TV Violence Report Didn’t Discuss Definition

The report wasn’t fully responsive to a 2004 request by Rep. Barton (R-Tex.) and several dozen other lawmakers that the Commission define violence, Adelstein said. “As far as I know, there was no attempt to define it, there was no debate about it… I presume because it is difficult,” he said: “It didn’t define violence, which is what the report is supposed to do.”

At least 2 commissioners were concerned that regulating violent programming would be unconstitutional, an agency official said: “There’s a lot of stuff that’s not addressed in the document, probably because it is a political document, and you don’t want to look under some rocks because you might be afraid of what may be crawling under it.” Some FCC officials wanted a more thorough legal analysis of court precedents, but “the idea was not well received,” the source said.

Chmn. Martin said the report was a collective effort, and that the conclusion that televised violence is linked to real-life crime reflects much scientific research. “What the Commission reflected in its report is that the Surgeon General said exposure to violence can increase aggressiveness in the short term,” he told reporters. Martin suggested regulating violence like indecency: The regulator would consider context in judging whether something was objectionable.

The report said Congress can uphold free speech and let the FCC regulate violence, citing such Supreme Court rulings as the 1978 Pacifica case. “If properly defined, excessively violent programming, like indecent programming, occupies a relatively low position in the hierarchy of First Amendment values because it is of ’slight social value,'” the report said: “Congress could impose time channeling restrictions on excessively violent TV programming… that would restrict such programming to hours when children are less likely to be in the viewing audience.” Broadcast indecency rules apply 6 a.m.-10 p.m.

Far less certain is whether Congress can require a la carte without running afoul of the Constitution, McDowell told us: “In general, courts have held that subscription services are held to a different constitutional standard from free over-the-air broadcasting… Congress asked us to address the effects of TV violence in the context of broadcast TV, so I thought it was beyond the scope of our mission to examine a la carte or related concepts.” Lack of documentation on an a la carte system’s probable effects may explain the report’s paucity of data, he added: “Discussion of these types of issues is very brief in the report, and probably for very good reason, because there was no real record built to justify a la carte or [family] tiering to address violence.”

Martin told us he believes a la carte is constitutional, since cable operators already offer to block channels subscribers don’t want, though they don’t refund the price of the programming, as he would like. “That is more of a content-neutral regulation, and that is one that doesn’t have as many implications for the First Amendment,” Martin said, calling such a system “the least restrictive” way “to enable parents to really pick and choose what they want.”

NCTA disagreed. “Government imposition of a la carte or family tiers is unconstitutional,” an NCTA spokesman said. A la carte is “misguided” and would cut customer choice, NCTA said. Such rules, it added, would “endanger cable’s high- quality family friendly programming, leaving parents and children with fewer viewing options.” Adelstein said there are virtually no cable or broadcast channels without violence, rendering a la carte virtually meaningless in addressing the problem. “A la carte could help if you eliminated everything but the Food Channel and HGTV,” he told us: “It’s one of the least helpful solutions I could possibly imagine… How many channels don’t have violent programming?”

Many consumer, kids and other advocacy groups back a la carte. It would give consumers more choice and could cut cable bills, said a collective statement by Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, CWA, and Free Press. Elected officials endorsed the report, including Sen. Rockefeller (D- W. Va.) and Rep. Markey (D-Mass.). The Parents TV Council (PTC), a frequent indecency complainant, lauded the report.

PTC Exec. Dir. Tim Winter wants cable operators to sell channels individually but without being required to do so, he told us: “We're not endorsing legislation. We're asking the broadcast and cable industries to step up and be more responsible.” The House and Senate Commerce and Judiciary committees could propose a la carte legislation because video is an interstate service and it could be argued that cable is anticompetitive, he said. Legislators may be keen to regulate broadcast violence after the Va. Tech massacre brought the industry more scrutiny, he added: “Many on the Hill have thought there was an urgency for many years, if not decades, about the issue of media violence… When you look at the tragic series of events over the last 10 days, I think that there is certainly a [renewed] urgency.”