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

75–480 PDF 2002

S. Hrg. 107–159

RATING ENTERTAINMENT RATINGS: HOW WELL

ARE THEY WORKING FOR PARENTS AND

WHAT CAN BE DONE TO IMPROVE THEM?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 25, 2001

Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman

CARL LEVIN, Michigan

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

MAX CLELAND, Georgia

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota

FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee

TED STEVENS, Alaska

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Staff Director and Counsel

LAWRENCE B. NOVEY, Counsel

HANNAH S. SISTARE, Minority Staff Director and Counsel

FRED ANSELL, Minority Chief Counsel

DARLA D. CASSELL, Chief Clerk

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Opening statements: Page

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 1

Senator Thompson ............................................................................................ 4

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 32

Senator Durbin ................................................................................................. 36

Prepared statement:

Senator Bunning ............................................................................................... 71

WITNESSES

WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2001

Hon. Sam Brownback, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas ........................ 9

Dale Kunkel, Ph.D., Professor of Communications, University of California,

Santa Barbara ...................................................................................................... 13

Roger Pilon, Ph.D., J.D., Vice President for Legal Affairs, B. Kenneth Simon

Chair in Constitutional Studies, Director, Center for Constitutional Studies,

Cato Institute ....................................................................................................... 15

Michael Rich, M.D., M.P.H., Children’s Hospital Boston/Harvard Medical

School .................................................................................................................... 18

Laura Smith, Mother ............................................................................................... 21

William Baldwin, President, The Creative Coalition ............................................ 39

Doug McMillon, Senior Vice President and General Merchandise Manager,

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ........................................................................................... 42

Hilary Rosen, President and CEO, Recording Industry Association of America 44

Jack Valenti, President and CEO, The Motion Picture Association of America 47

Douglas Lowenstein, President, Interactive Digital Software Association ......... 50

Russell Simmons, Chairman, Phat Farm .............................................................. 68

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Baldwin, William:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 39

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 97

Brownback, Hon. Sam:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11

Kunkel, Dale, Ph.D.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 13

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 72

Lowenstein, Douglas:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 50

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 123

McMillon, Doug:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 42

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 102

Pilon, Roger, Ph.D., J.D.

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 15

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 78

Rich, Michael, M.D., M.P.H.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 18

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 84

Rosen, Hilary:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 44

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 106

Page

IV

Simmons, Russell:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 68

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45

Smit, Laura:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 21

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 89

Valenti, Jack:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 47

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 113

APPENDIX

Prepared statements submitted for the record:

The Media Coalition ......................................................................................... 128

Directors Guild of America .............................................................................. 131

Professor Joanne Cantor, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Madison ............. 136

(1)

RATING ENTERTAINMENT RATINGS: HOW

WELL ARE THEY WORKING FOR PARENTS

AND WHAT CAN BE DONE TO IMPROVE

THEM?

WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2001

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

Present: Senators Lieberman, Thompson, Carper, Durbin, and

Bunning.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good morning. Welcome to this hearing.

Let me say that we are here to revisit an issue that parents repeatedly raise with just about everyone who will listen, and that is the

challenge that is facing them in raising healthy children in today’s

500-channel, multiplexed, videogamed, disc-manned universe.

Before I proceed, I want to apologize for the quality of my voice

today. I am fighting a summer cold, and I am reminded of the old

story of the clergyman who, when he rises to give the sermon, says

to his congregates, ‘‘As you can hear, I have a terrible cold, and I

had thought of not giving a sermon today, but then I decided why

should you derive pleasure from my misery?’’ Jack Valenti, it is in

that spirit that I go forward with the proceedings.

A second preliminary announcement, in the last few days we

have had several requests from people who wanted to testify at the

hearing, including some members of the House, and it has just

been very hard at this date to accommodate those requests. Others

came from folks within the entertainment industry. But I have said

to them that we will accept their written testimony, that I would

be glad to meet with them, and, if it seems to be constructive and

worthy, we will convene another hearing on the subject, to give

others an opportunity to testify.

What I described at the outset, which is the concern of parents

around the country today about the effect of the entertainment culture on their children, is a reflection of the quantity of time that

children spend consuming and using media. You get a lot of numbers on this. One of them is an average of 61⁄2 hours a day, which

is the number reported by the Annenberg Public Policy Center. But

I think we all know it is more than quantity. It is a reflection on

2

the quality of the messages about sex and violence that kids are

being exposed to by the entertainment media—messages which too

often reject, rather than reflect, the values that parents are trying

to instill in their children—and the growing sense that the totality

of these messages is having a harmful influence on the attitudes

and behaviors of our children, and therefore on the safety and even

the moral condition of our country.

There are limits to what we in government can do to respond to

those concerns, first because of our devotion to the First Amendment, and second because governments do not raise children, parents do. At the same time, though, there are things that we can

do—hopefully, with the movie, music, video game and television industries—to empower parents and make the hard job of raising

healthy children a little easier.

Now, one way to empower is to inform. Over the years, the major

entertainment media have developed rating and labeling systems

to offer parents and consumers information about the content of

their products and help parents exercise more informed control

over their children’s media diets. Over that time, these ratings,

particularly those of the movie industry, have become cultural

icons, literately. But as the content and marketing practices of the

entertainment media have become worse, we have been hearing

more and more concerns about how these rating systems work.

There have been specific criticisms about their reliability, visibility

and understandability, and there have been general complaints

that the ratings do not provide parents with enough information

about content—about the levels of sex, violence and vulgarity in

the product—to make the right choice for their children. Last year,

for example, a Gallup survey found that 74 percent of parents said

the movie, music, and television ratings were inadequate on that

count.

Those concerns culminated in a letter sent to policymakers last

month by a distinguished coalition of researchers, medical groups,

including the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association, and a large number of child development experts and advocates, which recommended a complete overhaul of

the media ratings. That letter, which was instituted by the National Institute on Media and the Family, argued that the different

ratings are often applied inconsistently, and many parents find the

multiplicity of rating icons confusing, and as a result that the ratings are not adequately serving their purpose, which is to help parents and protect kids. To fix this problem, the signers of the letter

called for replacing the existing formats with a new, uniform rating

system monitored by an independent oversight committee and

grounded in sound research.

I thought this was an important statement with a provocative

proposal that deserved more public discussion. I also believe that

one constructive way in which we in government can help parents

is to provide a platform, to facilitate a dialogue and ideally find

some common ground. And that is the aim of our hearing today,

to flesh out the concerns raised in the NIMF’s letter and explore

the merits of their recommendations, to hear the response of the

industry keepers of these rating systems and to see if there is any

agreement on ways to improve the ratings to better inform parents.

3

I have expressed interest in the idea of uniform ratings before,

as have others in Congress, including Senators McCain and Clinton, and in the entertainment industry, notably Disney President

Robert Iger, and I remain interested in this idea. Many parents appear to be interested, as well—a survey by the Kaiser Family

Foundation, which is being released today, found that 40 percent

of parents believe that a uniform rating system would be more useful than the current approach, and only 17 percent think it would

be less useful. So today we are going to hear arguments in favor

of switching to a single system, as well as the industry’s responses

to those arguments.

I hope the entertainment industry witnesses come with an equally open mind, particularly on the question of providing more and

better information. For some time now, for instance, many of us

have voiced dissatisfaction with the recording industry’s one-sizefits-all parental advisory program, which provides a solitary

stickered warning to parents of ‘‘explicit content.’’ We have urged

the major record companies to expand and clarify their system and

tell parents what kind of explicit content is in the lyrics. Those

same criticisms and calls for change were repeated vociferously at

a hearing before the House Telecommunications Subcommittee last

week, as I understand it, and Ms. Hilary Rosen, on behalf of the

recording industry, ruled out adding any content descriptions to the

recording industry’s labeling system. I hope in our discussion today

that Ms. Rosen will reconsider that position.

I also hope that Mr. Valenti will alter the surprising and, to me,

outrageous suggestion he made in his response to the letter from

Dr. Walsh and the AMA and the APA, that there is serious doubt

remaining about whether violence in the media poses any risk of

harm to our children.

On the brighter side, if we are looking for an industry model, I

would point to the video game rating system, which is administered

by the independent Electronics Software Ratings Board. This system, which was a response in the first instance to congressional

hearings and parent concern, pairs age-based icons with detailed

content descriptors in a clear, concise and informative format. I

know that no rating system is perfect, certainly not in its application, but I think this is the best one around.

If I may touch briefly on a subject that is not the subject of our

hearing today, which is our concern about media marketing practices, I commend the video game industry for adopting, in response

to the FTC report, a comprehensive code of its own on marketing

and a self enforcement mechanism, which, if the legislation Senators Clinton, Kohl, and I have proposed were adopted, would protect the video game industry from any FTC enforcement because

they have done what we have most wanted the entertainment industry to do, which is to self-regulate and leave no room, or no

need, for government to be anywhere near what they are doing.

Ultimately, any potential reforms in the ratings will be meaningless if parents do not use them, and we need to remind parents

constantly of their responsibilities as we renew our call for more

and better information in the ratings.

One final word about the First Amendment, which is one thing

that I think all of us, on whatever side we are, fortunately seem

4

to support. I certainly do. That is why we are not talking about any

legislation or government regulation today. By I again want to

warn the industry that the best way to invite censorship is to disengage from this discussion and tune out the larger concerns of

millions of American parents about media influence on our kids

and on our country. Indeed, to me, the most striking finding of the

Kaiser survey that I have referred to was that 48 percent of parents in this country would support government regulations to limit

the amount of violent and sexual content in early-evening TV

shows. That is an alarming number, and it is an outcry that begins

to express just how frustrated and angry America’s parents are

about the state of our culture and its impact on our children.

I am now happy to yield to my Ranking Member, Senator

Thompson, a fully-reformed member of the entertainment industry

and who, in all of his work here, gives not only stellar performances, but certainly G-rated performances.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THOMPSON

Senator THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I do come to these hearings

somewhat prejudiced, as one who thinks they really have not made

a really good movie since ‘‘Baby’s Day Out,’’ but I will try to put

that aside as we proceed. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your comments. You have certainly given us a lot to chew on this morning,

and I think that it is going to make for some very interesting hearings and discussions, but there have been a lot of hearings lately,

or certainly proposed, I think—one in the House. We are having

one—they are talking about our Judiciary Subcommittee on the

Senate side having a hearing, the Antitrust Subcommittee—having

a hearing on this. Since I am the Ranking Member and feel an obligation to be here and make my own views known, perhaps I can

come about it from a slightly different perspective and maybe add

some things to the discussion.

We are here talking about ratings, but really we are also talking

about something bigger. I selected the Governmental Affairs Committee to be on when I first got here, one of the first committees

that I selected and, because a lot of people did not find it very interesting work, I got some seniority in a hurry and ultimately became Chairman of this Committee, but I was interested in it because it had to do with government and it had to do what the role

of government, thinking that if government was not doing some

things it ought to be doing, that was not serving the country, and

if government was doing some things that it should not be doing,

that that was harming the country because of the power of the

Federal Government. It had to do with the role of the government.

It had to do with the relationship between Federal, State and local

government. That is what appealed to me about this Committee

and the work that it did. As I look at some of these subjects, the

questions, of course, people are interested in the rating system, but

the real question to me, and the more fundamental question, is

what should, as a Congress, our relationship to those ratings be?

What if the ratings we decide are good? On the other hand, what

if we decide that the ratings are bad? Then what? I must say I was

somewhat surprised when President Clinton asked for the FTC report. Of course, now the Commerce Committee asked for another

5

FTC report. Now we are going to get a third FTC report, and I kept

asking myself, as I think—as I was in the capacity I was in with

regard to the Governmental Affairs Committee—what if these reports come back bad? Then what? What is our proper role as a government, as a Congress, as a governmental entity, if we are displeased with the findings?

So we find ourselves basically in a supervisory capacity, as it

were, with regard to a private industry who is engaged in a constitutionally-protected activity. That is a serious matter and it

bears some consideration and some discussion. I have a couple or

three observations or points, I guess, as I think this thing through

and as I thought about it last night, as to how to put this thing

in perspective and what my obligations as a U.S. Senator were

with regard to this. One observation, it seems to me—first of all,

Mr. Chairman, I share much of your concern with regard to some

of the product that we are seeing.

As a grandfather, I shudder to think about what my small grandchildren are going to be faced with as they go out into the world.

We all know that there is a lot of degrading stuff out there. Stuff

comes into our televisions in the home that is unfortunate, to say

the least. I think, in some ways, it is hardly arguable that some

of it is even harmful for children. To what extent, we do not know.

We, I think, also know that it is a part of a broader pattern of society, things that are going into society. We live in a world now

where we see in the checkout line at the grocery store things that

we had to work pretty hard, when I was growing up, as kids, to

get our hands on, not that I ever did, of course. But that is what

we are dealing with, and we also see in the entertainment industry

the advent of the conglomerate, where there are very few individuals who come up and control segments of the entertainment industry much anymore. It is big corporate business. One company

buys out another and is, in turn, bought out by another, some of

them foreign, some of them domestic, movie industry, record industry. I live in a town where you cannot throw a rock without hitting

a record producer or a record company.

I think there is one independent local record company left in

Nashville, Tennessee, and the significance of that, to me, anyway,

is that clearly it becomes and it has become much more bottom-line

oriented, with the decisions being made by people who are very absentee, in many respects, who have corporate ownership and corporate responsibilities and bottom-line responsibilities that produce

pressures that we have not seen in times past. I think all that is

true. I think all that is unfortunate. But another point that is

equally true is that most, if not all, of this activity is protected by

the First Amendment. Now, we may not like that. We may think

that is unfortunate. We can argue around the edges and around

the details.

It pains me to tell these parents here the stark truth of the matter, and that is—and this is just my opinion—when it comes to legislation or congressional imposition of mandates or regulation and

the imposition of fines, that we do not constitutionally have the

power to do that. If you read the opinions of justices like Justice

Thomas and Justice O’Connor and other justices on the Supreme

Court, you see very readily that speech of this kind, including comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:09 Mar 11, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 75480.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
6

mercial speech, and any laws dealing with it, is viewed with strict

scrutiny, and if the conduct is otherwise lawful and not misleading,

it is probably going to be protected.

We have accepted for a long time in this country that there is

constitutional protection for some conduct that is abhorrent and

bad. It is a limitation on government. It has to do with a broader

consideration that the Founding Fathers thought were paramount.

That is why John Adams defended those British soldiers for shooting those patriots. I do not know how many people have ever

watched a criminal walk out of a courtroom because the murder

weapon was seized pursuant to an illegal search. Those are tradeoffs that we make in this society and have made for some time.

So, that being the case, matters that rightfully concern all of us,

but matters that have this protection, what is the role of Congress?

What should we be doing about conduct that is, in some cases, bad,

but conduct that is legal? If we cannot legislate, and I know that

some might disagree with me on that, but that is my firm opinion.

I am willing to discuss it. If we cannot legislate, what can we do?

Should we use, as a Congress, our bully pulpit, as a Congress?

That is a very inviting prospect, I think, for many, and I am not

sure about that. But the only question to me is who is going to be

the next group that is engaged in legal, constitutionally-protected

activity who is brought up before us because we disapprove of their

conduct? That is a serious question that I think we are going to

have to ask ourselves, even the Federal Trade Commission.

But we have to acknowledge the fact that it appears that some

good things have come from the Federal Trade Commission. They

say that the industry ought to police itself, and while I question

whether or not the President or the Commerce Committee or any

of the rest of us ought to be sicking a regulatory agency on one as

a general principle, if they are engaged in legal conduct, I must acknowledge that the industry has responded to some of these things

and the FTC found out things about some in the industry that

were very beneficial, because they found that they were engaged in

inexcusable activity, in some cases, and steps are being taken to

remedy that.

So it is not an easy thing to answer, for me. I do think that Congress needs to be concerned that we not, through our actions, encourage or discourage the beneficial activity that has been taking

place in the industry. There is no law requiring these rating systems, and while I think that it certainly merits discussion in some

appropriate forum, as to what these systems ought to be and how

they could be improved, what we need to keep in mind is nobody

is requiring anybody to do that, and if we penalize people for not

doing it the way we think is right, they can quit doing it altogether, and I do not think that that would be a good thing. I think

we need to keep that in mind.

So what do we do as a society, as a people, as individuals? I

think there is a lot that we can do about something that concerns

all of us. I think we as individuals can use our bully pulpit. That

is what the Chairman and Bill Bennett have done so effectively—

Sam Brownback and others have done so effectively as individuals

going out, Bennett being a totally private citizen. Just because you

are a politician does not mean you lose your First Amendment

7

rights, and you can give your opinion about what is going on, and

we as citizens and fathers and grandfathers and grandmothers

ought to be free to do that. There is certainly a lot the entertainment industry can do and should do. I think they are moving, in

some cases—not all—but in some cases, I think they are moving in

the right direction. I think they are struggling with this. I think

they need to do more.

As I said, even the FTC says that this really ought to be something that the industry takes care of itself. To me, it is not just

about ratings. I hope we do view ratings and proper ratings as a

panacea to the problems that we are facing. In the first place, we

are never going to agree. My personal opinion is that I think things

that come into television on a regular basis in the homes that small

kids see are worse than ‘‘Saving Private Ryan.’’ R-rated, I believe ‘‘Private Ryan’’ was. I would hope that every 15, 16-year-old boy

would see that movie if he did not otherwise have problems; a very

violent movie, but it shows everything that young people ought to

be exposed to. It shows the terrible carnage of war. It shows sacrifice. It shows honor. It shows these young people what their

granddaddies did for their freedom.

So we have a disagreement right there. That is my personal

opinion. Other people will view things differently. With regard to

ratings, too, there are too many ways around them. You can have

perfect ratings. There are too many resources young people have to

get in to see an R-rated movie, if they want to, and certainly music.

We cannot protect our most vital nuclear secrets in this country.

You think we are going to keep Eminem records and tapes out of

the hands of young kids who want them. Plus the fact that I think

the ratings system is very good for parents and for parents who are

concerned and parents who use them. That is a large segment of

people, but we need to recognize that there are a large segment of

these kids where parents are not involved, where there is certainly

no better than a one-parent situation, where their main concern is

not ratings, movies, and records. It is getting by. These things are

totally irrelevant to those people.

So while these things are good and they need to be perfected and

they serve their purpose, I hope we do not look upon that as a panacea. I would hope that getting to the root of the problem, that the

industry would simply start doing better with regard to the kinds

of things they choose to show. It is not Congress that the industry

should be concerned about. It is their own conscience in the board

rooms. I do not think this is a pipe dream. I think we have a lot

of responsible people out there who want to do the right thing. I

talk to people. They have kids—and actors, and whatnot—and I do

not know of one that somewhere along the line has not chosen to

turn something down because it had no redeeming social value and

was exploitive or the language was something that they did not

want.

I cannot believe that an industry feels that it can undergo the

criticism that it undergoes, and cannot respond to that. I think responses are being made. I think more needs to be done, because

equally I cannot believe that being lucky enough to be a part of an

industry that has the ability to uplift and inspire, that is the common denominator of American society, whether it be movies or

8

music. You go into a bank, the one thing the bank president and

the janitor have in common, they grew up on the same movies and

they grew up on the same music, tremendous opportunity to do

good. That does not mean that it has to be pablum. That does not

mean that it has to be things that we all agree with or even tasteful or anything like that. But I think—and certainly in the music

industry—I think just some responsibility as corporate citizens—

corporations give millions and millions of dollars away for charitable purposes to benefit their community. This is something that

could be done that would be beneficial in just making things a little

bit better. That is the industry part.

I think what these private groups are doing are the most important part of this entire equation. I think by getting out and organizing and bringing some of these things that are most offensive

to people’s attention, and shaming where appropriate, I think that

is golden. I think that is right on. I think if you want to get together and someone is especially egregious and not buy their products or not patronize people, that is your constitutional right and

I say go for it, make your decisions about that.

We asked Wal-Mart to come here. Wal-Mart ought to be held up

as an example of what can be done in American society to deal

with this. They simply choose not to carry some of this stuff. They

make the decision, the subjective decision, that others might disagree with, but they make it and they leave some dollars on the

table by making it. Until these hearings I suppose, nobody knew

about it. I did not know about it until we got into this discussion.

So it is a good thing that has come out of it. Of course, last, but

not least, parents: I think we have a roomful of concerned parents

here today, and I think that this record sticker that we have on

records now, parental notice, what they are telling you with that

sticker is that this is bad stuff, and does it really matter how bad?

If parents just said we are not going to buy anything with this

sticker on it and you are not going to have it, I think it would have

an effect.

So, Mr. Chairman, I have gone on too long, but this is important,

and I obviously feel that this is not whether a line should be

drawn. The question is who should draw it, and I trust that—as

I say, I have the greatest respect for what you have tried to do, and

I hope you take my comments in the spirit in which they are given,

and in searching for a way, as a society and as a people, to do

something constructive, to do something proper, in keeping our role

in all of that in proper perspective. Thank you very much.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Thompson, for a very

thoughtful statement, and I truly do look forward to working with

you to find the right role for government, for the private sector, for

us as individuals and parents as we try to create an environment

in which we can raise our children that is conducive to the best for

them and our country.

I am delighted that Senator Brownback is with us today. He has

been a leader in this cause, outspoken and very constructive, and

we welcome your testimony now. Thank you.

9

TESTIMONY OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF KANSAS

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your holding this hearing on this important topic. I think

we held the first one together in this room 4 or 5 years ago on a

similar topic, and hopefully have made some progress along the

way, but I appreciate your holding it, and the Ranking Member,

Senator Thompson, as well. If I could just start out with the

thought that the parents in America need as much information on

what their minds consume and what our children’s minds are consuming for entertainment as what our bodies consume for food.

That is really what we are talking about here—getting adequate

disclosure to the parents of what their children are receiving, mental images that are being put in there, as we are concerned about

their food.

We are concerned about what our children eat. We are concerned

about whether our children are smoking or not, as we should be.

We should be equally concerned about what their minds are consuming and what it does to our children and what it does to our

country. If we are to rate the ratings, there needs to be some agreement on what the criteria are. I believe the purpose of the ratings

system is to provide parents and consumers with accurate information in a manner that is accessible, simple, reliable and responsive.

But if this is the criteria, then the ratings system taken as a

whole is failing. It is failing parents, it is failing consumers, and

ultimately I believe failing our children. I would like to address

three key problems with rating systems: (1) is ‘‘ratings creep’’; (2)

is the lack of independence, and (3) is the lack of standards. First,

many of the various ratings or label systems suffer from what has

been called ‘‘ratings creep’’; that is, many movies, shows and albums that parents find objectionable are rated as being appropriate

for children and even target-marketed to children. Various studies

have found that the industry ratings tend to be far more lenient

than what parents would choose themselves.

When the entertainment industry has rated something as inappropriate for children, whether it is an R-rated movie or an Mrated video game, parents almost always agree. But the disagreement between the parents and the industry is deep and wide over

products that are rated as fine for children. What is even stranger

is, as the Federal Trade Commission reported, even when the industry acknowledged that their products were so violent or vulgar,

or contained so much sexual content as to be inappropriate for

kids, the industry in many respects continued to intentionally target-marketed these products to kids. This is a sham and it is a

shame, and it is not without consequences.

Tomorrow, I will be hosting a forum, along with the Chairman

of this Committee and Senator Dorgan, which will examine the impact of explicit sexual material, so common in popular entertainment, on youth attitudes, health and well-being, and I invite everyone to attend. Common sense and common experience indicates

that it does have an impact, and a harmful one at that. One year

ago, we convened the first public health seminar on entertainment

violence, and the leaders of six of the most prominent and prestigious public health organizations in the country, including the

10

American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Psychological Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and so on, all signed a consensus document which

asserted that exposing children to violent entertainment can contribute to or even cause increases in aggressive behavior and attitudes, just as consuming too many fatty foods can have a direct impact on our health.

In short, Mr. Chairman, the failure of the ratings to accurately

inform and the failure of the entertainment industry to adequately

self-regulate results in very real harm to children. Now, I am not

arguing for government to get involved in the business of rating entertainment, and I take to heart the statements of Senator Thompson. But I am stating that any effective entertainment rating system must do a much better job of reflecting the very real concerns

of parents.

The second great failing of the rating system is the lack of independent judgment. This is a much bigger problem with some entertainment media than with others. The video game industry, to its

credit, convenes an independent entertainment software ratings

board, which recommends ratings to the industry, which are then

followed. However, other entertainment media have not followed

their example. The movie raters are required to be parents, but are

paid by the industry and known only to a few industry insiders.

The music industry is by far the worst of all.

The decision as to which album receives a parental advisory label

is made by some employee of the company producing the album. No

one on the outside knows who it is, or if they disagree with the decision, whom to contact to complain. It is hard to imagine how to

come up with a system with less accountability. A third failing of

some of the entertainment rating system is the lack of recognizable

standards. No one knows why a particular album, show or film got

the rating it did. So when parents ask very reasonable questions

such as: Why did this album by Prodigy with the lead single song

‘‘Smack My B - - - - Up,’’ not receive a parental advisory label?

There is no answer besides the fact that someone somewhere in the

company that produced and promoted that album thought no parental guidance was necessary.

Or why would the movie ‘‘American Psycho,’’ which originally received an NC–17 rating, which is quite an extraordinary achievement when you consider that movie ratings folks have only considered four films nationally released films in the last decade to deserve an NC–17 rating, was allowed to get an R rating after cutting only three seconds-worth of footage. Of course, some decisions

have to be judgment calls. We can all agree on this. But we should

also be able to agree that those judgments should be guided by

standards that entertainment companies are willing to articulate

and parents are able to understand.

There are several things I believe we can and should do. First,

each rating system should develop clear and comprehensible standards for rating entertainment products and make those standards

accessible to parents and consumers. That seems to be simple and

almost an undeniable request. Second, ratings and labeling decisions should be made by an independent body that is not connected

in any way to the company that stands to profit. Third, entertainVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:09 Mar 11, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 75480.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
11

ment companies should make the labeling- and ratings-decision

process open to public scrutiny. If they are truly interested in ensuring that the ratings serve the needs of parents, they will be interested in hearing what parents have to say about them. Fourth,

more information on content should be available rather than relying on age ratings alone, more information available.

Some parents may be more concerned about exposing their children to violence than to profanity or vice versa. Content information helps parents make informed decisions about entertainment

consumption by their children. In addition, providing information

on content reduces the amount of confusion parents experience in

trying to decipher a variety of different rating systems. As it is,

there is one system for movies, and a different, and I believe, a particularly confusing one for television, another for video games and

a generic label for music.

It is difficult for parents to make sense of the alphabet soup of

ratings. In contrast, content description is universally understood.

We need more information. It needs to be clearly rated out there.

It needs to be readily understood by the parents so they can know

what their child is consuming. Just as food labels provide clear information to parents on what their kids are consuming, entertainment labels should let parents know what is being fed to their

child’s mind.

Mr. Chairman, I have long admired your work in this area and

have worked side-by-side with you and I look forward to continuing

to do this. I believe there is a great deal of limitation of government’s role in this, as we have talked many times and I have spoken in front of this Committee about. These are simple things that

the industry itself can do, and should do. They do not impact the

First Amendment and in almost every regard they ask for more information, not a limitation on any information. I think they would

readily help parents. I know they would certainly help this parent.

Thank you very much and I look forward to any questions.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR BROWNBACK

Good morning. I want to thank Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe

Lieberman for holding this hearing to discuss an issue that I know is a great and

abiding concern for both of us.

If we are to rate the ratings, there needs to be some agreement on what the criteria are. I believe the purpose of the ratings system is to provide parents and consumers with accurate information in a manner that is accessible, simple, reliable

and responsive. But if this is the criteria, then the ratings system, taken as a whole,

is failing—failing parents, failing consumers, and ultimately, failing children.

I would like to address three major problems with various ratings systems: Ratings creep, the lack of independence, and the lack of standards.

First, many of the various ratings or labeling systems suffer from what has been

called ‘‘ratings creep’’—that is, many movies, shows and albums that parents find

objectionable are rated as being appropriate for children, and even target-marketed

to them.

Various studies have found that industry ratings tend to be far more lenient than

what parents would choose. When the entertainment industry has rated something

as inappropriate for children—whether it is an R-rated movie or a M-rated video

game, parents almost always agree. But the disagreement between parents and the

industry is deep and wide over products that are rated as fine for kids. What is even

stranger, is that, as the Federal Trade Commission reported, even when the industry acknowledged that their products were so violent or vulgar as to be inappropriate for kids, they target-marketed to kids anyway. This is a sham, and a shame.

12

And it is not without consequences. Tomorrow I will be hosting a forum—co- hosted by both the chairman of this committee and Senator Dorgan—which will examine the impact of the explicit sexual material so common in popular entertainment on youth health, attitudes, and well-being. (I invite everyone to attend.) Common sense and common experience indicate that it does have an impact—and a

harmful one at that. One year ago, I convened the first public health summit on

entertainment violence. The leaders of the six most prominent and prestigious public health organizations in the country—the American Medical Association, the

Academy of Pediatrics, the Psychological Association, the Family Physicians, and so

on—all signed a consensus document which asserted that exposing children to violent entertainment can contribute to or even cause, increases in aggressive behavior

and attitudes. In short, Mr. Chairman, the failure of the ratings to accurately inform, and the failure of the entertainment industry to adequately self-regulate, result

in very real harms to children.

I am not arguing for government to get in the business of rating entertainment.

But I am stating that any effective entertainment rating system will do a much better job of reflecting they real concerns of parents.

The second great failing of the rating system is the lack of independent judgment.

This is a much bigger problem with some entertainment media than with others.

The video game industry, to its credit, convenes an independent Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) which recommends ratings to the industry which are

then followed.

However, other entertainment media have not followed their example. The movie

raters are required to be parents, but are paid by the industry, and known only to

a few industry insiders. The music industry is, by far, the worst of all. The decision

as to which albums receive a parental advisory label is made by some employee of

the company producing the album. No one on the outside knows who it is, or, if they

disagree with the decision, whom to contact to complain. It is hard to imagine how

to come up with a system with less accountability.

A third failing of some of the entertainment ratings systems is the lack of recognizable standards. No one knows why a particular album, show or film got the

rating it did. And so when parents ask very reasonable questions, such as ‘‘Why did

this album by Prodigy with the lead single song ‘Smack My Bitch Up’ not receive

a parental advisory label?’’ There is no answer—besides the fact that someone,

somewhere, in the company that produced and promoted that album, thought no parental guidance was needed. Or why the movie ‘‘American Psycho,’’ which originally

received a NC–17 rating—quite an extraordinary achievement, when you consider

that the movie ratings folks have only considered four national releases in the last

decade to deserve a NC–17 rating—was allowed to get an ‘‘R’’ rating after cutting— and their producers bragged about this—only 3 seconds worth of footage.

Of course, some decisions have to be judgment calls. We can all agree on this. But

we should also be able to agree that those judgments should be guided by standards

that entertainment companies are willing to articulate and parents are able to understand.

There are several things that I believe can and should be done.

First, each rating system should develop clear and comprehensible standards for

rating entertainment products, and make those standards accessible to parents and

consumers.

Second, ratings and labeling decisions should be made by an independent body

that is not connected in any way to the company that stands to profit.

Third, entertainment companies should make the rating and labeling decision

process open to public scrutiny. If they are truly interested in ensuring that the ratings serve the needs of parents, they will be interested in what parents have to say

about them.

Fourth, more information on content should be available, rather than relying on

age ratings alone. Some parents may be more concerned about exposing their children to violence than to profanity, or vice versa. Content information helps parents

make informed decisions. In addition, providing information on content reduces the

amount of confusion parents experience in trying to decipher a variety of different

ratings systems. As it is, there is one system for movies, a different—and, I believe,

particularly confusing one—for television, another for video games, and a generic

label for music. It is difficult for parents to make sense of the alphabet soup of ratings. In contrast, content description is universally understood.

I also want to note that I have not been a proponent of a federally-mandated universal rating system. I believe that the best route to take is for the entertainment

industry to responsibly self-regulate, rather than the Congress to regulate. It is, I

believe, the best way to keep our children—and speech—protected.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

13

1The prepared statement of Mr. Kunkel appears in the Appendix on page 72.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Brownback. Thanks

for taking the time to be here. Thanks for excellent testimony and

some very constructive suggestions. I look forward to being with

you at your forum tomorrow.

We will call the second panel now: Dale Kunkel, Roger Pilon, Dr.

Michael Rich, and Laura Smit. Thank you all very much for being

here. I very much look forward to your testimony.

We will begin with Dale Kunkel, who is a Professor of Communication at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and a leading expert in the field of media violence. Good morning.

TESTIMONY OF DALE KUNKEL, Ph.D.,1 PROFESSOR OF COMMUNICATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA

Mr. KUNKEL. Good morning, sir. In my comments today I wish

to cover two primary points. First, how well are media ratings

working to assist parents? And, second, how can media ratings be

improved? On the first point, how well are media ratings working,

there are two key issues to consider. One is the concern that parents may not understand and, therefore, may not use the media

rating systems to help guide their children’s media use or exposure;

and the other is that media content may not be accurately labeled.

If that happens, inappropriate material may then slip through the

cracks in the filtering system of the V-chip or other rating formats

even when parents actively employ them.

Studies that examined parents’ use of the V-chip system have

produced somewhat mixed results to date. Research indicates that

while a substantial proportion of parents know about the ratings,

there is a lot of confusion about the meaning of the various categories and labels. This may explain why only a modest proportion

of parents report using the ratings currently. Starting in 1999 the

Kaiser Family Foundation reported that three out of four parents

said they would use the V-chip if they had one. But the same study

also found that just slightly less than half of parents often or sometimes use the TV ratings to help guide their children’s viewing.

More recent research by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found

that only about 50 percent of parents were even aware of the Vchip ratings in the year 2000, compared to 70 percent in 1997 when

the press coverage of the rollout of the new system was at its peak.

This reduction in the awareness of ratings almost certainly stems

from the lack of any significant effort by the TV industry to publicize the ratings framework. Even among those parents who know

about the rating system, confusion abounds about the meaning of

many categories. For example, most parents mistakenly believe

that the FV designation is meant to identify programs appropriate

for family viewing, when, in fact, it signifies fantasy violence, the

strongest warning that can be applied to children’s programming

under the current V-chip system. Given this confusion within the

V-chip rating system itself, it is hardly surprising that the lack of

consistency across rating systems that are used for different media

leads to consternation on the part of parents trying to figure it all

out.

14

The second key issue to consider in assessing the efficacy of

media ratings is whether or not the content that poses the greatest

risk of harm to children is labeled accurately. Research I have conducted in the first and second years following the adoption of the

V-chip system indicates that the age-based rating judgments were

being applied accurately, but that the content-based descriptions,

those are the V for violence and an S for sex designations, were

not. Indeed, the majority of programs that contain violence did not

receive a V rating and, thus, any parent using the V-chip to screen

out programs rated with a V, would accomplish little in terms of

reducing their child’s exposure to TV violence. If this pattern persists today, parents cannot effectively screen out violent portrayals

by relying upon the content-based aspect of the V-chip system.

Similarly, the accuracy of programs is also questioned by a recent study from the National Institute on Media and the Family.

This research found that parents tend to rate programs in a much

more restrictive fashion than the judgments that are applied by the

TV industry. Given the obvious economic incentive for TV networks

to rate programs leniently—this too is a worrisome finding.

So, how can media ratings be improved? The assignment of

media ratings are determined solely by the industry and practically

speaking there is probably no alternative to that course. Nonetheless, there is a rich body of scientific research that identifies the

types media content that pose the greatest risk to children. More

training, education and sensitivity on the part of raters to the relevant research about media effects on children is needed. In addition, more active monitoring and oversight of the ratings process is

also called for. While several of the media rating systems maintain

advisory boards, none of these have played a vigorous role to date.

There is a precedent for the television industry to fund truly

independent research from neutral parties to evaluate its performance in presenting violence responsibly. This was done with the

National Television Violence Study in the 1990s. Such an effort

should be considered to evaluate the accuracy and consistency of

rating judgments for the V-chip system, as well as for other media

rating systems.

And finally, it is time to seriously consider the prospects of a universal rating system that could be applied across all media. The

lack of consistency across media and their rating formats makes it

incredibly difficult for parents to make sense of it all. For example,

a media product that includes extreme violence would be rated R

if it were a movie, TV–MA if it were a TV show, M if it were a

home video game, or have a parental advisory sticker if it were a

music CD. As Senator Brownback noted, an apt comparison here

involves the uniform system of food labeling that is employed in

this country, a consistent framework that indicates calories, grams

of fat and so on is included on all food packaging and the uniformity of the system is what facilitates the easy comparison for

consumers.

The potential value to parents of a uniform rating system is too

great to pass up without serious consideration by all of the media

industries. That consideration will not come without strong

prompting from the public and hearings such as this are an important catalyst to help focus the attention of busy and overwhelmed

15

1The prepared statement of Mr. Pilon appears in the Appendix on page 78.

parents. I commend this Committee for its pursuit of this issue and

its contribution to the ongoing public dialogue about the topic of

media ratings.

Thank you.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Professor Kunkel. I

look forward to questioning you on a few of the statements you

made. Our next witness is Roger Pilon, who is the Vice President

for Legal Affairs at the Cato Institute and is a scholar in Cato’s

Constitutional Scholars Program.

Good morning.

TESTIMONY OF ROGER PILON, Ph.D., J.D.,1 VICE PRESIDENT

FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS, B. KENNETH SIMON CHAIR IN CONSTITUTIONAL STUDIES, DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR

CONSTITUTIONAL STUDIES, CATO INSTITUTE

Mr. PILON. Good morning. Thank you very much, Senator

Lieberman and Senator Thompson, for your kind invitations to address this Committee. I was invited, as you know, to address the

question of whether the ratings are working for parents and what

can be done to improve them, as well as the issues that are raised

in the National Institute letter that you referenced, Senator

Lieberman, together with the bill that you referenced at that same

time, the Media Marketing Accountability Act of 2001.

Let me say at the outset that I share many of the concerns

raised in the institute’s letter, concerns that you have raised over

the years, Mr. Chairman, about the quality of some of the entertainment that has been produced and distributed in America for

some time, especially as it bears on the development of children.

Obviously, this is a land of many tastes. Given our relative freedom

and the market system we enjoy, producers will rise to satisfy

those tastes. That can coarsen our culture, giving rise to entertainment that some would prefer not to have in our midst. Yet, the

very freedom that enables that fare to arise also enables great and

often controversial works to flourish as well.

The issues here are ancient, of course. Sex and violence have

been a part of entertainment and literature from the outset of civilization. The only question is what we are going to do about it, and

on that, I want to part company with the thrust of the institute’s

letter and especially with the bill that you have introduced, Mr.

Chairman, about which I will say a little bit toward the end of my

remarks. In doing so, however, I want to make it clear that I am

not here to represent the entertainment industry. I speak only for

myself and, of course, I share the views of the Cato Institute in

favor of individual liberty and limited constitutional government,

views that will animate my remarks this morning.

To go to the heart of the matter without elaboration for the moment, given the limits imposed on Congress by the Constitution

and the First Amendment, I would ask why these hearings are

even being held. Why, in fact, are they being held before the Governmental Affairs Committee? This is not dealing with government

management, rule over the District, campaign finance and the like,

the ordinary stuff of this Committee. So one wonders why it is this

16

Committee is holding these hearings, especially given the constitutional restraints. It is an odd fit, at least.

Having noted my interest in these hearings and my basic concern

about the proper role of government, which is the concern that Senator Thompson raised in his opening remarks, let me turn now, Mr.

Chairman, to the question immediately before us. I am afraid I do

not know precisely how well entertainment ratings are working for

parents, nor does anyone else. I am struck, in fact, by the National

Institute’s letter when it presumes to speak for parents, as if parents spoke with one voice on the matter. Their letter claims, for example, that parent and child development experts disagree on the

current media ratings. No doubt, some do. At the same time annual

national surveys conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation of

Princeton, New Jersey, show growing parental satisfaction with the

voluntary movie rating system. The latest poll in September revealed that 81 percent of parents with children under 13 found the

ratings very useful or fairly useful, whereas only 17 percent found

the ratings not very useful. I daresay the Members of this Committee would salivate over ratings like those.

More precisely, however, the National Institute claims the voluntary rating system now in place for television, video games, motion pictures, and music fail to identify sensitive material accurately, consistently, or in a way that helps parents. They call for

an independent ratings oversight committee, a committee that

would create a universal rating system. Although they do not call

for government action here, one wonders if there is not a hidden

agenda somewhere—perhaps government grants in support of the

research they call for, or perhaps more extensive public-private

partnerships are in the offing, including a commission with coercive

legal powers.

Quite apart from such possibilities, however, one also wonders

why, if the concerns are as well-founded as they report to be, there

is not more private support to see them implemented. Why, that

is, does the National Institute feel it necessary to come to Congress? If the findings are all that well-founded, there should be

plenty of private support in the private sector. And, I submit, that

is where they ought to focus their attention. Nevertheless, they

have come here, so I want to address the issues they have raised,

especially with respect to the lack of accuracy and the inconsistency in the systems of ratings now in place.

That implication is problematic at best. Given the subjectivity

that is inherent and inescapable in applying any rating system,

consistency could be hoped for only if the ratings were somehow

centralized. But look at the numbers and see what you are up

against here: 650 films each year; 2,000 hours a day of TV programming—the equivalent of 1,000 movies a day; 1,300 computer

and video games, forget about web sites; 40,000 music releases. If

you are going to have a Committee review this, I daresay, there are

not enough hours in the day, in the month, in the year to do so.

It will have to be done by Subcommittees and, therefore, all the inconsistency has a chance of creeping right back in again.

When you turn to the accuracy issue, you run into similar problems. This is an extraordinarily subjective undertaking. How many

sexual events or violent acts and of what kind, given the larger

17

context of the work, enter into that judgment? This is not mathematics. It is not even science. And yet science purports to underpin

the National Institute’s letter. They speak of the validity of the research known to the scientific community, but that research is anything but settled. You said in your bill’s discussion of congressional

findings, Mr. Chairman, that most scholarly studies on the impact

of media violence find a high correlation between exposure to violent content and aggressive behavior. With all due respect, Mr.

Chairman, that is false. Dr. Jonathan Freedman of the University

of Toronto did an exhaustive study of the research, some 200 studies in the English language, and he found the research does not

provide consistent or strong support for the hypothesis that exposure to media violence causes aggression or crime. In fact, he continues: Fewer than half of the studies provide evidence that supports the causal effect, while many find evidence against such an

effect.

There are deeper problems with this approach, as well, namely,

that the behaviorism and the reductionism that is implicit in this

approach is denigrating in many ways to human beings. It deprives

us of the choice, suggesting that we do not have choice in these

matters. It invokes a kind of stimulus-response model, which may

be appropriate for analyzing the behavior of lower forms of life, but

certainly is not for human beings. The irony, in fact, of the causal

model is that it denigrates us in the name often of uplifting us.

Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, with just a couple of legal comments, which I have developed more fully in my prepared testimony.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Let me say that your full statement and

those of all the witnesses will be printed in the record.

Mr. PILON. Thank you very much. There are serious constitutional problems. First, with the fundamental constitutional question: Where is the authority of Congress to do anything in this

area? And second, with the question: Even if there were authority,

how can you do so without running afoul of the guarantees provided by the Constitution? I develop those points more fully in my

testimony. I will not go through them here. I will just conclude by

saying that this appears to be a classic example of a problem

searching for a solution in the wrong place, namely, government.

The Founders established a limited constitutional government on

the understanding that not every problem required a government

solution. The problem here is occasional irresponsible behavior.

How occasional is open to debate. The solution, as with most examples of irresponsibility, is moral suasion. Will that solve the entire

problem? Of course not, but it is far better, as the history of overregulation has demonstrated in spades, than introducing the heavy

hand of government where it does not belong, morally or constitutionally.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Pilon. You have raised very

provocative questions. Let me just respond to one, which is what

this Committee is doing holding this hearing. This is the Committee that has specific jurisdiction, primarily an oversight committee, and the fact is that there are a whole series of governmental agencies that are currently involved in questions related to

18

1The prepared statement of Dr. Rich appears in the Appendix on page 84.

the impact of entertainment culture on children and on society, including the Federal Trade Commission, which you mentioned. The

Federal Communications Commission, obviously, is constantly enforcing law. There is an existing statute that was passed on the

rating system and V-chip, which bears regular review. Tomorrow

morning’s forum that Senator Brownback is convening concerns research being done now under the auspices of the National Institute

of Child and Human Development to gauge the impact of sexual

material in the entertainment culture on behavior of children. So

there is an oversight role there.

I have also reached a judgment in my own concern about this,

which as I said began as a parent, that so much else that we are

trying to do here in Congress to better educate our children, to reduce the rate of crime, to deal with sexually transmitted diseases,

to deal with the problem of children being born to unwed mothers,

particularly teenagers, is affected—I never say caused—but it is affected by the values and messages conveyed by the entertainment

culture. So I see some role there.

And the third is to provide, as I said in my opening statement,

a forum for people on both sides of the issue. We have a very balanced slate of witnesses today to speak out and see if we can find

common ground. And each of us, as Senator Thompson said in his

excellent opening statement—I think we are all concerned, as you

are indicating in your statement, about the entertainment culture,

and the question here is to find the appropriate role for government and other institutions of our society in responding to that

concern.

The next witness is Dr. Michael Rich, who is an Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at Children’s Hospital, Boston, Harvard Medical School, an expert on media violence and its effects on children

and a signer, along with Professor Kunkel, of the letter that has

generated this hearing.

Good morning, Dr. Rich.

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL RICH, M.D., M.P.H.,1 CHILDREN’S

HOSPITAL BOSTON/HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL

Dr. RICH. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to

testify before you today as a pediatrician, a child health researcher,

a film maker and a parent. Our entertainment media—motion pictures, television, music and video games—represent not only a successful industry, but an important cultural documentation of the

United States as an idea and as a people. Our First Amendmentguaranteed free expression has allowed the creation of the most influential entertainment industry in the world, which generates a

wide variety of products that excite, inspire, and move us.

By allowing us to experience issues and events that otherwise

may not touch our lives, media serve as potent teachers. Until recently, we have drawn an artificial distinction between education,

which occurs in schools, and entertainment, which is fun, diverting,

downtime for our minds. There is no downtime for a child’s mind.

Children are always curious, always learning. They adopt the ways

of the world by observing and imitating. They cannot help but be

19

influenced by media. The question is what are they learning? Unfortunately, Dr. Freedman is a sole dissenter among hundreds,

thousands, in fact, of respected scientists around the world.

The results of thousands of research studies on the relationship

of media use to the physical and mental health of children are

nearly unanimous. After exposure to media, attitudes and behaviors of children and adolescents in relation to violence, substance

abuse, unsafe sexual activity, poor school function, eating disorders

and other health risk behaviors are changed. The findings of hundreds of studies analyzed as a whole show that the strength of the

relationship between television exposure and violent behavior is

greater than that of calcium intake and bone mass, of lead ingestion and lower IQs, of condom non-use and sexually-acquired HIV,

or of environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer. These are all

associations that we as clinicians accept and on which preventive

medicine is based without question.

It is not so long ago that, while the tobacco industry argued over

scientific minutiae of the research, the medical community and society at large recognized the serious health risks associated with

smoking and began to intervene. Look at how our personal attitudes and behaviors, our social environments and our public health

awareness have changed for the better. We are at a similar crossroads in relation to media effects on health. It is time to be honest

with ourselves, to acknowledge the risks, and to address them in

a serious and responsible manner.

Media rating systems are not new or controversial. Child health

professionals, parents and the entertainment industry have all

voiced their support for a system whereby parents can determine

how best to guide children’s media consumption so that it is consistent with their values. The question is how best to design and

implement such a system. To function effectively as a tool that parents can use, a rating system must be trusted, consistent and usable. From both the scientific perspective of a child health professional and from the practical perspective of a parent, I find several

problems with the current systems.

In assessing any health-related situation, I seek out information

that is both valid and reliable. None of the current media rating

systems have been tested for either validity or reliability, a basic

first step in the assessment of any instrument used in public

health or social science research. A recent study, published in Pediatrics, compared movie, television and game rating systems to a

well-validated media evaluation instrument designed for parents.

When the current rating systems for each of these three media indicated that a product was unsuitable for children, parents universally agreed. However, there were significant discrepancies between what parents and the rating systems found suitable for various age groups. Like bank errors, all of the mismatches were in

one direction.

The current rating systems were more lenient than parents, with

as much as a 50-percent disagreement. If up to half of parents disagree with the media rating systems, there is significant concern

that these systems may not be valid with the population for whom

they were specifically designed. A second concern about the current

rating systems is objectivity. The entities which assign current

20

media ratings, as Senator Brownback indicated, range from artists

and producers in the television and music industries to industryappointed rating boards in the motion picture and gaming industries. The memberships of these boards are industry secrets, which

is cause for concern about accountability.

A recent Washington Post story interviewed a terminated member of The Motion Picture Ratings Board who violated his secrecy

agreement to report an idiosyncratic, inconsistent and ultimately

autocratic rating assignment process. Only the television rating

system has an oversight board for their system, but by report, this

board does not review all their ratings and, indeed, has not met

often. When the entertainment industry rates their own product,

there are powerful incentives to down-rate their creations in order

to make it accessible to a larger market share. There is a strong

tendency to create for the top end of a rating, competing in an evertougher market, to push the envelope with violence, sex, and other

rating-critical content.

The ratings creep, indicated by large discrepancies between industry and parent assessment, may be the result of these pressures. Finally, there is public concern that that industry-applied

ratings are used as a tool for marketing to children, rather than

protecting them. The discovery by the FTC of plans and procedures

to market R-rated movies to children as young as eight did little

to allay this concern. Current rating systems are complex, confusing and difficult for parents to use. They vary in structure, detail, and even approach, from the strictly age-based rating of motion pictures to the dichotomous parental warning of the music industry. After more than 30 years, parents feel they understand the

motion picture rating system, but few understand and fewer still

use the television and game ratings. In my own practice, 6 of 10

parents thought that FV stood for family viewing.

A final concern to me as both a parent and a child development

professional is that people will just throw up their hands and not

use any ratings. The concept of age-based ratings is of concern to

me. Essentially what that does is ask parents to accept the opinion

of a group of strangers regarding what is appropriate material for

their children, base solely on their dates of birth. It does not account for variations in the rates of child development, socialization

or in the values of individuals or families.

What are the possible solutions? What can the entertainment industry, consumers, and society as a whole do to make media ratings more effective in protecting the health of young people? First,

we can attempt to generate ratings that are more valid and reliable. When parents and child development experts disagree by 50

percent, these ratings do not function as they were designed, because parents do not trust that the ratings are an adequate proxy

for their own judgment. Second, ratings must be objective. If they

could pass the same rigorous tests of validity and reliability as

other social science instruments, they would function more effectively as a child protection tool.

An independent oversight committee consisting of members of

the entertainment industry, child development and public health

professionals, social scientists and parents could ensure more

democratic, representative and consistent applications of media ratVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:09 Mar 11, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 75480.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
21

1The prepared statement of Ms. Smit appears in the Appendix on page 89.

ings across media types and ensure regular evaluation of the

ratings validity and reliability. Finally, the ratings need to be simplified and streamlined so they are understandable and userfriendly. A single universal rating system may be the solution.

However, given the inherent differences between motion pictures

and music, between television programs and video games, such a

system would be difficult to design so that it would be simple, appropriately descriptive and protective, yet responsive to the differences in media.

Any solution will be imperfect. However, from my perspective as

both a pediatrician and a parent, a content-based rating system

similar to the content descriptors of the television ratings, would

be the most useful, valid and parent-friendly solution to rating our

wide variety of entertainment media. Just as we want to look at

a can’s label and read what we are feeding our children’s bodies,

we should be able to determine with equal ease what we are serving are children’s minds. Content-explicit ratings would not supersede parents’ assessment of what their children of certain ages are

capable of handling, and would be responsive to variations in values that families may hold in relationship to content.

If parents know the media menu, they can choose thoughtfully

and knowledgeably what they are feeding their children’s heads.

Media ratings are important to us as individuals and as a society.

Designed and used properly, they allow us to create and consume

a variety of media while protecting both child’s health and creative

freedom. Censorship is anathema to our free society. It suppresses

the free expression of ideas and it stifles both science and culture,

the mind and soul of our society. I know and love the possibilities

of media, and I respect them. Entertainment media are not inherently dangerous. They are a powerful tool that must be used

thoughtfully and wisely. Just as the same shovel can be used to hit

someone over the head or to prepare a field for planting, so, too,

media can harm or help.

What we teach our children today will determine the world that

they create for all of us tomorrow. It is our task as parents, as citizens, and as compassionate people to do what we can to teach our

children the lessons that will help them make their world safe,

healthy, and free.

Thank you.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Dr. Rich.

Finally on this panel, we are delighted to have Laura Smit, who

in some ways represents the voices that we all hear at home and

that bring us together around this topic. Laura Smit is a parent,

a PTA president from Columbia, Maryland, and mother of two children—an 11-year-old girl and an 8-year-old boy. We are delighted

to have you this morning. Thank you.

TESTIMONY OF LAURA SMIT,1 MOTHER

Ms. SMIT. Thank you. I am honored to be here today, to talk

about the rating systems from the point of view of a parent. I am,

I think, an average mom, although my daughter, when she read

my testimony, said, ‘‘Mom, you’re not average, you’re special.’’ I live

22

in a suburban Maryland neighborhood. I drive the standard

minivan. I am active with two PTAs. I help out with the neighborhood swim team and I do my share of carpooling and child

chaffeuring.

In addition to these jobs, I have the constant burden of making

daily decisions about my children’s media consumption. Every day,

I have to make judgment calls about what television programs to

allow them to watch, what movies I am going to allow them to see,

what electronic games they can play and what music they can listen to.

Every day, I have to choose between being a good mom and a

cool mom. When I am a good mom, I stick to my guns—no pun intended—and say no even if I have the slightest doubt about an entertainment product. When I want to be a cool mom, on the other

hand, I sometimes take the risk of letting my children see or play

something inappropriate, because I want my kids to fit in with

their friends, because I want them to be happy, or sometimes just

because I am tired of arguing.

The good mom in me looks to the current rating systems for

guidance and tries to determine why a particular media product

has been given the rating it has. I try to figure out whether the

rating is for violence (how much, what type?), for sexual content

(are the people in bed, are they having sex, how much is shown,

what kind of innuendos?) or language (is it lewd language, what

types of words are used, what tone of voice?). Equally important,

I try to figure out whether there are adult themes in this entertainment which make it inappropriate for children.

Doing this requires a considerable amount of my time. I have to

read movie reviews, look at web sites, and talk to other parents to

see what they think, and I do not always have the time for all of

this energy—or the energy for all of this sifting.

On many days, I have to make a split-second decision, such as

when a TV program comes on that I find questionable, but my son

wants to see, as he has seen it advertised 20 times before. Or when

we arrive at a movie theater and the movie we planned to see is

sold out. Sometimes when the cool mom gives in, I end up feeling

like a bad mom, a mom who is not protecting her children enough,

and then I think ‘‘why should I be put in this position?’’ As parents,

we spend billions of dollars on entertainment products for our children. Shouldn’t the companies who make so much money from parents and children make our lives easier, not harder?

Some of you may think I am making a mountain out a molehill

here, but each of you can remember, I am sure, a particular forbidden movie that you begged your parents to see when you were

young. But there is a huge difference between my task as a mother

today and your mother’s task. The difference today is that the level

of extreme violence, foul language and blatant sexual content that

my children are exposed to is on a totally different level than the

fare that you and I were exposed to as kids. Is it surprising then

that parents worry about what entertainment is doing to their children? It seems like on a daily basis I wonder, what will watching

this movie do to my daughter? Will the sexual content in that

movie give her a warped sense of what love and good relationships

are all about? Is she old enough and mature enough to see this?

23

For my son, my worries are will he act out when he sees a violent movie? Will he end up shooting someone because he plays violent video games, or will he end up committing suicide, having

been rejected and bullied by his peers because I did not let him go

over to his friends’ houses to play first person shooter video games?

My concern with these issues led me to the Lion and Lamb

Project, a parent advocacy group which is working to inform and

mobilize parents around the issue of the marketing of violent entertainment products to children. I attended a Lion and Lamb workshop for parents in 1999, and both the workshop and their web

site, www.lionlamb.org, opened my eyes to many issues around violent entertainment, as well as the various rating systems. This

hearing is about rating entertainment ratings and how well they

are working for parents. I have here a handy little flyer that tells

me all about the rating systems, except for the TV industry. All of

you are familiar with this alphabet soup, and I will not go into detail about that, but are these letters really helpful to parents? Yes,

they are helpful, and no, they are not helpful enough.

For example, take movie ratings; many parents are confused

about what is PG–13 and what is R. Some parents on my PTA told

me they thought ‘‘Planet of the Apes’’ was an R-rated movie, based

on the scary previews they saw with their children, often at PG

movies. I know others who thought last year’s James Bond movie,

rated PG–13, ‘‘The World is Not Enough,’’ was definitely R-material, and on the other hand, ‘‘Billy Elliott’’ is a movie many of my

friends thought would be a good movie to see with their kids, but

it was rated R because it had too many F-words. Where is the line

between PG–13 and R?

The Motion Picture Association of America web site states, ‘‘PG– 13, parents strongly cautioned some material may be inappropriate

for children under 13,’’ and I have to wonder what material. The

MPAA site explains that a PG–13 film is one which, in the view

of the rating board, leaps beyond the boundaries of the PG rating

in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language and other content,

but does not quite fit within the restricted R-category, and where

are the boundaries of a PG rating? It is really hard for me to figure

out what my 11-year-old should see (and believe me she thinks she

should be allowed to see everything) because PG–13 movies have

such a range of theme and content. ‘‘Tomb Raider,’’ ‘‘Pearl Harbor,’’

‘‘Legally Blond,’’ ‘‘What Women Want,’’ and ‘‘The Animal,’’ are all

PG–13. With video games, I am not sure what the difference is between a teen and a mature violent video games. ‘‘Golden Eye 007,’’

a T-game, does not seem that different to me, from a mom’s perspective, from ‘‘Quake III,’’ which is a mature game. As far as I can

see, many T-shooter games are similar to M-games, except there is

no blood and the people are animated, not real. But the whole point

of the game is to shoot and kill. Why are we teaching our kids how

to kill?

With the Chairman’s permission, I would like to have a teen

demonstrate one of the teen-rated video games—it is called ‘‘Time

Crisis’’—at the end of my presentation.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Fine.

Ms. SMIT. I have similar concerns with TV ratings and the onesize-fits-all parental advisory warning label. Again, the parental

24

advisory warning label is a guide, but it does not give me the why

I need. Music is a big concern for me. Radio music, which is

cleaned up, sometimes entices kids into buying CDs that are inappropriate. My husband and I had an experience with this, with

Eminem’s music, long before all this publicity about him came out.

We were at the mall and we let my daughter buy the ‘‘Marshall

Mathers’’ CD, although I saw the parental advisory label. When we

heard the CD on the way home in the car, we were horrified. So

we told my daughter that she just could not have the CD, and we

gave her back her money. She was embarrassed, but it was a big

lesson for us.

So parents need more help in trying to figure these things out.

So what do I want in a rating system? As a mother, I would appreciate a clear descriptive labeling system, in addition to the age and

parental guidance descriptors. The labels would be, as many have

spoken about before, similar to the government-mandated labels on

food. When my son asks me if he can have a HaagenDaz ice cream

cone, I know that he will be ingesting 11 grams of saturated fat,

120 milligrams of cholesterol and 21 grams of sugar, and it is my

choice whether to let him have one or not. Likewise, my children

consume a steady diet of entertainment products. Clear labels

would provide me with concrete reasons for making a decision.

With uniform labels on all entertainment products, it would still be

my choice as a parent whether my children should consume the

product or not, but labels would also make it much easier for me

to give my children good reasons why something was not appropriate for them.

Having descriptive labeling of entertainment products would

really put the ‘‘guidance’’ into ‘‘parental guidance.’’ Parents are not

one monolithic group. Every parent has different values and beliefs. The messages each individual parent received about sex,

about violence, and about language when he or she was growing

up, from their parents, from their church, from their school, all of

those play into the type of guidance they will give their children

today. Some parents are concerned primarily with sexual content,

others worry more about the effects of viewing violence, and others

focus more on language and obscenities their kids might be exposed

to. What is OK for one parent might be totally unacceptable for another.

The entertainment industry keeps saying that it is up to parents

to make decisions. Well, I think labels would give us the tools to

make these decisions. I would also need information on what the

effects of the particular labels could be. If I knew something could

be harmful to my child, I would be much more careful about letting

him or her see it. Going back to the food examples, I know now

why it is bad for me to eat foods high in saturated fat, cholesterol,

sugar and sodium. I would like to have the same type of information for the effects of entertainment products. This labeling system

would be a uniform labeling system across the whole entertainment

industry, movies, TV, electronic games and music.

Right now, each rating system is created and controlled by the

industry group that stands to make or lose money, depending on

how the product is rated. The lower the rating, the higher the profit. The result is a phenomenon that I know is talked about as ratVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:09 Mar 11, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 75480.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
25

ings creep, ever more violent fare allowed into ever-lower categories. In short, we now have a system where the fox guards the

chicken house. It is hard for me as a mother to trust such a system.

I would want this uniform rating system to be created by child

development experts, people who really care about the needs of

both children and parents, professionals such as psychologists,

teachers, pediatricians, guidance counselors, early childhood experts and others. Since all these industries claim their ratings are

intended to help parents, I would think they would be happy to

allow experts in child development to give parents the tools they

need. I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to any artist

producing any movie, video game or lyric that they want for adult

consumption. What I am strongly opposed to is the marketing of

blatantly adult-oriented products to my children.

As a country, we no longer market cigarettes, alcohol or pornography to children, but entertainment with inappropriate content is

marketed to children every single day. Each movie, video game, TV

program, and music album seems to push the envelope just a bit

further in the depiction of graphic violence, language, and

unhealthy sensuality. Just to give one example, inappropriate

music is everywhere. My daughter loves to listen to her three favorite radio stations, which she found out from her fifth-grade

friends about. We listen to songs about being caught ‘‘butt-naked,’’ making love on the bathroom floor. But it still shocked me when

my third-grade son started singing the words to City High’s song, ‘‘What Would You Do,’’ about a woman who sleeps with men ‘‘for

a little bit of money’’ to feed her son, and his daddy’s gone? What

is this teaching my son?

A psychologist friend of mine told me that a mother consulted

him because she was convinced her 8-year-old daughter must have

been sexually abused because she was repeating a sexually-explicit

phrase over and over again. It turned out that she was just singing

the lyrics of a song she had heard on one of her favorite radio stations.

There is more blood, gore, machine guns, dead bodies, and sheer

mayhem in today’s movies than our parents could ever have imagined, let alone let us experience, and we know enough now about

the effect of violent entertainment on children’s behavior to know

that viewing violence leads to increased violent behavior, especially

among children.

I know that there are no simple answers and no magic pills, and

I am just a mom. But our country more than 30 years ago managed

to put a man on the moon. I would like to request that in the year

2001, elected officials and corporate leaders do their best to find a

way to label our children’s entertainment products, so that parents

can indeed make responsible decisions.

Thank you for taking your time to listen to one parent’s point of

view. I hope that this congressional hearing will be the beginning

of much-needed changes in the entertainment industry’s rating system. The improvements I have suggested would be welcomed with

open arms by parents who struggle every day to bring up their

children to be peace-loving, responsible and healthy citizens, working toward a more civil society.

26

Thank you.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Smit. I honestly believe that you speak not just as one parent, but for millions

of parents and grandparents—three of whom are up here on the

dais—about your concerns, and you did it very, very effectively. Incidentally, Senator Thompson and I both agreed that when we

were kids, which admittedly was long ago, when dinosaurs roamed

the Earth, we do not remember there being a forbidden movie, and

I do think that some of that had to do with the fact that the folks

in Hollywood had a code that guided what they did, their own code,

not a government code.

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, are you familiar with the National Legion of Decency?

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Oh, yes. So they may have had an effect,

too. Where are they when we need them? Anyway, thank you.

Thank you very much. We will proceed now to questions by the——

Ms. SMIT. Excuse me. May we show 1 minute of this teen-rated

video game, named ‘‘Time Crisis?’’

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Who is this, Ms. Smit?

Ms. SMIT. This is Adam Neely. He is a friend of mine and a teen

who knows how to play these games.

Mr. NEELY. I will be playing ‘‘Time Crisis,’’ a Play Station video

game.

Ms. SMIT. And this is a teen-rated game.

[Video game begins to play in the hearing room, but does not

work.]

Ms. SMIT. I would like to show that the gun that he is going to

be using is called a Scorpion, and when this gun was advertised,

the magazine ad read—an endorsement from a policeman, who

said, ‘‘If I saw a person with this gun, I would shoot them.’’ That

is how realistic this gun is, that he is holding in his hand.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Do you think it is working now? Otherwise, we will go ahead with the questions and then we will come

back to you when it is. OK? Let me begin.

Dr. Kunkel, I wanted to ask you—or is it Professor Kunkel? I

wanted to ask you if you would respond to the statement that Dr.

Rich made, that at this point the data, the studies that have been

done, leave no doubt as to whether violence portrayed in the entertainment culture poses a risk to children.

Mr. KUNKEL. Well, there has been over a quarter-century of research that has been done on this topic and at the present time the

following agencies, when they have reviewed the entire body of research, have all reached the conclusion that media violence contributes to real world violence and aggression in children. These include the U.S. Surgeon General, the National Institute of Mental

Health, the American Psychological Association, the American

Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics. I can go

on and on. All of these represent the best minds, the top leaders

in their fields in public health and social science research and so

on.

What I think is outrageous is that at a hearing that is focused

on media ratings—the reason we have media ratings, of course, is

concern about the adverse public health impact of some of these

media portrayals on children, and this panel—twice we have heard

27

mentioned a review of the literature done by a gentleman named

Jonathan Freedman at the University of Toronto who happens to

be about the only social scientist on the North American continent

who disagrees with all of these findings. So, from my perspective,

what I see is that this study which was funded by The Motion Picture Association of America—if the industry groups like MPAA

wanted to know what is the effect of media violence on children,

they do not need to do a new literature review. All they need to

do is look to documents produced by the Surgeon General and

NIMH and so forth. I think it is obvious what they are trying to

do in commissioning a new study by the only naysayer to all of this

research is to try and propagate a canard. You simply cannot do

that given the state of scientific evidence today.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Dr. Rich, I noted in the letter that we

have referred to, from the National Institute on Media and the

Family, which again you and Professor Kunkel signed, that there

was the statement that the current ratings are not sufficiently

health-based. I wonder what you meant by that and what role—

how you would change that from a public health perspective to see

that the ratings were more health-based?

Dr. RICH. I think this refers both to the confusing quality of the

multiple rating systems and the difficulty that parents have using

them, but more importantly to the fact that they tend to be agedbased for the most part rather than content-based. We have decided that we just want to determine an age when we can produce

an I.D. that says we are of enough age, just as we buy alcohol or

vote, that we will be OK with certain media content. And I think

that what the science says is that the effect of media on health is

much more content-driven than an age-related phenomenon. We do

know that children develop at different rates. Children are capable

handling different things at different times. So a 14-year-old is not

a 14-year-old is not a 14-year-old. As a result the role of the parent

becomes that much more important. The person who knows this

child best needs to be given the information on the variety of

health risk behaviors that research has shown are concerning to

make a decision for their individual child.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Ms. Smit, I was interested in your portrayal at the end of your testimony about what you would like to

see in a rating system, and part of it is clearly labels that are more

informative. I was particularly interested in your desire to know

more about the effects of media content on kids, and I wonder, having heard what the two previous witnesses have said, in comparing

it to what you know about the impact of content of food, for instance, on children’s health, what you think is the best way to convey that information about the effect of media content on your children’s health.

Ms. SMIT. That is a very difficult question. Obviously, I am not

a research scientist. I think about this a lot. I am a sexuality educator, so in that area, I know a lot about sexuality education, and

people say to me why do you have a problem with your daughter

watching things? Sometimes it goes back to what the Supreme

Court Justice said about when you know pornography. I think that

both in the area of violence and in sex, I just have an instinctive

reaction, knowing my kids, I see something, like my daughter

28

would love to watch Ally McBeal, and I do not want her to watch

it because there are so many things that I cannot explain to her,

because she has to have experienced a certain number of things

and explain things and get things in kind of an order.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. She is 11, you said.

Ms. SMIT. Eleven. So I obviously wish I had an answer, but if I

had an answer, I probably would not be sitting here. I probably

would be sitting somewhere back there.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Just let me take a moment. As a sexuality

educator, what is your conclusion about the impact that the sexual

messages in the entertainment culture have on kids’ sexual activity, if any impact?

Ms. SMIT. Well, I think it has a lot of effect. I teach a class for

eighth-graders, and I find them so cavalier about having sex—

going to McDonald’s and the movies and then having to have sex

with a boy just because they went out together. I find them really

cavalier about it, and it is really hard to teach them values about

what a loving relationship is about. To me, sexuality education is

teaching children to have positive feelings about sexuality, to know

its place in their lives and to be responsible about it and not hurt

other people. And I think that especially when I see sexual content

that is misogynous or hurts other people, that upsets me.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Let me come back, Professor Kunkel, and

perhaps, Dr. Rich, to you. In the letter that we have referred to,

there was a recommendation of an independent rating oversight

committee, and I wonder what thoughts the signers of the letter

had about that. I presume that was not thought to be a government group. So under whose auspices would it be formed ideally,

and what would it do?

Mr. KUNKEL. Well, I think that depends in part on the future of

ratings, whether they maintain independent ratings for each of the

various media or whether there might ultimately be some uniform

rating system. At this point in time, that is obviously an open discussion. Imagine for a moment that there was a uniform rating

system. Then it would be easy to consider that you would have an

oversight board or an advisory board that would be contributing to

the creation of the categories, as well as supervising the application

of the categories.

It seems obvious that what parents are calling for, that what researchers are calling for, is more descriptive information, rather

than more interpretive or evaluative or subjective information. As

people have noted, there is a lot of disagreement about what is appropriate for children of different ages, and the public does not necessarily want the entertainment industry’s perspective, what they

want is information. If you had a descriptive rating system that,

let’s say it had four levels of violence, and in the first level, it was

comedic violence, and in the second level, it was serious violence

where people are threatened and harmed, in the third level, people

are killed, and in the fourth level, people are killed and it is graphical or explicit portrayals.

Now, that is something that is simple, descriptive and could easily be applied across media, whether it is film or television, and

then that could easily be evaluated by an independent board to see

that the judgments were being made fairly and accurately.

29

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes, I think you make an important point,

which maybe we assume, but should make explicit—and you

have—which is that you are not looking for statements that this is

bad and this is good. You are looking for descriptive information

about what is in the products so every parent can determine what

he or she thinks is appropriate for their children. Was there any

discussion among the signers of the letter about how this independent oversight committee would be formed, Dr. Rich, or was it

thought that it might be formed in cooperation, presumably, with

the entertainment industry?

Dr. RICH. I think the general concept behind it was to try to

bring the kind of tools public health researchers and social sciences

bring to bear on other questions of the interface between society

and the public health, issues of epidemiology, issues of sexual risk

or how disease spreads, and to try to bring those kind of minds and

those kind of constructs to a group of people that would represent

all of the above, the entertainment industry, social scientists, child

health experts, child development experts, and try to achieve the

validity and reliability that we insist on in other public health and

social science tools. We should try to create objectivity and spreading from a single entity (that is often currently a secret entity or

an unknown entity,) to the consumer, to create a broader and more

accountable group who have to stand behind those descriptors,

those ratings that are given to the media that the parents are letting their children consume.

I would hope to see that it was a cooperative arrangement between all of the various parties, because I think the ultimate goal

of this is to be able to have as free and open a forum for expression

in our society as possible, doing so by making it safe and helping

people know what the rules of the road are.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Dr. Rich, thanks to all of you. My

time is up.

Senator Thompson.

Senator THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. On

the issue of causation, others know a lot more about this than I do

and have followed it more closely, but it is a very confusing thing

to me. Everyone speaks with such authority. First, we had the

quest for the blame with regard to some of these terrible shootings

we had. Some wanted to blame it on guns and advocacy of gun control, others on the media, and we seem to be getting these very

conflicting reports as to the state of the science with regard to causation.

I hear you refer to Dr. Satcher, for example, but I was looking

at the Atlanta Journal Constitution, and it is an article, January

18 of this year, it says, ‘‘Study Disputes Myths About Youth Violence,’’ and it says, ‘‘While some media reports, including a

Wednesday Los Angeles Times article about the Surgeon General

study, played up the role of the media in causing youth violence,’’

this, of course, is the U.S. Surgeon General, dismissed those accounts, and they are quoting Dr. Satcher, ‘‘As a risk factor for

youth violence, the impact of media violence to date is very small,

very small indeed. Some people may not be happy, but that is

where the science is today, and our responsibility is to stick with

the science.’’ Which side of this is Dr. Satcher really on? That is

30

not consistent with the quotation I thought I heard that you gave

of his awhile ago.

Mr. KUNKEL. My quotation was to the U.S. Surgeon General, and

there actually are several previous U.S. Surgeon Generals who

have taken a much stronger stance on this than Dr. Satcher. However, I think really what the debate boils down to is that many people try to oversimplify this discussion. They try to think of the impact of media violence as having a direct and powerful, almost bullet-like impact on people, so that they see a particular effect. They

say, well, if you see this program, will that make you go out and

commit a crime or will that make you go out and kill someone? And

that would almost never happen. There are, of course, rare instances of this and they are reported in the press. But that is not

the primary concern about the influence of media violence.

That would be like asking what is the effect of smoking one cigarette? There is, of course, very little or no effect from one cigarette.

However, as you have cumulative exposure to cigarette smoke

across years of time and thousands of cigarettes, you develop an increased risk of cancer. Similarly, with greater exposure to media violence, you develop an increased risk of aggressive behavior and,

according to certain studies, certain criminal acts later in life. Now,

that is a risk factor. Just as I am sure that you know, Senator

Thompson, people who have smoked all their life and not contracted cancer, there are people who have seen violence in large

measure over the course of their life and do not behave aggressively. That is because there are many factors that shape human

behavior.

Senator THOMPSON. I am not arguing the science with you, because I do not know.

Mr. KUNKEL. It is a risk factor.

Senator THOMPSON. But I guess, when the Surgeon General says

the impact of media violence, he is not talking about one exposure

here, ‘‘The impact of media violence to date is very small, very

small indeed,’’ I do not think anybody would argue with the commonsense proposition that a lot of things are going on out in society here have some affect. I think the question is maybe as you put

it, what are we talking about? Are we talking about something that

is primary, something that is substantial, or something that is

very, very small?

I looked over here in the FTC report that was issued last fall;

there was some discussion of it in the executive summary, but just

like in some of these global warming reports that come out, the executive summary is not exactly the same as the body of the report,

and if you look over in Appendix A of the FTC report, it says,

‘‘There does appear to be general agreement among researchers

that whatever the impact of media violence, it likely explains a relatively small amount of the total variation in youthful violent behavior.’’

So, again, I am not arguing the science. I do not have the answer. I do not know what extent. I guess everybody would concede

some extent, but the question is whether or not we are making a

much stronger causation and we are representing the science as

being somewhere that the science really is not, in light of both the

FTC and the U.S. Surgeon General.

31

Mr. KUNKEL. There is no doubt that some people exaggerate the

research in this realm.

Senator THOMPSON. My question was whether or not you were

one of those people.

Mr. KUNKEL. I do not believe so, sir, and I believe that just as

human behavior is influenced by so many factors, I believe that the

comment that you were referring to from the Surgeon General,

Satcher, reflects is that parents are of critical importance, peer

groups are also of critical importance, and that relative to those

factors in terms of predicting violent behavior, media falls below

those, and the Surgeon General’s report on youth violence reflects

that. The Surgeon General Satcher’s report also reflects that media

is a risk vector and it is a contributing factor to aggressive behavior, and our concern about this topic area is not that it is the most

potent influence on youth behavior, but it is one of the most pervasive factors.

Children are watching media every day. They spend more time

exposed to media than they do attending school by the time they

graduate from high school. Certainly you would agree that education has an impact on young lives.

Senator THOMPSON. Certainly.

Mr. KUNKEL. And so I do not think you can discount this.

Senator THOMPSON. The issue here is one of causation. It has to

do with purported science, causation with regard to violence, not

that it has an—nobody could argue that this stuff has an overall

degrading, debilitating effect on society.

Mr. KUNKEL. Of course.

Senator THOMPSON. I do not think there is any question about

a lot of it.

Mr. KUNKEL. Of course.

Senator THOMPSON. But I think as we get into this, we need to

make sure that we are dealing with the most accurate science that

we can from the people and the entities who have some responsibility in this area. Thank you very much.

Ms. Smit, thank you very much for your testimony. Tell me a little bit more about The Lion and the Lamb Project, your organization, how it came about and what you do and what your goals are

in your organization. It sounds like you do some very good work.

Ms. SMIT. Well, actually, I am just a member of The Lion and

Lamb Project. I just took a workshop and I like to go on their web

site. Daphne White, who is the director of The Lion and Lamb

Project, would probably be better to talk about it, but it is a parent

advocacy group. If anybody goes on the web site, there are articles

about the marketing of entertainment to children. Talk about

issues, for example, like these Gameboy games which are rated E,

but the same game is also a mature game. So if it is totally different for children, then why are they calling it by the same name?

Obviously, if my 8-year-old played this E-rated game, he would

want to go play the mature game soon enough.

Senator THOMPSON. Are there advisories that are put out to

members of The Lion and Lamb Project?

Ms. SMIT. Yes.

Senator THOMPSON. Is there an organization in every State, for

example, do you know?

32

Ms. SMIT. There are people that get trained to be trainers, to do

parent workshops, and it is a slowly growing organization. Like all

non-profits, it is sorely lacking in funds.

Senator THOMPSON. Do you know whether or not—have you been

able to attract some private industry corporate support, contributions and so forth, to help you?

Ms. SMIT. I am afraid I cannot answer those questions, because

I really am just a member, but Daphne White is the person to contact, and I would encourage people to go on the lionlamb.org site

to see what is on there. They do send out E-mails to people who

become members, alerting them to all kinds of issues in this area

and encouraging parents to talk to other parents and just make

them more aware.

I really was not as aware of all of this when my children were

younger, but as they get older I became more aware. I mean, I see

my kids every day and their friends just running around the house,

saying, ‘‘I’m going to stab you, I’m going to shoot you,’’ and it is

coming from watching this stuff. I am no scientist, but I just really

know that there is a connection when I see bad behavior in our

school. I think the World Wrestling Federation has a big effect on

young boys.

Senator THOMPSON. Well, it sounds like you are doing what you

can, not only to be a good parent, but to exercise your rights to

make it known what you think about all of this and to join together

with other people to have some influence in this regard, and more

power to you. Thank you for being here today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Senator Carper.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to our witnesses and to my colleagues for being late. This is the third hearing I have been to, and I know we are all busy. I appreciate you

being here. Sometimes when we have a panel like this, I like to ask

where you agree and where you disagree. I am not going to do that.

I am tempted to, and if I have time, I am going to ask that question, where you agree and where you disagree, but what I would

really like to ask you is what role—and you may have said this already, and I apologize if you have—what role is there in these

issues for the Congress? What is the appropriate role for us to take

in these regards? Let’s just start with Mr. Kunkel.

Mr. KUNKEL. I would say that the appropriate role is to do exactly what you are doing today, and that is to provide a public

forum for the discussion of these issues which, given the First

Amendment, seem best considered or best addressed by self-regulatory action on the part of the media industries. I think that there

is a need for parents’ voices, for advocacy group voices, to be heard

and to have an opportunity to meet with leaders of the entertainment industries, and a forum like this accomplishes just that purpose.

Senator CARPER. You may have said this already. Do you have

children of your own? I have two boys, 11 and 12.

Mr. KUNKEL. I actually have five godchildren between the ages

of 2 and 6, but no natural children.

33

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Mr. Pilon.

Mr. PILON. Well, as the odd man out on this panel, let me say

that I think that the role of government in this is relatively limited. I think that the evidence that has been cited is characterized

most strikingly by Professor Kunkel, when he said that violence in

the media contributes to violence in the world. That is a scientific

inference that is so weak as to be all but useless. I recall reviewing

this literature as a graduate student and I went away singularly

unconvinced that there was any serious correlation you could draw

between watching this stuff and the human action. And, in fact, I

went away saying that not only is there no serious inference to be

drawn, but rather it denigrates us as human beings capable of

choice. Indeed, it is only because we are capable of choice that we

can be held responsible, and we cannot point to the video game and

say, ‘‘I did it because the video game made me do it.’’ Speaking from my own personal experience, yes, I have children.

I have a 16-year-old son who has been playing these shoot-’em-up

video games since he was 7. He is on his way to becoming an Eagle

Scout. I have no reservation about his ability to distinguish between what he sees on that screen and what goes on in the real

world. I think much of this has been overstated and it is nowhere

better characterized than by Professor Kunkel’s remark that this ‘‘contributes to.’’ Lots of things ‘‘contribute to.’’ Eating too much

sugar can ‘‘contribute to’’ violence.

I would add also that the idea that you can achieve precision in

these ratings, of the kind that you get on a food label that says 11

grams of saturated fat, is a chimera. You will never get anything

close to that in this. We are talking about subjective judgments.

We are talking about disagreements, even on this panel, about how

‘‘Saving Private Ryan’’ or ‘‘Sophie’s Choice’’ or many other wonderful films are characterized because we have got this artificial grid

relating to sex and violence. This is the kind of thing that is inherently subjective. To look for food label kind of labeling just simply

misses the point about it.

Now, with respect to the role of government, here again I would

suggest that if this is the kind of thing that is indeed worthy, then

the National Institute can find plenty of support in the private sector to underwrite this type of thing. I submit, though, that when

you press their program you will find that it does not stand up because the idea of setting up a uniform standard for all of these

media, and being able to put out consistent ratings for the 100,000

or more programs that are put out each year, is a pipe dream. It

simply will not happen. You will have this Committee and you will

still have disagreements.

Senator CARPER. Mr. Pilon, I am going to ask you to hold it right

there. I want to hear from the other witnesses, as well. Thank you.

Mr. Kunkel, I am sorry. I missed your thin remark.

Go ahead, Dr. Rich.

Dr. RICH. I agree with Dr. Kunkel that this is the first step of

what Congress’ role is in this. Congress has functions beyond legislation. It is also leadership. It is a voice. You are our voice. You

represent us, and you speak loudly, and the fact that you are paying attention to this issue, that you are not being distracted by

other arguments, and saying we, the people, are concerned about

34

this is the most important function that Congress can serve. You

can, by your voice and by your leadership, lead all of us, all of our

diverse voices, hopefully, to a better system.

While this system is a good attempt and I think that the entertainment industry deserves credit for creating it, it is not yet perfect, and so you can lead us toward a better solution for that.

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Ms. Smit.

Ms. SMIT. As a mother, I agree with both Dr. Kunkel and Dr.

Rich. I see this a little bit like the cigarette industry was many

years ago. I mean, the issues are much more complex. But I think

the same thing with the Joe Camel ads, where cigarettes were

being marketed to kids. I would like to see some steps made to stop

marketing these violent video games and sex to kids, and I guess

I would like to see what we are doing now. The fact that Congress

is interested in this issue, makes a parent really happy that this

is being looked at seriously, and I hope that everybody will come

together, both on the corporate side and governmental side, to do

something for our kids, because I see that all of you are concerned

up there, but the question is how do we go about doing it? But I

am very happy as a mother that Congress is looking at this.

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, do I have some more time?

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes, you do. I am sorry. There is a timer

in front of you. You have exactly 3 minutes and 27 seconds, more

or less.

Senator CARPER. How much time did I have to start with, 10

minutes?

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes, 10 minutes.

Senator CARPER. I was going to say this is the slowest 5 minutes

I have seen for awhile. I would like to go back to Dr. Kunkel, if

I could. We are familiar in our own family with the ratings that

exist for movies and follow those pretty closely. My boys are into

popular music—so is their dad—but I am just not familiar with the

warning system that is in place for music, as a parent. The CDs

that we buy just do not have those kinds of warnings, or if they

do, I have just not seen them. Our boys like to play video games.

I am not aware of the warning system that exists there. I do not

know if they are alike, if they are dissimilar. I do not know if there

is a need for more commonality, but we all understand, I think

pretty well, the movie rating system, but not so much the other

rating systems for video and music and maybe television. Do we

need something that is more uniform?

Mr. KUNKEL. Well, first of all, I would say that you fit perfectly

the profile of an average parent, because I think that is what most

parents in this country would say, that they are aware that there

are some labels being thrown on different types of media products,

but they are having trouble making sense of them because of the

inconsistency or sometimes incompatibility across media. You apparently are not aware, but there are no rating categories that are

applied to music or CDs. There is merely a warning label that says

parental advisory, that is put on material that someone in the company, using no criteria that are publicly available, decides is sensitive or might be inappropriate for use.

In contrast, there are somewhat vague standards for the motion

picture ratings, such that you can see that there will be comments

35

such as serious violence would be in one category or graphic or explicit violence in another, but those seem to vary from application

to application. So I think there is a lot of confusion on the part of

parents who want to use the information, but simply cannot disentangle all of the different ones, and what we are suggesting here

today is the need for some greater clarity, some greater consistency

in applying the standards, making the public aware of the standards that are being used to rate material, and also for the media

industries to seriously consider uniform ratings that would then

allow parents to easily figure things out because the criteria could

be the same across all media.

Senator CARPER. I would ask each of the other witnesses to just

take 30 seconds and respond to what Dr. Kunkel said.

Mr. Pilon.

Mr. PILON. If there is indeed a market for this, I see no reason

why The Motion Picture Association of America, the video game

producers and so forth, would not respond to it. It seems to me that

this is perhaps a mission in search of a market, and it may be that

it is more difficult than people have given credit for it being.

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Dr. Rich.

Dr. RICH. As a pediatrician and as a parent, my response is that

I am constantly in search of information that will allow my own

children and the children that I care for to make informed and

thoughtful decisions about a variety of risk factors in their lives.

Research has established that media can be a risk factor to their

health, to their physical and mental health. Therefore, I would

search for some means, hopefully simple and direct and one that

you and the other average parents out there can use in an easy

and direct way, to make those risk-benefit judgments that a parent

makes every day on behalf of their children.

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Ms. Smit.

Ms. SMIT. I think that a uniform rating system would be really

helpful to parents. I am more educated than probably most parents, and I think that even though it would be difficult, it would

be very helpful. I think that what has to go along with it, though,

is educating the general public about it, just as maybe 20 years ago

people were not aware of which things that you ingested—how they

would harm you. I think that a lot of parents, if I look at some of

the parents in my community, just really need to be educated about

that, and there needs to be massive education, so that everybody

knows, because most parents go on the opinion a friend that they

feel has the same values, and you know who those people are, and

you know which people are more sensitive about which issues, and

you ask them, ‘‘Well, would you let your daughter see it?’’ or ‘‘What

did you think about it?’’ That is why I think it has to be a massive

education effort, because a lot of parents rate entertainment based

on what their friends and the people they trust say.

I think everybody needs to know that saturated fat is bad for

you, let’s say, and everybody needs to know what levels of violence

are bad, but this is why it is so difficult, because everybody has different values and this goes to people’s values and beliefs, which are

the strongest things in people’s lives. And every parent is different.

Parents aren’t going to have the exact same opinion about entertainment products.

36

Senator CARPER. Again, our thanks to each of you for being here,

and, Mr. Chairman, my thanks to you for holding these hearings

in the first place.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Carper. Thanks for

being here.

Senator Durbin.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DURBIN

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this

hearing. I appreciate the opportunity. I am sorry I had to step out

for a moment, and my questioning will be brief, because I know you

have other panels to consider. As I listened to the testimony and

read some of the testimony that we will hear very shortly, I tried

to determine whether there were some things that we could agree

on.

There is a difference of opinion, Dr. Rich, for example, on your

premise that you say is supported by major health organizations,

that there is a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior, which I believe—I am not sure how much of a

connection there is or how great of an impact it is, but I do believe

there is a connection. I do not believe you can be desensitized to

this kind of exposure, particularly as a young person. I think that

it has an impact on you. There is some agreement. Mr. Baldwin

will later say that he thinks there may be some connection to it.

He has other things to say, which are equally important. There are

others—Ms. Rosen—who may disagree in her testimony. But it

seems that that premise is something that at least leads us to this

hearing.

If there is a connection, what should we do to protect our children? The second thing, though, is there wide disagreement? That

is the question that was posed, or at least a statement by the

Chairman in his opening remarks. A Gallup survey found 74 percent of parents said movie, music, and television ratings were inadequate. Later on, Mr. Valenti is going to tell us that 81 percent

thought that these same rating systems for movies were very useful. So there seems to be a real difference of opinion there.

I will have to tell you—maybe it reflects the fact that my children are grown and I now have a 5-year-old grandson, I am reintroducing myself to some of these things—I think they are unintelligible. I do not know how you follow it. I have no idea what they

are flashing on the screen in television. Maybe I do not follow it

as closely as I would have if I had kids sitting around me. But it

should be simpler, shouldn’t it? Shouldn’t we be in a system where

a parent really kind of knows going in, A, B, C, D, F, or something

that is fundamental? Right now, the gradations and the definitions

are so hard to follow, and a lot of it is in the eye of the beholder.

Most of these ratings are being done by the industries themselves

and by people in the industry. Well, self-policing is important, because who wants the big hand of government making this call? But

when you get into self-policing, it is a matter of definition and

taste, and it is very individualized.

Just the other night, I was stuck in O’Hare, which is part of my

life, and I went to a CD store. I went in there—I was just browsing

through there—and I looked in the New Age section in the CD

37

store, and they had two CDs entitled ‘‘The Very Best of Perry

Como,’’ and I thought to myself some clerk along the way here— and they were all pretty young—probably does not have a clue who

Perry Como was and thinks he is a New Age musician.

Senator CARPER. Perry Como would be pleased to know that he

is thought of as a New Age musician.

Senator DURBIN. Let me ask you about this, Dr. Rich. The

premise here, the connection, you believe that it is clear, although

I guess there is some question about impact on individual kids.

Dr. RICH. I see it both in a wide variety of research and I see

it every day in my clinical examination room. I do think there is

an effect. I do not think it is an on-off switch. I think that in the

search for causality, we get seduced into saying that if you do this,

then this will occur. The reality in all of life is that there are gradations of risk, and, in fact, if one were to say you cannot prove

causality, you could not prove causality that having sex causes

pregnancy, because it does not happen every time. What we look

at is variance. We look at the risk inherent in it, and the risk inherent in exposure to media violence is approximately 14 percent

for serious violence as an outcome.

By contrast, the risk of smoking cigarettes has been associated

with a variance that explained between 13 percent and 22 percent

of lung cancer. Everybody that smokes does not get lung cancer. So

what I am searching for, both as a pediatrician and as a parent,

is a tool, a tool that I can use, that I can share with people without

spending hours and hours or a weekend seminar to teach them

how to use it, that they can use to decide how to care for their children best. I tell them put on the child’s seat belt. Bicycle helmets

are necessary. We do this all the time. This is a much more complex and difficult situation on a variety of levels, but I think it

needs to be simplified, and I think the easiest and most direct way

to approach it is this content-based approach, because that allows

the individual parents to respond to what is there, rather than

what someone tells them is the appropriateness of what is there.

Senator DURBIN. So, Mr. Pilon, if it is kind of a consensus opinion among medical experts that there is a connection between

media violence and aggressive behavior, why should not the government be part of giving parents that information so they can

make the right choice for their kids?

Mr. PILON. Because we have a Constitution.

Senator DURBIN. You think the Constitution prohibits even selfpolicing of these entities?

Mr. PILON. Oh, of course not, but you said why shouldn’t the government be involved. That is not self-policing.

Senator DURBIN. If the government is going to suggest that we

have, for example, categories that parents can understand as part

of this hearing, do you think that oversteps the constitutional

boundaries?

Mr. PILON. So now we are moving in the direction of this publicprivate partnership; is that the idea? The government is going to

suggest the categories?

Senator DURBIN. Do you find that frightening?

Mr. PILON. I find that a slippery slope, absolutely, Mr. Durbin.

I have been around this town for a little while.

38

Senator DURBIN. I am new here, but thank you. [Laughter.]

Mr. PILON. Well, I know, and I was here before—when you were

back out in Illinois. In any event, no, I think that there is not this

consensus that you referred to, and indeed, as I said, what you do

find is a very weak inference. Indeed, I would throw this data out

before the Committee: We are told that there is an increase in violence in the media, and there is an increasing amount of media because cable is expanding the media outlets every day, the movies

are getting more violent, and yet we know that over the last several years youth violence has been going down. Square those two,

if you will. That seems to fly right in the face of the hypothesis of

these hearings, and so I think that we ought to check the science

a little more carefully and, in fact, check precisely what we mean

by scientific inference.

Again, I repair to the language that was used by Mr. Kunkel, ‘‘It

contributes to.’’ As several of the panelists have said, lots of things

contribute to violence, and the Surgeon General put video, media,

etc., way down on the list of those contributory factors. Therefore,

I come back to my final conclusion, that this may be a problem of

whatever magnitude in search of a solution, and what concerns me

most, in search of a government solution.

Senator DURBIN. There are moments in politics when the left and

right come together, and I can see that.

Mr. PILON. Yes, we find that often at the Cato Institute.

Senator DURBIN. I am not going to touch that one. [Laughter.]

I will just say that no one would disagree with your premise. In

fact, Mr. Baldwin, I think makes it very clear in his statement,

that there are many factors that lead to youth violence and this

may be a contributing factor. I think that is what Dr. Rich is saying. I hope I am not putting words in your mouth.

Ms. Smit, thank you for being here. As I listen to you, I thought

you represent a lot of people that I represent in the State of Illinois, in just trying to find the right thing to do to raise those kids

in the right way, and when they turn out right, it is the greatest

reward in life.

Thank you.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Durbin.

Thanks to the members of the panel. I think you have set down

a challenge for us. You have spoken—certainly, Ms. Smit, you

have—from the common concerns that are widely held around the

country, and I think the letter that Professor Kunkel and Dr. Rich

signed also challenges the industry and all of us to see what we

can do to better prepare to help parents raise their kids, and in

that spirit we thank you and we look forward to the next panel.

Thank you very much.

Ms. SMIT. Could we have one minute to try our video again?

Chairman LIEBERMAN. OK. Let’s try it again.

Ms. SMIT. It is the technology of this fancy TV, and if it does not

work this time——

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Is his name Adam? I find it disconcerting

that, playing this game, he is wearing a Cal Ripken shirt.

Senator THOMPSON. He has got to please the home crowd.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Well, he is our hero.

[Pause.]

39

1The prepared statement of Mr. Baldwin appears in the Appendix on page 97.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. No-go? OK.

Ms. SMIT. Sorry. Thank you.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Point made, I think, though. Let us call

the next panel: William Baldwin, President of The Creative Coalition; Douglas McMillon, Senior VP and General Merchandise Manager of Wal-Mart Stores; Hilary Rosen, President and CEO of the

Recording Industry Association of America; Jack Valenti, President

and CEO, The Motion Picture Association of America; and Doug

Lowenstein, President, Interactive Digital Software Association.

Thanks to all of you.

See if you can find your seats as quickly as you can. We have

been notified that there is a vote that will occur sometime in the

next 10 to 20 minutes on the Senate floor, so we will have to recess

for a period of time, and we will try very hard to get as many of

the witnesses in as we can before that time.

Let’s begin with William Baldwin, obviously an actor, and this

morning here as president of The Creative Coalition.

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM BALDWIN,1 PRESIDENT, THE

CREATIVE COALITION

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,

thank you for inviting me to appear at this important hearing. I

am a parent, an actor and president of The Creative Coalition. I

am not here speaking on behalf of the entertainment industry, nor

do my comments reflect the opinions of all the members of my organization, The Creative Coalition. Senator Lieberman and I have

had many discussions about the role of media in our culture, its effects on children, and ways in which we can help parents navigate

the overwhelming barrage of words, images, sounds, and ideas that

bombard our children daily.

Although we agree that there is a problem, we do not agree on

the specific definition of the problem and we are even further apart

on potential solutions. Despite this, I consider myself a partner in

our collective effort to empower parents. In recent years, there

have been many welcome changes in the approach of the arts and

entertainment industries to the issue of violent and sexual content,

and the rating systems that we are discussing today are among the

most significant. But let’s be clear; even if we devised the most perfect rating system imaginable, we would be no closer to solving the

real social problems of this country.

We were all horrified by the destructive acts that have so disturbed the Nation in recent years, but in spite of all the rhetoric

to the contrary, the real issue is not media violence, it is youth violence, which is in decline. The core issues for youth violence are

drug and alcohol abuse, divorce and family breakdown, physical

and sexual abuse, neglect, poverty, mental illness, and easy access

to firearms; and, yes, media may play an indirect role by contributing in the form of aggression, desensitizing or overstimulation.

But the problem is far greater than violent movies or video

games, and the ratings we use to control access to violent and sexual content are not going to solve the social ills afflicting children

today. Printing warnings on a CD are not going to raise anyone’s

40

children or make them go to school, or keep them away from drugs.

A sticker on a video game is not a bandage for a broken family.

Ratings are merely one tool that parents can use to identify entertainment that matches their own values. They are not a substitute

for those values, nor can they instill values if they do not exist.

Ratings are extraordinarily valuable, but they can be made

stronger and more informative. No one could argue that the rating

system serves no purpose and no one could argue that the current

system cannot be improved. In my view, any system that indiscriminately lumps ‘‘Schindler’s List,’’ ‘‘Billy Elliott,’’ and ‘‘Saving

Private Ryan’’ in the same category as a slasher movie clearly is

ripe for reform. As a parent, I want to know why a movie received

a particular rating so I can intelligently apply my own judgment

and values. Descriptive labels that let parents know what caused

a rating, whether it is language, sex, or violent content, would

make ratings more credible; and, as you will hear from Mr. Valenti,

this is precisely the course of action that the industry is taking.

But no matter what ratings system is adopted, it must be voluntary.

Congressional oversight, no matter how well-intentioned, should

not impose legislation that would infringe upon constitutionallyprotected expression. Government sanctions of any kind to enforce

subjective standards of accuracy or appropriateness are a clear violation of the First Amendment. There has been much discussion

about mandating a so-called universal rating system that uses the

same terminology and standards of judgment, no matter which medium is being rated. Many apparently feel that parents are easily

confused, even though, ironically, the FTC has determined that

parents are overwhelmingly familiar and satisfied with current systems.

We believe that whatever confusion exists should be fixed within

each medium’s particular system and not by creating a one-sizefits-all concept. A universal system assumes that all media are the

same and affect audiences in the same way, but artistic mediums

have been proven to affect audiences differently. Visual media, like

movies and television, are intrinsically different than media that

rely on more subjective interpretations, like music. As an aside, I

have read novels. For example, I have read the novel ‘‘Hunt for Red

October.’’ I saw the film ‘‘Hunt for Red October’’ twice, because

Senator Lieberman—I am sorry—Senator Thompson and my brother, Alec, both starred in the film.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. That was in my fantasy world, that I

starred in that film. [Laughter.]

Senator THOMPSON. You are being generous. We both starred;

right? [Laughter.]

Mr. BALDWIN. I read the novel. I saw the film, not only twice because my brother starred in the film, but it was an excellent film.

Six months later, somebody approached me on the street and said,

‘‘Hey, I loved your brother in that film. He was the greatest Jack

Ryan. I loved that part about such-and-such,’’ and I just agreed. I

said, ‘‘Oh, thanks a lot. I will tell him.’’ I walked away and I could

not remember, not only that scene, but I could not remember a lot

of what the novel was about. Two days later, I am driving in a car,

and in a week’s span, I hear ‘‘Paradise by the Dashboard Light,’’

41

by Meatloaf, I hear ‘‘25-or-6-to-4:00’’ by Chicago, and I hear ‘‘In the

Mood,’’ by Glenn Miller; all three of them, I had not heard in 15

years. I knew every movement of the melody and I knew every

word of the lyrics. Clearly, music affects the brain differently than

reading a book or seeing a film, and that is one of the reasons— it is one of the justifications for why I do not think a universal rating system can apply to all forms of media, because they affect the

brain differently.

So a single standard applied across all media would never serve

parents effectively, and if we are talking about age-appropriate ratings for all media, should we include books, Broadway musicals,

paintings and the evening news? Clearly, though, within the context of self-regulation, there is room for improvement. We should

continue to make ratings system stronger and more informative.

Parents are understandably concerned as standards by which films

are rated appear to have eased over time. For example, some films

that were rated R years ago today might be given a PG–13 rating.

The credibility of self-regulation requires consistency, and the industry is working to find ways to improve in this area.

Another area in which the entertainment industry can further

improve its self-regulatory mechanisms is compliance at the retail

level. The FTC report found that movie theaters have the best rating enforcement of any retail industry surveyed. Despite this, compliance with the rating system is an area that can still be improved, and theater owners have pledged to do so. We must work

to find incentives for retailers to comply with the rating system in

ways that are not cost prohibitive. Our organization is proud of recent industry efforts to improve marketing practices, but pressure

must continue to make sure all media is made for and marketed

to appropriate audiences. But we also must be vigilant to guard the

right to market to adults, and more important, the right of adults

to receive this information.

I would like to suggest one more area that is rarely discussed.

I believe that we must not only give parents the tools they need

to help guide their children, but we also must give children the

tools they need to interpret the media onslaught. We need to institute media literacy programs to help children understand and process with a more critical eye the vast amount of information they

receive from all forms of media, from films to television commercials to Dan Rather to the evening news. Children need to develop

inner filters that help them make sense of what they are digesting.

The more they understand how and why media is created, the more

they will benefit from the media that they are ingesting.

The Creative Coalition is eager to work with other interested

parties to develop media literacy curricula that can be used in

schools nationwide. I thank the Committee for its concern about

our children’s future. Solutions should not come in the form of government regulation or any direct or indirect form of censorship. In

the end, voluntary self-regulation is the only constitutionally-acceptable way to address this issue. Self-regulation has been very

successful. We now have a rating system for the television industry, the video industry, and a parental advisory for the recording

industry. Mr. Valenti has implemented new guidelines that entertainment industry executives have not only voluntarily and enthuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:09 Mar 11, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 75480.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
42

1The prepared statement of Mr. McMillon appears in the Appendix on page 102.

siastically embraced, but some have offered to take several of these

recommendations even further.

Is the current system perfect? No. Is there room for improvement? Definitely. We can strengthen the rating system and the parental advisory by making them even more informative. We can enhance enforcement. We can incorporate media literacy into our

schools. In dealing with the issue of youth violence there clearly is

a seat at the table for the entertainment industry, with legislators,

educators, law enforcement, advocacy groups and other relevant

constituencies. But any effort will fail if parents are not doing their

job. The entertainment industry can help parents, they cannot be

parents.

Last, I wanted to say that when protecting freedom comes in direct conflict with protecting children, dramatic results should not

be expected overnight. It needs to be done in an incremental and

thoughtfully considered manner, and myself and The Creative Coalition all look forward to working with you to find common ground

that protects both freedom of expression and the need to provide

tools to empower parents.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Baldwin.

Mr. McMillon, thanks for being here. I must say to you, just to

echo what Senator Thompson said, that in the 8 years I have been

involved in this particular topic, there have been moments of great

frustration and disappointment, and there have been moments

when I felt really a sense of accomplishment and appreciation, and

I think Wal-Mart Stores has been exemplary, really, continuing extraordinary acts of good citizenship in the role that you played as

retailers in applying your own set of standards in the interest of

the families that shop at Wal-Mart, as you market entertainment

products and do so based on the rating systems, such as they are.

So I am delighted that you are here. I thank you and I look forward to your testimony.

TESTIMONY OF DOUG McMILLON,1 SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT

AND GENERAL MERCHANDISE MANAGER, WAL-MART

STORES, INC.

Mr. MCMILLON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud of the

company that I work for and appreciate the opportunity to be here

today. At Wal-Mart, we are a customer-driven company. Our customers are the primary force behind the decisions that we make.

We aspire to be an important part of our communities and provide

products and services that raise the standard of living for our customers. Consistent with that aspiration, Wal-Mart attempts to sell

entertainment products in a way that allows our customers to

make informed decisions and to exclude from our shelves merchandise that they may find objectionable due to its sexually explicit or

extremely violent nature.

The challenges we face are in our ability to first help the customers understand what it is that they are buying, and second to

determine which products they may find objectionable, either before or in some cases after we have made it available for sale. At

times, this is harder than it may sound, due to the subjective naVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:09 Mar 11, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 75480.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
43

ture of these decisions. In the case of movies, we use The Motion

Picture Association ratings. We do carry R-rated movies, which our

buyer selects on a title-by-title basis. Our cashiers are prompted at

registers to verify that the purchaser is 17 or older, and we are involved in an ongoing training effort to ensure that our more than

120,000 cashiers all understand our policy of age verification.

In the case of video games and computer software, we use the

ESRB ratings. We do not carry adults-only titles and we register

prompt for age verification on M-rated titles. In addition to register

prompting, we have also implemented in-store signing, print advertising, and associate training to explain the ESRB rating system.

In the case of music, we do not have a rating system to follow. We

do not currently carry parental advisory stickered music. We do

carry edited versions of some parental advisory music. I want to

stress here that edited does not mean clean. It means some portions of the music have been removed or changed. There may still

be some objectionable material, and this is an area where we feel

we may be contributing to our customers’ misunderstanding.

We do not age-restrict the sale of any music products. We simply

do not know where to draw that line. From our perspective, a

standardized rating system for music by the industry would help

our customers make a more informed purchasing decision. The

Committee has asked that we address the proposal from the National Institute on Media and the Family. They propose that media

ratings be more accurate, even to the point of establishing an independent ratings oversight committee and a universal media rating

system. We share their concern that rating systems accurately and

consistently identify sensitive material. We want our customers to

be able to make informed decisions regarding the entertainment

products that they purchase. While we obviously would be supportive of continued improvements in media rating systems, WalMart and other members of the retail community have voluntarily

made substantial investments of time and resources to ensure that

both our associates and our customers are fully informed of existing rating standards; for example, the rating system for movies

first initiated in 1968 and generally has been effective in establishing sufficient levels of consumer familiarity with movie content.

Accordingly, any proposals to make media ratings more accurate

should build upon this current level of familiarity. With respect to

the notion of an independent ratings oversight committee, there are

serious concerns over whether such a body would interfere unduly

with the consumer choice and discretion in the purchase of constitutionally-protected free speech. These concerns would be compounded by the fact that Wal-Mart and other retailers have already demonstrated that commitment to enforce and comply fully

with voluntary industry standards. Accordingly, we feel that the

formation of an independent regulatory body would at this point be

premature and should be considered only after the related constitutional issues are fully examined.

Finally, it has been proposed that a universal rating system be

established for purposes of simplification. Prior to making a recommendation regarding such a system, we would want input from

our customers, and we simply have not asked them. In conclusion,

while we strive to use our best judgment on what we carry and

44

1The prepared statement of Ms. Rosen appears in the Appendix on page 106.

work hard to restrict the sale of certain products to those under the

age of 17, it is not possible to eliminate every image, word or topic

that an individual might find objectionable. In addition, we are the

first to admit that our systems and training, good as they are, are

not infallible. We want our customers to make informed decisions

and we want them to feel that we are handling entertainment

products in an appropriate manner.

Thank you.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Mr. McMillon. Again, that is

very impressive testimony. And obviously you are doing this; government is not coercing or even suggesting in any way that you do

this. You have done this just as an act of your own judgment about

what is best. And it is obvious, in your case, because of the significance of Wal-Mart Stores in marketing in the United States, you

have had an effect, I think, on content in some of the entertainment products that you have described. In other words, if you are

not going to be able to be sold at Wal-Mart because of a particular

rating that you get, then that, I think, will begin to affect the behavior, and that is the way it ought to happen, out in the private

sector. I thank you.

Next is Hilary Rosen, President and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America.

TESTIMONY OF HILARY ROSEN,1 PRESIDENT AND CEO,

RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

Ms. ROSEN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. Thank you for having me here. I am here to discuss the recording industry’s parental advisory program. I am also here as a

parent, a citizen, as a member of the music community who has

worked on this difficult subject for 15 years. But my history does

not go back as far as the criticisms of music and popular culture

do. That has been a subject of public opinion and government scrutiny for over 70 years, since Duke Ellington’s song, ‘‘The Mooch,’’

was subject to protest because of fears it would inspire rape.

It will not end with today’s hearing, and perhaps that is as it

should be, for music is so often identified with youth rebellion and

generational misunderstanding that simply the dialogue about the

subject has the potential to build bridges, if that is the goal. Too

often, the goal, however, is to cast blame and intimidate the creative community, and please know this community has quite strong

feelings about this subject.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I have noticed.

Ms. ROSEN. At the risk of cutting short my own statement, I am

going to read a few sentences from the statement of Russell Simmons, the chairman of the Hip Hop Summit Action Network, who

requested to testify today, and ask that his full statement be a part

of the record, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Let me say I will be happy to put it in

as a part of the record, and I regretted that we could not have Mr.

Simmons testify. I appreciate that you are going to read some from

it. I will not take this away from your time. There just ended up

being too many witnesses to add more, but if we come back to the

45

subject, I will be glad to give Mr. Simmons and others the chance

to come in and testify. Please go ahead.

Ms. ROSEN. Thank you.

‘‘I regret that we are not able to testify, because many of us in

the Hip Hop community feel these hearings are really about us,

and it would be better, in our view, to hear from us and speak directly to us before judgment is passed. Although we know the

harsh underlying social realities that some of our music exposes

have not changed much in our communities, we are committed to

speaking the truth. We believe we must continue to tell the truth

about the street, if that is what we know, and we must tell the

truth about God, if that is who we have found. Part of telling the

truth is making sure that you know and talk more about what you

know than speak or do music to appease those who are in power.

Hip Hop represents truth-telling. What is offensive is any attempt

by the government to define the expression of words and lyrics that

emerge out of a culture that has become the soul of America. My

final point is that often this is largely about race, and it makes

some of us very concerned that few will publicly admit this effort

to censor Hip Hop has deep-seated racial overtones. The Federal

Trade Commission’s report on explicit content disproportional focused on black artists. This report is scientifically flawed, as well

as morally and culturally flawed, and should not be used as the

basis for constructing a system of ratings in regard to music.’’

There are compelling statements in this, Mr. Chairman, which I

am sure the Committee will appreciate hearing about.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. We will enter the statement in full in the

record.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Simmons follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RUSSELL SIMMONS

My name is Russell Simmons and I am submitting this statement on behalf of

the Hip Hop Summit Action Network and its Executive Director, Minister Benjamin

Muhammad. I am Chairman of the Hip Hop Summit Action Network and I have

worked in the music and entertainment industry for more than 25 years. Minister

Benjamin is the former Executive Director and CEO of the NAACP and has over

35 years of experience in civil and human rights.

The Hip Hop Summit Action Network is the broadest national coalition of Hop

Hop artists, entertainment industry executives, civil rights and community leaders.

Established this year, the mission of the Hip Hop Summit Action Network is to support Hip Hop and freedom, justice, equality and empowerment for all based on the

principles of freedom of speech, music and art creativity, and the universality of humanity.

I regret that despite our request to the Committee there I neither have space nor

time for me to testify today. Not simply because I, both individually and on behalf

of the Hip Hop generation have some important things to say about these issues,

but also because many of us feel that these hearings are really about us, and it

would be better in our view to hear from us and speak to us directly before you

pass judgment and deny our fundamental rights.

But let me start with something positive. The Hip Hop community has decided

to take a leadership position toward the evolution of our artistic destiny and responsibility. We convened an historic summit last month in New York and we are planning others in Los Angeles and Miami in August to explore questions related to violence in our own communities, racial profiling, police brutality, representation of

women, and the profanity of poverty, and how we can work from within our industry to expand and elevate the artistic presentation of our culture and experience.

Although we know that the harsh underlying social realities that some of our

music exposes have not changed much in our communities, we are committed to

speaking the truth.

46

We believe that we must continue to tell the truth about the street if that is what

we know and we must continue to tell the truth about God if that is who we have

found. Part of telling the truth is making sure that you know, and talk more about

what you know than to speak or do music to appease those who are in power. Hip

Hop represents truth telling, speaking the truth to ourselves and speaking the truth

to power out of the context and condition of our community.

The Congress of the United States should not censor free speech nor artistic expression. It is unconstitutional for government intrusion or dictation concerning ‘‘labeling of music’’ or ‘‘rating of music’’ that has the effect of denying free speech.

What is offensive is any attempt by the government to deny the expression of

words and lyrics that emerge out of a culture that has become the soul of America.

In fact Hip Hop has now grown to become a global cultural and artistic phenomena.

Congress should not attempt to legislate preferences in music, art and culture.

My final point is that this is often largely about race. And it makes some of us

very concerned that few will publicly admit that this effort to censure Hip Hop has

deep seated racial overtones. Hip Hop emerged out of the African American experience. Eminem is a successful white Hip Hop artist who, power to him, has excelled

and profited from the genre of black music. He stands on the shoulders of other

originators of Hip Hop. The Federal Trade Commission’s report on explicit content

disproportionately focused on black Hip Hop artists. This report flawed scientifically

as well as morally and culturally and should not, therefore, be used as a basis for

constructing a system of ‘‘ratings’’ in regard to music and other forms of entertainment.

Simply put, we conclude by appealing to the Senate Committee on Governmental

Affairs to refrain from censoring, labeling, or rating our music and culture in the

absence of understanding and appreciation of our artistic work which represents the

genius of our culture and talent of our youth. In fact, all youth of today—black,

white, Latino, Asian and all others.

Thank you.

Ms. ROSEN. I do believe that it is important for you today to

know about the important initiatives that the recording industry is

currently undertaking to give parents and consumers information

they need to make choices for their music-buying family. As you

know, our labels have appeared on our products for more than 15

years. By the measure that matters most, what parents say, the

program is a success. According to the FTC’s own report, 77 percent of parents are aware of the program and 75 percent of those

approve of it. The Kaiser Family Foundation study yesterday gave

us comfort when it said that 90 percent of those who use the music

industry’s system find it useful.

Over time, the system has evolved, most recently, last October.

We amended our guidelines, but in a review in February, the FTC

issued a report about the implementation of those guidelines and

was highly critical. We deserve that criticism and we spent the last

several months working hard to do better. We established an implementation task force, in conjunction with the retailers and our

member companies. I have met personally with top executives of

every major record company to review the implementation of the

program, and we have been meeting with our retail partners, as

well.

We are working to implement recommendations formulated by

that task force, as well as by the coalition I just referred to in my

testimony. Last week, we announced a broad-based campaign that

our industry is launching to improve public awareness of the label

among educational leaders and parents in a variety of ways. That

message must get out to parents, and we are going to make sure

that our industry lives up to these commitments. However, Mr.

Chairman, I have to continue to take exception to the FTC’s most

persistent criticism, and that is the erroneous claim that the reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:09 Mar 11, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 75480.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
47

1The prepared statement of Mr. Valenti with attachments appears in the Appendix on page

113.

cording industry deliberately markets material to children that we

ourselves have already determined to be inappropriate. By the definition of our program, that charge is untrue. Our system is not an

age-based program.

It is often compared to the rating systems in place for television,

motion pictures, and video games. But books have no labels or ratings, even those that contain explicit content and are marketed to

children. Why? Because words are particularly subject to interpretation and imagination. Most people feel labeling books is a bad

idea. Music is closer to books than it is to movies or video games

nature. We label content when it is explicit. We provide a wellknown and commercially-accepted logo to identify those recordings.

America’s parents do understand our system, and my written testimony outlines more detail about how much we have to do to make

sure that everybody understands it. We take our duties seriously.

Indeed, the freedom I am here to defend does confer a responsibility. We value our responsibility to parents and to consumers,

and we will continue to give them tools to make decisions for their

family. Thank you.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Ms. Rosen.

Mr. Valenti, welcome. We look forward to your testimony.

TESTIMONY OF JACK VALENTI,1 PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE

MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

Mr. VALENTI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Thompson,

Senator Carper, and Senator Durbin, for having me here. I am

going to say a brief word about movie ratings, a brief word about

the Federal Trade Commission reports and maybe an even briefer

word about the Media Marketing Accountability Act. So let me

begin. Of the current members of the U.S. Senate today, only five

were residents in that hallowed chamber when the movie ratings

system was born November 1, 1968. In the ensuing almost 33

years, the movie ratings have become part of the daily American

life.

I think it is fair to say that they have been faithfully a part of

that life. We have a 98-percent recognition factor among American

families today. What is the objective of the system? It is simple: To

give some advance cautionary warnings to parents so that parents

can make their own decisions about what movies they want their

children to see or not to see. Now, how do parents feel about these

ratings systems? You have heard Dr. Pilon and others make some

statements. Since 1969, the Opinion Research Corporation of

Princeton, New Jersey, has conducted annual surveys. The last

survey, September, 2000, found that 81 percent of parents with

children under 13 found this rating system very useful to fairly

useful in helping them guide their children’s moviegoing. That is

an enormous level of parental endorsement.

But more importantly, last year in the summer, the Federal

Trade Commission conducted its own independent survey, and

what did they find? That 80 percent of parents found the rating

system to be, ‘‘satisfactory.’’ Now, what about the accuracy of ratVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:09 Mar 11, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 75480.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
48

ings? We have heard about this. Since the inception of the program

November 1, 1968, the rating board has rated 16,892 movies, 15 to

20 of which starred Senator Thompson, I am pleased to say. Now,

it is impossible for anyone to say that those 16,892 movies are

confirmably correct or wrong. Frankly, I will confess to this panel

that privately, I take issue every now and then with the rating of

a film, and I think the rating board might have erred. But if there

are errors in the accuracy of a movie rating, it is a matter of a

judgment call and not an exile of integrity.

What movie raters have to face is they are not dealing with the

purities of Euclid’s geometric equations, the answers to which are

always clean-shaped and precise. What movie raters, vexing though

it is to them and to social scientists and to Wall Street analysts,

are dealing with is the ghostly form of subjectivity which is barren

of all Euclidian finalities. And I might add, as a result of that, they

cannot make accurate judgments, totally accurate, because they are

not divinely inspired enough to see clearly what is not clearly seen.

So what do movie raters and social scientists, a group of whom you

heard earlier, and Wall Street analysts do? They draw smudged

lines. They estimate. They surmise, and they have to. Remember,

when a Wall Street analyst cannot remember his phone number,

he will give you an estimate.

That is what we are dealing with in movie ratings, and we have

to understand that. Let me say a word about the FTC reports.

When that first report came out on September 11, 2000, it was critical of a number of marketing plans of some of our companies, and

frankly I thought they were not off the mark. I found some of these

marketing plans to be indefensible, and I so publicly declared. But

17 days after that publication of that report, the movie industry

presented to the Senate Commerce Committee a 12-points set of

initiatives in which we vowed we would remedy the frailties of

some of these marketing plans, and those initiatives are in place

now and they are working. How to confirm that? Well, the FTC’s

second report, which came out in April of this year, in 17 separate

citations commended the movie industry for making visible improvements in its marketing plans.

Is it all over? Are we totally improved? Of course not. We have

got some ways to go, but the point is we are trying and we have

made visible improvement, as witness the FTC report. Now, just a

final statement, a brief word about the Media Marketing Accountability Act; I want to say that I do not for one moment question

the integrity or the commitment or the deeply-felt passions of this

bill’s sponsors. Every one of them is a person for whom I have personal admiration. They are superior public servants and the Nation

is the beneficiary of their skills, their leadership and their fidelity

to this country. But in all candor, I have to say that that proposed

legislation treads heavily on the spine of the First Amendment.

This government, through a regulatory agency, cannot, cannot, cannot intervene in First Amendment-protected properties or creative

material.

Now, I believe that is unconstitutional, and if anyone wants to

question me, I would say read the June 20 decision, handed down

this year, Lorillard v. Reilly, by the Supreme Court of the United

States, which had to do with a company advertising its own prodVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:09 Mar 11, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 75480.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
49

uct, and the court, citing Reno v. ACLU and Baker v. Michigan,

said that no matter how well-intentioned the government’s interest

was in trying to protect children from so-called harmful material,

that did not justify the suppression of speech to adults. Now, you

can indict me, Mr. Chairman, for appearing before this Committee

and practicing law without a license.

Let me finish my last comment. What the ratings do is what the

Federal Trade Commission has urged the Congress to understand,

and that is that industry self-regulation of First Amendment-protected material is the best way to aid parents. Now, I am so enchanted by what I am saying here that really I do not want to stop,

but I will, and I only hope that someone on this panel will ask me

some questions about the letter sent to me, which I answered, by

the National Institute of Media and Health, or whatever it was, but

I would like to answer some questions about that.

Thank you, sir.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Valenti. I have no intention

of indicting you, but I do disagree with you about the Media Marketing Act, as you know, and I feel very strongly that it is not unconstitutional to simply amend the existing Fair Trade Practices

Act that governs the Federal Trade Commission to say that if a

business makes a representation about a product, such as rating it

with regard to appropriateness for children, and then turns around

and markets it to children, that is a deceptive practice.

Mr. VALENTI. May I respond to that?

Chairman LIEBERMAN. My final point is this: As you know, there

is nothing I would like more than to get out of this area and see

the industry self-regulate, and that is why, in fact, in the proposal

that we have made, in the Media Marketing Act, Senator Kohl and

Senator Clinton and I have created a safe harbor, and said that if

any entertainment industry creates its own code of marketing and

self-enforcement mechanism, they are protected from FTC action,

period, exclamation point. So I hope that that will happen with the

movie industry and all the other industries.

Mr. VALENTI. May I respond quickly to that? In Section B of that

act, the safe harbor says that the FTC will specify certain criteria

and that if producers abide by that criteria, then they are going to

be protected from these fines, unless they are found guilty of marketing to children. I think that very definitely connects umbilically

to the Lorillard v. Reilly case, but more than that it seems to me

is what this bill does that I think puts to peril the movie rating

system; it immunizes peoples who do not rate, because if you do

not rate your film, you do not come under the canopy of this bill.

But if you do rate your film, if you are trying to give information

to parents, then you are going to have a possible penalizing, and

that is where I think, in a respectful way, that we differ, but it is

done very respectfully, Senator.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. And my opposition to your position and

Mr. Baldwin’s is done with the same respect.

Mr. Lowenstein.

50

1The prepared statement of Mr. Lowenstein appears in the Appendix on page 123.

TESTIMONY OF DOUGLAS LOWENSTEIN,1 PRESIDENT,

INTERACTIVE DIGITAL SOFTWARE ASSOCIATION

Mr. LOWENSTEIN. I should start off complaining. It seems whenever I testify, I have to follow Jack Valenti. I am not sure that is

fair. Thank you for having me here this morning—I should say this

afternoon. I perhaps should rest my remarks on the statement that

you made regarding our rating system, very kind remarks, and I

appreciate them, but even though that is probably the better part

of valor, to probably not say any more, I am going to plunge ahead.

Let me start with a few very brief comments on our industry. It

is a myth that most gamers are kids, which is something that I

think is still widely held amongst the population. In truth, 145 million Americans play video games—that is 60 percent of the population—and their average age is not 12 or 14 or 16, or even 18.

Their average age is 28 years-old; 61 percent of people who play

games are over 18; 43 percent are women. So this is a pretty diverse market we are talking about.

I want to now turn quickly to the perception, as well, that many

of the games out there, and I think you know this is not the case— you have often cited many of the quality games out there—do not

contain violence. In fact, 70 percent are rated as appropriate for everyone, and last year, only about 117 of the 1,600 titles released

carried a mature rating for violent content. Let me turn quickly

here to the Entertainment Software Rating Board system, or

ESRB, as we call it. As you yourself have said, this is, I think, a

highly-effective system, one that provides a great deal of reliable

and useful information to parents. You said so in the past and we

appreciate your recognition of our efforts. I would like to—and I am

somewhat hesitant to do this in view of the technological glitches

this morning—but we do have about a 11⁄2 or 2-minute video from

the ESRB that describes the ratings process, so if we can take a

shot and see if it works—if it does not, I will quickly move on and

proceed with that.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Fine.

Mr. LOWENSTEIN. Can you hear that?

Chairman LIEBERMAN. No. Could you make it louder, please?

[A video is played in the hearing room.]

Mr. LOWENSTEIN. Thank you for letting me show that. The message there is that this is a fairly rigorous process. It involves individuals coming from all walks of life who review the game play and

make independent decisions as to what content they think is appropriate, and then generate both an age-based rating and a content

rating, and I think that is one of the reasons you said some kinds

things about the rating system, because we have made the effort

from the very start to provide information on content.

I understand that there are those who disagree with some of the

ratings on some of the games. Ms. Smit, who, by the way, from

what I heard, is not only a good mother, but she must also be a

cool mother—she was a very impressive witness—clearly has some

differences of opinion with the ratings, and I respect that. But I do

not concede that her opinion or my opinion is necessarily more

valid than that of a demographically diverse panel of raters that

51

the ESRB uses. Now, we have done—again commenting on some

of the earlier testimony—we have gone out and tried to validate

the system. We have not just assumed that it is right. Peter Hart,

one of the most respected pollsters and researchers in this country,

did scientific national research with 410 adults, and found that in

84 percent of the instances, average consumers rate games equal

to or less strictly than the ESRB.

Inevitably, some parents will differ from ESRB, and as I said, I

concede the point. But the disagreement hardly reveals a flaw in

any of the rating systems. It is not even surprising. Rather, it reflects, as Jack Valenti has said, the broad diversity of opinion that

exists in a free and pluralistic society where individual parents

have different views about what is acceptable and appropriate for

their children. In the end, people do react differently to the same

piece of entertainment, and not even a proposed governmentblessed universal rating system offers any assurance of more reliable ratings or more accurate ratings, because accuracy does not

exist here. This is simply a matter of perception in the end, and

I would argue that, to the extent there is a government role in this,

that is even less reliable than what industry is doing.

I know we are very short on time. I am going to suspend the rest

of my remarks. We have done, as you know, a great deal, I think,

to try to educate consumers. We have supported retailer enforcement of our ratings, notwithstanding the fact that means that

games that would otherwise sell are not being sold. We have done

public service announcements with Tiger Woods and Derek Jeter

and others to promote the rating system. We have advertising

guidelines that you have referred to, and overall I think we are

doing a good job. We will keep working at it, and I thank you for

your attention this morning.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Lowenstein, very much. The

vote, as is the habit of the Senate, has been postponed, so we can

proceed to questioning. I have referred to the letter from the National Institute on Media and the Family, which is really what occasioned this hearing, and I want to ask the three industry-group

association representatives to respond to the letter. Obviously, we

do not have time to take on every point of it, but I am essentially

asking at this point, is there anything that you are going to do in

response to the letter? Because the letter, leaving aside the debate—it is an important debate about what effect entertainment

has on behavior—this is all about the ratings. You all have ratings

of one form or another. The letter says that the ratings, as they are

now, are either inadequate, as in the case of the record industry,

they are inconsistent across the industry, and they are confusing,

and that is why they recommend the uniform system.

So let me start with you, Ms. Rosen, and let me say first I appreciate what you have announced today, which is that you are going

to have a mass-mailing about the parental advisory, you are going

to update the labeling in all the stores, and you are going to

produce some public service announcements featuring Quincy

Jones. But the obvious targeted question I want to ask you is why

not provide more information than the simple parental advisory,

‘‘explicit content’’? Even Mr. McMillon today—and I appreciate it—

52

has essentially asked the industry to give the retailers a more

standardized, delineated rating system on records.

Ms. ROSEN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think that actually the

Kaiser study yesterday illuminated us quite a bit on this, where

they actually found that a majority of people, over 50 percent, 55

percent, I think, thought that they did not believe that a uniform

rating system would be useful, and so I think there is clearly divided analysis on this, and the presumption that is what parents

want, I think, is just fundamentally incorrect. With regard to the

music system, it would be really easy to sit here and say we are

going to try and make everybody happy. We are going to come up

with a rating system. We are going to tell you whether this is sex

or violence, and Mr. McMillon is telling us if we did, we would sell

more music in Wal-Mart. That is an awfully attractive offer. Why

aren’t we taking it? For a reason, and that is because words are

difficult to categorize. The fact is that we cannot make such subjective decisions when it comes to words, and it is virtually impossible, I think, for somebody to tell me how they would do it. Every

lyric is going to mean something different to different people.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Let me take you up on that. In other

words, if a record has language that goes to violence or sex, or the

language is vulgar, each of these other industries has attempted in

rating systems to—generally they have developed a system that is

fairly comprehensible and delineated, on these various categories,

leaving it to parents to decide whether they want their kids to experience one or another of these. Isn’t it possible to do the same

with music?

Ms. ROSEN. It is not, and I think there is not an easy solution

for parents who want this, and I just have to say this consistent

reference to parents as somehow parents are calling for something

and we are different is just overwhelmingly offensive to all of us

in the industry. We are all parents, too. I am a mom who lives in

the suburbs of Maryland and drives a minivan, so I am as qualified

on that subject as Ms. Smit is. The fact is that I do not want to

tell a parent whether Chuck Berry’s singing about his ding-a-ling

is about sex or whether it is about music. I do not want to tell a

parent that when somebody says that they were blown away by

that, whether that means that they have been shot, whether it is

about the weather, or they are simply impressed. I think you have

to concede that words are so different when it comes to interpretation than when you have a picture where there is very little doubt,

and that is why we cannot do what seems like should have been

an easy thing to do.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. OK. I remain unconvinced, but one thing

I am convinced of, I know you are a parent and I know that people

in the industry that I have talked to, in your industry and others,

are parents and have a lot of the same concerns about their kids

and what their media diet is. Some are struggling very sincerely

with it. Some have changed the behavior of their companies. I was

with Mr. Valenti in Hollywood and heard that from some folks who

lead studios. So I appreciate it, and I guess in the end, I wish that

the parental instinct would overcome the industry instinct, and

that there would be—I am not speaking to you personally; I am

speaking to the legion of people I have seen—and that their conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:09 Mar 11, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 75480.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
53

cern for their own kids as parents, and good parents and great parents, would be reflected more in the judgments made about what

they produce and also what they tell us about what they produce.

Ms. ROSEN. So many places to go with that. There are many people in the music community and many people in society today who

think that subject matter that is subject to interpretation actually

is art, that they have put both their parental responsibility and

their instinct for creative exploration first. As Mr. McMillon just

said, this is not a commercial decision for us.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Jack Valenti, it is a form of torture to ask

you to respond to my question in the 3 minutes and 55 seconds

that I have left on my time, but see if you can do it.

Mr. VALENTI. I cannot take a breath in 55 seconds. [Laughter.]

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Why don’t you see if you can——

Mr. VALENTI. I will sum it up very quickly.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. In other words, what is your response,

and is the MPAA—and you represent Hollywood and TV—going to

do anything in response to the letter?

Mr. VALENTI. Already have. I received this letter from Dr. Walsh,

singed by some 20 or 30 people, on July 20. On July 28, I sent him

what I thought was a well-thought out four- or five-page letter. I

wrote in the last part of the letter—this is a letter much too long

to read—but, ‘‘The reach of your critical comments makes it impossible to reply either briefly or blithely. Would you pass along to the

other signatories a copy of my letter to you? I am available at any

time to meet with you and whomever else you suggest. All you

need do is call me and I will instantly respond.’’ I want to meet

with these people to talk it out. I have heard no response from any

one of the 25 or 26 respondents.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Let me phrase it in a somewhat different

way, and direct it. Some time recently, I read a comment from Bob

Iger, the head of Disney Pictures, former head of ABC.

Mr. VALENTI. He is president of the Walt Disney Company.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. OK—who said that he was interested in

the idea of a uniform rating system, perhaps not surprisingly, but

certainly credibly, based on the MPAA system. Now, you are the

godfather or the father of that system. Why not try to have the

MPAA system be the basis of a uniform rating system?

Mr. VALENTI. I am grateful to you for giving the entire Iger comment. Most people stop in saying I am for a one-size-fits-all rating

system. He says, ‘‘And the rating system that ought to fit is the

MPAA rating system.’’ Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right.

Mr. VALENTI. Very briefly, the reason is why, as Hilary Rosen

and Doug Lowenstein and others have testified, we are dealing

with vastly disparate art forms. For example, the video game is

interactive. Movies, music and television programs are not. Music

is for the ear. It is like words, as Hilary said. The rest of us are

not. The movies produce 650—we rated 650 movies last year. On

television, Mr. Chairman, there are 2,000 hours a day of television

program and the equivalent of 1,000 movies every day, 40,000 albums, 1,300 video games. Now, where is this cyclopean eye, this

all-seeing eye that is going to oversee all of this and meld it into

a harmonious whole? It cannot be done, and by the way, what you

54

Senators should understand is if you have one single system, do

you know what you would have to do? You would have to make it

exactly the duplicate of the TV system. Why? Because when the

manufacturers of these new sets, and there are 50 million of them

in this country today with the V-chip, passed by this Congress, you

will obsolete 50 million sets, because the circuitry in there is irrevocable. It cannot be changed.

Finally, the TV system does not have an adults-only category.

Video games do, movie ratings do, but there are none in television.

So when you mix all this together, what seems like a gloriously resplendent idea becomes decayed when you begin to look at it.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. My time is up. I was hoping that you

would be the one to find that cyclopean eye, and that you would

do it with Euclidian finality. [Laughter.]

Mr. VALENTI. I am pleased to know that you have been listening

to me, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Most people do not.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. A vote has begun on the floor.

Senator Thompson, why don’t I go over and vote, and we will sort

of roll the questioning so we can continue the hearing without

interruption?

Chairman THOMPSON [presiding]. I am reluctant to bring down

the level of this socratic dialogue to the more mundane, but as I

have indicated, I have a real question to the extent of whether or

not we ought to directly or indirectly, through hanging out there

the threat of government agencies trying to do something that do

not do a very good job of in any other respect, and that is fine-tuning a complex problem and getting it exactly right, even if we had

the constitutional right to do that.

I must say that in reading that Lorillard tobacco case, I was

somewhat surprised to see where the Supreme Court said that

even though there is no question about the harmful effects of tobacco, unlike the issue that we have concerning violence causation,

that the government could not restrict advertising designed to be

for the benefit of the children if there was this pour-over effect,

and, in fact, it was making what adults would be subject to, down

to the level of children, and that is something that I think we have

to deal with.

So looking at that, we are—our next fallback is the rating system, and I think what you are trying to do is admirable. I admire

these individuals who are trying to get a better rating system. I

think they are very good parents. But I hope we do not fall into

the notion that is somehow going to really deal with the problem.

There are too many people it will not touch, too many people it will

be irrelevant to. There are too many one-parent households out

there. It is too pervasive. At the risk of doing what I said I questioned, I guess I would simply use this pulpit to express what I

would hope to be the direction that we ought to go in, because you

have the right to do something does not mean that you ought to

do it. I think we all know that, and because the Supreme Court

says one thing today does not mean that it will not say something

else tomorrow.

Ms. Rosen, quite frankly, I think it will be the music industry

that tests that limit—and I represent a lot of music people in

Nashville. Of course, the biggest controversy we have in Nashville

55

is whether or not country has gone too mainstream. It is a little

bit different than what we are having to deal with here, but in

many cases, a lot of this troublesome stuff is marketed almost solely to children. It has mass availability and you have got the most

egregious examples. You can say what you will about music that

depicts somebody’s throat being slashed and listening to the blood

gurgle, and killing your mother and stuff like that. But the fact of

the matter is that is going to test the outer limits, and if I were

in the industry, strictly from a bottom-line standpoint, I would simply add this suggestion: Take a long look at that. Nobody wants to

stifle anybody’s creativity. Nobody wants to stifle, I do not think,

anything that even some people might find offensive, because of

First Amendment considerations. But I see a trend that I would be

concerned about if I was in that business.

We were told with some certainty up here, back for the last couple of years, that the Supreme Court undoubtedly would, on the

basis of the First Amendment, strike down State laws having to do

with campaign finance regulation, because the whole trend has

been going in one direction. The Supreme Court did not do that.

It surprised everybody in town, a 5–4 decision, and they said that

you could regulate. In that particular case, it was a hard money

situation, and I wonder to what extent that might have had something to do with what was going on in the country. Since Buckley

v. Valeo, there has been a sea change out there. We are awash in

money from all directions.

I do not think the Supreme Court is immune from seeing what

is going on in the Nation, plus all that being brought to them in

a legal forum. I see the same thing in the music industry. As time

goes on, as these pressures mount, some of which I think are improper, but they are going to be there, by government and by others, I am wondering where you are going to be a few years from

now. We talk about crime being in decline right now. I think the

reason for that is demographics. The crime-committing age group

is relatively small right now. In a few years, mid-teens to midtwenties, just demographically, we are going to have many more of

that age group, and the chances are we are going to see a substantial increase in crime for that reason alone. So you are going to

have a substantial increase in crime. You are going to have

Eminem still doing his thing, and stuff that is embarrassing to all

of us with no redeeming social value that anybody can see, and you

are going to rest comfortably on the fact the Supreme Court is

going to be where it always is.

The Supreme Court might do something that is unwise or questionable in the long run. I do not know. I am just talking here, because I do not feel like I ought to be telling you what you have to

do. I might, as a citizen, if we had a private conversation, I would

tell you some things as a citizen, in my opinion, that I do not feel,

as a government official——

Ms. ROSEN. You have.

Senator THOMPSON [continuing]. I have any particular business

doing. But I would just put that out for your consideration. I think

that, as I say, rating systems have the purpose, but the underlying

product I would really question, in the movie industry and the

music industry, about whether or not we could do a little better

56

without sacrificing artistic freedom, to do our part with regard to

the underlying product. I think William Baldwin is certainly doing

his part. I had the benefit of going to New York and being with

Bill and Alec and others awhile back, and I thought I was going

to be, as a Republican up there, and several other actors, I thought

I would probably be the one served for dinner. But I found all parents, all concerned, all, I would imagine at one time or another,

have had some concern about the scripts that you have seen, things

that you have had to make decisions on.

I would be interested in knowing whether or not, from all of this

discussion that we are having in the country right now, from your

end of it, do you see any changes, any differences, any changes for

the better? Are the people who make the decisions, you think, becoming a little more sensitive to what they might want their own

kids to be seeing, or am I being overly optimistic? I have not seen

any of that in awhile.

Mr. BALDWIN. Well, I would have to say that because there are

so many more new opportunities and new entertainment outlets,

there is so much more product being manufactured, there is so

much more product being made, so there is much more excellent

quality material being produced. But I think proportionally speaking, on a percentage basis, perhaps there is just as much bad, and

I think part of the problem is that it is called show business for

a reason. The operative word is business, and it does not have to

be a violent film. It could be a film like ‘‘Happy Gilmore.’’ It could

be an Adam Sandler film that people—you know, the opening

weekend, it will open at $40 or $50 million, and then ‘‘A River

Runs Through It’’ makes two cents and closes after its opening

weekend, and the more those types of films are profitable, the more

they are going to be made, and I think that they are a viable form

of entertainment, even the violence and the sex is a viable form of

entertainment and they have a constitutionally-protected right to

express themselves in that way, and people have a right to see it.

But there are a lot of times I will appear on television and I will

say is it my fault for appearing here today? Is it your fault for inviting me? Or is it their fault for watching, because the main reason you had me come out here is because I am famous, and the

main reason you had me come out here because I am famous is because you know it is going to generate ratings and you know more

people are going to watch and you know this network is going to

make more money because I am appearing on the show. You can

have somebody appear on the show who is an expert in this area

who is not famous, but they are not here today. You have me here

today. And I said is it my fault for showing? Is it your fault for inviting me or is it their fault for tuning in? And, at some point, it

has to be what will drive the market is demand, not supply. I think

there has to be a greater demand.

I am saddened by the fact that—I wish that ‘‘A River Runs

Through It’’ or ‘‘Quiz Show’’——

Senator THOMPSON. But you make the point or you mentioned ‘‘Hunt for Red October.’’ As I think back on it, I do not know what

the rating of that was. Now that I think about it, I do not recall

even any profanity in the movie, much less any of the other stuff

that cause people problems. I do not recall any of that, and yet

57

they are still running it. I am amazed, you know, late-night cable.

In other words, it did very well. So again we have a causation

question. I think it attracts some kids, which is part of the problem, some of the bad stuff—but with regard to a large segment of

the population, it seems to me like it does not matter whether it

is there or not.

It has to do with the quality of the script, primarily, and it has

to do with the quality of the actors and the direction and all those

things. But you can walk out of one of those movies, like ‘‘Hunt for

Red October,’’ and it does not occur to you that there was no violence or nudity or bad language. It was just a good movie. So I do

not think—I think from a production standpoint, it would occur to

me that if I were making these things, that if you want to appeal

to a younger crowd and do some things in there to induce them,

I guess that is valid, because the R-rating causes ratings to fall off

because young people under 17 want to go see them and they are

not allowed to see them, and they are the moviegoing audience, primarily, I guess.

But in a broader sense, it looks to me like the problem is not is

if you have a so-called clean movie, that you are going to drop audience. The problem is it is more difficult to write. As you know better than anybody, a good script and a good story and done well is

extremely hard, and I do not know what we do about that, but I

would hope that it would induce folks to try harder in that respect.

Ms. ROSEN. I think, at the risk of answering a question that was

not asked—— Senator THOMPSON. It is just like I am finally back in control

again here. [Laughter.]

Ms. ROSEN. So as long as we are stalling, I might as well throw

it out.

Senator THOMPSON. Well, I have a vote I am going to miss, but

I will take that chance. Go ahead.

Ms. ROSEN. I just wanted to say two quick things. One is that

I think that fundamentally the entertainment industry relies on

the First Amendment, but does not use it as an excuse for everything that is made. I think that there is a sense of artistic credibility in things that you do not find credible, and when I heard you

say that you thought ‘‘Saving Private Ryan’’ was a great movie for

14-year-old boys to watch, I heard groans in the audience because

you have to concede you are seeing that through the prism of your

own judgments and your own values.

Senator THOMPSON. Exactly.

Ms. ROSEN. And that there are people in this country who would

listen to Chuck D. or Mostep or Eminem, even, and suggest that

that is through the prism of their world and their own values, and

that is essentially the reliance on the First Amendment, not that

you cannot touch us, but rather this expression all has some validity to somebody, and therefore it must be protected by everybody.

Senator THOMPSON. But we all make judgments. I mean, that

was my judgment about that. People who produce records make

judgments. It is not like you do not make judgments. Everyone presumably has some line somewhere. The question is who makes that

judgment? Should the government be making that judgment?

Ms. ROSEN. That is right. That is my point.

58

Senator THOMPSON. And since it is the producer who makes that

judgment, is it not appropriate for other people to voice their opinions, and the customer of this—this is a commercial enterprise that

we are talking about here—and the customers getting together and

expressing their opinion on the judgments that you make? I think

that is what we are dealing with here. That is why I find a congressional forum for all of this an uncomfortable one. These are decisions and discussions that ought to be happening all across America, but it concerns me when the first thing we think about—when

we have a problem in this country, the first thing we think about

is government, and usually the Federal Government.

Ms. ROSEN. Right, and I think when the Supreme Court looks at

this issue again, because people suppose that it might, if there is

still crime in the streets and poverty in people’s homes——

Senator THOMPSON. You will have more reports, showing more

causation.

Ms. ROSEN [continuing]. And divorce and child abuse, there is

going to be music that reflects that. There is going to be movies

that have those themes, and those are undeniable pieces of society.

Senator THOMPSON. Anybody else have any comment?

Mr. BALDWIN. Yes, I just wanted to say one thing, that based on

my experience with this issue, I just found it a little troubling, and

I noticed Senator Lieberman addressed this earlier, but an overwhelming and disproportional amount of what the reason why we

are here today, graphic and explicit violence, sex, profanity, the

Media Accountability Act, it all addresses hip-hop music—disproportionately addresses hip-hop music and rap music. As Hilary

mentioned earlier, the testimony of Russell Simmons, I read it and

I think that it makes some very, very interesting points, and I

think it is a little bit unusual that nobody from—no hip-hop artists

or no rap artists—and it is interesting that publicly they cite

Eminem because he is the token white guy who is doing this, because I guess publicly it does not want to be targeted as a black

issue. But I really think that his thoughts and his feelings and the

expression of that community needs to be included in this dialogue,

in this discussion, next time.

Senator THOMPSON. Well, you might go back over that with the

Chairman, who has just walked in. But I thought about that as she

was speaking. I think the notion that this in some way is a racial

targeting, I think, is not only invalid, I think it hurts those of us

who are really concerned about protecting the First Amendment

rights of artists. I do not know what the numbers are. I do know

that Eminem has been singled out. I think he is the one whose

record I have described awhile ago, about the throat slashing and

the killing of the mother and that sort of thing. I really question,

from the standpoint of African-Americans, whether or not someone

coming forth and urging that this, in some ways—these kind of

lyrics is an indigenous part of race, is beneficial. I think there are

millions of families out there—— Ms. ROSEN. That is not what they say.

Senator THOMPSON [continuing]. That would not want to be represented by those kinds of statements. I think that it ought to be

considered on its merits. I think that when people use racial motivations for people who there has never been any indication, anyVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:09 Mar 11, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 75480.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
59

where or anytime, that that is the case, hurt the legitimate claims

that they have concerning this music.

Senator Lieberman, concerning not having someone here from

the hip-hop industry and the implication that that music has been

targeted for racial reasons, as Mr.——

Mr. BALDWIN. Can I just—I am not accusing this Committee of

targeting that for racial reasons. I am saying it is a consequence.

It is an unconscious consequence. The overwhelming amount—the

reason we are here today is to talk about protecting children and

empowering parents from violent media, from sexual media, and

from profanity, and by definition, an overwhelming percentage of

hip-hop music and rap music falls into this category, and I think

that when we look at Shakespeare, when we look at the Greek

tragedy, we see an honest reflection and portrayal of the times in

which they lived and the culture in which they lived, and I do not

think it is going to take 50 years or 100 years or 500 years—at that

time, it was provocative and controversial, as it is today. I do not

think it is going to take 100 years to look back and see how honest

a depiction or a portrayal that was for minority communities who

live in urban areas.

I understand that now, and I respect that now, and I think that

is just as honest as Waylon Jennings twanging his guitar and talking about how he fell in love with his sweetheart and she broke his

heart and he had too much to drink and he thought about killing

himself, and I think that that is as honest and accurate a portrayal

as country music or as a Shakespearean play or a Greek tragedy,

and I think, unfortunately, most of this music has fallen into—has

become prey of what this Committee is interested in addressing,

and I think just because it has violent or sexual content or profanity, I do not think that there should not be information given

to parents and I do not think that there should not be a parental

advisory for that at all, by no stretch of the imagination. But I just

want to acknowledge publicly that I do not think there is anything

wrong with people expressing themselves in that way.

Senator THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman LIEBERMAN [presiding]. Thanks, Senator Thompson.

Obviously, I am at some disadvantage because I have not heard the

preceding, but just to go back to Mr. Simmons, when the request

came in, it came in at a late hour, and it was our hope to have the

industry association representatives here, representing all elements

of the recording or TV and movie or video game industry. So we

did not have an opportunity to include him.

Second, I am intrigued by what my staff tells me is the notion

that a disproportionate number of those records stickered are either hip-hop or rap records, and that is something that is worth

considering. I do not, to put it mildly, claim to be an expert here.

But in the previous work we have done on music, it seems to me

that a lot of rap and hip-hop was not in the parental advisory, explicit content category. It is obviously clear that no one racial group

has any—at least as I view the entertainment industry—any monopoly on producing material that is of questionable content to parents. I mean, it is broader than that.

Go ahead, Ms. Rosen.

60

Ms. ROSEN. You know, the facts of both the marketplace and the

genres are that hip-hop music tends to have more profanity, and

therefore subject to more labels, and that you can be talking about

the very same domestic abuse in ‘‘Goodbye Earl’’ by the Dixie

Chicks, but because they are not saying it with a lot of curse

words, it is not going to get a parental advisory label for explicit

content, because that is what the label means. I think the larger

point here, Mr. Chairman, I think is that I think this is probably

the eighth or ninth hearing I have testified at on this issue over

the years, and consistently there has been a desire on the part of

people who actually create this music to come and tell their stories,

and they are consistently denied, because it is frankly easier to

make this be about corporations than about artists.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. So you are saying you would like not to

testify at the next hearing?

Ms. ROSEN. I think that would actually be a nice thing, certainly

provided that artists get to speak for themselves, because they do

have views, and the irony of all of this, when you talk about content labeling and things, is that when parental advisory labels

were first created for music lyrics in 1985, there was a hearing in

the Senate, promulgated by the Parents Music Resource Center,

and artists were invited to testify at the very first hearing, and

that is why we do not have content descriptors, because Dee Snyder of Twisted Sister came in after having his song, ‘‘Under the

Knife,’’ be attacked for an hour-and-a-half by Senators on the panel

as being disgusting and violent, about murder and slashing, and he

came in and said, ‘‘What are you talking about? My friend was

going to have surgery the next day, and that was about feeling vulnerable in an operating room under the surgeon’s knife.’’ That sort

of irony, when an artists gets to speak for themselves about the

multiple meanings and experiences of their life, does not get represented at these hearings.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I look forward to meeting with Mr. Simmons, and if there is a good reason to hold another hearing, I will

be happy to do it. I wish that all the violent and sexually explicit

lyrics and content that parents are concerned about had the same

ironic and innocent explanation as the case that you gave, because

they do not.

Mr. BALDWIN. I just wanted to make one more comment that sort

of reinforces what Hilary said. Clearly, she knows a lot more about

this, and Russell Simmons knows a lot more about this than I do,

but my wife is a recording artist, and she has written several albums, and she had an album. Her debut album had her first single

that went to No. 1—was a song called ‘‘Hold On,’’ and she got hundreds and hundreds of comments from people on the street and

hundreds of letters from people that said that they were on the

verge of committing suicide, they were on the verge of hurting

themselves, and when they heard the song—the lyric is ‘‘Hold on

for one more day,’’ they thought she was speaking to them about

overcoming the despair in your lives or heartbreak in relationships

and so on. The song, in reality, was about sobriety, 1 day at a time.

The song, ‘‘Hold On For One More Day,’’ was about trying to fight

to stay sober.

61

So I think it just plays well into the argument about subjectivity

and interpretation, and how the written word is different than the

visual image and how a universal rating system may not apply because of that.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Also, because of the power of music and

all the entertainment media to affect behavior—both constructively, positively, and negatively—in the example you give, I have

got two quick questions about the ratings.

I understand the opposition to the uniform rating idea. Mr. Valenti, on the question of the TV ratings, the Kaiser Family Foundation study that came out today shows that—the headline is ‘‘Few

Parents Use V-Chip to Block TV Sex and Violence,’’ but more than

half use TV ratings to pick what kids can watch. There is actually

a statistic that says that 53 percent of parents who now own a TV

equipped with a V-chip do not know that they have this capability.

Is there something more that the industry can do to better inform

people—parents, particularly, but viewers generally—of this capability that they have?

Mr. VALENTI. Good question, and the monitoring board met last

week. We had public advocacy groups and members of the industry

there, and we were briefed by Vicki Rideout on the Kaiser study.

I think one of the most relevant pieces of information that came

out was that half of the people who had a V-chip in their television

set did not know about it. One of the things that we are trying to

do now is to do work with retailers of television sets and manufacturers of television sets. All they have to do is get a little sticker

on it, a yellow sticker with black lettering, that says, ‘‘This TV contains a V-chip,’’ and to have something xeroxed there, very simple;

when you buy the set, you get this little xerox piece of paper that

says you have a V-chip, this is what it allows you to do and this

is how to use it. That is not extant at this time. It does not exist,

and one of the things we hope to do is to try to get point-of-sale

information, because the time to know that you have a television

set with a V-chip is when you buy it, not afterwards, and 36 percent of the people who know they have a V-chip, use it.

Now, it may be, if you look at this, that maybe we complicated

the television ratings too much and maybe it is a little bit difficult

to use, as many of us still today cannot program our VCR longer

than 30 minutes, and therefore that might be. But we are working

on trying to get this point-of-sale information, so when you buy

that television set, you say, ‘‘Eureka. I have got a V-chip, and this

is what it does.’’ Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good. I appreciate that. Final question:

When I was out in Hollywood a couple of months ago and I met

with the MPAA and The Creative Coalition and the Directors

Guild, I found an interesting and, I would say, an encouraging

amount of dialogue—maybe some would call it tumult—within the

creative community about the ratings system, from the point of

view of the creative artists and the directors, particularly, as you

know, taking a lead on this from their own point of view, wanting

to delineate the system in more detail, which would have the effect

of better informing consumers of movies, viewers and parents, obviously; and if I understand the premise, it is that the R-rating has

become ubiquitous, so that more than 50 percent of the movies are

62

rated R. You know these numbers better than I do, Jack Valenti,

and that it covers such a wide latitude that the viewing public

would be benefited by more delineation and particularly by trying

to sort of revive the original intention behind the NC–17 rating— which, as somebody said earlier, only three or four movies have received—so that it is not a kiss of financial death, but that it makes

clear that these are really movies that are intended only for adults.

So I would ask both Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Valenti if they want

to comment on that. I know in the meeting I had with The Creative

Coalition, there was a fair amount of discussion of this matter.

Jack Valenti, what is the latest? I believe the Directors Guild came

out with a proposal on this publicly; am I right?

Mr. VALENTI. I do not know if they have come out with it publicly, but I listen very carefully when the Screen Actors Guild or

the Writers Guild or the creative community, Billy Baldwin’s Creative Coalition, and particularly the Directors Guild, makes any

comments, and I have met with them several times, listening to

them and some of the things they think ought to be done. And, of

course, we have a partner in the rating system. Keep in mind, Mr.

Chairman, there is one thing that people who wrote me this letter

and people who speak about the rating system do not understand,

and that is that the industry has nothing to do with it.

Lew Wasserman, in his powerful day, Sumner Redstone, Rupert

Murdoch, Michael Eisner, have zero influence on this rating system. The only two people in this country who have anything to say

about the policy and the people who inhabit the rating board, one

is the president of The Motion Picture Association and the other is

the president of the National Association of Theater Owners, and

if any producer, any director, any studio boss, any mogul, tries to

pressure the rating system, they have to run me down, and as you

can see, I am still standing.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. You mean pressure about a particular

rating on a particular movie?

Mr. VALENTI. Absolutely.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. But we are talking about the whole system. In other words, whoever created this system presumably can

change it, if there are good recommendations to change it.

Mr. VALENTI. That is right. I met with a number of exhibitors 3

years ago, and we created this system. We talked to studios. We

talked to independents. We talked to the three creative guilds. We

talked to religious organizations. We talked to movie critics, to try

to form a consensus, and that is how it came about. But I am saying to you that only two people really have the power to change

this thing, and the reason why is if we did not, there would be bedlam out there. I am listening to the Director’s Guild, because some

of the people with whom I have conferred are people for whom I

have enormous respect.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. So you are listening to them?

Mr. VALENTI. I beg your pardon?

Chairman LIEBERMAN. You are listening to the Directors Guild?

Mr. VALENTI. Absolutely.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Do you think that you and those two people you mentioned are open to some of the changes that they are

recommending, which I think would not only more reflect their creVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:09 Mar 11, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 75480.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
63

ative instincts and work, but would better help viewers understand

what the movie contains?

Mr. VALENTI. I am not prepared to tell you what we are going

to do or what we are not going to do. I am very merely saying that

their voices command respect, and we have met several times. We

will meet again, and also they are meeting with the National Association of Theater Owners, who are partners in this, because if you

do not have the theater owners, you do not have a rating system.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. For my part, based on the discussions I

have had with them, I think that they are on to something. Incidentally, I love the movies.

Mr. VALENTI. Well, I hope so.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. No, in other words, my criticism is the

criticism of a fan, really, an admirer. But for my part, as I listened

to them, their recommendations made a lot of sense, and I hope

you will look at them.

Mr. VALENTI. We are looking at them very carefully, and I know

that one of the directors who talked to you has been in touch with

me, and we are listening, and, as I said, so is the theater owners’

association listening.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Mr. Baldwin, what does The Creative Coalition think about—on your own, no government influence—about

altering the rating system to better reflect what is on the screen?

Mr. BALDWIN. Well, this is not an area of my expertise. Clearly,

Mr. Valenti knows a lot more about this than I do, but I think

many different circumstances have converged, such as certain

events in our history, new information, political pressure from this

body and from the media and from advocacy groups, parents

groups, have already led to the dividing of the PG rating to PG– 13, and the introduction, the implementation, of the NC–17 rating,

and I think that recently Mr. Valenti has spoken to me about, for

example—Mr. Valenti, you said something to me yesterday about

how new information, if you have an advertisement for a movie in

a newspaper and the ad is more than a quarter-page in size, it provides information that gives more information to consumers and to

parents about the specific reasons for why a film was rated the way

it was rated.

Mr. VALENTI. Correct.

Mr. BALDWIN. These are ways in which—again, when the First

Amendment comes in conflict, when defending freedom, when protecting freedom comes in conflict with protecting children, you cannot expect dramatic results to happen overnight, as I said before.

This has to happen incrementally. It has to be carefully thought

out, and I think that the business, through self-regulation, has elevated the bar, and I do not think the system is perfect and I think

there are areas where we can tinker with it and certainly improve

it, and I think that the recording industry—I think all the different

mediums have done so. Is there more work to be done? Yes, and

I think the role for government, as we discussed before, is to do exactly what you are doing, be the leaders that you are being and

work with parents and advocacy groups and the media and the entertainment industry, and can The Creative Coalition be a bridge

from Capitol Hill to the entertainment industry, to create access

and opportunities and a dialogue and raise awareness and educate

64

people, and try and strengthen these systems to empower parents?

I believe we can.

I think everyone is doing a nice job, and I think that members

of Congress and parents do not think that it is happening quickly

enough, but when you factor in the First Amendment, it is not

going to happen fast enough.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Senator Durbin has sent a message that

he wants to return. This mean, unfortunately for you, that I am

going to ask a question or two more, to give him time to return,

and if he does not in about 5 minutes, we will adjourn the meeting.

Mr. VALENTI. I was hoping you would say that, Senator.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes. I know you did not want to leave,

Jack.

Mr. Baldwin, you talked about media literacy. That was a topic

that I raised at every meeting that I was at when I went out to

Hollywood, and I do think it is something, an area of common

ground that we ought to all be able to work on constructively. I

guess I will end it by simply saying that anything you think government can do to be supportive of those programs, insofar as they

are educational, and we may be able to help in that sense, and I

would certainly appeal to the various industries to be proactive in

helping to support and fund media literacy programs. It is as important, I think, for our kids today in this electronic age to learn

how to comprehend, understand, and deal with the stories that are

told to them over the electronic media, as it was for kids in my generation to learn reading comprehension.

So I am going to end there and yield to Senator Durbin.

Senator DURBIN. Thanks a lot, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for

being held up on the floor for a few minutes. Mr. Baldwin, I

thought you made a great statement. I like your balance in suggesting that there are a lot of reasons for young people to get into

trouble, and I know that Senator Levin often uses the example of

his city of Detroit, which shares the same television market and

the same movies with Windsor, Ontario, and that the number of

murders and violent crimes committed on his side in Michigan are

substantially larger than those committed on the other side, in Ontario, and he raises a question, a legitimate question, what lesson

do we draw from that? And I think you have drawn an appropriate

lesson, the availability of guns and a lot of other things should be

factored into questions about youth violence and what causes it,

and I also want to commend you for saying at some point maybe

this does play a part. Maybe this whole thing, media, does play a

part in it.

I do not know where you draw the line. There has been a lot of

reference here to the tobacco industry during this entire testimony,

and I have spent 19 years fighting them tooth and nail, and am

damn proud of it, as we say in the Senate. But I would say it troubles me and my wife to sit and watch all the movies with people

smoking in them that kids are watching, and I am thinking I wonder what lesson that is. But I wonder if that is a line that we need

to draw or the industry needs to draw, or do you just appeal to the

creative people and say, ‘‘Think twice about this, if you will.’’ What

are your thoughts on that? Have you ever been on a movie set

65

where they have said this is something we want to do, and you say,

‘‘Wait a minute. That goes over the line?’’ Mr. BALDWIN. Oh, of course. I mean, I turn down material all the

time on a—I would like to say on a daily basis, but I do not get

that many offers—but, on a weekly basis, I am sent material that

I am offered, that I turn down, because it does not meet my standards. But I think, again, it is subjective. There is someone that

would see violence in a Shakespearean tragedy, and that is acceptable. They would see it in a ‘‘Home Alone’’ comedy, where

McCauley Caulkin pushes the piano down the staircase and it pins

Daniel Stern and Joe Pesci against the wall, and say that that is

violence, but that is OK, because it is shrouded in comedy and

there is a cute little boy in the film; whereas ‘‘Natural Born Killers,’’ because it is sensationalized in some way, is not acceptable

and it is inappropriate. So I think that it is subjective. It is up to

the interpretation of the individual.

Senator DURBIN. I agree with that, and I think that makes the

point.

Mr. SIMMONS. Can I make a statement? You are talking about

me like I am not here for the last hour. I keep hearing my name

pop up, and I am here, and I have a statement, but, I do not know

if I want to read the statement. I certainly would like to interject

here.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Mr. Simmons, why don’t you wait a

minute, let Senator Durbin finish his questions?

Mr. SIMMONS. Because I did request to speak on this panel 10

days ago, and most of what is really being discussed is about hiphop, although we are not making—— Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes, I hope you understand that the reason you were turned down was only because, if we started to——

Mr. SIMMONS. Twenty-three out of the 27 artists the FTC cited

were black.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I am going to give you an opportunity to

speak after Senator Durbin is done.

Mr. SIMMONS. Oh, good. Thank you.

Mr. BALDWIN. Where were we?

Senator DURBIN. I think that you responded. I think you made

your point about the subjectivity of these decisions and how far you

go and what line you draw, and I think that is why Senator

Lieberman and I would agree it is very difficult, if not impossible,

in this free society we live in for government to lay down these

standards. We have had a tough enough time with the Supreme

Court trying to figure out what is right and what is wrong, and I

will not go any further on that line of questioning. But I do want

to ask Mr. Lowenstein a question.

You make an interesting point with your video about the standards that have been applied to video games. Senator Lieberman— I have joined with him in some legislation relative to this area, because we find—and maybe there are some analogies and parallels

to movies and other things—but that we find that in your industry,

when you have rated one of these games, for example, as adultsonly, that that does not necessarily mean that kids cannot walk

into a store and buy it, and that becomes, I think, the real failure

of the system, if it is not complete from start to finish.

66

My Attorney General in the State of Illinois, Jim Ryan, who happens to be of the opposite political faith, but I agree with him completely on this effort, conducted an investigation to determine

whether national retail stores were complying with the voluntary

video game rating system developed by the Entertainment Software Rating Board. Attorney General Ryan found that in 32 out of

32 instances, children between the ages of 13 and 15 were able to

buy those games rated for mature audiences, games that were not

recommend for children under 17. There was no documentation

necessary, no proof of age, no questions asked. Some stores came

forward and said, ‘‘We are going to get serious about this,’’ and we

have since learned they did not.

How do you follow through? Once you have the rating, do you

feel that your hands are clean then? It is entirely up to retailer to

make sure these do not get to the hands of children?

Mr. LOWENSTEIN. Ultimately, yes, it is entirely up to the retailer.

Obviously, we do not control the policies at retail. We have for over

3 years, well before this issue really took up steam, encouraged retailers not to sell mature-rated games to persons under 17. That

has been a position we have taken consistently, notwithstanding

the fact that the rating itself has never said that the content is inappropriate for people 17 and under. It has never made that distinction. We voluntarily said let’s make this a hard M-rating. We

support retail enforcement. Since then, Wal-Mart, Circuit City, Staples, CompUSA, Kmart, I believe, and a number of other mass

merchants, have all adopted policies in one way or another to card

for M-rated games. We support those policies. How effective they

are at retail really is something that the retailers need to continue

to work on. We continue to work with them. We encourage them

to carry those policies through, and I should note that in many

cases, the same policies in terms of restricted sales do not carry

through to other content. So we have sort of taken the position we

are willing to have our M-rated games treated, frankly, more

harshly at retail than other content, and we encourage retailers to

adopt those policies to restrict sales to minors.

Senator DURBIN. What should be the government response if we

find that retailers do not enforce your own standards, in terms of

inappropriate games for children?

Mr. LOWENSTEIN. Well, candidly, I do not think there is a government response, in my view. This is a legal product. It is a constitutionally-protected product, and at some point, I think, besides

the encouragement that some Senators have had—Senator

Lieberman, I know, has had a dialogue over the years with retailers to encourage them to be more proactive in this area—and I am

not sure there is much more you can do, and there is certainly not

much more that we can do. We have made our position clear to the

retailers. I meet with them regularly and encourage them, not only

to promote the rating system—to regulate sales—but to promote

the rating system, because ultimately we believe parental awareness and education is enormously important.

Many retailers are running our Tiger Woods public service announcements, our Derek Jeter public service announcements, in

their stores. So many retailers are taking additional steps to try to

increase awareness, as well.

67

Senator DURBIN. Well, I will just close by saying, going back to

the tobacco analogy, for years, they would buy full-page ads in the

Wall Street Journal, telling children not to smoke, and that really

was not the appropriate venue or forum, and perhaps running a

video at a store has some value, particularly with someone as popular as Tiger Woods, but more important is whether the retailer

takes his responsibility seriously, and I think your industry, frankly, should be part of that, too, to make certain that there is some

enforcement when it comes to the sales. Otherwise, this is a sham,

and I think some of these games are pretty outrageous.

Mr. Valenti, 13 people sit down and grade movies?

Mr. VALENTI. Yes, sir, 12 or 13.

Senator DURBIN. You are the one who ultimately has the last

word in hiring them?

Mr. VALENTI. Yes, sir.

Senator DURBIN. The only requirement is they have to be parents?

Mr. VALENTI. Parents, yes, sir.

Senator DURBIN. And they are paid about $30,000 a year?

Mr. VALENTI. Well, I do not want to go into that, sir, if you can

let me pass that question by, but they are paid full-time.

Senator DURBIN. There has been a suggestion from Ms. Smit and

others that perhaps we need some people in there with a little

background and interest in child psychology and childhood development. Do you take that into consideration?

Mr. VALENTI. Earlier, I did have a couple of child behavior experts on there, and, in all candor, I did not find them any more unerring in their judgment than just plain parents. What we want to

do is to have these parents ask themselves one question: Is the rating I am about to vote to apply to this picture one that most parents in America would judge to be accurate? This is totally subjective, Senator. As I said earlier, we do not have any precision here.

Child development experts, social scientists, carpenters, do not

have any idea about how individual people are going to react to an

individual movie. All parents are not alike. All children are not the

same. Only parents know the emotional, intellectual, and maturity

level of their children. No one else knows that. Therefore, what we

do is to give some direction to parents. We say R says this movie

may contain some adult material, though it is not adult-rated, and

therefore a child must be accompanied by a parent or an adult

guardian. The NC–17 says we believe this is unsuitable for children. It is the only category where we make a mandatory stand

against admission by children, and the PG–13 says this is a movie,

obviously, that does not, in our judgment, reach the level of an R,

but some material, to some parents, may be inappropriate for preteenagers.

And then we are now putting in every ad and every web site of

every movie, plusfilmratings.com, that anybody can come to that

web site, and we have put in here what the rating is and why it

got the rating on each of these ads, so that a person can look at

it and say, ‘‘Graphic violence, language, nudity.’’ Now, if you do not

like any of those for your children, do not take them to see that

movie.

68

1The prepared statement of Mr. Simmons appears on page 45.

Senator DURBIN. Let me ask you a similar question I asked Mr.

Lowenstein. How much of an effort do you make in the industry

to make certain that the movie theaters pay attention to the 17-

year-old limitations, for example?

Mr. VALENTI. Well, that is not my turf. However, they are partners in the rating system, and my judgment is, based on their own

research and independent research, I think doing a pretty good job,

maybe 70, 75 percent of theaters are enforcing. But we have speed

laws, we have drug laws, we have all sorts of laws in this country,

Senator, that are not being obeyed each day. That does not make

it a bad law, it is just that some people will violate something. If

a kid is resourceful and really wants to get into an R-movie, he

can, just as if somebody is a good hacker, they can get into the

Pentagon war room if they need to.

But I think that my judgment, which I will give to you, and it

is a judgment call, is I salute the theater owners. I think they have

done a terrific job in turning away revenues at the box office in

order to fulfill our obligation to parents. How many other industries in this country do that? I do not know of any, except video

games and probably music. Who else turns away revenues? We do.

Senator DURBIN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Senator Durbin, thanks for your interest

in this subject.

Mr. Simmons, because you are here, because you have been referred to repeatedly and your concerns have, I do not have any hesitation to make an exception to the normal rule, and I look forward

to your testimony now.

Mr. SIMMONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I did not come

to testify, but I certainly do want to make a few comments.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Please.

TESTIMONY OF RUSSELL SIMMONS,1 CHAIRMAN, PHAT FARM

Mr. SIMMONS. At a later date, I would like to testify if these

hearings continue. I want to start by saying something very positive about what the hip-hop industry is doing to take responsibility,

because I believe it is our, as industry leaders, job to take responsibility. We recently held a summit in New York where most of the

leaders attended, and we dialogue about what our responsibilities

are and how we might expound on the ideas that we have already

implemented, including the rating system that we have, or the parental advisory sticker that we do have already, and we have

talked about how we may—and I guess we adopted—the whole industry has agreed that every time there is a television ad run or

a radio spot run, that we will use those stickers. Where they were

not visible before, they will be now, going forward.

And we also agreed that we want to put—and in most cases, up

to 70 percent of our lyrics are posted on web sites. So you will be

able to see detailed descriptions of what is inside.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. On the artists’ web sites?

Mr. SIMMONS. The lyrics, yes. That is correct. So we are looking

to make sure parents know what they are buying, but I want to

make it clear to this Committee that most of the people who you

69

are indicting today, and 23 of 27 of the FTC’s groups that they

have chosen to go after are black and are hip-hop. Eminem is an

exception. He has maybe been profiled or something. But we are

working hard on making sure that everyone understands what it

is they are buying, but it is not easy to make this Committee or

some of the other people outside the community, and I mean young

people and hip-hop people, because 80 percent of the people who

buy our records are not black.

So the plight of the kids who live in Compton is a lot clearer now

to the kids in Beverly Hills, and that may be a big—that probably

is one of the reasons so many people are afraid of hip-hop. But we

have worked very hard over the years to have integrity and promote honesty in our artists, in their lyrics. Some of the songs you

may find offensive, protests songs or other songs, are actually reflections of realities that need to be expressed. I think the real

issue is how do we address these issues, more than it is that we

want to shut these reflections of our realities down.

Some of the things that come out on records are things that

mostly are behind doors, and on records now are visible. The real

issue of how we address the issues and the suffering in the communities—and an example, one of my favorite songs was ‘‘F the Police,’’ and I know there was a big stir about that 15 years ago, not

as big as it would be if it came out today, because, of course, now

you have got 80 percent non-black listening. That song was a protest song, and it reminded you—in case you did not know about the

way people were being treated by the police in Compton. Racial

profiling still exists and we still have to deal with it, but that song

was very important in identifying that issue. So hip-hop, the poetry, is a lot different from the love songs or the fun songs.

In fact, Eminem’s song, I find a lot less offensive than a lot of

the hip-hop songs you may find more offensive, because they are

critical of our realities. Eminem is a college kid ranting and raving.

Just like he said, ‘‘Natural Born Killers’’ was—you said ‘‘Private

Ryan’’ was OK. ‘‘Natural Born Killers’’ is a movie with a bunch of

funny references to violence, as opposed to scary violence, to me.

It did not hurt me or offend me or I did not find it as harmful as

I did ‘‘Private Ryan.’’ So that again is so subjective, and when you

are talking about cultural issues that divide us here in America,

then it even becomes much more subjective. And with the absence

of anybody from the hip-hop community on this Committee or involved in this process, it is difficult for you to make these choices,

of which the other day, I think, that the FCC and the government

is already involved in aggressive censorship. They are suing radio

stations, or they went after a poet who I happen to represent or

work with very closely. Her name is Sarah Jones, and they said

that she said revolution is not between her thighs. Well, it is not,

and I thought that that was a pretty good statement as part of her

poem. It is kind of a feminist poem.

Eminem flipping the bird is not so offense to me, either. But then

they decided those radio stations were to be sued for playing those

records. It is a very sensitive—and I know it is an important issue,

how parents know what their kids—but they have to be parents.

I think that is first, and I think everybody on this panel has said

that. So the cultural issue is the most important issue when you

70

start deciding what is good and what is bad, because if you do not

understand it, it is impossible for you to rate it, and the universal

rating system is, in my opinion, and most people here have agreed

it does not work when you are talking about words, because then

what would you do about Mark Twain years ago or jazz or blues

or rock-and-roll and all those things that have become such important parts of our American Heritage?

You have to understand that what is offensive today and so scary

today, with the depiction of our realities today, in most cases, in

rap’s case, it has always been as bad as it has ever been, from

Shakespeare all the way until now, and this is not a new discussion, as we have all said, as well. This dialogue is—they are going

to teach DMX, who you will probably find offensive if you listen to

his lyrics—they will be teaching his poetry in UCLA in a few years.

I am sure of that, and most people in the hip-hop industry or who

understand hip-hop will believe that statement. So it is very complex. It is not as simple as shutting down the reflection of our reality. The real issue, I think—I just want to make this statement

very clear—is to address the issues, to listen to the songs, the disconnect between young people and politics, and young people and

American responsibility—is clear in those songs. Again, it is all

America. I say blacks are delivering the messages, but it is clear

to all young people in America. So I hope you take that idea and

put it in your mix when you—thank you.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Simmons, for a very eloquent statement. You contributed greatly to the hearing. I agree

with you that the real issue is to deal with the problems portrayed,

described in hip-hop music, and I would like to continue the dialogue with you.

Mr. SIMMONS. Thank you. I look forward to it.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. On another occasion, because I have kept

everybody here too long. I appreciate what you said about the interest that came out of the summit that was held—— Mr. SIMMONS. And we are planning two more; one in L.A. this

month and one in Miami next month.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes, and I appreciate what you said about

the sticker policy and putting the sticker into the advertisement.

It is very important, and sometime when we have more time, I

would like to ask you the same question I asked Ms. Rosen, which

is whether there is not a way for the stickers to be more delineated, just give a little more information for the consumer.

But, with thanks to you for ending the hearing on a constructive

note, I want to thank all of the witnesses. To me, it has been a beneficial, informative day. I think we always see, to me, how important these matters are, but also how, in some senses, complicated

they are. I guess, bottom line, I make the appeal that I always

make, with thanks to the industry and creative artists for the steps

forward, and to urge you to keep moving forward. I mean, the best

of all worlds would be for government never to get near any of this,

and that will happen if mothers like Ms. Smit are feeling that they

are better informed and, in some sense, protected by what the industry does. I thank you all.

The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:29 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(71)

A P P E N D I X

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BUNNING

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You don’t have to look very hard to find profanity, sex and violence in today’s entertainment from movies and television to video games and music.

Unfortunately, it seems that use of vulgar content is increasing every year.

Parenting and grandparenting are wonderful roles and rewarding. Raising children has never been easy, but it seems tougher today because our popular culture

is at war with parenthood.

There was a time when we could comfortably and confidently let our child watch

TV alone or flip through the radio stations. But anymore those precious and innocent years of youth are being lost.

Movie ratings have been around for years. Yes, we have implemented a television

rating system and warning labels on video games and music to warn of explicit sexual and violent content or profanity.

These warnings and labels may or may not help. But the question to me is not

always whether or not we are making sure we are properly posting ratings and

warnings.

The question should really be, why do we have to have these ratings and warnings?

How did we get to this point in our history where we must always be on guard

and covering the ears and eyes of our children?

Before, we had to worry about our children going to a theater or maybe a concert

to see or hear improper content. Now, we have to worry about the entertainment

industry—especially Hollywood—directly pumping inappropriate content into our

homes. The home was always thought of as the last safe haven. But not anymore.

Yes, ultimately parents are responsible for what their children hear and see regardless of any type of ratings and warning system. Parents are the first line of defense in protecting children from lewd content.

But, I think it important that we also all ask the question as to how we arrived

at this point in time where in our entertainment the objectionable is the norm, the

shocking is the model, and morality is mocked. We may not find these answers

today, but these issues must be raised.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

Æ