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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

44–459 PDF 2009

FROM IMUS TO INDUSTRY: THE BUSINESS OF

STEREOTYPES AND DEGRADING IMAGES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE,

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 25, 2007

Serial No. 110–67

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

energycommerce.house.gov
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

Vice Chairman

LOIS CAPPS, California

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania

JANE HARMAN, California

TOM ALLEN, Maine

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

HILDA L. SOLIS, California

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

JAY INSLEE, Washington

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

JOE BARTON, Texas

Ranking Member

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

MARY BONO, California

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

DENNIS B. FITZGIBBONS, Chief of Staff

GREGG A. ROTHSCHILD, Chief Counsel

SHARON E. DAVIS, Chief Clerk

DAVID L. CAVICKE, Minority Staff Director

(II)
(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois, Chairman

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

Vice Chairman

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio)

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida,

Ranking Member

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

MARY BONO, California

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio)

(V)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1

Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 2

Hon. Jan Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, opening statement ....................................................................................... 4

Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the State of North

Carolina, opening statement ............................................................................... 5

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 7

Hon. George Radanovich, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California .............................................................................................................. 8

Hon. Anthony D. Weiner, a Representative in Congress from the State of

New York, opening statement ............................................................................. 10

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Texas ..................................................................................................................... 11

Hon. Edolphus Towns, a Representative in Congress from the State of New

York, opening statement ...................................................................................... 12

Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 14

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 15

Hon. Mary Bono, a Representative in Congress from the State of California,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 16

WITNESSES

Philippe P. Dauman, president and chief executive officer, Viacom International, Incorporated, New York, NY ............................................................... 17

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19

Edgar Bronfman, Jr., chairman and chief executive officer, Warner Music

Group, New York, NY .......................................................................................... 24

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25

Doug Morris, chairman and chief executive officer, Universal Music Group,

New York, NY ...................................................................................................... 27

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30

Alfred C. Liggins III, president and chief executive officer, Radio One, Incorporated, Lanham, MD .......................................................................................... 35

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37

Strauss Zelnick, chairman of the board, Take Two Interactive Software, New

York, NY ............................................................................................................... 38

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40

Levell Crump, a.k.a., ‘‘David Banner’’ .................................................................... 55

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58

Percy Miller, a.k.a. ‘‘Master P’’ 1 ............................................................................ 61

Michael Eric Dyson, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 2 ........................ 63

Tracy Sharpley-Whiting, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN ......................... 85

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 88

Andrew Rojecki, University of Illinois-Chicago, Chicago, IL ............................... 92

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 94

Faye Williams, national chair, National Congress of Black Women, Incorporated, Washington, DC .................................................................................... 96

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 99

Lisa Fager Bediako, president, Industry Ears, Odenton, MD ............................. 101

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 105
Page

VI

Karen Dill, Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC ................................................... 114

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 117

1 Mr. Miller did not submit a prepared statement for the record. 2 Mr. Dyson did not submit a prepared statement for the record.
(1)

FROM IMUS TO INDUSTRY: THE BUSINESS OF

STEREOTYPES AND DEGRADING IMAGES

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE,

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION,

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby L. Rush

(chairman) presiding.

Members present: Representatives Schakowsky, Butterfield, Barrow, Markey, Towns, Gonzalez, Hooley, Weiner, Stearns, Fossella,

Radanovich, Pitts, Bono, Terry, Myrick, Burgess, and Blackburn.

Staff present: Consuela Washington, Christian Fjeld, Valerie

Baron, William Carty, and Chad Grant.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. RUSH. The committee will come to order. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. I want to

begin by thanking our witnesses who have come from far and near

to be a part of this hearing, and I want to assure everyone present

that this hearing is not a head-hunting hearing. This hearing will

be a positive hearing. I hope to come away from this hearing on

this day with a foundation to move forward in our Nation. This is

not the end. This is just the beginning.

We have a crisis in our communities throughout this Nation.

There is a culture of death that permeates our society. It is the responsibility of this Congress as it is the responsibility of each and

every one of you to be a part of the solution as opposed to being

part of the problem. So I am looking forward to developing and to

engaging in a coalition of concern and compassion and commitment

to address the issue of violence, hate, degradation that has reduced

too many of our youngsters to automatons, those who don’t recognize life, those who don’t value life, and those who don’t look forward to a future of hope in this life.

I have heard too many of our young people looking and expressing a future that ends before they are 25 years old. They don’t

think that they will live to be 25 years old, indeed some say as

early as 22. They don’t expect to see 22 years of age. The statistics

according to the Department of Justice bear them out. The greatest

cause of death for youngsters 18 to 24 years old is homicide in our
2

communities. I am not blaming anybody. We all are part of the

problem, and we all must be part of the solution.

This hearing is not anti-hip hop. Let me be real clear. I am a fan

of hip hop. I have got children who love hip hop. I admire and respect the hip hop artists who have created an art work, an industry, and an environment where they can employ thousands of people who might not have received employment opportunities were it

not for them. I respect the first amendment, and I know that great

art is always controversial, but we must also take responsibility in

our freedom of expression.

I want to conclude by saying and stating the obvious, that the

pendulum is beginning to swing, and I am convinced that so-called

gangster rap and misogyny is on its way out of the hip hop culture.

This committee has a profound responsibility, immense jurisdiction, and it is within the purview and the power of this committee

and has to be within the purpose of this committee to make sure

that we engage in a conversation that deals with this issue that

confronts the fabric of this Nation and threatens the fabric of this

Nation, its families, its communities, its institution, indeed its

foundation. We can do no more or nothing greater than to open up

this discussion, remove the biases, the hypocrisies, and the hype.

We have got to have an honest discussion. Our future depends on

it.

I yield now to the ranking member, my friend from Florida, Mr.

Stearns, for 5 minutes.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. STEARNS. Good morning. And, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I

just want to echo your sincere comments that you speak from the

heart. We all have interest in this subject, and I want to thank you

for calling this hearing.

Looking at the witness list on panel 1, and looking at all these

CEOs, we can certainly appreciate how much their hourly rate together would be for their time, so we appreciate you taking your

time to come to speak to us this morning. The chairman talked

about the violence, the hate, and the degradation that exists, and

why it continues to flourish.

I think it is worthwhile to discuss this in light of some of the entertainment we see in a very small segment but an important segment, and obviously it is disappointing for Members of Congress to

have to have this issue brought before us in terms of decency in

our civil society, and to see how it continually profoundly affects

our country. But this committee has jurisdiction in this area. We

should be looking at this. I had a hearing when I was chairman

of this subcommittee dealing with the video game industry and

how it impacted our children, and many of you will note at that

time that Grand Theft Auto was the subject of that hearing, and

in particular a segment of that video game dealing with hot coffee

which a portion of that was imported into the Grand Theft Auto

to create pornography.

And I note that because of our hearing the video game industry

seemed to respond to the pressure we provided and the outrage

from the public and from this committee. In the wake of hearings
3

I held in the Congress last session the rating board has strengthened its review process and the industry is offering many new tools

to parents to help them. Indeed, the Federal Trade Commission

has found that the video game industry is policing itself from production to the retail stores. So I commend them for their good

work, and I note, Mr. Chairman, that these hearings do provide

pressure in themselves. Sometimes we look to perhaps legislate.

Perhaps we look sometimes to influence, and perhaps this hearing

will bring influence into this vital area.

Music and images can be powerful influences on our children’s

mind, and I think Congress has been down this road many times

debating regulation of speech and commerce. Many of us wonder

whether it would be appropriate for Congress to issue a legislative

solution. I am not sure we are able to do it to this difficult problem.

We are a nation founded on the principle, as you mentioned earlier,

Mr. Chairman, of freedom of speech, and we are usually united in

our efforts to export that core principles to countries and governments that censor their people and their media.

So obviously we don’t want to ban the liberty and freedom—the

idea of liberty of freedom of speech. We want to be able to have

people to express themselves, particularly in oppressive regimes

perhaps like China. But, however, there is today a lot of vulgarity

in both the entertainment and the video game industry that we are

concerned about which has a major influence on our children, and

the problem is often a decision of what is package and what is market, but that primarily is determined by what sells, so a lot of what

we see in our culture is perhaps something that these companies

and other companies are providing because that sells.

Whenever it sells quickly it is imitated, and across the industry

other people come up with new favorites. I don’t necessarily believe

there is a conscious decision to determine the content companies

will sell before market analysis shows what is popular, and that is

perhaps a key question of this hearing. Numerous examples demonstrate that consumers in the United States have certain tastes

that the entertainers cater to. Content that does not sell usually

disappears. However, there are other forms of entertainment that

still survive and sell well. Nursery rhyme books, animated movies,

and religious books all have their audiences and are produced precisely because publishers and producers know they will sell. It is

rate that a successful business is set up solely to satisfy a market

niche without some indication first that the product will sell and

will be well received.

Business failures are often attributable to poor planning and

poor research that never finds its market as big as it hoped. The

successful ones are often the businesses that either know their

market beforehand or readily adapt to it.

So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I, like yourself, have some serious objections to much of the content that is sold and concerned

about the effects it has on our society. I look forward to hearing

from our witnesses and obviously asking them some pertinent

questions on their opinions. Obviously, American consumers can

make their own decisions, but they need information first, and perhaps the biggest thing to do is provide transparency for the con-
4

sumer so that certainly the parents know beforehand the product

they are getting.

There is obviously another concern this committee has always

had, and that is privacy and protection of the individual’s privacy.

And in many universities they provide broadband Internet for their

students. Now a lot of these universities do not set up privacy safeguards so the music can’t be stolen. I am happy to say that the

University of Florida, that I represent in my district, works actively with the recording industry to stop piracy on their broad

band networks so I hope more universities that university’s indication and recommendation. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield

back.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes the

gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, for 5 minutes for opening

statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAN SCHAKOWSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILINOIS

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I too want to

thank you for your opening statement both in its tone and its substance. I want to focus particularly on the treatment of women in

our communities, and the role of corporations and the media and

the entertainment industry and consumers in that treatment. Like

everyone else, I am sure I want my granddaughters to be brought

up in a society that values their worth and teaches them to be confident and empowered members of our community. I want them to

grow up free from physical and verbal abuse. Unfortunately, we

have not yet created a society in which that is guaranteed.

Girls and young women of color in particular are faced with repeated onslaughts of disrespect and bigotry. As we saw so dramatically with Don Imus’ remarks even those who accomplish great

things are not immune. All of us have a responsibility to work to

end racism and sexism and bigotry in all forms. And I am glad that

industry representatives, artists, academics, and women’s advocates have gathered here today to begin a productive dialog. I believe that all parties at this hearing bear a special responsibility

to insure that the culture in which our children and grandchildren

grow up is a tolerate one. There are several fundamental questions

here. What kind of culture do we want for our children? How do

we determine whether certain words and pictures and values are

appropriate? What is the Government’s role? None of these questions is easy, which is why this discussion is so important, not just

here but more importantly in communities and in homes across the

Nation.

The sexist and racial stereotypes in much of today’s media are

culturally poisonous. Many of us see its effects in our neighborhoods every day. But the hallmark of an open society is the right

to speak and to create art without governmental interference. Like

Chairman Rush, I respect the first amendment, and I am wary of

interfering in a way that stifles free expression. Censorship of

media that we find offensive is a dangerous game. Who decides

what music or movies merit fines or restrictions? Why, for instance,

does Wal-Mart ban the sale of explicit music with parental advi-
5

sory warnings and yet continues to sell Grand Theft Auto in which

players are encouraged to stomp on and rape women?

Government censorship would be equally arbitrary and it is a

slippery slope down which I don’t want to go. This hearing recognizes the power of entertainment and culture in our lives. I believe

art both reflects and influences society. Artists and corporations

need to understand that role and take it seriously. I don’t believe

in censorship, but I also don’t believe that corporations should reap

financial rewards by promoting intolerance and bigotry. Consumers

too need to take responsibility. Consumers, we have seen, can have

a major impact, as we saw on the pressure that resulted in the firing of Don Imus, with the growing demand for more positive lyrics

and less violent videos.

I want my four grandchildren to grow up in a society that treats

all of its members with respect but I am equally concerned with

protecting their freedom of creativity. This is why I thank the

chairman for calling this hearing and giving all stakeholders here

the opportunity to start a dialog that can achieve both goals. I don’t

think that is impossible. I take this issue very seriously, and I look

forward to the discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield

back.

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from

Nebraska, Mr. Terry, is recognized for 5 minutes for an opening

statement.

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, and I will waive.

Mr. RUSH. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield,

is recognized for 5 minutes.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH

CAROLINA

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank

you and I thank the ranking member for arranging this hearing

today. I understand that you had some difficulty in getting it arranged. You told me a few months ago that you were going to do

it, and finally the day has come. And so thank you very much for

your work in this area. In reading the material that we received

in our offices a couple days ago, I noticed that the title of this hearing is ‘‘From Imus to Industry.’’ I am not sure that that is the best

title for this hearing. I wish we had had some discussion about

that. We probably could have come up with another title that

would have been less antagonistic to the industry, but having said

that we are here today and hopefully we will have a productive

hearing.

Mr. Chairman, Americans have forever enjoyed being entertained

whether through music, movies or video games. These devices have

made their way into the homes of nearly all Americans where

music lyrics are mimicked, movie lines are quoted, and video game

characters are emulated. Through these various media outlets

stereotypes of exaggerated and women are at times degraded, and

that is most unfortunate. Are these lyrics and images a sign of the

times? Are the producers of these products merely responding to

society’s status quo or is our increasingly tumultuous society causing these offensive trends in entertainment.
6

Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is a cyclical problem. It raises

larger societal issues than what is being addressed with this hearing. Music is playing a larger part than ever in American society.

It is without question that the artists who perform these songs

with questionable lyrics or suggestive themes pull from the personal experiences that they have had in their lives in order to arrive at their final product. Whether we like it or not, this is the

culture that we find ourselves in today. I attended a hip hop summit a few weeks ago at A&T State University in my home State

of North Carolina, and just on a few days notice there were thousands of students attending this hip hop summit. Some of those

could not even enter the coliseum.

And so, Mr. Chairman, I fully believe in the first amendment.

Certainly we all do. I have been in the legal profession for many

years, many years as a judge, and years before that as a lawyer,

and so I for one certainly believe in the first amendment right that

we have under our Constitution. And so the chairman is correct,

we must uphold the first amendment rights that we have in this

country. Our society is nothing without the first amendment. With

that said, however, I think the artists, and two of those artists are

here today and perhaps more, they are here and they have the

knowledge that millions of Americans would idolize them and imitate them and emulate them. And so they have an obligation. Yes,

they have an obligation to record music and to make their movies

and to make their videos in a responsible fashion.

The artists need to know that their positions are power and they

have positions of power. If you think Members of Congress have positions of power, I want you to know that the artists have profound

positions of power. They are attractive to our youth so their influence should be positive. The artists whose music we are exposed to

on a daily basis are driven by powerful record labels and they too

have a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders to produce

what sells. That is basic corporate law 101. Corporations are in the

business of producing a profit for their stockholders, and none of

us want to diminish that. But the record labels have a large responsibility and they have a responsibility to our society that they

not sit idly by and allow these lyrics and the music video images

from invading impressionable minds.

Studies suggest that exposure to media violence increases levels

of aggression leading to increased crime in music and movie and

video games that promote gang activity and crime and degradation

of women have a direct impact on the way impressionable individuals lead their lives. The entertainment industry as a whole, the

artists and the actors and the record labels and video game designers and large media conglomerates must work together. I have a

daughter who is a hip hop executive, and I have told her on numerous occasions we all have a responsibility and an obligation to society, and so we must all continue to work together to try to solve

the problem that we are facing today.

But the responsibility does not terminate with the industry. Parents and children and consumers must be vigilant about what they

are buying for themselves and their families. The only way to solve

this problem of stereotypes and degrading images in the media is

to work together. That is the message that I am delivering today.
7

We must all work together and not engage in a confrontation. I am

going to yield back, Mr. Chairman. I will submit my remaining

statement for the record.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The gentlelady from

Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, is recognized for 5 minutes for an

opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the

hearing. We appreciate this, and want to welcome all of our witnesses who are here from media, entertainment, academia. We appreciate your time. I especially want to give a welcome to Dr. Tracey Denine Sharpley-Whiting. She is from Vanderbilt University

and will be with us on one of our panels today.

Today’s topic, as you are hearing, is extremely sensitive. Many

people have strong feelings regarding the lyrical and visual content

portrayed in popular music, and these are not altogether positive.

As a mother for my children as they were growing up, and I understand and share many of the concerns that you are hearing expressed here today.

However, there are equally passionate voices on the other side of

the issue that cherish the purity of the creative process and view

today’s proceedings as an assault on a artist’s first amendment

rights. So I anticipate that we are going to hear from both sides

of this before the day is done, and my hope is that we are going

to have a better understanding and probably a bit more nuance

perspective as we look at the issue going forward. After all, I cannot and will not begin to read back many of the lyrics written by

the two gentlemen that are going to be on the second panel. They

are obscene regardless of when they were written and to what audience they were directed. And in my opinion they do not deserve

the dignity of this committee’s time.

It raises a good question though for these individuals. Where and

how did society fail you to the point that you would choose to write

such filth? I find it very sad. I find it very, very sad that there

would be such a societal failing that you would choose to write such

filth. Yet, no matter what I think of the lyrical quality, I cannot

and will not begin to consider legislative remedies that put on the

slippery slope of silencing our Nation’s creators. But that does not

absolve policymakers, community leaders, and families from taking

an active role in combating the pervasive influence that perverse

misogynist and racially insensitive pop culture content plays in our

society today. We must do our part in explaining to our children

that what they see on TV and hear on the radio may not always

reflect reality.

And the job doesn’t stop there. Our friends and partners in the

corporate entertainment industry must remain actively involved in

the fight to promote artists and entertainer who carry a positive

image. One of the things we have to remember is that as corporate

executives—and you work with the understanding that choices

have consequences. You also understand that your standards reflect the core values for your company. We will be interested in
8

talking about those core values. I do not pretend to fully understand the pressures that the recording industry faces today from

epidemic piracy to the transition to the digital platform but I do

understand that corporate leaders in the music business are our

partners in helping to build a better community. They are rising

to the challenge.

We will be interested to know what you are doing for charities

and with charities and with education on how to properly use entertainment products. I also understand that much of the world

forms their perception of America by what they see on the screen

and stage and what they hear across the air waves. In this regard,

you do hold the world in your hands. My hope is that you are going

to handle it very carefully, and remember that with our great Nation perception is many times reality in the eyes of those beholders.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your diligent work. I look forward

to visiting with our witnesses as we proceed through the day. I welcome them all, and I yield the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The gentleman from

Georgia, Mr. Barrow, is recognized for the purposes for an opening

statement for 5 minutes.

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you

and Ranking Member Stearns for calling this hearing. I want to

thank you for taking this subject on. There are some problems

where the only thing worse than talking about the problem is not

talking about the problem, so I commend you for your willingness

to take this subject on. I can’t think of anything I could add to your

statement, Mr. Chairman, to set the stage for this, so in the interest of time, I am going to yield the balance of my time. I want to

thank you once again for calling this hearing.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman from

California, Mr. Radanovich, is recognized for 5 minutes for an

opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your

efforts and Ranking Member Stearns, and appreciate the fact that

you are holding this hearing today. As the parent of a 9-year-old

daily interaction with my son, with people he meets, and things he

sees and hears are constant influences on his development. Children are particularly impressionable and often do not understand

the difference between fact and fiction, the real and surreal. Naturally I want to make sure that my son is not exposed to that which

he is either not mature enough to understand or content that is

just simply inappropriate for his age.

To be honest, some of the content available today whether in

music, video games, TV or movies can be downright disgusting, and

in my view is inappropriate for any age group. Certainly I don’t

enjoy it, and I also understand that there are things that I enjoy

that other people do not. However, whether I like the content or

not, we live in a country where the very foundation of our society

rests on the freedom to express ourselves and that is something I

hope we all keep in mind during today’s discussion.
9

Fortunately, we also live in a time when there is an abundance

of tools, technology, and messaging designed to keep the public informed of content and enable parents to control what their children

are exposed to. TV shows now have a rating system that is prominently displayed during the show. Also, technology such as V chip

are available through cable and satellite companies that allow parents to block certain shows that they may not want their children

watching based on the show’s rating. At the end of the day, no matter how many tools are available to control content the responsibility ultimately lies with the individual or the parent.

I recognize that there is room for almost every interest in the

market place, and diversity makes it easy to filter who is exposed

to what. One of my favorite public service announcements was created by the Ad Council in conjunction with industry leaders and

broadcasting cable satellite as well as other consumer electronics

community. The commercial starts with a model who walks into

her living room with a Soprano-like character sitting in front of

her, and mom says, ‘‘Remember last week when you hit Vinnie on

the head with a shovel? Well, it was pretty graphic, too graphic for

my kids, so I am going to have to block you.’’ The TVboss.org ad

is a perfect example of how the system should work with the tools

that are provided to parents.

All the industries represented here today, and some that aren’t,

have made great strides and have gone to great lengths to address

the concern of inappropriate content. My son loves to play video

games. The gaming industry through rating systems and the ability to block certain games from being able to be played on my son’s

device has made my job as a parent more doable. I know that with

a few clicks of a button I can insure only games with an ‘‘E’’ for

everyone can be played on his machine. Whether it is the ability

to block programs, producing edited versions of CDs or the diversity of having channels that you know all content will be acceptable

for certain viewers, I commend the industry’s foresight and innovation. The only thing I would ask is that as the market evolves, that

technologies improve, keep giving parents more tools to make their

job easier because I think we can all agree that raising a child in

today’s world is not an easy task.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the ranking member for holding

what I think will prove to be a productive discussion between industry leaders, artists, lawmakers, and parents on how we can all

work to continue to produce and improve the best controls possible

that make my life as a parent more manageable. Thank you.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman. I want to just make

a point. There is a fine line between the jurisdiction of this subcommittee and the jurisdiction of the subcommittee that Mr. Markey chairs, the Telecommunications Subcommittee. I want to remind Members that this subcommittee’s jurisdiction rests with the

content and the interstate commerce which includes products, CDs,

video games, et cetera. The public airwaves are under the jurisdiction of Mr. Markey’s subcommittee, the Telecommunications Subcommittee. Please be mindful of that. Ed is my friend and we don’t

want to battle over jurisdiction. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner.
10

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY D. WEINER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW

YORK

Mr. WEINER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I too want to thank

you for holding the hearing and the tenor of your opening remarks.

There is almost no doubt that we are experiencing a coarsening of

discourse in our country, an increase in the amount of violence and

sex and degradation that is going on in our public consciousness

and our public debate, and in the media that goes along with it.

There is no doubt that for whatever reason the music industry is

not creating and rewarding acts like Tribe Called Quest, and

Grand Newby, and De La Soul, and acts that once upon a time

celebrated a different type of conversation in the communities of

our country.

There is no doubt that Dance Hall is also affected and other

parts of music, and there is no doubt that the traditions of Studio

One that created the Barrington Levys of the world and the Bob

Marleys of the world have given way to the Buju Bantons of the

world, the misogyny and homophobia that they communicate.

There is no doubt that when you look at the artists that are being

celebrated in the market place today, extraordinarily successful

artists like 50 Cent, you see the promotion of records like Get Rich

or Die Trying in some of the communities most ravaged by handguns, giant posters with the artist holding a handgun in his hand

extended outward clearly sending a message and communicating a

message that is a violent one.

But this is also the extension of a debate we have been having

in this country for generations and generations. The names might

be different but it is no different than the conversation we had

about sex on television and curse words on television. I remember

being shocked when I was a young kid and Alan Alda on MASH

said ‘‘son of a b*** *’’ during a MASH episode. You would probably

not be able to get through a Sopranos episode without hearing a

curse word in every other scene. It is no different than the conversations we have had about all forms of communication and conversation. I don’t know who is going to solve the problem. I don’t

know to what degree it represents a problem or the natural outgrowth of a vibrant market place of ideas. I can tell you we aren’t.

I can tell you Congress isn’t. It is good that we are having this

hearing to continue the discussion because it is important that we

understand. Only when lines are egregiously broken and crossed

like they were in the case of Don Imus do we really engage in this

conversation. We go long periods of time before we are shocked at

the consciousness and start thinking about it again.

I can tell you that we, an institution of 435 members of America’s elite, most of us white, most of us well-to-do, most of us not

exactly the creators of art, we are not going to be solving the problem. It is good for us to have the conversation. Ultimately it is

going to most likely begin with the artists and their customers. I

would have liked to see the first panel be the artists. I would like

to hear a little bit about what are in the thoughts and minds of

someone who creates are that is so violent, that is so misogynistic,

that is so angry and coarse. I can tell you that most likely, and I
11

take some exception and disagreement with Mr. Butterfield, I think

this is ultimately going to be a business decision.

I think when Chamillionaire makes a decision on his second

record not to use the ‘‘N’’ word and not to use curse words to some

degree it is a business calculation. To some degree he is saying

what, the market place is pretty well occupied with people cursing

and yelling and saying nasty things. Chamillionaire, who is clearly

a very shrewd businessman, is saying, you know what, I am going

to try to occupy a different place and see if there is a market place

for people who want to exhale a little bit, let their shoulders slump

because there is finally some music that doesn’t say these things.

He is clearly making a political statement, and this is what artists

have done through generations.

I can tell you that it is going to be very easy for us to say, well,

maybe if Universal didn’t promote something or Warner didn’t promote something or maybe if Viacom didn’t put it in a video on

MTV, although I must admit I haven’t seen a video on MTV in forever, maybe then we will be able to solve this problem. But, there

was an article in today’s the Daily Swarm, which is a blog online

that talks with the music industry, about Amazon’s new service it

is going to sell, MP3s. It had a remarkable statistic. It said they

are going to have 2 million songs from 180,000 artists represented

by 20,000 major and independent labels. So if you think that Mr.

Morris or Mr. Bronfman or anyone can say, you know what, I think

this is so violent, that is it, you are done, I am taking you off of

my label, there are only 19,999 other places for those artists to go.

And we all are familiar with the idea that now one of the most

important ways to promote your music is not to have a label at all,

just go to the clubs with your CD. You get an influential enough

DJ to play your music. Before you know it, you don’t need a label

at all. So it is probably not going to be Congress to solve this coarsening of society problem. It is probably not going to be the suits

that represent the labels. I believe ultimately we need to have a

conversation that includes the artists and their customers about

why these messages are becoming so popular, why it is that it is

so much the popular message. When the artist Shinehead, during

the explosion of the crack epidemic, put out a record that was almost entirely devoted to the idea that crack was killing their communities. It sold. Maybe that will begin again. Maybe the

Shineheads will emerge again. Thank you.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess, for the purposes

for an opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I thank you also for holding this

hearing. I agree this is an extremely important discussion that we

need to have. The discussion needs to be in the board rooms. It is

appropriate to discuss it in Congress, and quite honestly it is a discussion that needs to be had within the family, but I thank you for

bringing it to the forefront of this committee. Now the topic of today’s hearing, the business of stereotypes and degrading images,

affects communities throughout the country. This past weekend
12

back in my district at Fort Worth, TX, I had the honor of hosting

an economic development summit in my district. It really didn’t

take long for the conversation of this committee’s hearing to come

up.

A civic leader in Fort Worth, Mr. Eddie Griffin, who frequently

engages me in conversation on a variety of subjects, he is, as he

pointed out, a member of the Afrosphere Bloggers Association, we

talked about this at some length and about the impacts that the

art is having on his community. He sent me an e-mail yesterday

knowing that this hearing was going to be happening, and I found

his statement to be really very simple and very profound. He said,

‘‘We will use our collective powers to negatively impact the profitability of those companies who cross the line.’’ Mr. Chairman, the

Constitution wisely limits what we in Congress can do legislatively

regarding what we may consider objectionable material in art or

media, but consumers, and as a nation of consumers, we hold tremendous power and we can stop buying the degrading music and

video games.

We all know that if there weren’t a profit, if people weren’t buying into the line of products then they would no longer be on the

shelves in our local stores for purchase. As Mr. Griffin said, we, everyone in this room and everyone watching this hearing on television can collectively use our power of our individual purse to no

longer make this a profitable business for anyone including the

companies represented in this room. Some of the artists who are

here with us today who pen the lyrics are the retailers who sell the

depravities that come into our homes disguised as a simple CD or

video game. It is really the most powerful recourse that we have.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Griffin also said in his e-mail that there is

only so much that we as African Americans or other Americans can

take. I personally don’t think that we as Americans should take

this type of performance art any longer. It is up to us as citizens

to put an end to it. Mr. Chairman, it is my hope this hearing will

help us do just that. I thank you for your leadership on this essential issue, and I will yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman for the brevity of his

opening statement, and now recognizes the gentleman from New

York, Mr. Towns, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW

YORK

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank

you and Ranking Member Stearns for bringing us together and indicating that we must work together to find the proper balance,

and I am a strong supporter of the first amendment. I am glad that

these fine witnesses are willing to engage us in a discussion of the

negative effects of degrading images and stereotypes in our culture.

We all should have taken some responsibility to help combat the

negative effects as we respect important freedoms. I believe this

hearing will serve as an important function in that regard. I am

especially pleased to see the video game industry represented here

today as it continues to provide consumers with innovative technology and products. Over the course of my years on this sub-
13

committee, I have come to know the video game industry well. I

know publishers like you, Mr. Zelnick, have contributed a great

deal to the industry’s overall success in building parents trust and

the industry’s voluntary rating.

In fact, this very subcommittee, as the gentleman from Florida

indicated earlier, commissioned a report by the Federal Trade Commission on the practices of the industry. In that report released in

April of this year the agency applauded a number of measures

taken by the industry to increase parental awareness, retail enforcement and advertising best practices, and I salute you for that.

The agency found that nearly nine in 10 parents are aware of the

rating system that cut the number of minors who could purchase

M-rated games nearly in half.

These findings support my view that the industry is taking responsibility for the product it makes and gives parents the supportive tools they need to make informed decisions about what games

come into their homes. Regarding the media industry as a whole,

there has been an explosion of options available to consumers. We

have gone from three networks at PBS to hundreds of channels of

diverse content. The main complaint these days is that there is too

much to choose from rather than not enough. However, among all

of the available content options there are definitely things that I

don’t care for. I am pleased that the industry has created a rating

system that offers parents more information so that they can block

degrading images from their kids. There should be a far greater effort to teach parents how to use these controls on their televisions.

There is surely something for everyone among the hundreds of

channels and iPods and satellite radio programs and DVDs so

watch what you like, and don’t watch what you don’t like. That is

a pretty simple theory. As far as lyrics and adult content are concerned, it is a cultural conversation, and we need to be careful not

to look like we are advocating censorship of artists whose creative

expression reflects their lives and experiences. Those things are

what shapes our young people’s lives that experiences have forced

them to think.

I am pleased that we have two successful artists here today to

tell their stories. Let us make certain that we respect those important freedoms. This is a complicated subject matter, and the most

important thing we can do is convene these forums and engage in

a serious, civil conversation that heightens everyone’s sensitivities

to the problem, not the problem of rap music but the problems facing our community each and every day. This is not about legislating or pointing fingers at anyone. It is about a serious thought for

dialog, and I thank you all for furthering the national debate in

this forum, and it is really about working together to see in terms

of what we might be able to do because you admit, and I admit,

that there is a problem. On that note, Mr. Chairman, I almost yield

back but I am out of time so I can’t yield anything back.

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the gentleman. The gentleman from

Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, is recognized for 5 minutes.
14

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH

OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit my entire

statement for the record but I would like to make a few points.

First of all, thank you for holding this important hearing, and

thank you for your leadership on this issue. It is very much appreciated. A number of the images and actions, profanity, and overall

messages promoted by the music and entertainment industries

today are deeply disturbing. Violence, devaluation of life, the degradation of women permeate much of the visual and vocal products

circulating in our market place. What people see and hear absolutely does affect them, and that is why marketers spend billions

of dollars every year on media advertising. They know that people,

particularly kids, internalize what they see and hear, especially

when they see and hear it over and over.

Companies are in business to make a profit. That is clear, but

is it only when there is a public outcry, for example, over lead

tainted toys, that companies make changes? Or look at cigarette

production. It took a long time for cigarette companies to admit

that nicotine was addictive despite a plethora of cited evidence because they did not want to admit the health risk associate with

their lucrative products. In terms of degradation in music videos

and other forms of entertainment sadly profanity and violence do

seem to sell well. Tragically when a product promotes violence it

does impact individuals’ lives and community lives, even our Nation’s life. Take Columbine, for example. We know that the young

men who took other students’ lives listened to very violent music.

One of the songs they listened to repeats six times in one song,

‘‘If I had a shotgun, I would blow myself straight to hell.’’ If a child

listens over and over and over to lyrics of a song the message begins to sink in and becomes part of the perspective through which

he or she views life. In addition to violence in general, a deeply disturbing message promoted by certain songs and videos treats

women as objects, not people. These images foster an environment

that can be permissive in terms of attitudes of domestic violence

against women. Domestic violence statistics in our Nation are horrible, and incidents of violence across all sectors and economic levels of society.

According to the University of Minnesota’s human rights library,

‘‘Domestic violence also contributes to other forms of violence

against women. Women who experience violence at home may be

more willing to look for and accept an uncertain and potentially

risky job abroad placing them in danger of being trafficked.’’ In

2004 there was a briefing in Capitol Hill focusing on domestic trafficking and sexual exploitation. The main panelists were not adult

experts, but were five young women from various backgrounds who

had lived through years of abuse both at home and on the streets

from pimps, police officers, foster care, and others.

Even after receiving assistance, the girls were afraid to testify

against the pimps who had caused such great harm in their lives

because the men would only get 6 months in prison. The girls all

knew of others who had testified but who had been beaten up afterwards or even killed. Basically, pimps are sex traffickers. Unfortu-
15

nately, the music messages we are discussing today promote domestic violence and trafficking in humans. Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe that the responsibility for messages promoted in a particular music album, music video, video game or the like lies at all

stages of development and production. Artists, managers, producers, sales representatives, upper level management, and CEOs all

bear culpability for the messages that are promoted and affect our

youth.

There are those performers who are taking a stand to help stop

promoting negative messages to our youth. I applaud them. I also

commend our distinguished witness, Mr. Percy Miller, on his efforts to produce albums with positive message. We need more individuals like these. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished

witnesses, and I yield back.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, for 5 minutes.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. MARKEY. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I commend you for

this most welcome inquiry and discussion. Whether it is rap or hip

hop or any other musical genre, it is vital that artists can freely

express their talent and convey their messages. This is true of any

art form, the spectrum of what it is to be human, what the experience may be for a particular person at this time in history, and

whatever circumstances they find themselves discovers following

an expression in art. This should be celebrated and revered even

if such art or messages occasionally make people uncomfortable.

What our popular mass media does, however, is to take certain

artists’ works and essentially put them on steroids. Quite often the

art that is marketed and sold reflect the personal experiences of

artists, their neighborhoods, and their understanding of the world

in which they have grown up. On the other hand, some of the art

that is chosen by large commercial companies for marketing back

into such neighborhoods has the power to reinforce messages and

bestow acceptability upon themes, actions, and words that no parent and no community leader would ever deem to endorse. Such

products can be mean and degrading, and repeated over and over

again represent an incessant undermining of human dignity.

It was brought into focus most recently for me by comments

made by former NBA star Isaiah Thomas. In a taped video Isaiah

Thomas said that if a white male referred to a white female by a

vulgar term it would be highly offensive. If a while male referred

to a black female by the same term it would also be highly offensive. But if a black male referred to a black female by the same

vulgar term, Isaiah Thomas said it wasn’t so bad. That is repugnant because he is such a role model for so many young people in

our country. What a hideous double standard he is promoting.

This hearing is tapping into something that is long overdue. Like

Isaiah Thomas’ comments the subjects for this hearing indicate a

moral failing. What responsibility do media companies exercise

when they select artists and songs and videos to promote and to

mass distribute. I remember when BET was launched. It was sup-
16

posed to be the black sophisticated educational and entertainment

channel full of high-minded fare invoking the best of the Harlem

renaissance and the great diversity of the community. Instead it

became the lowest common denominator of cheap and tawdry

music videos and other questionable programming.

I was encouraged to see today’s article about some of the new

programming BET will be putting out. That is wonderful. But,

frankly, it has a long way to go to make up for such a long history

of previous programming. And I understand that the music industry is prepared to make its rating system more useful to parents

by implementing a mechanism whereby parents can block inappropriate songs. This is something that warrants much further exploration and implementation. In short, I hope that today’s hearings

result in a dramatic reassessment by media companies as to their

overall responsibility and as to the criteria they use to select what

they choose to promote and to air. I want to again commend Chairman Rush for calling this hearing, and I thank our witnesses for

joining us here today.

Mr. RUSH. The gentlelady from California is recognized for 5

minutes.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARY BONO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mrs. BONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your holding

this hearing today on this very important topic. As you know, I

have a connection to, and an affinity for, the entertainment industry, but as a mother and as a Member of Congress, I also have concerns about some of the entertainment products that are delivered

to our families in the form of games, television shows, movies, and

music. As a result, I believe the industry has a responsibility to

provide parents with easily identifiable information and access to

the best technology available so they as parents can decide what

is seen in their households.

In many respects, the industry is addressing its responsibility

through available technologies and parental notifications. It seems

to me though that the true challenge is continuously connecting

parents to this information. For that reason, I am pleased that you

have convened this hearing. It is important that the subcommittee

be a part of the national conversation about whether artistic expression can go too far and what too far is or said another way

whether there are additional actions that entertainers and industry

should consider in order to insure that they can continue to innovate, freely express themselves, and provide ample notice to consumers, particularly parents about the products being sold.

Of course, this debate has been going on for as long as there has

been music or even teenagers for that matter. I remember a while

back after a controversial appearance by Two Live Crew a conservative Republican senator from Florida made news and turned

heads when he said, ‘‘Under our form of freedom of speech words

are protected. Once we begin selectively defining which words are

acceptable, we enter a slippery slope where freedom is compromised.’’ And that senator had it exactly right. Last night when

I was reviewing the panel’s testimony, I was pleased to see that

some of you made similar points. I was also pleased to notice that
17

you all seem to take this issue seriously and that you take your responsibilities just as seriously.

Our founders understood that we are healthier as a nation if we

don’t silence words that offend or provoke but instead use them to

encourage the very dialogs and discussions like we are having

today. I share this belief and am glad you are all engaged in a dialog with us, with your colleagues throughout the entertainment industry, and most importantly with parents. I would like to thank

our panelists for being here today. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the

balance of my time.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. I am just going to

take prerogative right now. There are two people in the audience

that I really have to recognize. One is my friend, Mr. Dick Gregory.

He is in the audience. I want to thank you, Dick, for being a part

of this hearing. And another struggling entrepreneur from this city,

Mr. Anton Mohammed. Mr. Mohammed, thank you for your participation in this hearing. Now the Chair recognizes the witnesses.

Again, I want to thank you for the generous use of your time. You

have been very, very patient with us, and we certainly thank you.

And the Chair now recognizes Mr. Philippe Dauman. He is the

president and CEO of Viacom, Incorporated. As we all know,

Viacom is one of the largest media companies in the world and

owns MTV network and Black Entertainment network, both of

which feature music videos along with original programming. Mr.

Dauman, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement. Thank you for your presence.

STATEMENT OF PHILIPPE P. DAUMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO,

VIACOM INTERNATIONAL INC., NEW YORK, NY

Mr. DAUMAN. Thank you, Chairman Rush, and Ranking Member

Stearns. My name, as you said, is Philippe Dauman. I am president and CEO of Viacom, home to some of the world’s most iconic

television entertainment brands including MTV, Comedy Central,

Nickelodeon, Spike, Logo, and BET, as well as Paramount Pictures,

which produces and distributes motion pictures across the globe.

The success and popularity of these and our other entertainment

brands is rooted in the innovative spirit of our organizations.

Viacom has two of the most experienced, well-respected leaders in

the business running our TV programming divisions, Judy

McGrath, chairman and CEO of MTV Networks, and a 20-year veteran of the company, and Debra Lee, who has spent the past two

decades at BET Networks, and today serves as chairman and CEO,

each a trail blazer in her own right. Judy and Debra oversee diverse executive teams that are the stewards shaping the content of

our channels.

We understand that with influence comes responsibility and we

take our responsibilities seriously. We have a responsibility to entertain. If we fail to fulfill this most basic responsibility we don’t

have a business. We have a responsibility to speak authentically to

our viewers. Our entertainment has to engage the audience. Believe me, this is no simple task. Boomers, generation X, progressives, conservatives, parents, children, and every race and ethnic

background, we cover a lot of ground. The fact is that none of these

distinct audiences is monolithic. That is why we spend a lot of
18

time, effort, and money researching what our audiences want. A

one size fits all approach cannot succeed. That explains why

‘‘Juvies’’ a real-life portrayal of the juvenile criminal justice system,

aired on MTV along side ‘‘The Hills’’ a show about affluent young

adults living the good life in LA.

While on BET, you will see Sunday Best, a search for the next

great gospel singer, as well as Baldwin Hills, a reality series focused on the lives of upper middle class African American high

school students. Rather than stifling creativity in pursuit of consensus, we seek balance, a balance of content that entertains and reflects the full spectrum of our diverse audiences’ interests but every

show is not for every audience. This is why we have standards and

practices that govern all of our programming and guide our ratings.

Every show and every music video are reviewed by a diverse group

of employees before they are seen on a lot of our networks.

We play no role in producing or creating videos. That is within

the exclusive purview of the artists and record labels. We do, however, take a very proactive role, which is why some videos are edited and some are rejected. Once programming meets our standards

it is given a rating. Videos are rated in blocks. Parents and viewers

can then rely upon these ratings to make informed decisions and

use existing technology to block programming they don’t want or

simply turn off the TV.

That brings me to an equally important responsibility, the responsibility to engage, educate, and empower our viewers. We continually strive to make a positive difference in our lives and in our

world. This commitment is part of our DNA, and I am proud to say

we do it very well. Some of our most successful efforts include

Viacom’s worldwide KNOW HIV/AIDS initiative, VH1’s Save the

Music Foundation, BET’s HIV/AIDS Rap It Up campaign, mtvU’s

fight to raise awareness about the genocide in Darfur, and an exciting new venture Think.MTV, an online site designed to encourage

and enable young people to get involved in public service, which

launched just last week with the generous support of the Bill &

Melinda Gates Foundation.

Finally, we have a responsibility to listen to both fans and critics,

and engage in a constructive dialog that will help us fulfill all of

these missions. That is why I am here today. And we don’t just listen to our audiences and our critics, we provide a platform for their

voices to be heard. That is why tonight BET will premiere the first

of a three-part news special, Hip Hop vs. America, a wide-ranging,

insightful discussion of the impact of hip hop on our culture. For

nearly three decades, Viacom has created compelling, entertaining

and, yes, sometimes controversial programming. But as you will

see in this clip from Hip Hop vs. America, we intend to continue

to engage our audiences in a productive dialog and create programming that reflects our dynamic popular culture.

[Video clip shown.]

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dauman follows:]
19
20
21
22
23
24

Mr. RUSH. Our next witness is Mr. Edgar Bronfman, Jr., president and CEO of Warner Music Group. Warner Music Group recently separated from Time Warner, Inc., and owns the hip hop

label Asylum Records under the independent label group. Mr.

Bronfman, thank you for coming. You have 5 minutes for an opening statement.

STATEMENT OF EDGAR BRONFMAN, JR., CHAIRMAN AND CEO,

WARNER MUSIC GROUP, NEW YORK, NY

Mr. BRONFMAN. Thank you, Chairman Rush, and Ranking Member Stearns, and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the

men and women of Warner Music Group, I want to thank you for

inviting me to testify here today. We at Warner recognize that we

have a responsibility for the content we distribute and present to

the public. Mr. Chairman, we welcome your convening this hearing

and we hope it will allow us to engage in a thoughtful approach,

a dialog among artists, media companies, community leaders and

public officials, that is best able to examine an issue of importance

and civic interest.

How we grapple with issues of humanity, including race and gender, ultimately comes to define what we, as a nation, stand for and

who we, as a people, are. The history of our country is, in one

sense, the unfolding story of how we have dealt with these issues.

Often, artists who deal with the topics of race and gender in their

works are seen as not only casting a spotlight on those issues but

sometimes as being part of the problem themselves. Creative works

in any medium, not just music, can be controversial. In fact, they

are often intentionally controversial in order to shed light on a social problem and to try to bring about much needed change. Protest

art, whether music, literature, or the visual media has played a

long and distinguished role in the history of our country.

But we also recognize that some creative expression is capable of

being more than controversial. Some creative expression can be offensive. At the same time, we recognize that sensibilities are individual by their very nature and what may be offensive or inappropriate to some is important and necessary to others. As a result,

when evaluating the content we release the balance we have to

strike requires us on the one hand to protect and defend an artist’s

freedom of expression. That is an activity we see as supporting not

only our own business but also our Nation’s principles. At the same

time, we know that we must consider and very carefully consider

the impact on our society of the content that we are offering to the

public.

Striking the appropriate balance among these often conflicting

values, interests, and concerns is a complex and ongoing challenge,

and it is also a moving target. In the 1950s many people were

deeply offended by Elvis Presley, and a decade later many more

were scandalized by the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. At various

points in time, even entire musical genres such as Rock and Roll,

Rhythm and Blues and Jazz were branded as the work of the devil.

Thankfully, as years have gone by, those perceptions have been altered.

Public tastes and distastes wax and wane, which is why it is impossible to apply a uniform standard to any form of creative ex-
25

pression. However, to try and maintain our obligation as a responsible corporate citizen while dealing with these very complex challenges, we have developed and continue to evolve a set of practices

to guide us. I would like to give you a brief overview of our practices regarding content. They begin with the creative process itself.

The executives at our record labels maintain an ongoing relationship with our artists and their music. Our aim is not to create art

or to censor it, but rather to assure that our artists are aware of

the potential impact of what they have created.

We are very careful to consider any potentially offensive content,

including matters of race, national or ethnic origin, religion, age,

gender, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability. We also

evaluate the societal context, cultural value and artistic merit of

the creative work, as well as the reputation, background, personal

history, and intent of the artist, as well as how the work relates

to, and compares with other works. We label our content as explicit

using RIAA guidelines to alert the public, especially parents and

guardians of young people to the presence of explicit content.

Additionally, we offer edited versions of label product to our retail, broadcast and digital partners, so as to broaden the choices

available to consumers. But reviewing our content is not a simple

job for many reasons, not the least of which is that there are no

absolutes. Every day we grapple with finding the right balance.

Different people draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable in different places. What is acceptable when it comes to creative expression is often determined by our age or class, our education or religion, our cultural surroundings, perspective or profession to name but a few of the influences on our individual attitudes, and the line keeps shifting.

As I mentioned earlier, it is abundantly clear that what is deeply

offensive to some people at a given moment in history can become

with the passage of time not only acceptable but in some cases revered. So the message I with to convey to you today is this, we recognize our responsibility with respect to our content. It is one we

do not take lightly. Meeting that responsibility requires a delicate

balance of many complex and difficult issues, one that only be

achieved through a constructive dialog among artists, the industry

and the communities we live in and serve. And we are committed

to being a strong and thoughtful partner in that dialog. Thank you,

Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bronfman follows:]

STATEMENT OF EDGAR BRONFMAN, JR.

Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Stearns and members of the subcommittee, on

behalf of the men and women of Warner Music Group, I want to thank you for inviting me to testify here today.

We at Warner Music Group recognize that we have a responsibility for the content we distribute and present to the public.

Mr. Chairman, we welcome your convening this hearing and we hope it will allow

us to engage in a thoughtful approach—a dialogue among artists, media companies,

community leaders and public officials—that is best able to examine an issue of importance and civic interest.

How we grapple with issues of humanity, including race and gender, ultimately

comes to define what we, as a nation, stand for and who, as a people, we are.

The history of our country is, in one sense, the unfolding story of how we’ve dealt

with these issues.
26

Often, artists who deal with the topics of race and gender in their works are seen

not only as casting a spotlight on those issues but sometimes as being part of the

problem themselves.

Creative works in any medium—not just music—can be controversial. In fact,

they are often intentionally controversial in order to shed light on a social problem

and to try to bring about much-needed change. Protest art—whether music, literature or the visual media—has played a long and distinguished role in the history

of the United States, dating back to our Revolution.

But we also recognize that some creative expression is capable of being more than

controversial. Some creative expression can be offensive. At the same time, we recognize that sensibilities are individual by their very nature and what may be offensive or inappropriate to some is important and necessary to others.

As a result, when evaluating the content we release, the balance we have to strike

requires us, on the one hand, to protect and defend an artist’s freedom of expression. That’s an activity we see as supporting not only our business, but also our nation’s principles. At the same time, we know that we must consider—very carefully

consider—the impact on our society of the content that we are offering to the public.

Striking the appropriate balance among these often-conflicting values, interests

and concerns is a complex and ongoing challenge. And it is also a moving target.

In the fifties, many people were deeply offended by Elvis Presley and a decade later

many more were scandalized by The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. At various

points in time, even entire musical genres such as Rock and Roll, Rhythm & Blues

and Jazz were branded as the work of the devil. Thankfully, as years have gone

by, those perceptions have been altered.

Public tastes and distastes wax and wane, which is why it is impossible to apply

a uniform standard to any form of creative expression. However, to try and maintain our obligation as a responsible corporate citizen while dealing with these very

complex challenges, we’ve developed and continue to evolve a set of practices to

guide us.

I’d like to give you a brief overview of our practices regarding our content.

They begin with the creative process itself. The executives at our record labels

maintain an ongoing relationship with our artists and their music. Our aim is not

to create art or to censor it, but rather to ensure that our artists are aware of the

potential impact of what they’ve created.

We very carefully consider any potentially offensive content, including matters of

race, national or ethnic origin, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation or physical

or mental disability.

We also evaluate the societal context, cultural value and artistic merit of the creative work, as well as the reputation, background, personal history and intent of the

artist, as well as how the work relates to, and compares with, other works.

We label our content as ‘‘explicit’’ using RIAA guidelines to alert the public—especially, parents and guardians of children and young people—to the presence of explicit content.

Additionally, we offer edited versions of labeled product to our retail, broadcast

and digital partners, so as to broaden the choices available to consumers.

But reviewing our content is not a simple job. For many reasons. Not the least

of which is that there are no absolutes. Every day we grapple with finding the right

balance.

Different people draw the line between ‘‘acceptable’’ and ‘‘unacceptable’’ in different places. What’s ‘‘acceptable’’ when it comes to creative expression is often determined by our age or class, our education or religion, our cultural surroundings,

perspective or profession to name but a few of the influences on our individual attitudes. And the line keeps shifting.

As I mentioned earlier, it is abundantly clear that what is deeply offensive to

some people at a given moment in history can become, with the passage of time,

not only acceptable but revered.

So the message I wish to convey to you today is this: we recognize our responsibility with respect to our content. It is one we do not take lightly. Meeting that responsibility requires a delicate balance of many complex and difficult issues, one that

can only be achieved through a constructive dialogue among artists, the industry

and the communities we live in and serve.

We are committed to being a strong and thoughtful voice in that dialogue.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman. Now we will recognize the president and CEO of the Universal Music Group, Mr.

Doug Morris. The Universal Music Group owns Interscope Records,
27

one of the most prominent, ground breaking hip hop recording labels in the world. And at the conclusion of Mr. Morris’ opening

statement, we will have to recess because there is a vote on the

floor, and we will reconvene—there are four votes on the floor, and

we will reconvene immediately at the conclusion of those four

votes. I thank you for your patience as we go over to vote upon the

conclusion of Mr. Morris’ statement. Mr. Morris, you are recognized. Thank you and welcome.

STATEMENT OF DOUG MORRIS, CHAIRMAN AND CEO,

UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, NEW YORK, NY

Mr. MORRIS. Thank you, Chairman Rush. Thank you, Congressman Stearns. Thank you, Congressmen and women who are

present here today. My name is Doug Morris, and I am chairman

and CEO of the Universal Music Group. Thank you for this opportunity to be part of a national dialog on the impact of music in our

lives and on our society. I certainly am not a stranger to the subject matter of this hearing. Lyrics and contents of songs are something that I have discussed with artists and media executives a

great many times over too many years. I remember talking about

it with my own parents and then with my kids as part of the inevitable tug between parents and teenagers.

There are problems in our communities, and it would be disingenuous to act as if music and the media have no influence on

our culture.

The question that my colleagues and I regularly wrestle with is

what we should do when an artist chooses to push the envelope.

How can we balance the artist’s right to express himself or herself

with our responsibility to parents, employees, and society at large?

These are really important issues, and we thank the chairman for

providing such a prominent forum to further this conversation.

First some context. My company’s music catalogue covers everything from Motown and Mozart to U2, Pavarotti, Reba McEntire,

and Common. We distribute titles that range from High School Musical to Cornel West’s recent CD about contemporary society.

Rap is but a small part of Universal’s total release schedule each

year. Universal’s mission, my mission, is to offer music fans around

the world a selection of voices and sounds from as diverse and dynamic a group of artists as possible, knowing full well that not everyone will like or appreciate every artist or every work by every

artist. The reason I like working with artists is because they look

at the world a little differently than you and I. Their unique perspective pushes us to consider things we might not otherwise even

consider.

From its inception rap has always been one of the most reflective

genres in our culture. Perhaps it is the artist’s willingness to hold

up for review and scrutiny the more disturbing elements of the

human condition. There has been a great deal of discussion about

three particularly incendiary words sometimes used in rap, the B,

H, and N words. I should point out that the overwhelming majority

of the music in the Universal catalogue does not contain those

words. Some rappers do use highly charged words, and that of

course has led to this debate. From rappers themselves—like

Chamillionaire in his new song which is quite funny, it is called
28

the Hip Hop Police—discussions on Oprah and BET, to op-eds, the

words used by some are prompting a very important dialog that

will tell us some things about ourselves, our society now, and the

future of our society.

While I am the chairman of my company, the artists’ words are

certainly not my words. I have not lived their lives. I did not grow

up in their homes or neighborhoods, and I certainly do not wish to

control their emotions or their opinions. Much of the music is made

by young people, many struggling to find their way. Like many

young people their age they are rebellious, angry, filled with testosterone. Unfortunately, many of us grew up to be our parents.

Maybe not unfortunately, but that is a fact. Their words reflect

this. Often times the words are the most incisive commentaries on

the problems plaguing our communities.

I don’t take credit for the observations and expressions made in

the songs that we love, nor for songs that contain lyrics that you

and I may find offensive, but I do have a compact with every artist

that we sign that I will support their art and I will support their

right to express themselves. Importantly, this commitment extends

to the public as well. Whether it is parents, fans or critics, if artists

choose to use explicitly highly charged words, we will sticker the

song with a parental advisory label. We are committed to insuring

that music buyers get a heads up when a song contains words or

themes that might not be suitable for all audiences.

The people at our record labels who reviewed the lyrics come

from different walks of life. Their decisions are not made in a vacuum. Context is important. The cultural climate has an impact.

There are regular conversations with retail outlets, radio programmers, and TV executives. And if the labels decide to sticker a song,

edited versions are typically made available for retail as well as

radio and television. If a work contains a parental advisory sticker

our record companies follow the RIAA guidelines that limit when

and how we market our music. In other words, we do not market

explicit lyrics anywhere near young people.

We believe we mostly get it right through the sticker process and

by making available edited editions, sanitized versions that address

the feedback that we get from consumers and our distribution partners. I opened my remarks today by talking about the national discussion taking place about the impact of music in our culture and

our responsibilities to the company. I think it is really a healthy

one for all concerned. As we debate this issue, I am mindful of an

important principle.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Morris, you have exceeded your time. Please conclude your comments. We do have to go vote so we have got just

a couple more—as a matter of fact, the time is up for us to go vote.

We got to run over there before they bang the gavel, so would you

please bring your comments to a close, please? Please bring your

comments to a close.

Mr. MORRIS. Certainly. I will just finish. I have one last paragraph. We pay a price for the first amendment. The price includes

allowing highly charged words and images in our music even if

they sometimes offend and cause pain. But consider the alternative. We pay a price but it is insignificant compared to the ability to speak our minds. I thank you today for inviting us.
29

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morris follows:]
30
31
32
33
34
35

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. The subommittee stands in recess until

the conclusion of the last vote. We have got four votes. We will

begin again immediately after the conclusion of the fourth vote.

[Recess.]

Mr. RUSH. This subcommittee is called to order again. Let me

first of all remind the witnesses that your full written statement

will be entered into the record. If you can summarize your statements in a matter of 5 minutes, then that would be good. We have

not had a problem so far. I think that we have been very good as

it relates to not going over the 5 minutes, and I really respect and

acknowledge that.

I want to call now to testify before the subcommittee Mr. Alfred

C. Liggins III. He is the president and CEO of Radio One. Radio

One is a minority-owned radio station and it is the seventh-largest

radio broadcaster and largely targets African-Americans with

urban-based programming. Welcome, Mr. Liggins, and please take

5 minutes for an opening statement.

STATEMENT OF ALFRED C. LIGGINS III, PRESIDENT AND CEO,

RADIO ONE, INC., LANHAM, MD

Mr. LIGGINS. Thank you, Chairman Rush and Ranking Member

Stearns and members of the subcommittee for allowing me to testify here today. For those of you who I have not met, let me formally introduce myself. I am Alfred Liggins III, chief executive officer of Radio One Incorporated. Radio One Incorporated is currently

the largest media company in the United States that primarily targets African-Americans. Our media platform includes radio, print,

satellite, Internet and our nationally distributed cable channel, TV

One. Our Radio One network currently consists of 60 radio stations

and can be found in 19 mostly large cities around the Nation.

Three of our stations serve the Detroit market with music and talk

formats including the first nationally syndicated black talk network. Five of our stations in Dallas and Houston provide music formats including our innovative contemporary inspirational format,

which can now be heard on 12 FM radio stations across the country

including Charlotte and Augusta.

However, those numbers do not really paint the full picture of

who Radio One is. Radio One takes its responsibility to serve its

communities very seriously. For this reason, the content broadcast

on Radio One stations is a product and reflection of the audiences

we serve. We at Radio One pride ourselves on our close-knit relationships with our listening audience, and we and view them as

members of our extended family. This causes us to be responsive

to and engaged in the many public affairs issues facing the local

communities where we broadcast.

Just within the last week, two of our popular radio DJs who host

shows with a hip hop format, one of whom can be heard in Dallas

and Augusta and one of whom can he heard in Detroit, played an

instrumental role in bringing national attention to the issues faced

by the six black teenagers known as the Jena 6. We are proud to

say that the efforts of many of our local radio stations to raise

awareness of the Jena 6 case and organize bus caravans helped

lead thousands of citizens, I think 50,000 citizens, to journey to

Louisiana and played a pivotal role in making the rally for justice
36

in Jena such a resounding success. Also last week in response to

the senseless violence that is currently plaguing Philadelphia and

causing the city to lead the Nation in homicides, our local station

there, Praise 103.9, organized a sold-out gospel concert featuring

Yolanda Adams and Les Brown at Sharon Baptist Church, focusing

on the theme, black life has value. We broadcast the concert live

and also had personalities from our hip hop station in attendance

to show their support for this important message.

I mention these events because they represent Radio One’s commitment to our audience and are important to truly understanding

who we are as a company. I applaud the subcommittee and Chairman Rush in particular for tackling this important topic. Throughout the course of our Nation’s history, there have been many debates and differing opinions regarding musical content, freedom of

speech and what constitutes art. Some have claimed the Bible is

too violent, that Mark Twain is too racist, and I am willing to bet

100 years from now we will still be debating these important

issues.

When it comes to hip hop music, some may choose to focus on

particular artists or music that they found objectionable and I believe that that sort of debate is healthy and ultimately good for our

society. However, it should be noted that hip hop music is not representative of the bulk of the content that we at Radio One provide.

Only a small minority, 14 out of 60 total radio stations, have an

urban contemporary format and they play hip hop music which

often reflects the realities that many of these audiences face and

observe in their daily lives.

Radio One is also not in charge of creating content or in the business of censorship or determining what is in good or bad taste.

However, while other media platforms do not have public interest

obligations, as the members of this subcommittee know and are

well aware, we are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. Radio One has always taken great care to comply with

FCC guidelines and standards in regards to content. In fact, it

should be pointed out that of all the music platforms available to

listeners today, only broadcast radio is required to take steps to

protect our listeners.

It is Radio One’s policy that no song can be broadcast over the

radio until it is listened to and the content is reviewed. Also, every

Radio One station has a program director who is directly responsible for the music that is broadcast on that station. Each of our

radio stations receive radio edit versions of songs which if necessary are further edited consistent with FCC regulations and local

community standards. Our program directors participate in a conference call every other week moderated by our senior vice president of programming to discuss the content of music playing on our

radio stations.

Part of the success of Radio One is based on the fact that we as

a company respond to the variety and diversity of musical tastes

of our audiences. If Radio One did not play hip hop music, we

would not be serving our audience. Radio in many ways is a reflection of its community and what its listeners want to hear. We pride

ourselves on being local broadcasters with the emphasis on ‘‘local.’’

It is broadcasters that offer the localism that communities need
37

and deserve. While hip hop music is many different things to many

different people, it is important to remember this revolutionary art

form has created a multitude of opportunities and economic benefits for those who may not otherwise have had such an opportunity.

For example, Snoop Dogg’s success has allowed him to create a

football league intended to attract inner city youth to football and

not gangs, and David Banner has successfully used his star power

to raise funds and increase visibility for the victims of Hurricane

Katrina, which we participated in. We at Radio One are proud of

our track record and are committed to serving the needs of our diverse audience and being responsible broadcasters.

Again, I thank you for allowing me to testify before the subcommittee today and I look forward to answering any questions

that you might have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Liggins follows:]

TESTIMONY OF ALFRED C. LIGGINS III

Thank you Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Stearns, and members of the subcommittee for allowing me to testify here today.

For those of you I have not met, let me formally introduce myself. I am Alfred

Liggins, chief executive officer of Radio One, Inc. Radio One is currently the largest

media company in the United States that primarily serves African-Americans. Our

media platform includes radio, print, satellite, Internet and our nationally distributed cable channel, TV One.

Our Radio One network currently consists of 60 radio stations and can be found

in 19 cities around the nation. Taken together we reach over 12 million listeners

across the country. Three of our stations serve the Detroit market with music and

talk formats, including the first nationally syndicated Black Talk Network. Five of

our stations in Dallas and Houston provide music formats, including our innovative

Contemporary Inspirational format which can now be heard on 12 FM stations

across the country. The Contemporary Inspirational format can also be heard in

Charlotte, where we have two stations, and Augusta, where we have five stations.

However, those numbers do not really paint the full picture of who Radio One is.

Radio One takes its responsibility to serve its communities very seriously. For this

reason, the content broadcast on Radio One stations is a product and reflection of

the audiences we serve. We at Radio One pride ourselves on our close knit relationships with our listening audience and view them as members of our extended family. This causes us to be responsive to and engaged in the many public affairs issues

facing the local communities where we broadcast.

How we serve our audiences can be summarized with two recent examples. Just

within the last week two of our popular radio DJs who host shows with a hip hop

format, one of whom can be heard in Dallas and Augusta and one of whom can be

heard in Detroit, played an instrumental role in bringing national attention to the

issues faced by six black teenagers known as the Jena 6. We are proud to say that

the efforts of many of our local radio stations to raise awareness of the Jena 6 case

and organize bus caravans helped lead thousands of citizens to journey to Louisiana,

including the two DJs referred to above, and played a pivotal role in making the

rally for justice in Jena such a resounding success.

Also, last week, in response to the senseless violence that is currently plaguing

Philadelphia, and causing the city to lead the Nation in homicides, our local station

Praise 103.9 organized a sold out gospel concert featuring Yolanda Adams and Les

Brown at Sharon Baptist Church focusing on the theme of Black Life Has Value.

We broadcast the concert live on 103.9 and also had personalities from our hip hop

station in attendance to show their support for this important message.

I mention these events because they represent Radio One’s commitment to our audience and are important to truly understanding who we are as a company. It is

important to note that music is only one element of how we serve and entertain our

listeners.

I applaud the Subcommittee, and Chairman Rush in particular, for tackling this

important topic. Throughout the course of our Nation’s history there have been

many debates and differing opinions regarding musical content, freedom of speech

and what constitutes art. Some have claimed the Bible is too violent, that Mark
38

Twain is too racist—and I am willing to bet 100 years from now we will still be

debating these important issues.

When it comes to hip hop, some may choose to focus on particular artists or music

that they find objectionable and I believe that sort of debate is healthy and ultimately good for our society. However, it should be noted that hip hop music is not

representative of the bulk of the content that we at Radio One provide. For instance,

the vast majority of our stations do not play hip hop at all. Only a small minority,

14 out of 60 total stations, have an urban contemporary format and they play hip

hop music which often reflects the realities that many in the audiences face and observe in their daily lives

Radio One is also not in charge of creating content, or in the business of censorship or determining what is in good or bad taste. However, while other media platforms do not have public interest obligations, as the members of this Subcommittee

are well aware, we are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, or

the FCC. Radio One has always taken great care to comply with FCC guidelines

and standards in regards to content. In fact, it should be pointed out, that of all

the music platforms available to listeners today only broadcast radio is required to

take steps to protect our listeners.

Furthermore, it is Radio One’s policy that no song can be broadcast over the radio

until it is listened to and the content reviewed. Every Radio One station has a program director who is directly responsible for the music that is broadcast on that station. Each of our radio stations receive radio edit versions of songs, which, if necessary, are further edited consistent with FCC regulations and local community

standards. Our program directors participate in a conference call every other week

moderated by our senior vice president of programming to discuss the content of

music playing on our stations.

That being said, part of the success of Radio One is based on the fact that we

as a company respond to the variety and diversity of musical tastes of our audiences. If Radio One did not play hip hop music we would not be serving our audience. Radio in many ways is a reflection of its community and what its listeners

want to hear. We pride ourselves on being local broadcasters, with the emphasis on

‘‘local.’’ It is broadcasters that offer the localism that communities need and deserve.

Furthermore, while hip hop music is many different things to many different people,

it is important to remember this revolutionary art form has created a multitude of

opportunities and economic benefits for those who may not otherwise have had such

an opportunity. Snoop Dogg’s success has allowed him to create a football league

intended to attract inner city youth to football, not gangs. And David Banner has

successfully used his star power to raise funds and increase visibility for the victims

of Hurricane Katrina.

We at Radio One are proud of our track record and are committed to serving the

needs of our diverse audience and being responsible broadcasters. Again, thank you

for allowing me to testify before this subcommittee today and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much.

Our next and final opening statement will come from Mr.

Strauss Zelnick, who is the chairman of the board of Take-Two

Interactive Software Incorporated. Take-Two owns Rockstar

Games, which makes the popular and controversial Grand Theft

Auto video game series, and I might add, other kinds of products

also.

Mr. Zelnick, welcome and please take 5 minutes for an opening

statement.

STATEMENT OF STRAUSS ZELNICK, CHAIRMAN OF THE

BOARD, TAKE TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, NEW YORK, NY

Mr. ZELNICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member

Stearns. I have submitted my testimony to the record so if I may,

I am going to speak somewhat less formally to the committee.

Chairman Rush, in the beginning you talked about forming a coalition of concern, compassion and commitment, and I think from

everyone’s comments today, I think it suggested we see the world
39

very much as you do. In fact, there is not a lot of diversity of comments here. I am the chairman, as you said, of Take-Two Interactive, one of the world’s largest independent publishers of interactive entertainment. Before that, I was the chief executive of a big

record company, BMG. Before that I was the president of a big

movie studio, 20th Century Fox, and I started my career in television at Columbia Pictures. As Representive Stearns said, our job

is to make hits. That is what I have had to do my whole career,

and we make hits by paying attention to what our consumers want

and delivering them a product that most people like. So in my career, my companies have not only put out products like Grand

Theft Auto but my companies have released movies like ‘‘Home

Alone’’ and been responsible for artists like Whitney Houston.

This is a committee that is partially focused on commerce. This

is a big business. While the music business has faced some declines

of late and the movie business has basically been flat, interactive

entertainment has been growing rapidly. Today it is an $18.5 billion industry. It is bigger than the box office in America and

around the world and we employ about 250,000 people. My own

company, which some people probably have never even heard of,

does over $1 billion a year in sales and we employ over 2,000 people around the world.

I take this topic really seriously. Like many others here, I have

children; I have three kids. My oldest took the subway to school

this morning in Brooklyn. I am really concerned about my kids’

safety, their opportunities, violence that they see around them and

that might affect them, and a culture of civility which seems pretty

stressed right now. So I agree that this shouldn’t be a discussion

about finger pointing. In fact, the evidence and common sense suggests that entertainment doesn’t create values and certainly doesn’t

create behavior. As the interactive entertainment business has

grown in the last 17 years, in fact per capita violence in America,

as stunning as it still is, is actually down 50 percent in those 17

years.

What is also pretty remarkable is all the entertainment we

produce is worldwide. It is a worldwide phenomenon but many of

the issues that we are discussing today are uniquely American

problems. So why are we so special? Well, the first is, sadly, there

is ready access to guns in America. Thirty-five percent of American

households have firearms. Despite our enormous wealth in this

country, there is inadequate educational opportunity. There is domestic abuse, there are drugs, there is gang activity and the list

goes on. I am also pleased that today’s discussion isn’t about the

first amendment. Everyone here agrees that the first amendment

must be protected. It seems to me that everyone here is proud that

we live in a country that guarantees freedom of speech, even

speech we don’t like.

So I think the discussion should be about what are we doing as

an industry to address social concerns and what are we doing when

we bring our entertainment products out. Well, what are we doing

in the interactive entertainment business? The first thing is, the

average age of our players is 33 and it is rising. The average age

of our purchasers is 39. Ninety-two percent of the industry’s releases are for family and teens. Only 8 percent are for adults. The
40

FTC, directed by this committee, reviewed our industry’s rating

system and said it is the most rigorous in the business. Eightyseven percent of parents are satisfied with our system and all of

our hardware has parental controls which are easy to use and encourage parents to make choices for their kids, and retailers comply with our system at least as effectively as cinema owners comply

with motion picture ratings.

So it seems to me the discussion should be about our responsibility, and I take that very seriously. We have three jobs to do at my

companies. We have to make great entertainment because frankly,

if we are not making hit entertainment that everyone wants to consume, we are not relevant and I wouldn’t be sitting here today. We

also make art. The reason I am in this business is not just entertainment and certainly not just to make money. I believe what we

do is art and that is our standard at all of our companies. If we

don’t believe it is art, we will not put it out. But art is in the eyes

of the beholder and some art that some people consider beautiful,

other people don’t even consider pretty or even tasteful or acceptable. And finally, we are in the business of business and that is

just a truth. We are in commerce and that is why we are all sitting

here and that is also why we are relevant.

I think there is an enormous line between entertainment and exploitation. We try to stand on the line of entertainment. Sometimes

we make mistakes. It is our job to be vigilant about those and to

correct them. And then when we make a product, we need to let

parents and consumers know what it is before they get it home so

they are not surprised and they don’t consume something that they

don’t want to consume. Having done that, having tried to meet

those standards, having reviewed our products, having played our

games, when we put them in the box, I stand behind them fully

and I take complete responsibility for what we put out.

I welcome our dialog today. Thank you for having me.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zelnick follows:]

STATEMENT OF STRAUSS ZELNICK

Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Stearns, and members of this subcommittee:

I welcome the opportunity to testify today. I do so as the father of three children,

as a concerned citizen, and as the recently-named chairman of an industry-leading

company that produces a broad spectrum of interactive entertainment.

Today, I hope to provide some perspective on a vital question: does entertainment

influence violent behavior in our society—or does it instead reflect a social environment that has become unacceptably violent? This question is complex—and the answers are elusive.

We in the entertainment industry must also ask ourselves: how should we balance

our right to free expression with our responsibility to avoid exposing children to inappropriate words and images?

Before considering those questions, let me address two common misperceptions

about our industry.

First, interactive entertainment is not predominantly consumed by young people.

In fact, the average age of our players is 33.

Second, there is no evidence—none—of a direct link between interactive entertainment and violent behavior.

We certainly can agree that the level of violence in America today is unacceptably

high. In 1990, the U.S. homicide rate was approximately 10 in 100,000. According

to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the rate dropped to 5.6 per 100,000 in 2006—

an improvement, to be sure, but far from ideal.

This period of declining violence coincides with the emergence and dramatic

growth of a new form of art and entertainment: the video game—clearly dem-
41

onstrating a lack of correlation between the consumption of our products and the

trend in violent behavior.

Then what is at the root of the unacceptably high level of violent behavior in

America today? Before we address this question, we must, at a minumum, acknowledge that entertainment produced in the U.S. is equally popular and available

worldwide—yet the per capita rate of violent crime in our country is vastly greater

than in any other developed nation.

What distinguishes us from our neighbors?

Nearly 35 percent of U.S. households have firearms, and our regulations regarding the licensing, registration and authorization of guns are among the most permissive in the world.

Other social forces must also be considered. A 1999 article entitled ‘‘The Epidemic

of Violence in America,’’ in the journal postgraduate medicine, cited several risk factors, such as: domestic abuse, weakening community values, an inadequate educational system, and gang activity.

Entertainment was not exempted from this list. While the article did not mention

music or interactive software, its author noted: ‘‘The average american child sees

more than 200,000 violent acts on television before age 15.’’

It is perhaps understandable that many citizens, frustrated by intractable problems such as the widespread availability of guns, domestic abuse, failing schools,

fractured communities and gang activity, would be tempted to fixate on a target

that seems somewhat more manageable: entertainment.

However, restricting ideas on the printed page, on the movie screen, on the

evening news, in audio recordings, or in interactive entertainment will not eradicate

violence in our society—any more than covering up a mirror will eliminate the reality it reflects.

The fact is, all forms of entertainment may contain words or images that could

be considered violent, and to some extent they always have. That is because artists

have—and indeed must have—the freedom to explore all aspects of society—the

good, the bad and the controversial.

Some further believe that exposure to depictions of violence can play an important

role in the development of an individual’s moral and social outlook. As Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit wrote in 2001, ‘‘Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent

theme of culture as anyone familiar with classic fairy tales is aware.’’

I think the issues involving entertainment and violence might be clearer if we review the story line of one of our products—grand theft auto: san andreas. It is often

the case—sadly—that an artwork’s most vocal critics are those who have not seen

it. Playing san andreas, one finds that this cinematic interactive work is more complex than most novels or movies—and that there are serious consequences for violent acts.

Just as the Sopranos on television, or Goodfellas in film, depict violent behavior

as part of a dramatic narrative involving crime and redemption, so does Grand

Theft Auto: San Andreas.

And, unlike tv, movies, or books, grand theft auto includes instant feedback that

demonstrates the dire results of anti-social acts: the player immediately increases

his ‘‘wanted level,’’ which can make the game not just hard, but actually impossible

to play. At the highest level, the national guard is mobilized against the player and

there is no escape from the long arm of the law. There are also explicit rejections

of drug use and racism—and a strong moral center in the African American hero.

That said, the entertainment industry must operate in a responsible manner. We

are in the business of making art and entertainment, and engaging consumers. To

achieve these goals, we aim to attract uniquely talented individuals and encourage

them to express freely their passion and creativity.

We must weigh our creative impulses and commercial goals with the ballast of

social responsibility. While we do not create—and cannot prevent—violence, our

companies must work to ensure that society’s youngest, most vulnerable and most

impressionable members are not exposed to inappropriate subject matter in our

products.

I am proud of the measures that my company and our industry have taken to ensure that our products are enjoyed responsibly by appropriate audiences.

• First, our industry produces a broad range of products, so that consumers of all

ages have access to compelling, engaging and age-appropriate entertainment. I know

that adult-themed entertainment draws a disproportionate level of media attention.

However, titles rated ‘‘M for Mature’’ made up only 15 percent of total sales last

year, as compared to 85 percent for those with youth-oriented ratings.
42

• My own company publishes a wide range of products, including ‘‘E’’ rated titles

such as carnival games, rockstar games presents table tennis, dora the explorer and

sports titles—just as major movie studios offer family fare as well as ‘‘R’’ rated

films.

• Second, the interactive entertainment industry operates within a voluntary rating system that is rigorous and independent. An April 2007 report by the Federal

trade commission found that a high proportion of parents use—and are very satisfied with—that system. The report also found that retailers enforced the ratings as

effectively as the movie industry. Our product packages also include content

descriptors to inform consumers—and especially parents—as to the specific subject

matter of the products.

• Third, we market our products in a thoughtful and responsible manner. We design our advertising, marketing plans and media buys to reach audiences of the appropriate age group, in accordance with the ESRB’s rules.

• Fourth, today’s interactive entertainment hardware offers robust control options

that enable parents to limit a child’s access to mature content. The controls also

work for R-rated movies, which means that these consoles provide parents with

tools that are not typically available on commercial DVD, cd or mp3 players.

• Fifth, the ESRB produces educational advertisements regarding the ratings system, and has entered into partnerships with state attorneys general and the national parent teacher association to educate and inform parents. Individual companies also are doing their part: Take-Two runs banner ads for the ESRB on our

homepage.

In my view, entertainment companies make a decision with every release, and

that decision must be well-considered, thoughtful and sound. At Take-Two, every

product is reviewed by members of top management—myself included. We will not

release a title that does not meet our standards: as art, as entertainment, and as

a socially responsible product. Once we do release a product, I stand behind it fully

and completely.

We aim to distinguish creative and compelling story telling that advances artistic

expression from subject matter that gratuitously exploits or glorifies violence. And

all of our products need to be rated and marketed appropriately.

We all must continue to be thoughtful and responsible citizens, parents and executives. My children walked to school in our Nation’s largest city this morning.

They are listening to me right now. So I share your fundamental concern about violence in america. I share your concern that we do everything we can to protect our

youth. And along with those concerns, i also have confidence in my conviction: that

the interactive entertainment industry will remain vigilant in its efforts to balance

art and entertainment with sound judgment, and our cherished and unfettered freedom of expression with social awareness, sensitivity and responsibility. Thank you

very much.

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank all of our witnesses. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes of questioning.

I am going to begin my questioning and I am going to address

it to each and every one of you. A prominent hip hop executive and

artist, Mr. Russell Simmons, and others have suggested that the

recording industry and artists ban or refrain from the use of hateful words or hateful speech, the ‘‘N’’ word, the ‘‘B’’ word, the ‘‘W’’

word, other words that are hateful as they depict racial and religious and sexual orientation. Do you believe that this is a viable,

quote, unquote, business model? Can your industries and your corporations profit from such a ban or indeed such a pledge? I will

start with Mr. Dauman.

Mr. DAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, in our standards and practice

which we have had in place for some time, we do in fact ban those

words, and when we have music videos submitted to us as we consider them for airing, if they contain those words we will not air

them. We will air them if they get edited and we choose them for

creative reasons but it is part of our standards and practices applicable across our networks to ban those words and others that are
43

derogatory terms from a racial point of view, gender, sexual orientation and many other reasons.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Bronfman.

Mr. BRONFMAN. Well, distinct from Mr. Dauman’s role as the distributor of content, we at Warner Music are creators of content,

and we don’t think that banning expression is an appropriate approach. We do of course sticker any content that would include the

words that you described, the ‘‘N’’ word, the ‘‘B’’ word, the ‘‘H’’

word. No content goes out of Warner Music with those words contained that doesn’t explicitly warn parents that there is explicit

content, and we make edited versions for distribution partners like

Mr. Liggins and Mr. Dauman who standards and practices would

not carry those words or explicit versions of the content that we

create. But hateful language, sir, is in the eye of the beholder. It

also is important that it is contextualized, and it is important that

our artists have the opportunity to express the frustration that

they have with the problems in their communities with which they

live, and if you ask me were I fortunate enough to be in a position

many years ago whether I would have distributed or stood behind

the material of Lenny Bruce, I would have said yes. I think he is

a legitimate artist who did use hateful words in a different context

to express his opinion and that is why I said, I think this is a very

contextual argument, but as I said, at the end of the day as much

as we understand people’s concerns and frustrations with the use

of this language, it is very difficult as a producer of content to censor or limit artists and so what we choose to do is to sticker that

product so that parents and other guardians can make informed

decisions about the content that we create.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Morris?

Mr. MORRIS. I agree with Mr. Bronfman. I think they are horrible, evil words. I would never ban any word. If I can digress one

little bit, Mr. Chairman, what I think bothers everyone on this

committee is the feeling that standards within the companies have

deteriorated, and that is what the benefit of this meeting for me

really is, that we will take these discussions back to our company

and we will ask them, do you feel the standards are very different,

that they are lower than they were 10 years ago or 20 years ago,

and if so, can we improve them. I don’t think you can improve anything to ban three words from any kind of musical or theatrical

production. It just makes ‘‘The B * * * * is Back’’ by Elton John—you

are not going to ban that song so it is—but I do think we will take

this back with us and deal with it in the proper manner.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Liggins, I have about 5 seconds. Can you just——

Mr. LIGGINS. I guess if somebody like Russell Simmons was able

to convince artists not to use those words, there would still be a

coalition or a faction of renegades that, through technology, are increasingly able to even bypass the record companies and get

straight to the consumers through digital technology. So I think

even if you have an effort by everybody up here and Radio and

Viacom, you are still going to have a leak in terms of exposure to

the consumer.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Zelnick?

Mr. ZELNICK. I suppose I have less than 5 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I don’t think a ban is a good plan. As Mr. Bronfman said, it
44

depends on the context. If we are portraying good guys and bad

guys, maybe the only way you can portray a bad guy is to put terrible language in that person’s mouth. But I am very much opposed

to glorifying those kinds of stereotypes and images. And interestingly, this is a conversation we have at our companies all the time.

We had a conversation about one of those words you mentioned

quite specifically, utterly without regard to this hearing, a couple

of weeks ago. Degrading words and images shouldn’t be glorified,

they shouldn’t be put in the mouths of characters that people are

going to admire. But it is possible that a work of art can’t possibly

be seen as realistic if we eliminate every allusion to what is actually going on in the streets. So it is a complicated discussion but

no, I wouldn’t suggest we ban the words.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes the ranking member, Mr.

Stearns, for 5 minutes.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Morris, did I hear

you just say that you would not ban any word? I thought you just

said that. Mr. Morris?

Mr. MORRIS. I am trying to think if there is any word that I

would ban.

Mr. STEARNS. What I understand you to say is you would not ban

any word, which means in this case Universal Music Group under

your leadership would not ban any word in any of the publications.

Is what you implied? That is what your statement was.

Mr. MORRIS. Well, it depends on the context it would be used in,

Congressman.

Mr. STEARNS. Well, I am going to hand out to you some lyrics.

It took me 30 seconds to pull up some lyrics for 50 Cent, and you

can read just the first two paragraphs of that. It has, as the chairman mentioned, it has the ‘‘F’’ word, the ‘‘S’’ word, the ‘‘N’’ word.

We are also giving you lyrics we picked up in 15 seconds, Cameron

lyrics, which talk about explicit sex, and my question to you, in

your mind, is this free speech to use these words and to talk about

explicit sex in the song the way it is? You are welcome to read a

few of those lyrics.

Mr. MORRIS. Yes, in my mind, this is free speech and this is

what he wanted to say. It is not my place in this life to tell him

what to say.

Mr. STEARNS. And you feel that when a person uses those words

which almost everybody in this room would be appalled——

Mr. TOWNS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STEARNS. No, I will not yield.

Mr. TOWNS. I wanted to get a copy of what you are talking about.

Mr. STEARNS. Oh, sure, I will be glad to give you a copy. I think

everybody in the room would be appalled to hear those words in

a public forum yet you are saying here today that you would support and not ban any of that word in any of your publications at

Universal Music is what you are saying.

Mr. MORRIS. That is correct, Congressman. I believe he has the

right to say whatever he wants. That is my point of view.

By the way, in my testimony as I said before, all of this is reviewed by different committees within the company.

Mr. STEARNS. Yes. Mr. Bronfman, you said in your opening statement that you don’t believe in any absolutes. Is that correct? You
45

used those words, ‘‘I don’t believe in any absolutes,’’ and you go on

to talk about this contextual argument and everything has to be

framed and you talked about the Beatles and Elvis Presley, and I

think Mr. Liggins talked about Mark Twain, but in your opinion,

there is really no absolutes at all in your business that you can

have the total freedom for an artist to say or do anything they

want with no absolutes in terms of our culture?

Mr. BRONFMAN. Well, I think that it is difficult to draw an absolute. We do review work. We are in constant dialog with our artists, and as I said, this material that you are referring to here specifically, Congressman, does get stickered. It is not generally available.

Mr. STEARNS. But can’t you go on satellite radio and hear this

and it is not stickered, it is not deleted, and all these words on satellite radio you can hear? Isn’t that true?

Mr. BRONFMAN. Satellite radio is regulated by someone other

than——

Mr. STEARNS. I understand, but Warner Music publishes this. In

fact, the Cameron lyrics is published by Warner Music in which it

talks all about explicit sex, and so you said that this is OK, we will

publish it, but if it comes to the radio, we will dub it out, but when

it gets on satellite radio it is the full information, isn’t it?

Mr. BRONFMAN. There may be explicit channels on satellite radio.

You can listen to their comedy channels, you can listen to any

number of things where language like this is found, Mr. Chairman,

and I think what is important also to remember is that while the

language that you might find offensive here and in fact many people including myself might find offensive in content that is produced by any number of entertainment companies, that is not true

for everyone, and the relevance of this content in some communities is very different than——

Mr. STEARNS. Oh, I know. You can go across the spectrum and

find people that have different tastes, and I understand that, but

you as a publishing executive, you are saying that you are going

to not censor anything if it has the ‘‘N’’ word in it or the ‘‘F’’ word

or the ‘‘S’’ word or explicit sex. In your opinion today, that is OK

and it is a freedom of expression.

Mr. BRONFMAN. That is not what I said nor is it what I have testified to, Congressman. What I said is to the question would I put

a ban on all work containing those words, I said no, and I wouldn’t.

Mr. STEARNS. Do you support the Cameron lyrics as free speech?

Mr. BRONFMAN. I do.

Mr. STEARNS. OK. So then you condone the words that are in

here as free speech?

Mr. BRONFMAN. I recognize my responsibility——

Mr. STEARNS. Even though the cultural abhorrence of what——

Mr. BRONFMAN. Congressman, I recognize that my role as a citizen and my role as a corporate executive are two different things.

Mr. STEARNS. OK. Here is a question for you, Mr. Bronfman and

Mr. Morris. Have you ever consulted with one of our artists about

lyrics that they should or should not put in their work?

Mr. BRONFMAN. The answer to that is yes.

Mr. STEARNS. Yes? Mr. Morris?

Mr. MORRIS. Yes.
46

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, before my time is off, it is possible

that I could go across the aisle to answer that same question

whether they consult with their artists about the lyrics that should

or should not be put in the work? Mr. Dauman?

Mr. DAUMAN. I do not. I trust programming decisions to the people who run our networks. As I mentioned in my prepared remarks, Debra Lee oversees BET networks and people below her,

Judy McGrath as well as people who run their networks, and I believe they do their job very responsibly.

Mr. STEARNS. So you have no interface then with the artists?

Mr. DAUMAN. I personally do not.

Mr. STEARNS. And Mr. Liggins?

Mr. LIGGINS. I don’t either. All of our programming is——

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Zelnick?

Mr. ZELNICK. Yes, the buck stops on my desk. I certainly do. I

do it all the time. Sometimes I annoy people when I do it.

Mr. STEARNS. So you will actually call the artist up himself

and——

Mr. RUSH. The gentleman’s time is up.

Mr. Butterfield is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This 5

minutes has a tendency of going so fast and so I am going to try

to read my question in the interest of time. Let me start with Mr.

Dauman. Thank you very much for coming forward today. You

have a great company. I know a lot about your company and thank

you so very much.

Mr. DAUMAN. Thank you.

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Viacom subsidiaries, according to our research, reaches over 500 million households worldwide and Viacom

owns the top music entertainment stations currently broadcasting

in this country. Do you think that your company goes far enough

with its standards and practices to ensure content is being properly

reviewed for offensive content before it is broadcast to these households or could those standards and practices be more rigorous so

as not to be derogatory to women or other individuals?

Mr. DAUMAN. We continually review our standards. We evolve

with the culture. We both reflect the culture and try to inform the

culture and we are very proud of that. Because we appeal to young

people, you mentioned our 500 million-plus viewers around the

world, we have a responsibility not only to the U.S. but around the

world as we reach young people. We are very proud of many of the

issues we have. I mean, for example, we talked about gaming, our

MTV youth site. We put out a free game on the Internet called

‘‘Darfur is Dying’’ which was downloaded 3 million times. So we

feel we have an important role and a very pro-social role in impacting youth today and we impact youth by entertaining them, and

then once we entertain them, we reach out to them. You can always do better. Domestically in our networks, just to give you an

idea, these are 24-hour-a-day networks. We run over 100,000 hours

of programming a year on just our major domestic networks, hundreds of thousands of hours across the globe, across all out networks.

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. But are you satisfied with——
47

Mr. DAUMAN. Some things slip by occasionally and we review

what occurs but if you look at the totality of what we do, we are

extremely proud.

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. But you are satisfied with your standards as

they are currently written?

Mr. DAUMAN. We believe we have appropriate standards. As I

said, we review them all the time and we have diverse group of employees reflecting their constituencies and they think about issues

that get brought up. We meet with our critics and we meet with

consumers, and I am satisfied we have a good process.

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Let me spend a couple of minutes with you,

Mr. Bronfman. Thank you very much also for coming, and I want

to equally salute your company for the work that you do as well.

Sir, you speak about Warner Music’s practices regarding content

and you say that your aim is not to create or censor art but to ensure that your artists are aware of the impact of their creation. But

what do you do, sir, in an instance where a young individual

doesn’t care about the impact of their music or the effect that it is

going to have on a certain portion of our society when their only

interest is making money and not in the social consequences of

their music? Can you help me with this?

Mr. BRONFMAN. Well, sir, it is very difficult to answer a hypothetical question. As I mentioned in my testimony, we review content and we review that content with an eye towards the personal

history of the artist, the artist’s history as a recording artist and

the context in which the piece of work is being created and we take

that responsibility seriously. It is very difficult to answer, as I said,

a hypothetical question and very difficult to determine sitting at a

time that a record is produced what its impact on society will be.

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Do you concede that there are artists that you

deal with who don’t care about societal consequences?

Mr. BRONFMAN. I think the majority of artists that we work with

are good American citizens who are primarily concerned with their

art. That is what they do. And I am not sure that is different in

any work or any genre.

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. All right. Mr. Morris, let me conclude with

your, sir. While the parental advisory label on music sold in stores

gives the consumer, be it a young person or a parent a heads-up

on the music, what more can be done to make sure that impressionable young minds are truly educated about the potential impact that music can have on their lives?

Mr. MORRIS. Well, this is a discussion we have endlessly at our

company, and——

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Please push the button, or pull it closer to you.

Thank you.

Mr. MORRIS. Would you repeat your question, Mr. Congressman?

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Yes. Let me phrase it this way. The parental

advisory label that is on your music that is sold in the stores gives

the consumer a heads-up, if you will, about what type of music

they are to expect, and my question is, what more can be done to

make sure that this young person is educated about the consequences of the music?

Mr. MORRIS. We are in continual discussions about how to improve getting that word out to the parents. As I said, all of our ex-
48

plicit music is stickered with an RIAA certified sticker, and it

shines out like a neon bulb. Then it is up to the parents to understand what it is in that. There is parental responsibility in all of

this.

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Yes, we all need to work together to better

educate our families about the consequence of the music.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. RUSH. The gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, is

recognized for 5 minutes.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to

our witnesses for bearing with us while we run to the floor and

vote and we thank you that you are hanging with us on this hearing because it is important, and the more I listen to you, the more

I think that what we are talking about nibbling around the edges

of the symptoms. We are not getting at the root causes, and Mr.

Rush and I visited for a few moments while we were off at votes

about, we may want to come back to you with some more questions

once we have heard from the next panel, and I agree with my colleague from New York that what we may have wanted was to have

that panel first and then come to you. And Mr. Chairman, if it is

agreeable with you, I would like the opportunity for us to come

back to them with written questions.

Mr. RUSH. Without objection, we will make sure that we have 30

days to submit written questions to the witnesses and we will ask

them to properly respond to the written questions.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate that.

We keep coming back to the things that I mentioned in my opening statement, that choices have consequences and that your standards are based on your core values from which your companies operate, and what I would like to know from each of you is how you

facilitate that. Mr. Bronfman is dealing with creators of the content. Mr. Dauman and Mr. Morris are deciding what they are going

to censor and put together. Mr. Liggins makes choices about what

he puts on the air, Mr. Zelnick, what he is going to drop into a

game, and I assume that most of you are either parents or grandparents, and you don’t make these choices in a vacuum, that you

have kind of an internal little thermometer more or less as you

look at different things and that is for you personally but I would

like to hear from you how you vet this within your company. Do

you have a committee, do you pull together your division heads? Is

it just a hey, we think this is going to make money or is there this

thoughtful process that goes into your choices, and I would like to

hear from you on that simply because I do think that we are talking about symptoms and causes when we look at the content. But

the other component of this is, you have that pressure of the Internet and many times I think some of you probably get blamed for

releasing an uncut version of something that gets put onto

YouTube or loaded into the Internet and then it is there for all the

world to see. So I want to hear from you each on standards and

kind of your best practices and also I would like to know, and you

may need to submit to me in writing and if you want to punt this

one and get back to me with a percentage, how much of your annual operating budget, annual operating budget are you spending

on education and charitable work and doing some goodwill in the
49

community to help fight the root causes that may lead some of

these content creators to write and create some of this content that

they are bringing forward. So we have got a minute and 10 seconds

left. Mr. Dauman, I will start with you.

Mr. DAUMAN. Let me start with your last point because we do

an awful lot. I mentioned some of the initiatives that we have

across out networks. Let me just talk about this week.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Very quickly.

Mr. DAUMAN. We put $2 million of airtime as well as $1 million

in cash to raise money for the Martin Luther King Memorial. This

Saturday on Nickelodeon, we are going off air on a ‘‘Let’s Just

Play’’ campaign where we are the only network who goes blank to

encourage kids to go play. We have any number of initiatives

across the globe——

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I am going to cut in and hand it to Mr.

Bronfman.

Mr. BRONFMAN. Congresswoman, I will get back to you on the

exact dollars that we spend but we have a number of initiatives

across the company that the company spends money on and then

further that our executives also invest in.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And best practices or vettings?

Mr. BRONFMAN. Yes, and then the process that we follow at the

company is our labels in accordance with the RIAA guidelines determine what is potentially going to be stickered.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Let us restate that. RIAA guidelines?

Mr. BRONFMAN. RIAA guidelines.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you for clarity.

Mr. BRONFMAN. That material, those lyrics——

Ms. BLACKBURN. I am going to punt to Mr. Morris, please.

Mr. MORRIS. Our system is very similar to Mr. Bronfman’s.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Thank you.

Mr. Liggins?

Mr. LIGGINS. We are regulated by the FCC so we are the only

entity that actually——

Mrs. BLACKBURN. All right. Mr. Zelnick?

Mr. ZELNICK. We have a quarterly product review process where

the creative team meets with the executive team to go through the

products and——

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Quarterly?

Mr. ZELNICK. Quarterly, every quarter, every product that is in

development. Our products take 2 or 3 years to develop. We have

ongoing discussions about what we think we should or shouldn’t do

creatively. As I said, we are opposed to glorifying——

Mrs. BLACKBURN. So it is a part of your everyday ongoing process?

Mr. ZELNICK. Every day, and before a game is released I look at

it, I play it——

Mrs. BLACKBURN. My time has expired. Mr. Chairman, thank

you and I yield back.

Mr. RUSH. And the Chair requests that the witnesses, would you

please put the full context of your responses to that question in

writing to the committee, please? Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gonzalez.
50

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My apologies to the chairman and to my colleagues for not being present

during the testimony, and to the witnesses, obviously we have to

be in five different places at one time and I apologize and I am

hoping that in your testimony you may have covered some of this

and I apologize again if in fact it is redundant.

But it seems there are some considerations here. First of all, you

have individuals that have raised this to a question of free speech,

first amendment, artistic expression and so on, and when we deal

with that, we all kind of retreat and we get kind of concerned. I

am not real sure that is true or not so the first question is, from

your perspective, the individuals that provide the videos, the music

and such, is it really an issue of first amendment, artistic expression, freedom of expression and so on? Is it really about censorship?

There was an article last week on the 19th in the Post and it was

about Reverend Coats being over with Black Entertainment Television and protesting and they said oh, nice try, reverend, but we

call that Talibanning, that’s censorship and such, and I just wondering from your perspective if that really is a factor in making

your decision about what you put out there. The other thing is, are

you factoring in that there is not as much control as to what young

people get to view, listen and download? It is a whole new age. It

is the age of squint TV. Your mobile devices, what we are doing

with those. Do you factor that in, that there is a tremendous audience out there that has expanded exponentially? People don’t have

control over what young people—it is one thing what you have at

home and you can supervise and such. The last thing, truly, it is

just a matter of dollars? If it is going to make money, does anything else really matter? Those are the three questions, and if you

can just real short answers, let us see if we can get through with

it, and we will start with the first gentleman. Thank you.

Mr. DAUMAN. Congressman, again we do listen to different voices

in the community. You mentioned Reverend Coats. We have met

with many, many people and we listen to critics and that informs

our programmers as to what they put out. I am not sure it is quite

appropriate to harass one of our executives at her home but that

is what we contend with. As far as the way we look at our content

and our mission, yes, we are here to make money. There is the

business part of show business. But we also use our power to entertain very responsibly in our view and we look for opportunities to

reach young people, and I do find it ironic that we run a company

and my colleagues run companies where there are standards and

practices, where there is a review, and we live in a world, as you

point out, where there is infinite ability on the part of young people, old people to access any content, objectionable or not. We try

to put it in context but there is a larger problem here that is not

just about the media, it is about societal problems and there is no

way to control all content whether we find it objectionable or not,

so the role that we play putting it in context is important.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Bronfman?

Mr. BRONFMAN. Congressman Gonzalez, I would say that the

first amendment and more importantly, freedom of artistic expression, is very important and remains very important to us. But at

the same time, and in my testimony I said that dose not absolve
51

us of our corporate responsibility. We cannot rest only on the fact

that our artists have a right to express themselves. I would also

say to you, sir, that in terms of distribution, it is dramatic how our

works are now available legally and illegally on almost every possible distribution device and distribution network. On many of

those networks, our work sits side by side with all kinds of pornography and other kinds of reprehensible content that has not been

overseen, laws are not being observed, and frankly, we could use

your help in trying to police the amount of pirated material that

is circulating everywhere including on Sprint devices and any other

mobile or online device. And lastly, I would admit to the same

truth that Mr. Dauman did which is yes, we run a business, yes,

we have owners. We are charged with making a profit, but nowhere in our core values does making a profit come ahead of being

proud of what we do and what are proud of what we do as a company and we stand behind what we do even though there are going

to be products from time to time that people, different people and

different walks of life will find difficult to deal with.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Morris?

Mr. MORRIS. Congressman, I really feel that the music mirrors

society. It reflects what is going on in the world. It is very interesting that 95 percent of music we put out has nothing to do with rap

music, but I am of the position that music is really a narrator of

what is going on in the world and that is what we have to deal

with. I am particularly angry at the fact that the music business

is the only business I have ever heard of that is being destroyed

by criminal behavior and no one has even discussed that. Our business has deteriorated because of the work of criminals who steal

most of it, and if you would go to Limewire, you would have something that would shock you beyond belief. Every song is taken off

for free. All the people who work at our company, we used to have

12,000 people working at the company. We have now 6,000. Tower

Records, hundreds of stores have closed because of this. In between

our music, which is now stolen and everyone loses the money, is

an amazing array of child pornography and it is incredible to me

that Congress has not looked into this Limewire situation, which

is truly——

Mr. GONZALEZ. And I am not saying that we haven’t failed in certain respects but we are just looking today in particular to you and

to some of the artists and such in a particular area, and I don’t actually think we actually are failing there. But I will tell you, you

are saying that music sometimes will reflect society and such but

you have tremendous influence, and what you promulgate, you can

legitimize that which is illegitimate. You can make that acceptable

which is truly unacceptable. That is what marketing is all about,

and we are kidding ourselves, especially in the society that we live

today, that the power of the product and the service that you put

out expands markets, makes things acceptable and such. My time

is up and we may have some additional time where the other individual witnesses may respond.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Fossella is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. FOSSELLA. I will waive, Mr. Chairman.
52

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Weiner, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. WEINER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that we should

also recognize that we in political life are part of the passion play

around this issue. We benefit also from our ability to stand up and

thump our chest about outrageous music that we hear and we can

talk about how it is degrading our society and we respond as well.

We are part of this echo chamber that goes along with this debate.

But I would caution my colleagues who are looking for magic words

that sometimes it is very difficult to do it absent a context.

If someone wrote in a song ‘‘I shot a man in Reno just to watch

him die,’’ would that be seen at outrageous, over-the-topic music

advocating someone just murdering someone for sheer joy? I don’t

think anyone would argue that Johnny Cash somehow had a corrosive effect on American culture. But I also think that sometimes

you get into areas where I am not sure I want the gentlemen who

are at that table making these calls. I mean, at the explosion of

west coast rap, there was a band called NWA. I am actually curious, does anyone know, did they choose to abbreviate their name

or did the label force them do? Does anyone happen to know that?

I am just curious. Never mind. We will talk about it later.

A band called NWA has had a very popular song called ‘‘F the

police.’’ You know, Dr. Dre and Snoop had a chorus ‘‘187 on an mf

cop’’ as a chorus to their songs. Now, it is outrageous, I mean really

it makes your blood boil, the idea that a chorus of a song would

talk about murdering a police officer. But if you look at the context

of what was going on in L.A. and police brutality and that is what

people were screaming about and protesting about and talking

about, I am not sure the place to adjudicate it is here or even

there. I am not sure what you do. As troubling as these things are,

if you start to say we are going to look at a word absent the context

of those words, absent a real debate and discussion about those

words, I am not sure how you do it. I can tell you something that

when the argument and the public debate was going on about those

lyrics, it was the first time many in my social circle were even having these discussions. To some degree the music did drive a whole

discussion about how you deal with issues of police brutality and

relationship with all communities in this country.

So I would be very careful laying the responsibility at anyone’s

desk. I don’t know. When my colleague, my good friend from Florida asked that question, I was thinking to myself, I don’t know

which answer I would like more, yes, we stop the words from being

used, or no, we don’t stop the words from being used or some variation like convene a panel of people to decide. It is outrageous and

mind-boggling to me that there would be a theme and songs and

music and on the Internet people saying don’t cooperate with police

investigations of crime that are ravaging the same communities

these people come from. It is mind-boggling to me. It is mind-boggling that when you ask an artist about don’t snitch and he says

I wouldn’t—how would you respond about a mass murderer moved

in next door to you. He said I would move. I mean, that is mindboggling to me. Now, should I be the one who says that is outrageous? No, I shouldn’t. But if I can just use my time to ask a

question that has come up in the context of Mr. Gonzalez’ question,

there is no one here representing the Internet service providers
53

where I would argue a larger and larger portion of the music is

being distributed, promoted, shared, stolen, and Mr. Morris, you

clearly are unaware of a lot of the hearings we have done here and

how responsive we have been to the industry’s complaints about

this and how many hearings we have had both in this committee

and the Judiciary Committee. But if you decide tomorrow to take

the admonitions of some of my colleagues and say we are done, any

song that has the ‘‘F’’ word, if your artist says OK, I will take my

master and go to the Internet, is there anything stopping them

from doing that? I guess the music guys are the best to answer

that. Mr. Bronfman?

Mr. BRONFMAN. There is essentially nothing stopping an artist

from doing that.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Morris, is there anything stopping an artist

from doing that?

Mr. MORRIS. From going to the Internet?

Mr. WEINER. Yes, from taking and saying if you don’t want to

put it out, that is fine, Mr. Morris, I will bypass you and I will go—

I will take my music and put it up on dirtylanguagerapper.com and

distribute it that way?

Mr. MORRIS. If the artist is signed to one of our labels, we would

own that master, but the truth of the matter is, it would be out,

and by the time the courts adjudicated the matter, it would be history. All the music is up on the Internet.

Mr. WEINER. Right, and there is a thousand different points of

contact with citizens at this point and you can choose——

Mr. MORRIS. Music is being stolen from the Internet.

Mr. WEINER. I understand, Mr. Morris, and with all—I love you

and I appreciate you being here and everything. If you want to

start a different hearing, we can come back for that one and it is

right down the hall, Judiciary is. I am a member of that committee

and we can have that discussion there. This is something we wrestle with as well and frankly it is the subject for a different conversation. But my time is expired. I thank the panel.

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the gentleman.

Let me just ask, I sit here and I hear you and I understand what

you are saying and I appreciate all your testimony, but do you

agree that there is a problem? And if there is a problem in terms

of negative images, then how do you become a part of the solution

to that problem? Given your business, the limitations of your business, but also given the extraordinary power that your businesses

have over the minds of particularly young people, how do you become a part of the solution to the problem in our neighborhoods

throughout the city—throughout the country? Art imitates life. The

images that I see and hear are only a slice of life in the hood. I

live in the hood. Where is my slice at in the ’hood and where are

other productive American citizens who are struggling to get—

young people, the Rutgers basketball team—where do they get represented in these commercial images? Mr. Morris?

Mr. MORRIS. Well, I think that this was a very—a good opening

to starting a communication with—I can only speak for my company and I like the way this has all been done. I feel that it has

been done in a respectful, fair manner and I intend to respond in

a respectful, fair manner and I certainly appreciate the way that
54

you have handled this and you will hear from us, and I believe everything starts somewhere and we did that today.

Mr. RUSH. Is there any other response? Mr. Liggins?

Mr. LIGGINS. Yes, I have got two points. One, I think that just

as in financial markets, consumer markets also tend to self-regulate themselves so as you stated at the outset of the committee

gathering here that you believe that gangster rap is on the downside. In fact, hip hop sales are significantly tailing off and I can tell

you from an organization that actually plays this music, is immersed in it, that the tastes of the community are sort of waning

on the current state of hip hop and that is not something that we

are causing, that is something that the consumer is actually causing and getting tired of and it is showing in the record sales. Second, to Mr. Morris’s point, the Internet technology, a lot of the opportunity created here on the Hill, has let the horse out of the barn

in terms of any of these platforms being able to shield young people

from images. It is just that is the nature of the Internet. That is

the nature of digital technology. So from my perspective, if you actually want to sort of police the impact that these images have on

kids, you should probably start thinking about curriculums in public schools about pop culture, all right, and analyzing pop culture

entities, analyzing and dissecting pop culture entities and phenomena and explaining the difference between Britney Spears’ activities as we currently see them and a normal activity or a rap song

that has something in it that might be misogynistic or violent in

terms of police officer activity and what a normal behavior might

be, and if you start doing that with 7th, 8th and 9th and 10th graders, even if they don’t get it at home, at least they are going to get

it at school. So you can have a backup for what is not occurring

at home. And I think that that is sort of the policing that you guys

could really focus on that I think would make a big difference.

Mr. RUSH. Anyone else? Mr. Dauman?

Mr. DAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think these are complex issues

that were raised here today. These are societal issues. Certainly it

is the ruling media which both reflects and impacts what takes

place. You can legislate things like gun control or other issues that

affect our youth today and we certainly air a lot of those issues.

We are very proud—there was a mention earlier about BET’s history. We are very proud that we have authorized the largest programming expenditure in BET’s history to fund diverse programming ranging from shows like ‘‘Sunday Best’’ where we try to find

the best new gospel singers around the country, or ‘‘Exalted’’ where

we celebrate some of the great preachers in our country, to a show

called ‘‘Made’’ on MTV where we highlight the efforts of youths to

find themselves, and so forth. So we think there is an important

dialog and we listen to people. We have very segmented audiences.

We reach kids with Nickelodeon and we try to teach them healthy

lifestyles but our schools play a role in that as well, parents play

a role. We reach older kids through MTV and other networks and

we reach young adults through Comedy Central. So we try to take

a look at all the different audiences we address and there is always

room for improvement.
55

Mr. RUSH. My time is up, unless anyone else wanted to respond

to the question, but my time is up now, and is there anybody else

who has a second question they want to ask?

I want to really thank this panel. You have done an extraordinary job. We thank you so much for your time and your participation. Thank you very much, and we will be in discussion with

you. Again, this is just the beginning. We intend to engage you in

more dialog and participation and action on this particular problem. Thank you so much.

Our next panel will be seated now. Will the second panel please

be seated? Mr. Levell Crump, also known as David Banner, Mr.

Percy Miller, also known as Master P, and Dr. Michael Eric Dyson,

please be seated. Will the second panel be seated, Mr. Banner,

Master P?

Let me begin by welcoming our second panel. Let me also thank

you for your patience. You didn’t have to be here, you were not subpoenaed, you have come voluntarily, and we certainly appreciate

that. You are here because you are concerned about the issues that

are under consideration this morning and afternoon in this subcommittee. You are here because you want to do, quote, unquote,

the right thing and have done, quote, unquote, the right thing.

Again, I want to thank you so much for your generous use o f your

time. You have been very, very patient to the members of this subcommittee.

Let me begin by welcoming our first witness, Mr. Levell Crump,

also known as David Banner, a hip hop artist. David Banner, who

is the Republican witness on this panel, is a prominent rapper

whose biggest hits were ‘‘Like a Pimp’’ and ‘‘Play.’’ He will offer his

insights as a hip hop artist whose lyrics and videos are controversial.

Our second witness is Mr. Percy Miller, also known as Master P,

the founder and CEO of No Limit Records. Master P is a hip hop

icon as a rapper, producer and label executive. While he was famous for promoting ‘‘gangster rap’’ and ‘‘bounce hip hop’’ of the

‘‘dirty South,’’ he is currently engaged in forming a record label

that promotes positive hip hop messages.

And lastly, our witness on the second panel is Mr. Michael Eric

Dyson, Ph.D., who is a professor at Georgetown University. My

friend, Michael Eric Dyson, is the author of ‘‘Know What I Am: Reflections on Hip Hip,’’ and the other book is ‘‘Is Bill Cosby Right

or Has the Black Middle Class Lost Its Mind?’’ Professor Dyson

teaches theology, English and African-American studies and is one

of America’s premiere academic scholars on hip hop. Again, I welcome you and we will open up now with 5 minutes of testimony

from Mr. David Banner.

STATEMENT OF LEVELL CRUMP, A.K.A. ‘‘DAVID BANNER’’

Mr. CRUMP. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Mr.

Stearns and members of the committee. My name is David Banner.

I am an artist for Universal Recordings, a producer and a label executive. Thank you for inviting my testimony.

This dialog was sparked by the insulting comments made by Don

Imus concerning the Rutgers women’s basketball team. Imus lost

his job but later secured a $1 million contract with another station.
56

While it seems that he has been rewarded, the hip hop industry

is left under public scrutiny. As this dialog played out in the media,

the voices of the people who created hip hop music were silenced.

We were not invited to participate in most of the panels nor given

the opportunity to publicly refute any of the accusations hurled at

us. It is of the utmost importance that the people whose livelihood

is at stake be made a vital part of this process. That is why I thank

you guys today.

I am from Jackson, Mississippi. Jackson is one of the most violent cities in the United States. Much like DC, Jackson stays in the

murder capital run. When I was growing up, it was always ranked

as one of the top 10 cities for the highest number of murders per

capita.

Honestly, rap music is what kept me out of trouble. Statistics

would never show the positive side of rap because statistics don’t

reflect what you don’t do, if you don’t commit a murder or a crime.

When I would feel angry and would want to get revenge, I would

listen to Tupac. His anger in a song would replace my anger and

I would live vicariously through his music.

Rap music is the voice of the underbelly of America, and in most

cases America wants to hide the negative that it dose to its people.

Hip hop is that voice, and how dare America even consider not giving us the opportunity to be heard. I am one of the few artists who

went to college, and to this day I see my friends who also attended

college with me and graduated unable to get jobs. The truth is,

what we do sells, and oftentimes artists do try to do different types

of music and it doesn’t sell. In America, the media only lifts up

negativity.

People consider me to be a philanthropist. I give away a quarter

of my yearly earnings to send children from impoverished neighborhoods to different cities, to Disneyland. This gives them another vision. Rap music has changed my life and all of those around me.

It has given me the opportunity to eat. I remember sending 88 kids

from the inner city on a trip. I went to the local newspaper and

the television stations only to be told that the trip was not newsworthy, but if I shot somebody it would be all over the news. I

threw the largest—listen to me. I threw the largest urban relief

concert in history for Katrina. That never made the front cover of

a magazine. But as soon as I say something negative and rise up

against my own or be sharp at the mouth—no pun intended—I am

perceived as being disrespectful to my black leaders. The negativity

always overshadows all the positive things that we do as rap artists.

Some might argue that the content of our music serves as poison

to the minds of our generation. If by some stroke of the pen, hip

hop were silenced, the issues would still be present in our community. Drugs, violence, sexism and the criminal element were here

long before hip hop. The Crips, the Bloods, the Vice Lords and the

gangsters were here before rap music. Gang violence was here before rap music. Our consumers come from various socioeconomic

backgrounds and cultures. While many are underprivileged, a large

percentage of those people are educated professionals. The responsibility for their choices does not rest on the shoulders of hip hop.
57

Still others may raise the concern that the youth having access

to our music. Much like the ratings utilized by motion picture associations, our music is given a rating which is displayed on the

packaging. This serves to inform the public of the possible adult

content.

As such, the probability of shocking the unsuspecting consumer’s

sensibility is virtually impossible. If the consumer is disinterested

or offended by the content of our music, don’t buy the CD. Cut the

radio off.

Some may argue the verbiage used in our music is derogatory.

During slavery, those in authority used the word ‘‘n**** *’’ as a

means to degrade or emasculate. There was no question of censorship then.

The abuse, accompanied by the label ‘‘n**** *,’’ was forced and

internalized. We had to internalize it. This made the situation easier to digest. Our generation has since assumed ownership of the

word, and now that we are capitalizing off the word, now they want

to censor it. That is amazing to me. Wow.

The same respect is not often given or extended to hip hop artists

as those in other areas. Stephen King and Steven Spielberg are renowned for horrific creations. These movies are embraced as art.

Why then is our content not merely deemed horror music. Mark

Twain’s literary classic ‘‘Huckleberry Finn’’ is still required reading

in our classrooms across the United States. The word ‘‘n * * * * *’’

appears approximately 215 times. While some may find this offensive, the book was not banned by all districts because of its artistic

value. The same consideration is not given to hip hop music.

As consumers we generally gravitate to and have a higher tolerance for things that we can relate to. As such, it is not surprising

that the spirit of hip hop is not easily understood. In 1971, the case

of Cohen v. California, Justice Harlan noted that one man’s vulgarity is another man’s lyric.

Our troops are currently at war under the guise of liberating

other countries while here in America our rights are being threatened daily. This is illustrated by Homeland Security, extensive

phone tapping and ill-placed attempts at censorship. If we are not

careful, we will find ourselves getting closer to a dictatorship.

And in closing, traditionally multibillion dollar industries have

thrived on the premise of violence, sexuality and derogatory content. This capitalistic trend was not created nor introduced by hip

hop. It has been here. It is the American way, and I can admit that

there are some problems in hip hop but it is only a reflection of

what is taking place in our society.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Crump, would you please bring——

Mr. CRUMP. Oh, yes, this is the last sentence.

Mr. RUSH. OK, last sentence.

Mr. CRUMP. Can I go back, because this is very powerful. I can

admit that there are some problems in hip hop but it is only a reflection of what is taking place in our society. Hip hop is sick because America is sick.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crump follows:]
58
59
60
61

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Miller, you are recognized for 5 minutes for testimony. Thank you so much for your participation and your overall

work. Thank you so much.

STATEMENT OF PERCY MILLER, A.K.A, ‘‘MASTER P’’

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Congressman. I want to thank everybody for allowing me to be here. I am not here to put down hip hop

because I want everybody to know, I didn’t prepare a speech. What

I am going to say is coming from the heart and I think after we

leave today we should come up with some type of solution. I

watched the first panel, and I want to commend David Banner for

being here and I think he is an educated brother, and hip hop is

being educated. I think we are on the same premises. My whole

goal for being here is to preserve hip hop, and I know this is a culture that is involved—and I watched the first panel. We talked

about society. It is definitely a problem from society but we are inflaming this problem but not being responsible, and I want to take

that responsibility.

First I want to tell everybody here that I was once part of the

problem, and hopefully as I move on in life and I raise kids, I want

to be a part of the solution, and the reason why we have such a

big problem right now is that nobody wants to take responsibility.

And I made a lot of money off of hip hop, gangsta rap music. That

was all I had in my community so I feel Mr. Banner’s frustration

because people are only looking at the artist, and I am going to tell

you guys right now, it is not the artist. Because when you look at

society, I have been on both sides, the business side and on the artist side, and I think that is why I can really explain where we are

right now in society.

Right now we stop focusing on the artist because to me, in this

business, you look at society as a hip hop artist, this is a business.

When I watch everybody get up here and talk about this, this is

a financial business. Hip hop is a $4 billion business, but is the artist benefiting from that? No, we can set up things to where the artist is being a puppet and we have puppet masters. So what I am

saying by that is, if we stop focusing on each other—and I watched

a bunch of these guys go in the back and me and Mr. Banner I

hope after this that this is not a debate for me and him, that we

could sit down as brothers and sisters, the audience. The other

guys and their business, when they went in the back, they all communicate. They understand the big picture, and once we get us to

understand the big picture, we definitely can save our kids and our

community, and this is about relief, it is about growing up.

Growing up in society is so important, and can I be here 10 years

ago and tell you the same thing I could tell you? No. Will we all

get to that where we can grow up and understand the valuable

part that we could play to preserve hip hop because to us and our

kids, this is the way of life. This is the way we take our kids out

of the ghetto, and for me, I could honestly say I was only in it for

the money. I had nobody to pat me on the back to say P, you could

do something else with your life. Think about the music, think

about the content. Kids are listening. When I changed my life, I

understand that my kids—I was in a car with my own kids and I

turned on the radio and we turned my CD on and I noticed when
62

my kids were in the car, I had to turn the music down, and I say

you know what, I need to fix my own problem. We have to start

fixing it as an individual.

And I am hopeful after today everybody that was on his panel

earlier, they all have the same intents, I mean, that we can all

communicate and start putting some great property, some great

music, some great visuals. I want to meet with these guys and say

what can we do, let us fix the problem, because even these executives are not the problem. People haven’t realized Debra Lee is not

the problem. Everybody has a job to do. But what I am saying is

if we start thinking about what we are doing and understand just

like Mr. Banner said, when you look at society, gang violence,

800,000 gang members are born right now. Twenty-five percent of

the murders and the crimes are committed by gang bangers, and

my thing is, with my music, I can say music do put you in a mood.

I look at my past history of music and I say to myself, wow, I

wasn’t thinking. I was thinking about my own feelings. My brother

died, so I was angry. My cousin died. I had 12 other friends that

got murdered in my community so I just made the music that I

felt, not realizing that I am affecting kids for tomorrow. And so if

I can do anything today and change that, I am going to take a

stand and do that. I hope this society don’t judge me by my past.

And one thing I have for a solution, that we have to treat the

hip hop industry just like the NBA. I figure we have to form some

type of union, what we can control, because the executives in this

business right now can’t control. We could hit these kids’ pockets.

Anybody that have a money problem, say if you put out this type

of music or you don’t change or think about what you say, we are

going to hurt your pockets with it. People are going to change because most of these guys are in it for the money, and it is a business.

And I also want to tell you that looking back at everything that

I did and said and taking this to the next level, us as people, we

have to figure out it is a lack of knowledge. It is a lack of knowledge and it is a lack of vision. Back then I had no vision, I had

nobody to give me this vision. So if we start getting with our kids

and talking to our kids and figuring out how can we give them this

knowledge and this vision that we can take our game to the next

level, how we can prepare our kids prepare for—right now we are

preparing our kids to lose. That is what the problem is. That is

why we got so many angry artists right now. We are preparing our

kids once they get this money, they don’t know about taxes, they

don’t know about handling this money. I watched a lot of guys up

here. They are able to transform to other different companies. After

it is over with a hip hop artist’s career, he is going back to the

’hood and he is put in that environment with somebody who say

hey, man, you did all this and now you turn your back on us. But

I am not turning my back on my people. I want to help us grow

and I can figure out whatever solution I want to build. I think if

we look at the crime right now, we have to put facilities up.

I want to challenge these executives. I want to challenge the

Government to say you know what, let us put some facilities with

a gymnasium and a library so to teach these kids how to read and

how to grow something more than just music. And let us think
63

about the consciousness that we are putting into our music. So I

figure we form some type of union like the NBA has. They have

a union that they talk about the music—I mean they talk about

what happens on and off the court and we start fining kids for

what they do, I think we could change our music industry and preserve it and save hip hop and that is my goals right now, to stop

pointing the fingers and let us all get together to figure out how

to preserve this billion-dollar industry and also teach our kids

about equity funds, about growing, about building a generation of

wealth instead teaching our kids, destroying them saying we are

going to take the next one out and put the next one in. When 50

Cent ain’t hot no more, we are looking for somebody else. Now,

where do 50 Cent go after this? Well, why is he not a company executive so now he could understand the problem and say this is

what I have been through, let us save some of these kids. But I

think the problem is right now we are focusing on just the orders

and we have to take the focus off the orders and we got to come

together as what we are doing today but we have to get behind the

scenes and let us keep this going.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much for your commentary and for

your testimony.

Dr. Dyson, 5 minutes, please. I am kind of liberal with my 5 minutes but 5 minutes, please.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL ERIC DYSON, GEORGETOWN

UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. DYSON. Thank you, Congressman, Reverend Honorable Rush,

and to all of the members of the committee and to my fellow panelists here, Misters Banner and Miller.

It is a deep and profound honor to be here today simply because

this is such an important subject, that is, to draw a sharp and powerful distinction between edifying and intensely uplifting art and

art that lacks what some people say is cultural and social imagination. But what is more interesting and more provocative even still

is the fact that we are wrestling with ideas that transcend a particular art for or aesthetic expression, because when you talk about

misogyny, the cruel hatred of women, sexism, sentiments directed

against women because they are women or patriarchy, which is the

conscious or unconscious belief that men’s lives should determine

how everybody else lives and therefore establish values, you can’t

start with hip hop to look at the origins of that. We talk about religious institutions, we speak about educational institutions and God

forbid we speak about political institutions. It would behoove us to

have the same self-critical impulse that hip hop has had within the

walls of these hallowed chambers. I think for me, it is a powerful

and necessary issue to speak about the way in which black women

in particular have been degraded and demonized in art forms that

claim to speak for the broader spectrum of African-American

thought culture or position.

But what is equally interesting is the fact that there are deep

roots of American culture when it comes to demonizing women. It

didn’t start with Snoop Dogg. It didn’t start with anybody who has

been associated with hip hop culture. That is white supremacist

ideology predicated upon capitalist expansion of opportunity. Talk
64

about commerce. We are in the right place. American is built upon

the degrading images perpetuated against black men brought here

as slaves, used for free labor to build a country that they are presently denied.

So when we think in terms of opportunity, so when we think

about lethal misogyny, I don’t want to dodge a bullet. Am I offended by it and do I think that things within certain hip hop communities have gone too far? Absolutely. I write about it. I talk

about it. I think about it. I argue with rappers. But I don’t begin

there with them. When Jesus met the woman at the well, he didn’t

have a conversation about her promiscuity, alleged, because then

she would have to account for the five men who abandoned her. He

said, give me a drink of water. You start where people are. There

is a conversation about misogyny and sexism and we don’t mention

homophobia because polite society agrees that gay and lesbian people shouldn’t have too much rights to begin with. So this is where

hip hop may agree with common civil society. So what is interesting is that the gay and lesbian people don’t even—it is ‘‘B’’ word,

it is the ‘‘N’’ word, it is the ‘‘H’’ word but it is not the ‘‘F’’ word

or the ‘‘L’’ word.

So what is interesting is that all of us have blind spots when it

comes to articulating viewpoints that are edifying and uplifting.

Not only am I against censorship because I don’t want anybody to

tell me what kind of book to write—when I wrote a book arguing

with Mr. Bill Cosby, ‘‘How dare you argue against an icon who has

articulated positions that are critical to our society’s perpetuation

in a good sense?’’ I agree with that. But I also think he said some

stuff that qualifies for gangsterism against black women. He said,

‘‘Most of these women are promiscuous, they name their kids the

wrong things.’’ He said, ‘‘I am trying to stop you from having sex

with your grandma. When she is 15, she has a baby, when she is

13, she has a baby, you do the math.’’ Now, that is not calling a

woman a ‘‘B’’ or ‘‘H’’ but it is scandalously misinterpreting sociologically the context within which she emerges and what she

means.

So if we are going to deal with misogyny and sexism and patriarchy and homophobia, we have got to dig deeper into the archives

of America culture and we have got to look at the practices, the behaviors and the beliefs that are perpetuated in Congress, that are

perpetuated in business affairs and perpetuated in entrepreneurial

circles and in religious institutions. Black women, let us not just

march on the record companies, let us march on churches that

deny black women who are 75 to 85 percent of the congregation access to leadership positions that they give their money to to support. Let us ban some preaching sermons that perpetuate—and

they are worse than hip hop because they get God involved. Now

they are saying God wants you to be a second-class citizen.

So I am appalled by the deep and lethal misogyny I see expressed across the culture. I wouldn’t want to quarantine the crazy,

the hip hop. Hip hop in one sense does us the service of being explicit and articulate about its rage, although misplaced against

women where other sections of the culture don’t do so, and ultimately I think what we have to wrestle with is that these images

that are degrading certainly are reflected in hip hop but did not
65

begin there. Look at the self-critique. Lauren Hill said, ‘‘Even after

all my logic and my theory, I had to mf so you ignorant n****** hear me.’’ Right? If you think about Tupac Shakur, ‘‘Somebody

wake me up dreaming, I started as the semen swimming upstream,

planted in the womb while screaming. On the top was my pops, my

mama hollering stop from a single drop. This is what they get. Not

to disrespect my people, but my papa was a loser. Only plan he had

for mama was to blank her and abuse her and even as a seed I

could see his plan for me, stranded on welfare, another broken family.’’ I mean, listen to the cries. Even Master P said he was

unenlightened but I think he was enlightened when he wrote the

lyrics, ‘‘I don’t own no planes, I don’t own no boats, I don’t ship no

dope from coast to coast.’’ I am telling you that even in the mouths

of young evolving artists like Mr. Banner from Mississippi, Mr.

Miller from Louisiana, they are represented in Katrina’s misery.

The country cannot come to their rescue to take them rooftops but

want to now indict them for the language they use in the aftermath of being abandoned. I say that is a metaphor for what America has done, and thank God for hip hop at its best.

At its best, hip hop has allowed the expression of degraded,

marginalized, yes, mostly young black men who often see their expanse and their opportunity at the expense of woman but that is

no different than the black church or American institutions of politics. I think we have to confront it. I think we cannot limit it to

African-American youth and I think we have to be honest about the

way in which this music, at its best, mind you, has allowed the expression of young people who have failed to be duly recognized and

as a result of that have little recourse except to use the language,

the metaphors, the similes, the analogies and the beautiful vernacular at hand.

So as I end, I think that what we must do is to constantly pay

attention to the self-critical impulses within the culture itself. How

come it is, why is it that ‘‘these guys drink champagne, toast death

and pain like slaves on a ship, brag about who got the flyest

chain.’’ Why isn’t that music selling? Now, some people say this.

Well, the declining music sales among hip hop artists prove that

the American public is through with them. Well, if that is the case,

you are losing the argument because the so-called positive rappers

in hip hop are even further behind, so what is the public saying

there. When a good movie like ‘‘Talk to Me’’ comes out, all the people who clamor for positive expression, how come they didn’t go see

that film? I think the crocodile tears of people who claim to want

edifying art is problematic because I don’t want edifying art, I want

complex art. It is not positive versus negative. Some people think

that I if speak in defense of gay and lesbian people within an ecclesiastical context, theologically that is negative. So I could never

rest upon negative versus positive.

Mr. RUSH. Dr. Dyson, please——

Mr. DYSON. OK. Let me end here. Let me end by saying this

then. I think that hip hop culture at its best is a necessary expression of degraded, demoralized young people who find the cultural

expression of their identities and the culture that is fundamentally

hostile to them as something they have to do, and I think what we

should be about doing is interrogating and being more introspective
66

about the practices that are negative in our own communities than

join with hip hop to clean up across the board the negativity that

we find there.

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the witnesses. I have heard a lot of

testimony and let me just be real clear as I stated at the opening

of this hearing. We are not here to indict hip hop nor are we here

to indict hip hop artists. I for one am very proud of the hip hop

genre. I know where it began. I know what it has become. I am

proud of some of the things that it has done. It has created opportunities for young minority African-American men and women to

emerge from the depths of the ghetto to become icons in the corporate world. It has created thousands if not hundreds of thousands of jobs for people who are able to express their gifts in this

competitive, capitalistic society. I find that it is an art form. However, given all that, I know that there is a problem, a deep-seated,

deeply rooted problem that exists in our community, and a paycheck is not an excuse for being a part of that problem. You have

to emerge as all of us do and as all of us did. Those who come from

the same communities, the same kind of neighborhoods, we all aspire to get out of those neighborhoods. But there is a difference between exploiting the pain and the problem and being a solution to

the problem.

I am looking today in this hearing for those again who are committed to becoming a part of the solution as opposed to being a part

of the problem. I agree about the rage. I got rage. I am a Member

of Congress. I still have deep-seated rage. Well, how is that rage

channeled? Am I supposed to take my rage and then spew it out

in a counterproductive way so that I can get paid by others to exploit my rage or do I have an overall greater responsibility, a higher responsibility to try to take my rage and be creative in an approach to becoming a part of the solution as opposed to being a

part of the problem.

Brothers, let me say this. You can’t justify to me the use of the

word ‘‘n**** *’’ because my slave master used it. There is no justification at all. My slave master raped my mama and my ancestors. I am not going to buy into that, all right? As a matter of fact,

I can’t condone that at all. I have to deny that approach. I don’t

want to adopt the mores, the metaphors, the machinations and the

mentality of my slave master. I want to move myself and my community from those kind of anchors. I don’t want to ape and imitate

my slave master. I want to create something more life giving,

something that affirms my dignity as opposed to affirming my

death.

Let me just ask a question here. What is the responsibility to our

communities and to this Nation, what is the responsibility of the

hip hop art form, the artist, the record owners, the consumer?

What is the responsibility? What is the shared responsibility in

terms of solving these problems that we all agree are problems in

our community? What are the responsibilities? Mr. Crump, do you

want to start?

Mr. CRUMP. Yes. I want to start by first of all saying all the philanthropy, all the things that I do in my neighborhood have nothing to do with David Banner as a rapper. Now, I represent the hip

hop nation but I can honestly say, this is my opinion and my opin-
67

ion only, I don’t feel that it is any rapper’s responsibility to do anything. I think it is your responsibility as a man, not the type of rapper you are, the type of man you are. I was that type of man when

I was hustling. I was that type of man when I was a teacher. You

go back and you look at my history, I have always cared about poor

people and children. I do what I do because I am that type of man.

It has nothing to do with my job. It is amazing to me that the burdens of the world are placed on young black men who don’t have

the power to move anything. We don’t put that same responsibility

on our president. We don’t put that same responsibility on our Congressmen. We don’t put that same responsibility on our parents.

We talk about children. It is not really about rap music, it is about

the fact that we are having children when we are not prepared to

raise them. So we point the finger back at somebody else, America,

and I don’t want to go into the war but America talks about weapons of mass destruction but when I looked at it, I was like, don’t

we have the most receipts and don’t we have weapons of mass destruction? If we want to talk about weapons of mass destruction,

let us get rid of ours. So and me saying that of course, it is not

right, but the thing is, when it comes down to it, it is still just a

song. Arnold Schwarzenegger can be the Governor of California but

in his movies, he killed half of Cambodia, then he went to Mars

and blew up Mars and then came back and killed, but it is fine because he is a white man and he is an actor, so that is OK, let him

be the Governor. That is just fine. But if Snoop Dogg talks about

the things that he actually sees in his community, whether fact or

fiction, let us see what we can do to him.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Well, my thing, I think it is a responsibility for us

to preserve and prepare the future which is our kids. We got to

take a stand. We can’t just keep going where we are at right now,

not knowing that it is tomorrow. I think as an artist, we only think

about where we are now. We have no vision. And I think right now

what we are seeing here today is, we have to understand that

knowledge is the most important thing and not education. I think

that education where we are, education is so important for our people but once we apply the knowledge, it is like right now what

David Banner is saying, I think once we get the knowledge, we

really can take what we are doing to the next level because I think

we are all on the same mission. Because what he is saying, but we

also have to think about what we are doing, and I think if we give

our kids that vision, we can make that change. We got to start saying I can’t be the person that I used to be back in the day, I got

to grow, and I want to figure out some kind of way to teach these

kids to grow and realize that if I say a bad word, I am a parent,

my kids are not going to say that because I am going to teach them

to be better than me, and that is what I want to do. I want to help

my kids understand one thing in life, yes, your daddy can only be

an inspiration. But with my son, Romeo, he is going to college because he never made any profanities. His TV shows were on Nickelodeon. He could be better than me and that is what I want to instill into my kids and I also want to instill into them, let them

know that you can live older than 25, you can live older than 30.

We want to build this next generation to be better than us and I
68

think that is what Martin Luther King and all the other great people did for us, and I wanted to give that back to my kids and the

people that is coming after me.

Mr. RUSH. I am woefully over time, over my time, and I am going

to now recognize——

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, if it is any consolation to you,

I am going to have to leave for a 2 o’clock meeting and I yield my

time to you, sir.

Mr. RUSH. Well, thank you.

Mr. Dyson?

Mr. DYSON. I think that—look, there is no essential contradiction

between what David Banner is saying and what Percy Miller is

saying, that Master P and David Banner are both talking about a

trajectory of transformation and the possibility of change, and that

is to say, people are constantly evolving as human beings. You can

look at your own life, Mr. Rush, as an extraordinary freedom fighter from the very beginning. When you are part of the Black Panthers, you are part of an organization that was demonized, that

was negatively portrayed. I am writing now the new introduction

to Huey Newton’s revolutionary suicide volume. A lot of people put

the brother down. People made mistakes but essentially what the

Black Panthers were arguing for was for the reorganization of the

logic of American capitalism and the revolutionary transformation

of the society. I see what you are doing today as an evolution along

that same trajectory. As a minister and Member of Congress, you

have taken the challenge and responsibility of evolving and changing and making that transformation more coherent morally than

perhaps before but also with that same impulse. I see what these

young men are doing as extraordinary. I think artists do have a responsibility, as Mr. Banner said, as a human being, as a citizen of

a global community. We all have a responsibility to do the right

thing and I think that doesn’t mean that hip hop should somehow

be exonerated from that critique. Hip hop has a huge amount of

serious self-critical impulses going along with it, but if you don’t

listen to hip hop, then you don’t know that a lot of people who are

so-called underground are mad at some of this commercial stuff.

They are mad that they can’t even be heard, and I think that is

very important.

Let me say one thing about the ‘‘N’’ word here. I know Mr. Banner spoke about that. I think that we have to be complex about the

‘‘N’’ word. It is not simply whether or not—and you made a brilliant and eloquent testimony that you didn’t want to simply reproduce the pathology that was transmitted to you by white supremacist overlords, and I think that is absolutely right. But words are

complex and meanings are flexible and I think when black people

have appropriated a term of derision—the night he died, Martin

Luther King, Jr., according to the autobiography of Andrew Young,

said to Mr. Young when he came into his room, because he had not

seen Mr. Young the entire day, ‘‘Little n * * * * *, where you been?’’

I don’t think Martin Luther King, Jr., was a self-hating, degrading

black person. No, he did not stand up in public and deploy that

term because probably he would have found that offensive to the

nth degree and he understood the political context of language and

how that can be interpreted. But I am simply saying that the use
69

of the ‘‘N’’ word didn’t begin with hip hop. I heard ministers and

preachers talk about it, bishops talk about it. I heard respected

members of the community talk about it. There is a communication

gap and a generational gap between young people who have circulated that term for global expression out of the political context

in which it emerged so that means there are some people in Japan

who don’t even understand that that was a term of derision and

are now using a term in a way that we find offensive because they

didn’t understand it. So all of us are responsible for being educated

and enlightened.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Dr. Dyson. I must apologize because I

didn’t recognize my Republican ranking member, and now I recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me just thank the witnesses for coming and I think it is very

interesting and enlightening I think for everybody to hear your

statements, so I appreciate you taking the time.

One of the questions that came up on this hearing when we

talked to the executives, how much influence they have on you,

perhaps not the CEO of Warner or the CEO of some of these music

companies but has there been in your relationship with them, have

the industry executives ever asked you to alter your music or

lyrics, and if so, if you can recollect under what circumstances, and

I will start with you, Mr. Crump, and then Mr. Miller.

Mr. CRUMP. Actually they have, and I personally have a problem

with that, I must add, but they send our music through all kind

of boards and we have to write out our lyrics and present our

lyrics, and I can honestly say I am one of the artists probably has

the worst potty mouth than anybody could ever see in the world

and I do and I stand for that because the situation in which I arose

out of reflect that, and I am going to answer your question, but I

want to make this statement before I forget it. If Congress wants

to change hip hop, they can start with Congress Heights. That is

right down the block. If you want to see why we rap the way that

we rap, go to Congress Heights. You don’t even have to come to

Mississippi. I asked you to come to Mississippi and spend 2 days.

Because it is funny, you guys make these different speeches but

when you go home, you go home to a nice house and some pretty

nice kids who will probably get a job because of your influence. It

is not the case where we are from. But to answer your question,

yes, especially BET. It is so hard to get my videos on BET. It is

to the point I understand the disrespect of women but it gets to the

point where you can’t even have a girl in the video no more. They

are going overboard. To me, it is OK to——

Mr. STEARNS. So Mr. Crump, you are saying that when you submit your music, your lyrics to the executives, they censor it?

Mr. CRUMP. No, they don’t censor it. What they do is, they go

through the music with a fine-tooth comb and make sure—and I

have seen the situation where they will bleep your music out without you knowing. So I guess in a way they do sometimes, but I

know that it definitely goes through a board and especially when

it comes to the videos.

Mr. STEARNS. Do they come back to you and say, Mr. Crump,

or——
70

Mr. CRUMP. No, sometimes it don’t make it back to us. It goes

straight out to the public.

Mr. STEARNS. OK.

Mr. CRUMP. I have heard music of mine that has been altered

without me saying that it was cool but that is how the game goes.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Miller, how about you?

Mr. MILLER. I have been listening to Mr. Banner. I will go this

part, and I will give you guys this real invaluable——

Mr. STEARNS. Remember, the question is, have industry executives asked you to alter your music or lyrics? If so, under what circumstance? I think Mr. Crump answered that. I was just hoping

you could tell us.

Mr. MILLER. I will explain that to you guys but I think I want

to go back to the subject and explain that to you. I keep talking

about education and knowledge. I think right now you have to understand that education and knowledge is two different things and

I think Mr. Banner is right on, and we are talking about the same

thing but what I don’t understand is, me and him talking about the

same thing and he is being here as a Republican witness for this

subject, and I think that we need to really understand knowledge,

what is so important about it. I am going to give you knowledge

from the record business. I have been on both sides. On this side

of the table is that they have A&R departments and they can

screen your music and say I don’t want to put this out, you guys

can’t say this, because they have done this all the time, and I think

after this here, we really need to get together and understand because we all talking about the same thing and we all are being

scrutinized for something that we have no participation in, because

at the end of the day this is about finance, this is about money,

this is an uncontrolled situation. So they really can screen your

music and they do. But we——

Mr. STEARNS. Can you actually say in your case that you wrote

some lyrics and did you have to go through what Mr. Crump said?

Did they actually change the lyrics of yours?

Mr. MILLER. I am kind of different because I had a distribution

deal and that is why I said I am sorry for the stuff that I did and

I understand it because I had nobody to pat me on the back, but

it has got to a point where somebody could come and say you look

at——

Mr. STEARNS. I am talking about your lyrics now.

Mr. MILLER. Yes, talking about my lyrics.

Mr. STEARNS. He or she came to you and said da, da, da, da, da

and——

Mr. MILLER. At a time in my life people say listen to this song,

you need to change this and I had to change it.

Mr. STEARNS. You had to change it for——

Mr. MILLER. Because think about what I said. Most kids right

now, they are just in it for the money. I was in it for the money

at the time, I could honestly say this.

Mr. STEARNS. I understand.

Mr. Chairman, I just——

Mr. DYSON. And I want to say no record company has changed

my lyrics as of yet.

Mr. MILLER. Not yet.
71

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I have just a little bit

more time, considering the situation.

Mr. RUSH. Yes, please.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Crump, I think just the creative process of you

coming up with your songs, are you responsible for the initial content of your music or do you have like—you sit down with friends

or do you try out with a girlfriend or some——

Mr. CRUMP. I have—excuse me—the full responsibility of everything that I say regardless of—it is one thing that I always say,

it is not Universal’s responsibility, it is not my friends’ responsibility. It is solely my responsibility, and there may be things that affect me but I am a man. I take full responsibility for everything

that I say.

Mr. STEARNS. And so you wrote all the lyrics yourself, and then

if they get changed, it is because the executives of the music——

Mr. CRUMP. No, but the fact is, that doesn’t happen much, and

a lot of times if it is something that is actually changed, it is something that has to do—like let us say if something happened at 9/

11 or something is going on with the president, something of that

magnitude, and it is really nothing—they are not nitpicking on

every different subject. It is not a censorship at all.

Mr. STEARNS. OK. Mr. Miller, this question is, in your creative

process, you are sitting here, you are a young man. You came up

with these lyrics. These are all your own content that you created

yourself or did you have——

Mr. MILLER. Well, it is created from me, it is creating from painting a picture, looking out my window, some of things I went

through, some of the things people that I know that went through.

Mr. STEARNS. So your life experiences and just sitting there——

Mr. MILLER. Well, I think mine is—to be honest with you, I lost

my brother at a young age so mine was more of a cry of anger saying man, what could I do in this community, I mean, why is this

happening to us, why is my mother going to a funeral, why am I

going to a funeral, why am I in this situation and what could I do

to get out so I think at the end of the day what is——

Mr. STEARNS. It was a catharsis for you?

Mr. MILLER. Yes. But think about it. I think at the end of the

day, what we are not doing is, we are not listening to the end of

the music. Just like he said, some of my music might start off to

get these people, but at the end of the day I am going to try to

leave with some type of message so they say I want to make them

think and I think it is a part of growing up and maturing.

Mr. STEARNS. Dr. Dyson, I have got a question that perhaps goes

to one of your books. You have written that the rapper Tupac

Shakur wanted to ‘‘combat the anti-intellectualism of hip hop.’’ And

I thought I would give you an opportunity to further elaborate on

that idea of his perspective, Shakur’s perspective, if you could.

Mr. DYSON. Yes, sir. Thank you very much for that. I think that

Tupac was in concert with Richard Hofstetter who wrote a book in

19, was it 63 or before, about the anti-intellectualism of America.

He talked about the choice of Eisenhower over Adlai Stevenson as

a critical turn in the attribution of anti-intellectual sentiments

among the broad American populous. I am not trying to make

Tupac Shakur Richard Hofstetter. I am suggesting, however, that
72

anti-intellectualism is a species that is not particular or peculiar to

hip hop. It is an American disease, one with somebody being tendentious and negative could say this is the White House for ample

evidence. What I would suggest is that anti-intellectualism is deep

and problematic across the board and hip hop has elements of it.

This is why Tupac read deeply, thought critically, read many

books. I went to the home he shared with a woman and I read the

books for myself. I saw them for myself and I think that he did

combat the anti-intellectualism of this culture, not only in hip hop

but more broadly. But it is necessary to say that it is an anti-intellectual strain that manifests itself there as it manifests itself

across the board, and I think the power of what these two artists

have done here today is to display that you can be highly articulate

and intelligent, use words in productive and provocative ways and

use those words to inform and inspire. You think about a rapper

like Mos Def who said you can laugh and criticize Michael Jackson

if you want to; Woody Allen molested and married his stepdaughter. They show Woody and Sunni at the playoff game. Now,

sit back and think about that. Would he get the same if his name

was Woody Black? So when you think about the use of words to

combat anti-intellectualism, Tupac was one of the greatest. He

said, ‘‘Somebody help me, tell me where to go from here because

even thugs cry but do the Lord care,’’ but he also ‘‘Just the other

day I got munched by some crooked cops and to this day them

same cops on the beat getting major pay. But when I get my check

they taking tax out so we paying the cops to knock the blacks out.’’

That is a powerful antidote to the anti-intellectualism that prevails

and I think we need more, not less, then a guy like that.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms.

Schakowsky.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I want to describe to you for a second how I

am feeling about this riveting debate. I am feeling like how can I

ask something that doesn’t make me look like just categorized as

a privileged white woman who doesn’t really get it and who can’t

recite any of the rap music, and I think that the way I feel in part

describes the problem that we have in all sitting down together and

talking about the larger problem or issue and the specific issue of

rap music, is that in some ways we come from very different perspectives and it is hard really to get into each other’s head. Writers

are always told, write about our own experience and then when

young rappers do that, well, the experience is painful and it is

mean and graphic and sometimes ugly and we don’t want to really—we don’t really mean it. I started this morning thinking about

it from the standpoint of a woman and a mother and a grandmother of three little girls and thinking about the music that they

listen to or that I hope they listen to, which is important in their

lives, and then the feelings they have about themselves after they

hear it, so I really—I was thinking not so much about racism as

sexism and how it—and so I guess I want to ask the artists first,

when you-well, I guess especially Mr. Crump, when you sing these

words which I assume—and I don’t know them—do use the ‘‘H’’

word and the ‘‘B’’ word, do you think about the women who may

be listening to this and what do you think about that?
73

Mr. CRUMP. I am going to be very honest with you. Last year I

went through the worst depression that—I mean, I can’t describe

it. And during that depression, I had the money, I had the cars,

but in this depression I was wondering if I was doing my people

more harm, and I went to a preacher that had 30 people in his congregation and then I went to a preacher in St. Louis who had 5,000

people in his congregation, and it was funny because when the congregation went away, both of them said the same thing. They

pulled me to the side and they said boy, keep rapping. They said

yes, there are some negative things that come out the words that

you say but you are from a state of pain, you are coming from pain.

My mother told me once, she said Levell, she said if you close the

door on your hand regardless of what anybody say, nine times out

of 10, and excuse me, you are going to say ‘‘s * * *’’ When you slam

your door, you may not say it in here but when you are at home,

that is what you are going to say. If it describes the pain that our

people are going through, and the truth, if we stop talking about

it, the dialog stops.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I guess I am not talking about the pain that

you feel but is there any sense of a pain that you may inflict by

putting down women through your music?

Mr. CRUMP. When we go to McDonald’s, do we think about the

pain that we inflict making the United States unhealthy? Everything that we do as Americans has some kind of consequence to it.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. But——

Mr. CRUMP. And what I would say is, if a parent—like my mother honestly told me when I was growing up in Mississippi, and I

am going to be honest with you, they still call us n* * * * * in Mississippi. So my mother and my grandmother made sure they told

me every day that I was beautiful. So when people ask me did I

see right through them in Mississippi and maybe I was blinded because of my parents. My parents made me feel so beautiful that

maybe yes, it was working. I thought it was. But I did have those

parents there to teach me then. So in me saying that and what you

also have to understand because we do come from different cultures and I had this in my speech and I skipped over it for time,

but I said that the intent and spirit of the word ‘‘n**** *’’ or

‘‘b * * * *’’ in rap music does not even remotely carry the same

meaning nor historical intent, and attempting to censor the word

that music depicts be camaraderie is outrageous. In saying that,

you may hear us say the word ‘‘n**** *’’ and the word ‘‘b * * * *’’

and in some situations, I will admit, it is meant in a negative way

because regardless of whether we admit it or not, those type of people do exist in society and we are describing a certain type of person, and we must admit that they do exist. But in most cases, it

is a form of camaraderie, and when people hear it from the outside,

then they are like, they are so mean to each other, but it don’t

mean the same thing.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Dr. Dyson, would you comment on that? I am

willing to acknowledge that maybe in some ways I don’t get it but

when I hear these words I feel like women are being put down in

ways that are really bad.

Mr. DYSON. Yes, absolutely. I think that there is no question that

the rhetorical contempt that is aimed at women is lamentable,
74

should be talked about, should be confronted and should be articulated without question. What is interesting is that when I said earlier, and I have now a chance to explicate it a bit, is that the virtue, if we can call it that, of hip hop is that you don’t really have

to guess. If there is lethal viewpoint expressed against women,

which we should oppose, which we should talk about, which we

should explore, which we should explain, which we should get at

the root of——

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Or justify? I mean——

Mr. DYSON. No, not justify. I mean, you can——

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I feel like I am——

Mr. DYSON. There is no justification in my mind for it but what

is interesting is that we talked about quarantining the crazy, the

hip hop. There are ways in which polite society reinforces negative

values toward women but they don’t call them b * * * *, ho, skeaze

or slut, chicken head, ’hood rat. I am not suggesting that b * * * *,

ho, skeaze, ’hood rat and chicken head are not offensive. They are

profoundly offensive. What is interesting is that but if we take

moral comfort in our heart, we have now isolated the strain of virulent misogyny in hip hop and therefore we have gotten at the root

of it, no, we have gotten a powerful manifestation of it that needs

to be dealt with. But what we have done at the same time is avoid

the way in which sentiments expressed against women are pervasive in the society. This is why I mentioned—and I love the black

church. I am an ordained Baptist minister. I feel about the black

church the way Robert McAfee Brown said he felt about the

church. If it wasn’t for the—it is like Noah’s ark. If it wasn’t for

the storm on the outside, you couldn’t stand the stink on the inside. So the church is an institution that deals with the funkiness

but it has its own kind of funkiness. Now, I am not suggesting that

there is a parallel between the virulent, degrading emphasis upon

women’s bodies in hip hop and what goes on in church but I am

saying this: that if you are 75 percent of an institution, that you

can do everything but run and your money supports it, you are essentially an ecclesiastical whore or a theological b * * * * at that

level without the explicit expression and articulation. That doesn’t

justify it. I am not a person who is trying to justify expressions of

degradation against women at any level. Having said that, I also

know that what Mr. Banner said is interesting in this sense. When

you use the word ‘‘b*** *,’’ many women use the word ‘‘b*** *’’ in

and among themselves. Men don’t have the same register of access

to that word that women do except in hip hop, it does happen. See,

there is not parallel. Black men using the ‘‘N’’ word is different

than men using the ‘‘B’’ word because now you are dealing with

women who are being degraded by your emphasis, and no matter

how cool or down you are as a black man, the ‘‘B’’ word means

something that is virulent and vicious and problematic, but at the

same time, you have men calling each other ‘‘b*** *’’ so that

means that there is some terminological slippage going on there.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I am looking forward——

Mr. DYSON. It is not as simple as it can be.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I am looking forward to hearing from some

women on that point.
75

Mr. DYSON. Oh, absolutely. But I am not—that is what I am saying. I am not defending the vehement denunciation of women at

all. I don’t in any way concede that. I am simply saying however,

that if you ban the ‘‘B’’ word all together, you don’t even hear

Queen Latifah saying ‘‘don’t you call me a b * * * * or a ho’’ and I

am saying that there are women who find that degrading and there

are many men who find the ‘‘B’’ word degrading as well, and I

think that is what we have to put forth.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I was just asking permission of the chairman

if briefly Mr. Miller could respond.

Mr. MILLER. Yes. I just think that we—as people that come from

the street, you need to be right or you are wrong, and I just think

right now, like I said, I want to apologize to all the women out

there, everybody that I did wrong. I was honestly wrong and I accept full responsibility. Back in my days, we used to fight if you

said something bad about somebody’s mama, and I think my mama

is a beautiful black queen. We got to start putting that in our work

and stop justifying why is it right or wrong. It is wrong. I am going

to do everything I can—and me, I didn’t have somebody to pat me

on the back and tell me what I can do and what I will do. I am

making sure my son would not do—he has never said a cuss word.

He never talked bad about a woman. I think if we start growing

up and really understanding how to take our game to the next level

and take action, not worry about what we did in the past, right

now where are we going, and I think most of where we are going

right now, the change is coming. It is not going to be quick. It is

not going to happen overnight but people are starting to wake up

saying you know what, I want something better out of life. When

you talk about women, because you either have a mother or a sister or a woman that you are sleeping with that you would have to

say you know what, I don’t want people talking about them like

that, I don’t want nobody talking about mine like that, and I don’t

want myself and I want to grow up and I am starting right now.

So I can tell you what I am doing as an individual. I am going to

take advantage of that and not be a part of doing that because it

definitely talking about somebody’s mama, sister or wife. So I am

definitely going to do my part and I think we shouldn’t call women

‘‘B’s’’ and we should grow up. We did it for a while, we didn’t know

and we learned to understand. We need to grow up, and I think

that is the most important thing that we are going to figure out

today if we grow up, we are going to be all right.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you.

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas,

Mr. Gonzalez, for 5 minutes.

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Miller, I think your last response probably captures what we

are really trying to do here. Legislating, it is almost impossible to

do anything. I think what the chairman seeks to do in this dialog

is to raise the consciousness of the producers, the distributors, the

artists to the influence that you have. Now, you are speaking prospectively and into the future. I think Mr. Crump was disagreeing

with you because his body language surely was that he did not

agree with your statements. So I only can assume that the distributors, the producers, the writers, the artists are probably going
76

to continue along the same lines. So I just—we all agree on this:

you influence people.

Mr. MILLER. Exactly.

Mr. GONZALEZ. All right. And I understand that it is reflecting

a condition in America that is unacceptable, but you are presenting

it in a vehicle called entertainment.

Mr. MILLER. Yes.

Mr. GONZALEZ. You are trivializing it, and when I say ‘‘you’’ I

don’t mean you directly. I am talking about a whole industry. I am

talking about the artist and so on. You glamorize lifestyles that you

here today are saying should be condemned and that young black

men should seek and aspire to something else, even though they

may not have that opportunity.

Mr. MILLER. Yes.

Mr. GONZALEZ. What I don’t see though is that in the lyrics and

in the videos, which is another issue, I don’t see that suddenly a

solution, an answer, a pathway is being described. What you are

describing, Mr. Crump, is the present state of affairs without giving hope to a different world or an out. What you do privately I

will say, sir, is commendable and admirable but I say what you do

publicly is viewed by so many more people, and influence and impact so many more people by your public persona than what you

do privately, and I am saying that in good faith to you. I guess

what I really want to ask you all is, is this entertainment?

And I want to ask Dr. Dyson, for all the young people that view

these videos and listen to this music, is it really going to encourage

and lead them to deal with the present situation that needs a discussion and needs solution or is it going to lead them to your classroom which is a much more legitimate forum to have a meaningful

debate on this than for us to be legislating. That is the real issue

here. We are all over the map on this. We are trying to say that

the music and the lyrics reflect a condemnable condition. We all

agree on that. My God, I mean, we are not going to go back into

history or even Mr. Rush where we all started in the early days

and where we are today. Everyone agrees on it. What we are saying is, what are we going to do about this entertainment forum

that is promoting an understanding and is perpetuating a present

situation that will remain the future because it really does have

that kind of influence. And I will start with Mr. Crump.

Mr. CRUMP. Thank you very much. First of all, one of the problems is in most cases you guys don’t listen to our music so you

don’t know what I have actually done. My second single—first of

all, my first single was called ‘‘Like a Pimp’’—rugged, rough, this,

that and the other. I had prayed before I actually got on it. I told

God, I said, God, if you give me an opportunity to make it out of

the ’hood without drugs, without having to go to somebody and get

fronted some money, that I will try to change my life. Right after

that I got a deal. I did ‘‘Like a Pimp.’’ I actually put my career on

the line by coming out with a song called ‘‘Cadillac on 22.’’ We

made a video and I will quote a half of a verse: ‘‘God, I know that

we pimp. God, I know that we wrong. God, I know I should talk

about more in all of my songs. I know these kids are listening. I

know I am here for a mission but it so hard to get them when 22

rims are spinning.’’ So in me saying that, I put that video out. Dur-
77

ing that same album, I had—I gave $50,000 for scholarships. The

truth is, I put that music out there. I made the effort. My career

went down, down, down. When I went back to the music that put

me on-because what you have to understand, people put us on for

a certain type of music, and for us to get up once we get rich, that

is sort of like treason to America. You call treason to the same people that put you on. What I will say, and this ties in to what she

said, it is not about music. If you want to talk about degrading

women, I think it causes more of a problem to have a little bitty

girl on the sideline with a short skirt jumping up and down cheering for a football player running a football with her being half

naked on the sideline has nothing to do with him running the football or beer commercials where women have on bikinis and they

are selling beer and walking in McDonald’s with her cleavage open

to sell a sandwich. Exactly. I think that is a bigger problem. But

what I want all of you guys to take home is the fact that people

know that young black men don’t have anybody to protect them so

we will always put the drug problem, the gun problem, the degradation of women on young black men because we don’t even protect ourselves, and I would say——

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Crump, let me interrupt you 1 second because my time is going to be up, and I appreciate where you are

coming from but what you just said, if people are really listening,

is, it is the almighty dollar.

Mr. CRUMP. Well, it——

Mr. GONZALEZ. Now, wait a minute. I think you went to what I

think is a more substantive approach, giving young people hope,

giving them direction, but what you are saying, your career was

tanking and the only way you went up—now, let me tell you

that——

Mr. CRUMP. But it is all part—it is all a part of my life.

Mr. GONZALEZ. No——

Mr. CRUMP. This is all part of my life.

Mr. GONZALEZ. That is the problem.

Mr. CRUMP. And what I want you to know is that——

Mr. GONZALEZ. It is you yourself and——

Mr. CRUMP [continuing]. is that I made an effort, but the truth

is, when it comes down to it, regardless of what we want to say,

if I do not keep myself current, it don’t matter how many CDs I

put out, how much I stand on the corner and talk about positivity,

nobody will hear it. At least with me being put in a position that

I am, I am even here and have the ability to take up for my people.

If I am not current, it don’t matter no way.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Crump——

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RUSH. Have you completed your questioning?

Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, I wanted the other members—again, I

mean, I think what the chairman is attempting to accomplish here,

and this is a step in the right direction, but we have everyone simply saying nothing is going to change, and that is the concern, and

Mr. Miller and Mr. Dyson——

Mr. MILLER. Well, what I wanted to tell you guys is, like the

Congressman said, it is definitely—we can’t put a stereotype on a

dollar. I mean, that is why I am here today to let us know how im-
78

portant knowledge is over money. Knowledge is the most important

thing that we can focus on, because if you don’t have the knowledge, you would never make the money anyway. So my thing is

with me, and I feel Mr. Banner’s frustration because I sold 75 million records and then as it decreased, people say I wanted to do the

right thing. I started doing the right thing. They stopped buying

my records at a minimum, but what I said was, I am growing up,

I am maturing, I want to do the right thing. It has got to start

right now with me. I don’t care if they don’t buy my records because I am going to keep doing the right thing. I don’t care if they

don’t play my videos. I am going to keep doing it because I understand.

Somebody has to take a stand for what we are about to build and

I know we are focusing on what is right now but something has

to stop and it has to start right today to say, you know what, we

are not focusing on the dollar no more, we are educating, and

something is more important than music. We don’t need to focus

on the music. We have got to teach these kids how to get into other

avenues. I am going to challenge the networks and say you know

what, we are going to put a financial show and show our kids in

these communities and see what happens because I think that is

the most important thing. We have to teach them there are other

avenues besides music, and when we say we can make other avenues besides music, we can make money financially doing finally

literacy shows. Our kids is going to change and say you know what,

I don’t care if they don’t play my music; if I got to do the right

thing. I have to make the right context of what he said about

Tupac. Think about Tupac’s songs. Tupac had a lot of songs what

he was going through but he also had the dear mama’s, the uplifting songs that really stuck to our community and I think if we put

more songs out like that, we are going to be able to change our

communities and we have got to teach these kids how to make

money besides music. When we do that, the music is going to

change. And so I am going to challenge all these networks that

came and all these records companies, let us do some financial

shows because one thing about athletes and African-Americans, we

always lose the first go-round so we have that frustration. Every

athlete I know has cash problems the first go-round or some type

of financial problems so they are angry and they are waiting for

their second contract. We got to stop in the music business waiting

for that second contract so we can make some changes. We have

got to teach our kids and we got to prepare them and grow them

to be financially successful so they don’t have to look back and do

the same thing they did back in the past, and that is the only

thing, Lord bless me, saying that go seek that knowledge, and I

want these kids now—I wrote a book—pick up a book. Understand

that we start reading and stop just worrying about the music. The

music is going to sound better to us because now we have the

knowledge.

Mr. DYSON. Can I just briefly respond? Tonight if you look at

BET, a two-part series, I challenge the rapper Nelly and TI when

Nelly swiped a credit card down the woman’s gluteus maximus and

I said we don’t reduce your career to that, that’s true, let us be

honest because like Mr. Banner, he is a philanthropist but I said
79

to me, when I saw the crass commercialization of the woman’s body

relating back to slavery where they were sold on auction blocks,

and as a result hip hop has simply updated the stereotype that is

deeply entrenched in the American collective unconscious. And TI

said—the other rapper said it is really that deep. I said yes, you

are a rapper, you do the lyrics. I am an intellectual, I do the analysis. We both can come together. So I don’t justify the visual injustice to which black women in particular are subject in terms of—

and I think the images are even worse so called in terms of an influence than the lyrics themselves because now you are getting

past the conscious mind and the images themselves create a universe of expectations and the like but at the same time I think that

we have to be much more complex. Again, to scapegoat one segment of the society without looking at how we all participate would

be wrong.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. The gentleman from New York is recognized.

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I am just going to ask one question

and then I have to leave. The question is, do you think it is possible to be a positive role model and express yourself with explicit

lyrics at the same time? Just go right down the line. Go ahead.

Mr. MILLER. Well, I always said to myself that I come from the

streets and I was able to educate myself and clean my life up. I

always say to myself—and that is just me—I said I could be an inspiration and I could teach my son to be a role model. And I think

we can’t point the finger at hip hop and we can’t point the finger

at David Banner and me. We are all speaking the same thing. We

have to grow to a certain level. Right now without David Banner

being where he is at, because I was there one day, I couldn’t get

to where I am right now. I just think that we got to stop stereotyping the whole community because we got to put some balance

out there right now. That is the only reason I am here. I understand where he is at. He understands where I am at. What I am

here to put balance and say that we can do some right and move

on and still be successful. But I just think that yes, maybe I can

be a role model and I come from the streets and I come from that

type of music and I said I am sorry but what I am going to do, I

am going to make my kids be role models. My son is not going to

do that type of music because I understand that we are destroying

our community. I understand that. That is me. Until everybody

gets to that level and see that, maybe we don’t understand. I went

to 12 funerals so I know, I seen my cousin. It is a lack of education.

It ain’t the music. Everybody is a cycle that I am trying to break

and if I can break that cycle to show kids put some balance out

there, we are going to get to where we need to go at. And none of

it is wrong. We all have the freedom of speech, and I want people

out there to know, if you make any type of music, if you get to—

it is like the guy on the street. You say man, I am out here

hustling but if I live tomorrow, I want to try to get into something

else to better myself and that is the message I want to give to our

kids, what about tomorrow. What are we going to do if we survive?

And we put the tattoos all over our neck. We can’t go into corporate

America. We got to understand, it might be tomorrow and that is

when I woke up with having a child. I have a son. I want to be
80

there for him. I want to be there for my kids. I want to be there

for my family and I don’t want to be incarcerated, I don’t want to

be dead. So the kids out there need to get that message too. They

have parental advisory stickers on the records that are parental

advisory but I just think if we put a balance and make it work, we

will be able to get to where we need to be at.

Mr. CRUMP. It is amazing to me that Ludicris can lose his Pepsi

deal and they go and get the Osbornes and that is OK. The truth

is, it is only music. Yes, it has an effect on children. Yes, it can

influence some people who have that deficit in their personality in

the first place. I had—the black caucus gave me an award for my

philanthropy and there was a big uprising in Mississippi and it

was strange to me because I told some of the city officials in Mississippi, I said me being a so-called gangsta rapper has nothing to

do with the fact that I gave away millions of dollars. This is not

against the law for me to speak my mind. So why is it that when

young black men do something and Martin Scorcese can make movies that talk about b * * * * * * and n * * * * * * and it is fine and he

can be a role model. The Osbornes can do the same thing that

Ludicris can do but he get his Pepsi deal taken away. Same thing

with Don Imus. We are here in front of Congress but regardless,

Don Imus got that $1 million contract to go on to his next business

deal. The truth is, we have been demonized since day 1. Of course

I can be a role model. Look at Ice Cube. He is one of the most powerful guys in the music industry. What if we were to stop him in

the NWA days? We wouldn’t have given him the responsibility to

grow. It is the process that makes us men. Yes, there may be some

things that we are not doing right but Snoop Dogg says the most

powerful thing: I wonder why people want to get us in front of Congress and talk to us, get in front of the TV and talk to us. Why

aren’t they men and women enough to pull us to the side and say

maybe you didn’t know no better, maybe your mother was on crack,

maybe you only saw your mother being disrespected and his mother disrespected that mother and it went on and it went on. Nobody

comes to us and talks to us. I talk to Nelly and that video that you

are talking about, I produced the song to, and regardless of—yes,

like Nelly says, that was an adult video for adult people and it is

just like everything that we do is always our fault. It is only music.

Mr. DYSON. I think that, to be very brief, LBJ cussed like a sailor. Richard Nixon, they got the tapes, him cussing like a man going

out of style. They are still presidents of the United States. So yes,

to be quite simplistic, obviously he can be a role model. Look at

Richard Pryor who used cursing in a very creative and interesting

fashion and yet who spoke about some of the most powerful social

problems that prevailed in American culture. Here is what we have

to come to grips with. To be positive is not itself a virtue if it is

not accompanied by serious, powerful art that forces us to reflect

upon our society. All art should not make you feel good.

Some art should get in your face. Some art should be irreverent.

The point and purpose of art is not simply to make you feel warm

and fuzzy. Some art ought to make you change your bigoted ways.

Maybe you are a sexist. Some art can make you think about it.

Maybe you are a racist. Some art can make you think about it.

Some art then perpetuates the very legacy that it claims to want
81

to resist. Should we be critical of it? Absolutely right. But I think

if we are looking for either or, black or white answers, that is not

it. I think that yes, as Kanye West, look at Kanye West who beat

50 Cent in this recent scrimmage for hip hop supremacy. That is

a mark of the maturity and the evolution of hip hop whereas 50

Cent ‘‘I don’t know what you heard about me but you can’t get a

dollar out of me’’ was rejected in favor of a guy singing about

Jesus, but even in a song singing about Jesus, right after that says

‘‘If this manager keeps insulting me, I will be insulting him and

after I mess the manager up, I am going to shorten the cash register up.’’ Even after he is singing ‘‘One glad morning, when this

life is over, I will fly away.’’

That is the convergence of complex that manifests our conflicted

lives and I think that hip hop at its best, again, both reflects the

pathology that needs to be rooted out and provides an answer

through a scalpel of rhetoric to be able to dig into the body of the

problem and seek what the reality is, and I think at its best it does

that, and I think that yes, you can be a positive, uplifting figure

and not say anything and you can be a so-called degraded figure

who is not positive and say something profound and intelligent,

and I think that what we have to do is to push forward self-criticism. Misogyny, sexism, homophobia, racism and the like need to

be dealt with, articulated and wrestled with regardless of what

color they come in, regardless of what body they come in. But at

the same time, as Mr. Banner is suggesting, we must not somehow

quarantine the problem to young black people who when they

manifest the pathology are seen as its origins. They are certainly

at the worst seen as its continuation.

Mr. TOWNS. Let me thank all of you for your comments, and let

me thank you, Mr. Chairman, and of course, I really feel that this

discussion has been a very good one, and Mr. Chairman, I look forward to continuing to work with you in this regard.

Thank you. I yield back.

Mr. RUSH. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.

Mr. Crump, there is a lot of sickness in American society. This

Congress has a lot of work to do. Washington, DC, has a lot of

work to do. We have No Child Left Behind but the money isn’t

there. We are debating right now making sure that all children get

healthcare but the President is saying he will veto that legislation.

We have a lot of work to do in our country, and here in Washington, in order to make sure that every child in America is given the

opportunity they need, education, healthcare, protection in the

community, there is no debate over that. And I am a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts so on those things, that is what I come

here to do every day, and we are fighting to make that possible,

and the work that you do for Katrina and books, that is great. It

really is. I guess the question I would ask you is, how can you work

to have a positive message? Because they have to hear a positive

message from Congress. There are people here fighting to get that

positive message out too. We are not successful in the short run

and we have to continue to fight. What can you do? What you do

in Katrina unfortunately, what you do and some of these other

things, kids in America don’t hear about that. They should but they
82

don’t. All they hear is your music. So what can you do working

with those of us here who are trying to get out a positive message,

to try to put positive programs out, what can you do in your music

to get out the positive message, to accent that? What can you do?

Mr. CRUMP. I actually call my music a Bible with a Playboy cover

on it, and the one thing that I disagree with you about is, kids

know what I do because I make sure that I get on BET, I make

sure that I get on MTV, and as a matter of fact, one of the reasons

why my last album probably didn’t reach the place that it was supposed to reach even though I had one of the biggest singles in the

world is because I didn’t spend time promoting my album. I spent

time promoting what was going on in Mississippi and the fact that

people in Mississippi were being ignored. I think what happened,

as a matter of fact, and I think if you talk to people in the crowd,

people look at me as more of an activist than they do as a rapper

and it sort of hurts my pocket but that is fine.

Mr. MARKEY. Do you think that your music is consistent with or

undermining of the message you are sending——

Mr. CRUMP. Well, actually my music——

Mr. MARKEY. Is the music that you put out there consistent with

or undermining of the message you are sending on Katrina?

Mr. CRUMP. My message is very consistent. Actually, like I said,

I call my music a Bible with a Playboy cover. I start here and I

end in a different place, and what I will say real quick, I think part

of the problem I see in Congress right here today. I look at the fact

that we are debating about something that is so very important in

our society but our parents are gone. I am looking at the seats. Our

parents are gone. And as more questions are being asked as important as people say that this is, our parents are gone. So we are left

here again. Probably by the end of this day there is probably going

to be more of us than it will be of you guys. So once again we are

here to fend for ourselves again.

Mr. MARKEY. Let me say this to you. Every time one of your

video plays, there is not a video playing of your work in Katrina.

There is not a video playing of this other message. All there is that

one video and that is what the young people in America see. What

can you do in your videos, in your music that helps to propel this

more positive message out there at the same time, this Katrina

message? What can you do?

Mr. CRUMP. It is funny that you say that because people always

say that my videos are confusing because I always try to put something in my videos that I should probably spend more time being

focused on the music at hand. What I will say is——

Mr. MARKEY. Can you——

Mr. CRUMP. Can I ask you a question?

Mr. MARKEY. Can you do more?

Mr. CRUMP. Yes, I can do more.

Mr. MARKEY. Let me ask you, will you do more?

Mr. CRUMP. No, I am doing more. I think it is better for me to

become as big as 50 Cent so instead of asking the Red Cross to do

our ’hoods right and which the Red Cross did not do our ’hoods

right, I can do it myself with the finances that I have made, and

what I will say, I am—and I have to admit this. After I talked it

over with the preachers, I am like Stephen King. I do better at hor-
83

ror music. Horror music is what I do, and you don’t ask Will Smith

to do the same—well, why are you acting, Will Smith? Can you

please make sure that you put some kind of message in your movie

while you are acting and you are being a killer? We are musicians.

Mr. MARKEY. Look, we here in Washington have work to do. I

come to work every single day trying to do better for the people

that you are sending your message to. My question to you is, are

you willing to try to do better in communicating a message that is

more positive?

Mr. CRUMP. What I will say, I am willing to work harder to

change the conditions in which I come out of so maybe I won’t have

to talk about it. Maybe if we spent more time in New Orleans, and

being the fact that Mississippi is the most impoverished State in

the Union, maybe if my conditions change I would have different

things to talk about.

Mr. MARKEY. Can you get better?

Mr. CRUMP. I mean, I can get better if the situations get better.

Can we make the situations better? I am only speaking about what

I see in my neighborhood.

Mr. MARKEY. Well——

Mr. CRUMP. Change the situation in my neighborhood and maybe

I would have something——

Mr. MARKEY. Are you working to——

Mr. CRUMP. And I am not being combative. It is just painful to

me that we go through situations as African-Americans and it is

like we—first of all, we were brung here as slaves who were

thrown in situations and now we are talking about the stuff that

we see and it is like—it is a big problem. Everything that—there

is nothing that you can look at in my music and say that it doesn’t

exist in my community. That is all I am asking is let us really address the real problem because the truth is, everyone will point a

finger from that perspective. We can probably trace something back

to each and every family that helped affect the music that I am

talking about.

Mr. MARKEY. Children don’t always see it every day the way that

you do, and the question that you have and that I think we all

have to do and Washington has a responsibility is to create a sense

that there is hope, that there is a real to believe, that you can be

optimistic, that it doesn’t all have to be negative, and that is all

I am asking you to do is to try to in your message, in your power

to communicate that sense of optimism and that there are people

who are working to make things better. Because you are looking

at people here who work every single day to do it, from our chairman through most of the Members here. Now, we are not always

successful because there is a White House there but we need

through you, through your incredible power, because children don’t

hear the rest of this, for you to play a role too.

Mr. CRUMP. And I will ask you to do more research on me and

you will see that I am doing it and instead of listening to the curse

words, just listen to the fact that we are asking for help.

Mr. RUSH. We want to thank you very much. We are going to

conclude this line of questioning and we are going to have to conclude this testimony because we do have another panel that has
84

been just so patient. They have been here most of the day. Mr. Miller——

Mr. MILLER. Yes, I just want to elaborate on that. I think what

we have to get back to, I think where Mr. Banner is right now

where I understand what exactly is going on right now. We have

to understand that he has to realize what he is doing is personal

like in his views and what he does when he is in the media. I see

what the Congressman is saying. What exactly we do in the media,

it will affect the lives of other people so we got to think about it,

and that is why I say, education and knowledge is two different

things. I mean, we could be educated but when we get the knowledge and understand that, we will really be able to take our game

to the next level, and that is what I going to do. The kids out there

right now really need somebody to focus on the knowledge and

what we can do to make those changes because we do need that

balance. But also there is the media. We have to stop glorifying the

negative stuff and glorifying more positive things. Let us glorify the

positive people in hip hop and the kids are going to want to change.

But if we constantly keep glorifying the negative stuff—and also

we are in a panic mode right now. I want to leave you all with this,

that we are in a panic. I have to figure out how to take my game

to the next level because I want to help take David and everybody

else around me, to take us out of that panic mode because all we

got right now is just the way we eat, just the way we feed our kids.

I want to take hip hop to Wall Street to understand how to put a

balance so we don’t have to depend—and we really can say, understand that whatever we want but knowing that it affects somebody

and when we get to that level of the game, and understand we are

not talking about building a union and start building benefits for

hip hop, then we can control what these kids are saying. I want

to give these kids some type of—I want to be like the commissioner, like the NBA has.

Let us build a league for hip hop so now we could give benefits,

child care, make sure—because these kids are great. They come

from a great situation but we are not going to do that because

these guys are not going to sacrifice their paychecks and their jobs

right now unless we build some type of financial literacy where

they know that we change and it is not just about the music. It

is about something bigger. It is about our kids. It is about them

not being the way we are, and that is what I am going to take—

I will take full responsibility right now for hip hop saying that I

am a big part of the problem. I say that I am the father of this.

I sold 75 million records and I wish I had somebody to wake me

up in my prime to where now I could get to one of these kids like

Kanye West saying people are watching what you do. If you could

take your game to the next level, you just took out 50 Cent and

showed that you could be something bigger. Now if you think about

what you sell this next record or the next person that becomes

powerful with a big record like Chamillionaire already started to

clean his lyrics up and I am not saying change the content of the

freedom of speech, I am just saying take out the negative stuff that

they won’t play on the radio or TV anyway and we can get some

of these endorsement deals, we can get our product into, we can be

a part of the diversity programs. If you look at like Wal-Mart, Tar-
85

get, these people got diversity that we are not involved in because

we are stereotyped by the music. So it got to start today and I will

be a part of that mission. I will be out there fighting and I will be

out there making sure that we think about what we say and I can

help some of my colleagues around me and stay behind the scenes.

We have to get—like David said, we have to get what we need behind the scenes and talk about it and—when those guys left, the

first panel, they was communicating. We are at each other’s throats

and we don’t need to be there anymore because we are empowering

these communities right now.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much. We thank this panel. We thank

you so much for your time and for your testimony. You have really

done the entire Nation quite an excellent service. You really provided some insight into your art form and insight into your business. We thank you so very much. And now we will ask the next

panel to be please be seated. Thank you so very much.

There is a vote that is going on on the floor. There are three

votes, at least three votes, so we will recess until the vote is completed and then we will return, but I am going to introduce the

panel and possibly get to at least one opening statement before we

have to recess.

Our first panelist on the third panel is Tracy Danine SharpleyWhiting. She is a Ph.D. professor at Vanderbilt University. Professor Sharpley-Whiting is the author of a book entitled ‘‘Pimps Up,

Hos Down: Hip Hop’s Hold on Young Black Women,’’ and she is a

leading academic on, among other things, feminists and critical

race theory.

Our next panelist is Mr. Andrew Rojecki, who is also a Ph.D. and

associate professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Professor

Rojecki is the co-author of the book ‘‘The Black Image and the

White Mind’’ and has researched how media portrayals of AfricanAmericans reinforce stereotypes in the minds of white Americans.

Faye Williams, also a Ph.D., is the chair of the National Congress of Black Women. Dr. Williams is a valiant fighter, always on

the front lines, a remarkable woman. She continues the legacy of

the former NCBW chairwoman, the late Hon. Shirley Chisholm,

and the late Hon. C. Delores Tucker. She has targeted misogyny

in hip hop music as an area of much needed reform.

Lisa Fager is the president of Industry Ears. Ms. Fager is a leading watchdog of commercial hip hop and has long sought to reform

hip hop and return it to its artistic roots as an empowering art

form for young people.

And our last witness is Ms. Karin Dill, also a Ph.D. She is a professor at Lenoir-Rhyne College. Professor Dill is a psychologist who

specializes in gender stereotypes and misogyny as perpetrated and

reinforced by the popular media.

Again, in the interest of time, I am going to ask our first witness,

Dr. Whiting, would you please take 5 minutes for a an opening

statement?

STATEMENT OF TRACY SHARPLEY-WHITING, VANDERBILT

UNIVERSITY, NASHVILLE, TN

Ms. SHARPLEY-WHITING. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member

Stearns and other members of the subcommittee, thank you for in-
86

viting me here today to provide testimony on this very important

topic. It is a privilege to testify before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection.

Today, demeaning, degrading and objectifying black women are

undeniably profitable pastimes from the cross-dressing male a la

comedian Eddie Murphy’s recent turn in the $50 million-generating

Hollywood vehicle ‘‘Norbit,’’ to the Don Imus ‘‘nappy-headed hos’’

kerfuffle, to Rush Limbaugh’s referring to the accuser in the Duke

lacrosse rape case as a ‘‘ho,’’ to the ‘‘we don’t love them hos’’ of

much of commercial hip hop, a culture of disrespect, with black

women on the receiving end, packaged as entertainment permeates

American popular culture.

There are iPod commercials that allude to strip club culture featuring an abundantly rumped black woman holding onto a pole on

a public bus. And then there is the Quentin Tarantino ode to alpha

females in the second film of the double feature ‘‘Grindhouse’’

where the lone black female character is the only one to utter ad

nauseum an expletive that describes a female dog. Indeed, such antics have risen to the level of art, whereby entertainers believe they

should receive a ‘‘free pass’’ because they are merely performing

their craft, whether it be crude, curmudgeonly shock jocks or grillwearing pimped-out rap artists.

Although most Americans associate this culture of disrespect

with hip hop culture, ironically such characterizations find their

roots in our Nation’s beginnings. In 1781, a mere 5 years after penning that hallowed document of the new Nation, the Declaration of

Independence, which prized freedom while sanctioning perpetual

bondage, our Founding Father Thomas Jefferson put his sights on

writing on his beloved State of Virginia. In between pages on flora

and fauna in ‘‘Notes on the State of Virginia,’’ Jefferson delivered

a prophesy about race-based slavery in the United States. Of slavery, he would write

It is a great political and moral evil

and that he

trembled for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot

sleep forever... Deep-rooted prejudices entertained by whites, 10,000 recollections,

by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained will... divide us into parties . . . end[ing] in the extermination of one or the other races.

Of blacks in general, he concluded that, and I quote

Whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstance,

[they] are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind.

And of black women, he suggested that they were more ‘‘ardent’’

and preferred ‘‘uniformly’’ by the male ‘‘Oranootan’’ over females of

‘‘his own species.’’ There were no orangutans to be found in Virginia to substantiate such an observation. This fact was of little

consequence to Thomas Jefferson.

A deeply complicated and conflicted man, Jefferson, as is widely

acknowledged, had a prolonged intimate relationship with the

young slave girl, Sally Hemmings. With ‘‘Notes on the State of Virginia,’’ our Nation’s third president sealed an odious radical-sexual

contract within our national fabric regarding black women. Jefferson’s paradox has had an enduring legacy in the United States.

Against this unequivocal founding doctrine, black women have con-
87

tinuously been struggling both in the courts of law and public opinion, in our very own communities, and as of late, on American’s airwaves.

From slave narratives like Harriet Jacobs’ ‘‘Incidents in the Life

of a Slave Girl’’ to post-emancipation writings such as Anna Julia

Cooper’s ‘‘A Voice from the South, by a Woman from the South,’’

black women have been steadfast in decrying attacks on their character and morality. When after the president of the Missouri Press

Association wrote an open letter addressed to an English woman

attempting to cast aspersions on the credibility of anti-lynching

crusader Ida B. Wells, he made plain that black women had ‘‘no

sense of virtue’’ and ‘‘character’’. In response, the black women’s

club movement organized in July 1895 to defend their name.

Despite our strides in every area of American life, nearly 2 million college-educated black women out-earning their white and

Latina counterparts, 1 in 4 of us occupies managerial or professional positions, the profits to be had at our expense are far greater

than the cost of caricaturing our personhood.

Our own complicity in our objectification requires some scrutiny

as well. Consumer culture seduces many of us into selling ourselves short in the marketplace of ideas and desires. The range of

our successes and the diversity of our lives and career paths have

been congealed in the mainstream media into video vixens, thanks

to Karrine Steffans’ best-selling ‘‘Confessions of a Video Vixen’’ or

shake dance’s given the frenzy surrounding the Duke rape case and

hip hop culture’s collaboration with the multibillion-dollar adult entertainment industry.

That sexism and misogyny appear to be working overtime in

America to box us into these very narrow depictions of black womanhood are part and parcel of the Jeffersonian contract. Hip hop

culture certainly is certainly waist-deep in the muck of this racegender chauvinism. Male feelings of displacement in a perceived

topsy-turvy female-dominated world, increased competition for

women and girls in every facet of American life contribute to black

male on black female gender drive-bys, and black women’s seeming

resiliency, despite America’s continuing race and gender biases, our

strengths are flung back at us and condensed into cliches such as

the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s ‘‘emasculating superwomen,’’ or better still, that ‘‘B’’ word.

Though America drinks to the bursting from that Jeffersonian

well, it is imperative that women become politically and socially

conscious about the choices we make and the opportunities we

take. As a writer and scholar and member of the so-called ‘‘hip hop

generation,’’ I find aspects of American popular culture with its

global reach and entrepreneurial and innovative spirit deeply gratifying and simultaneously painfully disturbing. For what has become abundantly clear that it is not so much that we women don’t

count; we do in obviously various insidious ways. But we also don’t

add up to much, certainly not more than the profits, in the billions,

to be had at our expense.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee today, and I look forward to answering any

questions you and others may have of me.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sharpley-Whiting follows:]
88
89
90
91
92

Mr. RUSH. We want to thank you. We have to recess to go to vote

so we will recess until the conclusion of the last vote and then we

will come back. I want to thank you so much.

[Recess.]

Mr. RUSH. We will ask our second panelists to give us 5 minutes

of opening statements. Dr. Rojecki, am I pronouncing that right?

Mr. ROJECKI. Yes.

Mr. RUSH. Please, 5 minutes, if you will. You have 5 minutes for

opening statements.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW ROJECKI, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOISCHICAGO, CHICAGO, IL

Mr. ROJECKI. On behalf of my students and the faculty at the

University of Illinois at Chicago, I would like to thank the Chair

and the panel for inviting my testimony.

The Don Imus affair is the most recent example of a pattern in

how Americans think about race. The civil rights movement of the

1960s not only changed the legal framework for race issues, it also

changed the way Americans spoke in public about race. In terms

of the social sciences, the norms had changed. It became socially

unacceptable for white Americans to give voice to black stereotypes

in anger or in jest. By the early 1990s, the term ‘‘political correctness’’ had been coined to make fun of an exaggerated sensitivity to

personal feelings attached to group membership. The concept of political correctness is less important for naming a hypocritical repression of speech than for identifying an incomplete transformation. Specifically, the change in public norms has not been accompanied by a change in private attitudes. Political correctness

could not exist absent the tension between what is expected and

what is believed or felt. For example, large majorities of whites say

that blacks should have equal opportunity, but major American cities remain highly segregated. Black children continue to get inferior education and medical care and black unemployment remains

twice as high as white. How do whites explain these differences?

In the early 1940s, surveys found that majorities of whites explained lower black achievement as evidence of intellectual inferiority. Today only a small minority claim that as true. The shift in

perception from innate biological differences to social injustice

fueled the civil rights movement. Unfortunately, it also gave whites

license to discount discrimination as an explanation for the continuing difference between black and white success.

Majorities of whites now believe that the lesser position of African-Americans is due to moral failing or flaws in black culture

itself. In our own research on the black image in the white mind,

whites we interviewed spontaneously referred to media images of

sexuality and violence that supported their negative views. These

images substituted for the absence of sustained contact between

whites and blacks, inevitable in a society that remains segregated.

This is especially true among those persons whom we call the ambivalent majority, those whites who are sympathetic to aspirations

of black Americans but who are influenced by images that highlight irresponsibility and violence. In short, majorities of white

Americans have good intentions but not the subtle inner convictions to put their ideals into practice, perhaps because the forms
93

of discrimination routinely experienced by African-Americans have

become less visible.

Social psychologists who study social cognition, how people see

and process the social world, explain this ambivalence by invoking

the premise that we need simplified mental representations, they

call them schemata, to deal with reality. Schemata are simple mental shortcuts that let us economize on brain power. They also distort our perceptions. So powerful are these mental pictures that

they may be activated without conscious control or awareness, a

phenomenon reported by research in broad range of contexts. For

example, whites take less time to associate traits such as intelligence and kindness for a white face than for a black face because

those traits are consistent with their mental representations of

whites. These experimental results have important real-world implications.

In one study, researchers sent resumes, identical resumes except

for stereotypically white or black names, to employers in Chicago

and Boston and found that Greg and Emily were 50 percent more

likely to get call-blacks than Jamal and Lakisha. In another experiment, an identical test was given to black and white college students. In one condition students were told the test would assess intelligence and the other students were told the test would measure

a problem-solving task. Blacks and whites performed identically in

the latter condition but blacks did more poorly when they were told

the test measured intelligence. In other words, blacks may unconsciously hold the same stereotypes as whites and behave accordingly. More alarmingly, experimental research shows that police officers both white and black are more likely to shoot at black suspects than at white suspects.

There is a way out of the unconscious attitude bind: consciously

resist the stereotype. Research across a range of disciplines converges on the same result: lessen the power of the stereotype by

bringing it out of the unconscious dark and into the conscious light.

Thus, the Willie Horton ad lost much of its effectiveness when

Jesse Jackson made a public issue of its malicious intent. Social

psychologists find that whites who harbor unconscious stereotypes

are able to overcome their influence when they are made aware of

them and they have sufficient time to process those mental images.

Thus, medical researchers who do brain scan imaging find that the

centers of the limbic system, what we call the lizard brain, are

stimulated even among unprejudiced whites when the stimulus is

brief, 30 milliseconds of a black face. Lengthen the stimulus to half

a second and the power of that stereotype is resisted by the conscious prefrontal cortex. This explains in part why police officers

who have little time to react are more likely to be influenced by

unconscious attitudes.

On the issue of hip hop music, we know that Don Imus did not

coin the phrase he used to describe the Rutgers women’s basketball

team. It is also clear that he would have not used that phrase had

he thought about it for a second or two. That image was planted

in his mind through a complex sequence of events that began in a

culture of poverty that thrives in the black ghettoes of America.

Hip hop is a musical expression of a segment of African-Americans

who grew up under conditions of privation. The daily lives of Afri-
94

can-Americans have inspired a range of musical innovation and artistic expression: jazz, the blues. Sadness and tragedy are common

to the human condition, but in the United States they have been

disproportionately experienced by African-Americans who develop

musical forms to give artistic expressions to their life experience.

The music industry is always on the hunt for innovative forms

of music that may be marketed and sold to the largest audiences.

Hip hop has for over 25 years been an immensely popular genre

of music. Its largest audience is white. Marketing to that audience

follows the path of least resistance. Sensational images of sex and

violence are easier to package and promote than more thoughtful

and critical messages, thus gangster rap has endured much more

commercial success than the more politically oriented conscious

rap. DJs use a mix of hip hop to manage the mood of a club but

gangster rap is catnip to an audience more interested in sexual release than raising political consciousness.

So therein lie the incentives to artists, promoters, industry executives and white consumers. The music industry offers one of the

few paths out of poverty available to African-Americans. Sex and

violence offer proven paths to commercial success and black experience continues to provide vicarious thrills for white audiences. Today’s suburban adolescents will in time move to influential positions within corporate America. The question this panel needs to

address is whether the stream of imagery and language in gangster

rap is more likely to get Lakisha and Jamal a call-back. If the answer is no, how can a system of incentives be changed to make that

more likely. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rojecki follows:]

STATEMENT OF ANDREW ROJECKI

The Don Imus affair is the most recent example of a pattern in the way Americans think about race. The Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s not only changed

the legal framework for issues of race, it also changed the way Americans spoke in

public about race. In the terms of the social sciences, the norms had changed. It

became socially unacceptable for white Americans to give voice to black stereotypes

in anger or even in jest. By the early 1990’s the term political correctness (PC) had

been coined to make fun of an exaggerated sensitivity to personal feelings attached

to group identity.

The concept of political correctness is less important for naming a hypocritical repression of speech than for identifying an incomplete transformation. Specifically,

a change in public norms has not been accompanied by a change in private attitudes. Political correctness could not exist absent the tensions between what is expected and what is believed or felt. For example large majorities of whites say that

blacks should have equal opportunity, but major American cities remain highly segregated (the ten largest at 75 percent), black children continue to get inferior education and medical care, and black unemployment remains twice as high as white.

How do whites explain these differences? In the early 1940’s surveys found that

majorities of white Americans explained lower black achievement as evidence of intellectual inferiority (Kinder & Sanders, 1996). Today, only a small minority claim

that is true (Schuman et al., 1997). The shift in perception from innate, biological

differences to social injustice fueled the success of the Civil Rights movement. Unfortunately, it also gave whites license to discount discrimination as an explanation

for the difference between black and white achievement.

Majorities of whites now believe that the lesser position of African Americans is

due to individual moral failing or flaws in black culture itself (Sears & Henry,

2005). In our own research on the black image in the white mind (Entman &

Rojecki, 2000), whites we interviewed spontaneously referred to media images of

sexuality and violence that supported their negative views. These images substituted for the absence of sustained contact between whites and blacks, inevitable
95

in a society that remains segregated by race (Massey & Denton, 1993; Mumford

Center, 2001). This is especially true among those persons whom we call the ambivalent majority, those whites who are sympathetic to aspirations of black Americans

but who are influenced by images that highlight irresponsibility and violence. In

short, majorities of white Americans have good intentions but not the settled inner

convictions to put their ideals into practice, perhaps because the forms of discrimination routinely experienced by African Americans have become less visible (e.g.

Feagin, 1991; Myers & Passion Williamson, 2001).

Social psychologists who study social cognition—how people see and process the

social world—explain this ambivalence by invoking the premise that we need simplified mental representations (schemata) to deal with the social world. Schemata

are mental shortcuts that allow us to economize on expenditures of brain power.

They also distort our perceptions. So powerful are these mental pictures that they

may be activated without the person’s conscious control or awareness, a phenomenon widely reported by research in a broad range of contexts.

For example, whites take less time to associate traits such as intelligence and

kindness for a white face than for a black face because those traits are consistent

with their mental representations of whites (see Gaertner & McLaughlin, 1983 for

the pioneering study; see also https//implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/). These experimental results have important real world implications. In one study (Bertrand &

Mullainathan, 2004) researchers sent resumes, identical except for stereotypically

white or black names to employers and found that the Greg or Emily were 50 percent more likely to get callbacks than Jamal or Lakisha. In another, experimenters

gave an identical test to black and white college students. In one condition students

were told the tests would assess intelligence; in the other students were told the

tests would measure a lab problem-solving task. Blacks performed identically in the

latter condition but did more poorly when they were told the test measured intelligence (Steele, 1997). In other words, blacks may unconsciously hold same stereotypes as whites and behave accordingly. More alarmingly, experimental research

shows that police officers, both white and black, are more likely to shoot at black

suspects than white suspects (Correll, et al., 2002).

There is a way out of the implicit attitude bind: consciously resisting the stereotype. Research across a range of disciplines converges on the same result: lessen the

power of the stereotype by bringing it out of the unconscious dark into the conscious

light. Thus the Willie Horton ad lost its effectiveness when Jesse Jackson made a

public issue of its malicious intent (Mendelberg, 2001). Social psychologists find that

whites who harbor unconscious stereotypes are able to overcome their influence

when they are made aware of them and they have sufficient time to process those

mental images. Medical researchers who do brain scan imaging find that the fear

centers of the limbic system (sometimes referred to as the lizard brain) are stimulated even among unprejudiced whites when the stimulus is brief—30 milliseconds

of a black face (Cunningham et al., 2004). Lengthen the stimulus to half a second

and the power of the stereotype is resisted by the conscious prefrontal cortex. This

explains in part why police officers who have little time to react are more likely to

be influenced by unconscious attitudes.

On the issue of hip-hop music, we know that Don Imus did not coin the phrase

he used to describe the Rutgers women’s basketball team. It is also clear that he

would not have used that phrase had he thought about it for a second or two. That

image was planted in his mind through a complex sequence of events that began

in a culture of poverty that thrives in the black ghettos of America. Hip-hop is a

musical expression of a segment of lived experience that resonates with a significant

number of African Americans who grew up under conditions of privation. The lived

experiences of African-American life have inspired a range of musical innovation

and artistic expression, as in jazz and the blues. Sadness and tragedy are common

to the human condition, but in the United States they have been disproportionately

experienced by African Americans who have developed musical forms to give artistic

expression to their lived experience.

The music industry is always on the hunt for innovative forms of music that may

be marketed and sold to the largest audiences. Hip-hop has for over twenty-five

years been an immensely popular genre of music, and its largest audience is white.

Marketing to that audience follows the path of least resistance: sensational images

of sex and violence are easier to package and promote than more thoughtful and

critical messages. Thus gangster rap has enjoyed much more commercial success

than the more politically oriented conscious rap. DJs use a mix of hip-hop to manage the mood of a club, but gangster rap is catnip to an audience more interested

in sexual release than raising political consciousness.

Therein lie the incentives to artists, promoters, industry executives, and white

consumers. The music industry offers one of the few paths out of poverty available
96

to African Americans, sex and violence offer proven paths to commercial success,

and black experience continues to provide vicarious thrills for white audiences. Today’s suburban adolescents will in time move to influential positions within corporate America. The question this panel needs to address is whether the stream of

imagery and language in gangster rap is more or less likely to get Lakisha and

Jamal a callback. And if the answer is no, how can the system of incentives be

changed to make that more likely.

References

Bertrand, M. &, Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable

than Lakisha and Jamal? National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper

No. 9873.

Correll, J., Judd, C. M., Park, B., & Wittenbrink, B. (2002). The police officer’s

dilemma: Using ethnicity to disambiguate potentially threatening individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83: 1314–39.

Cunningham, W. A., Johnson. M. K., Raye, C. L., Gatenby, C., Gore, J. C., &

Banaji M. R. (2004) Separable neural components in the processing of black and

white faces. Psychological Science, 15: 806–13.

Entman, R. M., & Rojecki, A. (2000). The black image in the white mind: Media

& race in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Feagin, J. (1991). The Continuing significance of race: Antiblack discrimination in

public places. American Sociological Review, 56: 101–116.

Gaertner, S. L., & McLaughlin, J. P. (1983). Racial stereotypes: Associations and

ascriptions of positive and negative characteristics. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44:

192–203.

Kinder, D. R., & Sanders, L. M. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the

making of the Underclass. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Mendelberg, T. (2001). The race card. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Mumford Center. (2001). Ethnic diversity grows, neighborhood integration lags behind. Available online: http://mumford1.dyndns.org/cen2000/WholePop/WPreport/

MumfordReport.pdf

Myers, K A., & Passion Williamson, B. S. (2001). Race talk: The perpetuation of

racism through private talk. Race and Society, 4: 3–26.

Schuman, H., Steeh, C., Bobo, L., & Krysan, M. (1997). Racial attitudes in America: Trends and interpretations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Sears, D. O., & Henry, P. J. (2005). Over thirty years later: A contemporary look

at symbolic racism and its critics. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37:

95–150.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test

performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69:

797–811.

Mr. RUSH. Professor Williams.

STATEMENT OF FAYE WILLIAMS, NATIONAL CHAIR, NATIONAL

CONGRESS OF BLACK WOMEN, INC., WASHINGTON, DC

Ms. WILLIAMS. Chairman Rush, on behalf of the Women’s Coalition on Dignity and Diversity representing more than 11 million

women and their families, we thank you for holding this hearing.

Even though many of the Members of Congress could not be here,

many of the cameras have left, many people have left, we women

have heard that someone said we will get over this and they will

just outwait us, they don’t know us because we are still here, we

are still standing.

Our coalition is made up of a diverse group of women who come

from the National Council of Women’s Organizations, National

Council of Negro Women, the Women of Rainbow PUSH, the

Women of National Action Network, National Organization for

Women, Feminist Majority, YWCA, the National Coalition on Black

Civic Participation, the National Congress of Black Women, women

from labor, women in sports, women from religion, women from
97

business and all walks of life, and I just want to say that this is

not about hip hop. It is not about just rap or us. We are here because we are putting everybody on notice that women are tired of

the images of ourselves that we see out there. Some of us educate

ourselves. You will notice at this table, everybody’s name carries

with it ‘‘doctor’’ and we work very hard for the young people in our

community and we are tired of being denigrated in our society.

Mr. Chairman, we women, especially black women and our children, have been bombarded with misogyny, violence and obscenities day after day. In a society that claims that it is fair and seeks

justice for all, too many corporate leaders have captured the rawness of the feelings of many black males and a few black females

who feel disenfranchised. Some rap and hip hop music which began

with a positive purpose now taps into the psyche of black teens

who have a sense that no one cares that the young black males are

routinely getting the short end of the stick in America. They look

at what is happening in Katrina still, what is happening to the

Jena 6 in my home State of Louisiana, and they have reason to believe that they should be angry with everybody including you and

me, Mr. Chairman.

Instead of putting adequate funds into the education and care of

young people and the assurance of jobs and the chance to build

their own businesses, our system has failed them by steadily diverting funds into war and destruction. We have not always provided the kinds of options that would prevent our young people

from idolizing the lives of thugs and pimps and warlords and negative images. Too many of us have criticized young people for denigrating and disrespecting women and black people in order to

make a living when they are offered no decent option. We have allowed greed to lead many of our young people to believe that it is

OK to entertain themselves by destroying the culture of a people.

We know all too well what happened to our Native American brothers and sisters in movies through the years. The obscenities we see

and here today have become commonplace to the point that it is

being genocidal. Even our babies have been subjected to horrifying

language and images on public airwaves by those who should know

better but are claiming that this is the only way to relate to our

children. If you haven’t seen the so-called public service advertisement that looks just like any other cartoon called ‘‘Read a Book’’

you need to see it to understand what we are talking about and

why we are still standing. What are teachers to do when they hear

the children repeat these words? Why should our children be assaulted daily with garbage under the guide of first amendment

rights to say nothing about responsibility? I challenge those are so

supportive of unlimited free speech without responsibility to question why they have not spoken out for the right of Anton Mohammad to testify here today and to speak out for independent media

outlets. The corporate executives that lure our young people into

believing it is all right to destroy the culture of people seem to have

targeted black women and our families who contributed too much

to this society.

We believe in freedom of speech but with every right goes a responsibility. We have a right to earn money but we have a corresponding responsibility to pay taxes. We have a right to travel
98

on public transportation but a responsibility not to carry guns onto

them. We have a right to have children but a responsibility not to

abuse and neglect them. Mr. Chairman, using the public airwaves

and public forums may be our right but the line must be drawn

and balanced by the responsibility to refrain from painting an immoral image of an entire race of people and of black women in particular.

Not only entertainment executives but advertisers must act more

responsibly. Why should we want to buy a product that pays for

our destruction? Mr. Chairman, those of us who use public airwaves must be made to understand that there are consequences for

those who insist upon subjecting our children to songs like ‘‘Read

a Book,’’ and the words are just too bizarre for me to mention here

today. When you see the video and hear the words, you will understand why we are so highly disturbed. Along with the right of freedom of speech goes the responsibility not to bombard those airwaves and our public forums with filthy, derogatory, offensive, indecent language that crosses the line of decency. We are not objecting to what goes on in adult nightclubs here. We are talking about

what is brought to our children and they deserve better images.

Nearly 15 years ago my predecessor, the late Dr. C. Delores

Tucker, warned us about where we were headed when we allow unrestricted rights to spew vicious, hateful words about women and

how this contributes to violence and disrespect in our society, and

I know, Mr. Chairman, you would agree the results have come to

pass. On occasion we turn on our television and we black women

are embarrassed and humiliated by what we see when we see

women who are portrayed as gangsters and men who are portrayed

as pimps and women as prostitutes and the thuggishness that we

see there with no mention of the great works of great black people,

no balance whatsoever. What we are often seeing on television, videos and elsewhere is not the culture of the black people I know.

Our culture has more to do with respecting our elders, our sisters,

our mothers, our grandmothers, but where are those images? In

our culture, the gangster is the exception. The thug, the pimp, the

prostitute, those are the exceptions. Many black men and women

serve this country with honor and distinction and deserve better

treatment.

In conclusion, I would like to say black women have served this

country as Surgeons General, Secretary of Labor, Energy, Housing

and Urban Development, Secretary of State, in Congress, as diplomats, as college presidents, in law, medicine and all walks of life

and rarely do we ever hear public officials even speaking out about

balancing rights with responsibilities when it comes to the images

portrayed of black women and our families. Don Imus was wrong

when he belittled the young women at Rutgers. Cortland Malloy of

the Washington Post is usually right on the issues but he just plain

got it wrong when he belittled our efforts to demand better images

of women and our families in our Enough is Enough Campaign.

Isiah Thomas, as mentioned before, is wrong when he says that it

is highly offensive for a white male to call a black female the ‘‘B’’

word. Well, it is wrong then but it is always wrong.

Mr. Chairman, we in the Women’s Coalition for Dignity and Diversity respect the first amendment and we believe in the right to
99

free speech but we also believe in decent speech. Yes, rights without responsibility should be labeled anarchy yet that is much of

what we see and hear on our public airwaves and in public forums.

It is time for Congress to stand up and to insist upon responsibility

and to insist that others take responsibility and make that clear to

the FCC and the FTC, what their roles should be in making it happen. We can’t and we won’t sit around and wait for gangster rap

or hip hop or anything else in our society with those vicious media

images of us to self-destruct. We are not just talking about BET

here either, and its parent company, Viacom, about bombarding

our community with vicious images. We are talking about everyone

who does it in all walks of life. Being credited with or blamed for

the diminishing sales of gangster rap, Mr. Chairman, and offensive

language and images is a banner we women proudly bear but it is

not happening because we allowed it to self-destruct. It is happening because we have been intent on making it happen for years, at

least since the National Congress of Black Women began this campaign nearly 15 years ago.

Again, Mr. Chairman, we thank you so much for having this

hearing today. We women are glad that we finally have our chance

to say something public because we witnessed so much time when

we were never called upon, so we appreciate you for calling on us

today.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Williams follows:]

STATEMENT OF FAYE WILLIAMS

Chairman Rush and members of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and

Consumer Protection, on behalf of the Women’s Coalition on Dignity and Diversity,

representing more than 11 million women and their families, we thank you for holding this hearing.

Our coalition is made up of diverse groups of women from numerous

organizations’such as the National Council of Negro Women, Rainbow-PUSH, National Action Network, National Organization for Women, Feminist Majority, the

YWCA, the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, the National Congress

of Black Women, as well as women in sports, religion, labor, business and all walks

of life.

Mr. Chairman, we women, especially we black women and our children, have been

bombarded with misogyny, violence and obscenity through public airwaves day after

day. In a society that claims that it is fair and seeks justice for all, too many corporate leaders in the entertainment business have captured the rawness of the feelings of many black males, and a few black females, who feel disenfranchised. Some

rap music which began with a positive purpose, now taps into the psyche of black

teens who have a sense that no one cares that young black males are routinely getting the short end of the stick in America. They look at what is happening in the

Jena 6 case in my home State, Louisiana, and they have reason to believe they

should be angry with everybody—even with black women and black elders who’ve

given their all to try to make life better for them.

Instead of putting adequate funds into the education and care of young people,

and the assurance of jobs and a chance to build their own businesses, our system

has failed them by steadily diverting funds into war and destruction. We have not

always provided the kinds of options that would prevent our young people from idolizing the lives of thugs, pimps, warlords or other negative images. Too many of us

have criticized young people for denigrating and disrespecting women and black people in order to make a living, when they are offered no decent options.

We have allowed greedy corporate executives—especially those in the entertainment industry—to lead many of our young people to believe that is okay to entertain

themselves by destroying the culture of our people. We know all too well what happened to our Native American brothers and sisters in movies through the years. The

profanity, vulgarity, and obscenity we see and hear today have become common

place to the point of being genocidal.
100

Even our very young babies have become subjected to horrifying language and images on public airwaves by those who should know better, but are claiming that this

is the only way to relate to our children. If you haven’t seen the so-called public

service advertisement that looks like just another cartoon, called Read a Book, you

need to see it to understand what I am talking about. What are teachers to do when

they hear these children repeat these words?

Why should our children be assaulted daily with garbage under the guise of First

amendment rights that say nothing about responsibility?

The corporate executives that lure our young people into believing it is all right

to destroy the culture of a people seem to have targeted black women and our families who’ve contributed so much to this nation. The same can be said historically

about our Native American sisters and their families.

We believe in freedom of speech, but with every right goes responsibility. We have

a right to earn money, but we have a corresponding responsibility to pay income

taxes.We have a right to travel on public transportation such as airplanes, but a

responsibility not to carry on or even mention guns or other weapons while riding.

We have a right to have children, but a responsibility not to abuse or neglect them.

Mr. Chairman, using the public airwaves may be a right, but the line must be

drawn and balanced by the responsibility to refrain from painting an immoral image

of an entire race of people—and of black women in particular. Not only entertainment executives, but advertisers must act more responsibly. Why should we want

to buy a product that pays for our destruction?

Mr. Chairman, those who use the public airwaves must be made to understand

that there are consequences for those who insist upon subjecting our children to

songs like Read a Book. The words are too bizarre to mention in this hearing, but

it’s easy enough to hear them on the Internet or on television.

When you see the video and hear the words, you will understand why we are so

highly disturbed about what is brought to our children—while those who bring it

castigate those of us who object to it. We all want our children to read a book, but

our children are not so dumb that they need to be told in such vile and bizarre language to do so. Along with the right of freedom of speech goes the responsibility not

to bombard those airwaves with filthy, derogatory, offensive, indecent language that

crosses the line of decency and shocks the conscience of all who hear or see it. We’re

not objecting to what goes on in adult clubs here; we’re talking about what is

brought to our children who deserve better images.

Nearly 15 years ago, my predecessor, the late Dr. C. DeLores Tucker, warned us

about where we were headed when we allow unrestricted rights to spew vicious,

hateful words about women, and how this contributes to violence and disrespect.

The results have come to pass.

On occasion, we turn our televisions on and we are embarrassed and humiliated

to see so many black men and women portrayed as gangsters, pimps, prostitutes,

and thugs—with no mention of the great works of our people—no balance what-soever.

What we so often see on television, videos and elsewhere is not the culture of the

people I know. It’s not the culture of the majority of black people. Our culture has

more to do with respecting our elders, our sisters, our mothers and grandmothers—

but where are those images? In our culture, the gangster is the exception; the thug

is the exception; the pimp is the exception; the prostitute is the exception. Many

black men and women serve this country with honor and distinction, and deserve

better treatment.

Black women have served this country as Surgeon General, Secretary of Labor,

Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of State, in Congress, as Diplomats, as college Presidents, in law, medicine and all walks of life—and too rarely

do we even hear many of our public officials speak out about balancing rights with

responsibilities when it comes to the images portrayed of black women and our families on public airwaves. Don Imus was wrong when he belittled the young women

at Rutgers. Courtland Milloy of the Washington Post is usually right on the issues,

but he just plain got it wrong when he belittled our efforts to demand better images

of women and our families in our ‘‘Enough is Enough’’ campaign. Isiah Thomas is

wrong when he says that it’s highly offensive for a white male to call a black female

a b * * * *, but it’s okay for a black man to do so. Well, Mr. Thomas would be surprised to know that they’re equally offensive and totally unacceptable to black

women.

Chairman Rush, we in the Women’s Coalition for Dignity and Diversity respect

the First Amendment rights of every citizen. We believe in the right to free speech,

but we also believe in decent speech.

Yes, rights without responsibilities should be labeled anarchy; yet that is much

of what we see and hear on our public airwaves. It’s time for Congress to stand up
101

and insist upon responsibility, and make it clear to the FCC and the FTC what their

roles should be in making it happen. That is what we in the Women’s Coalition for

Dignity and Diversity are saying.

We can’t, and we won’t, sit around and wait for gangsta rap and other vicious

media images of us to self destruct. We’re not just talking about BET, and its parent

company, Viacom, about bombardment of our community with vicious images of

women and of black people. We call upon all media to be more responsible. We also

call upon advertisers to be more sensitive to the pain these negative images cause

those of us being targeted.

I conclude by repeating what President Lyndon Johnson once said, ‘‘How incredible it is that in this fragile existence we should hate and destroy one another!’’ And

I say that without responsibility, that is exactly what happens to women and our

families each time someone decides to denigrate us on public airwaves for the almighty dollar, and in the name of free speech.

Being credited with, or being blamed for, the diminishing sales of gangsta rap and

offensive language and images is a banner we proudly wear; but it’s not happening

because we allowed it to self destruct. It’s happening because we’ve been intent

upon making it happen for years—at least since the National Congress of Black

Women began our campaign nearly 15 years ago, with others joining us recently.

We have a long way to go, Mr. Chairman, and we still need your help. We need

Mr. Markey’s help and the help of every Member of this Subcommittee and the

Committee on Energy and Commerce to rein in what should and what should not

be seen or said so freely on public airwaves.

We need the Progressives, Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, Independents,

and all others to talk not just about rights of free speech, but also about the responsibilities inherent in this great freedom. Again, we thank you for your courage in

holding these hearings.

STATEMENT OF LISA FAGER BEDIAKO, PRESIDENT, INDUSTRY

EARS, ODENTON, MD

Ms. BEDIAKO. Actually I am the only person up here without a

Ph.D.

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is all right. You are good. You have good information.

Ms. BEDIAKO. I have an M.B.A.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify today on

the business of stereotypes and degrading images. My name is Lisa

Fager Bediako and I am the president and cofounder of Industry

Ears. Industry Ears is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, independent organization which is focused on the impact media has on communities

of color and children since 2003. My cofounder, Paul Porter, and I

have collectively more than 40 years of experience working in

media and entertainment companies including BET, Clear Channel

Communications, Emmetts Communications, Discovery Communications, CBS Radio, Capital EMI Records, Def Jam Records and

Radio One, to name a few. Using our insiders’ knowledge, we created Industry Ears and IndustryEars.com to address the myths

and misconceptions about the media and entertainment industry

and how they operate, and more importantly, to develop effective

means to combat the negative consequences of harmful media images and messages on children, particularly children of color.

The now-infamous Imus incident is intriguing in that it has created strange bedfellows. It has unified both conservative and liberal media invoking hip hop music as a veritable poster child of all

that is wrong with society. This is a popular argument made in the

throes of Imus oft-repeated ‘‘nappy-head hos’’ comment. Such language pales in comparison to the content of most commercialized

hip hop music. The idea is that if radio stations and Viacom music

channels can play the b * * * *, n * * * * *, ho content of gangsta rap-
102

pers, then what is so bad about the Imus comment. If the black

community apparently accepts such language from its own, then

why get upset when Don Imus says it.

What appears to be more difficult to understand, especially to

our friends in the news media, is there exists a large cadre of individuals and organizations that represent communities of color that

also are in an uproar when media permit content that is degrading

to women and people of color. Note that unlike conservative and

liberal media hype, our concern is not simplistically directed at the

artists who produce such material. Our concern is also directed towards the record labels, radio stations and music video channels,

i.e., the corporations that are profiting from and allowing such material to air. This is a fact that often gets overlooked in mainstream

media: not all black people and not all lovers of hip hop like myself

endorse materialism, violence and misogyny that characterize commercial rap music. It is time to wake up and see the real issue. The

media conglomerates are the gatekeepers of content and in essence

control what opinions receive airtime.

The deletion of the Fairness Doctrine and the passage of the

1996 Telecommunications Act help to create incredibly big media

corporations by eliminating the requirements that balance viewpoints be presented, and by relaxing rules, placing limits on how

much media a single corporation can own. Further, by repealing

the Tax Certification Program, which successfully, if temporarily,

increased ownership of media outlets by people of color, we have

ensured that these big media corporations do not represent the diversity of society. With the control of so much media concentrated

in the hands of a very few, we are at the mercy of big media and

rely on companies to serve the best interest of the public while also

serving their bottom line. And as might seem obvious, what best

serves the public interest and what best serves the bottom line are

not always the same. This is evidenced by the fact that CBS fired

Imus only when corporate sponsors started to pull out.

Commercial hip hop has flourished in this environment, giving

public perception that what you see and what you hear on radio

and TV has been set in the community standard. The Federal Communications Commission states that it is a Federal violation to

broadcast indecent or sexually explicit content between the hours

of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. However, songs that discuss explicit sexual

situations including oral sex, rape, casual sex and gang sex receive

daily spins on radio stations and video channels that cater to the

12–17 demographic.

Freedom of speech has been shown by the industry conglomerates to mean the ‘‘B’’ word, the ‘‘N’’ word and ‘‘ho’’ while censoring and eliminating hip hop music that discusses Hurricane

Katrina, the Iraqi war, the Jena 6, dangers of gun violence and

drugs and songs that have contained words like ‘‘George Bush’’ and

‘‘Free Mummia.’’ In 2005, MTV and radio stations around the country self-regulated themselves to remove the word ‘‘white man’’ from

the Kanye West hit song ‘‘All Fall Down.’’ The lyrics demonstrated

the far reach of capitalism by explaining drug dealers like Jordans,

crackheads like crack, and a white man gets paid from all of that.

When asked why they decided to dub ‘‘white man’’ from the lyrics,

the response from MTV was, we did not want to offend anyone.
103

Today hip hop is bombarded by the demeaning images of black

male thugs and the sleazy video vixen. Record labels and their executives choose to support and promote these images for airplay

solely as if these are the only images that represent black people.

I understand that payola is out of the scope of the subcommittee.

However, I think it is important to mention because it is a major

contributor to how music receives radio and video airplay. The

former attorney general Eliot Spitzer, now governor of New York,

made deals with four major record labels totaling $30.1 million as

with two broadcasters for another $6.25 million in a statewide payola investigation that also implicated many outside of the State of

New York. Meanwhile, the FCC settled with a consent decree that

stopped a Federal investigation of payola and allowed broadcasters

to avoid a finding of liability by this violation and entering into a

settlement agreement costing them a measly combined total of

$12.5 million, and then on top of that, they do not have to admit

guilt. All over the country, you have identical play lists from station to station no matter the radio format, and it is no coincidence.

Payola is no longer the local DJ receiving a couple dollars under

the table. It is now an organized corporate crime that supports the

lack of balanced content and demeaning imagery with no consequences.

A good example of records, radio and corporate partnerships include the song on Virgin record label called ‘‘Miss New Booty’’ and

there is a sheet under your copies of this picture, and this is what

I am referring to. This song performed by a white rapper was silly

and tasteless but the promotion by the record label and the partnership with Girls Gone Wild was truly offensive. A local Washington DJ on an urban radio station in Washington, DC, at 5 p.m. promoted the tune by suggesting he would like to visit the

MissNewBooty.com Web site to masturbate. The Web site created

by Virgin Records asks girls to enter a contest for the best new

booty. The girls are required to take photos of their butts and post

them online. Each week people would vote for the best booty of the

week and the winner receiving a chance to be in a music video. It

was obvious that girls under 17 were entering the contest. Some

even listed their MySpace account, making it easy for the child

predator. The Girls Gone Wild partner was listed on top of the Web

site and linked and making it easy for preteens and others to access. I wrote an open letter to Virgin Records and Jermaine Dupree

at the time, who was president of urban music at Virgin, responded

by saying it was all in fun, it wasn’t about sex. Later that same

month Jermaine Dupree appeared in an article in Billboard magazine and said that hip hop was inspired by strip clubs. Go figure.

It is important to note that African-American children listen and

watch more radio and television than any other demographic. Although top 40 and hip hop radio stations claim to target 18–34 demographics as well as the MTV and BET stations, their largest audience share are the 12- to 17-year-old segment. Record companies,

radio stations and Viacom are aware of their audience but have

chosen to put the bottom line above the welfare of the audience.

In the hip hop documentary ‘‘Hip Hop Beyond Beats,’’ a group of

white teens are asked what they think about hip hop. They explain

hip hop gives us a better insight into black culture and it is like
104

how it is to grow up in the ghetto as if all black people had the

same experience. Bakari Kitwana, professor and author of several

books dealing with hip hop and politics——

Mr. RUSH. Ms. Bediako——

Ms. BEDIAKO. I am going to wrap it up.

Mr. RUSH. Please.

Ms. BEDIAKO. I am going to tell you what he said. He was doing

research and he asked a group of white women if they were offended by rappers using the term ‘‘b*** *’’ to describe women and

they said no, because they are only referring to black women.

In sum, I just want to say I am sure the industry will shrug at

the notion that these actions that they have done have led or influenced any behavior and so I strongly suggest that a research study

look at these direct impacts of degrading and stereotypical images

on children and adults. This study will help us understand the direct implications and back up the policy and regulations that need

to be implemented and enforced.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fager-Bediako follows:]
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much.

Dr. Dill, please, around 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF KAREN DILL, PH.D., LENOIR-RHYNE COLLEGE,

HICKORY, NC

Ms. DILL. Chairman Rush, thank you so much for inviting me

here and I am very pleased that you are holding this hearing today

about this important subject. We Americans spend two-thirds of

our waking lives consuming media, be it television, movies, video

games or the Internet. Media consumption is the No. 1 waking activity of choice for U.S. Americans, commanding on average 3,700

hours of each citizen’s time annually. The average American child

devotes 45 hours plus per week of what we call screen time, which

is combined television and others forms of media. This alone I

think America is putting serious attention into looking at media

education in our school system. It is what children do with their

time.

Since culture is our shared reality created and sustained through

common experience, American culture is now largely what is

shaped and maintained by the mass media be it television, video

games or music. Media creates meaning, it creates shared beliefs

and values and even rules for behavior. They all tell us stories,

project images and communicate ideas. Since we are social creatures, it is natural for us to learn who we are, how we should act,

feel, think and believe through the stories of our common culture.

We were not created to have social interactions on the media. We

treat our interactions with the media like they were real-life faceto-face interactions and that is how we learn through that information. If we see a black person behaving a certain way in the media,

we think oh, this is social information, this is real behavior.

This creation of culture through popular media was sadly exemplified recently when radio personality Don Imus referred to a college women’s basketball team as ‘‘nappy-headed hos.’’ Sadder still,

many responded that the racist and sexist language was acceptable

because that type of language is used by minority members in rap

music. Unfortunately, racist and sexist slurs influence real people,

for example, sending the message to girls that this is how our society views you and causing issues with self-esteem and with identity. Over and over again I have had the chance to talk with people

about media and by and large what I find is that people do not believe they are affected by media at all. Studies show this. People

do not believe they are affected by the media. As an example, a recent study showed that the more violent video games you play, the

less you think people are affected by playing violent video games.

There is a lot of reasons for these different misperceptions about

the media. I will name a few here. First of all, we all have a natural tendency to not want to believe that our habits are harmful. We

don’t want to believe that our child playing a violent video game

can have a negative influence. That would make us a bad parent

or a bad person. We have a mistaken view of how media affects us.

For example, we think media effects need to be immediate and very

extreme. People say to me often, I play lots of violent video games

and I haven’t picked up a gun and gone out and shot someone.

Well, that is not how media effects work. Media creates a culture
115

and for example, we are talking about rap lyrics today. That creates a culture where we understand women, black women particularly in a certain way. It is not a matter of where you go out and

shoot someone or behave in an extreme fashion. It is a cumulative

effect.

Also, we misunderstand that media are produced primarily to entertain us. They are produced primarily to make a profit and the

content follows. And finally, we have a tendency to believe that for

an important event it must have an important cause so if someone

is violent, it can’t be caused by watching television or listening to

a song. So there are lots of things that we don’t understand about

how the media works and again that just underlines the idea that

we need a media education curriculum in our schools so that kids

can understand this.

Research on music has demonstrated that exposure to violent rap

videos increases adversarial sexual beliefs, meaning that we view

men and women as enemies in the sexual sphere. It also increases

the acceptance of relationship violence. Additionally, violent music

lyrics have been shown to increase aggression.

The APA taskforce on the sexualization of girls just put out a report in 2007. It is an excellent piece of work and we have included

in the written record that report for you to look at. That report

found that when girls are exposed to images in the media of women

as sex objects, a variety of negative outcomes follow. Sexualization

is linked to negative consequences, both cognitive and emotional

functioning, mental health including eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression, physical health and one’s own sexual image

also develops less healthy than it would.

To understand the psychology behind these issues, one must understand that aggression is in part motivated by a need for power,

dominance and coercion. For example, current research characterizes domestic violence as being motivated by the need to coerce and

dominate. Theoretically, both sexism and racism in the media are

examples of social influence. Degrading women and minorities

through sexist and racist language and imagery is a way to keep

women and minorities quote, unquote, in their place. It creates a

culture in which this true. I have several research examples summarized in my written testimony but I wanted to tell you about one

study I conducted recently with my colleagues, Michael Collins and

Brian Brown. We exposed young people to either sexist stereotypes

or to professional men and women and then we had them read a

story, a real-life story about a woman who experienced sexual harassment from her college professor, and then we asked them questions about this and what we found was that the men who had

been exposed to the sexist images were less likely to say the event

really was sexual harassment, to say it was serious and damaging

and to show empathy for the victim. They were more likely to

blame the victim and choose less severe punishment for the perpetrator.

Today we heard that if you don’t like a piece of music or a television show, you can just turn it off, but you can’t turn off your culture. This kind of imagery pervades the culture.

In conclusion, we enjoy freedom of expression in this country but

no country can grant us freedom from consequences. My message
116

today is that violence, hatred, racism and sexism in the media do

matter and I would call for two things: one, more research and

more funding for research on this topic, and two, as I have said,

to implement a curriculum in our schools which would be referred

to as media literacy training, and I can give more information on

that if anyone is interested but is just a basic education about how

the media work and this helps young people cope with those images that they see in the media.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to testify.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dill follows:]
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126

Mr. RUSH. Thank you so very much. I am going to begin my line

of questioning with Professor Whiting.

Professor Sharpley-Whiting, in your testimony you talk about the

long, demeaning and tragic history of African-American women all

the way back to Thomas Jefferson, and you basically state that

some of the contemporary commercial hip hop is simply continuing

that unfortunate legacy. I had the privilege and honor of going to

visit Ghana this past summer for their 50th anniversary. And we

went to a slave castle and our tour guide explained to us about the

slave castle. And the image that is implanted in my psyche is the

image of the yard where all the women in a certain time of day

were gathered to the yard, all the slave women, and on the balcony, like a second-floor balcony, this is where the captain or the

head of the castle would come out invariably, the same hour every

day, and selected the women who he would exploit and abuse, and

there was a little contraption to the side and with a chain to it and

a ball and this is where the women who were used for that moment

would go. This is where they were held out in the sun beaming

down on them. It was a very hot place. So it seems to me like it

even goes beyond Thomas Jefferson. It seems to me like there has

been—that there are two types in the psyche of slave culture. It is

like modern-day culture to a great extent in racist culture. There

are two types of black women, those who are asexual, the other

kind of asexual women who are portrayed in a comical sense by the

movies, Tyler Perry’s movies, ‘‘Big Mama.’’ Those are the asexual

types but then you have the oversexed type that are portrayed in

some of the hip hop videos, and so I agree with you, there is a continuum that exists. My question is, how do we effectively as a society, how do we effectively intervene with this powerful, powerful

psychological force that creates a demeaning point of view, referenced image of our women? Imus was speaking to that, as far as

I am concerned, and a lot of artists speak to that. Can you expand

on your concept?

Ms. SHARPLEY-WHITING. Well, that is a huge question, Congressman. But let me say this. The reason why I wanted to begin with

Jefferson was because it is critical for us to have historical context

in thinking about the issues that women in general are dealing

with and black women in particular, and it is very important for

me to link Jefferson’s ideas at the moment of the founding of the

Nation. This is very important. And so I think although we can go

back further, clearly the transatlantic slave trade is the moment in

which black women were certainly denigrated, and as you have described that history very vividly and oversexualized and sexualized.

I think what we are dealing with today, or what needs to happen

today, is that young women are being handed their sexuality. They

are being essentially told this is what it means to be sexy, to be

affirmed. The images are extremely seductive. As a woman with a

Ph.D., they are seductive to me even and I think we have to admit

that as human beings, they are very intriguing. They are meant to

be titillating, and so it is very difficult to resist them. Ms. FagerBediako, as she has described, that a particular demographic is

very influenced by these images. It is absolutely important to recognize that there is a particular demographic being targeted and

it is very susceptible to it but I think we all in some ways are quite
127

susceptible to it and seduced by it. I think that what we do need

to begin with is with young women thinking about what does a

healthy, affirming sexuality look like.

I also think that we really need to explore what do masculinity,

male ways of behavior and manhood mean in this country. I think

that there is a movement in this country for men to kind of reclaim

masculinity or manhood, and part of that move means that women

are hypersexualized and men embody a certain hypermasculinity,

and this is not restricted to hip hop. When you can have a writer

and Ph.D., a professor at Harvard, Harvey Mansfield, writing a

book called ‘‘Manliness’’ in which he argues that men need to reclaim their manly space and that they have been beaten down by

the feminist movement on C-SPAN ‘‘Book Notes’’ with Naomi Wolf,

of all people, and argue that men essentially don’t like women

much because we are very different and that women, now that we

have accepted that we are equal, we should also be able to accept

that we are not quite equal. And so I think this is pervasive in the

culture and we have to explore these things in tandem. We have

a tendency to want to isolate certain musical expressions but I find

Hooter’s offensive in a lot of ways as I do aspects of hip hop culture

and I find aspects of hip hop culture quite edifying in a lot of ways.

So I am very reluctant to denounce the culture. But what I always

like to say, and I will stop here, is that I am a professor of course

in a research institution in the South, a very well-respected research institution and one that I am quite proud of but I have come

from various kinds of research institutions and no one, particularly

at Vanderbilt—let me be clear—has ever called me a ‘‘ho’’ but that

doesn’t mean that I haven’t been treated like one or people have

attempted to treat me like one. What that essentially means is people have attempted to box me into a category, to subordinate me

in a certain way, and so the language—I am a little—I don’t want

us to go down the slippery slope of censorship because one doesn’t

necessarily have to call me that. But one can certainly attempt to

treat me that way and so I think we need to explore all of our ways

of being and our ways of communicating and disseminating ideas

about what it means to be a woman and what it means to be a

man.

Mr. RUSH. Dr. Rojecki, in a continuation of my initial question,

in your written testimony you write that the black experience continues to provide vicarious thrills for white audiences. What do you

mean by that?

Mr. ROJECKI. I think for the most part that black cultural products have defined what it means to be hip, what it means to be

cool, and you only need look at young white males. My nephew,

who grew up in a town in upstate New York, a town that has no

African-Americans, started behaving kind of using kind of a hip

hop lingo and wearing certain kinds of clothes and so on. That defines being cool and I think that has been the case for a long time.

Coolness comes from a notion of being dangerous, sort of riding the

line and so on, and that I think is a function of the kind of culture

that we live in. It is very difficult I think to resist for hip hop artists not to respond to a demand that I think in large part comes

from that kind of definition of what it means to be hip and cool.

It is a very difficult puzzle to solve.
128

Mr. RUSH. I am kind of intrigued by something else that you indicate in your testimony. You point out that the largest audience

for hip hop—and I think we probably for clarification purposes, we

need to talk about hip hop, is it the conscious hip hop or the gangster hip hop? We need to kind of know which hip hop we are really

talking about. I think that is one of the things that we have

learned today that there different variations of hip hop. Would you

say the audience for hip hop is white and that sensational images—and I quote you, ‘‘sensational images of sex and violence are

used to package and promote the critical messages.’’ Are you—can

you quantify? Are you saying that the biggest audience for hip hop

is not the urban African-American dweller but it is the suburban

white young person? Is that what you said? Clarify that for me, if

you will.

Mr. ROJECKI. That is exactly what I am saying, and I can’t give

you precise statistic because they are difficult to come by but I

have heard anywhere from 50 to 60 to 70 percent of the market for

this music is white.

Mr. RUSH. And what do you feel as though the effect is on the

white consumer of this music?

Mr. ROJECKI. Well, you are essentially creating a demand within

the white community for images of black stereotypes that the black

community is then creating and being marketed through large corporations back out to those audiences. I think it is a vicious circle.

Mr. RUSH. Dr. Williams, you call for responsibility and sensitivity in the use of free speech. How do we as a loosely connected,

well-meaning group of individuals and organizations, a well-meaning coalition, how do we really rise up to your challenge for sensitivity and responsibility? Where do we draw the line and how do

we exercise a sense of responsibility and sensitivity while we also

honor and respect the first amendment?

Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes. I think, well, first of all, we said that this

is not just about hip hop or rap. We are talking about all segments

of our society. I believe that we can begin to paint more positive

pictures of black women and particular and other women, of

course, in whatever we do. I believe we can stand up and we can

defend and we can state the other side of it when we hear these

negative things. We can talk about what we know. We can talk

about our own culture. We can deny the fact that this pimp, ho,

prostitute, et cetera kind of thing is a part of our culture or at least

any big part of our culture. We can also coalesce. I believe that all

of us have to—we are all guilty of it. We want our organization to

be the one up front so we talk about what we do but I think we

need to bring all of the organizations together that are looking for

positive things and working on positive things for our young people

to do and we can’t wait until they grow up and teach them things

they need to know. I believe we have to start and we have to stop

blaming everything on the parents and saying well, the parents

ought to take care of their children, the parents ought to decide

what they look at. We have to understand that there are many parents themselves who don’t know what to do. Also, there are many

parents who are not wealthy like many of the men we saw earlier

today. These parents have to go out and work, and when I say

work, not just 9–5. Many of them are working a second and a third
129

job at night and they are not there to supervise their children, not

because they don’t want to be, but we need to begin to look at all

families are our families, and as the popular saying is, it takes a

village to raise a child. We just all have to accept more responsibility for doing that. But again, because mass media can affect so

many people, I think we have to keep telling them that they have

a responsibility to show something else. They have a responsibility

to show that positive side of all of us and not just do things that

would put us down because that is what we see so much. We know

that, for instance, it was not intentional today but women were last

to come on. We have to start lifting women up who are trying to

do things and trying to better their lives like in our community. We

need to put them out front. We went through it in the Imus incident. We saw people that I love and respect out there speaking for

women but they were all men. We need to hear the voices of

women more. We need to feel the pain of women when these things

are happening to us, and men need to stand up more and be in defense of women just as we often have to hurt sometimes but defend

our brothers sometimes. We want to see that same thing. We want

to see the members of this committee not making excuses as unfortunately I have heard some Members of Congress today and defending. We have to forget about the fact that somebody gives

$5,000 or $10,000 to our campaign or to our social event and we

have to look at what is right, not just what is expedient for us to

do to get those $5,000 and $10,000 or $20,000, whatever. The point

is, we have got to look at the harm that this is doing to the people

and listen to the voices of the women who are saying this hurts me,

this hurts me to all of the men who decide what hurts and what

does not hurt us. You can see the pain, and as you looked at

women today, I am sure you saw the expression on some of our

faces as we sat through hours of people deciding what is good for

us and what is not good for us. We need to be involved. We have

got to be at the table if we are going to make a difference. But

again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mean, I am just preaching to

the choir now, I know, but you asked the question.

Mr. RUSH. I sure did. Let me just say when I heard your testimony about Isiah Thomas, I kind of cringed. I know the Thomas

family and I know that Isiah has to love his mama, all right, and

his mama is a strong woman. She is the reason why he is Isiah

Thomas, and so I don’t know whether he made the connection between his African-American mama and the person that he was discussing when he made those unfortunate and I think wrongheaded

remarks. That is what some of us forget, that be it not for black

women, black men would not be even as far along as we are, and

I take my hats off to you black women who have really carried the

ball and were fathers and mothers for us.

Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes. Dick Gregory was here this morning and he

often said that the two most important entities in our community

are the black church and black women. Now, the black church obviously includes lots of men and so we are talking about there are

good people out there all over. We just have to bring them out,

force them to stand up and talk about this. I don’t think the black

church has yet dealt with this issue. We have to encourage them

and challenge them and say you too have a responsibility to deal
130

with this issue. And on the other hand, we often hear black women

have some things that we have to do in order for us to be treated

differently. Well, that is what those of us at this table and many

in this audience are trying to do. We try to be role models for our

children. We are not like many athletes who say I am not—it is

not my responsibility, I am not a role model. Every time a black

person is educated, man or woman, we have the responsibility to

give back to our community, to be a mentor for those young people,

to lift their horizons and to challenge them to be better than they

are. We wake up in the morning and of course our breath smells

a little bad or we don’t look so great but we put our best face on

when we get ready to go out and that is what we have to continue

to show our children: you have a responsibility to do something. My

mother reared nine children without the benefit of a father in our

home and I will tell you, my mother always told us, babies, you

have to get up in the morning and go places like you are somebody

special. You have to put on your best, whatever that is, look like

somebody special going to do something important, and she said I

can’t be with you all the time. All I can do is teach you what you

need to know to survive but you have to live your own life and die

your own death and somewhere between you have to justify your

existence, and I find black women all across this country justifying

their existence every day, and I just think right on, sisters, and

right on to the good brothers who are helping them.

Mr. RUSH. I just want to add that there is—we tried desperately——

Ms. WILLIAMS. That is why we in the National Congress give a

Good Brother award every year.

Mr. RUSH. I tried desperately to get one of the women hip hop

artists to appear on the panel with the hip hop, with panel 2.

There are no women, as far as I know, who are CEOs of the parent

companies. Now, we certainly could have had record or TV presidents. We could have had one of them to participate but we wanted

to get the key decision makers, and that is the reason why panel

1 didn’t have a black women and panel 2, we just couldn’t get an

artist.

Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, we just thank for bringing Master P because

I think he did speak for many of us and what we were thinking

and feeling here and he is offered to work with us and we agreed

to work with him and we just look forward to hearing from more

people like that. As you know, there is not even an image of a

black woman in the United States Capitol today in remembrance

of one and fortunately we are going to have one soon and hopefully

things like that can begin to make it clear that black women are

important, they have been important in the society and we do

many things to make this country work and we are always willing

to do what we ask someone else to do. Sojourner Truth, by the way,

is the woman who will be in the Capitol soon.

Mr. RUSH. Ms. Fager Bediako, can you explain, tell us a little bit

more about this contest?

Ms. BEDIAKO. Yes, I did a couple media projects with colleges

and this particular project was done with the University of Maryland-College Park where students were asked to monitor local radio

stations and then file complaints based on what the FCC states is
131

indecent, and somebody was like, ‘‘you know, I heard this DJ like

at 5:00 talking about this Web site and this is when kids are listening,’’ this is when the middle schooler is calling up and giving

shout-outs to his friends and everything, so I was a little taken

aback and here is a 19-year-old concerned about this, and he said,

‘‘Well do we complain to the FCC about this and I am like, ‘‘Sure.

Did you go the Web site? Let us check it out.’’ Well, the Web site,

we were kind of freaked out by it because it is basically porn.

There was no restrictions. There was no, like, even a minimum

pop-up that says you have to be 18 didn’t even pop up for them to

tell us contacting Virgin, this wasn’t about sex, I mean some of

these girls, you don’t even see their underwear, and some of them

are like looking in the camera and taking a picture of their butts

in the mirror, and it just takes you back and you are like this is

allowed to happen and they want to keep telling us like it is not

about sex it is a song about booty, except that it was a white rapper and in the video it is mostly black women and their butts and

it is a silly song, and so we complained. The Web site then went

up with a little 18-over thing but you can’t keep kids off that, and

the fact is, all the DJs in the area were mentioning the Web site,

so somehow there was some promotion and it was like ‘‘hey, go to

MissNewBooty.com. I mean, the Web site is not even up now. They

took it down and it goes right to the rapper’s web page if you try

to access it. But this is part of a whole bunch of things. The local

radio station here, the Clear Channel one that does top 40 music,

has the ‘‘Breast Year Ever.’’ That have an over 20 share of 12- to

17-year-olds that listen to the radio station. You never hear the

radio stations bragging about, we have a 20 share in 12- to 17-

year-olds. They only brag about their 18–34 or their 25–54 or whatever it is, and in reality all the hip hop stations have double digits,

usually in the 20s, for kids, and this is what they are—the songs

that you are hearing on the radio are the ones that David Banner

was talking about that he did called ‘‘Play’’ that the clean version

on the radio is talking about cleaning in your thong and playing

with your clit. These are the songs that are on the radio. I don’t

know what slice of life—it is just like only the strip club slice of

life is being reflected in the music that we are hearing on the radio

like you never hear anything else, like there is—there isn’t anything else, and one of the reasons you didn’t have a female hip hop

artist is because those record executives aren’t signing them.

The other thing that David Banner didn’t say and he kind of said

but didn’t say, when his—when he talks about his music career

going down the hill, he was told ‘‘We need a hit song and we want

something like ‘‘The Whisper Song.’’ The ‘‘Whisper Song’’ was a

huge song. The hook was ‘‘Wait until you see my d * * *’’ and sorry

for the language, but this is what our kids are hearing, we should

be upset, and the fact is, his song is very much that song and it

went—and he was right, it was about dollars, and it went straight

up and that is what the executives said that they wanted and that

is what they got and he made money and they made money, and

this culture keeps going but what happens with the females, MC

Lyte can’t get a deal, Lauren Hill can’t get a deal. Method Man

made a son that questioned BET. Do you think they are going to

play that? No. Nothing that talks about white men or questions
132

their authority gets airplay on the radio or supported by the record

labels but when we want to talk about each other, killing each

other, evaluate education, that is OK. Again, just like the book,

which I read and I loved, ‘‘The Black Image in the White Mind,’’

it talks about basically we are entertainment for this—and it

makes sense when you are talking about the white are buying

more music, they are the larger population, and the fact is, there

is another study by Mead Productions that said even our kids don’t

really even like hip hop after a certain age, like when they get to

be like 19, they start loving R&B more than they like hip hop. So,

it is not about us. We are the entertainment.

Mr. RUSH. Well, how do you deal with the images of Common or

Kanye West, what is the underpinning and the rationale for their

success? These would be hard hip hop artists.

Ms. BEDIAKO. Well, what is happening, if I had $18 million in my

marketing budget like 50 Cent had, then I would be a rapper too.

When I was in the music industry, the common thing is, if they

play it, they will listen. The fact that they can’t even get on the

radio, their record labels aren’t putting money behind them—

Kanye is great because he made kind of a niche for himself. He—

because he is controversial makes him popular and it is great.

Common, he is still on the kind of underground tip, as they say he

is getting more exposure but his record company doesn’t put a lot

of money behind him. Mos Def, the Roots, their record labels aren’t

supporting them like they are supporting the Young Jocks, Little

Jeezy’s and Little Waynes and all these, 50 Cent, all these other

folks. They are not getting the same dollars and so it is all about

marketing. If you can get on MTV—and MTV—Viacom sets the

standards. It is at a point where if you get on BET or MTV, then

radio will follow. You can look at Billboard and you can track it.

It falls in line with each other, and it is not about sales.

Mr. RUSH. Well, you kind of explained to me—I always wondered

what happened to Lauren Hill, she was one of my favorites and I

just——

Ms. BEDIAKO. She is still out there.

Mr. RUSH. She is still out there? And Erika Badyu is?

Ms. BEDIAKO. Oh, yes, she is—Jill Scott——

Mr. RUSH. And India Arie, I understand that she is not promoted.

Ms. BEDIAKO. She is still out there. They are all still there and

most of them realize that why should I be with a record label when

they are not going to support me, I might as well go independent,

and actually I would suggest that all artists go independent because they don’t make money selling records. Record executives

make money from these artists selling records. They make money

from all their endorsement deals. The whole thing is, the record—

they don’t need the record industry. I worked with Scarface when

I worked at Capitol EMI records and you know what? We never

took him to radio. We didn’t really have the Internet at that time,

it was around 1995, and we always went to the club with his

music. That is where it went. His music, quote, unquote, wasn’t appropriate for radio because it is public airwaves and because we

weren’t in the heat of consolidation, record—I mean radio stations

wouldn’t play him, and you know what? He went gold and plati-
133

num every time. You do not need radio airplay to sell records. And

he was doing it with clubs and name recognition, and now that you

have the Internet, you don’t—you can bypass all of this need to be

on public airwaves.

Mr. RUSH. Dr. Dill, in your testimony you state that research on

violent hip hop videos increases adversial sexual beliefs of both

men and women and acceptance of relationship violence. How

strong is this correlation? Is this in any way disputed by other research? You also state that research shows that violent music lyrics

lead to more aggressive thoughts and feelings. Does this translate

into some of the aberrant behavior that society is reeling from now

in certain urban communities?

Ms. DILL. I would say a couple of things about that. First, the

research on hip hop and video games as they evolve, there is less

of that than there is research on other forms of media such as television and movies simply because they have been around for a

longer period of time and I do think that as we are beginning to

see changes in each media, we need to continue to watch what the

effects of those forums is but yes, theoretically underlying all these

different forms of media when you look at either stereotypical messages or you look at violent messages, it has been well documented

over time and I think mainstream psychology, we don’t dispute

that there are—that there is a clear effect going on there. You

asked me if people would dispute it. As I say, I don’t think mainstream psychologists would but the industry seems to always be

able to find someone out there who is a psychologist who will speak

for their side. So I have learned in my career as a media psychologist that there is always controversy following it, but in my estimation, there is strong evidence out there of an important link between those factors.

Mr. RUSH. There seems to be a nexus between culture that you

spoke to, and I agree with you, you can turn the television off but

you can’t turn the culture off. There seems to be a correlation between the culture of violence, degradation, misogyny, sexism and

the drug culture. Is there a linkage? Have you looked at any linkage between the drug culture which leads to penitentiary culture

that comes back out on the street? I mean, it seems like this is a

cyclical kind of deterioration that we are engaged in as a society

and as a community.

Ms. DILL. I haven’t looked at drug culture per se. I know that

people have analyzed rap music and found that to be a common

theme along with criminality and sexuality as we have been talking about here today but I would underline that there is definitely

a link between the stereotypical content and the aggressive content, and I noted today during the testimony of the artists that

they called for the ability to express themselves but I think that

is all part of a power dynamic that if you are in a marginalized

group, you look for someone else who is below you on the hierarchy

to marginalize in order to lift yourself up unfortunately so what we

didn’t hear in that discussion is, they want to express themselves

but at the cost to what other groups, at the cost to black women

in their communities, for example. So I think it really is about

power and the drug factor may well be tied in to feelings of powerlessness, but as I say, I am not an expert on that aspect.
134

Mr. RUSH. Dr. Whiting, I am going to conclude. Discuss with the

committee the issue of power and powerlessness as a dynamic in

this whole hip hop degradation language that we are discussing

and the images that we are discussing today.

Ms. SHARPLEY-WHITING. I think what Dr. Dill said is absolutely

on point in terms of—and what I heard from the second panel, and

what I consistently heard repeated—was this desire to express the

turmoil, the degradation, the poverty in the community as a kind

of artistic rap music. This is what is going on in our ’hood. But

when the Congresswoman from Illinois asked well, what is the impact on women, the argument just kept coming back to what is

going on in our ’hood and we need to do something about that, and

what expressly came through was that women could be sacrificed

as long as the larger, more important issue was laid out on the

table—poverty, police brutality, drive-bys, et cetera, et cetera.

What I have found is, or what I think is particularly fascinating

is the ways in which, as I said, the cost to black women, to women

in general. What we have to concede is that hip hop is a global phenomenon—it is multiracial and its impact is felt—it is pervasive as

well as other forms of sexism and misogyny and so the culture of

hip hop is certainly not alone. What I think is very interesting,

what I saw coming through more than anything is as one is describing the deprivation and the degradation and the self-hate, et

cetera, that is going on in various communities as a kind of rapping

the reality or even fictionalizing or performing for the marketplace,

what I think is more troubling is that if this is the way that women

are being perceived or if this is the way that women’s lives are

being characterized in this music, then the lives of women and experiences of women in their communities is one that is quite devastating. And so if nothing else then, we will take the music as instructive and therefore we need to do something about the ways in

which women are being treated in those communities. So if rapping

one’s reality means exposing the very forlorn experiences that

women are undergoing in their communities, then we need to do

something about that. Obviously young black women or girls are

suffering a great deal in those communities.

And I want to kind of conclude as well by saying—getting back

to kind of the b * * * *, ‘‘ho’’ thing and the censorship thing, there

is a song by DMX, and I have to say, DMX is a guilty pleasure for

me, but there is a song by DMX and he says—he has a line in

there, ‘‘If you have a daughter over 15, I’mma rape her.’’ Now, one

does not mention ‘‘b*** *’’ or ‘‘ho’’ or ‘‘n**** *’’ in that line but one

certainly describes something that is absolutely visceral and violent

and troubling and so we have to get beyond the beats and the

rhymes. We have to really think about what is going on in the

music and how it is depicting people’s lives, because if nothing else,

as I said, it is instructive.

Mr. RUSH. To a certain extent, I am familiar and I am not

shocked but I am flabbergasted, because in my community, I live

in the ’hood. I live right next to a public housing development. I

am right in the poorest community in the city of Chicago and I am

there for a reason because I want to be there, and I know that

there is a lot of pain that goes on. There is a lot of pain that goes

on in relationships between male and female and it seems as
135

though from your testimony, it is a lot worse than we can imagine

because of—and I am not trying to make any excuses for anybody

but it seems to me like women are convenient targets for black

men because they can’t exercise their sense of dignity and power

as vis-a-vis white men. They can’t get to white men, so they will

get to the person who is closest to them and that is their women,

and until we start dealing with the issue of power relationships

and get into instructing our young men but primarily our young

women, I think that is where you start because they accept and

they expect and they—some of them—and that is not to blame

them—but they view it as being a mark or some kind of badge of

courage or badge of acceptance to be ill treated and disrespected by

men. I see it all the time when I look out my window and I can

see young women having boys pulling all over them and cussing

them and I just—I wanted to make sure that this committee addresses this issue, that this committee gives voice to this problem

and all of its complexity as much as possible because I really want

the members of this committee, myself included and everybody who

participated and all those who have gathered here, I really want

us to engage and become a part of the solution as opposed to being

a part of the problem. This is a very serious issue that is not on

most of the Congress’s radar screen. We are never going to get

called over to vote on this issue. Most committees would never undertaken a hearing based on these kind of issues but these are the

kinds of issues that are tearing the fabric of our community apart

and I really—again, I want to thank you all for participating and

for being a part of this hearing and I thank you and I compliment

you and I commend you for your noble work. We have got a long

way to go and we also have a short time to get there.

Thank you very much, and the committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 5:13 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ