Senate Holds Media Violence Hearing
The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation today held its hearing on the Impact of Media Violence on Children. Senator Rockefeller opened the hearings with a statement addressing what he sees as an unprecedented level of violent content in the media and citing studies that show that exposure to such violence is detrimental to children. Rather than giving parents more tools to reduce or restrict their children's access to violent programming, Senator Rockefeller asserted that parents want violent and sexual content off the air entirely. In no uncertain words, the Senator blamed the entertainment industry in general and television in particular for failing to put the interests of children ahead of their own profits. Faced with the industry's failure, Senator Rockefeller plans to reintroduce his bill from last year proposing to define and restrict violent programming in a manner similar to the way in which indecency is regulated on broadcast television. While other senators shared Senator Rockefeller's concerns about sex and violence in the media, many expressed concern over the constitutional issues involved in trying to regulate violent programming on broadcast television.
Although FCC Chairman Martin was unable to attend today's hearing, the Committee heard testimony from a panel that included Tim Winter of the Parents television Council, Peter Liguori of Fox Broadcasting, Dr. Dale Kunkel from the University of Arizona, Jeff J. McIntyre of the American Psychological Association, and Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard Law School. The panel members' statements, as well as the statements prepared by several members of the Committee are available here. As should be clear from the composition of the panel, there is much debate about whether exposure to violent images creates violent children, whether violent programming can be regulated by the government consistent with the constitution, and whether the entertainment industry is liable for the perceived debasing of American culture. Clearly, this hearing was not going to resolve those weighty issues in the span of a morning, however, it is obvious that the debate about violence on television will be around for another session of congress, and may very well become an issue in the upcoming election year.
In this age of first-person shooter video games, videos of executions on YouTube, and consumer-friendly gun laws, it is interesting that Congress chose to focus on violence on broadcast television as the root of all evil. In addition, given the serious constitutional challenges facing the current indecency rules, adding an as yet undefined concept of violent programming to the list of regulated content on broadcast television seems premature. Just as it has in the past, however, the debate makes for good television.
Although FCC Chairman Martin was unable to attend today's hearing, the Committee heard testimony from a panel that included Tim Winter of the Parents television Council, Peter Liguori of Fox Broadcasting, Dr. Dale Kunkel from the University of Arizona, Jeff J. McIntyre of the American Psychological Association, and Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard Law School. The panel members' statements, as well as the statements prepared by several members of the Committee are available here. As should be clear from the composition of the panel, there is much debate about whether exposure to violent images creates violent children, whether violent programming can be regulated by the government consistent with the constitution, and whether the entertainment industry is liable for the perceived debasing of American culture. Clearly, this hearing was not going to resolve those weighty issues in the span of a morning, however, it is obvious that the debate about violence on television will be around for another session of congress, and may very well become an issue in the upcoming election year.
In this age of first-person shooter video games, videos of executions on YouTube, and consumer-friendly gun laws, it is interesting that Congress chose to focus on violence on broadcast television as the root of all evil. In addition, given the serious constitutional challenges facing the current indecency rules, adding an as yet undefined concept of violent programming to the list of regulated content on broadcast television seems premature. Just as it has in the past, however, the debate makes for good television.
