TV Violence Can Be Regulated, FCC Says

By John Dunbar Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Beaten up and strapped to a chair, once again it looks like the end for Jack Bauer, the hero of Fox Network’s hit show “24.” Using his wits (and his teeth), Bauer goes for the jugular – literally.

In the scene, Bauer, played by Kiefer Sutherland, chomps on the neck of the terrorist holding him captive; he spits the blood out and makes his escape.

Broadcasters are free to televise such cringe-inducing scenes of violence with relative impunity in the U.S. But a new draft report from the Federal Communications Commission suggests the government may be able to limit violence on TV in a way that does not violate the Constitution.

The long-overdue report suggests Congress could craft a law that would let the agency regulate violent programming much as it regulates sexual content and profanity – by barring it from being aired during hours when children may be watching, for example.

The report also suggests that cable and satellite TV could be subjected to an “a la carte” regime that would let viewers choose their channels.

Citing studies, the draft says there is evidence that violent programming can lead to “short-term aggressive behavior in children,” according to one agency source .

The report, requested by Congress, is sure to alarm executives in the broadcast and cable industry, members of the creative community and First Amendment advocates.

The draft was circulating among the agency’s five commissioners, sources said.

A bipartisan group of 39 House members nearly three years ago requested a report by Jan. 1, 2005, discussing whether the FCC could define “exceedingly violent programming that is harmful to children.” It also asked whether the agency could regulate such programming “in a constitutional manner.”

The FCC’s authority is limited to licensed broadcast stations. Content on cable networks that is not available over the airwaves is beyond the agency’s reach.

To address cable, the report suggests that Congress could draft legislation that would mandate a “family tier” of programming or a form of channel choice known as “a la carte.”

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has long supported such a proposal, as has Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., but the cable industry has beaten back a la carte legislation in the past.

Creating a regulatory regime to deal with television violence would present a host of challenges for the agency, say critics. First, the FCC or Congress would have to define excessive violence. The agency is mulling several possibilities, including one devised by Morality in Media Inc., a group whose motto is “promoting decent society through law.”

Even if a definition can be devised, more problematic is the issue of how to determine what is worthy of sanction and what is not.

“Will it count on the news?” asked Jonathan Rintels, executive director of the Center for Creative Voices in Media. “Will it count on news magazines like ’60 Minutes’ and ‘Dateline’? What about hockey games when the gloves come off and people start punching each other?”

——————–

Pro and Con

Who’s responsible?

Broadcasters and cable companies say parents should take responsibility for what their children watch and take advantage of content blocking technology, like the V-chip .

The Parents Television Council says such technologies are insufficient due to a flawed TV rating system, and that the industry is trying to dodge responsibility.

Keeping up:

Broadcasters claim their shows are becoming edgier to keep up with increasingly violent fare on cable networks.

Regulation advocates counter that nearly all content is owned by a handful of media conglomerates, who effectively control what is on cable, too.

——————–

(c) 2007 Commercial Appeal, The. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.