This is the third and final report on television violence based on the 1994 agreement between the four broadcast television networks (ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC) and Senator Paul Simon. The basis of the unusual political deal was that if Senator Simon, then a leading force in the television content debate, would do his best to forestall legislation on such things as V-Chips and ratings, the broadcasters would allow an independent monitor to examine the violence in their programming.
Much has changed since that agreement was made. First, Senator Simon is no longer a member of Congress. He announced that he would retire at the end of his term in 1996 and is now teaching at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale. In another major development, the ownership of two of the networks has changed hands since 1994. CBS was sold by Laurence Tisch to veteran radio broadcaster Westinghouse and the Walt Disney Company acquired ABC. NBC remains a part of the colossal General Electric Company and the Fox network is still a part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.
Since 1994 the audience for network television has continued to seriously erode. The emergence in 1996 of two new broadcast networks, UPN and WB, further splintered television audiences. Over the years the audience that left network television had traditionally gone to other television distribution channels, such as syndication, independent stations or cable networks. And now a new competitor has emerged. There are early signs that some of the audience is leaving television altogether, especially for computers and the Internet.
In hindsight, the agreement between the networks and Senator Simon did not achieve its
original goals. Television content legislation was not avoided. The years between 1994 and
1998 saw the enactment of V-chip legislation, a war over the television content labeling
system, threats to go to court and further threats to consider revoking television
licenses and, eventually, a deal to move to a content descriptor system by all except NBC
as of October 1, 1997. We believe that if in 1994 the broadcast networks could have seen
the subsequent three years in a crystal ball, they never would have agreed to an outside
monitor independently examining television violence.
Even though the 1994 agreement between Senator Simon and the networks did not achieve its original goals, we believe that this report, stemming from that agreement, did fulfill its promise. We also believe that the broadcast networks, government and advocates view this project as important and successful. Much has been gained from the relationship between the Center for Communication Policy and the broadcast networks on the violence issue over the past three years.
From the very beginning the Center viewed the monitoring process as a public policy project, not as a purely academic study. We did not want to study the issue from the sidelines. We wanted to establish a constructive dialog with the industry, advocacy groups, government officials and all interested parties in order to provide tangible solutions for the problem. At the conclusion of this process, we wanted to release a report that the industry could respond to and use. The violence issue had been studied and talked about for over 30 years. We felt that agreement to monitor television offered a tangible and timely opportunity to make real progress on the issue.
Based on the nature of the monitoring deal and the fact that this was not an industry-initiated project, we insisted on the need for meeting regularly with the broadcasters both in New York and Los Angeles. It was only through regular contact and discussion with each network that we believed we could move past the defensiveness and knee-jerk reactions to past studies and actually work with the broadcasters to improve the content of television. The role of Senator Simon insuring the independence of the Center gave us a unique and unprecedented opportunity to do so.
We did meet regularly with the television networks. Not surprisingly, they were somewhat defensive at first and some of the initial meetings were slightly awkward. We believe that gradually the broadcast networks came to understand that the Center did not have a political agenda and that we were trying to deal with this issue as fairly as possible. From that view they seemed to realize they had an unusual opportunity, after 30 years of criticism from the outside, to address this problem in a fresh and constructive way.
At the release of the first report in 1995 the broadcasters probably felt we were too critical in our assessment of the problems of television violence. That report found some problems across the board, especially in theatrical films shown on television and in on-air promotions. There were also problems in television series, children's television and, to a lesser degree, in television movies. In years past, the broadcasters would have most likely responded to the first report by criticizing its overall conclusion that there was too much violence on television. However, in meetings after the release of that report (meetings that were required under the unique nature of the contractual relationship), the broadcasters came to better understand some of our criticisms and we better understood their position.
Both sides were quickly able to move beyond their differences to deal directly with the report's recommendations. This was a first in the history of the television violence debate. The success of these discussions resulted in the establishment of mutual respect among the Center and the broadcast networks. The second and third years of the process proceeded much more smoothly than the initial year. We were able to bring problems discovered in the monitoring process immediately to each network's attention. Rather than having them respond when a report was issued nearly a year later, in some cases problems were dealt with in a matter of days. This benefitted everyone in the process.
Gradually, we received calls from television producers and executives at other broadcast and cable networks for input on some of their problems in dealing with violence. We always considered it our role to deal as fairly and directly with the problems as possible.
The second report, released in 1996, documented some real and important progress in the
efforts to deal with television violence. This year's report found that almost all of the
gains from the first to the second year had been sustained in the third year. This report
also found continued progress in the area of television series along with some new
concerns about television specials.
Now, at the end of the three-year process, we would like to believe that the broadcast
networks feel it has been beneficial to have an outside and independent monitor looking at
their television programming. We feel that enormous strides have been made in dealing with
the content issues over the past three years. There is no doubt that the efforts of the
government, the advocates and the broadcasters themselves have been important in dealing
with the issues. We would also like to believe that the monitoring process has contributed
to dealing with some of the problems.
The relationship we developed with the broadcasting industry has been different from that of other academic institutions or outside monitors. We do believe that the results of the past three years have indicated that the type of arrangement we have developed is the best way to deal with the content issues.
Also crucial in effectively dealing with these issues was insuring that our results were accessible to everyone who might be interested in them. One of the major benefits of qualitative research reported in a clear and simple fashion is that one does not need an advanced degree in communications research to understand the report or its findings. Everything we found is clearly explained in our reports. Readers can easily understand the basis of the judgments and agree or disagree with the results. Nothing is hidden or obfuscated in numbers and charts. This is a document that does not require interpretation.
From the beginning it was never our desire to create a franchise studying television violence. Our original agreement with the broadcasters clearly indicated that we would spend only three years reporting on violence in such a comprehensive manner. If the networks wanted to continue looking at violence at this level after three years, we promised to help train our replacements.
As a result of the agreement in the summer of 1997 there will be a three-year moratorium on legislation on televison content issues. During that three-year period the labeling system will begin to take hold and V-chips will be activated in some television sets. Already the three-hour rule for children's television has been implemented. It is clear that convergence between computer technologies and television will be the next major development on the television stage along with the move to digital and high definition television. The complex issues are not going away. They are just growing in number and complexity.
In this context, we feel that there is an important need for an outside independent monitor of television. While we were not willing to merely continue the violence work of the past three years, we are willing to continue working with the broadcasters as an outside and independent monitor, looking at this new and wide array of difficult issues. Not surprisingly, even though the reports of the past three years have been limited to violence, in our meetings with the networks a much wider variety of issues and concerns arose. We are enthusiastic about moving beyond the extremely important but narrow area of television violence to the larger environment of television. Early in 1998 we will announce a new agreement to produce a highly accessible and practical report dealing with a much broader range of issues. It is our strong hope that other broadcast networks, television production studios and cable networks and programmers will embrace and become involved in the new work.