The violence presented on television rarely includes portrayals of pain, suffering, or rehabilitation-it is mostly symbolic, not realistic. They are more likely to support wars, repression, military spending, and almost anything else done in the name of personal or national security. Regulating Televised Violence Television broadcasters are private companies licensed by the government to use public airwaves. But the advent of cable and alternative methods of broadcasting, coupled with the Reagan administration's push to deregulate industry, have made the public interest clause an anachronism. The FCC reasons that cable and alternative broadcasters have created a true diversity on television, so that regulation is unnecessary.
Viewers are protected by choice, they argue.
Powerful cable lobbyists confirm that view, even though almost all studies show that cable channels air the same high levels of violence as regular television. Citizen participation is still an option, however. Congress could codify the Fairness Doctrine into law, and activists groups like Action for Children's Television and the National Coalition Against Television Violence are lobbying for just that. A more likely source of relief would be diverse programming, encouraged by federal regulation of television advertising and the cost of broadcasting. Sonia Shah is managing editor of Nuclear Times.