TV violence tough to curb despite FCC's new plea
Defining violence narrowly enough to satisfy the courts is a tricky challenge for Congress.
from the April 30, 2007 edition
Page 2 of 3
"The best solution here is meaningful industry self-regulation," he adds. "If they don't do that, then what other recourse do the American people have?"
Critics of government intervention say that parents, in fact, have quite a few resources – including blocking channels, blocking certain programs by using V-chip technology, or simply monitoring their children's TV-watching more closely.
"There are good shows and bad shows. The problem is when you say the solution to that is having the government make decisions about what shows are right and what shows are wrong," says Jim Dyke, executive director of TV Watch, a coalition based in Charleston, S.C., that opposes government regulation. "I don't know how they'd do it."
Even for the one-third of American households with children, notes Mr. Dyke, decisions about what shows to watch may vary significantly based on the age of the child and the judgment of the parent.
If Congress does write legislation, a major challenge will be coming up with an acceptable – and narrow – definition of excessive violence. It would have to thread a fine line by, say, not allowing "24" to show a scene of a man tortured by having a drill thrust into his back – at least on prime time – but letting the evening news discuss violent crime and allowing stations to air something like "Miami Vice," "Schindler's List," or "Star Wars."
The FCC frames the issue and talks about the aspects of violence that should be discussed – including looking at it in context – but stops short of coming up with an actual definition.
Ever since 1978, the courts have allowed the FCC to regulate indecency on the public airwaves, but even that, say critics, has been problematic since the definition is so open to interpretation and is inconsistently applied.
RSS feed
