STATEMENT OF JEFF J. McINTYRE

Mr. MCINTYRE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the

House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. I am Jeff McIntyre, and I’m honored to

be here in Chicago to represent the American Psychological Association.

I’ve conducted years of work related to children and the media

as a negotiator for the development of a television rating system.

As an advisor to the Federal Communications Commission’s V-Chip

Task Force, as a member of an informal White House Task Force

on navigating the news media, as a member of the steering committee for the Decade of Behavior Conference on Digital Childhood,

and most importantly, as a representative of the research concerns

of the over 150,000 members/affiliates of the American Psychological Association. I also have an appointment on the Oversight

Monitoring Board for the current television rating system.

At the heart of the issue of children and the media is a matter

long addressed by psychological research. The effects of repeated

exposure of children to violence. The media violence issue made its

official debut on Capitol Hill in 1952 with the first of a series of

congressional hearings. That particular hearing was held in the

House of Representatives before the Commerce Committee. The following year, 1953, the first major Senate hearings was held before

the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, who convened

a panel to inquire into the impact of television violence on juvenile

delinquency.

There have been many hearings since the 1950’s, but there has

only been limited change until recently. Media violence reduction

is fraught with legal complications. Nevertheless, our knowledge

base has improved over time with the publication of significant and

landmark reviews. Based on these research findings, several concerns emerge when violent material is aggressively marketed to

children.

Foremost, the conclusions drawn on the basis of over 30 years of

research contributed by American Psychological Association members, including the Surgeon General’s report in 1972, National Institute of Mental Health’s Report in 1982, and the industry-funded

3-year National Television Violence Study in the 1990’s, show that

the repeated exposure to violence in the mass media places children at risk for: Increases in aggression; desensitization to acts of

14

violence, and unrealistic increases in fear of becoming a victim of

violence, which results in the development of other negative characteristics, such as mistrust of others, et cetera.

Now, if this sounds familiar, it is because it is the foundation

upon which representatives of the public health community comprise of the APA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the

American Medical Association issued a joint consensus statement

in the year 2000 on what we absolutely know to be true regarding

children’s exposure to violence in the media. Certain psychological

facts remain and are well established in this debate. As APA member Dr. Rowell Huesmann stated before the Senate Commerce

Committee, just as every cigarette you smoke increases the chances

that some day you will get cancer, every exposure to violence increases the chances that some day a child will behave more violently than they otherwise would.

Hundreds of studies have confirmed that exposing their children

to a steady diet of violence in the media made our children more

violence prone. The psychological processes here are not mysterious. Children learn by observing others. Mass media and the

advertising world provide a very attractive window for these observations.

The excellent children’s programming such as Sesame Street,

and prosocial marketing such as that around bicycle helmets that

exists, is to be commended and supported. Psychological research

shows that if what is responsible for the effectiveness of good children’s programming and prosocial marketing is that children learn

from their media environment. And if children can learn positive

behaviors via this medium, they can learn negative ones as well.

The role of rating systems in this discussion merits attention.

There continues to be concern over the ambiguity and the implementation of the current television rating system. It appears that

rating systems are undermined by the marketing efforts of the very

groups responsible for their implementation and effectiveness.

That, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, displays

a significant lack of accountability and has to be considered when

proposals for industry self-regulations are discussed.

Also undermined here are parents and American families. As the

industry has shown a lack of accountability in the implementation

of the existing rating system, parents have struggled to manage

their family’s media diet against misleading and contradictory information. For instance, marketing an R-rated film to children who

are under 17. While the industry has made some information regarding the ratings available, more information regarding content

needs to be made more accessible more often. Just as with the nutritional information, the content labeling should be available on

the product and not hidden in a distant Web site or in the occasional pamphlet.

Generally speaking, most adults see advertising as a relatively

harmless annoyance. However, advertising directed at children, especially in young children that features violence, generates concern. The average child is exposed to approximately 20,000

commercerials per year And that’s only for television. It doesn’t include print or the Internet. And much of this is during weekend

morn or weekday afternoon programming. Most of the concern

15

stems not from the sheer number of commercial appeals, but from

the inability of some children to appreciate and defend against the

persuasive intent of marketing. Especially advertising featuring

violent product.

A recent Federal Trade Commission report on the marketing of

violence to children heightens these concerns. As a result of the

Children’s On-Line Privacy Protection Act, the Federal Trade Commission has ruled that parents have a right to protect their children’s privacy from the unwanted solicitation of their children’s

personal information. We would argue that, based on the years of

psychological research on violence prevention and clinical practice

in violence intervention, parents also have the right to protect their

children from material that puts them at risk of harm. With the

considerations that are in place for children’s privacy, the precedent for concern about children’s health is well established.

Decades of psychological research bear witness to the potential

harmful effects on our children and our Nation if these practices

are continued. Chairman Upton and subcommittee members, thank

you for your time, and please regard the American Psychological

Association as a resource to the committee as you consider this and

other issues.

[The prepared statement of Jeff J. McIntyre follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFF J. MCINTYRE ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN

PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the House Energy and Commerce

Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. I am Jeff McIntyre and am

honored to be here in Chicago to represent the American Psychological Association.

I have conducted years of work related to children and the media as a negotiator

for the development of a television ratings system, as an advisor to the Federal

Communications Commission’s V-Chip Task Force, as a member of an informal

White House Task Force on Navigating the New Media, as a member of the steering

committee for the Decade of Behavior Conference on Digital Childhood, and most

importantly, as a representative of the research and concerns of the over 150,000

members and affiliates of the American Psychological Association. I also have an appointment on the Oversight Monitoring Board for the current television ratings system.

At the heart of the issue of children and the media is a matter long addressed

by psychological research—the effects of repeated exposure of children to violence.

The media violence issue made its official debut on Capitol Hill in 1952 with the

first of a series of congressional hearings. That particular hearing was held in the

House of Representatives before the Commerce Committee. The following year, in

1953, the first major Senate hearing was held before the Senate Subcommittee on

Juvenile Delinquency, who convened a panel to inquire into the impact of television

violence on juvenile delinquency.

There have been many hearings since the 1950’s, but there has been only limited

change—until recently. Media violence reduction is fraught with legal complications.

Nevertheless, our knowledge base has improved over time, with the publication of

significant and landmark reviews. Based on these research findings, several concerns emerge when violent material is aggressively marketed to children.

Foremost, the conclusions drawn on the basis of over 30 years of research contributed by American Psychological Association member—including the Surgeon General’s report in 1972, the National Institute of Mental Health’s report in 1982, and

the industry funded, three-year National Television Violence Study in the 1990’s—

show that the repeated exposure to violence in the mass media places children at

risk for:

• increases in aggression;

• desensitization to acts of violence;

• and unrealistic increases in fear of becoming a victim of violence, which results

in the development of other negative characteristics, such as mistrust of others.

16

If this sounds familiar, it is because this is the foundation upon which representatives of the public health community—comprised of the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Medical Association issued a joint consensus statement in 2000 on what we absolutely know to be

true regarding children’s exposure to violence in the media.

Certain psychological facts remain are well established in this debate. As APA

member Dr. Rowell Huesmann stated before the Senate Commerce Committee, just

as every cigarette you smoke increases the chances that someday you will get cancer, every exposure to violence increases the chances that, some day, a child will

behave more violently than they otherwise would.

Hundreds of studies have confirmed that exposing our children to a steady diet

of violence in the media makes our children more violence prone. The psychological

processes here are not mysterious. Children learn by observing others. Mass media

and the advertising world provide a very attractive window for these observations.

The excellent children’s programming (such as Sesame Street) and pro-social marketing (such as that around bicycle helmets) that exists is to be commended and

supported. Psychological research shows that what is responsible for the effectiveness of good children’s programming and pro-social marketing is that children learn

from their media environment. If kids can learn positive behaviors via this medium,

they can learn the harmful ones as well.

The role of ratings systems in this discussion merits attention. There continues

to be concern over the ambiguity and implementation of current ratings systems.

It appears that ratings systems are undermined by the marketing efforts of the very

groups responsible for their implementation and effectiveness. That, Chairman

Upton and members of the Subcommittee, displays a significant lack of accountability and should be considered when proposals for industry self-regulation are discussed.

Also undermined here are parents and American families. As the industry has

shown a lack of accountability in the implementation of the existing ratings system,

parents have struggled to manage their family’s media diet against misleading and

contradictory information. (For instance, marketing an R rated film to children

under 17.) While the industry has made some information regarding the ratings

available, more information regarding content needs to be made more accessible,

more often. As with nutritional information, the content labeling should be available

on the product and not hidden in distant websites or in the occasional pamphlet.

Generally speaking, most adults see advertising as a relatively harmless annoyance. However, advertising directed at children, especially at young children, that

features violence generates concern. The average child is exposed to approximately

20,000 commercials per year. This is only for television and does not include print

or the Internet. Much of this is during weekend morning or weekday afternoon programming. Most of the concern stems not from the sheer number of commercial appeals but from the inability of some children to appreciate and defend against the

persuasive intent of marketing, especially advertising featuring violent product.

A recent Federal Trade Commission report on the Marketing of Violence to Children heightens these concerns. As a result of the ‘‘Children’s On-Line Privacy Protection Act’’ the Federal Trade Commission has ruled that parents have a right to

protect their children’s privacy from the unwanted solicitation of their children’s

personal information. We would argue that, based on the years of psychological research on violence prevention and clinical practice in violence intervention, parents

also have the right to protect their children from material that puts them at risk

of harm. With the considerations in place for children’s privacy, the precedent for

concern about children’s health and safety is well established.

Decades of psychological research bear witness to the potential harmful effects on

our children and our nation if these practices continue. Chairman Upton and Subcommittee members, thank you for your time. Please regard the American Psychological Association as a resource to the committee as you consider this and other

issues.

Mr. UPTON. We certainly have in the past. Thank you very much.

Dr. Davis.

STATEMENT OF RONALD M. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Chairman Upton and members of the subcommittee.

My name is Ronald Davis, I’m a preventive medicine physician

practicing in Detroit, and residing in East Lansing, and I’m a member of the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association.

17

On behalf of the AMA, I am pleased to be here today to discuss the

effects of television violence on children.

As one that was born in Chicago, and who attended medical

school just a few miles from where we are today, at the University

of Chicago, I’m particularly pleased to be in this city and in this

wonderful school for this hearing this morning. I speak to you not

only as a physician, but also as a father of three sons. And like

most parents in the United States, my wife and I have had a hard

time patrolling around the violent entertainment that comes into

our own household.

As we all know, television has a huge presence in most children’s

lives. Almost every home in America has a television, and most

homes have more than one. Studies show that kids, on average,

watch television 31⁄2 hours a day. One in five kids watches more

than 35 hours of TV each week. Our children today are constantly

bombarded with violence in TV shows, movies, video computer

games and music. Media violence has increased and is more and

more graphic. The AMA has been concerned for years about violence on TV and its impact on the physical and mental health of

children and teens.

The AMA first expressed concern about the public health impact

of violent television in the early 1950’s. Since then the AMA has

adopted strong policy opposing TV violence. Our policy also recognizes that TV violence is a risk factor and threatens children’s

health and welfare.

In July, 2000, as mentioned by Jeff McIntyre, the AMA joined

with the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological

Association, and other prominent groups. In particular, a joint

statement of Entertainment, Violence, and Children. A copy of that

statement is attached to our written testimony. The joint statement

recognizes that TV programs can be an important educational tool

for children. But it points out that the lessons learned from violence in TV programs and other entertainment media can be very

destructive.

Research for more than one thousand studies indicates that

watching entertainment violence can increase aggressive values,

attitudes, and behavior. The effect on children is complex and vary.

And some kids are affected more than others. But it is clear that

children who seek a lot of violence are more likely to think that violence is acceptable and is the way to settle conflicts. And younger

children are always the most affected. Viewing violence may lead

to real life crimes.

TV violence by itself, as has been mentioned, is not the only factor that leads to youth aggression, anti-social attitudes and actual

violence. There are other causes, such as family breakdown, peer

pressure and easy access of guns and other weapons. But there is

no question that TV violence has negative effects on children and

adds to the level of violence in our society. Violence is a public

health threat, and we need to confront all of its causes.

What is the physician’s role in all of this? First, physicians

should educate themselves about the harmful effects of TV violence

on children. Second, as educators, physicians should talk to their

patients, the children themselves, if old enough, or their parents

about television. They need to ask how much TV is watched and

18

the type of programs. As physicians we need to counsel our patients that watching violent TV shows can be bad for the children.

The parents need to monitor and control their children’s exposure

to violence through TV and other entertainment media.

Physicians should consider the role of media when treating patients. For example, with children who are hyperactive or aggressive, or who complain of nightmares or other sleep problems, physicians should ask about their TV viewing habits. Limiting rotation

to the types of programs the patient watches may be part of a recommended treatment plan Finally, as advocates, physicians should

be involved in community and school activities, if possible, just like

we’re doing here today. They can speak to parents or school groups,

or directly to children about the impact of TV violence. They should

also speak out for more responsible TV programs.

Chairman Upton, all of us have important roles to play in curving the harmful exposure of our children to accepted violence on TV

and in other entertainment media. The AMA and our physicians

look forward to working with you and the subcommittee and others

to implement strategies to make that happen.

[The prepared statement of Ronald M. Davis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RONALD M. DAVIS, MEMBER, AMERICAN MEDICAL

ASSOCIATION BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Good morning Chairman Upton, and Subcommittee members. My name is Ronald

M. Davis, MD, and I am a member of the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association (AMA). I am a preventive medicine physician and serve as Director

of the Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention at the Henry Ford

Health System in Detroit, Michigan. I am pleased to be able to testify today on behalf of the AMA. The AMA commends the Subcommittee for holding today’s hearing

on television violence and its effects on children.

Television and other forms of visual media play an enormous role in everyday life,

particularly in the lives of children and adolescents. While television serves in the

education and socialization of children, there are also a number of health problems

associated with the excessive watching of television—independent of content—such

as the rising rates of childhood obesity. In addition, an extensive body of research

documents a strong correlation between children’s exposure to media violence and

a number of behavioral and psychological problems, primarily increased aggressive

behavior. The evidence further shows that these problems are caused by the exposure itself.

Physicians, particularly those who treat children, are only too aware of the pervasive effects of television, movies, music videos, and computer and video games on

modern life and the concern felt by many over the violent content of these media.

There is an established body of evidence documenting the troubling behavioral effects of repeated exposure to media violence. For the past several decades, the physician and medical student members of the AMA have been increasingly concerned

that exposure to violence in media is a significant risk to the physical and mental

health of children and adolescents. America’s young people are being exposed to

ever-increasing levels of media violence, and such violence has become increasingly

graphic.

Today 99% of homes in America have a television. American children, ages 2-17,

watch television on average almost 25 hours per week or 31⁄2 hours a day, with almost one in five watching more than 35 hours of TV each week. Twenty percent

of 2 to 7-year-olds, 46% of 8 to 10-year-olds, and 56% of 13 to 17-year-olds have TVs

in their bedrooms, a practice which the AMA urges parents to avoid. Studies have

shown that 28% of children’s television shows contain four or more acts of violence,

and that before he or she reaches the age of 18, the average child will witness more

than 200,000 acts of violence on television, including 16,000 murders. One survey

revealed that of the shows that contained violence, three quarters of them demonstrated acts of violence that went unpunished.

Violence in all forms has become a major medical and public health epidemic in

this country. The AMA strongly abhors, and has actively condemned and worked to

reduce, violence in our society, including violence portrayed in entertainment media.

19

The AMA has long been concerned about the prevalent depiction of violent behavior

on television and in movies, especially in terms of its ‘‘role-modeling’’ capacity to potentially promote ‘‘real-world’’ violence. We have actively investigated and analyzed

the negative effects that the portrayal of such violence has on children, and for almost 30 years, have issued strong policy statements against such depictions of violence.

Concerns about the public health impact of violent television emerged relatively

soon after its development as an entertainment media. In 1952, the AMA first expressed its concerns over the potential impact of violent television programming on

children in an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association. At its

1976 annual meeting, the AMA adopted a policy supporting research on the impact

of media violence. A resolution was also adopted at the same meeting that declared

the AMA’s ‘‘recognition of the fact that TV violence is a risk factor threatening the

health and welfare of young Americans, indeed our future society.’’ In 1982, the

AMA reaffirmed ‘‘its vigorous opposition to television violence and its support for efforts designed to increase the awareness of physicians and patients that television

violence is a risk factor threatening the health of young people.’’ This policy remains

in force, and has been expanded to include violence in entertainment media other

than television, such as movies, videos, computer games, music and print outlets.

Since the AMA first raised the issue in 1952, a compelling body of scientific research has confirmed that our original concerns were well-founded. Over 1000 studies, including reports from the Office of the Surgeon General, the National Institute

of Mental Health, and the National Academy of Sciences, as well as research conducted by leading figures in medical and public health organizations, point overwhelmingly to a causal relationship between media violence and aggressive behavior

in some children. The research overwhelmingly concludes that viewing ‘‘entertainment’’ violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values and behavior,

particularly in children. Moreover, exposure to violent programming is associated

with lower levels of pro-social behavior.

The effect of ‘‘entertainment’’ violence on children is complex and variable, and

some children will be affected more than others. But while duration, intensity and

extent of the impact may vary, there are several measurable negative effects of children’s exposure to such violence:

• Children who see a lot of violence are more likely to view violence as an effective

way of settling conflicts and assume that acts of violence are acceptable behavior. • Viewing violence can lead to emotional desensitization towards violence in real

life. It can decrease the likelihood that one will take action on behalf of a victim

when violence occurs. • ‘‘Entertainment’’ violence feeds a perception that the world is a violent and mean

place. Viewing violence increases fear of becoming a victim of violence, with a

resultant increase in self-protective behaviors and a mistrust of others. • Viewing violence may lead to real life violence. Children exposed to violent programming at a young age have a higher tendency for violent and aggressive behavior later in life than children who are not so exposed. Longitudinal studies

tracking viewing habits and behavior patterns of a single individual found that

8-year old boys, who viewed the most violent programs growing up, were the

most likely to engage in aggressive and delinquent behavior by age 18 and serious criminal behavior by age 30.

In July 2000, at a Congressional Public Health Summit, the AMA joined the

American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent

Psychiatry, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychiatric

Association and the American Psychological Association in issuing a ‘‘Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children.’’ The Joint Statement

acknowledges that television, movies, music and interactive games are powerful

learning tools and that these media can, and often are, used to instruct, encourage

and even inspire. The Joint Statement, however, also points out that when these

entertainment media showcase violence, particularly in a context which glamorizes

or trivializes it, the lessons learned can be destructive. A copy of this joint statement is attached to our testimony.

Entertainment violence is certainly not the sole, or even necessarily the most significant, factor contributing to youth aggression, anti-social attitudes and violence.

Family breakdown, peer influences, the availability of weapons, and numerous other

factors may all contribute to these problems. However, there is no question that entertainment violence does have pathological effects on children, and the AMA believes that because violence is a public health threat, careful consideration must be

given to the content of entertainment media. As part of its strategy to reduce violence, the AMA has supported past efforts by network broadcasters in adopting adVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:08 Nov 10, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 96095.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
20

vance parental advisories prior to airing programs that are unfit for children, strong

and effective television and movie ratings systems, ‘‘V’’ Chips that can screen out

violent programming, and most recently, DVD-filtering devices.

We are not advocating restrictions on creative activity. In a free society, there

must be a balance between individual rights of expression and societal responsibility. We do believe, however, that the entertainment industry must assume its

share of responsibility for contributing to the epidemic of violence in our society, and

should exercise greater responsibility in its programming content.

Physicians have important roles to play in reducing children’s involvement with

violent media by serving as educators, advisors and advocates. All physicians need

to recognize that violence in America is a major public health crisis, and that media

violence contributes to this crisis. Physicians need to educate themselves about the

harmful effects on children of viewing or listening to violence in entertainment

media, and discuss these effects with parents and children old enough to understand

such information. Patients can then make more informed choices about the amount

and type of television they watch. Patients will better understand the need for parental involvement in decisions about movie, music, video, computer and video game

content and the impact of various forms of media on eating habits, physical activity,

and family life in general. Physicians should serve as role models by using television

sets in office and clinic waiting rooms for educational purposes only and having

media literacy materials available.

As clinicians, physicians have the opportunity to consider the role of media as

part of a broader biopsychosocial evaluation when evaluating specific presenting

problems. For example, in children being evaluated for aggressive, oppositional or

hyperactive behaviors or for nightmares or other sleep complaints, inquiring about

the child’s violent media-related activities may identify a contributing factor that

could be modified as part of a treatment plan.

As advocates, many physicians are involved in community activities that seek to

reduce the public’s over-utilization of media and/or the amount of violent and other

problematic content in media materials. This may include such things as speaking

about this topic at medical meetings, to parent or school groups, or directly to children; joining local ‘‘media watch,’’ ‘‘media literacy,’’ or other groups; or participating

in national organizations, such as the AMA, that promote these goals.

The AMA will continue to speak out about violence in the media, especially its

role in contributing to the overall level of violence in our society. We will continue

to urge the media industry to reduce the amount of violence in television programming, movies, music, video games and the Internet; depict successful nonviolent solutions for anger and conflict; and depict accurately the pain, remorse, and other

consequences of violence and violent behavior on individuals, families and society.

We appreciate the opportunity to share our views on a matter of such importance

to the health of Americans.

[Below is a document signed in July by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)

and five other prominent medical groups about the connection between media and

violent or aggressive behavior in some children. Please also access the AAP Media

Matters page.]

JOINT STATEMENT ON THE IMPACT OF ENTERTAINMENT VIOLENCE ON CHILDREN

CONGRESSIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH SUMMIT

July 26, 2000

We, the undersigned, represent the public health community. As with any community. there exists a diversity of viewpoints—but with many matters, there is also

consensus. Although a wide variety of viewpoints on the import and impact of entertainment violence on children may exist outside the public health community, within it, there is a strong consensus on many of the effects on children’s health, wellbeing and development.

Television, movies, music, and interactive games are powerful learning tools, and

highly influential media. The average American child spends as much as 28 hours

a week watching television, and typically at least an hour a day playing video

games or surfing the Internet. Several more hours each week are spent watching

movies and videos, and listening to music. These media can, and often are, used to

instruct, encourage, and even inspire. But when these entertainment media showcase violence—and particularly in a context which glamorizes or trivializes it—the

lessons learned can be destructive.

21

There are some in the entertainment industry who maintain that 1) violent programming is harmless because no studies exist that prove a connection between violent entertainment and aggressive behavior in children, and 2) young people know

that television, movies, and video games are simply fantasy. Unfortunately, they are

wrong on both counts.

At this time, 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. The conclusion of the public health community, based on over 30 years of research, is that viewing entertainment violence

can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values and behavior, particularly in

children.

Its effects are measurable and long-lasting. Moreover, prolonged viewing of media

violence can lead to emotional desensitization toward violence in real life.

The effect of entertainment violence on children is complex and variable. Some

children will be affected more than others. But while duration, intensity, and extent

of the impact may vary, there are several measurable negative effects of children’s

exposure to violent entertainment. These effects take several forms.

• Children who see a lot of violence are more likely to view violence as an effective

way of settling conflicts. Children exposed to violence are more likely to assume

that acts of violence are acceptable behavior.

• Viewing violence can lead to emotional desensitization towards violence in real

life. It can decrease the likelihood that one will take action on behalf of a victim

when violence occurs.

• Entertainment violence feeds a perception that the world is a violent and mean

place. Viewing violence increases fear of becoming a victim of violence, with a

resultant increase in self-protective behaviors and a mistrust of others.

• Viewing violence may lead to real life violence. Children exposed to violent programming at a young age have a higher tendency for violent and aggressive behavior later in life than children who are not so exposed.

Although less research has been done on the impact of violent interactive entertainment (video games and other interactive media) on young people, preliminary

studies indicate that the negative impact may be significantly more severe than that

wrought by television, movies, or music. More study is needed in this area, and we

urge that resources and attention be directed to this field.

We in no way mean to imply that entertainment violence is the sole, or even necessarily the most important factor contributing to youth aggression, anti-social attitudes, and violence. Family breakdown, peer influences, the availability of weapons,

and numerous other factors may all contribute to these problems. Nor are we advocating restrictions on creative activity. The purpose of this document is descriptive,

not prescriptive: we seek to lay out a clear picture of the pathological effects of entertainment violence. But we do hope that by articulating and releasing the consensus of the public health community, we may encourage greater public and parental awareness of the harms of violent entertainment, and encourage a more honest

dialogue about what can be done to enhance the health and well-being of America’s

children.

DONALD E. COOK, MD, President, American Academy of Pediatrics;

CLARICE KESTENBAUM, MD, President, American Academy of Child & Adolescent

Psychiatry; L. MICHAEL HONAKER, PHD., Deputy Chief Executive Officer, American

Psychological Association; E. RATCLIFFE ANDERSON, JR. MD, Executive Vice

President, American Medical Association; AMERICAN ACADEMY OF FAMILY

PHYSICIANS; and the AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION

Mr. UPTON. Professor Kunkel.

STATEMENT OF DALE KUNKEL

Mr. KUNKEL. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify

today. I’ve studied children and media issues for over 20 years, and

am one of the senior researchers who led the National Television

Violence Study in the 1990’s, a project widely recognized as one of

the largest scientific studies of media violence. In my remarks here

today, I will briefly report the key findings in that project, as well

as summarize the state of knowledge in the scientific community

about the effects of media violence.

22

I was impressed with all the opening statements from members

this morning, and particularly yours, Mr. Chairman. You echoed

one of the lines that I often present, and that is to list the major

organizations of public health agencies that are already drawn a

conclusion that you’re hearing from the panel here today. The Surgeon General, The National Academy of Science and so on. We

might add to that list that the broadcasting industry, the BMAE,

the National Cable Television Association, your friend, Jack

Lempke, who heads the MPAA, all of these individuals and organizations have also acknowledged that media violence contributes to

real world violence and aggression.

And I encourage the committee to hold them accountable for

those statements and for behavior that is consistent with that

knowledge. Because we heard so much about some of the summaries, I’m going to skip some of my remarks and only include in

the record the documents that research reviews, and turn directly

to a research that I’ve been involved with the National Television

Violence session. Much of that work emphasized the importance in

examining differences in the ways in which violence is presented

on television and the implications that those differences hold from

the effects that result from viewing violent material.

Simply put, not all violence is the same in determining the potential for harmful effects on child viewers. The nature of the context that surrounds the violence matters, and that is important.

For example, consider a violent act that has the following feature.

It is committed by a repugnant character who no one would wish

to imitate. It clearly depicts part of the sufferings by victims, and

it results in strong negative consequences for the perpetrator of the

violence. That kind of portrayal would actually minimize the risk

of the most harmful effects for viewers, because it does not glamorize nor sanitize the depiction of violence.

In contrast, consider a very different type of violent portrayal.

One that is committed by an attractive or popular character, who

is a potential role model for children, that depicts unrealistically

mild harm to the victim who is attacked. And that conveys power

and status for the perpetrator or attracts the approval of others in

the program. This type of portrayal, by glamorizing and sanitizing

the depiction of violent behavior, has a much stronger risk of leading to harmful outcomes in the viewer.

Research conducted by myself and colleagues at four universities

as part of the National Television Violence Study documents a very

unfortunate trend in the context surrounding most violent depictions on the television. Our final report, which was based on the

analysis of roughly 10,000 programs across three television seasons, concluded that the manner in which violence is presented on

television follows the latter example that I just traced. That is to

say, that the most pattern associated with violent portrayal on TV

involved contextual features such as: Not showing a realistic degree

of harm for the victim; not showing the pain and suffering that’s

realistically associated with violent attacks; and not showing the

serious long-term negative consequences of violence.

These patterns were present in the large majority of violent portrayals across all channels and at all times of the day. In contrast,

23

programs that included a strong anti-violence theme accounted for

less than 4 percent of all shows containing violent content.

Now, these data are troubling, but they’re not new. They serve

to underscore that the way in which most violence is depicted on

television does, indeed, pose a serious risk of harm for children.

Whether or not violence on television might be reduced in quantity,

it could certainly be presented in more responsible action, thereby

diminishing the risk of harm to child viewers. This is one potential

avenue for addressing concerns in this area that, in my view, has

not been actively explored.

In sum, the research evidence clearly establishes that the level

of violence for TV is a substantial cause for concern. Content analysis demonstrates the violence of a potential aspect of TV programming that enjoys remarkable consistency and stability over time.

And effect research, including correlational, experimental, and longitudinal design, all converge to document the risk of harmful psychological effects on child viewers is very potent.

Collectively, these findings from the scientific community make

clear that television violence is a troubling problem. I applaud this

subcommittee for considering the topic and exploring potential policy options that may reduce or otherwise ameliorate the harmful effects of children’s exposure to television violence.

[The prepared statement of Dale Kunkel follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DALE KUNKEL, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION,

UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today before the Subcommittee.

I have studied children and media issues for over 20 years, and am one of several

researchers who led the National Television Violence Study (NTVS) in the 1990s,

a project widely recognized as the largest scientific study of media violence. In my

remarks here today, I will briefly report some key findings from the NTVS project,

as well as summarize the state of knowledge in the scientific community about the

effects of media violence on children.

Media Violence: The Importance of Context

Concern on the part of the public and Congress about the harmful influence of

media violence on children dates back to the 1950s and 1960s. The legitimacy of

that concern is corroborated by extensive scientific research that has accumulated

since that time. Indeed, in reviewing the totality of empirical evidence regarding the

impact of media violence, the conclusion that exposure to violent portrayals poses

a risk of harmful effects on children has been reached by the U.S. Surgeon General,

the National Institutes of Mental Health, the National Academy of Sciences, the

American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and a host of other scientific and public health agencies

and organizations.

In sum, it is well established by a compelling body of scientific evidence that television violence poses a risk of harmful effects for child-viewers. These effects include: (1) children’s learning of aggressive attitudes and behaviors; (2) desensitization, or an increased callousness towards victims of violence; and (3) increased or

exaggerated fear of being victimized by violence. While exposure to media violence

is not necessarily the most potent factor contributing to real world violence and aggression in the United States today, it is certainly the most pervasive. Millions of

children spend an average of 20 or more hours per week watching television, and

this cumulative exposure to violent images can shape young minds in unhealthy

ways.

Much of my research has emphasized the importance of examining differences in

the ways in which violence is presented on television, and the implications such differences hold for the effects that result from viewing violent material. Simply put,

not all violence is the same in terms of its risk of harmful effects on child-viewers.

The nature and context of the portrayal matters. For example, consider a violent

act that has the following features:

24

—it is committed by a repugnant character who no one would wish to emulate;

—it clearly depicts the harms suffered by victims;

—and it results in strong negative consequences for the perpetrator.

This type of portrayal would actually minimize the risk of most harmful effects for

viewers, because it does not glamorize or sanitize its depiction of violence. In contrast, consider a different type of violent portrayal;

—one that is committed by an attractive or popular character who is a potential role

model for children;

—that depicts unrealistically mild harm to the victim who is attacked,

—and that conveys power and status for the perpetrator or attracts the approval

of others in the program.

This type of portrayal, by glamorizing and sanitizing the depiction of violent behavior, has a much stronger risk of leading to harmful outcomes in the viewer.

Research conducted by myself and colleagues at four universities as part of the

National Television Violence Study documents an unfortunate trend in the context

surrounding most violent depictions on TV. Our final report, which was based on

the analysis of approximately 10,000 programs across three television seasons, concluded that the manner in which most violence is presented on television actually

enhances rather than diminishes its risk of harmful effects on child-viewers. That

is, the most common pattern associated with violent portrayals on TV involved contextual features such as:

—not showing a realistic degree of harm for victims; —not showing the pain and suffering realistically associated with violence attacks;

—and not showing the serious long-term negative consequences of violence.

These patterns were present in the large majority of violent portrayals across all

channels, and at all times of day. In contrast, programs that included a strong antiviolence theme accounted for less than 4% of all shows containing violent content.

Implications of the Findings

These data are troubling, though they are not new. They serve to underscore that

the way in which most violence is depicted on television poses a serious risk of harm

for children. It does not have to be that way. Independent of whether or not violence

on television might be reduced in quantity, it could certainly be presented in more

responsible fashion, thereby diminishing its risk to child viewers. This is one potential avenue for addressing the concern about media violence that, in my view, has

not yet been adequately explored.

In sum, the research evidence in this area establishes clearly that the level of violence on television poses substantial cause for concern. Content analysis studies

demonstrate that violence is a central aspect of television programming that enjoys

remarkable consistency and stability over time. And effects research, including correlational, experimental, and longitudinal designs, converge to document the risk of

harmful psychological effects on child-viewers. Collectively, these findings from the

scientific community make clear that television violence is a troubling problem for

our society. I applaud this Subcommittee for considering the topic, and exploring potential policy options that may reduce or otherwise ameliorate the harmful effects

of children’s exposure to television violence.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

Professor Blackman.

STATEMENT OF RODNEY JAY BLACKMAN

Mr. BLACKMAN. I would like to express my pleasure for being

here. And I teach constitutional law and First Amendment issues,

and I taught these subjects for many years. The question of violence can be examined in the context of various forms of anti-social

communication and how the court deals with it. The explicit sexual

graphic, sexual material in its (inaudible) and expressions of violence. At one time, the court allowed plaintiffs to recover for what

was called a group libel expression of hatred directed at a particular group.

In more recent years the Supreme Court has refused to allow—

or seemed to refuse to allow recovery for new libel or hate scenes

directed at a group. The lesson constitutes rare and specific individuals, or I want to say it constitutes the defamatory material diVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:08 Nov 10, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 96095.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
25

rected at specific individuals. With respect, it is sexually explicit

material. The court has limited sex issue, sexually explicit material

to that which is regarded as it seems that which is happening appeals to the parameter of this and lacks artistic—literary, artistic,

scientific valu taken as a whole. Pornography that is out of scene

is allowed in the media.

The question of what would be the key question toward violence

has not been resolved. But it looks as though the Supreme Court

would be very remarkable to allow me for contacting—researching

the prohibition expression to violence with one exception with the

broadcast media where the broadcast suggest a monopoly sense of

the broadcast band return it connects with the broadcaster that the

broadcast majority rules the pieces and the statements.

George Carl gave a talk in which he use several of the verdicts

that are not ordinarily used in the broadcast media. And the Supreme Court held a sanction of the broadcaster, the broadcaster

center on two o’clock in the afternoon. Violence that promotes antisocial act, killing or suicide in adolescences, has not been found to

justify a tort of action against the broadcaster. Because the causal

relationship between the broadcast of the anti-social message and

the act is not sufficiently close. A group of women have attempted

to get—sustain an ordinance that prohibited violence against

women. And the courts have held that unless the material comes

within the definition of obscenity, fewer (inaudible) has offensive

likely to look at the political—I’m sorry—literally artistic liberal

sector governing, taken as a whole, it could not be prohibited.

So, the road of those who would engage in content-base restrictions on violence is for others to seek one. That does not mean,

however, that all reforms and activity on the part of those who

wish to restrict violence in school.

John Stewart, a proponent of listing fair government action involving self-regarding harmful acts is not only the kind of thing

that he believes, namely, a worthy opponent to the harmful violence. And I believe that the depiction of violence can be harmful.

The idea of promoting V-Chips that are requiring salespeople to inform customers of how to use a V-Chip. That, too, will be possible.

Go into Hollywood and see the producer and directors produce violence that will technically lead to the kids, that, too, would be

harmful. So, would not all of us would run (inaudible) analysis.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Rodney Jay Blackman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RODNEY JAY BLACKMAN, PROFESSOR, DEPAUL COLLEGE OF

LAW

I would like to express my opposition to any broad based governmental restriction

of media and internet violence. I would like to do so for several reasons.

First, I will admit that depictions of violence on TV, the movies or on the internet,

available to children, particularly repeated depictions, increases the likelihood of

children engaging in acts of violence. But I am still opposed to any broad based censorship of the media and the internet to protect children.

One reason is that it gives the impression of government acting as Big Brother.

It was Joseph Stalin who claimed to be the engineer of human souls. To a minor

degree and in a seemingly benign way, broad based censorship of media and internet violence available to children lends itself to this approach. The assumption underlying this approach is that the government should mold what images children

receive in order to create a more socially adjusted child. While having social well

adjusted children is a laudable goal, any broad based censorship in one area has

26

the potential for encouraging other restrictions (the slippery slope argument). Are

depictions of violence that children can see any more justified than depictions of sex

or hatred? Once government starts down this road in one area, any logical limit to

governmental regulation in other areas is weakened. The sum of such regulations,

though not each individual one taken separately, could move our citizenry, and not

just the young, toward a substantially restricted ability to see images and express

thoughts.

A second reason is that, over the long run, it may restrict our liberty without

being effective. The underlying assumption is that it is only external stimulus that

causes people, children and adults, to act in an anti-social way. If we could only

eliminate the external stimulus, we would solve the problem of anti-social behavior.

But this view seems simple minded. Ted Bundy said that his violent acts against

women were triggered by looking at violent pornography. This cannot be the whole

story. The vast majority of men could look at depictions of violent acts against

women and would likely become disgusted or bored and stop looking. While the external stimulus might be the immediate cause in specific instances, something in

the human brain of some people is also going on. Could anyone seriously argue, for

example, that the neo-Nazi, Matthew Hale, developed his views because of some

Nazi film that he saw? Under the view that I am espousing some people (mostly

boys and men) have either been poorly raised by their parents or parent substitutes

or else have some genetic flaw that makes them particularly violent. If this is so,

then censoring the images that children (or adults) receive in the media or internet

would have little or no long term effect on such people.

A third reason is that any broad based restriction is likely to be ineffective because it restricts what children and adults can see more completely than the public

would tolerate. If children cannot see violent cartoons on TV, then they might gravitate to violent cartoon comics. If children and adults, cannot see or read violent material more generally, they will gravitate even more to violence in sports—boxing,

wrestling, football, hockey even baseball and basketball. In order to protect children

fully, the government would have to regulate what appears on news broadcasts. No

images of people shooting people in Iraq would be allowed. Then too, the Bible and

Koran contain depictions of violence. Should these be barred as well?

A fourth reason is that efforts to protect children through broad based restrictions

of violence on TV or the internet are likely to run afoul of the Supreme Court’s understanding of the First Amendment. While the Court has allowed government to

restrict depictions of obscene material (pornography that appeals to the prurient interest, is patently offensive and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific

value) and sexual depictions of children (whether obscene or not), it has so far not

allowed for media restrictions of violence. The one case I am aware of in this area

was a city’s effort to prohibit degrading or violent depictions of women. Since the

ordinance was not limited to the narrow obscenity exception to First Amendment

protected speech, the federal courts struck it down. The Court has also struck down

statutes that restrict what adults can see even though they have been enacted ostensibly to protect children. As the Court puts it, adults cannot be limited to what

is fit for children. Thus, if the net result of a broad based restriction so as to limit

what adults can see on TV or in the movies, I believe it would run afoul of similar

Court pronouncements. As to the Internet, the Court has not yet determined whether it would accept a restriction on what children can access based on community

standards when the result would enable the most restrictive community to determine what children could access in the most permissive communities.

What I would call a narrowly based statute, one that, for example, requires that

salesmen selling TVs explain to buyers how to use the V-Chip (assuming the TV

has one), a labeling statute as to what is unfit for children, or a statute that prohibits depictions of violence in cartoon shows in the morning hours, probably would

be upheld by the Court and would not unduly restrict our First Amendment liberties.

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you very much.

What we’re going to do at this point, I think that each of us here

on the panel, members of the panel, usually ask a question, and

then we go to the question the students have submitted. I’m going

to play Devil’s advocate here for a moment. I’m a dad, I’ve got two

kids. I’ve got a high school junior and I’ve got a seventh grader.

And as parents, my wife and I are always very concerned about

what they do, what shows they watch, computer, and all of that,

27

and we’re nice people, we’re very good parents. And I know that

parental influences is a major, major element.

And I concur with the studies that have been done. My wife and

I are so concerned about the access that our kids have in making

sure that they are properly handling what they’re seeing. In fact,

today’s USA Today newspaper, I don’t know if any of you saw it,

and I would say off the top, I’m 51 years old, it’s still hard for me

to say that, and I have watched TV shows, from my viewing as a

teen, it’s a great escalation in terms of violence and for our kids.

And all those specific scenes, we’re exposed to the specifics and

have a lot more violence than their parent’s kids see on TV at all

the different hours, et cetera.

Things are much more violent today than they were, 20, 30 years

ago. But yet, the USA Today, today’s story, list the crime rates in

the paper. It said that the crime rates have a steady low last year.

And looks at crime statistics go back into the early 1990’s. A comparable number in 1993, the violent crime rate was 50 per a thousand people. In 2003, there was, it says here, that ‘‘amounts have

grown from a violent crime rate of an assault, intentional assault,

armed robbery’’, it stood at 22.6 victims for every thousand, age 12

and up to about double. It was double in 1993 than it is today.

So, we see a real climb in crime rates. Yet, at the same time, we

see, at least in my view, the amount of increase in the kind of violence. If they are exposed to it, and all people are exposed. I just—

and all people are exposed, I just welcome the democratic to be

here, and to advise: Why do you get that, those numbers are the

way that they are? Dr. Slutkin.

Mr. SLUTKIN. The overall crime rate is unlikely to limit the

amount on television as it is. Because as it’s been pointed out,

there is other influences, too. I would like——

Mr. UPTON. Grand Auto Theft wasn’t a game that is on the videos.

Mr. SLUTKIN. I would like to point out, though that these rates,

that albeit somewhere between a fourth and a half down from what

they were at their highest peak, are still 25 times higher than they

are in other countries. And it’s a situation that is substantially different than that in other developed countries. So, we have a completely out of control situation that is not only out of control, you

know, it is like having the police not doing anything, and then suddenly they’re doing some pieces of their job. But the community aspect of this, the parental aspect of this, the advertising and promotion of the violence, all that stuff is still in there. So, I think

that some interventions have been put into place. But there is no

complacency of where the rates are now.

Mr. UPTON. It does make a point, by the way, that there are

more people in jail than ever before.

Mr. SLUTKIN. And as you’ve pointed out, so, what have we got

there? We have a society in which we’re promoting violence, regularizing violence, and catching those who do it, and putting them

in jail. So, it’s obviously not a correct situation.

Mr. UPTON. Anybody else have a comment?

Mr. KUNKEL. Yes, please. Mr. Chairman, when you talk about

crime rates and so forth, it’s important to underscore that no one

is suggesting that media violence is the sole or even the primary

28

contributor to real world violence and aggression. We are asserting

it is a significant contributor. Let’s draw a little comparison here.

If you wanted to reduce heart attacks in this country, how would

you do that? Well, you would look at what are the risk factors that

contribute to heart attacks. And those that include cigarette smoking is one risk factor. If you’re over a certain weight, then you’re

obese, and that’s a risk factor. If you have high stress in your job,

that’s a risk factor. There can be a history of heart disease in your

family, that’s a risk factor.

Now, from the medical perspective, the way you’re going to reduce heart attacks is to diminish those risk factors. If you took

away one risk factor in the United States, there was never—no

smoking was allowed in this country, we’re going to increase it and

say if no one smoked, then would you still have heart attacks? Absolutely, you still would.

Now, let’s look at the situation with the crime rate and so forth.

Your suggestion is that there is more violence, or there is certainly

more graphic violence in the media today. But the data that we

have from content studies, if you look over the last 4 years, actually show that the violence in the media and in the television is

very consistent and stable. In fact, that’s one of the most interesting points, remarkably stable. And if you look at the big picture,

yes, I think crime rate and violence in the real word is down, but

I believe that that is because the progress in the country is engaged in a large number of initiatives and efforts to reduce violence. But I don’t think that you can use that as an argument to

say that real world violence isn’t affected by the violence that we

see. Research is far too compelling in the other direction.

Mr. BLACKMAN. I would like to get out of the area and talk more

generally. There are a number of reasons why there are more

crimes in the United States than there are in other countries. One

is the fact that we have a society that people are different. And

when you’re—everybody that has crime rates have the same background, you might think that they are related to you. Go back a

few hundred years and you might be less prone to engage in violence if you’re around it. It’s a very disciplinary action. We don’t

have that in this country. We also have a very mobile society where

people with relatively polished backgrounds can move up. We, in

our society where there are jobs available, we have a society where,

at least to some extent, there are drugs available, there is alcohol

available. And we have a society with a high rate of breakdown in

family life. And all of those factors contribute to the amount of violence.

How much is the—the thought of the violence in the main aspect

of the human mind to create the young adolescent, and—and teenage, and young adults they (inaudible). I remember reading an article that I had, pages of the New York Times, by a novelist, Michael Shovone, some months ago, when he said that children have

violent thoughts. They will be independent of the amount of media

about violence, true the media market increases the likelihood of

violence. But it’s a multi-dimensional problem I suspect in focusing

only on this one aspect which has a potential for limiting what

adults can watch. It may not be the appropriate approach.

29

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. And a quick comment, and then Mr.

Rush has some questions.

Mr. DAVIS. Chairman Upton, I just wanted to make a point that

violence in the media may have other effects besides those criminal

activities. I think we heard about research linking violence in the

media and aggressive behavior or abusive behavior. We’ve seen statistics showing an increase only in activity, for example, through

the years, and this is something that the AMA has been speaking

out on in recent years. The published studies in the Journal of the

American Medical Association on voting, and pointing out how for

too long we’ve taken that problem for granted. And we need to take

it seriously and have a zero tolerance approach to bully activity in

the schools, and in other places where youth congregate, because

of its serious aspects on our children.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Rush.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, first of all,

I’d like to take a moment to thank all of you panelists for coming

from across the Nation here for this hearing. And I also want to

thank my colleague, Mr. Shimkus, for his presence here also.

I want to concur with some of you. That’s a compliment. Mr.

Chairman, 4 years ago I lost my son from a violent act. And the

thing that really I focus on determines the type of violences that

are occurring almost on a daily basis. In some of our homes, in our

streets, is that we are desensitized to something that we see, and

the television portrayals of violence. We don’t see the effects of

after that. One of the things that really It just hit me so hard, that

that kind of pain and tragedy, the kind of gut-wrenching reaction

to violence for my family, not only for those convicted, but also for

the perpetrators of violence, and the kind of trauma, the ongoing

trauma that occurs, that never gets portrayed; the mothers in pain.

The pride of the mothers get portrayed. So, the kind of textual aspects of a violent act, and the result of the violent act, never gets

away. But I believe that you pick your own in terms of the contextual responsibility that we have here.

I want to just tell the students here some of the questions that

you had per your remarks. And I’m going to start with just trying

to answer some questions. But I would like to ask the panelist, Mr.

McIntyre, if you will comment on the parent’s responsibilities.

Where does the parental responsibilities come in as we discuss TV

viewership which portrays violence? What is my responsibility as

a parent?

Mr. MCINTYRE. I would say that they start day one, and perhaps

even a little before day one, to start thinking about how to prepare

healthy viewing habits for your kids. The thing that can be tricky

for parents in this is two points. One is that, you know, everybody

is different, all individuals are different. And so all kids are different, too. And so the parent really needs to be in touch with

where their own child or children are so that they can kind of monitor and help with the healthy media habits around the kids. What

strengths, their weaknesses or virtues that they want their child

to develop. If the child is showing some instances of pleading, or

increased fear, of being a victim, then they’re going to want to be

aware of the violence that they’re looking at over in the media.

Part of the good thing about the ratings that we have now, is that

30

parents can tweak their preferences based on whatever decisions

they make about their kid, if they are concerned about violence, if

they’re concerned about sexual behavior, then it’s up to the parents

to honor those paths. But the parents do need to have reliable information to be able to do that. We do think that the television industry can do a little in providing more accurate and more reliable

information. But ultimately, it’s the parents that we’re trying to

empower this.

Mr. KUNKEL. Would you indulge in another response, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. RUSH. Sure.

Mr. KUNKEL. I think that everyone concurs that parents have a

significant role, primary role to play in protecting their children

from TV violence. You have got to look at the data, however, to appreciate that many parents are not sensitized to this topic. Indeed,

there is a substantial proportion of homes in America that there is

always constantly a television on in homes. And what that we need

to keep in mind is that a household where the television set is basically left on all day whether anyone is watching it or not. Television is on during meals and so forth. And whatever programming

is coming along the channel that it’s on, is allowed to play regardless of its activity in the content. Those are numbers that represents millions of homes in this country. So, if you believe all the

data that you’ve heard today, if you believe that media violence has

contributed to real world violence and aggression, then while it’s

important to look for parents to play a role here, parents can’t be

the only solution.

If there are representatives from the television industry here

today, they would advocate that it’s the parent’s responsibility, not

their responsibility. And that the parents have to do their job, and

we have a big problem here. And I don’t think that realistically because we are up against a multi-billion dollar industry that now

permeates our culture such that to engage in your immediate consumption. You cannot like media violence. And I think one of the

real shames is, that just as you point out that we are desensitized,

we don’t respond to see violence in the media on television.

In fact, when you read stories of a murder or a crime, unless we

know the victim, we don’t respond with the pain and grief and anguish that we should, because we read those stories too often. The

only time we respond with great sensitivity is when the numbers

of people killed are so high that they grab our attention because

they have what, a new record. And it’s a shame that things have

come to that point. We need to be more sensitive to media violence,

and this dramatic part that we need to give parents the tools and

the training to help them do their job to sensitize their children.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I just want to see something just for

a moment. I really want to ask the audience, just by the raising

of hands, how many students here in this auditorium in the last

year know someone, either a relative, or a friend, or a friend of a

friend, knows someone who has been killed by violence in the last

year? Would you raise your hands?

[Students raise hands.]

Mr. RUSH. Okay. Thank you. How many students here in the last

year know someone or is either a friend, or knows someone who

31

knows someone, or a family member who has had a violent act,

who has been injured by a violent act in the last year?

[Students raise hands.]

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much. I ask that because this is, indeed, a problem that we are constantly experiencing. I know in my

experiences that between the hours of 12 and 2 o’clock—well, let’s

say 10 and 2 p.m., every Saturday, most young—a lot of young—

significantly young to what I prefer, of someone who has been

killed, are attending funerals. It’s probably one of the major gathering places for someone who has been killed. On Saturday it’s a

place for young people to gather between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. Thank

you.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Shimkus.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank

my colleague, Bobby Rush here, for doing that. I was going to ask

the question, too. But I think his question really highlights the

challenges that we have in the national level on different areas. If

you ask that in my high school in my district, I don’t think you

would get a hand. You wouldn’t get a hand raised. Now, we would

have kids who are drinking and driving, who have other activities

of violent crimes. So, I thank you for asking that. Let me follow

along with the panelists, like you did last, and I’ll look around, of

the students here, poke your friends next to you because I want to

get hands up on this. How many of you all have a TV in your

household, one TV?

[Students raise hands.]

Mr. SHIMKUS. How many, one or more, one or more?

[Students raise hands.]

Mr. SHIMKUS. Okay. How many have three TVs in your home?

[Students raise hands.]

Mr. SHIMKUS. How many of you have—this is a question the

chairman let me ask before. How many have a TV in your bedroom?

[Students raise hands.]

Mr. SHIMKUS. How many of you watch more than 3 hours of TV

a day?

[Students raise hands.]

Mr. SHIMKUS. More than 2 hours a day?

[Students raise hands.]

Mr. SHIMKUS. Okay. I’m not done. How many know or understand that there is a TV rating system out there?

[Students raise hands.]

Mr. SHIMKUS. Can anyone explain it to me?

Mr. RUSH. Just one person.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Can anyone explain the rating system to me, anyone out there? Yes, right there in the white. Stand up, I can’t hear

you. Speak from the upper diaphragm.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER. Well, on TV it will tell you what it’s

rated, like, PG, or PG-13, or rated R.

Mr. RUSH. What does it mean?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER. Uh?

Mr. RUSH. What does it mean?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER. PG-13 is for little kids, rated R is for big

kids.

32

Mr. SHIMKUS. All right. How many of you know anything about

what they call a V-Chip? Has any of you ever had problems watching something you wanted to watch because your parents turned

it on, or used it? How many never heard of V-Chip, raise your

hands.

[Students raise hands.]

Mr. SHIMKUS. This is good for us. I mean, we read, we do surveys, we can hear testimony. But really, we have audiences that

are here from Washington, DC. We don’t usually ask these questions. But the difference is, they are tailored to students and are

being paid to sit in and listen to what you all have just listened

to. Or there are visitors, and they can leave at any time they want,

and they just listen for a few minutes, and they get bored, and they

usually walk out.

Although, there are some public interests that are concerned

about what we’re going to do. So, this is really—you are experiencing what happens in Washington on a hearing. And I appreciate

your asking questions. The last thing I would say is for the folks

who need AMA, and anyone else concerned, there is legislation this

year ongoing, which is another major problem in our schools, probably we’re not successful into moving in this year, but we call ‘‘teeing it up’’ for the realization of next year, and if you’re interested

in involving with that as it pertains to this issue, we would really

encourage your participation. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Well, Congressman Rush has with him

a list of questions that the students have prepared. And it is at this

point we’ll take the next 15 or 20 minutes, if there is that many

questions. And, Bobby, we will let you read the questions and get

a response, and at which point, then we’ll conclude.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to take a note that

these questions, and there are some outstanding questions, I want

to congratulate the students here at Simeon High School for very

insightful questions. Question No. 1, and any of the panelists, if

you will, if you can respond to this: ‘‘Do you feel the government

has a right to regulate what is shown on television?’’

Mr. UPTON. Just do a yes or no answer.

Mr. SLUTKIN. Yes, I think they have some responsibility.

Mr. MCINTYRE. Yes, they have some responsibility.

Mr. DAVIS. I would say, yes, in terms of rating systems and possibly controlling the content of child programs.

Mr. KUNKEL. Are there limits to what the government can do?

Yes. But can the government convene and rate some regulations in

this area? Yes.

Mr. BLACKMAN. I would agree that the time regulation might be

feasible. And I would be opposed to comment other than that. But

a rating system might also be too small.

Mr. RUSH. The next question is: ‘‘What are your ideas of what

parents should do to limit their children from watching violence on

television?’’ How can parents limit their children from watching violence on television? And I guess maybe we can talk a little more

about the V-Chip and what the V-Chip does.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Take them out of the bedrooms.

Mr. UPTON. Let’s start over here.

33

Mr. RUSH. This time let’s start over here. Professor Blackman,

what ideas do you have for what parents should do to limit their

children from watching violence on television?

Mr. BLACKMAN. My understanding is that there is a significant

set of parents that don’t know how to use the V-Chip. They have

brought TV fairly recently into the V-Chip and this is going to be

there. So, perhaps through the schools educating parents who have

televisions on how to use the V-Chip would be a helpful concern.

And also requiring that televisions sold with the V-Chip, that the

salesperson is trained to explain how to use them.

Mr. KUNKEL. I’ll be brief. But I’d like to make two points. And

the first is that most television viewing is not planned. That is to

say, the most common way to view television is to go to the set

when you have available time, turn it on, and on the channels that

they show us. The odds are better than 50/50, you’re going to encounter a violent program. So, what a parent can best do is to plan

their children’s viewing with the child. That is to say, you open up

the TV Guide every week; you find the programs that are going to

be valuable; you either adjust your schedule and watch it that

time, and take advantage of new technology, like the digital video

records, so you can capture that program, and watch it at your convenience. If you were going to take a trip to the library, you

wouldn’t walk into the library aimlessly, go up a particular aisle

and pull a book off at random. It’s not how we read. Why is that

the way we watch television? So, that would be one point.

My second point here is, that in the context of a discussion about

the V-Chip, the V-Chip is an important tool for parents. But it may

not be the tool for the age range that we’re meeting with here

today. Young people at this age are going to be, I think, negotiating

with their parents what’s appropriate to view, and being in agreements with the context with the parents, assuming the parents is

proactive in keeping that responsibility.

The V-Chip is really designed more for the younger child audience, when the parent can’t always be at the TV set, but is nearby

in the home. And so, it’s an aid, I think, primarily to younger children rather than the older group.

Mr. RUSH. Dr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. I would say that the parents, first of all, need to know

what their kids are watching. And I won’t be popular with the kids

in the audience here in saying this, but having televisions in the

bedrooms, as a parent of three sons, I don’t think is a great idea,

because you don’t know what they’re watching. I think total time

in front of the television, or playing video games, or playing computer games, needs to be controlled by their parents. Having a television on during meals is something we always avoid in our own

household. Because that’s the time where parents and their children connect and find out about their day, talk about issues that

might be prominent.

And I think parents need to set limits on the kind of shows that

kids are allowed to watch. As has been mentioned, it’s hard to find

any program that doesn’t have some violence in it. But some programs have expensive and gratuitous violence that runs throughout the program, and those are the kinds of programs that parents

need to have their children avoid watching.

34

Mr. MCINTYRE. I’m going to step in and say, you know, I think

the biggest thing the parents can do is to know their kids. That so

many times parents get distracted by jobs and bills and whatnot.

And they’re not familiar with what’s going on in their kids’ lives.

And if they get their kids look the way I see, the parents think that

there is something to talk about in the kitchen or in the refrigerator. You know, you got to know what your kids are about. You

don’t know your kids. You think that, you know, for one child, you

know, the parents may approve of them watching Jackie Chan or

Jet Li, or those sort of movies. But for another kid, I think that

represents significant risks, and the parents are too distracted by

the things going on in their world, and don’t have tons of patience

with their kids in the media, and that’s what we address.

Mr. SLUTKIN. Yeah, I think the planning and the limiting of time

and knowing are such a—I just would like to add one particular

thing. And not every parent will be there or agree, but I think it

might be useful that you have a conversation about what television

is. And for those of us who watch a little bit of television, to ask

ourselves, are we just squawking down and being lazy and letting

ourselves be in the situation we’re in. The television is stronger

than you are. In other words, the television is larger than your

mind. Whether than you being larger than it, and being able to

control it, so you can be able to turn it off, which you become a little stronger.

Mr. UPTON. I have a quick question for the audience again. And

that is: Well, there are three ways you can get TV, one is satellite,

one is cable, the other one is over the air. So, I’d like to know

where they are. How many people have watched their TV through

cable? Raise your hands.

[Students raise hands.]

Mr. UPTON. Okay. And how many people watch through satellite?

[Students raise hands.]

Mr. UPTON. All right. And is there anyone here that has just

over-the-air, just an antenna?

[Students raise hands.]

Mr. UPTON. All right. Thank you. Next question.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I think most of the questions are,

again, are the same type. Well, let me ask this, and this is a good

one here. It says, ‘‘Violence is part of everyday life, not just on television.’’ If violence is taken off the TV because of children, what

will the government, or what should the government do to retain—

not retain—to reduce violence in our community on a daily basis

with for our children?

Mr. MCINTYRE. There is a large array of programs that we can

discuss, and discuss the merits and values of—that can address the

problems as much as individuals vary, communities vary, and

those that seek violence and individual communities have to be approached as well. Everything from educational programs to prenatal health, to the presence of guns.

One of the concerns that we have at the APA is a qualitative increase in violence. Not necessarily that the numbers are going up,

but we’re saying that violence isn’t about getting out back in the

schoolyard, punching each other, giving each other a black eye. But

35

it’s about, you know, whipping out a nine millimeter and settling

it that way. That, there is a wide variety of.

Mr. DAVIS. As a physician, I’d like to mention a couple examples

of what we in the medical profession can do. One is for physicians

to look for signs of violence when their patients come in with problems. For example, physicians need to be attuned to domestic violence when a woman comes in with trauma. And then we put out

guidelines for what other physicians need to be doing to look for

that kind of thing.

What they also mention is a program we had in LaPorte Hospital

in Detroit, we’ve seen some horrible statistics on kids coming into

the emergency room with trauma. Initially, they might be a victim

of an assault, and then a year later they might be back with a stab

wound, and then a year after that with a gunshot wound. And our

statistics show that a few percentage that we were discovering

were dead in 5 years. So, we said to ourselves, why not intervene

with these kids the first time we can, or they go down that inevitable cascade of worse and worse trauma and violence.

And so, we had a program in LaPorte Hospital where we connect

kids after they presented a trauma, we call it, The Teen of Enrichment Program. And we bring it in once a week, we bring in speakers. Experts on gang violence. We connect them in the community,

based on organizations, so that they can mentor, talk to these kids,

find out what their home environment is, and then that’s the kind

of thing that we can do.

Mr. BLACKMAN. One of the lessons I believe we might learn from

the war is that showing not just the bombs falling, but the victims

of the shooting that hasn’t been seen today. I will need to emphasize as to the increase, the interest is, insofar as we can encourage

it. An awareness of what the victims suffer rather than on the

bombing and the shootings. All that encourages in the media and

in the schools to try to get people to (inaudible) in after the tour.

To the extent we can do that, I think people will be less problematic to engage in private gangs. Thank you.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it’s my round of

questioning, and I just have one comment. First of all, I want to

thank all the witnesses, and I want to thank all the students for

their involvement. I think you should give yourselves a round of

applause.

There is one area, of course, I wanted to get into, and that is

what I’m really concerned about, and I want us to think about it

as we proceed with additional Chairman hearings in the field, and

that is: The increasing incidences of violence committed—violence

committed by one young female as opposed to males. And maybe

we can get into that real soon at some additional point in time.

But again, these questions, we asked you, of course, for your participation, and your presence, Mr. Chairman, is really, really well

noted, and it’s very, very important to us as a community, and also

as a citizen of this Nation, and I want to thank you for bringing

this subcommittee to Simeon High School and for taking the time

out. You didn’t have to do this, but you did anyhow, and we certainly appreciate you for your commitment and for your leadership

on this issue that faces our Nation. Again, thank you so much.

36

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Let me say in conclusion, and in addition

to chairing this subcommittee, I serve on the Educational Committee. And I’ve been to a school every week, whether it would be

an elementary school, like I did at St. Mary’s last Friday, or a high

school class, or a college university. And often, I can tell as I

walked in the door, the quality instruction, the students are receiving good teachers. And I got to say, looking through these questions

that were presented today, I know this is a great school. And I’m

really proud of each of you in the issues that you have to be a wonderful American. And that’s the appreciation that Bobby Rush is

the leader for. He doesn’t shine just today, he shines every day.

He is an active participant in every issue that we have had over

the years, and he has had over the years in our subcommittee, and

it was a great joy that we can pick a date out. He actually picked

the day and the site. And for me to come, and Mr. Shimkus’s participation, as well. This is an issue of concern, finally a Member of

Congress puts in an appearance. And as you look to the future, I

can assure you that we’re getting paid to work shoulder to shoulder

on the issues that confront our Nation every which way.

Thank you all, and thank you panelists for being here and sharing your testimony and taking the opportunity to be a part of this

record. We look forward to interacting with you. And with that, the

hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS

The American Academy of Pediatrics, representing 60,000 pediatricians, regrets

that an AAP member could not testify in person, but we would like to submit this

statement for the record. We appreciate your leadership and interest in how the

media, particularly television, impacts the health and behavior of children and adolescents.

Our three main points are:

• Although there are potential benefits from viewing some television shows, many

negative health effects in children can also result. These include aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence, nightmares and fear of being harmed. By

knowing how television affects children, we can make TV viewing for children

less harmful and still enjoyable. • It is not violence itself but the context in which it is portrayed that can make the

difference between learning about violence and learning to be violent. Studies

show that the more realistically violence is portrayed, the greater the likelihood

that it will be tolerated and learned. • Parents, health professionals, the entertainment industry and policymakers all

have critical roles in discussing and addressing television violence.

The Academy recognizes exposure to violence in media, including television, movies, music, and video games, as a significant risk to the health of children and adolescents. The young people of this country drink in media all day, every day. What

would we do if we discovered that the water our children drink was full of factors

toxic to their physical and mental health? The question for consumers and producers

of media is simple: in what kind of environment do we want our children to grow

up?

Over the last 20 years, the AAP has expressed its concerns about the amount of

time children and adolescents spend viewing television and the content of what they

view. Although there are potential benefits from viewing some television shows,

such as the promotion of positive aspects of social behavior (e.g., sharing, manners,

cooperation), many negative health effects also can result. Extensive research evidence indicates that media violence can contribute to aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence, nightmares and fear of being harmed. Children and adolescents are particularly vulnerable to the messages conveyed through television,

which influence their perceptions and behaviors. Television can inform, entertain

and teach us. However, some of what television teaches may not be what parents

37

want their children to learn. TV programs and commercials often show violence, alcohol or drug use, and sexual content that are not suitable for children or teenagers.

By knowing how television affects children, we can make TV viewing for children

less harmful and still enjoyable.

IMPACT OF MEDIA ON HEALTH AND BEHAVIOR OF CHILDREN

Starting from when we are very young, we get the majority of our information

from media. While media offers us, including children, many opportunities to learn

and to be entertained, how people interpret media images and media messages also

can be a contributing factor to a variety of public health concerns. Among children

and adolescents, research shows that key areas of concern are:

• Aggressive behavior and violence; desensitization to violence, both public and personal

• Substance abuse and use

• Nutrition, obesity and dieting

• Sexuality, body image and self-concept

• Advertising, marketing and consumerism

This morning we are focusing specifically on television violence. Research in a variety of circumstances and settings has shown that the strongest single correlate

with violent behavior in young people is previous exposure to violence. Before age

8, children cannot discriminate between real life and fantasy. On-screen violence is

as real to them as violence that they witness at home or in their community. From

childhood’s magical thinking and impulsive behavior, adolescents must develop abstract thought and social controls to prepare them to deal with adult realities. If

this development process occurs in a violent environment, it can become distorted.

Media, with which children spend more time than with parents or teachers, have

great potential for shaping the hearts, minds, and behaviors of America’s young people, and we need to take this potential very seriously.

Entertainment violence is not the sole factor contributing to youth aggression,

anti-social attitudes and violence. Family breakdown, peer influences, the availability of weapons, and numerous other factors may all play a part. But entertainment violence, including television, does contribute. The media are an area of clear

risk that we, as a compassionate society, can address.

VIOLENCE IN CONTEXT

It is not violence itself but the context in which it is portrayed that can make the

difference between learning about violence and learning to be violent. Serious explorations of violence in plays like Macbeth and films like Saving Private Ryan treat

violence as what it is—a human behavior that causes suffering, loss and sadness

to victims and perpetrators. In this context, viewers learn the danger and harm of

violence by vicariously experiencing its outcomes. Unfortunately, most entertainment violence is used for immediate visceral thrills without portraying any human

cost. Sophisticated special effects, with increasingly graphic depictions of mayhem,

make virtual violence more believable and appealing. Studies show that the more

realistically violence is portrayed, the greater the likelihood that it will be tolerated

and learned.

Children learn the ways of the world by observing and imitating—they cannot

help but be influenced by media. Exposure to media violence results in an increased

acceptance of violence as an appropriate means of conflict resolution. Media exaggerate the prevalence of violence in the world and offer strong motivation to protect

oneself by carrying a weapon and being more aggressive. Perhaps the most insidious

and potent effect of media violence is that it desensitizes viewers to ‘‘real life’’ violence and to the harm caused its victims. The more realistic, comic, or enjoyable the

media violence, the greater the desensitization. Given what we know through research, why is violence marketed to children? To quote Dr. David Walsh, author of

Selling out America’s Children, ‘‘Violent entertainment is aimed at children because

it is profitable. Questions of right or wrong, beneficial or harmful are not considered.

The only question is ‘Will it sell?’ ’’

As medical professionals, pediatricians want parents and the television industry

to understand that TV programs can have powerful positive and negative effects on

child health. They can be used to teach wonderful, enlightening and entertaining

lessons to children but also can show graphically violent, cruel, and terrifying images that can lead to aggressive behavior in some children and nightmares, fearfulness or other emotional disturbances in others.

38

RECOMMENDATIONS

Free speech and open discussion of society’s concerns protect our liberty. We do

not want censorship, which is both unconstitutional and ultimately unsuccessful in

a free society. However, we need to help children make the best media choices, just

as we try to do with the food they eat. Parents, health professionals, policymakers

and the entertainment industry each bear some responsibility. For example, parents

should set content and time limits on media use, monitor and discuss the media

their children consume, and take televisions out of the children’s bedrooms. Pediatricians should alert and educate parents when positive media opportunities arise,

either educational or informational. Policymakers need to enforce and in some cases,

strengthen laws and regulations that protect children as media consumers. They

should also increase the funding available for media research. The AAP endorses

legislation in the Senate, ‘‘Children and Media Research Advancement Act,’’ to fund

and generate more research on how media impacts children. We should also support

media education programs in American schools that have been demonstrated to be

effective.

ROLE OF TELEVISION INDUSTRY

Lastly, the entertainment industry needs to acknowledge that it is an important

and powerful force in American society, one that affects all of us in many ways. Too

often scientific research on the effects of media on children and adolescents is ignored or denied by some in the entertainment industry. Yet the leading medical

groups in this country, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American

Medical Association, American Psychological Association and the American Academy

of Child and Adolescent Health, all echo the same conclusion. Based on decades of

research, viewing entertainment violence can lead to aggressive attitudes, values

and behavior, particularly in children. It is time for everyone in the entertainment

industry to join us in protecting and promoting the health of our children.

Many in the industry are parents, grandparents, aunts or uncles themselves. As

individuals they care deeply about children and youth. We are simply asking them

to take their personal values into the workplace as they pursue their business.

Though many producers and consumers of entertainment media express helplessness to change the flood of violence, this problem will only be solved through the

efforts of media producers and media consumers who decide to reject violent media.

As the entertainment audience we must focus on what we want our young people

to learn and how we want them to behave. To do so, we must support positive entertainment products and reject negative and dangerous media products, including violent TV programming.

If the television industry accepts our invitation, we can start talking about reasonable and practical solutions. The AAP and its members have been working on

many fronts to help parents and children glean the best from unending media exposure. The AAP launched its Media Matters campaign (www.aap.org/advocacy/

mediamatters.htm) seven years ago to help pediatricians, other health professionals,

parents and children become more knowledgeable about the impact that media messages can have on children’s health behaviors. Public education brochures on the

media have been developed and distributed, including one that explains how the

various ratings systems work. In addition, the Academy established a Media Resource Team (www.aap.org/mrt) in 1994 to work with the entertainment industry

in providing the latest and most accurate information relating to the health and

well being of infants, children, adolescents and young adults.

Until more research is done about the effects of TV on very young children, the

American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend television for children younger

than 2 years of age. During this time, children need good, positive interaction with

other children and adults to develop good language and social skills. Learning to

talk and play with others is far more important than watching television. For older

children, the AAP recommends no more than 1 to 2 hours per day of quality screen

time.

The AAP has supported federal legislation and regulation when necessary over

the years to help address TV violence. We supported the v-chip to help parents control which programs their children see and negotiated with the industry to revise

their TV ratings system. However, we still have a lot to work on. Parents don’t

know much about the v-chip and how to use it, nor can they easily decipher the

TV ratings system. Many parents find the ratings unreliably low, with an objective

parental evaluation finding as much as 50% of television shows rated TV-14 to be

inappropriate for their teenagers. The ‘‘TV Y7 FV’’ rating is often thought to mean

‘‘family viewing’’ instead of ‘‘fantasy violence’’ for children age 7 and older. The ratings are determined by industry-sponsored ratings boards or the artists and proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:08 Nov 10, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 96095.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
39

ducers themselves. They are age based, which assumes that all parents agree with

the raters about what is appropriate content for their children of specific ages. Furthermore, different ratings systems for each medium (television, movies, music and

video games) make the ratings confusing. We have called for simplified, contentbased media ratings to help parents guide their children to make healthy media

choices. Until we achieve that, the v-chip and current ratings system should be extensively publicized by the industry.

In our ‘‘Media Violence’’ policy statement, we have also urged the industry to:

• Avoid the glamorization of weapon carrying and the normalization of violence as

an acceptable means of resolving conflict.

• Eliminate the use of violence in a comic or sexual context or in any other situation

in which the violence is amusing, titillating or trivialized.

• Eliminate gratuitous portrayals of interpersonal violence and hateful, racist,

misogynistic, or homophobic language or situations unless explicitly portraying

how destructive such words and actions can be.

If violence is used, it should be used thoughtfully as serious drama, always showing the hurt and loss suffered by victims and perpetrators.

DIGITAL TELEVISION

The AAP, as part of the Children’s Media Policy Coalition, has been urging the

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to adopt new public interest obligations

for children’s television programming for the transition to digital television. This

transition offers the best opportunity to shape how this new technology can serve

children. Some of what we have called for includes more educational and informational (E/I) programming for children, consistent icons denoting E/I programs, ondemand ratings to be called up at any time during the program (with a brief explanation as to why for example, a show has a ‘‘V for violent’’ rating), and an open

v-chip to accommodate any new ratings systems in addition to the industry’s rating

system.

CONCLUSION

Ultimately, we are all in this together and we should seek a collective solution.

Parents, health professionals, the entertainment industry and policymakers have

critical roles in discussing and addressing television violence, particularly when it

comes to the health of children and adolescents.

Given the overwhelming body of research indicating the danger posed by media

violence to the normal, healthy development of our human resources, we need to

focus on nurturing and preserving those resources, our children and our nation’s future.

Should you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us

at 202-347-8600. Thank you.

Æ