Cable TV producers are running scared these days. At least
that’s what a $250 million ad campaign running since May 1
suggests. The reason? Indecency on their programs.
Ever since that infamous Super Bowl incident last year,
legislators and the Federal Communications Commission have gone
after the broadcast and cable industries like puritanical hound
dogs. The new ad campaign is supposed to show parents exactly how
to use blocking features to keep their little ones from seeing all
the smut that’s out there.
Obviously, the cable officials are trying to forestall tougher
government regulation of cable TV. So far, the FCC can only go
after the broadcasters that use the public airwaves, but new
legislation might change that.
I think government regulators should keep their hands off cable
TV. To me, the American TV landscape already seems excessively
sanitized and inoffensive.
Even without formal regulation, cable channels already alter
scenes to make them less offensive. But how many people are
offended by a flash of nudity on TV, anyway?
A recent feature article in Time magazine investigated the
current debate about obscenity on TV. The article mentions that
last year, the FCC imposed the biggest TV fine ever on Fox. For a
scene on the reality show “Married by America,” which
showed some strippers covered in whipped cream, Fox had to shell
out $1.2 million in fines (note that the strippers truly were
covered in whipped cream).
When the FCC publicized the complaints that led to this
outrageous fine, it turned out that they had only received 159
letters. Furthermore, through multiple mailings, these letters were
actually written by only 23 people. And 21 of those people had used
a pre-written form to file the complaint. So for every offended
person, the FCC charged Fox about $52,000.
Of course, I agree that young kids have to be spared from these
kinds of programs. But the existing monitoring technologies, such
as the v-chip combined with the ratings system, give all parents an
adequate means to filter what their kids see.
The other major problem I have with this whole debate is its
almost exclusive focus on sexuality. For some reason, “sex
and violence” has become a unified term for describing
what’s wrong with the media. But it’s not at all clear
that sex on TV is as detrimental as violence.
Let’s do what all good college students should do and look
at the scientific research. As far as sexuality goes, the research
is not overly extensive. It seems clear, however, that exposure to
non-violent sexual content can change viewers’ attitudes
about sex ““ but falls short of turning them into
nymphomaniacs. And I’ve never heard of a case in which a pair
of breasts or a naked butt killed anyone.
On the other hand, there’s a huge number of studies on the
topic of violence. A cumulative study for the U.S. surgeon general,
published in 2003, reviewed much of the research that has been done
in this field. Its main conclusions are that exposure to violent
media content directly fosters violent behavior and aggression, and
can affect children far into adulthood.
UCLA psychology and communication studies Professor Neil
Malamuth, a co-author of this study, confirmed the findings.
“Heavy media violence exposure is a risk factor for increased
aggression,” he said. “For many people, it might just
affect their attitudes; for some it might affect their
behavior.”
On a side note, he mentioned that although exposure to sexually
violent media appears to be a risk factor for sexual aggression,
nudity alone can reduce aggression in male viewers under laboratory
conditions.
In reality, though, TV producers worry more about nudity and
profanity than about violence. Last November, a large number of ABC
affiliates refused to air “Saving Private Ryan” mainly
because it contained profanity. The fact that the movie shows
soldiers being massacred by the hundreds is taken for granted, but
when the characters say “fuck,” alarm bells start
ringing.
The recent revival of moral values has unfortunately
extinguished the post-Columbine discussion about media violence. As
I see it, militarism and violence have seeped so deep into the
American cultural mainstream that nobody even notices it
anymore.
A reasonable debate about offensive programming can do the
quality of TV good, but let it focus on violent content. Maybe
there would be fewer individuals who think it’s cool to shoot
people on the 405 Freeway if TV took a step back from the
glorification of guns and violence.
However, in a culture that often teaches kids “abstinence
only,” but has an estimated annual porn economy of $10
billion, some non-violent sexual content on TV is needed to
confront kids with the real world. Quality movies, for example,
have the potential to educate and raise awareness of sex-related
issues.
If the legislative stranglehold on TV gets even tighter, the
youngsters will probably get their sex education from shady
Internet sources.
In any case, parents are the ones who can actively monitor their
children’s media usage and educate them about responsible
consumption. Even President Bush, who’s at the forefront of
the new moralists, says parents need to take action before
politicians do ““ “They put an off button (on) the TV
for a reason.”
Amen to that.
Starre is a third-year English student. If you’re
offended by this column, e-mail him at
[email protected].