FCC takes aim at TV networks

Report targets smallscreen violence

By WILLIAM TRIPLETT

Martin

Adelstein

The Federal Communications Commission is pointing the trigger finger at TV violence, and the entire TV biz could end up taking a bullet. But many in Hollywood are ready to shoot back.

"In the Matter of Violent Television Programming and its Impact on Children," released late Wednesday, concludes that action is needed to curb the level of violence on the small screen -- and the government can do it if the industry won't.

The FCC currently regulates programming for indecent content, and its new report is seen as moving one step closer to putting violence under a similar microscope.

Aside from the creative repercussions, the proposal could force cable and satellite providers to offer "a la carte" menus that would give consumers the option of eschewing certain channels. That would mean abandoning the bundled-channels approach that has been the subscription-TV industry norm for decades.

It could also force broadcasters to "time channel" violent content -- keep it off airwaves during hours when children are likely viewing. The FCC regs bar indecent content from broadcast between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

"Congress could implement a time channeling solution and/or mandate some other form of consumer choice in obtaining video programming, such as ... family tiers or an a la carte basis," the report concludes. It also says that industry could voluntarily restrict violent programming, thus precluding need for government regulation.

Family tiers and a la carte subscriptions have long been a pet issue for FCC chairman Kevin J. Martin, and the agency hopes Congress will take action on its conclusions.

In 2004, Congress asked the FCC to examine the subject of violent TV programming and its potential effects on children. Lawmakers also wanted to know whether they or the commission could legally do anything about such content, and whether a definition or standard could be articulated for excessive violence.

Report stated that, while causal links between TV violence and negative effects on kids do not exist, "a strong correlation" does, and that existing blocking and filtering controls are either "of limited effectiveness" or "insufficiently available." It leaves definition of violence to Congress.

With federal elections coming up in 2008, it's likely that this topic will serve as a rallying cry for many candidates.

Though the report was passed unanimously by the five-member commission, caveats and concerns from two commissioners could undercut its ultimate impact.

For instance, the commission based much of its legal reasoning for the proposed regulatory measures outlined in the report on a 1979 Supreme Court decision that found the government had a "compelling interest" in protecting the welfare of children and could act if the regulatory means were "narrowly tailored."

At a press conference Wednesday, Martin told reporters that a la carte subscriptions would keep government "out of regulating content directly while enabling" parents to select what they want their families to see.

But while agreeing that "there is a basis for appropriate federal action to curb violence in the media," commissioner Jonathan Adelstein added a note of caution. "The report is not a model of clarity," he said. "It gives no understanding of what 'violent' content is." Rather than try to define violence, Adelstein said, "we totally punted."

"To my disappointment, this report does not fully display the experience and informed judgment of an expert federal agency that has regulated media content over 30 years," he said.

Commissioner Robert McDowell said he supports the report, "although I would have preferred a more thorough study."

The report "fails to illuminate a path for Congress to follow in order to safely avoid what legal pitfalls may lie ahead," McDowell continued.

News Corp., parent company of Fox, which airs one of the shows frequently cited for violence, "24," has challenged the FCC's authority on indecency and hinted that it would do the same if the commission sought to extend its authority into violence.

"News Corp. believes that parents -- not the federal government -- should decide what children watch on television. Parents already have a variety of controls at their disposal -- on satellite and cable and through the V-chip -- to help monitor what their children watch. We believe any attempt by the government to regulate violent content will ultimately be found unconstitutional by the courts as a violation of the First Amendment."

NBC Universal had yet to see the report but issued a statement: "We strongly believe that by regulating 'violent content' without clear, objective and consistent standards, the FCC will in effect threaten the wide range of programming enjoyed by American audiences, including the two-thirds of U.S. TV households that have no children under 18.

"The minority of U.S. homes with children have a wealth of very effective tools -- including detailed program ratings, the V-chip and cable and satellite blocking technologies -- to allow parents to control what their children watch on television."

The American Civil Liberties Union condemned the report and its recommendations as "political pandering," and Adam Thierer, a media scholar at the libertarian Progress & Freedom Foundation, said, "Censoring 'excessively violent' television programming is an endeavor without any meaningful policy guideposts."

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), who unsuccessfully introduced legislation last year to regulate TV violence, hailed the report and said he would study it to see if he should incorporate any of its recommendations into a second attempt at the same legislation he plans to introduce "in the next few weeks."