Go to previous section
Go to Table of Contents
Concerns about the messages of mass media, particularly television, came not just from the academic community, but also from citizens and public interest and advocacy groups. Action for Children's Television (ACT), founded by Peggy Charren and succeeded by the Center for Media Education, was a constant thorn in the side of those who resisted quality children's television. Rev. Donald Wildmon and the American Family Association (AFA) were unhappy with the amount of sex and violence they saw in television and film. In the 1980s Michigan housewife Terry Rakolta, alarmed at Married with Children, mounted a well-publicized campaign to inform advertisers about the program content they supported. The Center for Media and Public Affairs and The National Coalition on Television Violence have conducted studies examining what they see as problems with television violence.
Reacting to criticism from Congress, the scientific community, and advocacy groups, the four television networks took a series of steps to deal with the issue of television violence. Until 1990, antitrust laws prohibited the networks from meeting and working together on any cooperative efforts. Democratic Illinois Sen. Paul Simon sponsored legislation that created a special three year exemption from the antitrust law allowing the networks to coordinate their policies on television violence. In December 1992, the networks issued a uniform set of 15 guidelines on the subject of television violence. The networks agreed that, "All depictions of violence should be relevant to the development of character, or the advancement of theme or plot." Banned were scenes that glamorized violence, that showed excessive gore or suffering and violence that was used to shock or stimulate the audience. The networks also agreed to avoid portrayal of "dangerous behavior which would invite imitation by children." Senator Simon called the agreement "a first big step" in addressing the problem.
Despite Sen. Simon's hopes that the network efforts would eliminate the need for more legislation, the issue of television violence reached a fever pitch during the May 1993 "sweeps" period. The sweeps months of February, May and November are critical periods in which ratings are conducted in every locality, creating the basis by which television stations set their advertising rates. Doing well in a sweeps period enables a station to charge more for advertising. To win a sweeps month, stations and networks air programming most likely to attract a large audience. Such programming often consists of highly popular theatrical films, special episodes of television series and original television movies or mini-series. Sweeps are the most competitive periods of the television year. Network-originated television movies with violent titles and themes in the May 1993 sweeps included the following: Ambush in Waco; Terror in the Towers; Stephen King's The Tommyknockers; Murder in the Heartland; Love, Honor and Obey: The Last Mafia Murder and When Love Kills. Some of these television movies featured detailed and graphic scenes of murder and other crimes of violence.
National attention was focused on the violent content of broadcast television. Called before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the top network executives promised less violent programming in the future. At the end of June, the networks announced a plan to place parental advisories at the beginning of programs containing violence and on promotions that featured that programming. The plan was unveiled at a Capitol Hill press conference that included Sen. Simon and Democratic Congressman Edward Markey of Massachusetts, a leader in the fight against television violence and then chairman of the House subcommittee that regulated the television industry. Except when special circumstances warranted different warnings, the advisory would read: "Due to some violent content, parental discretion is advised." Rep. Markey called the agreement "the dawning of a new era."
Throughout the entire summer, the issue of television violence and its effects was hotly debated. On August 2, 1993, the National Council for Families and Television sponsored an Industry-Wide Leadership Conference on Violence in Television Programming in Beverly Hills, California. The costs of the conference were underwritten by all four broadcast networks, many cable networks and all of the major Hollywood motion picture studios.
Sen. Simon, the keynote speaker at the conference, recommended ways in which the television industry could positively address the issue of violence:
Some sort of ongoing monitoring of the status of television violence is needed, and I would prefer that the federal government not be involved. If those gathered here would form a committee of respected citizens--perhaps called the Advisory Office on Television Violence--who would employ a small staff, headed by someone who has an understanding of the field, and that committee would report to the American people annually, in specifics, it would indicate a desire to sustain better programming. Those specifics should let us know whether glamorized violence is increasing or decreasing, on each of the broadcast and cable networks, and whether there is an attempt to avoid the time periods when children are more likely to observe. They should tell us what is happening with the independents, affiliates, syndication and with the entire industry...
Sen. Simon put the television industry on notice that if it did not quickly and adequately deal with this issue, there were others in Congress who would do so. The debate about the respective roles of government and the television industry in addressing television violence consumed the rest of the year. Sensing that the political climate might be conducive to legislation, the broadcasters worked hard to convince Congress they were seriously addressing concerns about violence on the television screen. They pointed to the 1992 guidelines on violence and the 1993 agreement on the use of advance parental advisories as evidence of their important efforts to deal with the problem.
Early in 1994, the broadcast and cable networks reached an agreement with Sen. Simon. If they would hire an independent monitor as outlined in his August, 1993 speech, the industry would be given another chance to demonstrate that they can regulate themselves. In the interim he would do his best to forestall any governmental initiatives. In June of 1994, Sen. Simon and the broadcast television networks chose the UCLA Center for Communication Policy to conduct the monitoring of broadcast television over the following three television seasons. The cable networks chose MediaScope to conduct a parallel study of cable, also over three years.
Go to next section
Go to Table of Contents