Ask the Scholar
Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
MAR- 3-96 SUN 17:48
CSR INCORPORATED DC
FAX NO. 2028420418
P. 02
DIRECTIONS TO ELEANOR ROOSEVELT HIGH SCHOOL
7601 HANOVER PARKWAY
GREENBELT, MD 20770
From I-95 (The Beltway) If Proceeding North:
Get off the Beltway at Exit #22A (Baltimore Washington Pkwy. towards Baltimore). On exit
ramp, bear right immediately to Rt, 193 (Greenbelt Road). Turn right onto Greenbeli Road
(towards NASA) and continue .3 of a mile on Greenbelt Road to the second light (Hanover
Pkwy.) Turn left onto Hanover Parkway and then take first right onto school property.
From I-95 (The Beltway) If Proceeding South:
Get off of the Beltway at Exit #22A (Baltimore Washington Pkwy. towards Baltimore). Take the
Balitmore Washington Pkwy. towards Baltimore to Rt. 193 (Greenbelt Road). Exit to the right,
following the exit ramp to the road. Turn left at the light (towards NASA) from exit ramp onto
Greenbelt Road and continue to Hanover Pkwy. Turn left at the next light onto Hanover Pkwy.
and then take first right onto school property.
From Washington, D.C.:
Take the Baltimore Washington Pkwy towards Baltimore to Rt. 193 (Greenbelt Road). Exit to the
right following the exit ramp to Greenbelt Road. Turn left at the light (towards NASA) from exit
ramp onto Greenbelt Road and continue to Hanover Pkwy. Turn left at the next light onto
Hanover Parkway and then take the first right onto school property.
From Baltimore:
Take the Baltimore Washington Pkwy. towards Washington to Rt. 193 (Greenbelt Road). Exit on
the right, following the exit ramp to the STOP sign, turn left and continue a short distance to
Greenbelt Road. Turn left at the second right onto Hanover Pkwy. and then take first right onto
school property.
CITY OF GREENBELT
Baltimore Weshington Pokey
Greenball Rd
He/ver Part.wry E.
ROOSEVELT SCIENCE
AND TECH CENTER
Greenway
Shopping
EXIT 22
Center
Greenbelt Bd. 193 HASA)
N
Beltwen 95
001
03/06/96 WED 14:19 FAX 202 482 1635
NTIA/OAS
or
A NTIA CARD
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
FAX
The Assistant Secretary for
DORM
Communications and Information
Room 4898, HCH Bldg
Washington, D.C. 20230
TO:
Molly
FAX:
PHONE:
FROM:
Kristan
FAX:
(202) 482-1635
Office of the Assistant Secretary
PHONE: (202) 482-1551
DATE:
PAGES: This + Page(s)
MESSAGE
4567028
another interesting
backgrounder it you
have a minute to
glance at it
See page 4 especially
03/06/96 WED 14:20 FAX 202 482 1635
002
TV VIOLENCE, CHILDREN,
AND THE PRESS: Eight Rationales
Inhibiting Public Policy Debates
by
Sissela Bok
Discussion Paper D-16
The Joan Shorenstein Barone Center
April 1994
PRESS POLITICS
VE RI TAS
PUBLIC POLICY
Harvard University
John F. Kennedy School of Government
03/06/96
WED
14:20
FAX
202
482
1635
003
INTRODUCTION
In contemporary political theory, the role of
issues of greater policy importance in the con-
public deliberation (or public discourse, or
temporary United States than the issue of
dialogue) looms large. From numerous perspec-
violence, there may also be few issues whose
tives, among them republicanism, feminism, and
discussion is more susceptible to all that is the
communitarianism as well as more traditional
worst, rather than all that is the best, about the
political liberalism, theorists and public com-
process of public deliberation. When the topic of
mentators have linked the values of democracy,
violence intersects with the topic of television,
equality, and community with the particular
another on which people hold strong views, and
mechanism of public deliberation, the process by
one on which the press is hardly a disinterested
which the members of a community talk to each
observer, the risks of the failure of reason in the
other in an effort to reconcile differences and
marketplace of ideas are magnified.
make the decisions that affect us all.
Into this problem comes Sissela Bok, applying
The literature on public deliberation might be
the talents of the professional philosopher and
divided into the celebratory and the skeptical.
the insights of the social critic to analyze current
The former stresses the virtues of public delib-
public policy debates in the press about televi-
eration in forging consensus and community,
sion (itself a branch of the press), children, and
and laments the paucity of public deliberation
violence. Although the depth of her concerns
compared to earlier times or smaller settings,
about televised violence is plain from this paper,
The latter sees public deliberation as a process
she aims primarily not to make the case for one
that incorporates and indeed reinforces existing
policy prescription or another. Rather, her goal is
social disparities, such that those who are for
to expose some number of weak arguments
one reason or another socially disadvantaged
whose dominance in current deliberation about
wind up being disadvantaged in the deliberative
the consequences of televised violence scems to
process as well. For the celebrants, public delib-
her to be out of all proportion to their validity.
eration offers a way out of existing social ills,
This paper developed out of Bok's Fellowship at
while for the skeptic public deliberation is as
the Joan Shorenstein Barone Center on the Press,
likely to be a manifestation of social pathologies
Politics and Public Policy, and exemplifies the
as a way to transcend them.
intersection between the press and policymaking
What this debate frequently ignores, however,
that is the focus of the Center's research agenda.
is the way in which public deliberation often
After reading Bok's paper, the careful student of
goes awry not because some deliberators have
her analysis will be better equipped not only to
more resources or more power than others, but
understand and participate in debates about
because all too commonly good arguments do
televised violence, but also better able to critique
not, in practice, defeat bad ones. While it would
and contribute to the process of public delibera-
be excessively skeptical to think that Gresham's
tion in general.
Law operates in the marketplace of ideas, and
that bad arguments invariably drive out good
Frederick Schauer
ones, it may be excessively sanguine to suppose
Frank Stanton Professor of the First Amendment
that we live in the deliberative environment
Joan Shorenstein Barone Center on the Press,
supposed by the rationalists of the Enlighten-
Politics and Public Policy
ment, an environment in which sound argu-
John F. Kennedy School of Government
ments prevail just because of their inherent
soundness. Rather, we appear to exist in a world
in which various superficially appealing but
deeply flawed arguments all too often carry the
day in public debate.
The triumph of the fallacious is not only a
concern to those who value good arguments for
their own sake-it is much more a concern when
decisions about major issues of public policy are
held hostage to the deficiencies of public argu-
mentative practice. And although there are few
03/06/96 WED 14:20 FAX 202 482 1635
004
TV VIOLENCE, CHILDREN, AND THE PRESS:
Eight Rationales Inhibiting Public Policy Debates
Spotlight on Television
fine is for the government to take over a
responsibility that ought to rest with free
Television violence and the development of our
individuals."
youth are not just another set of public policy
problems. They go to the heart of our society's
TV industry representatives insisted that the
values. The best solutions lie with industry
amount of violence on television was exag-
officials, parents, and educators, and I don't
gerated by politicians and critics and was
relish the prospect of Government action. But if
nowhere near as linked to street violence as
immediate voluntary steps are not taken and
family breakdown and the erosion of values.³
deadlines established, Government should
respond, and respond immediately.
The Comedy Central cable network prepared
Attorney General Janet Reno,
a 30-second advertisement purporting to
testifying before the Senate
instruct "Dear Janet," about the difference
Commerce Committee,
between "real blood" and "stage blood" and
October 20, 1993.
claiming that those who "play with [the
No sooner had Attorney General Janet Reno
latter) on stage celebrate life and give
spoken out about risks to America's children and
people a rage to live."6
adolescents from television violence, and in turn
Why such immediate, summary, and often
to the larger society, than the scoldings by press
condescending dismissal in so many quarters?
and television industry representatives began.
Why bypass Reno's call for all concerned -
Few commentators bothered to report with care
parents, educators, industry officials and, as a
on the actual bills under consideration at the
last resort, government - to come to grips with
Senate Commerce Committee meeting where
television violence as one of several interlocking
Reno testified or on the research data on which
factors linked to escalating youth violence? The
she drew. The counterarguments focused, rather,
press, after all, sees as part of its public responsi-
either on the relative insignificance of risks from
bility to report in depth on similarly interlocking
TV violence or on the overriding danger of govern-
factors when it comes to, say, traffic injuries,
ment censorship regardless of any such risks.
drug addiction, or AIDS. Why, then, did so few
The New York Times editorialized against
newspapers bother, in covering Reno's testi-
"Janet Reno's Heavy Hand," warning that
mony, to analyze diverging claims about the role
although it is foolish to "try to stop a bullet
of television violence in exacerbating youth
like Schwarzenegger or swing off a mountain
violence?
like Stallone, most foolish of all is Janet
It is not as if there were a dearth of data on
Reno's dangerous embrace of a very seductive
which to base such reporting. By now, many
form of censorship."2
hundreds of studies have concluded that expo-
sure to television violence does affect a number
In USA Today, Michael Gartner, former
of children for the worse, as have surveys of
president of NBC News, declared that televi-
these studies.' Two months before Reno's
sion violence imitates real world violence,
testimony, the American Psychological Associa-
not the other way around, and that attempts
tion issued a major report on the research on
to "mess around with anybody's views,
violence involving children and young people.8
opinions, thoughts, words" were far more
[See Box 1.] Its conclusions regarding the risks to
dangerous than any effects of TV violence:
children and to society from television violence
"I know you don't like the fact that Beavis
are unequivocal.
and Butthead play with matches, Ms. Reno.
Little reportorial initiative would have been
But you're playing with fire.'
needed to refer, in covering Reno's testimony, to
An editorial in the Chicago Tribune con-
the research surveyed in the A.P.A. report -
cluded that "Americans who think TV
research on which she expressly drew in prepar-
ing her remarks. Nor would it have been difficult
violence is dangerous have the simple option
of turning it off, which is fine. What isn't
to report on remaining disagreements among
experts. These differences rarely concern the
Sissela Bok 1
03/06/96 WED 14:21 FAX 202 482 1635
005
possibility, now widely acknowledged, of harm
The disagreements concern, rather, what propor-
to children from exposure to television violence.
tion of children are affected by exposure to TV
And the claims, advanced in the 1960's, that
violence, in what ways, and to what extent; the
exposure to television violence could actually
degree to which other factors, such as witnessing
render viewers less aggressive through some
violence in the home, contribute to the likeli-
form of catharsis, have since been discredited 10
hood of children being adversely affected by
exposure to TV violence; the degree to which
EXCERPTS: "VIOLENCE
such effects are temporary or lasting in nature;
AND YOUTH," AMERICAN
and the degree to which they are related to
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
aggressive conduct and greater acceptance of
There is absolutely no doubt that higher
violence later in life.
levels of viewing violence on television are
correlated with increased acceptance of
aggressive attitudes and increased aggres-
CHILDREN'S EXPOSURE TO
sive behavior. /.../
TELEVISION VIOLENCE
Children's exposure to violence in the
Nearly 4 decades of research on televi-
mass media, particularly at young ages, can
sion viewing and other media have docu-
have harmful lifelong consequences.
mented the almost universal exposure of
Aggressive habits learned early in life are
American children to high levels of media
the foundation for later behavior. Aggres-
violence. Ninety-eight percent of American
sive children who have trouble in school
homes have at least one television, which is
and in relating to peers tend to watch more
watched for an average of 28 hours by
television; the violence they see there, in
children between the ages of 2 and 11 and
turn, reinforces their tendency toward
for 23 hours by teenagers. Children from
low-income families are the heaviest
aggression, compounding their academic
watchers of television.
and social failure. These effects are both
short-term and long-lasting: A longitudinal
Before finishing grade school, the average
study of boys found a significant relation
child will already have watched, on the
between exposure to television violence at
average, 8000 murders and 100,000 acts of
8 years of life and anti-social acts includ-
violence on TV.12
ing serious violent criminal offenses and
spouse abuse 22 years later.
Children tend to watch equal quantities
of daytime and prime time television
In addition to increasing violent behav-
programs and make up 6 percent of the
iors toward others, viewing violence on
viewing audience even after 10:30 p.m.¹³
television changes attitudes and behaviors
toward violence in significant ways. Even
Even two-year-olds in America are
those who do not themselves increase their
estimated to spend, on the average, 60 days
violent behaviors are significantly affected
a year in front of the TV set.
by their viewing of violence in three ways:
The level of violence on commercial
Viewing violence increases fear of becom-
television has remained constant during
ing a victim of violence, with a resultant
nearly two decades. In prime time, there are
increase in self-protective behaviors and
five to six violent acts [on average] per hour;
increased mistrust of others;
there are 20 to 25 violent acts per hour on
Saturday morning children's programs. /.../
Viewing violence increases desensitiza-
More graphic violence, sexual content, and
tion to violence, resulting in calloused
mature themes are readily accessible in the
attitudes toward violence directed at
60 percent of homes in which cable televi-
others and a decreased likelihood to take
sion and VCRs are available.¹⁵
action on behalf of the victim when
violence occurs (behavioral apathy); and
To document these controversies, reporters
Viewing violence increase viewers'
could have taken a second look at the proceed-
appetites for becoming involved with
ings of a landmark conference on television
violence or exposing themselves to
violence held in Beverly Hills in August 1993.
violence.
This was the first time that scholars, politicians,
2 TV Violence. Children. and the Press: Eight Rationales Inhibiting Public Policy Debates
03/06/96
WED
21
FAX
202
482
1635
006
actors, and industry representatives met face to
violence in society, and 54% say they would
face to exchange views about the effects of
support government guidelines to limit the
television violence, the available research, and
amount of mayhem on TV.
alternative policies to adopt. The brief press
The contrast between high levels of public
reports at the time conveyed but the starkest
concern and weak public policy debates is
outlines of conflicting positions; but journalists
neither new nor uniquely attributable to inad-
referring to the C-SPAN transcript of portions of
equate press coverage. Past commissions and
the proceedings would have had little difficulty
panels of experts, even when appointed in the
in finding more substantive analyses and policy
wake of great public concern about violence in
proposals.¹¹ Referring to them would also have
society and on TV, have been short on policy
helped underline Reno's special concern with the
proposals. They have tended, after careful
role of TV violence in the lives of children: a
research and documentation, to bring forth only
concern that takes on added significance in the
the feeblest suggestions for dealing with the
light of the sheer amount of such violence that
risks that they have so amply documented.
many young children witness. [See Box 2.]
Thus, for example, the National Commission
on the Causes and Prevention of Violence,
Obstacles to Public Policy Debate
appointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in
Not all press coverage of the debates about
1968, commissioned a report on the mass media
television violence, and about entertainment
and violence. After a thorough review of the
violence more generally, is as spotty as much of
evidence available at the time, the authors of
what followed Reno's testimony or the earlier
this report concluded that it was probable that
conference. Newsday, for example, presented
mass media portrayals of violence were one
different viewpoints regarding the issues taken
factor that "must be considered in attempts to
up by Reno during the week following her
explain the many forms of violence that mark
testimony; earlier, The Boston Globe provided
American society today," and that television
front-page coverage to the August report on
violence in particular had the greatest potential
Violence and Youth by the American Psycho-
for short and long term effects on audiences. 19
logical Association and has continued to cover
The "television world of violence," the authors
related issues in depth.¹⁶ Anyone with the time
maintained, is neither an accurate reflection of
and resources to do a literature search could tum
the real world of violence as experienced by
up thoughtful, informative articles on TV
adult and teenage Americans, nor what the
violence in one newspaper or another over the
majority of adult and teenage Americans want;
and it is dominated by norms for violence which
past few years. Most readers, however, have no
access to such diverse sources; many live in
are inconsistent with those espoused by these
citizens. 20 Yet the report's primary recommenda-
communities with very limited news coverage in
the first place - let alone access to thorough
tion for how to deal with this problem was only
discussions of the problems related to TV vio-
that the mass media create a publicly sponsored
and supported "Center for Media Studies" to
lence. As a result, it is far harder than it need
conduct further research about the matter.
otherwise be for informed public policy debates
A quarter of a century later, in the spring of
about these problems to get under way.
1993, a panel of experts issued a report on
In spite of such barriers to informed policy
violence for the National Academy of Sciences.
debate, public concern about the role of TV
The panel had commissioned yet another study
violence in our society is rising. A Times Mirror
of the evidence to date of the role of TV violence,
Center survey reported, in March, 1993, that a
this time with much more extensive experience
majority of those interviewed in the survey
and research on which to base their conclusions
indicated that they thought there was too much
The authors of that study had concluded that
violence on TV and that this bothered them. An
"exposure to television violence resulted in
even greater majority (80 percent in 1993 as
increased aggressive behavior, both contempora-
compared to 64 percent in 1983) felt that TV was
neously and over time. "21 Yet the panel men-
harmful to society; and just 15 percent felt that
tions no policy suggestions regarding exposure to
TV was harmless in this respect. 17 In December,
TV violence in its report; nor does it even
1993, The Los Angeles Times reported on a
include the neèd for further research about such
survey according to which "almost 4 out of 5
exposure in its list of recommendations.
Americans believe violence in television pro-
By the fall of 1993, however, the climate of
grams directly contributes to the amount of
debate may have shifted more decisively than in
Sissela Bok 3
03/06/96 WED 14:22 FAX 202 482 1635
007
the past. It has been influenced by congressional
often in the past, after a sputtering but inconclu-
hearings in 1992 and 1993 by Senator Paul
sive debate. If there is to be a more serious and
Simon of Illinois, Congressman Edward Markey
informed public policy debate about these risks,
of Massachusetts, and others, and in turn by
the press will have a crucial role to play. It will
testimony such as that by Attorney General
need to do a better job of providing the necessary
Reno. Ever more striking evidence of escalating
background and analysis; but to do so, it will
violence on the part of and victimizing young
have to guard against overquick acceptance of
people has also led to a new determination to
certain commonplace but stunted lines of
inquire into all the factors that might possibly
reasoning that help short-circuit debate. Often
play a role in this slaughter of the young. [See
called rationales, these lines of reasoning serve a
Box 3.] It is becoming harder to ignore television
double function: they offer simplistic reasons for
not entering into serious debate about a subject,
VIOLENT CRIME
and thus provide rationalizations for ignoring or
AND THE YOUNG
shielding ongoing practices from outside scru-
tiny and interference. 30 When it comes to vio-
Arrests for violent crimes per 100,000
lence on and off the TV screen, the following
youths age 10-17 went from 215.9 in 1970
rationales are especially common:
to 430.6 in 1990.
The rates of gun-related deaths among
I. America has always been a violent nation
15-19-year-olds, which had been rising
and always will be: violence is as American as
gradually through the late 1960's, kept on
cherry pie.
doing so during the 1970's and early 1980's;
П. Why focus the policy debate on TV vio-
then doubled from 1985 to 1990. 14
lence when there are other more important
factors that contribute to violence?
For black teenage males, the firearm
III. How can you definitively pinpoint, and
homicide rate nearly tripled in that period,
thus prove, the link between viewing TV vio-
to 105.3 deaths per 100,000. Rates among
lence and acts of real-life violence?
white teenage boys also rose, though less
IV. Television programs reflect existing
rapidly, in that period, largely in the His-
violence in the "real world." It would be unreal-
panic community.25
istic and a disservice to viewers as well as to
Homicide is the second leading cause of
society to attempt to wipe violence off the
death of all persons 15-24 (auto crashes are
screen.
the first) and the leading cause among
V. People can't even agree on how to define
African American youth. 26
"violence." How, then, can they go on to discuss
In 1992 the U.S. Surgeon General cited
what to do about it?
violence as the leading cause of injury to
VI. It is too late to take action against vio-
women ages 15 to 44.²⁷
lence on television, considering the plethora of
video channels by which entertainment violence
Every school day: 100,000 students carry
will soon be available in homes.
guns to school, 6,250 teachers are threat-
VII. It should be up to parents, not to the
ened with injury, 260 are assaulted.
television industry, to monitor the programs that
13 percent of all incidents involving guns
their children watch.
in schools occur in preschool and elemen-
VIII. Any public policy to decrease TV vio-
tary schools. 28
lence constitutes censorship and represents an
intolerable interference with free speech.
violence as one potential factor, linked not only
All eight of the rationales bring out points
to the ravages of youth violence but to the still
worth making. They represent natural forms of
larger toll taken by violence in American society
hesitation and caution with respect to a cluster
more generally - a toll that is increasingly seen
of problems many have come to think intrac-
as constituting a public health crisis of epidemic
table. But all eight are taken too far when used to
proportions.²⁹
dismiss or foreshorten debate about television
violence. All fall especially short when used to
Eight Rationales
set aside questions of how to deal with the risks
The heightened awareness of the risks associ-
that such violence poses to children.,
ated with TV violence may yet recede, as so
4 TV Violence, Children. and the Press: Eight Rationales Inhibiting Public Policy Debates
03/06/96
WED
14:22
FAX
202
482
1635
008
I. America always has been and always will be a
begun to provoke the amount of political engage-
violent nation: violence is as American as cherry
ment and public policy debate devoted to that
pie.
war.
H. Rap Brown's metaphor has entered the
The rationale, finally, is singularly inappropri-
vernacular. Many take it to be an accurate
ate when it comes to television violence, which
comment, looking at America's present levels of
is, precisely, not as perennially American as
violence against the background of a history of
cherry pie. It is only four and a half decades since
slavery, frontier violence, labor strife, racial
a few American households acquired their first
conflict, crime, and warfare domestic and inter-
television sets. By now, 98 percent of American
national. While this claim offers a reason for
households have television, and many have
taking America's history of violence into ac-
several sets in different rooms. Television is a
count in debates concerning all forms of contem-
presence in children's lives from infancy on,
porary violence, however, it cannot suffice for
consuming more hours each year than school.
setting aside the debates themselves. When it is
The amount and forms of violence to be found
used to support such a conclusion, it becomes a
on television programs have also mounted to
falsely fatalistic rationalization. Just as "slavery
levels that few could have predicted in the early
is as American as cherry pie" might have seemed
1950's.
to some all too accurate a characterization of
A fatalistic rationale about our nation's
American society in 1850, it would have been
imperviousness to change with respect to vio-
similarly inadequate as a reason for believing
lence may be a natural first reaction to the sense
that slavery could not be overcome.
of the intractable nature of the problem. 33 It
The rationale invoking perennial American
may result, too, from a sense that we simply do
patterns of violence, when used thus, helps
not know enough at present to be able to devise
deflect inquiry into explanations for present
adequate policies in response. But as in the case
levels of violence and into contributing factors
of slavery, such a rationale serves also as a
and possible remedies. Historical references
rationalization for doing nothing - as an excuse
alone cannot account for the unprecedented
by those who won't be bothered and a shield
sharp rise in recent years in child and adolescent
for those in the weapons, entertainment, and
violence. [See Box 3.] Nor can they account,
other industries with vested interests in the
more generally, for what a French researcher
status quo.
calls "the very special case of the United States"
when it comes to homicide: the fact that its
II. Why focus the policy debate on TV violence
homicide rate is now between four and ten times
when there are other more important factors that
higher than other industrialized nations, with
contribute to violence?
correspondingly disproportional levels of rape,
This is a natural first reaction to expressions
child abuse, and every other form of violence³¹,
of concern about the role of TV violence in
In 1962, America's homicide rate had come
American society, especially for anyone con-
down to 4.5 per 100,000 from 6.9 per 100,000 in
vinced that TV violence is dwarfed by some one
1946, following the downward patterns of other
other causal factor such as poverty, family
industrializing nations; it then began a prolonged
breakdown, the availability of firearms, or
upward move to reach 9.4 per 100,000 in 1972. 32
substance abuse. Why not begin with what is
Cresting in the early 1980's, then resuming its
truly important, rather than waste time and
climb after a downward turn, the homicide rate
energy on the contents of TV programming?
was over 10 per 100,000 in the United States in
Perhaps TV violence is even a scapegoat, "much
1991, compared to 2 in England, 1.8 in Germany
easier to attack," in the words of the director
and 1.2 in Japan.
Michael Mann, "than the imponderables of why
The power of this rationale and of the fatalism
there's 50 much violence in this culture.'
that it supports may help to explain why the
Such questions are valuable insofar as they
high levels of violence which now mark daily
caution against undue stress on the one factor of
life in America have, so far, generated nothing
TV violence alone, or, indeed, on any one other
like the determination to bring about change
factor by itself 35 There is clearly reason to
engendered by the Vietnam War. Even though
address the role of each and every factor that
more Americans died of gunshot wounds alone
may contribute to violence. To concentrate only
during 1986 and 1987 (or any other two years in
on TV violence, in an effort to understand
the past decade) than in the eight and a half years
violence in America more generally, would be
of that war, this domestic bloodshed has not
not only mistaken but dangerous, in that it
Sissela Bok 5
03/06/96
WED
14:23
FAX
202
482
1635
009
would allow neglect of other, often more direct
attributed in part to acculturation, including
causes of violence.
television modeling: the rate of arrests for
But this second rationale is itself mistaken,
serious crime (such as murder, rape, robbery and
and indeed dangerous, when it is used to block
aggravated assault) by children under fifteen had
any concern with TV violence (or with any other
increased by 11,000 percent between 1950, when
risk factor such as family breakdown or firearm
TV was in its infancy, and 1979; since then it has
availability) until all other factors linked to
shot up still further.
societal violence have been adequately dealt
So long as a focus on entertainment violence
with. We do not usually address complex,
is not seen as the only one needed, moreover, the
multidimensional human problems in this
claim that it represents "an easy way out" and is
manner. Take heart disease: few critics maintain
therefore undesirable is beside the point. Why
that, just because a number of risk factors such
not work at the easier as well as at the harder
as smoking or heredity or cholesterol contribute
aspects of the problem? It will doubtless be
to the prevalence of this disease, there is reason
easier to reduce the harmful effects of TV vio-
not to focus on any one of them. On the con-
lence on young children than to affect the
trary, research and inquiry have to continue
consequences, say, of family breakdown or
regarding each one, including those of lesser
domestic violence. Far fewer persons are required
magnitude
to bring about changes in television program-
In the past few years, scholars, advocates,
ming than to reduce poverty, addiction, and
physicians, and government officials working to
other social ills that burden many families in
address problems of violence have increasingly
America. It is urgent to work to alleviate all of
come to view them, too, from a public health
these ills; but there is no reason to delay bringing
perspective, as has long been the case with heart
about change in television programming until
disease, cancer, and other major causes of death
this work has been carried out.
and disability. It is a perspective that allows the
The second rationale serves a useful purpose,
most wide-ranging and integrated exploration of
then, insofar as it warns against a unique focus
the incidence of different forms of violence, of
on any one factor such as that of television
possible risk factors, and of approaches to pre-
violence. But it functions as a rationalization as
vention. 36 Such a public health perspective
soon as it is used, instead, to ignore the risks
serves as a refreshing antidote to any urge either
from TV violence or to draw attention away
to address complex problems in terms of only
from it; and, as with the first rationale, it can,
one risk factor or to dismiss concern with any
thus used, help to prolong silence and inaction
one factor on the grounds that it is not the only
with respect to the problem of TV violence as
one or even the most significant one. In the
well as to shield those who have the most to
absence of such a differentiated perspective, it
gain from such programming.
will remain tempting to counter concerns about
entertainment violence by conjuring up improb-
III. How can you definitively pinpoint, and thus
able one-dimensional scenarios - as in Sam
prove, the link between viewing TV violence and
Donaldson asking whether people "watch
acts of real-life violence?
movies, then grab their guns to go out to do
This question challenges the assumption that
mayhem."3"
exposure to television violence constitutes a risk
Even if there were no TV violence, this would
factor in the first place. It is a challenge familiar
obviously not wipe out the problem of violence
from the debates concerning the risks associated
in the U.S. The same can be said for poverty,
with tobacco smoking. Representatives of the
drug addiction, the proliferation of firearms, and
tobacco industry hold that since, in their opin-
each of the other risk factors. As Dr. Deborah
ion, there has been no conclusive proof of a
Prothrow-Stith puts it, "It's not an either or. It's
causal link between tobacco and lung cancer,
not guns or media or parents or poverty "38 All
there is no reason to take action against smok-
contribute to the problem of violence in
ing, nor any moral reason for curtailing sales
America. And yet television serves in a unique
efforts at home and abroad. [See Box 4 for an
way to acculturate Americans to violence.
example of such claims.]
Children learn by imitation; and television
Media representatives similarly claim that
provides ample models of persons who seem to
until conclusive proof can be produced that TV
personify the power, the brutality, and, too often,
violence causes harm to viewers and indirect
the imputed glamor of violence. To mention
harm to third parties, there is no reason to
but one set of societal changes that have been
consider public policy measures to reduce the
6
TV
Violence.
Children
010
03/06/96
WED
23
FAX
202
482
1635
to a particular child's desensitization with
SMOKING AND DISEASE:
respect to violence or provided believable models
A DISCLAIMER
for aggressive conduct. The same is true when it
Swom testimony with Andrew Tisch,
comes to the links between tobacco smoking and
chairman and chief executive of Lorillard
cancer, between drunk driving and automobile
Tobacco Company, taken by Stanley
accidents, and many other risk factors presenting
Rosenblatt, an attorney representing a
public health hazards. Yet our inability to carry
group of flight attendants in a class-action
out such pinpointing has not stood in the way of
lawsuit against leading cigarette makers:
discussing and promoting efforts to curtail
cigarette smoking and drunk driving; it is not
Q. As far as you're concerned, Mr. Tisch,
clear, therefore, why it should block such efforts
as the chairman and chief executive officer
when it comes to TV violence.4
of Lorillard, this warning on the package
An approach to causation more commonly
which says that smoking causes lung
used in considering how to counter public health
cancer, heart disease and emphysema is
hazards is that of probabilistic causation. It is
inaccurate? You don't believe that is true?
not necessary that a factor, such as the cigarette
A. That's correct.
smoking that is thought to play a causal role
with respect to lung cancer, produce that effect
Q. Because if you believed it were true,
in all or even most cases, nor that it be the only
in good conscience you wouldn't sell this to
or the greatest cause of that effect, but only that
Americans, would you, or foreigners for
it "increases the incidence of the effect for a
that matter?
population and increases the likelihood of the
A. That's correct.
effect in an individual case."" Using the same
approach for TV violence, the link between such
violence and the incidence of violent acts in real
harm linked with exposure of children to violent
life need not be individually pinpointed -
programs.
something that would be as hard to do for TV
Once more, such arguments serve a double
violence as for cigarette smoking, considering
purpose. They function as reasons, first of all, to
the years that it takes for the most serious
examine with scrupulous care the evidence held
effects to come to evidence.
to support claims that TV violence harms
An important question that a public policy
children, desensitizing many of them to violence
debate has to take up concerns, therefore, the
and rendering them more fearful and distrustful
levels of certainty regarding causative factors and
of others, and that exposure to such violence is
the amounts and kinds of victimization that
correlated with increased aggressive behavior. It
would count as posing risks large enough for
is clearly the case that more needs to be done to
debating forceful and concerted responses. How
scrutinize different research designs, sampling
certain must we be of risks to large numbers of
methods, and possible biases of studies support-
people before discussing what action to take?
ing such claims, and to ask about the steps of
While it will always be difficult to produce
reasoning leading from particular research
specific numbers of persons who have been
findings to conclusions.
victimized by any one of the risk factors at stake
But the arguments also serve as rationaliza-
in America's exceptional levels of violence,
tions as soon as they are used to dismiss existing
different approximate estimates have been made.
research and to disparage public concern as
Brandon S. Centerwall, a Washington, D.C.
alarmist until conclusive proof has been
psychiatrist, has concluded from large-scale
achieved. To ask for some demonstrable pin-
epidemiological studies of homicide in America
pointing of just when and how TV violence
and abroad, that "if, hypothetically, television
affects individual children for the worse before
technology had never been developed, [v]iolent
debating public policy sets a dangerously high
crime would be half of what it now is. 1143 If so,
threshold for what is to count as adequate
there would be 10,000 fewer homicides today, he
justification in such debates. It would require
suggests, 70,000 fewer rapes, and 700,000 fewer
knowledge about the physical and psychólogical
injurious assaults. Others have estimated that
development of individuals so detailed as to be
television programs may contribute incremen-
unattainable. We may never be able to trace,
tally to ten percent of violent crime. 11 Clearly,
retrospectively, the specific moments at which
however, even a lower estimate - say five
and reasons for which TV violence contributed
percent - ought to be taken into account in
Sissela Bok 7
03/06/96 WED 14:24 FAX 202 482 1635
011
considering the level of certainty desired before
for temporizing about debating even the most
action is taken against damage traced to the
exploitative programs. With respect to news-
effects of television violence.
casting, first of all, the rationale papers over the
IV. Television programs reflect existing violence
concern increasingly felt in media circles con-
in the "real world." It would be unrealistic and a
cerning the blurring of the line between news
disservice to viewers as well as to society to
and entertainment, in so called "infotainment
attempt to wipe violence off the screen.
programming." And it fails to take into consider-
According to this rationale, television vio-
ation the drift toward increasingly sensational-
lence does not add to real world violence so
ized news programming that in no sense mirrors
much as mirror it. Leaving it out of programs
the life of a community or society. "If it bleeds,
would offer a saccharine and utterly false view of
it leads" is a familiar motto well worth question-
reality that could not, in the long run, serve
ing. Disasters, fires, rapes, murders are now
either individual or social needs. Newscasts, in
being covered in proportions that bear no rela-
particular, report on military combat, bombard-
tion to reality. As one report on television news
ment, arson, rape, murder, and other forms of
coverage in New York City put it,46
violence throughout daytime and evening hours.
Another night, another nightmare.
Wouldn't reporters deny their primary purpose if
they consented to sugarcoat the news or blot out
The teenage killer gives way to the subway
slasher. The mob slaying segues into a spot on
the uglier facets of history in the making? What
kids with guns. The face of a weeping mother
would it say about us as viewers if we main-
dissolves into a close-up of a blood-stained shirt.
tained that we would be better off not knowing
House fires become "raging infernos." Traffic
about the ethnic cleansing in ex-Yugoslavia or
snarls. Kids fall out of windows. Babies die in
the starvation in Somalia? To water down news
random shootings. Manhunts are commonplace.
programs benefiting all citizens because of
possible effects on child viewers would surely be
Welcome to New York. Day after day, from 4
p.m. to midnight, at almost any time, the
a betrayal of journalistic integrity. It would
nation's largest city is probed, poked, tossed and
deprive society of information indispensable to
turned in quick-cut images projected to a
understanding world events, and so make
potential viewership of some 18 million people,
possible errors and abuses that could turn out to
a population about the size of Iraq's.
be far costlier than any damage to television
viewers.
In more than 80 interviews over several
weeks, journalists, scholars, and other New
The most horrifying image sequences, more-
Yorkers, ranging from janitors to teachers to
over, sometimes serve to mobilize public opin-
corporate executives, described New York - as
ion as little clse can, as when television coverage
portrayed by television - as a grim wasteland
brought the famine and slaughter in Somalia to
that bears almost no relation to their lives. The
the world's attention. What is wrong with news
city thus exposed is a sustained scream, a
coverage of crises around the world is not that it
bloodied mess.
exposes inhumanity and victimization and the
anguish of mourners, but rather that it does not
Whatever the "real world" is that the fourth
always do so completely enough or in a suffi-
rationale claims that television reflects, such
ciently fairminded way. It is not that we should
news coverage clearly conveys but distorted and
not learn about the horrors perpetrated in
disjointed aspects of it. The metaphor of mirror-
Somalia, but that we do not also learn about
ing is even less apt when it comes to entertain-
equally extensive suffering in the Sudan and
ment violence. The amount of televised homi-
elsewhere. Amartya Sen has pointed out that
cide, rape, arson, and torture bears no relation to
great famines such as that of 1958-61 China, in
the frequency with which these actually occur.
which close to 30 million people are estimated
And while industry representatives may speak of
to have perished, have only taken place in
television mirroring the real world, many pro-
societies in which there is no free press to
ducers and writers would disown such a com-
publicize such developments.
parison as inconsistent with the creative free-
The rationale, thus interpreted, offers persua-
dom they require. For some, the opposite claim
sive reasons against any blanket rejection of
is closer to the truth: that their productions
projections of violence on the television screen.
differ so radically and so self-evidently from
But if it, in turn, is taken as a blanket rejection
reality that viewers could not reasonably respond
of all criticism of levels and forms of televised
to the violence they contain as if it were in any
violence, it serves, instead, as a rationalization
way connected to their lives. As Joel Silver, the
8 TV Violence, Children, and the Press: Eight Rationales Inhibiting Public Policy Debates
03/06/96 WED 14: 25 FAX 202 482 1635
012
producer of the blockbuster "Die Hard," "Lethal
sleep under the bed to dodge real bullets or
Weapon," and "Predator" films, said, in response
attempt to screen out the violent fights of his or
to criticisms when his film "Lethal Weapon 3"
her care-givers.51
opened two weeks after the April 1992 Los
Angeles riots:
Because children tend to watch equal quanti-
ties of daytime and prime time programs and
"I mean it's a western, it's entertaining, it's good
make up 6 percent of the viewing audience even
guys versus bad guys. In that scene in The
after 10:30 p.m, they are hardly insulated from
Searchers' when John Wayne went after all those
violence-drenched programs held to be specifi-
Indians, was that genocide? Was that racist?
cally aimed at older viewers; still less from the
When James Bond dropped the guy in a pond of
sensationalized, concentrated violence of
piranhas, and he says, 'Bon appetit,' we loved
that. That's a great moment. Movies are not
"promos" for violent night time programs or
real.
movies, since such commercials are often run
repeatedly during sports programs and other
Silver's movies and others like them are
programs that appeal to young audiences, at times
common fare on television. The notion that the
including children's shows.⁵²
violence they portray is not real to viewers is as
As a result, even young children are exposed,
naive as the metaphor of violent television
before they are in any position to distinguish fact
programs passively reflecting reality. When used
from fantasy, to amounts and levels of violence
to ward off debate, both notions function as
more brutalizing than many adults - parents,
mutually reinforcing, however inconsistent,
script writers, and TV producers among them -
rationalizations. They downplay, in so doing, the
realize. The extremes of violence in some televi-
intense, unmediated, and far from passive reality
sion programs are known to affect not only
that television violence has assumed for many
children but to be cited by adolescents and adults
viewers.
carrying out so-called "copy-cat" rapes, serial
Children, in particular, cannot distinguish
killings, and other forms of assault. 53 James
between the reality of the violence they see on
Gilligan, 3 psychiatrist who has studied mass
and off the screen. They are unable, through at
murderers, has concluded that certain violent TV
least the age of three or four, to distinguish fact
programs in America are no less sadistic than the
and fantasy. Even older children rarely manage to
films used by the SS to desensitize and indoctri-
keep "real life" violence and vicarious violence in
nate Nazi torture squads and death camp guards.⁵
watertight compartments. The psychologist
Viewers of all ages, moreover, far from experi-
Leonard Eron has found that children who are
encing television as somehow either utterly cut
less successful in school watch more television
off from reality or as passively mirroring it, know
and that they:
that it addresses them actively - as consumers,
as citizens, as moral agents - for better or worse.
prefer the more violent shows; they identify more
They know, too, that this influence goes in both
with television characters; and they believe that
directions, and that news coverage mediates, in
the violence they observe on television reflects
this process, between the "real world" and
real life. They are exposed to more violence and
entertainment programs. Those who produce or
have more opportunity to learn aggressive acts.49
otherwise shape violent television programs can
be guided by and sometimes learn from real-life
Children are especially likely to conclude that
crimes of violence covered in news programs, just
television violence reflects real life if they also
as persons prone to or contemplating acts of
have personal experience of violence in their
violence can model themselves on and learn new
family or neighborhood. For them, the violence
techniques from television programs. The claim
that they witness around them reinforces the
by scholars and others urging more careful,
realism that they attribute to the violence they
analytical debate about TV violence is that it is
see enacted on the screen; and their view of the
worth asking how and when such forms of
world around them is in turn strongly influenced
reciprocal learning takes place and what, if
by what they see on television. 50 As the authors
anything, makes it escalate.
of an article on children who witness violence
put it:
V. People can't even agree on how to define
"violence." How, then, can they go on to discuss
The young child's attempts to master the age-
what to do about it?
appropriate fears of monsters under the bed are
One of the quickest ways to short-circuit
severely undermined when the child needs to
serious reflection about TV violence or any other
Sissela Bok 9
03/06/96 WED 14:25 FAX 202 482 1635
013
form of violence is to employ some version of
injury. Agreement on such a core definition
the "definitional fallacy": to insist that it is
offers a basis for discussing the effects on chil-
impossible to define violence specifically enough
dren of watching the rapes, shootings, and
for policy debates. Just as the claim that "one
disgorgements that constitute daily TV fare.57
man's terrorist is another man's freedom
With such 3 basis, it is then possible to
fighter," if left unexamined, does much to delay
consider further whether the relevant definition
serious discussion of political violence, so "one
of violence should include further distinctions:
viewer's violence is another's dramatic action"
those, for instance, between intentional harm
has a superficially plausible ring that invites
and unintended or negligent actions resulting in
discussants to give up in confusion rather than
such harm, between actions and omissions
attempt a search for a common definition.
leading to harm; between harm done only to
If we refused to debate topics because of
persons and to non-human living beings and/or
doubts or disagreements about definitions, we
property; between harm done to others and to
would have little to talk about. The philosopher
oneself, as in self-mutilation or suicide; between
John Searle has pointed out that "one of the
harm that is unwanted by the recipient and
most important insights of recent work in the
desired harm as by penitents or masochists; and
philosophy of language [has been that] most non-
between unlawful or unauthorized harm and
technical concepts in ordinary language lack
harm inflicted in accordance with laws of the
absolutely strict rules" according to which one
particular society in which it takes place, such as
can definitely state when they do and do not
hangings or electrocutions.⁵⁸
apply.5 This is as true of concepts such as
It turns out, however, that most such distinc-
promising or lying as of killing and other forms
tions are largely beside the point when it comes
of violence. All present problems of line-draw-
to the effect on small children of exposure to
ing. Yet with respect to none would it make
violence. A three- or four-year-old is unlikely, in
sense to postpone analysis and debate until
viewing a series of killings, to sort out the degree
complete agreement had been reached on defini-
to which they are intended, or to react differ-
tions and line-drawing questions.
ently depending on whether the killings are
To be sure, the case is different when it comes
inflicted on animals or human beings or
to specific proposals for a system of rating
whether they are carried out by human beings or,
violent programs or for limiting the types and
indeed, by animals, monsters, robots, or other
degrees and amounts of violence in particular
creatures.
programs or at specified times of day. At such
Cartoons generate especially frequent debates
times, definitions of what is to count as vio-
in this regard. Should it count as violence when,
lence, gratuitous violence, and the like must be
for instance, Donald Duck is dropped off a
established, along with procedures for resolving
mountain top or flattened by a rock, only to
differences of view. Much can be learned, in this
recover right away and be ready for new punish-
regard, by comparing the definitions and the
ments? Such acts are counted as violent in
procedures used in the rating systems already in
many studies of children's programs, which then
place with respect to motion pictures in America
conclude that these programs are proportionately
and abroad, as well as by comparing the rules
more saturated with violence than adult ones:
limiting violent television programming in
that they contain more acts of overt, physical
different nations.
uses of power that hurt or kill and a higher
Insofar as the fifth rationale reminds us of the
percentage of characters engaging in such acts,
difficulties in drawing distinctions between
as well as of victims, than prime time TV
types, degrees, and amounts of violence, it offers
programs.59
a reason to proceed with caution when it comes
These comparisons strike many as odd.
to legislation. But it is patently in error and
Cartoon violence is, after all, meant to be
serves instead as a rationalization as soon as it is
humorous; and long before television, comic
used to undercut discussion of any and all efforts
books and marionettes and theatre groups offered
to deal with the effects on children of exposure
similar fare to spectators. Such violence is
to television violence. Consider the Oxford
therefore usually thought harmless by the adults
English Dictionary's core definition of violence
who produce and present the programs and by
as "the exercise of physical force so as to inflict
many parents. But George Gerbner of the Uni-
injury or damage to persons or property. It is
versity of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School of
hard to think of anyone whose preferred defini-
Communication, who has conducted a number
tion of violence would not cover at least such
of comparative studies of TV violence, suggests
03/06/96 WED 14:26 FAX 202 482 1635
014
that cartoon violence, presented hour after hour,
sometimes difficult to regulate, yet few propose
does have cumulative demoralizing and desensi-
giving up on measures to control them on such
tizing effects ori the young children most fre-
grounds. It is now more urgent than ever to
quently exposed to it; and that humor becomes
consider how to act to stem the flow of televised
"a sugar coating that makes the pill of violence
violence, and to set standards, establish prece-
go down much more easily [so that] it gets
dents, gain experience to use in protecting
integrated into one's framework of knowledge."60
children before it becomes still more difficult to
Controversies of this nature are best resolved
do so.
by looking with care at the evidence adduced for
Data from other countries may be helpful in
the harmful or innocuous effects of viewing such
showing how they cope with a large part of the
depictions of violence as compared to others.
violent output possible by means of modern
Too often, however, those who think that most
media, and how they consider children's inter-
cartoons contain nothing that should count as
ests through a number of coordinated measures.
violence take such a disagreement over how to
Admittedly, no society will be able to anticipate
define its boundaries as proof that no further
every new avenue whereby children will be
debate is possible. Here again, the fifth rationale
placed at risk. But many nations, including
usefully points to reasons for caution about
England, France, Australia, Germany, Sweden,
problematic or disputed definitions; but when it
and Canada, have controls in place that cut back
is used to postpone debate until there is agree-
substantially on the flood of violence that would
ment on every definitional controversy, it
otherwise be reaching young children.6
functions, also, as a rationalization: both for
In Canada, the private television broadcasters
those who simply wish to avoid considering the
have recently instituted a new, tougher TV
problem and for those who want to carry on with
violence code.6 Undertaken on a voluntary
practices, such as the production or dissemina-
basis in cooperation with the Canadian Radio-
tion of especially violent TV programs, that
Television and Telecommunications Commis-
might otherwise be targeted by a public debate.
sion, it drew on "more than a year of intense
VI. It is too late to take action against violence
discussions generated by growing public concern
on television, considering the plethora of video
and the Commission's May 1992 release of two
channels by which entertainment violence will
major reports on TV violence. The Canadian
soon be available in homes.
approach presents a model for other societies to
This rationale, like the others, has a point.
study as they seek to respond to public concern
The task of curbing TV violence is daunting.
and to facilitating widespread debate about
public policy measures to deal with media
Strong vested interests- commercial, cultural,
and intellectual - guard against the slightest
violence. It is a model, too, for how to work at
change in this regard. Violent programs, many of
building consensus and exploring alternative
which are thought too raw for network televi-
policies without being sidetracked by the ration-
sion, are already transmitted through a growing
ales discussed in this paper. With respect to the
number of TV and cable channels. If it has been
sixth rationale in particular, the Canadian
so difficult to take action in the past, why should
approach shows the advantages of partial im-
provements over doing nothing: not only in
anyone imagine that such action would be likely
cutting back substantially on the amount of
to succeed in the future, when there will soon be
so many more ways for violent programs to enter
violence reaching children but also in making
possible broader changes once the societal
American homes? The time for trying to stem
the flow of violence into the lives of children
burden of media violence is brought home to all
who play a role in its production.
may have already past.
America's media may be the freest in the
And yet the rationale offers but a flimsy basis
world of any government constraint on, or
for closing off the discussion of how and where
regulation of, their content. The combination of
to begin tackling this problem. It would be
unconscionable to abandon the search for ways
this lack of restraint with commercial financing
of most television programming may have led to
to cope with this problem, given its seriousness,
a particularly violent brand of TV.65 The fact that
merely on the grounds that there may come to
the television networks are not the only avenues
be ever more numerous sources and channels of
whereby violent television programs reach
violent television. After all, air and water
children is hardly sufficient to abandon the
pollution, too, continue to spring from increas-
search for responses to the risk that such pro-
ingly numerous sources and to spread in ways
grams pose to children and to society.
Sissela Bok 11
015
03/06/96
WED
14:26
FAX
202
482
1635
VII. It should be up to parents, not to the televi-
has seemed a made to order baby sitter for
sion industry, to monitor the programs that their
parents often tired from longer work hours than
children watch.
in the past and with less time to spare for chil-
A common argument against any form of
dren. Baby sitters, in turn, rely heavily on TV to
public pressure or government control to cut
help entertain the children in their charge. Year
back on television violence is that this addresses
by year, research has shown that the time
the problem at the wrong point: at the source
parents spend with their children has been
rather than at the receiving end. Television
declining, from 30 hours a week 25 years ago to
commentator Jeff Greenfield put the argument as
17 hours a week now.68 The time that families
follows, at an August 1993 conference on TV
currently do spend together, moreover, is often
violence: "Are we in fact saying that since
spent, precisely, in watching television.
parents - many - have abdicated their respon-
Once the risks to children are clearly estab-
sibility, we're going to ask the television pro-
lished and publicized, however, as has been the
grammers to do - replace the irreplaceable?"66
case with lead paint, asbestos, and firecrackers
Why should this task not devolve directly on
and, as most would argue, is now the case with
those who are responsible for their children's
violent television and young children, it no
well-being - parents or other adults in a house-
longer makes sense for producers to claim that it
hold? As Ted Herbert, president of the enter-
is not up to them but only to parents to shield
tainment division of ABC put it, adults can
their children from the risks in question. True,
handle TV programs like NBC's "Between Love
parents have a strong responsibility. But toy
and Hate" that ends with a youth firing six
manufacturers do not get far if they make such
bullets into his former lover, but children
an argument about dangerous toys. And the drug
cannot:
industry is required to childproof packagings of
medicines children could otherwise accidentally
This will sound like a paradox, but I don't
ingest. In all such cases, claims that the whole
believe we have to program the network and
absolve parents of responsibility, as if it were
burden of protecting children be put on parents
our problem and not the parents' problem.
would be quickly rejected.
Parents have to be responsible for what their
In addition, while it is clear that it is part of
kids watch.
the responsibility of parents to do what they can
to protect their children from harm, and that
Here, too, the rationale has a point. It focuses
many parents fail to do so, the fact is that many
attention on the genuine failure on the part of
parents are not even at home during much of
many parents to protect their children from the
the time when their children watch television.
desensitizing and brutalizing effects of violence
Already in 1974, 50 percent of American chil-
on TV. It is indeed their responsibility to do their
dren had no adult at home when they came
best to protect their children thus, once they
home from school. In 1993, it's closer to 80
recognize the nature of these risks. Most parents
percent in many communities.69 And American
would surely shield their children, to the extent
children, unlike those in most other industrial-
they were able to, from witnessing actual mur-
ized societies, are at school only 180 days a year.
der, torture, rape, and other mayhem; but even
Too many of these children, moreover, live in
when they are at home and able to control what
neighborhoods where it has become too danger-
their children watch from babyhood on up, it
ous for them to play out of doors. As one ten-
does not occur to large numbers of American
year-old put it:70
parents to do the same with respect to the
I used to hang out with my friends after school.
graphic violence their children observe on
Most of the time, we just acted stupid on the
television.
corner but that got dangerous and our moms said
The failure of many parents to exercise
to quit it and come home. In this city, wear your
responsibility has been reinforced by lack of
hat the wrong way and you are dead. Now, I go
adequate information about the risks to children
home and watch TV and sleep. I get scared all by
from violent TV. The same was once true with
myself, even though Mom says there's nothing
respect to the risks to children from lead paint,
to be afraid of in the day.
asbestos, and firecrackers. Not until recently has
I would make a place for kids called My Father's
violent TV come to be mentioned as a factor in
Home. It would be a love place where's there's
the growing public health hazard of societal, and
no killing. They'd have stuff for me to do. Lift
in particular youth, violence. Rather, television
weights, eat snacks, play games.
12 TV Violence, Children, and the Press: Eight Rationales
016
03/06/96 WED 14:27 FAX 202 482 1635
I'd have beds at My Father's Home, like in a
bility on parents for what their children are
dormitory. Kids could sleep there in the summer
allowed to see. To buttress their position,
when people go crazy on the streets. Last year,
broadcasters turn to yet another rationale. It
Mama and me slept on the floor, praying not to
get shot.
condemns proposals such as that for the V-chip
as constituting censorship and, as one source put
it, representing interference with "the principles
The reality of which this boy speaks exposes
of a free society.'
the specious nature of the seventh rationale.
Fear, poverty, killings on the streets, and severe
VIII. Any public policy to decrease TV violence
cutbacks in school, church, and community
constitutes censorship and represents an intoler-
after-school programs make TV watching one of
able interference with free speech.
the few remaining "safe" activities for too many
This is not only the most frequently men-
children. To be sure, it is right to urge parents, as
tioned rationale on the part of industry represen-
do pediatricians, teachers, psychologists and
tatives, but the one with greatest appeal to
many others, to do much more to oversee the
journalists, however convinced some of them
television programs that their children watch,
may be about the seriousness of the risks from
and to help children work through their re-
present levels of TV violence. As a Washington
sponses to the violence they witness. To that
Post editorial put it, in commenting on Attorney
extent, the rationale offers a legitimate reason
General Janet Reno's testimony before the
for concern. But many parents are not in a
Senate Commerce Committee (discussed on PP.
position to do so, even with the best will in the
1-3): Reno "made a mistake the other day in
world. As a result, to go further and to use the
encouraging Congress to regulate TV violence if
rationale to argue that no supplementary efforts
the networks themselves don't do it pronto. The
are therefore needed on the part of the television
violence is terrible; the regulation would be
industry or the public is to offer an unusually
worse.
1173
mindless rationalization.
Journalists have every reason to be vigilant
A new technique could allow parents to block
about free speech: it is always imperiled, and it
violent television programs even when they are
does call for sacrifice. But when legitimate
not themselves at home. An inexpensive com-
concern to defend free speech combines with
puter chip installed in the television set could be
poor press coverage of a problem, it plays into
coded to respond to signals such as a V for
the hands of those whose primary aim is to
programs rated violent. U.S. Representatives
silence debate. Too often, the First Amendment
Edward J. Markey and Jack Fields have intro-
is then wheeled out as a cannon from which to
duced legislation requiring that all new televi-
launch preemptive strikes against anyone
sion sets sold in America contain what they call
challenging the levels of TV violence, regardless
the "V-chip technology." But television industry
of whether censorship is in fact at issue.
executives are, so far, adamantly opposed to
Ironically, when the First Amendment is thus
including a V for violence signal in the broadcast
invoked, it serves to bludgeon the very principle
signals of shows rated violent. Representative
it stands for: that of protecting free speech and
Markey points out the irony in their stance:
free debate. Such appeals to the First Amend-
For years parents have been told if they don't
ment are hard to reconcile with what Justice
like what's on television they should turn it off.
Hugo Black stated as its intended purpose in the
Now technology has made it possible to do just
Pentagon Papers case:⁷¹
that - in an easy, effective targeted way and,
most important, even when they are not there to
pull the plug. Nevertheless, broadcasters remain
In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers
unwilling to make it easier for parents to do
gave the free press the protection it must have to
their job."
fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The
press was to serve the governed, not the gover-
It is hard to know which element of the
nors. The Government's power to censor the
proposed legislation the industry fears most: the
press was abolished so that the press would
institution of ratings, long familiar for films, or
remain forever free to censor the Government.
the power that consumers would gain to shut
The press was protected so that it could bare the
out certain types of programs altogether from
secrets of government and protect the people.
their homes. As Markey points out, the
industry's opposition is inconsistent with the
Using the Amendment to inhibit debate
seventh rationale, placing the burden of responsi-
produces a chilling effect all its own, and often
succeeds in achieving premature closure of all
Sissela Bok 13
03/06/96 WED 14:27 FAX 202 482 1635
017
debate concerning the issue of violence on TV or
no censorship or other violation of free speech at
elsewhere in the media. Once again, advocates
all. For instance, when Senator Paul Simon of
wielding the First Amendment in this way shift
Illinois, at an August 1993 conference on televi-
the function of the rationale from that of a
sion violence, called for industry leaders to form
reason to proceed with caution when it comes to
an "advisory office on television violence" to
considering claims to harm from TV violence
review programs and report on them annually to
and proposals for how to limit it, to that of a
the American public, Geoff Kowan, a producer
rationalization for setting aside a difficult issue,
and vice president of the National Council for
not thinking it through with care, not consider-
Families and Television, is reported to have
ing the children and others who have to suffer
protested that such a panel could become a
the consequences of one's inaction; and for
censorship body of its own.81
perpetuating every form of commercial and other
The debate about the proposed V-chip legisla-
exploitation of such violence.
tion mentioned above is another case in point.
The effects of this premature closure can be
To be sure, it would be important to consider
seen in many arenas. Intriguingly, most contem-
what criteria would be used in rating TV pro-
porary works on free speech and the First
grams with respect to their violence. Much can
Amendment - such as Archibald Cox's Free-
be learned from the practices of other nations in
dom of Expression and Anthony Lewis's Make
this respect, as from the long experience in our
No Law - hardly mention media violence, nor
own country with movie ratings. But to dismiss
do they raise any questions with respect to its
such legislation as instituting a form of censor-
effects on children.⁷ Indeed, children rarely
ship represents either a misunderstanding of
figure in free speech analyses."6 The resulting
what constitutes censorship or an intentional
near-silence on the part of constitutional theore-
effort to conjure up its specter indiscriminately
ticians regarding risks to children from TV
for political purposes. In this regard, Newton
violence is the more problematic because the
Minow, former chairman of the Federal Commu-
question of cumulative long-term risks from
nications Commission, has concluded that
exposure to such violence is of such exceptional
"Anyone who proposes doing anything more to
practical importance in our society. But even
curb violence is almost certain to be shouted
from a purely theoretical point of view, consider-
down as a censor," and that even many parents
ing these long-term risks would in fact also
who think television violence is excessive are
present scholars with an interesting theoretical
uncomfortable with judging speech:82
challenge to the familiar First Amendment
doctrine of "clear and present danger.""
They shouldn't be. If we really cared about our
Preemptive invocations of the First Amend-
children, invocations of the First Amendment
ment, moreover, often succeed in deflecting
would mark the beginning, not the end, of such
debate as to when it might and might not ap-
discussions.
ply.⁷⁸ In so doing, they contribute to short-
circuiting debate about what Mary Ann Glendon
Rating programs is not censorship - far from
it. Indeed, when combined with lock-out
has called, in Rights Talk, the pervasiveness of
technologies, a ratings system would actually
the legal culture in American society, so that the
extend the reach of free expression on television,
rhetoric of absolute rights generates near-silence
allowing adults to watch whatever suited them
about responsibilities." They bypass consider-
while effectively eliminating children from the
ation of forms of government regulation, such as
sudience.
those taken up by Cass Sunstein in The Partial
It is time we used the First Amendment to
Constitution, which might "promote free speech
protect and nurture our children, rather than as
and should not be treated as an abridgment at
an excuse to ignore them.
all."80 And they make it easier to dismiss in-
structive comparisons with how other countries
All eight rationales, in sum, do point to
deal with TV violence, on the grounds that these
important considerations; but when advanced to
countries have nothing comparable to the First
short-circuit or stifle debate, they contribute to
Amendment.
the continued neglect of issues urgently in need
A further effect of the premature closure
of public policy debate. By now, many in the
brought about by preemptive appeals to the First
press are on their guard against unthinking
Amendment can be seen in the lumping to-
adoption of similarly simplistic rationales when
gether, as threatening censorship, of many
it comes to policy debates about, for example,
measures to deal with TV violence that represent
the public health risks posed by the proliferation
14 TV Violence, Children and the Press: Eight Rationales Inhibiting Public Policy Debates
03/06/96 WED 28 FAX 202 482 1635
1018
of firearms or by smoking. Journalists take it for
the frequently noted inherent conflict between
granted that it matters to examine not only the
the commercial and the public service functions
rationales advanced in such debates but also the
of the press. If journalists are to cover practices
special interests of the gun and tobacco lobbies
and incidents of violence in such a way as to
in gaining widespread acceptance for some of
help curb or at least not exacerbate societal
these rationales. Why, then, should the press not
violence, they have to study the ways in which
devote the same attention to the rationales used
this conflict expresses itself in the context of
in the debate regarding TV violence and to the
violence. To what extent is it true that violence
special interests with most to gain from their
sells? What are the existing limits on exploiting
acceptance? What, more generally, are the
the public's fascination with violence for com-
special difficulties and challenges for the Ameri-
petitive or otherwise commercial motives? How
can press in sorting out what its role should be
influential are tie-ins between newspaper chains,
in covering violence and debates concerning how
magazines, and TV stations? And what about the
to lessen its sway?
daily revenues, for magazines and newspapers,
from advertisements of violent "action-adven-
ture" films and TV programs? Might there be a
The Role of The Press
link between such advertisements and inad-
Journalists frequently find themselves in a
equate press coverage of the debate about the
double bind when it comes to covering particular
effects of TV violence, similar to that claimed
stories involving violence. How can they treat
between tobacco advertisements and the failure
such stories accurately without being accused of
on the part of magazines accepting such advertis-
adding to the level of violence in society? They
ing to report on the effects of smoking?"
are criticized when they appear to sensationalize
In part, however, the sense of double bind also
violent acts or glamorize violent persons, yet
stems from a second source of conflict within
they know that honest reporting of brutal acts
the public-service function of the press: a con-
may influence public opinion in these directions.
flict generated when there is tension between its
Even the choice of what facts to report may
mandate not to downplay or cover up risks to the
present similar dilemmas. For example, both
public, on the one hand, and its special interest
Time and Newsweek ran cover stories on young
to protect freedom of speech against all threat.
people and violence during the same week in
ened restrictions. Our society is uniquely depen-
August 1993: "Big Shots: An inside look at the
dent on the press for taking the responsibility to
deadly love affair between America's kids and
protect free speech with the utmost seriousness.
their guns" and "Teen Violence: Wild in the
But this special interest, just as much as the
Streets," respectively.83 Both sets of articles did a
commercial one, requires self-scrutiny on the
service in highlighting the unprecedented scale
part of the press. Both bring temptations to
of the crisis such violence presents for young
engage in biased or slipshod news coverage. Such
people and the entire society. Both explored the
coverage, inconsistent with the most basic
interlocking influences on young people of the
standards of good journalism, does disservice to
easy availability of firearms, poverty, peer
the public, whether or not it is motivated in part
models, TV violence, and other cultural factors.
by ideals of public service.
Some of the material used, and in particular the
It will matter, therefore, for the press to
lead-in paragraphs of the Newsweek coverage,
scrutinize its own role in covering the debate
were extraordinarily and graphically brutal.
over television and other forms of violence; to be
These stories were not gratuitous, since they
on the lookout for rationales and rationalizations
were closely related to the topic of teen violence
such as those discussed in this essay; and to
under discussion; nor did they in any sense
explore the obstacles that stand in the way of
glamorize the young people described. Yet many
providing better coverage. On such a basis, it
would nevertheless regard the stories as sensa-
ought to be possible, when reporting on contri-
tionalistic from the point of what was singled
butions to this debate by public interest groups,
out, and suspect commercial motives behind
industry officials, office-holders, and others, not
such selectiveness. But how else, in that case,
only to convey more thoroughly what is being
might the topic of teen violence be treated so as
said and done (something which would already
to inform the public and analyze the problems,
represent a significant improvement) but to
yet not in any sense exploit the public's fascina-
provide the type of analysis routinely offered
tion with stories involving violence?
with respect to other societal problems.
The sense of double bind stems, in part, from
For an example of an imaginative and probing
Sissela Bok 15
03/06/96 WED 14:29 FAX 202 482 1635
019
journalistic approach to the problem of film and
A special difficulty in this regard is that a
TV violence, consider the article prepared by Ken
growing proportion of young adults appear to
Auletta for The New Yorker in the spring of
perceive nothing problematic about TV violence.
1993.8$ Auletta chose to ask "a cross-section of
The March 1993 Times Mirror survey (cited on
the managers and artists who decide what we
p. 3) reveals this clearly:
watch" the same provocative question: "What
won't you do?"86 Was there anything these
There is a "video violence" generation gap.
individuals would refuse to film or broadcast,
Those under 30 are far more likely to be heavy
and on what grounds? The answers were telling.
consumers of violent programming and movies.
Oliver Stone, the director of the film "JFK,"
[They] are far less bothered by violence on
answered that
television, less likely to feel violence is harmful
to society than are older Americans."
Off the top of my head, I'd pretty much do
anything. [...]I don't view ethics from the
This difference in attitudes on the part of
outside, only from the inside. What you would
young adults may be due in part to the fact that
find shocking, J probably would not. For me, it's
many of them have not yet had children them-
a question more of taste."8"
selves, and so have not had reason to try to put
themselves in the place of a child exposed to
When asked whether he agreed with President
today's levels of entertainment violence. But the
Clinton that Hollywood was too preoccupied
difference may result also from the desensitizing
with violence and sex, Stone retorted, in a
influence of TV that so many studies have
familiar non-sequitur related to the eighth
demonstrated. (See P. 2, and Notes 7 and 8.)
rationale discussed above, that he didn't believe
Young adults have been more massively exposed
that government had the right to legislate art or
to this influence than their elders, starting at a
censor it. Others responded to Auletta's question
younger age. If so, then the gap may well shift
in a more modulated way, a few expressing the
upwards in age as more and more cohorts of
conflict they felt between doing what they
children grow up having been exposed to heavy
wanted in film and recognizing that they would
doses of television violence. Unless the majority
not want their children to see what they had
of Americans, who are now coming to greater
produced. When some tried to evade his ques-
realization of the risk from such violence, take it
tions, Auletta pressed farther, concluding that
seriously enough to move the public policy
"many Hollywood programmers lead two lives
debate ahead energetically, it may then be even
- a truth they avoid by complaining about
harder to bring about the necessary reforms.
government censorship."88
Taking this risk seriously from the point of
Another way in which the press can contrib-
view of public policy should not mean granting
ute to the debate is already being explored in a
it some unique status as the one causal factor
number of publications. It involves giving voice
related to the crisis of violence in American
to the individuals with most at stake in the
society. On the contrary, the policy debate about
outcome of the violence debate — the children
this crisis can only do justice to the complexity
who know violence in their daily lives, the
of the interlocking causal factors by looking at it
parents and neighborhood groups who struggle
as a national public health crisis of dimensions
against sometimes overwhelming odds, the
at least equivalent to those of, say, heart disease,
organizations mobilizing to combat violence, the
cancer, and AIDS.
pediatricians and social workers who work to
It will matter for the press, therefore, to
help individuals overcome its consequences -
address this crisis, as the others, with the same
and in this way to try to penetrate the resistance
caution about avoiding oversimplification. Doing
many in the public feel to even thinking about
so will mean devoting the same attention to
the human dimension of the problems linked to
public education regarding violence as about the
violence. What is not yet common, however, is
other problems. This, in turn, will call for careful
to report in this personalized way on TV vio-
analysis of alternative forms of prevention, of the
lence in its own right. The field is wide open to
pros and cons of different remedies suggested,
covering more extensively the research now
and of interlocking risk factors - much as is
available and to focus on the plight of the young,
now done, for example, for diet, exercise, sur-
the poor, the disadvantaged and the vulnerable,
gery, and medication when it comes to heart
who have been found to be most easily affected
by such violence.
disease. It will call for substantive reporting of a
comparative nature, showing where we stand in
03/06/96 WED 14 29 FAX 202 482 1635
020
relation to other nations in combating violence,
obstacles to fuller reporting noted above and, in
much as is now beginning to be done with
so doing, free journalists to participate more
respect to health care here and abroad. Such
fully in the public policy debate now so urgently
shifts in coverage are important in their own
needed regarding the interlocking factors con-
right; but they may also help the press in its
tributing to violence in America.
efforts to overcome the conflicts and other
Endnotes
Research for this paper was begun while I was a
Centerwall, "Television and Violence: The Scale of
Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the
the Problem and Where to Go From Here," The
Behavioral Sciences in Stanford, California, in 1991-
Journal of the American Medical Association, 267,
1992, and continued in the spring of 1993 while I was
June 10, 1992; William H. Dietz and Victor C.
a Fellow at the Joan Shorenstein Barone Center on the
Strasburger, "Children, Adolescents, and Television"
Press, Politics and Public Policy. I am grateful for
Current Problems in Pediatrics, 21, 1991, PP. 8-31;
stimulating discussions and for suggestions from
George Comstock and Hae-Jung Paik, Television and
Fellows and members of the staff at each Center.
Children: A Review on Recent Research (Syracuse,
New York, Syracuse University, 1987); Andrea
Martinez, "Scientific Knowledge About Television
1. Michael Wines, "Reno Chastizes TV Executives
Violence," Canadian Radio-Television and Telecom-
Over Violence," The New York Times. October 21,
munications Commission, 1991; Kate Moody, Grow.
1993, PP. Al and B16.
ing Up on Television (New York: New York Times
Books, 1980); Albert J. Reiss, Jr., and Jeffrey A. Roth,
2. The New York Times, October 22, 1993. Three
eds., Understanding and Preventing Violence (Wash-
weeks earlier, on October 4, 1993, The Los Angeles
ington. D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993), includ-
Times had carried an Op-Ed piece signed by Jack
ing a reference to an unpublished 1990 report by
Valenti, President of the Motion Picture Association
George Comstock and Hae-Jung Paik: "The Effects of
of America, which employed the "heavy hand"
Television Violence on Aggressive Behavior: A Meta-
metaphor. Entitled "Whose Children Are They,
Analysis," commissioned by the National Academy of
Anyway?," the piece stressed the responsibility of
Sciences Panel on the Understanding and Control of
parents, and stated that "what frightens the industry
Violent Behavior; Cathy Spatz Widom, "Does
and should chill the blood of every citizen is the heavy
Violence Beget Violence? A Critical Examination of
hand of government slowly, steadily, remorselessly
the Literature," Psychological Bulletin, 106, 1989, PP-
intruding into the outer perimeter of the First Amend-
3-28, esp. 20-24.
ment."
8. Ron Slaby, ed., Violence and Youth: Psychology's
3. Michael Gartner, "Warning to the Attorney Gen-
Response, American Psychological Association,
eral," USA Today, Oct. 26, 1993, P. 13A.
August 1993, Report of the American Psychological
Association's Commission on Violence and Youth.
4. The Chicago Tribune, October 23, 1993 P. 22.
9. Ibid, pp. 32-34.
5. Ibid.
10. R. E. Goranson, "Media Violence and Aggressive
Behavior: A Review of the Experimental Research," in
6. Michael Janofsky, "A cable network fires off a
J. L. Berkowitz, ed., Advances in Experimental Social
rebuttal about regulating violence," The New York
Psychology (New York: Academic Press, 1970), PP. 1-
Times, November 10, 1993, P. D18.
31; Martinez, "Scientific Knowledge About Television
Violence," 1991, PP. 42-43.
7. See, for evaluations of studies of the effects of
television violence, Dave Atkinson and Marc
11. Jeff Greenfield, moderator, Conference on "Vio-
Gourdeau, Summary and Analysis of Various Studies
lence in Television Programming" Beverly Hills,
on Violence and Television, Canadian Radio-Televi-
August 2, 1993. Partial transcript available on C-
sion and Telecommunications Commission, 1991;
SPAN. See also the transcript of a panel convened in
David Barry, "Screen Violence: It's Killing Us,"
1992 by the editors of TV GUIDE: Violence on
Harvard Magazine, 96, November/December 1993,
Television.
pp. 38-43; George Comstock, Television: The Key
Studies (Santa Monica: Rand, 1975), Brandon S.
Sissela Bok 17
DRAFT.
OiO
SYMPOSIUM REPORT
"DRUGS, VIOLENCE AND YOUTH:
TRAGEDIES AND TRUTH"
Prepared by:
ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRIES COUNCIL, INC.
March, 1996
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Brian L. Dyak, President/CEO
David Goldsmith, Co-Chairman, Finance
William N. Utz, Co-Chairman, Policy
Ralph Andrews, Founding Chairman
Herman Rush, Immediate Past Chairman
Nancy Dockry, Vice Treasurer
OiC
Michele Lee
Shelley List
Larry Stewart
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Barbara Corday, Co-Chairman, Programs
Marv Adelson
March, 1996
John Agoglia
Jack Anderson
Wallis Annenberg
Jeffrey Barbakow
Dear Reader:
Aithur Barron
Frank Biondi
Mel Blumenthal
Uniquely, the entertainment industry has demonstrated the value of the public
Norman Brokaw
Tin Conway
and private sector working together in the best interest of our nation's youth
Alan D. Courtney
Winston H. Cox
through our symposium, Drugs, Violence and Youth: Tragedies and Truth. This
Jchn Daly
report captures the specific action steps and suggests to further an American
Robert A. Daly
Nicole David
agenda that reflects healthy lifestyles and healthy communities. The EIC has
Gordon Davidson
Suzanne DePasse
facilitated a process to curb violence and heighten drug awareness. It is our next
Barry Diller
steps that will begin to define the results.
Doug Duitsman
Lew H. Erlicht
Charles W. Fries
Edward O. Fritts
The report is being distributed throughout the entertainment industry, to
Michael Fuchs
David Getten
symposium participants, appropriate elected and government officials,
Gary Goddard
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc. (EIC) trustees, and Creative Professional
Bud Grant
J. William Grimes
Network members. The report is also available to the membership of all co-
Jules Haimovitz
Andy Heyward
sponsoring organizations.
Donna Hilley
Robert E. Holmes
Alan Horn
I would like to acknowledge EIC's Larry Deutchman, Sr. Vice-President,
Robert Iger
Gnne Jankowski
Production and Marketing; Marie Dyak, Special Projects Director; Rolinka
Robert L. Johnson
Tichi Wilkerson Kassel
Bennett; Lisa Rodriguez and consultants Dr. Bertram Loeb and Dr. Lloyd
Victor Kaufman
Johnston. Also, I extend a special thanks to our federal partners: Dr. Lee Brown,
Alan Ladd, Jr.
Sherry Lansing
former Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP); Dr. Elaine
Stan Lee
Ki.n LeMasters
Johnson, Director, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP); Dr. Alan
Michael Levine
Leshner, Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA); Fred Garcia
Gary Lieberthal
Margaret Loesch
(ONDCP); Alan Levitt (ONDCP); Bob Denniston (CSAP); Luisa del Carmen
Frank G. Mancuso
Bettye McCartt
Pollard (CSAP) and Barbara Najar (CSAP), who have had the foresight to
Guy McElwaine
Gerald McRaney
embrace the entertainment industry as a viable partner in finding solutions to
Mike Medavoy
address drug use and violence in our society.
Leslie Moonves
Jerry Moss
Norm Nixon
/. Martin Pompadur
Finally, thanks again to the many co-sponsoring organizations, panelists and
Harold Prince
especially EIC trustees: John Agoglia, President, NBC Enterprises; Brandon
Burt Reynolds
Lee Rich
Tartikoff, Chairman, New World Entertainment; Stan Lee, Chairman, Marvel
Jay Rodriguez
James H. Rosenfield
Entertainment Group; Tony Cox, cable executive; Norm Nixon, President,
Arthur N. Ryan
Nixon/Katz Associates and EIC board members Michele Lee, Ralph Andrews,
Jeff Sagansky
Lucie Salhany
Shelley List and David Goldsmith. The many caring people in the entertainment
Scott Sassa
Terry Semel
industry that recognize the corporate and personal responsibility we have to
Sid Sheinberg
pressing health and social issues are sincerely appreciated. Your active
John B. Sias
Herbert Siegel
involvement and support in making the symposium a successful beginning makes
Fred Silverman
Frank Sinatra
the difference. I look forward to our continued work together.
Aaron Spelling
Robert Stack
Lea Stalmaster
Sincerely,
Brandon Stoddard
Dcn Taffner
Brandon Tartikoff
Anthony Thomopoulos
Laurence A. Tisch
Donald M. Travis
Renee Valente
Louis P. Weiss
James A. Wiatt
Brian L. Dyak
David L. Wolper
President/CEO
LEGAL COUNSEL
Kaye, Scholer, Fierman,
Hays and Handler
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
A non-profit orginization
EAST COAST: 1760 Reston Parkway, Suite 415
Reston, Virginia 22090-3303
(703) 481-1414
Fax (703) 481-1418
E-Mail: [email protected]
WEST COAST: 21243 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 224
Woodland Hills, California 91364-2108
(818) 887-3495
Fax (818) 887-3524
E-Mail: eic [email protected]
Table of Contents
Symposium Report
I.
Introduction
1
II.
Background and Purpose
2
III.
Symposium Goals
4
IV.
Consideration
5
V.
Symposium Recommendations
6
A. Television
6
B. Music and Music Video
9
C. Motin Pictures and Home Video
10
D. Youth Response
12
E. Follow-Up Action Steps
13
Appendices
Appendix 1
Planning Activities
14
A.
Recruitment of Co-Sponsors
14
B.
Advisory Committee
14
C.
Promotional Efforts
14
D.
The Symposium
15
Appendix 2
Symposium Evaluation
16
A.
Demographics
16
B.
Attitudes 16
Appendix 3
Symposium Proceedings
17
A.
Welcoming Remarks
17
B.
Keynote Address
17
C.
Panel: Scope of the Problem
17
D.
Panel: Creative Decision Making
18
E.
Panel: Media Research
18
F.
Luncheon
19
G.
Breakout Sessions
19
H.
Reports and Adjournment
21
Appendix 4
Advisory Committee
22
Appendix 5
Symposium Agenda
23
Appendix 5
Participant List
25
"DRUGS, VIOLENCE AND YOUTH: TRAGEDIES AND TRUTH"
SYMPOSIUM REPORT
I. Introduction
On October 19, 1995, a one-day symposium on Drugs, Violence and Youth:
Tragedies and Truth was held in Universal City, California. The symposium was
convened by the Entertainment Industries Council, Inc. (EIC), a non-profit
organization, with funding partially provided by the U.S. Center for Substance
Abuse Prevention (CSAP). Sixteen additional entertainment industry
organizations served as co-sponsors of the event:
CO-SPONSORS
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA)
Association of Independent Television Stations (INTV)
Caucus for Producers, Writers and Directors
Center for Interactive Media Social Responsibility (CIMSR)
Entertainment Publicists Professional Society (EPPS)
Music Video Association (MVA)
National Association of Television Program Executives (NATPE)
National Cable Television Association (NCTA)
Producers Guild of America (PGA)
PROMAX International
Publicists Guild of America
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
Screen Actors Guild (SAG)
Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA)
Women in Film (WIF)
Writers Guild of America west (WGAw)
Additional support was obtained to sponsor the symposium luncheon from
Pharmalytics, Inc. and Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays and Handler.
Pharmalytics is a leading research/development firm for human
biopharmaceuticals to treat cocaine addiction and overdose, whose technology
centers on catalytic antibodies to break down cocaine molecules in the
bloodstream. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays and Handler is a Los Angeles-based
law firm which has provided pro bono legal counsel to EIC since 1994. In
addition, NBC, a financial and programmatic supporter of EIC since the
organization's founding, provided in-kind post-production services for compiling
the symposium video presentation on violence and the media. EIC, through its
core funding, supported the symposium to further the intent of this private-public
partnership.
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 1
II. Background and Purpose
EIC has long been concerned with the strategic role that mass media,
particularly entertainment, can play in promoting negative attitudes toward
alcohol, tobacco and other drug usage and violent behavior, and the relationship
between these issues, as well as in offsetting the social, economic, and
psychological factors that support these behaviors, especially in children and
adolescent youth. Segments of the entertainment industry as well as public
interest organizations concerned with these health issues have in the past
conducted both separate and joint activities with these questions in mind, but
clearly much more could be done if both realms were to work in partnership.
For many years, the entertainment industry has been accused of "glamorizing"
the use of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, as well as violent behavior, through
the images depicted in entertainment and the overt lifestyles led by some of its
prominent celebrity players. As a result, EIC was founded by industry leaders in
1983, as a catalyst to encourage use of entertainment industry resources toward
pro-social marketing of health and social issues, with an initial focus on alcohol,
tobacco and other drugs. From 1983 - 1995, EIC carried out countless individual
projects in which members of the creative community participated, resulting in a
collective industry-wide anti-drug effort.
EIC has historically served as a bridge between the entertainment community
and public policy makers by facillitating partnerships between entertainment
industry associations, unions, companies and public interest groups and
government. The common denominator for these partnerships has been to work
toward the resolve of pressing health and social issues. Uniquely, the
symposium, "Drugs, Violence and Youth: Tragedies and Truth," provided the
opportunity to demonstrate the industries' willingness to work together as
exemplified by the co-sponsorship of sixteen industry-based organizations and the
significant involvement of the creative community.
One of EIC's primary efforts has been the publishing of depiction suggestions on
the portrayal of a wide variety of topics which have been distributed both
individually and collectively, as part of the notebook Spotlight on Depiction of
Health and Social Issues, to the creative community on such topics as alcohol use,
drug use terminology, tobacco use, alcohol and drug impaired driving, children of
alcoholics, HIV/AIDS, safety belt awareness, mental illness, hearing
impairment, organ transplants, women and addiction, and the portrayal of older
adults in the media. This has reinforced hundreds of television programs and
other entertainment productions containing messages related to these issues.
There were two major considerations that impelled this symposium. The first
relates to the relationship of the entertainment industry to the country's general
culture, particularly about drugs and violence.
Most social scientists who have studied the issue believe that while the
entertainment industry can play a significant and positive role in national efforts
in controlling the effects of drug abuse and violence, the basic issues needing
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 2
resolution are grounded in the total culture. This expert opinion, however, is not
shared by a wide segment of the American public. Many people, including
influential public officials and opinion leaders, view the industry itself as the
major if not sole problem, rather than seeing it as one of many contributing
factors to the national issue.
The concern has been chiefly expressed over the depiction of drugs and violence in
industry products, which are seen as having a direct, controlling, and negative
impact on both community values and individual behavior, most particularly on
children and youth. The industry and its personnel are widely regarded as
accepting, if not actually supportive of, the presence of abusing and violent
behavior in daily adult life. In fact, wide sections of public opinion attribute the
depictions of drugs and violence so deplored in entertainment products as much
to a moral deficit within the industry as to their seeming attractiveness for
viewers and consequent commercial value.
Misconceptions about both the relative significance and motivations of the
entertainment industry minimize the industry's positive capabilities, both within
and outside the entertainment field. Over the past 13 years, EIC and other
groups, entertainment organizations, and individual companies have spent
considerable time, effort and money in public service activities aimed at various
aspects of the abuse of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, including the interface
with violence. But little is known about and less recognition is given to the
activities of the entertainment industry to combat harmful social behavior,
through its own efforts and in cooperation with others (government, industry,
philanthropy, etc.). The symposium was partially designed to help overcome this
deficiency.
The second factor relates to issues within the industry. While the overwhelming
majority of public service campaigns developed or supported by the entertainment
industry have had positive social effects, they have for the most part been one-time
actions, limited by both approach and issues and uncoordinated with other
similar and parallel efforts. Conflicting, ambiguous, and specialized definitions
of both drugs and violence (and their complex interrelationships) have also served
to complicate previous efforts to develop industry-wide action programs.
The symposium was designed, first, to seek common ground on the scope of the
issues facing the industry; and second, to help formulate an industry-wide action
program on drugs and violence that would not be limited by either variant
perceptions of the problem or past lack of concerted action. Such an action
program would need as well to respond to the needs and motivations underlying
the expressed public attitudes. It would be able to play a significant role in
helping to bridge disparities between the existing level of awareness within the
entertainment industry and the public's perception of the industry's outlook.
EIC, as a voluntary non-profit organization without legal or other mandate, was a
logical choice to serve as convener, consensus builder, and the continuations
medium for developing, publicizing and promoting the action program. But the
future implementation of the action program, it was recognized, could not be left
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 3
solely to EIC. It would need to be taken up and acted upon by significant and
decisive forces within the industry itself, along with the active support and
continued cooperation of government and other interest groups. These
considerations provide the ideological framework for the symposium.
III. Symposium Goals
The symposium was designed to reinforce the entertainment industry's long-
term commitment to social responsibility, and build a bridge between
entertainment industry decision makers, creative professionals and leaders from
the research and health communities. Symposium advisory commitee members
desired to create an opportunity for the Hollywood community to reflect on
previous accomplishments and foster new approaches resulting in the
entertainment media being recognized as a viable partner towards the resolve of
these critical social issues. The symposium looked to establish a proactive,
ongoing dialogue regarding the portrayal of violence, alcohol, tobacco and other
drug use in entertainment and the impact of such portrayals on the viewing
public, as well as how the entertainment community might use its resources to
help reduce the impact these issues have on society. The symposium therefore
sought to achieve the following goals:
1.
Bring together representatives from the entertainment industry
creative community and select leaders from the children and youth
development, violence, alcohol, and other drug use arenas to begin a
dialogue between the constituents.
2.
Create an open forum, free of accusations and adversarial posturing,
with a common goal of enhancing the accurate depiction of critical
health issues through music, television and film; provide inroads
toward the formation of a powerful partnership.
3.
Present the facts on violence, alcohol and other drug use, including
current data on the economic, social and medical costs associated
with these issues.
4.
Present a synopsis of existing research relating to violence, alcohol
and other drug use in entertainment.
5.
Present the successes and accomplishments of the industry to date.
The entertainment industries have already contributed to the method
of portraying a variety of specific aspects of alcohol, tobacco and other
drug use over the past ten years. It is important to establish this
progress as a new starting point that encourages the potential for the
activities and efforts yet to come.
6.
Present the anticipated future activities. In advance of the
symposium, EIC staff and consultants developed an outline of
possible future activities appropriate for health and entertainment
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 4
participants. The outline was a result of analysis of past successes,
as well as an examination of the rationale behind these successes,
and an analysis of their potential replication with respect to drug use
as it relates to violence.
7.
Solicit and obtain from participants feedback and suggestions on
proposed future activities and directions.
8.
Enable entertainment industry participants to feel that they are an
accepted part of the solution to the alcohol and substance use/violence
awareness problem.
9.
Enable the health and advocacy participants to understand the role
the industry can and has been playing as a partner in their mission,
and enable them to accept the creative community as a partner. The
symposium would provide health advocates with a clearer picture of
what is reasonable and realistic to ask of entertainment entities.
10.
Energize various constituencies to work together toward their
mutual goal of de-glamorizing violence and the use of alcohol and
other drugs in the best interest of children and youth.
11.
Utilize the input provided by participants during the symposium to
develop recommendations for the industry on potential future
activities.
IV. Consideration
The symposium represented a positive step toward an industry-wide concerted
attack on drugs and violence, both within the industry and on a broader scale as a
result of the many recommendations developed by participants during the
symposium's breakout sessions.
A significant result included strong statements of wide and enthusiastic support
from the organizations and people who produce and create the industry's
products. Although that sentiment has always been present, the symposium gave
it a clearer voice in an atmosphere that supported proactive industry-based action
free of outside influences and as a single spoke in a much larger wheel of societal
proactive measures.
There were many expressions of corporate management support and positive
indications that widespread action was feasible given an atmosphere of
encouragement and nurturing support from outside the industry. The potential
for partnerships was deemed essential for progress towards addressing the
reccomendations developed at each of the topical break-out sessions.
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 5
V. Symposium Recommendations
A.
Television
The overriding theme of the session proved to be "Education and Empowerment":
(1) Of our industry colleagues; (2) of parents; and (3) of children. The industry
does not need or want government regulation. Television can be responsive in its
programming and proactive in many ways by reaching out both nationally and
locally. Though it is a national medium, it reaches its audience through local
stations, local cable operators, and so on. Specific recommendations for the
medium included:
1.
Use local outlets (broadcast staions, cable systems) to get involved in
America's communities on a grass roots level with national creative,
financial and inspirational support.
2.
Spread the message that America's problems with drugs and violence
are not insurmountable-that there is hope-empowering people to keep
up the fight. This can be done through local and national on-air
promotional campaigns, TV program themes, and local community
promotional/outreach efforts.
3.
Celebrate the "indomitable spirit of man" through on-air promotional
campaigns and TV program themes.
4.
Help spread the word that these are health issues and not just social
issues, through on-air promotional campaigns and TV program
themes.
5.
Let kids know that their heroes (actors, singers, athletes) don't all use
drugs and do speak out against drugs and violence. Help provide the
platform for these heroes to speak out on the air and in local
communities.
6.
Provide messages and models in entertainment of recovery, as well as
prevention.
7.
Help restore our kids' faith in America and in its institutions through
on-air messages and TV program themes.
8.
Use repetition to keep positive messages coming at families to counteract
the steady flow of negative messages.
9.
Model alternatives to violence for conflict resolution in TV
programming.
10.
Encourage parents to monitor their kids' television viewing with a PSA
campaign like "It's 4 p.m. Do you know what your kids are watching?"
Enable parents to be more media aware so that they can be better
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 6
gatekeepers and facilitators of their children's viewing by making
viewing an active rather than passive experience.
11.
Address and involve the syndicated afternoon talk and reality/tabloid
shows which can confuse kids who watch. Further, the presentation of
:
violence and drug use in the context of news programming is an area
also in need of reexamination by television news directors, especially
where raids are concerned and images of drugs that can serve as visual
triggers for the recovering addict.
12.
Involve all industry organizations, guilds, and SO on in the common
effort-a move that was begun in the planning process for this
symposium and which should be perpetuated in the process of
disseminating the report and recommendations from this symposium.
13.
Produce proactive programs on the subjects of drugs and violence and
try to schedule them across many networks to add to their importance
and reach with viewers (e.g., Arnold Shapiro's Scared Silent).
14.
Educate the people who create on-air campaigns to promote upcoming
TV programs about these issues and call upon them to exercise
sensitivity in their work. Plan a plenary session at the PROMAX
International convention. Scenes of violence and drug use strung
together out of context of the program or televised film from which they
come can serve to glamorize the behavior where it may not have been
glamorous in the context of its appearance in the larger production.
15.
Have local outlets (broadcast stations, cable systems) pair with local
schools and community groups to work one-on-one with at-risk youth,
showing them we (the entertainment community) care face-to-face.
16.
Offer parents more information on all TV programming by distributing
content descriptions, advisories, discussion guides, and so on over the
Internet (e.g., a guide to tonight's viewing on CBS). This could also be
done on EIC's planned home page through its Center for Interactive
Media Social Responsibility (CIMSR).
17.
Get advertisers involved in these efforts as partners. Help them to better
understand their role in driving program content through ad buys
targeting specific demographics that determine ad sales rates and
revenues.
18.
Get national media companies to help EIC disseminate accurate
information on these issues to people at all levels of the television
creative, production and programming processes for use in their
development of programming. This can be accomplished through EIC's
notebook Spotlight on Depiction of Health and Social Issues and through
EIC's planned CIMSR home page on the Internet. This can involve
expansion of the number of notebooks provided to creators, continued
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 7
updating of existing chapters of the notebook, and creation of new
chapters addressing aspects of violence including its relationship to
drugs.
19.
Encourage depiction in entertainment TV programs of the truth about
the consequences of drugs (including tobacco and alcohol) and violence.
20.
Look for ways to define heroes and villains more carefully without
having things be SO stereotypical that audiences become disinterested
and entertainment becomes uninteresting. This requires encouraging
creative talent and producers to go back to solid principles of storytelling.
This will require the active support of the guilds representing creative
talent.
21.
Each person in the industry must take personal individual responsibility
for his or her role in the process from program conception to airing,
including promotion and marketing, and must appeal to that sense of
responsibility and inherent desire to do the right thing as a
consideration to be examined at all phases of creation. All have a
potential positive role to play that they can either choose to act upon or
not depending upon the appropriateness of the circumstances and
careful consideration of the specific creative situation.
22.
Efforts must be consistent, ongoing and repetitive. Short term
campaigns which expire in a matter of weeks or months need to be
replaced with permanent campaigns that account for generational
replacement within our youth population and within the creative
community.
23.
Encourage producers, studio publicists, and network publicists,
community relations, or other related executives to alert EIC and other
public interest groups about positively themed TV programs well in
advance of airing so that they can work with local affiliate stations or
cable systems and grass roots organizations to work together on
promotional or news tie-ins with the air dates of such programs.
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 8
B.
Music and Music Video
There was much discussion and disagreement with regard to the potential for
successfully encouraging artists and record companies to censor their work.
Therefore, proposed proactive efforts focused on these key areas:
1.
Publicize more widely the efforts underway or in place with regard to
music video cable casting such as The Box's "I Attend" program (in
which students with perfect attendance can go to an assembly at school
to meet recording stars, athletes, and other role models), or MTV's
Cable in the Classroom program.
2.
Encourage the standards and practices departments of networks to
increase their awareness of certain issues and be sensitive to them in
their screening processes.
3.
Support for the media education or media literacy movement through
on-air awareness campaigns, fundraising and community outreach
efforts in conjunction with EIC to increase the parental role in helping
young people better understand the music and images they hear and see
SO they can be more critical and aware and active audience participants.
The Music Video Association will explore some form of conference
session at the next Billboard music conference (editorial note: this
conference session took place in November as recommended).
4.
Despite concerns about censorship, it is additionally recommended that
EIC explore broadening the distribution of its depiction notebook,
Spotlight on Depiction of Health and Social Issues, to record company
product managers, A & R executives and producers, recording artists,
composers, and music video writers, directors and producers.
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 9
C.
Motion Pictures and Home Video.
Among the recommendations provided by this group were:
1.
Raise media literacy through promoting the idea of individual
responsibility. Educate the news media and the public on how to be
more critical of the images they are viewing in motion pictures and
home videos.
2.
Create a forum for freedom of expression that does not promote the use
of alcohol or other drugs or violence, by visiting community
organizations, high schools, etc.
3.
Establish personal appearances by major celebrities from movies to
educate youth on what is "make believe" in the movies and what is real
on the streets.
4.
Establish an interactive dialogue between youth at risk and the
entertainment industry in order to nurture more creative ways to
express hostilities and disappointments, rather than through violence
or the use of drugs.
5.
Create field trips to major entertainment complexes involved in making
motion pictures in order to exhibit what is really involved (photographic
effects, miniatures, squibs, computer animation, camera speeds, stunt
work, etc.) when violence or drug use are depicted on-screen, helping
them to understand that the on-screen world is one of dramatic
convenience rather than true-to-life.
6.
Make a commitment to ongoing work in the field of entertainment by
recruiting marketers to get the message across to the
audience/consumer.
7.
Work with film schools to encourage in the next generation of
entertainment professionals responsible approaches to filmmaking in
which social consciousness is an automatic part of the creative process
and respected by the entertainment community.
8.
Network with major organizations such as Women In Film, the
American Film Institute, Independent Feature Project, Sundance, the
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and others, and
encourage them to include information on EIC and its goals in
organizational mailings to members. Make use of networking
opportunities throughout the service organizations that work within the
entertainment industry.
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 10
9.
Place special emphasis on improving the image of women in
entertainment by considering reducing the number of female characters
portrayed as victims of violence or alcohol or other drug use, through
specific depiction suggestions relating to these issues as they relate to
and touch upon women. Also needed are more heroic female role
models.
10.
Suggest to studios that they attempt to balance their action-heavy
blockbuster feature film release slates by financing independent, low
budget films that provide positive reinforcement and hopeful
alternatives to society.
11.
Market public service campaigns to entertainment companies for
placement on home videos, in theaters and spliced to 16mm non-
theatrical rental prints of feature films.
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 11
D.
Youth Response
This session arrived at the following recommendations from youth participants in
the symposium. These recommendations must be at the core of all future follow
up actions of the industry, since they are derived from the ultimate target group
over which the industry seeks to have a positive influence.
1.
Reinforce and emphasize the parental role in the formation of both
positive and negative attitudes of youth toward drug use and violent
behavior.
2.
Conduct both local and national education to encourage:
Greater parental concern;
Knowledge about media efforts to control drugs and
violence; and
Encourage critical viewing by both parent and child.
3.
Develop national and local activities that foster parental informed
involvement in their children's:
Movie attendance;
Television viewing habits;
Music purchases;
Film rentals; and
Other forms of engagement with entertainment
products.
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 12
E.
Symposium Follow-up Action Steps
The following recommendations for next action steps are based on both the formal
results of the symposium and the informal discussions surrounding it. They will
be presented by EIC to the anticipated working group that will seek to carry out
the symposium's findings:
1.
Conduct follow-up symposia in New York City and Orlando, Florida.
Although the West Coast remains the primary center of the
entertainment industry's creative community, the significant
confluence of entertainment production in New York and Florida makes
this concept worthy of consideration.
2.
Establish an industry-wide working committee with appropriate sub-
divisions to provide input into the formulation of details for an action
plan, develop an action time table, and participate in its
implementation.
The working committee would work with EIC to undertake those parts
of the action program that seem feasible.
3.
Develop a national event or series of events that would dramatize the
continuing cooperation of the entertainment industry and public interest
groups around drugs and violence.
Government and non-entertainment industry endorsement and
participation would be essential.
4.
Follow up the national event with local actions and community support.
The existence of the entertainment industry on the local scene through
media such as movie theaters, video/music stores, and local stations
and cable carriers offers an important avenue for closing the gap
between the industry and the public.
5.
Develop a solid basis of financial support to underwrite the action
program.
The cost of developing both the organizational structure and the
program activities should be broadly based, coming from the
entertainment industry, government, and private sources such as
foundations, business, and non-profit organizations.
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 13
APPENDIX 1: PLANNING ACTIVITIES
There were a number of actions which needed to take place prior to the
symposium in order to ensure a successful result. These actions included the
following:
A. Recruitment of Co-Sponsors
EIC contacted twenty-two (22) other entertainment industry organizations
including labor unions, trade associations, professional associations, and
academies. Of these, sixteen (16) organizations agreed to serve as co-sponsors of
the symposium, representing a diverse microcosm of the various entertainment
media and disciplines. The participation of these groups enabled the symposium
to be viewed by entertainment professionals as an industry-wide event, providing
all related efforts with an instant credibility and reinforcing a sense of industry-
ownership through organizational affiliation and loyalty. The opportunity to
focus on developing recommendations in a proactive and cooperative (rather than
reactive and adversarial) environment was a major attraction for prospective co-
sponsors, many of which had sponsored or participated in previous forums which
focused more on defining and debating the issues than on developing positive
solutions.
B. Advisory Committee
Each co-sponsoring organization assigned one or more representatives to
participate on a symposium Advisory Committee. In addition, there were several
additional Committee members, including EIC staff, Board Directors, and
consultants. The purpose of the Committee was two-fold: 1) to provide input and
feedback to the proposed agenda, presenters, moderators, breakout session topics
and facilitators, promotional strategies, and other logistical or political
considerations that would be vital to maximum industry "buy-in" and
participation; and 2) to assist in promoting the symposium to the co-sponsors'
individual constituencies and to the industry-at-large.
C. Promotional Efforts
A Publicity Sub-Committee was also convened, comprised of Larry Deutchman,
EIC Sr. VP Production and Marketing; Henri Bollinger, EIC Publicity Counsel;
Heidi Trotta, VP Advertising, Publicity and Promotions, Walt Disney Television
and Chairman of EIC's Publicity Committee; Ed Crane, President, Publicists
Guild of America; and Monika Young Moulin, a Board Member of the
Entertainment Publicists Professional Society. A publicity strategy was designed
for the event which included a September 13th press conference. EIC President
Brian L. Dyak was joined by Alan Sternfeld, Sr. VP Scheduling and Strategic
Planning, ABC; John Miller, Exec. VP Marketing, Promotions and Event
Programming, NBC; Judy Price, VP Children's Programming, CBS; and
representatives of several of the co-sponsoring organizations. As the date of the
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 14
symposium neared, coordination was established between members of the
publicity team and the media relations staffs of key participating federal officials.
Pro bono public relations services were provided by volunteers from the Publicists
Guild of America and the Entertainment Publicists Professional Society who
helped to service the media on the day of the symposium.
D. The Symposium
Two methods were used to provide participants with information: oral
presentations at the symposium itself, and written materials through a briefing
booklet provided to registered participants in advance of the symposium.
The format for the symposium was comprised of a number of morning plenary
sessions featuring either a single speaker or a panel and moderator. An
additional keynote and video presentation were featured during the symposium
luncheon. In the afternoon, three concurrent breakout sessions were held. Each
participant was assigned to one of these sessions to exchange ideas for potential
recommendations on proactive initiatives that industry entities and individuals in
various facets of the media could choose to launch or assist. The sessions were
divided according to medium as follows: (1) Television; (2) Motion Pictures &
Home Video; and (3) Music & Music Video. Each session spent approximately 90
minutes in discussion. Half-way through the session, youth participants and
their chaperones were dismissed in order to convene in a fourth breakout session
of their own. Facilitators for each session prepared written notes of their
respective sessions and the action recommendations that resulted and presented
them in a concluding plenary session.
Before the symposium, participants completed a survey on opinions about various
issues relating to the entertainment industry and its relationship to drugs and
violence. At the conclusion of the symposium, an exit evaluation questionnaire
was given to all attending.
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 15
APPENDIX 2: SYMPOSIUM EVALUATION
A.
Demographics
There were 129 persons present at the symposium. The largest number of
participants came from the entertainment industry, divided among different
fields as follows:
Broadcasting/Cable casting (Television, Radio):
32.1%
Feature Films and Home Video:
34.6%
Music/Recording:
11.1%
Other (Interactive Media, Public Relations,
Research, Associations):
25.9%
The balance of the respondents ( 20.1%) were government officials, youth, or
representatives of non-entertainment volunteer organizations. Over 80% were
representing an organization that had conducted activities relating to the issues
of drugs and/or violence. More of the organizations had been active regarding
drugs (56.5%) than violence (43.5%), although slightly more than half had worked
in both areas.
B.
Attitudes
Participants were asked to rate 14 issues as to their importance in resolving
drug/violence problems, on a scale ranging from unimportant to most important.
The respondents were nearly unanimous in seeing parental and family guidance
as the most critical factors (87.5%), followed by peer influence on youth (82.8%);
substance abuse as linked to family and domestic violence (79.6%); and social risk
factors (75%). The factor regarded as least important was control of drug
importation (32.8%), followed by stricter law enforcement (42.2%). The final series
of attitude questions related to proposed activities that would heighten the
effectiveness of entertainment industry efforts to control drugs and violence. All
of the suggestions received positive ratings, ranked as follows:
Developing drug/violence campaigns emphasizing media literacy (82.8%).
Publicizing past entertainment industry activities on drugs & violence (82.8%).
Providing technical consultant pools on drugs & violence (78.1%).
Developing new sections on violence for EIC's depiction notebook (65.6%).
Developing a drug-related violence section of EIC's depiction notebook (62.5%).
Developing EIC's on-line capabilities regarding drugs & violence (62.5%).
Distributing drug use depiction suggestions to industry creative staffs (59.4%).
Broadening industry distribution of EIC's depiction notebook (54.7 %).
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 16
APPENDIX 3: SYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS
The following is a summary of the proceedings of the symposium.
A.
Welcoming Remarks
Following registration and a continental breakfast, welcoming remarks were
made by John Agoglia, EIC Trustee and President of NBC Enterprises, and Brian
L. Dyak, President and CEO of the Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Agoglia reviewed some of EIC's and the industry's past accomplishments and
what the schedule would be for the day. Dyak discussed the philosophy for the
symposium and what the goals were, issuing a challenge to the participants to
take advantage of this proactive opportunity.
B.
Kevnote Address
Dyak introduced Dr. Lee P. Brown, Director of the White House Office of National
Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). Brown, a member of the U.S. Cabinet, spoke about
the important role the entertainment media can play in delivering anti-drug and
anti-violence messages. While praising this potential role for positive good, he
singled out the recent release of the record Hempilation for particular criticism,
saying it glamorizes the use of marijuana and calls for legalization of the drug.
The album features such songs as "I Like Marijuana" and "I Wanna Get High."
C.
Panel: Scope of the Problem
Joan Hyler, Producer, head of Hyler Management, and President of Women In
Film, served as moderator for a panel comprised of federal officials.
The first panelist was Dr. Alan I. Leshner, Director of the National Institute on
Drug Abuse (NIDA). EIC is presently working with NIDA on specialized
marketing of the public service campaign "Get High. Get Stupid. Get AIDS" for
use on home video releases, in movie theaters, on music video promotional reels,
in trade publications and industry newsletters, on non-theatrical prints of feature
films, on-line, and in unsold avails on syndicated programming, cable networks,
pay-per-view channels, and local cable systems. Leshner explained that drug
addiction is fundamentally a brain disease expressed in behavioral ways and in a
social context. Drug abuse is as much a health issue as it is a social issue.
Advances in science have created a "unique disconnect" between the scientific
facts and the public's perception about the true nature of drug abuse and
addiction. He called upon the entertainment industry's creative community to
provide input on how to convey scientifically accurate concepts and messages to
the public.
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 17
Dr. Lloyd Johnston, Program Director for the University of Michigan Substance
Abuse Center, related some of the results of his most recent Monitoring the
Future survey. In recent years, illicit drug use has risen among our youth,
particularly marijuana use among early teens. Cigarette smoking has also
risen, especially in young teens. There are a number of societal forces
contributing to these upturns, including teens' widespread belief that drug use is
rampant among such key role model groups as actors, rock musicians, and
professional athletes. Smoking on-screen and off may be on the rise in the
entertainment industry, which would provide a strong influence on smoking by
young people. He concluded that a greater awareness and sensitivity to these
consequences is needed among those in the entertainment industry.
Dr. Elaine Johnson, Director of the U.S. Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
(CSAP), called for a partnership between the prevention community and the
creative community, praising the many ways the industry's creative talents have
been use to communicate positive messages. She also pointed to the ways that,
like any other element in our society, the industry can inadvertently present
mixed or pro-drug messages. By each element of society doing its part to self-
examine what it does and how it impacts on society, we can each play a role in
bettering society as well. Johnson also called for more aggressive efforts to
provide critical viewing skills, or media education, to young people so that they
learn to question the images and sounds they are exposed to in popular culture.
D.
Panel: Creative Decision Making
Writer/Producer Jonathan Estrin of List-Estrin Productions moderated a panel
analyzing the outline for a hypothetical TV police drama pilot episode (created
specifically for this panel) for its positive virtues as well as its excesses in the
realms of drug use and gratuitous violence. Panelists were Pancho Mansfield,
Director of Development, Showtime Networks; Roland McFarland, VP Broadcast
Standards & Practices, Fox Broadcasting Co.; Dick Wolf, executive producer, Law
and Order & NY Undercover, and President, Wolf Films; and Michele Lee, EIC
Board Director and Actor/Producer/Director Michele Lee Productions.
Each panelist presented creative alternatives to enable the show to be less
gratuitous while equally exciting, each from the perspective of his/her own role in
the creative, production and programming processes. Following this, several
students ages 12 - 17, from both suburban and inner city public schools, presented
their view of the show and the panelists' reactions, and the potential impact of
such a show on their peers.
E.
Panel: Media Research
The panel was moderated by Robert W. Denniston, Director of the Division of
Public Education and Dissemination for CSAP. Ivan J. Juzang is President of
Motivational Educational Entertainment Productions (MEE), a firm that
specializes in researching attitudes and behaviors of African American youth
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 18
and hip hop culture for media and entertainment clients and providing
recommendations for marketing entertainment to and impacting positive
behavior change upon this audience segment. Dr. Jeffrey Cole, Director of the
Center for Communication Policy at UCLA, presented the findings of his recent
study, commissioned by the broadcast television networks, of American television
violence. Winston H. Cox, EIC Trustee and Co-Chairman of Voices Against
Violence, the anti-violence initiative of the National Cable Television Association
(NCTA), discussed the major projects of the cable industry designed to combat
violence in society, including the Voices Against Violence Week in which cable
networks air programming with anti-violence themes, and its media literacy
project.
F.
Luncheon
Brandon Tartikoff, EIC Trustee and Chairman of New World Entertainment
opened the luncheon program by introducing the distinguished dais guests: Bill
Blinn, Ed Crane, Joan Hyler, Susan Boyd, Leroy Bobbitt, Laurel Sylvanus, Jim
Chabin, Charles FitzSimons, Monica Young Moulin, Jeff Finlayson, Douglass
Bergmann, Del Reisman, Tony Cox, John Agoglia, John O'Reilly, Bill Thomas,
Brian Dyak, Elaine Johnson, Alan Leshner, and Lionel Chetwynd. The dais was
comprised of a representative from EIC, each of the co-sponsoring organizations,
each of the companies that provided funding or in-kind services for the
symposium, and the luncheon keynote speaker.
Dr. Johnson presented awards as "Partners in Prevention" to EIC and the 16 co-
sponsoring organizations of the symposium. This was followed by a video
presentation that included several of EIC's Stop the Madness PSAs and excerpts
from the PBS Bill Moyers-hosted documentary What Can We Do About Violence?
Blinn introduced award-winning writer/producer/director Lionel Chetwynd of
Two Cities Film, who presented the luncheon keynote address. Chetwynd made it
clear that the First Amendment is unambiguous about freedom of speech, and
that the entertainment industry, while capable of touching and moving many
through its many thoughtful productions, must take responsibility for itself.
G.
Breakout Sessions
Television.
Facilitators:
William C. Allen, Co-Chair, National Council for Families & TV
Alan Gerson, Sr. VP TV/Business Development, Ticketmaster
Music and Music Video.
Facilitators:
Laurel Sylvanus, President, Music Video Association
Michael Reese, Director, Marketing, Silas Records
Motion Pictures and Home Video.
Facilitators:
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 19
Maria La Magra, VP Publicity, MCA Universal Home Video
Marie G. Dyak, Dir., Special Projects, Ent. Industries Council
The goals for the breakout sessions, as reviewed with each group, were as follows:
1.
Ascertain a range of ideas relative to each medium's potential role in addressing
the public health issues of drug use and violence.
2.
Present some initial ideas for discussion as new initiatives that EIC developed
prior to the symposium.
3.
Discuss and evaluate the potential of all the ideas introduced by EIC or others
during the session.
4.
Prioritize each idea discussed according to the following criteria:
a.
Is it reasonable?
b.
Is it in the best interests of the industry?
c.
Does it have benefits to the general public?
d.
Does it have value to the public's perception of the pro-active role the industry
can and has and will play in dealing with these issues?
5.
Present the group's recommendations to the entire symposium.
Facilitators opened each session by explaining the three strategies most affecting
the entertainment industry's participation in social issues:
Reactive: This is what the industry seems to do most--react to the strategies of outside entities
looking in at them, generally attacking them, trying to influence them. This process will
never end. It is inherent in the creation of various ratings systems and standards and
practices policy manuals. The industry should be prepared to react by tracking its strengths,
contributions, etc.
Proactive: This is what the industry doesn't do enough of-recognizing that it has a role to play
in dealing with societal issues like any other "community" in society, identifying ways it can
contribute, and taking action to the degree any one member deems reasonable within the
parameters of his or her daily work. It requires a consciousness or awareness of the
relationship between one's job and the industry's role in society. An example of this sort of
action is the EIC notebook, Spotlight on Depiction of Health and Social Issues. EIC recognized
there was a role for the industry to play on particular issues, identified a way the industry
could impact and take action, developed and delivered the resource materials to sensitize
individuals, and left it to them to take action on it as they deemed appropriate and reasonable.
Prescriptive: This is where the government or an outside advocacy group tries to dictate to the
industry what it should or shouldn't do in the way of content This is the area the industry
wants to avoid, and the strategy that seems lately to be sharing the spotlight with the reactive
strategy.
Youth Response.
Host:
Stan Lee, Chairman, Marvel Entertainment Group/EIC Trustee
Facilitators:
Karen Barnes, Exec. VP StoryMakers, Fox Children's Network
Aaron Meyerson, VP Production/Development, DIC Films
This spin-off from the other breakout sessions had its own set of goals as follows:
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 20
1.
Share with each other what each has heard in his or her respective breakout
sessions.
2.
Present some initial thoughts and reactions to what each has to report.
3.
Discuss and evaluate the potential of all the ideas that have been introduced in the
other breakout sessions thus far.
4.
Prioritize the ideas that have been discussed according to the following criteria:
a.
Is it a valid idea that can have impact?
b.
How will youth peers react to it?
C.
Does it have value in shaping peers' perceptions of the pro-active role the
industry can play in dealing with these issues?
H.
Breakout Session Reports and Adjournment.
Upon conclusion of the breakout sessions at the end of their allotted times,
symposium participants reconvened in a plenary session in which the facilitators
of each session reported back to the larger body the recommendations which had
been agreed upon in their respective discussions. Brian Dyak thanked
participants for their input, participation and support, pointing to CSAP's
financial support of the symposium as a vital first step to building the necessary
bridge between industry involvement and societal encouragement for positive
action. The symposium's dialogue and resultant recommendations, as reported
by the facilitators and discussed in this written report, was the second step in the
process.
It was agreed that EIC would follow through on crafting a report to the
participants, the industry in general, and to elected officials, government
agencies and other outside organizations involved in addressing the issues of
violence, tobacco, alcohol and other drugs. EIC will also seek funding to be able to
further the process of encouraging members of the industry to implement
appropriate elements of the recommendations developed during the symposium.
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 21
APPENDIX 4: ADVISORY COMMITTEE
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA)
Susan Boyd, President
Pamm Fair, Assistant Executive Director
Association of Independent Television Stations (INTV)
James Hedlund, President
Caucus for Producers, Writers and Directors (The Caucus)
William Blinn, Chairman, Steering Committee
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc. (EIC)
Brian Dyak, President/CEO
Larry Deutchman, Sr. VP Production and Marketing
Entertainment Publicists Professional Society (EPPS)
Rebecca Segal, President
Monika Young Moulin, Board Member
Music Video Association (MVA)
Sean Fernald, Immediate Past President
Laurel Sylvanus, President
National Association of Television Program Executives (NATPE)
Leroy Bobbitt, Board Member, Violence Committee
National Cable Television Association (NCTA)
Torie Clarke, VP Public Affairs
Producers Guild of America (PGA)
Charles FitzSimons, Executive Director
Tom Cole, Chairman, Events Committee
PROMAX International
Jim Chabin, President
Publicists Guild of America
Ed Crane, President
Henri Bollinger, Immediate Past President
Heidi Trotta, Member
Marlene Mattaschiam, Business Representative
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
Hilary Rosen, President
Screen Actors Guild (SAG)
Richard Masur, President/Chair, Ad Hoc Committee on Violence in the Media
Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA)
Bob Finlayson, VP Communications
Women in Film (WIF)
Donna Shu, Associate Director
Suzanne Goldstein, Chairman, Issues and Advocacy Committee
Writers Guild of America, west (WGAw)
Del Reisman, Past President
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Thomas E. Backer, Ph.D., President, Human Interaction Research Institute
Joanne Reeves, Office of Corporate and Public Affairs, MCA, Inc.
Lloyd D. Johnston, Ph.D., Program Director, University of Michigan Substance Abuse Center
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 22
Larry Stewart, Board Director, Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Ivan Juzang, President, Motivational Educational Entertainment Productions
Bert Loeb, Ph.D., President, New Focus, Inc.
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 23
APPENDIX 5: SYMPOSIUM AGENDA
Thursday, October 19, 1995
Sheraton Universal
Universal City, CA
8:00 a.m. - 8:30 a.m.
REGISTRATION/CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST
8:30 a.m. - 8:50 a.m.
WELCOMING REMARKS
John Agoglia, EIC Trustee/President, NBC Enterprises
Brian L. Dyak, President/CEO, Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
8:50 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.
PREVENTION IN NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY
Keynote Address:
Lee P. Brown, Ph.D., Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy
Executive Office of the President, The White House
9:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.
SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM
Opening Statement/Introductions:
Joan Hyler, President, Women in Film
"Relationship Between Drugs and Violence"
Alan I. Leshner, Ph.D., Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse
"Adolescent Drug Use/Perceptions of Celebrities"
Lloyd D. Johnston, Ph.D., Program Director and Acting Director
University of Michigan Substance Abuse Center
"Partners in Prevention: An Award-Winning Performance"
Elaine M. Johnson, Ph.D., Director, Center for Substance Abuse Prev.
10:30 a.m. - 10:45 a.m.
BREAK
10:45 a.m. - 11:45 a.m.
ROLE PLAY: CREATIVE DECISION MAKING
Moderator/Narrator:
Jonathan Estrin, Writer/Producer, List-Estrin Productions
Cast of Characters:
Cable Programming Executive:
Pancho Mansfield, Director, Development, Showtime Networks, Inc.
Standards and Practices Executive:
Roland McFarland, VP Broadcast Standards and Practices
Fox Broadcasting Company
Producer:
Dick Wolf, Executive Producer
"Law and Order"/"NY Undercover"/President, Wolf Films
Actor:
Michele Lee, EIC Board Director
Actor/Producer/Director, Michele Lee Productions
Youth Reaction/Q&A
11:45 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.
PANEL: MEDIA RESEARCH
Moderator:
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 24
Robert W. Denniston
Director, Division of Public Education and Dissemination
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
The Hip Hop Culture:
Ivan J. Juzang, President, Motivational Educational Media Productions
Violence Monitoring: Broadcast Television Study:
Jeffrey Cole, Ph.D., Director, Center for Communication Policy, UCLA
Violence Monitoring: Cable Television Study:
Winston H. Cox, EIC Trustee/Co-Chairman, Voices Against Violence
12:30 p.m. - 1:45 p.m.
LUNCHEON
Introduction of distinguished guests
Brandon Tartikoff, EIC Trustee/Chairman, New World Entertainment
Recognition Presentations:
Elaine M. Johnson, Ph.D., Director, Center for Substance Abuse Prev.
Video Presentation
Introduction of Keynote Speaker:
William Blinn, Chairman, Steering Committee
Caucus for Producers, Writers and Directors
Keynote Address:
Lionel Chetwynd, Writer/Producer/Director, Two Cities Film
1:45 p.m. - 2:45 p.m.
BREAKOUT SESSIONS
Television:
Facilitators:
William C. Allen, Co-Chairman, National Council for Families & TV
Alan Gerson, Sr. VP Television/Business Development, Ticketmaster
Motion Pictures/Home Video:
Facilitators:
Marie Dyak, Dir., Special Projects, Entertainment Industries Council
Maria La Magra, VP Publicity, MCA Universal Home Video
Music/Music Video:
Facilitators:
Michael Reese, Director, Marketing/Artist Development, Silas Records
Laurel Sylvanus, President, Music Video Association
2:45 p.m. 3:00 p.m.
BREAK
3:00 p.m. - 3:50 p.m.
BREAKOUT GROUPS CONTINUE/YOUTH REPS CONVENE
Facilitators:
Aaron Meyerson, VP Production/Development, DIC Films
Karen Barnes, Exec. VP StoryMaker Prods., Fox Children's Network
Host:
Stan Lee, EIC Trustee/Chairman, Marvel Entertainment Group
4:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
BREAKOUT GROUP SUMMARIES/YOUTH RESPONSE
Summaries/Q & A:
Breakout Session Facilitators
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 25
Participant Closing Remarks
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 26
APPENDIX 6: PARTICIPANTS
John Agoglia, President, NBC Enterprises/Trustee, Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Stephanie Alexander, Independent Publicist
William C. Allen, Consultant, MTM Television/Co-Chairman, National Council for Families & Television
Bo Andersen, VP Government Affairs, Video Software Dealers Association
Harry Anderson, VP Corporate Communications, New World Communications
Ralph Andrews, Producer/Founding Chairman, Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Dick Askin, President, Tribune Entertainment Company
Tom Backer, President, Human Interaction Research Institute
Neal Baer, Story Editor/Writer, "E.R."
Ruben Barajas, Program Director, Scott Newman Center
Karen Barnes, Exec. VP StoryMakers Productions, Fox Children's Network
Philip Barry, Producer, Philip Barry Productions
Douglass Bergmann, Director of Research, Screen Actors Guild
William Blinn, Writer/Producer/Chairman, Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors
Leroy Bobbitt, Loeb and Loeb/General Counsel, National Association of Television Program Executives
Gina Boden, Member, Women in Film
Henri Bollinger, Bollinger Public Relations/Board Member, Entertainment Publicists Professional Society
Alyse Booth, Director, Communications, Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse
Susan Boyd, Actress/President, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
Lee Brown, Ph.D., Director, White House Office of National Drug Control Policy
Robert Brown, Dir., New Technologies/Information Systems, American Federation of TV & Radio Artists
Danielle Cagaanan, Executive Producer/Head, Music Video Division, Satellite Films
Jim Chabin, President, PROMAX International
Lionel Chetwynd, Writer/Producer/Director, Two Cities Film
Avery Cobern, VP Standards & Practices, Fox Children's Network
Jeffrey Cole, Ph.D., Director, Center for Communication Policy, UCLA
Tom Cole, Producer/Events Committee, Producers Guild of America
JacqueLynn Colton, Actress/9th Vice President, Screen Actors Guild
Winston H. Cox, Co-Chairman, Voices Against Violence/Trustee, Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Ed Crane, Principal, Editorial Ink/President, Publicists Guild of America
Rebekah Crawford, Development Executive, Renaissance Pictures
Barry Dastin, Partner, Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays and Handler
Anne Deasey, Video Commissioner, Capitol Records
Bob Denniston, Dir., Div. of Public Education and Dissemination, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
Larry Deutchman, Sr. VP Production/Marketing, Entertainment Industries Council, Inc./President, Dynamic
Communications International, Inc.
Dennis Doty, Producer, Cates/Doty Productions
Brian L. Dyak, President/CEO, Entertainment Industries Council, Inc/Chairman, Center for Interactive Media
Social Responsibility
Marie G. Dyak, Director, Special Projects, Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Jonathan Estrin, Writer/Producer, List-Estrin Productions/Board Member, Writers Guild of America west
Pamm Fair, Assistant Executive Director, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
Fern Field, Producer, BrookField Productions
Bob Finlayson, VP Communications, Video Software Dealers Association
Charles FitzSimons, Executive Director, Producers Guild of America
Anna Marie Galbraith, Parent
Courtney Galbraith, Student, Oak Avenue Middle School
Robert Garon, Independent Publicist
Alan Gerson, Sr. VP Television/Business Development, Ticketmaster Corporation
Barbara Goen, Director, Publicity, KCET-TV
David Goldsmith, Producer, Goldsmith Co./Co-Chairman, Finance, Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Susan Goldstein, Principal, Goldstein Media/Chairman, Issues & Advocacy Committee, Women in Film
Barry Greenberg, Owner, Celebrity Connection
William J. Hamm, Sr. VP Drama Development, Universal Television
Basil Hoffman, Actor
Lorrie Houchin, Student, Thousand Oaks High School
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 27
Brad Hunt, Sr. VP Marketing, Zoo Entertainment
Joan Hyler, Principal, Hyler Management/President, Women in Film
Sidney Iwanter, VP Programming, Fox Children's Network
Janet Alston Jackson, Executive Director, Believe in Yourself, Inc.
Walter Jackson, CEO, Believe in Yourself, Inc.
Elaine Johnson, Ph.D., Director, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
Lloyd Johnston, Ph.D., Program Director, University of Michigan Substance Abuse Center
Jon Joyce, Actor/Board Member, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
Ivan Juzang, President, Motivational Educational Entertainment Productions
Liz Kiley, Manager, Radio Affiliations, The Box
Andrew Knox, Screen Actors Guild
Maria La Magra, VP Publicity, MCA Universal Home Video
Susan Land, Manager, Comedy Development, Warner Bros. Television
Barry Lawrence, Partner, Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays and Handler
Michele Lee, Actor/Producer/Director, Michele Lee Prods./Board Dir., Entertainment Industries Council
Stan Lee, Chairman, Marvel Entertainment Group/Trustee, Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Alan Leshner, Ph.D., Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse
Carole Lieberman, M.D., Psychiatrist
Bert Loeb, Ph.D., President, New Focus, Inc.
Pat Lucas, VP/General Manager, Soundtrack Division, EMI Music Publishing
Jackie MacDonald, Executive Director, Scott Newman Center
Pancho Mansfield, Director, Original Series, Showtime Networks, Inc.
George Marcelles, Consultant, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
Denise Marsh, Programming Executive, The Disney Channel
Rick Mater, Head of Standards & Practices, Warner Bros. Network
Mitch Matovich, Producer, Matovich Productions
Marlene Mattaschiam, Business Agent, Publicists Guild of America
Kent McCord, Actor/Former 1st Vice President, Screen Actors Guild
Roland McFarland, VP Broadcast Standards & Practices, Fox Broadcasting Company
Karen McNally, Investor Relations, Pharmalytics, Inc.
Aaron Meyerson, VP Production/Development, DIC Films
Sun Moon, Associate Producer, Carlson-Pullin Productions
Paul Napier, Actor/Board Member, Screen Actors Guild
Mike Ney, Principal, Johnson, Bassen & Shaw
Norm Nixon, Producer/Manager, Nixon-Katz Entertainment/Trustee, Entertainment Industries Council
John C. O'Reilly, Ph.D., President, Pharmalytics, Inc.
Mary Oreck, Partner, Borenstein-Oreck-Bogart Agency
Sandi Padnos, President, Padnos Ink
Roz Pierson, Program Consultant, The Wellness Foundation
Luisa del Carmen Pollard, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
Lee Powell, Student, Davis Middle School
Judy Price, VP Children's Programs, CBS Entertainment
Stephen Pullin, Producer, Carlson-Pullin Productions
Lee Rafner, Producer, Up Front Productions, Inc.
Michael Reese, Director, Marketing, Silas Records
Del Reisman, Writer/Past President, Writers Guild of America west, Inc.
Mark Robert, President, Celebrity Connection
Brian Roberts, Radio Personality, Westwood One Networks
Lisa Rodriguez, Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Hilary Rosen, President, Recording Industry Association of America
Pat Russell, Co-Chairman, Media Committee, Los Angeles Coalition to Prevent Violence
Justin Saltzman, Student, Thousand Oaks High School
Rebecca Segal, VP Prog/Publicity, Sky Broadcasting/Pres, Entertainment Publicists Professional Society
Joan Sekuler, Globalvision
Donna Shu, Acting Executive Director, Women in Film
David Suchin, Vice President, The Suchin Company
Laurel Sylvanus, President, Telemotion/President, Music Video Association
Brandon Tartikoff, Chairman, New World Entertainment/Trustee, Entertainment Industries Council
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 28
George Taweel, Partner, Taweel-Loos and Company Entertainment
Lydia Taylor, Member, Women in Film
Debra Tellez, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
Makani Themba, Marin Institute
Bill Thomson, Partner, Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays and Handler
Hal Uplinger, Producer, Uplinger International
Lance Webster, Director of Publicity, Public Broadcasting Service
Robert Werden, Independent Publicist
Dick Wolf, President, Wolf Films/Executive Producer, "Law & Order"/"NY Undercover"/"Swift Justice"
Monika Young Moulin, Board Member, Entertainment Publicists Professional Society
Jamie Zeledone, Jr., Student, Venice High School
Joe Zesbaugh, President, Pacific Mountain Network
Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.
Page 29
WHITE HOUSE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON
YOUTH, DRUG USE, AND VIOLENCE
Media Breakout Session
2:00
Welcome/Introductory Remarks
-Carol H. Rasco
Participant Introductions
Roundtable Discussion
2:20-2:40 Setting the Context: The Connection between Media, Youth
Violence and Drug Use
2:40-3:00 Realism About Pressures Within Media Industry
3:00-4:00 Given the connection and pressures, strategies for meeting the
challenge
Providing Parents Information on and Control over Programming
(V-chip; Rating system)
Carol will ask Greg for update here
Media Literacy
Using the Media to Communicate Anti-Drug and Anti-Violence
Messages, and to Promote Self-Esteem among Youth
-Advertising Campaigns
-Industry Education/Positive Messages in Programming
Promoting Positive and Educational Programming
-Public Broadcasting
-Pressure through Public Opinion
MAR- 3-96 SUN 17:48
CSR INCORPORATED DC
FAX NO. 2028420418
P.02
DIRECTIONS TO ELEANOR ROOSEVELT HIGH SCHOOL
7601 HANOVER PARKWAY
GREENBELT, MD 20770
From I-95 (The Beltway) If Proceeding North:
Get off the Beltway at Exit #22A (Baltimore Washington Pkwy. towards Baltimore). On exit
ramp, bear right immediately to Rt, 193 (Greenbelt Road). Turn right onto Greenbelt Road
(towards NASA) and continue .3 of a mile on Greenbelt Road to the second light (Hanover
Pkwy.) Turn left onto Hanover Parkway and then take first right onto school property.
From I-95 (The Beltway) If Proceeding South:
Get off of the Beltway at Exit #22A (Baltimore Washington Pkwy. towards Baltimore). Take the
Balitmore Washington Pkwy. towards Baltimore to Rt. 193 (Greenbelt Road). Exit to the right,
following the exit ramp to the road. Turn left at the light (towards NASA) from exit ramp onto
Greenbelt Road and continue to Hanover Pkwy. Turn left at the next light onto Hanover Pkwy.
and then take first right onto school property.
From Washington, D.C.:
Take the Baltimore Washington Pkwy towards Baltimore to Rt. 193 (Greenbelt Road). Exit to the
right following the exit ramp to Greenbelt Road. Turn left at the light (towards NASA) from exit
ramp onto Greenbelt Road and continue to Hanover Pkwy. Turn left at the next light onto
Hanover Parkway and then take the first right onto school property.
From Baltimore:
Take the Baltimore Washington Pkwy. towards Washington to Rt. 193 (Greenbelt Road). Exit on
the right, following the exit ramp to the STOP sign, turn left and continue a short distance to
Greenbelt Road. Turn left at the second right onto Hanover Pkwy. and then take first right onto
school property.
CITY OF GREENBELT
Baltimore Weshington Pokes/
Greenball Rd
Helryer Part.wry E.
AND TECH CENTER
ROOSEVELT SCIENCE
Greenway
Shapping
EXIT 22
Center
Greenbelt Rd. 193 the HASA)
95
N
FINAL AGENDA
DRAFT
WHITE HOUSE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON
YOUTH, DRUG USE, AND VIOLENCE
Thursday March 7
8:30 a.m.
Registration
9:30 a.m.
Welcoming Remarks
Dr. Gerald Boarman
Principal, Eleanor Roosevelt High School
National Anthem
Performed by Marliss Ladson, Duke Ellington School of Arts, D.C.
General Barry McCaffrey
Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy
Representative Steny Hoyer
Senator Paul Sarbanes
Governor Parris Glendenning
10:00 a.m.
Roundtable: Youth and Parent Perspectives on Reducing Adolescent
Drug Use and Violence
Co-chaired by Director Barry McCaffrey and Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros
Jarrett Alexander, senior, Eleanor Roosevelt High School,
Greenbelt, Md.
LaVerna Fountain, Teach Teens to Teach Teens Non-Violence Institute,
Harrisburg, Pa.
Chocka Guiden, student, Portland State University, Portland. Or.
Kari Peters, Washington Regional Alcohol Program, Sterling, Va.
Carol Reeves, President, National Family Partnership, Greenville, S.C.
Jessica Shillander, student, New Market Skills School, Tumwater, Wa.
Brett Sturgill, student, Benjamin Middle School, Bowie, Md.
FINAL DRAFT
11:00 a.m.
Remarks to the Students of Eleanor Roosevelt High School
Dr. Gerald Boarman
Principal, Eleanor Roosevelt High School
General Barry McCaffrey
Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy
Vice President Albert Gore
Mark Anderes
Student Government President
Eleanor Roosevelt High School
President William J. Clinton
12:00 p.m.
Presidential Roundtable: Reports to the President on Promising
Community Strategies To Reduce Youth Drug Use and Violence F;
Margaret Altstaetter, Student of the Year, Students Against
Driving Drunk, Wilmington College, Ohio
Dr. Lonise Bias, Maryland
James Burke, Chairman, Partnership for a Drug Free America,
New York, N.Y.
Joseph Califano, President, Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse,
Columbia University, New York, N.Y.
Carl Cohn, Superintendent, Long Beach Unified School District,
Long Beach, Ca.
Governor Parris Glendenning
Nat Glover, Sheriff, Jacksonville, Fl.
Yvonne Green, Director, Safe Schools Initiative, Washington, D.C.
Representative Steny Hoyer
Jesse Jackson, National Rainbow Coalition, Washington, D.C.
Kurt M. Landgraf, President and CEO, DuPont Merck, Chadds Ford, Pa.
Karen Lee, Senior, Eleanor Roosevelt High School and Member,
Students Against Violence, Greenbelt, Md.
Izaak Prado, student, Dinuba Community School, Visalia, Ca.
Senator Paul Sarbanes
Jeff Tauber, President, National Association of Drug Court
Professionals, Alexandria, Va.
FINAL DRAFT
1:00 p.m.
Lunch -- Hosted by DARE America and A. T. & T.
2:00 p.m.
Breakout Sessions
(1) Strengthening the Justice System Response to Juvenile Crime
- Moderated by Associate Attorney General John Schmidt
(2) Strengthening the Law Enforcement Response to Juvenile Crime
- Moderated by Attorney General Janet Reno
(3) Making Schools Safe, Orderly, and Drug Free
- Moderated by Secretary of Education Richard Riley
(4) Strengthening Families and Creating Safe Passages for Youth
- Moderated by Secretary of Health and Human Services
Donna Shalala
(5) Mobilizing Communities
- Moderated by Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Henry Cisneros
(6) The Media's Role in Preventing Youth Drug Use and Violence
- Moderated by Domestic Policy Advisor Carol Rasco
(7) Curbing Underage Drinking
- Moderated by Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena
(8) Reducing Drug Use Through Treatment and Prevention
- Moderated by Director Barry McCaffrey
(9) Strategies to Eliminate Gangs and Gun Violence
- Moderated by Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin
4:00 p.m.
Closing Plenary
Director Barry McCaffrey
Attorney General Janet Reno
WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE- CONFIRMED PARTICIPANTS LIST AS OF 3/6/96
Groups
Last Name
First Name
Category
State
Race
Sex
Organization
Title
City
Sponsor
P. P.08
MED
Blinn
William
CA
M
Caucus for Producers, Writers and Dir
Chairman
Encino
MED
Soehm
Helen
NY
NY
MED
Bonnette
Richard
Business
NY
M
Partnership for a Drug Free America
President/CEO
NY
Dennis Burke
MED
Calhoun
John
Prevention Specialist
DC
W
M
NCPC
Pres
Washington
Greg Everts
MED
Campbell
Inniss
Youth
MO
M
Americorps Members, Youthnet
Kansas City
Corp for Nan Service
MED
Clarke
Torie
DC
Public Affairs and Strategic Council
Vice President
Washington
MED
Drozd
Crystal
Youth
PA
F
Reading
CADCA
MED
Duffy
Mary
Media
NY
F
The Montel Williams Show
Executive Producer
NY
WH-DPC
MED
Dyak
Brian L.
VA
M
Entertainment Industry Council
President and CEO
Reston
FAX NO. 2028420418
MED
Dykstra
Richard
Media
KS
M
Junction City Police Dept.
Officer
Junction City
MOC
MED
Earls
Felton
Academia
MA
B
M
Harvard-Sch Pub Hith
Boston
DOJ/OJP/NIJ
MED
Essner
Robert
PA
Philadelphia
MED
Falco
Mathea
DC
F
Drug Strategies
President
Washington
HMS
MED
Figel
Brad
DC
Washington
MED
Flanagan
Timothy
Academia
TX
M
Colege of Criminal Justice
Dean
Huntsville
MOC
MED
Hester
Lucille
DC
Washington
MED
Hobbs
Rene
Educator
MA
F
Babson College
Professor
Babson Park
ONDCP
MED
Jaffe
Karen
DC
F
KIDSNET, Inc.
Executive Dir
Washington
MED
Kelly
Marcy
Media
CA
F
Media Scope
President
Studio City
DOJ/OJJDP
MED
Kem
Jessica
Youth
WI
F
Washington High School
Student
Milwaukee
MOC
MED
Kroft
Alexander
NY
The Advertising Council
President
NY
MED
Ladson
Marliss
DC
Washington
CSR INCORPORATED DC
MED
Mahoney
Stacey
DC
F
Children's Express
Editor
Washington
MED
Moses
Susan
MA
Boston
MED
Nelson
John
DC
Washington
MED
Phillips
Robert
DC
M
American Psychiatric Association
Deputy Medical Dir
Washington
MED
Roberson
Russell
Youth
AR
M
N Little Rock
Boys & Girls Club
MED
Rosen
Fredric David
CA
M
Ticketmaster Corporation
Chair & Chief Exec Off
Los Angeles
MED
Schmidt
Jan
MD
Advocates for Children and Youth
Baltimore
MED
Tucker
C. Delores
DC
F
Nati Political Black Congress for Women
Chair
Washington
MED
Woll
Dick
CA
M
Universal City
6-96 WED 9:48
WHITE HOUSE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON
YOUTH, DRUG USE, AND VIOLENCE
Media Breakout Session
Advertising
Alex Kroll
Recent $7-8 billion initiative focusing on kids; part of
Chairman Emeritus
Nashville Conference
The Advertising Council
Brad Figel
Nike--key influence on kids; Nike P.L.A.Y. Program for youth
Director, Government Relations
Nike, Inc.
John Calhoun
Involved in PSA "Take a Bite out of Crime"
National Crime Prevention Council
Industry/Business
Brian L. Dyak
EIC helps promote positive messages for youth thru
President and CEO
entertainment media
Entertainment Industry Council
Fredric D. Rosen
Ticketmaster sponsors youth-oriented corporate
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
outreach programs; considering new initiatives
Ticketmaster Corporation
Cable
Dr. Helen Boehm
Senior Vice President
Public Responsibility and Network Standards
MTV Networks
Juanita Scarlett
Nickelodeon
Torie Clarke
Funded National Television Violence Study (done by
Vice President, Public Affairs and Strategic Counsel
Mediascope)
National Cable Television Associstion
Creators/Producers
Bill Blinn
Credits include Brian's Song, Roots, and Fame
Chairman,
Caucus for Producers, Writers and Directors
Mary Duffy
The Montel Williams Show
Dick Wolf
Creator/Producer of Law and Order, New York Undercover, and
Executive Producer
Swift Justice
Public Health
Susan Moses
Squash It! Campaign; Deputy to Jay Winsten
Deputy Director, Center for Health Communications
Harvard School of Public Health
Robert Phillips, M.D.
Deputy Medical Director
American Psychiatric Association
John C. Nelson, M.D.
AMA has been very supportive of V chip and rating
Board Member
American Medical Association
Media Literacy
Renee Hobbs
Award-winning media literacy materials, including for K-12 educ.
Assoc. Prof. of Communication
Babson College
Advocacy
Marcy Kelly
Dir. of National Television Violence Study; numerous campaigns for
Media Scope
improving the way public hlth and social issues depicted in media
Karen Jaffe
Computerized clearinghouse for kids' media; Nashville participant
Executive Director
KIDSNET, Inc.
C. Delores Tucker
Crusade against "gangsta" and pornographic rap music
National Political Black Congress for Women
Jan Schmidt
Disseminates ratings and information on Maryland tv programs
MD Campaign for Kids' TV
Advocates for Children and Youth
Journalism
Stacey Mahoney
Youth journalist
Editor, Children's Express
Academia
Felton Earls
Principal Investigator of Project on Human Devlpt in Chicago
Harvard School of Public Health Neighborhoods
Timothy Flanagan
Research includes public opinion on juv justice issues
Dean, College of Criminal Justice, TX
Juvenile Justice/Police
Rick Dykstra
'95 Crime Prev Officer of the Year; "D.A.R.E. on the AIR" radio show
Junction City, KS Police Dept
March 6, 1996
MEMORANDUM FOR CAROL H. RASCO
CC:
Jeremy Ben-Ami
FROM:
Molly Brostrom
mbb
RE:
Briefing materials for Media Breakout Session
Attached are:
A list of most/key participants in the breakout session with a short bullet on
relevant background. I've also pulled the brief biographies submitted by the
participants for further background on them. (I'll also attach the entire
biography book.)
A brief outline for the session and detailed talking points.
As you'll see in the talking points, the strategy discussion includes quite a
few different strategies; it is obviously not essential/will be impossible to
discuss them all. Since there are quite a few people in the session who
working on advertising campaigns and other ways to use the media to
communicate the anti-drug and violence message, I would suggest ensuring
that discussion is given plenty of time.
Please let me know if there is anything else you need/would like as background.
WHITE HOUSE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON
YOUTH, DRUG USE, AND VIOLENCE
Media Breakout Session
Advertising
Alex Kroll
Recent $7-8 billion initiative focusing on kids; part of
Chairman Emeritus
Nashville Conference
The Advertising Council
Brad Figel
Nike-key influence on kids; Nike P.L.A.Y. Program for youth
Director, Government Relations
Nike, Inc.
John Calhoun
Involved in PSA "Take a Bite out of Crime"
National Crime Prevention Council
Industry/Business
Brian L. Dyak
EIC helps promote positive messages for youth thru
President and CEO
entertainment media
Entertainment Industry Council
Fredric D. Rosen
Ticketmaster sponsors youth-oriented corporate
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
outreach programs; considering new initiatives
Ticketmaster Corporation
Cable
Dr. Helen Boehm
Senior Vice President
Public Responsibility and Network Standards
MTV Networks
Juanita Scarlett
Nickelodeon
Torie Clarke
Funded National Television Violence Study (done by
Vice President, Public Affairs and Strategic Counsel
Mediascope)
National Cable Television Associstion
Creators/Producers
Bill Blinn
Credits include Brian's Song, Roots, and Fame
Chairman,
Caucus for Producers, Writers and Directors
Mary Duffy
The Montel Williams Show
Dick Wolf
Creator/Producer of Law and Order, New York Undercover, and
Executive Producer
Swift Justice
Public Health
Susan Moses
Squash It! Campaign; Deputy to Jay Winsten
Deputy Director, Center for Health Communications
Harvard School of Public Health
Robert Phillips, M.D.
Deputy Medical Director
American Psychiatric Association
John C. Nelson, M.D.
AMA has been very supportive of V chip and rating
Board Member
American Medical Association
Media Literacy
Renee Hobbs
Award-winning media literacy materials, including for K-12 educ.
Assoc. Prof. of Communication
Babson College
Advocacy
Marcy Kelly
Dir. of National Television Violence Study; numerous campaigns for
Media Scope
improving the way public hlth and social issues depicted in media
Karen Jaffe
Computerized clearinghouse for kids' media; Nashville participant
Executive Director
KIDSNET, Inc.
C. Delores Tucker
Crusade against "gangsta" and pornographic rap music
National Political Black Congress for Women
Jan Schmidt
Disseminates ratings and information on Maryland tv programs
MD Campaign for Kids' TV
Advocates for Children and Youth
Journalism
Stacey Mahoney
Youth journalist
Editor, Children's Express
Academia
Felton Earls
Principal Investigator of Project on Human Devlpt in Chicago
Harvard School of Public Health Neighborhoods
Timothy Flanagan
Research includes public opinion on juv justice issues
Dean, College of Criminal Justice, TX
Juvenile Justice/Police
Rick Dykstra
'95 Crime Prev Officer of the Year; "D.A.R.E. on the AIR" radio show
Junction City, KS Police Dept
WHITE HOUSE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON
YOUTH, DRUG USE, AND VIOLENCE
Media Breakout Session
2:00
Welcome/Introductory Remarks
-Carol H. Rasco
Participant Introductions
Roundtable Discussion
2:20-2:40
Setting the Context: The Connection between Media, Youth
Violence and Drug Use
2:40-3:00
Realism About Pressures Within Media Industry
3:00-4:00
Given the connection and pressures, strategies for meeting the
challenge
Providing Parents Information on and Control over Programming
(V-chip; Rating system)
Media Literacy
Using the Media to Communicate Anti-Drug and Anti-Violence
Messages, and to Promote Self-Esteem among Youth
-Advertising Campaigns
-Industry Education/Positive Messages in Programming
Promoting Positive and Educational Programming
-Public Broadcasting
-Pressure through Public Opinion
TALKING POINTS
OPENING REMARKS
Welcome to the Media breakout session of the White House Conference on
Youth, Drug Use, and Violence.
As you heard the President say today, this day is about moving forward together
to meet the challenge of caring for our youth and reducing juvenile drug use and
violence. This Administration has worked hard to meet that challenge -- from
fighting for passage of a tough Crime bill that has put 100,000 new community
police officers in neighborhoods, to creating the Community Schools program,
to improving and expanding the Head Start program for our youngest citizens.
These initiatives have had made real progress -- yet we must all do more.
There are too many youth at risk in our nation. And, drug use and violent
crime among juveniles has crept up.
The President has issued a call for all Americans -- the media, schools,
teachers, communities, churches and synagogues, businesses and government --
to take more responsibility for our children. He believes the best way to
achieve this goal is by finding common ground, and building partnerships.
And that is what this conference and these breakout sessions are about:
Bringing together all of you who strive to meet the challenge -- all of you who
know the problems firsthand, who know what does and does not work to solve
them -- and providing the opportunity to share this information with each other
and people across the country -- through the report to the President that will be
developed from the discussion and recommendations of each breakout session.
I don't need to tell all of you gathered here what an important element media is
in meeting the challenge. The media -- television in particular for our young
people -- wields a tremendous amount of power in our society. As we move
deeper and deeper into the information age, this power only grows. Our
meeting here today is to continue the discussion about how to use that power in
positive ways.
As many of you know, last summer at the Family Conference in Nashville, the
President and Vice President urged the industry to take a leadership role in
helping families navigate their way safely through the modern media onslaught.
Thanks to the dedication of the President and Vice President in keeping this
issue front and center we were able to pass the V chip in the
telecommunications Act. And now thanks to the vision and leadership of the
industry executives who gathered on February 29th with the President and Vice
President, the V chip can become a reality and give responsible parents the tools
they need to exercise that responsibility.
We have with us today, Greg Simon of the Vice President's office, who has
been a key player in moving forward on these fronts. Shortly, when we get to
the discussion of strategies, he can give us further background on the meeting
and agreement of the 29th.
The February 29 agreement was a crucial, and hopefully momentum-building
step. But there are numerous other steps that are being taken, and others that
need to be encouraged. This afternoon, I hope we can share information on
what is working and strategize on how to continue to move forward.
INTRODUCTIONS
Before any more time goes by, let 's quickly do a round of introductions,
including a brief statement on who each of you are.
OUTLINE OF MEETING
These breakout sessions are all designed as "roundtable discussions" so please
feel free to jump in when you have something to add. We have a fabulous
group of participants, and I'd like to apologize at the outset for not having time
to hear sufficiently from all of you.
To set the context, we'll begin with a brief discussion on the connection between
media, youth violence and drug use. Then, briefly again, we will talk about
some of the pressures within the industry that have lead to some of the negative
influences. And then, most importantly, we will turn to the strategies -- given
the connection and the pressures, how do we meet the challenge and help steer
young people away from drugs and violence and toward healthy activities?
DISCUSSION
2:20 Setting the Context: The Connection between Media, Youth Violence
and Drug Use
Marcy Kelly, why don't you start us off with your assessment of the effect and
extent of media violence, based on the findings of the recent National Television
Violence Study? Then perhaps, Doctors Phillips and Nelson, can provide us
the perspectives of the medical community on the connection between media,
violence and drug use.
Can one of our youth discuss being a consumer of television violence? (Stacey
Mahoney, youth journalist, is a potential.)
2:40 Realism About Pressures Within Media Industry
Let's talk briefly about why there is violence, drug use, explicit sexual material
in the media. Can our industry representatives talk about some of the pressures
within the media industry?
(Dick Wolf, Helen Boehm of MTV, Bill Blinn, or Mary Duffy of the Montel
Williams show are potentials.)
3:00 Given the connection and pressures, strategies for meeting the
challenge
Enough of the problem -- how do we move forward and meet the challenge,
given the connection and pressures we just heard about. Let's begin with a
strategy that has been at the top of the news:
Providing Parents Information on and Control over Programming through the
V-chip and Rating system.
Greg Simon of the Vice President's office can provide further explanation of the
meeting and agreement reached on February 29.
Any other thoughts/comments on the V chip and rating system as a tool?
Another key tool in educating and informing parents are Media Literacy
campaigns.
Renee Hobbs can you discuss some of your award-winning media
literacy work?
Jan Schmidt, perhaps you can tell us about the Maryland Campaign for
Kids TV.
If we just talked about how to mitigate negative influences, we would be
missing how to harness the power and creativity of the media. And we need
that power in not just communicating the anti-drug and violence messages, but
in promoting self-esteem among youth.
Advertising campaigns have had some remarkable success at promoting positive
social responses.
Alex Kroll, please tell us about the Ad Council's recent initiatives in
using the media to communicate anti-drug and anti-violence messages.
Susan Moses, can you tell us about your experience with the Squash It
campaign?
Brad Figel, can you tell us about the genesis of the wonderful Nike ads
that work to promote self-esteem in youth?
Industry Education initiatives -- in which organizations such as Mediascope
have helped to educate writers, creators, or producers, and spur positive
messages in programming -- are another important piece of the solution.
Do any of our creative industry people want to talk about how easy or
difficult it is to build those messages in? Does anyone want to share any
thoughts on how effective these messages are?
Promoting Positive and Educational Programming-- We all know that there are
plenty of programs on TV that we are thankful exist -- Sesame Street.. How
do we encourage more of these? How do we support public broadcasting
which, with an average of 6 hours a day of educational TV, is such a key source
of educational programs, especially important for younger children.
Corporate Responsibility -- Members of the media industry, like other
businesses are promoting youth programs as part of being responsible
corporations.
Fred Rosen, can you tell us about Ticketmaster's youth-oriented
corporate outreach programs that provide opportunities for youth, and any
plans you have for the future?
Mobilizing Public Opinion As we've heard, the industry needs to know what
consumers want.
C. Delores Tucker, in your campaign against violent and pornographic
art, you've succeeded in mobilizing public opinion to effect change. Can
you tell us about your strategies?
CLOSING REMARKS
As all of you have shown today, many of the pieces that are critical to moving
forward are out there -- building positive messages into programs, providing
youth healthy programming or other alternatives, developing more critical
viewers.
The media executives, despite their competitiveness, were able to come together
to help youth. Other sectors (alcohol, tobacco, gun lobbyists) need to do the
same.
At the federal level, we will continue to provide leadership and momentum to
this issue. But we need each of you and your neighbors -- in homes and
communities across the country -- helping to meet the challenges
laid out for us today. Thank you very much for your participation.
03/01/96 FRI 19:54 FAX 202 482 1635
002
MEDIA VIOLENCE
Challenge:
To identify ways that the media can be a positive or
negative influence in the fight to decrease violence and drug use
among youth, to provide parents and communities with the tools
necessary to educate themselves about the impacts both
positive and negative -- of the media, and to encourage more
positive use of the media to steer kids away from violence and
drugs.
Topics to be Covered in the Session:
The Impact of the Media -- What influence does the media
have in the behavior of youth, particularly relating to violence
and drug use? The consensus of the research community is that
media violence has a negative impact on children. Three Surgeons
General, the Attorney General's Task Force on Family Violence,
the American Medical Association, the National Institutes of
Mental Health, the American Psychological Association and the
American Academy of Pediatrics, among many researchers, have
found that viewing television violence is harmful to children.
Many of these medical organizations suggest that the amount of
televised violence that American children watch has serious
implications for the high rates of homicide, suicide and violent
crime in our society.
In an effort to address the issue of media violence and its
impact on children, various solutions have been proposed ranging
from limiting violent programming to late night hours, to report
cards listing the sponsors of violent programs, to ratings and
blocking technology. Giving parents the technology in television
sets to block out programs that carry a rating for violence, the
"V chip", was passed by Congress and signed into law by the
President this winter. Within two years all television receivers
sold in this country must contain the V chip, and the media
industry was encouraged to develop a voluntary rating system for
television programming -- including broadcast and cable
programming. On February 29th, the industry committed to create
such a rating system and to have it in place within one year.
The advantage of this approach is that it enables parents to
protect their children from programs they consider inappropriate
without infringing on the rights of others to view those
programs. In addition, each family makes its own choice about
what programs are appropriate. Parents who can not be in the TV
room to supervise every program can use the V chip to block
programs that have been identified by the programmer as
potentially inappropriate for children. They can deactivate the
V chip at any time to watch programs themselves, or to watch a
more mature program with their children.
03/01/96 FRI 19:54 FAX 202 482 1635
003
In addition to turning off programs that they feel are
inappropriate for their children, parents need to be able to turn
on positive programming. There is a need for more educational
and positive choices of programs for families, and it will take
the active participation of the public to produce such a change
in the kinds of programming available.
Media Literacy How can parents and communities learn more
about the ways that the media impact the behavior of youth? One
of the most important elements of an effort to reduce the amount
of violence in popular programming and its impact on children is
to work with families. Once parents and children understand the
power of media images and messages, they can be more critical and
selective viewers of television. In addition, to the extent that
families understand the impact of violence in television and
choose to select less violent programming, this will have a
powerful economic impact on programmers.
Positive Uses of the Media -- How has the media been used to
promote more positive behaviors among youth? What has worked and
what has not worked? Public health researchers and workers
helped to create the "Designated Driver" campaign, along with
parents and communities group. This campaign is credited with
introducing the concept of a designated driver into popular
culture, and helping to promote this anti-drunk driving practice
among teens and adults. Currently an anti-violence campaign
called "Squash It!" is being promoted in the same way.
In addition, the creative community has worked to include
more positive messages in programming, for example, talking about
the role of a designated driver or showing characters using seat
belts. Industry, advocacy and research organizations have held
workshops with the creative community to help writers, directors,
and producers to develop ways to tell stories that include
solving problems in a non-violent way into popular programs
watched by children and teens.
Possible Action Steps:
Media Literacy -- The President and Vice President stated on
February 29th following the meeting on television violence that
they would like to participate in the media literacy campaign.
Industry and parent initiatives have been started in this area,
and they could be expanded to reach more families.
Industry Education Various organizations run workshops to
talk with writers, producers and directors about the ways that
violence or drug use are portrayed on television. This has led
to a greater understanding amongst those working in the media
industry of the consequences of negative images, as well as the
ways that they can use positive messages to get across an anti-
violence or anti-drug message.
2
03/01/96 FRI 19:54 FAX 202 482 1635
004
Industry Commitments to Educational Children's Programming -
- At the industry meeting with the President and Vice President
on February 29th, there was a great deal of discussion of the
issue of children's educational programming and ways that the
amount of programming and the quality of programs can be
improved. Some programming companies have committed to airing
three hours a week of educational programming, and challenged
others to make commitments to serve children with programming or
in other ways such as supporting community projects.
Public Television -- Many of the research findings relating
to television violence indicate that younger children are more
vulnerable to the influences of media violence than older kids.
For younger children in particular, the effects of viewing media
violence are both short and long term. As kids get older, they
are better able to put media violence in context and to balance
it against their own life experience. Offering kids an
alternative when they are pre-schoolers or 6 year olds, or 10
year olds, to violence programming is therefore critical. With
an average of 6 hours a day of educational programming for
children, public broadcasting is a critical source of nonviolent
programming for young children.
3
Page data
- Page
- 1
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- document
- Media ID
- ff8c5e8012aa6154
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 55280662
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "55280662",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/55280662",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Media Breakout Session, 3/7 [1996]",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/55280662",
"collections": [
"Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
"Molly Brostrom's Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/systematic/2012-0326-S/42-t-7763280-20120326S-015-009-2017.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/systematic/2012-0326-S/42-t-7763280-20120326S-015-009-2017.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/systematic/2012-0326-S/42-t-7763280-20120326S-015-009-2017.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "55280662",
"label": "Media Breakout Session, 3/7 [1996]",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/55280662"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "55280662",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/55280662",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Media Breakout Session, 3/7 [1996]",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/55280662",
"collections": [
"Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
"Molly Brostrom's Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/systematic/2012-0326-S/42-t-7763280-20120326S-015-009-2017.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/systematic/2012-0326-S/42-t-7763280-20120326S-015-009-2017.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/systematic/2012-0326-S/42-t-7763280-20120326S-015-009-2017.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/55280662",
"naId": 55280662,
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"otherTitles": [
"42-t-7763280-20120326S-015-009-2017"
],
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 1,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "document",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/systematic/2012-0326-S/42-t-7763280-20120326S-015-009-2017.pdf",
"mediaId": "ff8c5e8012aa6154",
"ocrText": "MAR- 3-96 SUN 17:48\nCSR INCORPORATED DC\nFAX NO. 2028420418\nP. 02\nDIRECTIONS TO ELEANOR ROOSEVELT HIGH SCHOOL\n7601 HANOVER PARKWAY\nGREENBELT, MD 20770\nFrom I-95 (The Beltway) If Proceeding North:\nGet off the Beltway at Exit #22A (Baltimore Washington Pkwy. towards Baltimore). On exit\nramp, bear right immediately to Rt, 193 (Greenbelt Road). Turn right onto Greenbeli Road\n(towards NASA) and continue .3 of a mile on Greenbelt Road to the second light (Hanover\nPkwy.) Turn left onto Hanover Parkway and then take first right onto school property.\nFrom I-95 (The Beltway) If Proceeding South:\nGet off of the Beltway at Exit #22A (Baltimore Washington Pkwy. towards Baltimore). Take the\nBalitmore Washington Pkwy. towards Baltimore to Rt. 193 (Greenbelt Road). Exit to the right,\nfollowing the exit ramp to the road. Turn left at the light (towards NASA) from exit ramp onto\nGreenbelt Road and continue to Hanover Pkwy. Turn left at the next light onto Hanover Pkwy.\nand then take first right onto school property.\nFrom Washington, D.C.:\nTake the Baltimore Washington Pkwy towards Baltimore to Rt. 193 (Greenbelt Road). Exit to the\nright following the exit ramp to Greenbelt Road. Turn left at the light (towards NASA) from exit\nramp onto Greenbelt Road and continue to Hanover Pkwy. Turn left at the next light onto\nHanover Parkway and then take the first right onto school property.\nFrom Baltimore:\nTake the Baltimore Washington Pkwy. towards Washington to Rt. 193 (Greenbelt Road). Exit on\nthe right, following the exit ramp to the STOP sign, turn left and continue a short distance to\nGreenbelt Road. Turn left at the second right onto Hanover Pkwy. and then take first right onto\nschool property.\nCITY OF GREENBELT\nBaltimore Weshington Pokey\nGreenball Rd\nHe/ver Part.wry E.\nROOSEVELT SCIENCE\nAND TECH CENTER\nGreenway\nShopping\nEXIT 22\nCenter\nGreenbelt Bd. 193 HASA)\nN\nBeltwen 95\n001\n03/06/96 WED 14:19 FAX 202 482 1635\nNTIA/OAS\nor\nA NTIA CARD\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nFAX\nThe Assistant Secretary for\nDORM\nCommunications and Information\nRoom 4898, HCH Bldg\nWashington, D.C. 20230\nTO:\nMolly\nFAX:\nPHONE:\nFROM:\nKristan\nFAX:\n(202) 482-1635\nOffice of the Assistant Secretary\nPHONE: (202) 482-1551\nDATE:\nPAGES: This + Page(s)\nMESSAGE\n4567028\nanother interesting\nbackgrounder it you\nhave a minute to\nglance at it\nSee page 4 especially\n03/06/96 WED 14:20 FAX 202 482 1635\n002\nTV VIOLENCE, CHILDREN,\nAND THE PRESS: Eight Rationales\nInhibiting Public Policy Debates\nby\nSissela Bok\nDiscussion Paper D-16\nThe Joan Shorenstein Barone Center\nApril 1994\nPRESS POLITICS\nVE RI TAS\nPUBLIC POLICY\nHarvard University\nJohn F. Kennedy School of Government\n03/06/96\nWED\n14:20\nFAX\n202\n482\n1635\n003\nINTRODUCTION\nIn contemporary political theory, the role of\nissues of greater policy importance in the con-\npublic deliberation (or public discourse, or\ntemporary United States than the issue of\ndialogue) looms large. From numerous perspec-\nviolence, there may also be few issues whose\ntives, among them republicanism, feminism, and\ndiscussion is more susceptible to all that is the\ncommunitarianism as well as more traditional\nworst, rather than all that is the best, about the\npolitical liberalism, theorists and public com-\nprocess of public deliberation. When the topic of\nmentators have linked the values of democracy,\nviolence intersects with the topic of television,\nequality, and community with the particular\nanother on which people hold strong views, and\nmechanism of public deliberation, the process by\none on which the press is hardly a disinterested\nwhich the members of a community talk to each\nobserver, the risks of the failure of reason in the\nother in an effort to reconcile differences and\nmarketplace of ideas are magnified.\nmake the decisions that affect us all.\nInto this problem comes Sissela Bok, applying\nThe literature on public deliberation might be\nthe talents of the professional philosopher and\ndivided into the celebratory and the skeptical.\nthe insights of the social critic to analyze current\nThe former stresses the virtues of public delib-\npublic policy debates in the press about televi-\neration in forging consensus and community,\nsion (itself a branch of the press), children, and\nand laments the paucity of public deliberation\nviolence. Although the depth of her concerns\ncompared to earlier times or smaller settings,\nabout televised violence is plain from this paper,\nThe latter sees public deliberation as a process\nshe aims primarily not to make the case for one\nthat incorporates and indeed reinforces existing\npolicy prescription or another. Rather, her goal is\nsocial disparities, such that those who are for\nto expose some number of weak arguments\none reason or another socially disadvantaged\nwhose dominance in current deliberation about\nwind up being disadvantaged in the deliberative\nthe consequences of televised violence scems to\nprocess as well. For the celebrants, public delib-\nher to be out of all proportion to their validity.\neration offers a way out of existing social ills,\nThis paper developed out of Bok's Fellowship at\nwhile for the skeptic public deliberation is as\nthe Joan Shorenstein Barone Center on the Press,\nlikely to be a manifestation of social pathologies\nPolitics and Public Policy, and exemplifies the\nas a way to transcend them.\nintersection between the press and policymaking\nWhat this debate frequently ignores, however,\nthat is the focus of the Center's research agenda.\nis the way in which public deliberation often\nAfter reading Bok's paper, the careful student of\ngoes awry not because some deliberators have\nher analysis will be better equipped not only to\nmore resources or more power than others, but\nunderstand and participate in debates about\nbecause all too commonly good arguments do\ntelevised violence, but also better able to critique\nnot, in practice, defeat bad ones. While it would\nand contribute to the process of public delibera-\nbe excessively skeptical to think that Gresham's\ntion in general.\nLaw operates in the marketplace of ideas, and\nthat bad arguments invariably drive out good\nFrederick Schauer\nones, it may be excessively sanguine to suppose\nFrank Stanton Professor of the First Amendment\nthat we live in the deliberative environment\nJoan Shorenstein Barone Center on the Press,\nsupposed by the rationalists of the Enlighten-\nPolitics and Public Policy\nment, an environment in which sound argu-\nJohn F. Kennedy School of Government\nments prevail just because of their inherent\nsoundness. Rather, we appear to exist in a world\nin which various superficially appealing but\ndeeply flawed arguments all too often carry the\nday in public debate.\nThe triumph of the fallacious is not only a\nconcern to those who value good arguments for\ntheir own sake-it is much more a concern when\ndecisions about major issues of public policy are\nheld hostage to the deficiencies of public argu-\nmentative practice. And although there are few\n03/06/96 WED 14:20 FAX 202 482 1635\n004\nTV VIOLENCE, CHILDREN, AND THE PRESS:\nEight Rationales Inhibiting Public Policy Debates\nSpotlight on Television\nfine is for the government to take over a\nresponsibility that ought to rest with free\nTelevision violence and the development of our\nindividuals.\"\nyouth are not just another set of public policy\nproblems. They go to the heart of our society's\nTV industry representatives insisted that the\nvalues. The best solutions lie with industry\namount of violence on television was exag-\nofficials, parents, and educators, and I don't\ngerated by politicians and critics and was\nrelish the prospect of Government action. But if\nnowhere near as linked to street violence as\nimmediate voluntary steps are not taken and\nfamily breakdown and the erosion of values.³\ndeadlines established, Government should\nrespond, and respond immediately.\nThe Comedy Central cable network prepared\nAttorney General Janet Reno,\na 30-second advertisement purporting to\ntestifying before the Senate\ninstruct \"Dear Janet,\" about the difference\nCommerce Committee,\nbetween \"real blood\" and \"stage blood\" and\nOctober 20, 1993.\nclaiming that those who \"play with [the\nNo sooner had Attorney General Janet Reno\nlatter) on stage celebrate life and give\nspoken out about risks to America's children and\npeople a rage to live.\"6\nadolescents from television violence, and in turn\nWhy such immediate, summary, and often\nto the larger society, than the scoldings by press\ncondescending dismissal in so many quarters?\nand television industry representatives began.\nWhy bypass Reno's call for all concerned -\nFew commentators bothered to report with care\nparents, educators, industry officials and, as a\non the actual bills under consideration at the\nlast resort, government - to come to grips with\nSenate Commerce Committee meeting where\ntelevision violence as one of several interlocking\nReno testified or on the research data on which\nfactors linked to escalating youth violence? The\nshe drew. The counterarguments focused, rather,\npress, after all, sees as part of its public responsi-\neither on the relative insignificance of risks from\nbility to report in depth on similarly interlocking\nTV violence or on the overriding danger of govern-\nfactors when it comes to, say, traffic injuries,\nment censorship regardless of any such risks.\ndrug addiction, or AIDS. Why, then, did so few\nThe New York Times editorialized against\nnewspapers bother, in covering Reno's testi-\n\"Janet Reno's Heavy Hand,\" warning that\nmony, to analyze diverging claims about the role\nalthough it is foolish to \"try to stop a bullet\nof television violence in exacerbating youth\nlike Schwarzenegger or swing off a mountain\nviolence?\nlike Stallone, most foolish of all is Janet\nIt is not as if there were a dearth of data on\nReno's dangerous embrace of a very seductive\nwhich to base such reporting. By now, many\nform of censorship.\"2\nhundreds of studies have concluded that expo-\nsure to television violence does affect a number\nIn USA Today, Michael Gartner, former\nof children for the worse, as have surveys of\npresident of NBC News, declared that televi-\nthese studies.' Two months before Reno's\nsion violence imitates real world violence,\ntestimony, the American Psychological Associa-\nnot the other way around, and that attempts\ntion issued a major report on the research on\nto \"mess around with anybody's views,\nviolence involving children and young people.8\nopinions, thoughts, words\" were far more\n[See Box 1.] Its conclusions regarding the risks to\ndangerous than any effects of TV violence:\nchildren and to society from television violence\n\"I know you don't like the fact that Beavis\nare unequivocal.\nand Butthead play with matches, Ms. Reno.\nLittle reportorial initiative would have been\nBut you're playing with fire.'\nneeded to refer, in covering Reno's testimony, to\nAn editorial in the Chicago Tribune con-\nthe research surveyed in the A.P.A. report -\ncluded that \"Americans who think TV\nresearch on which she expressly drew in prepar-\ning her remarks. Nor would it have been difficult\nviolence is dangerous have the simple option\nof turning it off, which is fine. What isn't\nto report on remaining disagreements among\nexperts. These differences rarely concern the\nSissela Bok 1\n03/06/96 WED 14:21 FAX 202 482 1635\n005\npossibility, now widely acknowledged, of harm\nThe disagreements concern, rather, what propor-\nto children from exposure to television violence.\ntion of children are affected by exposure to TV\nAnd the claims, advanced in the 1960's, that\nviolence, in what ways, and to what extent; the\nexposure to television violence could actually\ndegree to which other factors, such as witnessing\nrender viewers less aggressive through some\nviolence in the home, contribute to the likeli-\nform of catharsis, have since been discredited 10\nhood of children being adversely affected by\nexposure to TV violence; the degree to which\nEXCERPTS: \"VIOLENCE\nsuch effects are temporary or lasting in nature;\nAND YOUTH,\" AMERICAN\nand the degree to which they are related to\nPSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION\naggressive conduct and greater acceptance of\nThere is absolutely no doubt that higher\nviolence later in life.\nlevels of viewing violence on television are\ncorrelated with increased acceptance of\naggressive attitudes and increased aggres-\nCHILDREN'S EXPOSURE TO\nsive behavior. /.../\nTELEVISION VIOLENCE\nChildren's exposure to violence in the\nNearly 4 decades of research on televi-\nmass media, particularly at young ages, can\nsion viewing and other media have docu-\nhave harmful lifelong consequences.\nmented the almost universal exposure of\nAggressive habits learned early in life are\nAmerican children to high levels of media\nthe foundation for later behavior. Aggres-\nviolence. Ninety-eight percent of American\nsive children who have trouble in school\nhomes have at least one television, which is\nand in relating to peers tend to watch more\nwatched for an average of 28 hours by\ntelevision; the violence they see there, in\nchildren between the ages of 2 and 11 and\nturn, reinforces their tendency toward\nfor 23 hours by teenagers. Children from\nlow-income families are the heaviest\naggression, compounding their academic\nwatchers of television.\nand social failure. These effects are both\nshort-term and long-lasting: A longitudinal\nBefore finishing grade school, the average\nstudy of boys found a significant relation\nchild will already have watched, on the\nbetween exposure to television violence at\naverage, 8000 murders and 100,000 acts of\n8 years of life and anti-social acts includ-\nviolence on TV.12\ning serious violent criminal offenses and\nspouse abuse 22 years later.\nChildren tend to watch equal quantities\nof daytime and prime time television\nIn addition to increasing violent behav-\nprograms and make up 6 percent of the\niors toward others, viewing violence on\nviewing audience even after 10:30 p.m.¹³\ntelevision changes attitudes and behaviors\ntoward violence in significant ways. Even\nEven two-year-olds in America are\nthose who do not themselves increase their\nestimated to spend, on the average, 60 days\nviolent behaviors are significantly affected\na year in front of the TV set.\nby their viewing of violence in three ways:\nThe level of violence on commercial\nViewing violence increases fear of becom-\ntelevision has remained constant during\ning a victim of violence, with a resultant\nnearly two decades. In prime time, there are\nincrease in self-protective behaviors and\nfive to six violent acts [on average] per hour;\nincreased mistrust of others;\nthere are 20 to 25 violent acts per hour on\nSaturday morning children's programs. /.../\nViewing violence increases desensitiza-\nMore graphic violence, sexual content, and\ntion to violence, resulting in calloused\nmature themes are readily accessible in the\nattitudes toward violence directed at\n60 percent of homes in which cable televi-\nothers and a decreased likelihood to take\nsion and VCRs are available.¹⁵\naction on behalf of the victim when\nviolence occurs (behavioral apathy); and\nTo document these controversies, reporters\nViewing violence increase viewers'\ncould have taken a second look at the proceed-\nappetites for becoming involved with\nings of a landmark conference on television\nviolence or exposing themselves to\nviolence held in Beverly Hills in August 1993.\nviolence.\nThis was the first time that scholars, politicians,\n2 TV Violence. Children. and the Press: Eight Rationales Inhibiting Public Policy Debates\n03/06/96\nWED\n21\nFAX\n202\n482\n1635\n006\nactors, and industry representatives met face to\nviolence in society, and 54% say they would\nface to exchange views about the effects of\nsupport government guidelines to limit the\ntelevision violence, the available research, and\namount of mayhem on TV.\nalternative policies to adopt. The brief press\nThe contrast between high levels of public\nreports at the time conveyed but the starkest\nconcern and weak public policy debates is\noutlines of conflicting positions; but journalists\nneither new nor uniquely attributable to inad-\nreferring to the C-SPAN transcript of portions of\nequate press coverage. Past commissions and\nthe proceedings would have had little difficulty\npanels of experts, even when appointed in the\nin finding more substantive analyses and policy\nwake of great public concern about violence in\nproposals.¹¹ Referring to them would also have\nsociety and on TV, have been short on policy\nhelped underline Reno's special concern with the\nproposals. They have tended, after careful\nrole of TV violence in the lives of children: a\nresearch and documentation, to bring forth only\nconcern that takes on added significance in the\nthe feeblest suggestions for dealing with the\nlight of the sheer amount of such violence that\nrisks that they have so amply documented.\nmany young children witness. [See Box 2.]\nThus, for example, the National Commission\non the Causes and Prevention of Violence,\nObstacles to Public Policy Debate\nappointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in\nNot all press coverage of the debates about\n1968, commissioned a report on the mass media\ntelevision violence, and about entertainment\nand violence. After a thorough review of the\nviolence more generally, is as spotty as much of\nevidence available at the time, the authors of\nwhat followed Reno's testimony or the earlier\nthis report concluded that it was probable that\nconference. Newsday, for example, presented\nmass media portrayals of violence were one\ndifferent viewpoints regarding the issues taken\nfactor that \"must be considered in attempts to\nup by Reno during the week following her\nexplain the many forms of violence that mark\ntestimony; earlier, The Boston Globe provided\nAmerican society today,\" and that television\nfront-page coverage to the August report on\nviolence in particular had the greatest potential\nViolence and Youth by the American Psycho-\nfor short and long term effects on audiences. 19\nlogical Association and has continued to cover\nThe \"television world of violence,\" the authors\nrelated issues in depth.¹⁶ Anyone with the time\nmaintained, is neither an accurate reflection of\nand resources to do a literature search could tum\nthe real world of violence as experienced by\nup thoughtful, informative articles on TV\nadult and teenage Americans, nor what the\nviolence in one newspaper or another over the\nmajority of adult and teenage Americans want;\nand it is dominated by norms for violence which\npast few years. Most readers, however, have no\naccess to such diverse sources; many live in\nare inconsistent with those espoused by these\ncitizens. 20 Yet the report's primary recommenda-\ncommunities with very limited news coverage in\nthe first place - let alone access to thorough\ntion for how to deal with this problem was only\ndiscussions of the problems related to TV vio-\nthat the mass media create a publicly sponsored\nand supported \"Center for Media Studies\" to\nlence. As a result, it is far harder than it need\nconduct further research about the matter.\notherwise be for informed public policy debates\nA quarter of a century later, in the spring of\nabout these problems to get under way.\n1993, a panel of experts issued a report on\nIn spite of such barriers to informed policy\nviolence for the National Academy of Sciences.\ndebate, public concern about the role of TV\nThe panel had commissioned yet another study\nviolence in our society is rising. A Times Mirror\nof the evidence to date of the role of TV violence,\nCenter survey reported, in March, 1993, that a\nthis time with much more extensive experience\nmajority of those interviewed in the survey\nand research on which to base their conclusions\nindicated that they thought there was too much\nThe authors of that study had concluded that\nviolence on TV and that this bothered them. An\n\"exposure to television violence resulted in\neven greater majority (80 percent in 1993 as\nincreased aggressive behavior, both contempora-\ncompared to 64 percent in 1983) felt that TV was\nneously and over time. \"21 Yet the panel men-\nharmful to society; and just 15 percent felt that\ntions no policy suggestions regarding exposure to\nTV was harmless in this respect. 17 In December,\nTV violence in its report; nor does it even\n1993, The Los Angeles Times reported on a\ninclude the neèd for further research about such\nsurvey according to which \"almost 4 out of 5\nexposure in its list of recommendations.\nAmericans believe violence in television pro-\nBy the fall of 1993, however, the climate of\ngrams directly contributes to the amount of\ndebate may have shifted more decisively than in\nSissela Bok 3\n03/06/96 WED 14:22 FAX 202 482 1635\n007\nthe past. It has been influenced by congressional\noften in the past, after a sputtering but inconclu-\nhearings in 1992 and 1993 by Senator Paul\nsive debate. If there is to be a more serious and\nSimon of Illinois, Congressman Edward Markey\ninformed public policy debate about these risks,\nof Massachusetts, and others, and in turn by\nthe press will have a crucial role to play. It will\ntestimony such as that by Attorney General\nneed to do a better job of providing the necessary\nReno. Ever more striking evidence of escalating\nbackground and analysis; but to do so, it will\nviolence on the part of and victimizing young\nhave to guard against overquick acceptance of\npeople has also led to a new determination to\ncertain commonplace but stunted lines of\ninquire into all the factors that might possibly\nreasoning that help short-circuit debate. Often\nplay a role in this slaughter of the young. [See\ncalled rationales, these lines of reasoning serve a\nBox 3.] It is becoming harder to ignore television\ndouble function: they offer simplistic reasons for\nnot entering into serious debate about a subject,\nVIOLENT CRIME\nand thus provide rationalizations for ignoring or\nAND THE YOUNG\nshielding ongoing practices from outside scru-\ntiny and interference. 30 When it comes to vio-\nArrests for violent crimes per 100,000\nlence on and off the TV screen, the following\nyouths age 10-17 went from 215.9 in 1970\nrationales are especially common:\nto 430.6 in 1990.\nThe rates of gun-related deaths among\nI. America has always been a violent nation\n15-19-year-olds, which had been rising\nand always will be: violence is as American as\ngradually through the late 1960's, kept on\ncherry pie.\ndoing so during the 1970's and early 1980's;\nП. Why focus the policy debate on TV vio-\nthen doubled from 1985 to 1990. 14\nlence when there are other more important\nfactors that contribute to violence?\nFor black teenage males, the firearm\nIII. How can you definitively pinpoint, and\nhomicide rate nearly tripled in that period,\nthus prove, the link between viewing TV vio-\nto 105.3 deaths per 100,000. Rates among\nlence and acts of real-life violence?\nwhite teenage boys also rose, though less\nIV. Television programs reflect existing\nrapidly, in that period, largely in the His-\nviolence in the \"real world.\" It would be unreal-\npanic community.25\nistic and a disservice to viewers as well as to\nHomicide is the second leading cause of\nsociety to attempt to wipe violence off the\ndeath of all persons 15-24 (auto crashes are\nscreen.\nthe first) and the leading cause among\nV. People can't even agree on how to define\nAfrican American youth. 26\n\"violence.\" How, then, can they go on to discuss\nIn 1992 the U.S. Surgeon General cited\nwhat to do about it?\nviolence as the leading cause of injury to\nVI. It is too late to take action against vio-\nwomen ages 15 to 44.²⁷\nlence on television, considering the plethora of\nvideo channels by which entertainment violence\nEvery school day: 100,000 students carry\nwill soon be available in homes.\nguns to school, 6,250 teachers are threat-\nVII. It should be up to parents, not to the\nened with injury, 260 are assaulted.\ntelevision industry, to monitor the programs that\n13 percent of all incidents involving guns\ntheir children watch.\nin schools occur in preschool and elemen-\nVIII. Any public policy to decrease TV vio-\ntary schools. 28\nlence constitutes censorship and represents an\nintolerable interference with free speech.\nviolence as one potential factor, linked not only\nAll eight of the rationales bring out points\nto the ravages of youth violence but to the still\nworth making. They represent natural forms of\nlarger toll taken by violence in American society\nhesitation and caution with respect to a cluster\nmore generally - a toll that is increasingly seen\nof problems many have come to think intrac-\nas constituting a public health crisis of epidemic\ntable. But all eight are taken too far when used to\nproportions.²⁹\ndismiss or foreshorten debate about television\nviolence. All fall especially short when used to\nEight Rationales\nset aside questions of how to deal with the risks\nThe heightened awareness of the risks associ-\nthat such violence poses to children.,\nated with TV violence may yet recede, as so\n4 TV Violence, Children. and the Press: Eight Rationales Inhibiting Public Policy Debates\n03/06/96\nWED\n14:22\nFAX\n202\n482\n1635\n008\nI. America always has been and always will be a\nbegun to provoke the amount of political engage-\nviolent nation: violence is as American as cherry\nment and public policy debate devoted to that\npie.\nwar.\nH. Rap Brown's metaphor has entered the\nThe rationale, finally, is singularly inappropri-\nvernacular. Many take it to be an accurate\nate when it comes to television violence, which\ncomment, looking at America's present levels of\nis, precisely, not as perennially American as\nviolence against the background of a history of\ncherry pie. It is only four and a half decades since\nslavery, frontier violence, labor strife, racial\na few American households acquired their first\nconflict, crime, and warfare domestic and inter-\ntelevision sets. By now, 98 percent of American\nnational. While this claim offers a reason for\nhouseholds have television, and many have\ntaking America's history of violence into ac-\nseveral sets in different rooms. Television is a\ncount in debates concerning all forms of contem-\npresence in children's lives from infancy on,\nporary violence, however, it cannot suffice for\nconsuming more hours each year than school.\nsetting aside the debates themselves. When it is\nThe amount and forms of violence to be found\nused to support such a conclusion, it becomes a\non television programs have also mounted to\nfalsely fatalistic rationalization. Just as \"slavery\nlevels that few could have predicted in the early\nis as American as cherry pie\" might have seemed\n1950's.\nto some all too accurate a characterization of\nA fatalistic rationale about our nation's\nAmerican society in 1850, it would have been\nimperviousness to change with respect to vio-\nsimilarly inadequate as a reason for believing\nlence may be a natural first reaction to the sense\nthat slavery could not be overcome.\nof the intractable nature of the problem. 33 It\nThe rationale invoking perennial American\nmay result, too, from a sense that we simply do\npatterns of violence, when used thus, helps\nnot know enough at present to be able to devise\ndeflect inquiry into explanations for present\nadequate policies in response. But as in the case\nlevels of violence and into contributing factors\nof slavery, such a rationale serves also as a\nand possible remedies. Historical references\nrationalization for doing nothing - as an excuse\nalone cannot account for the unprecedented\nby those who won't be bothered and a shield\nsharp rise in recent years in child and adolescent\nfor those in the weapons, entertainment, and\nviolence. [See Box 3.] Nor can they account,\nother industries with vested interests in the\nmore generally, for what a French researcher\nstatus quo.\ncalls \"the very special case of the United States\"\nwhen it comes to homicide: the fact that its\nII. Why focus the policy debate on TV violence\nhomicide rate is now between four and ten times\nwhen there are other more important factors that\nhigher than other industrialized nations, with\ncontribute to violence?\ncorrespondingly disproportional levels of rape,\nThis is a natural first reaction to expressions\nchild abuse, and every other form of violence³¹,\nof concern about the role of TV violence in\nIn 1962, America's homicide rate had come\nAmerican society, especially for anyone con-\ndown to 4.5 per 100,000 from 6.9 per 100,000 in\nvinced that TV violence is dwarfed by some one\n1946, following the downward patterns of other\nother causal factor such as poverty, family\nindustrializing nations; it then began a prolonged\nbreakdown, the availability of firearms, or\nupward move to reach 9.4 per 100,000 in 1972. 32\nsubstance abuse. Why not begin with what is\nCresting in the early 1980's, then resuming its\ntruly important, rather than waste time and\nclimb after a downward turn, the homicide rate\nenergy on the contents of TV programming?\nwas over 10 per 100,000 in the United States in\nPerhaps TV violence is even a scapegoat, \"much\n1991, compared to 2 in England, 1.8 in Germany\neasier to attack,\" in the words of the director\nand 1.2 in Japan.\nMichael Mann, \"than the imponderables of why\nThe power of this rationale and of the fatalism\nthere's 50 much violence in this culture.'\nthat it supports may help to explain why the\nSuch questions are valuable insofar as they\nhigh levels of violence which now mark daily\ncaution against undue stress on the one factor of\nlife in America have, so far, generated nothing\nTV violence alone, or, indeed, on any one other\nlike the determination to bring about change\nfactor by itself 35 There is clearly reason to\nengendered by the Vietnam War. Even though\naddress the role of each and every factor that\nmore Americans died of gunshot wounds alone\nmay contribute to violence. To concentrate only\nduring 1986 and 1987 (or any other two years in\non TV violence, in an effort to understand\nthe past decade) than in the eight and a half years\nviolence in America more generally, would be\nof that war, this domestic bloodshed has not\nnot only mistaken but dangerous, in that it\nSissela Bok 5\n03/06/96\nWED\n14:23\nFAX\n202\n482\n1635\n009\nwould allow neglect of other, often more direct\nattributed in part to acculturation, including\ncauses of violence.\ntelevision modeling: the rate of arrests for\nBut this second rationale is itself mistaken,\nserious crime (such as murder, rape, robbery and\nand indeed dangerous, when it is used to block\naggravated assault) by children under fifteen had\nany concern with TV violence (or with any other\nincreased by 11,000 percent between 1950, when\nrisk factor such as family breakdown or firearm\nTV was in its infancy, and 1979; since then it has\navailability) until all other factors linked to\nshot up still further.\nsocietal violence have been adequately dealt\nSo long as a focus on entertainment violence\nwith. We do not usually address complex,\nis not seen as the only one needed, moreover, the\nmultidimensional human problems in this\nclaim that it represents \"an easy way out\" and is\nmanner. Take heart disease: few critics maintain\ntherefore undesirable is beside the point. Why\nthat, just because a number of risk factors such\nnot work at the easier as well as at the harder\nas smoking or heredity or cholesterol contribute\naspects of the problem? It will doubtless be\nto the prevalence of this disease, there is reason\neasier to reduce the harmful effects of TV vio-\nnot to focus on any one of them. On the con-\nlence on young children than to affect the\ntrary, research and inquiry have to continue\nconsequences, say, of family breakdown or\nregarding each one, including those of lesser\ndomestic violence. Far fewer persons are required\nmagnitude\nto bring about changes in television program-\nIn the past few years, scholars, advocates,\nming than to reduce poverty, addiction, and\nphysicians, and government officials working to\nother social ills that burden many families in\naddress problems of violence have increasingly\nAmerica. It is urgent to work to alleviate all of\ncome to view them, too, from a public health\nthese ills; but there is no reason to delay bringing\nperspective, as has long been the case with heart\nabout change in television programming until\ndisease, cancer, and other major causes of death\nthis work has been carried out.\nand disability. It is a perspective that allows the\nThe second rationale serves a useful purpose,\nmost wide-ranging and integrated exploration of\nthen, insofar as it warns against a unique focus\nthe incidence of different forms of violence, of\non any one factor such as that of television\npossible risk factors, and of approaches to pre-\nviolence. But it functions as a rationalization as\nvention. 36 Such a public health perspective\nsoon as it is used, instead, to ignore the risks\nserves as a refreshing antidote to any urge either\nfrom TV violence or to draw attention away\nto address complex problems in terms of only\nfrom it; and, as with the first rationale, it can,\none risk factor or to dismiss concern with any\nthus used, help to prolong silence and inaction\none factor on the grounds that it is not the only\nwith respect to the problem of TV violence as\none or even the most significant one. In the\nwell as to shield those who have the most to\nabsence of such a differentiated perspective, it\ngain from such programming.\nwill remain tempting to counter concerns about\nentertainment violence by conjuring up improb-\nIII. How can you definitively pinpoint, and thus\nable one-dimensional scenarios - as in Sam\nprove, the link between viewing TV violence and\nDonaldson asking whether people \"watch\nacts of real-life violence?\nmovies, then grab their guns to go out to do\nThis question challenges the assumption that\nmayhem.\"3\"\nexposure to television violence constitutes a risk\nEven if there were no TV violence, this would\nfactor in the first place. It is a challenge familiar\nobviously not wipe out the problem of violence\nfrom the debates concerning the risks associated\nin the U.S. The same can be said for poverty,\nwith tobacco smoking. Representatives of the\ndrug addiction, the proliferation of firearms, and\ntobacco industry hold that since, in their opin-\neach of the other risk factors. As Dr. Deborah\nion, there has been no conclusive proof of a\nProthrow-Stith puts it, \"It's not an either or. It's\ncausal link between tobacco and lung cancer,\nnot guns or media or parents or poverty \"38 All\nthere is no reason to take action against smok-\ncontribute to the problem of violence in\ning, nor any moral reason for curtailing sales\nAmerica. And yet television serves in a unique\nefforts at home and abroad. [See Box 4 for an\nway to acculturate Americans to violence.\nexample of such claims.]\nChildren learn by imitation; and television\nMedia representatives similarly claim that\nprovides ample models of persons who seem to\nuntil conclusive proof can be produced that TV\npersonify the power, the brutality, and, too often,\nviolence causes harm to viewers and indirect\nthe imputed glamor of violence. To mention\nharm to third parties, there is no reason to\nbut one set of societal changes that have been\nconsider public policy measures to reduce the\n6\nTV\nViolence.\nChildren\n010\n03/06/96\nWED\n23\nFAX\n202\n482\n1635\nto a particular child's desensitization with\nSMOKING AND DISEASE:\nrespect to violence or provided believable models\nA DISCLAIMER\nfor aggressive conduct. The same is true when it\nSwom testimony with Andrew Tisch,\ncomes to the links between tobacco smoking and\nchairman and chief executive of Lorillard\ncancer, between drunk driving and automobile\nTobacco Company, taken by Stanley\naccidents, and many other risk factors presenting\nRosenblatt, an attorney representing a\npublic health hazards. Yet our inability to carry\ngroup of flight attendants in a class-action\nout such pinpointing has not stood in the way of\nlawsuit against leading cigarette makers:\ndiscussing and promoting efforts to curtail\ncigarette smoking and drunk driving; it is not\nQ. As far as you're concerned, Mr. Tisch,\nclear, therefore, why it should block such efforts\nas the chairman and chief executive officer\nwhen it comes to TV violence.4\nof Lorillard, this warning on the package\nAn approach to causation more commonly\nwhich says that smoking causes lung\nused in considering how to counter public health\ncancer, heart disease and emphysema is\nhazards is that of probabilistic causation. It is\ninaccurate? You don't believe that is true?\nnot necessary that a factor, such as the cigarette\nA. That's correct.\nsmoking that is thought to play a causal role\nwith respect to lung cancer, produce that effect\nQ. Because if you believed it were true,\nin all or even most cases, nor that it be the only\nin good conscience you wouldn't sell this to\nor the greatest cause of that effect, but only that\nAmericans, would you, or foreigners for\nit \"increases the incidence of the effect for a\nthat matter?\npopulation and increases the likelihood of the\nA. That's correct.\neffect in an individual case.\"\" Using the same\napproach for TV violence, the link between such\nviolence and the incidence of violent acts in real\nharm linked with exposure of children to violent\nlife need not be individually pinpointed -\nprograms.\nsomething that would be as hard to do for TV\nOnce more, such arguments serve a double\nviolence as for cigarette smoking, considering\npurpose. They function as reasons, first of all, to\nthe years that it takes for the most serious\nexamine with scrupulous care the evidence held\neffects to come to evidence.\nto support claims that TV violence harms\nAn important question that a public policy\nchildren, desensitizing many of them to violence\ndebate has to take up concerns, therefore, the\nand rendering them more fearful and distrustful\nlevels of certainty regarding causative factors and\nof others, and that exposure to such violence is\nthe amounts and kinds of victimization that\ncorrelated with increased aggressive behavior. It\nwould count as posing risks large enough for\nis clearly the case that more needs to be done to\ndebating forceful and concerted responses. How\nscrutinize different research designs, sampling\ncertain must we be of risks to large numbers of\nmethods, and possible biases of studies support-\npeople before discussing what action to take?\ning such claims, and to ask about the steps of\nWhile it will always be difficult to produce\nreasoning leading from particular research\nspecific numbers of persons who have been\nfindings to conclusions.\nvictimized by any one of the risk factors at stake\nBut the arguments also serve as rationaliza-\nin America's exceptional levels of violence,\ntions as soon as they are used to dismiss existing\ndifferent approximate estimates have been made.\nresearch and to disparage public concern as\nBrandon S. Centerwall, a Washington, D.C.\nalarmist until conclusive proof has been\npsychiatrist, has concluded from large-scale\nachieved. To ask for some demonstrable pin-\nepidemiological studies of homicide in America\npointing of just when and how TV violence\nand abroad, that \"if, hypothetically, television\naffects individual children for the worse before\ntechnology had never been developed, [v]iolent\ndebating public policy sets a dangerously high\ncrime would be half of what it now is. 1143 If so,\nthreshold for what is to count as adequate\nthere would be 10,000 fewer homicides today, he\njustification in such debates. It would require\nsuggests, 70,000 fewer rapes, and 700,000 fewer\nknowledge about the physical and psychólogical\ninjurious assaults. Others have estimated that\ndevelopment of individuals so detailed as to be\ntelevision programs may contribute incremen-\nunattainable. We may never be able to trace,\ntally to ten percent of violent crime. 11 Clearly,\nretrospectively, the specific moments at which\nhowever, even a lower estimate - say five\nand reasons for which TV violence contributed\npercent - ought to be taken into account in\nSissela Bok 7\n03/06/96 WED 14:24 FAX 202 482 1635\n011\nconsidering the level of certainty desired before\nfor temporizing about debating even the most\naction is taken against damage traced to the\nexploitative programs. With respect to news-\neffects of television violence.\ncasting, first of all, the rationale papers over the\nIV. Television programs reflect existing violence\nconcern increasingly felt in media circles con-\nin the \"real world.\" It would be unrealistic and a\ncerning the blurring of the line between news\ndisservice to viewers as well as to society to\nand entertainment, in so called \"infotainment\nattempt to wipe violence off the screen.\nprogramming.\" And it fails to take into consider-\nAccording to this rationale, television vio-\nation the drift toward increasingly sensational-\nlence does not add to real world violence so\nized news programming that in no sense mirrors\nmuch as mirror it. Leaving it out of programs\nthe life of a community or society. \"If it bleeds,\nwould offer a saccharine and utterly false view of\nit leads\" is a familiar motto well worth question-\nreality that could not, in the long run, serve\ning. Disasters, fires, rapes, murders are now\neither individual or social needs. Newscasts, in\nbeing covered in proportions that bear no rela-\nparticular, report on military combat, bombard-\ntion to reality. As one report on television news\nment, arson, rape, murder, and other forms of\ncoverage in New York City put it,46\nviolence throughout daytime and evening hours.\nAnother night, another nightmare.\nWouldn't reporters deny their primary purpose if\nthey consented to sugarcoat the news or blot out\nThe teenage killer gives way to the subway\nslasher. The mob slaying segues into a spot on\nthe uglier facets of history in the making? What\nkids with guns. The face of a weeping mother\nwould it say about us as viewers if we main-\ndissolves into a close-up of a blood-stained shirt.\ntained that we would be better off not knowing\nHouse fires become \"raging infernos.\" Traffic\nabout the ethnic cleansing in ex-Yugoslavia or\nsnarls. Kids fall out of windows. Babies die in\nthe starvation in Somalia? To water down news\nrandom shootings. Manhunts are commonplace.\nprograms benefiting all citizens because of\npossible effects on child viewers would surely be\nWelcome to New York. Day after day, from 4\np.m. to midnight, at almost any time, the\na betrayal of journalistic integrity. It would\nnation's largest city is probed, poked, tossed and\ndeprive society of information indispensable to\nturned in quick-cut images projected to a\nunderstanding world events, and so make\npotential viewership of some 18 million people,\npossible errors and abuses that could turn out to\na population about the size of Iraq's.\nbe far costlier than any damage to television\nviewers.\nIn more than 80 interviews over several\nweeks, journalists, scholars, and other New\nThe most horrifying image sequences, more-\nYorkers, ranging from janitors to teachers to\nover, sometimes serve to mobilize public opin-\ncorporate executives, described New York - as\nion as little clse can, as when television coverage\nportrayed by television - as a grim wasteland\nbrought the famine and slaughter in Somalia to\nthat bears almost no relation to their lives. The\nthe world's attention. What is wrong with news\ncity thus exposed is a sustained scream, a\ncoverage of crises around the world is not that it\nbloodied mess.\nexposes inhumanity and victimization and the\nanguish of mourners, but rather that it does not\nWhatever the \"real world\" is that the fourth\nalways do so completely enough or in a suffi-\nrationale claims that television reflects, such\nciently fairminded way. It is not that we should\nnews coverage clearly conveys but distorted and\nnot learn about the horrors perpetrated in\ndisjointed aspects of it. The metaphor of mirror-\nSomalia, but that we do not also learn about\ning is even less apt when it comes to entertain-\nequally extensive suffering in the Sudan and\nment violence. The amount of televised homi-\nelsewhere. Amartya Sen has pointed out that\ncide, rape, arson, and torture bears no relation to\ngreat famines such as that of 1958-61 China, in\nthe frequency with which these actually occur.\nwhich close to 30 million people are estimated\nAnd while industry representatives may speak of\nto have perished, have only taken place in\ntelevision mirroring the real world, many pro-\nsocieties in which there is no free press to\nducers and writers would disown such a com-\npublicize such developments.\nparison as inconsistent with the creative free-\nThe rationale, thus interpreted, offers persua-\ndom they require. For some, the opposite claim\nsive reasons against any blanket rejection of\nis closer to the truth: that their productions\nprojections of violence on the television screen.\ndiffer so radically and so self-evidently from\nBut if it, in turn, is taken as a blanket rejection\nreality that viewers could not reasonably respond\nof all criticism of levels and forms of televised\nto the violence they contain as if it were in any\nviolence, it serves, instead, as a rationalization\nway connected to their lives. As Joel Silver, the\n8 TV Violence, Children, and the Press: Eight Rationales Inhibiting Public Policy Debates\n03/06/96 WED 14: 25 FAX 202 482 1635\n012\nproducer of the blockbuster \"Die Hard,\" \"Lethal\nsleep under the bed to dodge real bullets or\nWeapon,\" and \"Predator\" films, said, in response\nattempt to screen out the violent fights of his or\nto criticisms when his film \"Lethal Weapon 3\"\nher care-givers.51\nopened two weeks after the April 1992 Los\nAngeles riots:\nBecause children tend to watch equal quanti-\nties of daytime and prime time programs and\n\"I mean it's a western, it's entertaining, it's good\nmake up 6 percent of the viewing audience even\nguys versus bad guys. In that scene in The\nafter 10:30 p.m, they are hardly insulated from\nSearchers' when John Wayne went after all those\nviolence-drenched programs held to be specifi-\nIndians, was that genocide? Was that racist?\ncally aimed at older viewers; still less from the\nWhen James Bond dropped the guy in a pond of\nsensationalized, concentrated violence of\npiranhas, and he says, 'Bon appetit,' we loved\nthat. That's a great moment. Movies are not\n\"promos\" for violent night time programs or\nreal.\nmovies, since such commercials are often run\nrepeatedly during sports programs and other\nSilver's movies and others like them are\nprograms that appeal to young audiences, at times\ncommon fare on television. The notion that the\nincluding children's shows.⁵²\nviolence they portray is not real to viewers is as\nAs a result, even young children are exposed,\nnaive as the metaphor of violent television\nbefore they are in any position to distinguish fact\nprograms passively reflecting reality. When used\nfrom fantasy, to amounts and levels of violence\nto ward off debate, both notions function as\nmore brutalizing than many adults - parents,\nmutually reinforcing, however inconsistent,\nscript writers, and TV producers among them -\nrationalizations. They downplay, in so doing, the\nrealize. The extremes of violence in some televi-\nintense, unmediated, and far from passive reality\nsion programs are known to affect not only\nthat television violence has assumed for many\nchildren but to be cited by adolescents and adults\nviewers.\ncarrying out so-called \"copy-cat\" rapes, serial\nChildren, in particular, cannot distinguish\nkillings, and other forms of assault. 53 James\nbetween the reality of the violence they see on\nGilligan, 3 psychiatrist who has studied mass\nand off the screen. They are unable, through at\nmurderers, has concluded that certain violent TV\nleast the age of three or four, to distinguish fact\nprograms in America are no less sadistic than the\nand fantasy. Even older children rarely manage to\nfilms used by the SS to desensitize and indoctri-\nkeep \"real life\" violence and vicarious violence in\nnate Nazi torture squads and death camp guards.⁵\nwatertight compartments. The psychologist\nViewers of all ages, moreover, far from experi-\nLeonard Eron has found that children who are\nencing television as somehow either utterly cut\nless successful in school watch more television\noff from reality or as passively mirroring it, know\nand that they:\nthat it addresses them actively - as consumers,\nas citizens, as moral agents - for better or worse.\nprefer the more violent shows; they identify more\nThey know, too, that this influence goes in both\nwith television characters; and they believe that\ndirections, and that news coverage mediates, in\nthe violence they observe on television reflects\nthis process, between the \"real world\" and\nreal life. They are exposed to more violence and\nentertainment programs. Those who produce or\nhave more opportunity to learn aggressive acts.49\notherwise shape violent television programs can\nbe guided by and sometimes learn from real-life\nChildren are especially likely to conclude that\ncrimes of violence covered in news programs, just\ntelevision violence reflects real life if they also\nas persons prone to or contemplating acts of\nhave personal experience of violence in their\nviolence can model themselves on and learn new\nfamily or neighborhood. For them, the violence\ntechniques from television programs. The claim\nthat they witness around them reinforces the\nby scholars and others urging more careful,\nrealism that they attribute to the violence they\nanalytical debate about TV violence is that it is\nsee enacted on the screen; and their view of the\nworth asking how and when such forms of\nworld around them is in turn strongly influenced\nreciprocal learning takes place and what, if\nby what they see on television. 50 As the authors\nanything, makes it escalate.\nof an article on children who witness violence\nput it:\nV. People can't even agree on how to define\n\"violence.\" How, then, can they go on to discuss\nThe young child's attempts to master the age-\nwhat to do about it?\nappropriate fears of monsters under the bed are\nOne of the quickest ways to short-circuit\nseverely undermined when the child needs to\nserious reflection about TV violence or any other\nSissela Bok 9\n03/06/96 WED 14:25 FAX 202 482 1635\n013\nform of violence is to employ some version of\ninjury. Agreement on such a core definition\nthe \"definitional fallacy\": to insist that it is\noffers a basis for discussing the effects on chil-\nimpossible to define violence specifically enough\ndren of watching the rapes, shootings, and\nfor policy debates. Just as the claim that \"one\ndisgorgements that constitute daily TV fare.57\nman's terrorist is another man's freedom\nWith such 3 basis, it is then possible to\nfighter,\" if left unexamined, does much to delay\nconsider further whether the relevant definition\nserious discussion of political violence, so \"one\nof violence should include further distinctions:\nviewer's violence is another's dramatic action\"\nthose, for instance, between intentional harm\nhas a superficially plausible ring that invites\nand unintended or negligent actions resulting in\ndiscussants to give up in confusion rather than\nsuch harm, between actions and omissions\nattempt a search for a common definition.\nleading to harm; between harm done only to\nIf we refused to debate topics because of\npersons and to non-human living beings and/or\ndoubts or disagreements about definitions, we\nproperty; between harm done to others and to\nwould have little to talk about. The philosopher\noneself, as in self-mutilation or suicide; between\nJohn Searle has pointed out that \"one of the\nharm that is unwanted by the recipient and\nmost important insights of recent work in the\ndesired harm as by penitents or masochists; and\nphilosophy of language [has been that] most non-\nbetween unlawful or unauthorized harm and\ntechnical concepts in ordinary language lack\nharm inflicted in accordance with laws of the\nabsolutely strict rules\" according to which one\nparticular society in which it takes place, such as\ncan definitely state when they do and do not\nhangings or electrocutions.⁵⁸\napply.5 This is as true of concepts such as\nIt turns out, however, that most such distinc-\npromising or lying as of killing and other forms\ntions are largely beside the point when it comes\nof violence. All present problems of line-draw-\nto the effect on small children of exposure to\ning. Yet with respect to none would it make\nviolence. A three- or four-year-old is unlikely, in\nsense to postpone analysis and debate until\nviewing a series of killings, to sort out the degree\ncomplete agreement had been reached on defini-\nto which they are intended, or to react differ-\ntions and line-drawing questions.\nently depending on whether the killings are\nTo be sure, the case is different when it comes\ninflicted on animals or human beings or\nto specific proposals for a system of rating\nwhether they are carried out by human beings or,\nviolent programs or for limiting the types and\nindeed, by animals, monsters, robots, or other\ndegrees and amounts of violence in particular\ncreatures.\nprograms or at specified times of day. At such\nCartoons generate especially frequent debates\ntimes, definitions of what is to count as vio-\nin this regard. Should it count as violence when,\nlence, gratuitous violence, and the like must be\nfor instance, Donald Duck is dropped off a\nestablished, along with procedures for resolving\nmountain top or flattened by a rock, only to\ndifferences of view. Much can be learned, in this\nrecover right away and be ready for new punish-\nregard, by comparing the definitions and the\nments? Such acts are counted as violent in\nprocedures used in the rating systems already in\nmany studies of children's programs, which then\nplace with respect to motion pictures in America\nconclude that these programs are proportionately\nand abroad, as well as by comparing the rules\nmore saturated with violence than adult ones:\nlimiting violent television programming in\nthat they contain more acts of overt, physical\ndifferent nations.\nuses of power that hurt or kill and a higher\nInsofar as the fifth rationale reminds us of the\npercentage of characters engaging in such acts,\ndifficulties in drawing distinctions between\nas well as of victims, than prime time TV\ntypes, degrees, and amounts of violence, it offers\nprograms.59\na reason to proceed with caution when it comes\nThese comparisons strike many as odd.\nto legislation. But it is patently in error and\nCartoon violence is, after all, meant to be\nserves instead as a rationalization as soon as it is\nhumorous; and long before television, comic\nused to undercut discussion of any and all efforts\nbooks and marionettes and theatre groups offered\nto deal with the effects on children of exposure\nsimilar fare to spectators. Such violence is\nto television violence. Consider the Oxford\ntherefore usually thought harmless by the adults\nEnglish Dictionary's core definition of violence\nwho produce and present the programs and by\nas \"the exercise of physical force so as to inflict\nmany parents. But George Gerbner of the Uni-\ninjury or damage to persons or property. It is\nversity of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School of\nhard to think of anyone whose preferred defini-\nCommunication, who has conducted a number\ntion of violence would not cover at least such\nof comparative studies of TV violence, suggests\n03/06/96 WED 14:26 FAX 202 482 1635\n014\nthat cartoon violence, presented hour after hour,\nsometimes difficult to regulate, yet few propose\ndoes have cumulative demoralizing and desensi-\ngiving up on measures to control them on such\ntizing effects ori the young children most fre-\ngrounds. It is now more urgent than ever to\nquently exposed to it; and that humor becomes\nconsider how to act to stem the flow of televised\n\"a sugar coating that makes the pill of violence\nviolence, and to set standards, establish prece-\ngo down much more easily [so that] it gets\ndents, gain experience to use in protecting\nintegrated into one's framework of knowledge.\"60\nchildren before it becomes still more difficult to\nControversies of this nature are best resolved\ndo so.\nby looking with care at the evidence adduced for\nData from other countries may be helpful in\nthe harmful or innocuous effects of viewing such\nshowing how they cope with a large part of the\ndepictions of violence as compared to others.\nviolent output possible by means of modern\nToo often, however, those who think that most\nmedia, and how they consider children's inter-\ncartoons contain nothing that should count as\nests through a number of coordinated measures.\nviolence take such a disagreement over how to\nAdmittedly, no society will be able to anticipate\ndefine its boundaries as proof that no further\nevery new avenue whereby children will be\ndebate is possible. Here again, the fifth rationale\nplaced at risk. But many nations, including\nusefully points to reasons for caution about\nEngland, France, Australia, Germany, Sweden,\nproblematic or disputed definitions; but when it\nand Canada, have controls in place that cut back\nis used to postpone debate until there is agree-\nsubstantially on the flood of violence that would\nment on every definitional controversy, it\notherwise be reaching young children.6\nfunctions, also, as a rationalization: both for\nIn Canada, the private television broadcasters\nthose who simply wish to avoid considering the\nhave recently instituted a new, tougher TV\nproblem and for those who want to carry on with\nviolence code.6 Undertaken on a voluntary\npractices, such as the production or dissemina-\nbasis in cooperation with the Canadian Radio-\ntion of especially violent TV programs, that\nTelevision and Telecommunications Commis-\nmight otherwise be targeted by a public debate.\nsion, it drew on \"more than a year of intense\nVI. It is too late to take action against violence\ndiscussions generated by growing public concern\non television, considering the plethora of video\nand the Commission's May 1992 release of two\nchannels by which entertainment violence will\nmajor reports on TV violence. The Canadian\nsoon be available in homes.\napproach presents a model for other societies to\nThis rationale, like the others, has a point.\nstudy as they seek to respond to public concern\nThe task of curbing TV violence is daunting.\nand to facilitating widespread debate about\npublic policy measures to deal with media\nStrong vested interests- commercial, cultural,\nand intellectual - guard against the slightest\nviolence. It is a model, too, for how to work at\nchange in this regard. Violent programs, many of\nbuilding consensus and exploring alternative\nwhich are thought too raw for network televi-\npolicies without being sidetracked by the ration-\nsion, are already transmitted through a growing\nales discussed in this paper. With respect to the\nnumber of TV and cable channels. If it has been\nsixth rationale in particular, the Canadian\nso difficult to take action in the past, why should\napproach shows the advantages of partial im-\nprovements over doing nothing: not only in\nanyone imagine that such action would be likely\ncutting back substantially on the amount of\nto succeed in the future, when there will soon be\nso many more ways for violent programs to enter\nviolence reaching children but also in making\npossible broader changes once the societal\nAmerican homes? The time for trying to stem\nthe flow of violence into the lives of children\nburden of media violence is brought home to all\nwho play a role in its production.\nmay have already past.\nAmerica's media may be the freest in the\nAnd yet the rationale offers but a flimsy basis\nworld of any government constraint on, or\nfor closing off the discussion of how and where\nregulation of, their content. The combination of\nto begin tackling this problem. It would be\nunconscionable to abandon the search for ways\nthis lack of restraint with commercial financing\nof most television programming may have led to\nto cope with this problem, given its seriousness,\na particularly violent brand of TV.65 The fact that\nmerely on the grounds that there may come to\nthe television networks are not the only avenues\nbe ever more numerous sources and channels of\nwhereby violent television programs reach\nviolent television. After all, air and water\nchildren is hardly sufficient to abandon the\npollution, too, continue to spring from increas-\nsearch for responses to the risk that such pro-\ningly numerous sources and to spread in ways\ngrams pose to children and to society.\nSissela Bok 11\n015\n03/06/96\nWED\n14:26\nFAX\n202\n482\n1635\nVII. It should be up to parents, not to the televi-\nhas seemed a made to order baby sitter for\nsion industry, to monitor the programs that their\nparents often tired from longer work hours than\nchildren watch.\nin the past and with less time to spare for chil-\nA common argument against any form of\ndren. Baby sitters, in turn, rely heavily on TV to\npublic pressure or government control to cut\nhelp entertain the children in their charge. Year\nback on television violence is that this addresses\nby year, research has shown that the time\nthe problem at the wrong point: at the source\nparents spend with their children has been\nrather than at the receiving end. Television\ndeclining, from 30 hours a week 25 years ago to\ncommentator Jeff Greenfield put the argument as\n17 hours a week now.68 The time that families\nfollows, at an August 1993 conference on TV\ncurrently do spend together, moreover, is often\nviolence: \"Are we in fact saying that since\nspent, precisely, in watching television.\nparents - many - have abdicated their respon-\nOnce the risks to children are clearly estab-\nsibility, we're going to ask the television pro-\nlished and publicized, however, as has been the\ngrammers to do - replace the irreplaceable?\"66\ncase with lead paint, asbestos, and firecrackers\nWhy should this task not devolve directly on\nand, as most would argue, is now the case with\nthose who are responsible for their children's\nviolent television and young children, it no\nwell-being - parents or other adults in a house-\nlonger makes sense for producers to claim that it\nhold? As Ted Herbert, president of the enter-\nis not up to them but only to parents to shield\ntainment division of ABC put it, adults can\ntheir children from the risks in question. True,\nhandle TV programs like NBC's \"Between Love\nparents have a strong responsibility. But toy\nand Hate\" that ends with a youth firing six\nmanufacturers do not get far if they make such\nbullets into his former lover, but children\nan argument about dangerous toys. And the drug\ncannot:\nindustry is required to childproof packagings of\nmedicines children could otherwise accidentally\nThis will sound like a paradox, but I don't\ningest. In all such cases, claims that the whole\nbelieve we have to program the network and\nabsolve parents of responsibility, as if it were\nburden of protecting children be put on parents\nour problem and not the parents' problem.\nwould be quickly rejected.\nParents have to be responsible for what their\nIn addition, while it is clear that it is part of\nkids watch.\nthe responsibility of parents to do what they can\nto protect their children from harm, and that\nHere, too, the rationale has a point. It focuses\nmany parents fail to do so, the fact is that many\nattention on the genuine failure on the part of\nparents are not even at home during much of\nmany parents to protect their children from the\nthe time when their children watch television.\ndesensitizing and brutalizing effects of violence\nAlready in 1974, 50 percent of American chil-\non TV. It is indeed their responsibility to do their\ndren had no adult at home when they came\nbest to protect their children thus, once they\nhome from school. In 1993, it's closer to 80\nrecognize the nature of these risks. Most parents\npercent in many communities.69 And American\nwould surely shield their children, to the extent\nchildren, unlike those in most other industrial-\nthey were able to, from witnessing actual mur-\nized societies, are at school only 180 days a year.\nder, torture, rape, and other mayhem; but even\nToo many of these children, moreover, live in\nwhen they are at home and able to control what\nneighborhoods where it has become too danger-\ntheir children watch from babyhood on up, it\nous for them to play out of doors. As one ten-\ndoes not occur to large numbers of American\nyear-old put it:70\nparents to do the same with respect to the\nI used to hang out with my friends after school.\ngraphic violence their children observe on\nMost of the time, we just acted stupid on the\ntelevision.\ncorner but that got dangerous and our moms said\nThe failure of many parents to exercise\nto quit it and come home. In this city, wear your\nresponsibility has been reinforced by lack of\nhat the wrong way and you are dead. Now, I go\nadequate information about the risks to children\nhome and watch TV and sleep. I get scared all by\nfrom violent TV. The same was once true with\nmyself, even though Mom says there's nothing\nrespect to the risks to children from lead paint,\nto be afraid of in the day.\nasbestos, and firecrackers. Not until recently has\nI would make a place for kids called My Father's\nviolent TV come to be mentioned as a factor in\nHome. It would be a love place where's there's\nthe growing public health hazard of societal, and\nno killing. They'd have stuff for me to do. Lift\nin particular youth, violence. Rather, television\nweights, eat snacks, play games.\n12 TV Violence, Children, and the Press: Eight Rationales\n016\n03/06/96 WED 14:27 FAX 202 482 1635\nI'd have beds at My Father's Home, like in a\nbility on parents for what their children are\ndormitory. Kids could sleep there in the summer\nallowed to see. To buttress their position,\nwhen people go crazy on the streets. Last year,\nbroadcasters turn to yet another rationale. It\nMama and me slept on the floor, praying not to\nget shot.\ncondemns proposals such as that for the V-chip\nas constituting censorship and, as one source put\nit, representing interference with \"the principles\nThe reality of which this boy speaks exposes\nof a free society.'\nthe specious nature of the seventh rationale.\nFear, poverty, killings on the streets, and severe\nVIII. Any public policy to decrease TV violence\ncutbacks in school, church, and community\nconstitutes censorship and represents an intoler-\nafter-school programs make TV watching one of\nable interference with free speech.\nthe few remaining \"safe\" activities for too many\nThis is not only the most frequently men-\nchildren. To be sure, it is right to urge parents, as\ntioned rationale on the part of industry represen-\ndo pediatricians, teachers, psychologists and\ntatives, but the one with greatest appeal to\nmany others, to do much more to oversee the\njournalists, however convinced some of them\ntelevision programs that their children watch,\nmay be about the seriousness of the risks from\nand to help children work through their re-\npresent levels of TV violence. As a Washington\nsponses to the violence they witness. To that\nPost editorial put it, in commenting on Attorney\nextent, the rationale offers a legitimate reason\nGeneral Janet Reno's testimony before the\nfor concern. But many parents are not in a\nSenate Commerce Committee (discussed on PP.\nposition to do so, even with the best will in the\n1-3): Reno \"made a mistake the other day in\nworld. As a result, to go further and to use the\nencouraging Congress to regulate TV violence if\nrationale to argue that no supplementary efforts\nthe networks themselves don't do it pronto. The\nare therefore needed on the part of the television\nviolence is terrible; the regulation would be\nindustry or the public is to offer an unusually\nworse.\n1173\nmindless rationalization.\nJournalists have every reason to be vigilant\nA new technique could allow parents to block\nabout free speech: it is always imperiled, and it\nviolent television programs even when they are\ndoes call for sacrifice. But when legitimate\nnot themselves at home. An inexpensive com-\nconcern to defend free speech combines with\nputer chip installed in the television set could be\npoor press coverage of a problem, it plays into\ncoded to respond to signals such as a V for\nthe hands of those whose primary aim is to\nprograms rated violent. U.S. Representatives\nsilence debate. Too often, the First Amendment\nEdward J. Markey and Jack Fields have intro-\nis then wheeled out as a cannon from which to\nduced legislation requiring that all new televi-\nlaunch preemptive strikes against anyone\nsion sets sold in America contain what they call\nchallenging the levels of TV violence, regardless\nthe \"V-chip technology.\" But television industry\nof whether censorship is in fact at issue.\nexecutives are, so far, adamantly opposed to\nIronically, when the First Amendment is thus\nincluding a V for violence signal in the broadcast\ninvoked, it serves to bludgeon the very principle\nsignals of shows rated violent. Representative\nit stands for: that of protecting free speech and\nMarkey points out the irony in their stance:\nfree debate. Such appeals to the First Amend-\nFor years parents have been told if they don't\nment are hard to reconcile with what Justice\nlike what's on television they should turn it off.\nHugo Black stated as its intended purpose in the\nNow technology has made it possible to do just\nPentagon Papers case:⁷¹\nthat - in an easy, effective targeted way and,\nmost important, even when they are not there to\npull the plug. Nevertheless, broadcasters remain\nIn the First Amendment the Founding Fathers\nunwilling to make it easier for parents to do\ngave the free press the protection it must have to\ntheir job.\"\nfulfill its essential role in our democracy. The\npress was to serve the governed, not the gover-\nIt is hard to know which element of the\nnors. The Government's power to censor the\nproposed legislation the industry fears most: the\npress was abolished so that the press would\ninstitution of ratings, long familiar for films, or\nremain forever free to censor the Government.\nthe power that consumers would gain to shut\nThe press was protected so that it could bare the\nout certain types of programs altogether from\nsecrets of government and protect the people.\ntheir homes. As Markey points out, the\nindustry's opposition is inconsistent with the\nUsing the Amendment to inhibit debate\nseventh rationale, placing the burden of responsi-\nproduces a chilling effect all its own, and often\nsucceeds in achieving premature closure of all\nSissela Bok 13\n03/06/96 WED 14:27 FAX 202 482 1635\n017\ndebate concerning the issue of violence on TV or\nno censorship or other violation of free speech at\nelsewhere in the media. Once again, advocates\nall. For instance, when Senator Paul Simon of\nwielding the First Amendment in this way shift\nIllinois, at an August 1993 conference on televi-\nthe function of the rationale from that of a\nsion violence, called for industry leaders to form\nreason to proceed with caution when it comes to\nan \"advisory office on television violence\" to\nconsidering claims to harm from TV violence\nreview programs and report on them annually to\nand proposals for how to limit it, to that of a\nthe American public, Geoff Kowan, a producer\nrationalization for setting aside a difficult issue,\nand vice president of the National Council for\nnot thinking it through with care, not consider-\nFamilies and Television, is reported to have\ning the children and others who have to suffer\nprotested that such a panel could become a\nthe consequences of one's inaction; and for\ncensorship body of its own.81\nperpetuating every form of commercial and other\nThe debate about the proposed V-chip legisla-\nexploitation of such violence.\ntion mentioned above is another case in point.\nThe effects of this premature closure can be\nTo be sure, it would be important to consider\nseen in many arenas. Intriguingly, most contem-\nwhat criteria would be used in rating TV pro-\nporary works on free speech and the First\ngrams with respect to their violence. Much can\nAmendment - such as Archibald Cox's Free-\nbe learned from the practices of other nations in\ndom of Expression and Anthony Lewis's Make\nthis respect, as from the long experience in our\nNo Law - hardly mention media violence, nor\nown country with movie ratings. But to dismiss\ndo they raise any questions with respect to its\nsuch legislation as instituting a form of censor-\neffects on children.⁷ Indeed, children rarely\nship represents either a misunderstanding of\nfigure in free speech analyses.\"6 The resulting\nwhat constitutes censorship or an intentional\nnear-silence on the part of constitutional theore-\neffort to conjure up its specter indiscriminately\nticians regarding risks to children from TV\nfor political purposes. In this regard, Newton\nviolence is the more problematic because the\nMinow, former chairman of the Federal Commu-\nquestion of cumulative long-term risks from\nnications Commission, has concluded that\nexposure to such violence is of such exceptional\n\"Anyone who proposes doing anything more to\npractical importance in our society. But even\ncurb violence is almost certain to be shouted\nfrom a purely theoretical point of view, consider-\ndown as a censor,\" and that even many parents\ning these long-term risks would in fact also\nwho think television violence is excessive are\npresent scholars with an interesting theoretical\nuncomfortable with judging speech:82\nchallenge to the familiar First Amendment\ndoctrine of \"clear and present danger.\"\"\nThey shouldn't be. If we really cared about our\nPreemptive invocations of the First Amend-\nchildren, invocations of the First Amendment\nment, moreover, often succeed in deflecting\nwould mark the beginning, not the end, of such\ndebate as to when it might and might not ap-\ndiscussions.\nply.⁷⁸ In so doing, they contribute to short-\ncircuiting debate about what Mary Ann Glendon\nRating programs is not censorship - far from\nit. Indeed, when combined with lock-out\nhas called, in Rights Talk, the pervasiveness of\ntechnologies, a ratings system would actually\nthe legal culture in American society, so that the\nextend the reach of free expression on television,\nrhetoric of absolute rights generates near-silence\nallowing adults to watch whatever suited them\nabout responsibilities.\" They bypass consider-\nwhile effectively eliminating children from the\nation of forms of government regulation, such as\nsudience.\nthose taken up by Cass Sunstein in The Partial\nIt is time we used the First Amendment to\nConstitution, which might \"promote free speech\nprotect and nurture our children, rather than as\nand should not be treated as an abridgment at\nan excuse to ignore them.\nall.\"80 And they make it easier to dismiss in-\nstructive comparisons with how other countries\nAll eight rationales, in sum, do point to\ndeal with TV violence, on the grounds that these\nimportant considerations; but when advanced to\ncountries have nothing comparable to the First\nshort-circuit or stifle debate, they contribute to\nAmendment.\nthe continued neglect of issues urgently in need\nA further effect of the premature closure\nof public policy debate. By now, many in the\nbrought about by preemptive appeals to the First\npress are on their guard against unthinking\nAmendment can be seen in the lumping to-\nadoption of similarly simplistic rationales when\ngether, as threatening censorship, of many\nit comes to policy debates about, for example,\nmeasures to deal with TV violence that represent\nthe public health risks posed by the proliferation\n14 TV Violence, Children and the Press: Eight Rationales Inhibiting Public Policy Debates\n03/06/96 WED 28 FAX 202 482 1635\n1018\nof firearms or by smoking. Journalists take it for\nthe frequently noted inherent conflict between\ngranted that it matters to examine not only the\nthe commercial and the public service functions\nrationales advanced in such debates but also the\nof the press. If journalists are to cover practices\nspecial interests of the gun and tobacco lobbies\nand incidents of violence in such a way as to\nin gaining widespread acceptance for some of\nhelp curb or at least not exacerbate societal\nthese rationales. Why, then, should the press not\nviolence, they have to study the ways in which\ndevote the same attention to the rationales used\nthis conflict expresses itself in the context of\nin the debate regarding TV violence and to the\nviolence. To what extent is it true that violence\nspecial interests with most to gain from their\nsells? What are the existing limits on exploiting\nacceptance? What, more generally, are the\nthe public's fascination with violence for com-\nspecial difficulties and challenges for the Ameri-\npetitive or otherwise commercial motives? How\ncan press in sorting out what its role should be\ninfluential are tie-ins between newspaper chains,\nin covering violence and debates concerning how\nmagazines, and TV stations? And what about the\nto lessen its sway?\ndaily revenues, for magazines and newspapers,\nfrom advertisements of violent \"action-adven-\nture\" films and TV programs? Might there be a\nThe Role of The Press\nlink between such advertisements and inad-\nJournalists frequently find themselves in a\nequate press coverage of the debate about the\ndouble bind when it comes to covering particular\neffects of TV violence, similar to that claimed\nstories involving violence. How can they treat\nbetween tobacco advertisements and the failure\nsuch stories accurately without being accused of\non the part of magazines accepting such advertis-\nadding to the level of violence in society? They\ning to report on the effects of smoking?\"\nare criticized when they appear to sensationalize\nIn part, however, the sense of double bind also\nviolent acts or glamorize violent persons, yet\nstems from a second source of conflict within\nthey know that honest reporting of brutal acts\nthe public-service function of the press: a con-\nmay influence public opinion in these directions.\nflict generated when there is tension between its\nEven the choice of what facts to report may\nmandate not to downplay or cover up risks to the\npresent similar dilemmas. For example, both\npublic, on the one hand, and its special interest\nTime and Newsweek ran cover stories on young\nto protect freedom of speech against all threat.\npeople and violence during the same week in\nened restrictions. Our society is uniquely depen-\nAugust 1993: \"Big Shots: An inside look at the\ndent on the press for taking the responsibility to\ndeadly love affair between America's kids and\nprotect free speech with the utmost seriousness.\ntheir guns\" and \"Teen Violence: Wild in the\nBut this special interest, just as much as the\nStreets,\" respectively.83 Both sets of articles did a\ncommercial one, requires self-scrutiny on the\nservice in highlighting the unprecedented scale\npart of the press. Both bring temptations to\nof the crisis such violence presents for young\nengage in biased or slipshod news coverage. Such\npeople and the entire society. Both explored the\ncoverage, inconsistent with the most basic\ninterlocking influences on young people of the\nstandards of good journalism, does disservice to\neasy availability of firearms, poverty, peer\nthe public, whether or not it is motivated in part\nmodels, TV violence, and other cultural factors.\nby ideals of public service.\nSome of the material used, and in particular the\nIt will matter, therefore, for the press to\nlead-in paragraphs of the Newsweek coverage,\nscrutinize its own role in covering the debate\nwere extraordinarily and graphically brutal.\nover television and other forms of violence; to be\nThese stories were not gratuitous, since they\non the lookout for rationales and rationalizations\nwere closely related to the topic of teen violence\nsuch as those discussed in this essay; and to\nunder discussion; nor did they in any sense\nexplore the obstacles that stand in the way of\nglamorize the young people described. Yet many\nproviding better coverage. On such a basis, it\nwould nevertheless regard the stories as sensa-\nought to be possible, when reporting on contri-\ntionalistic from the point of what was singled\nbutions to this debate by public interest groups,\nout, and suspect commercial motives behind\nindustry officials, office-holders, and others, not\nsuch selectiveness. But how else, in that case,\nonly to convey more thoroughly what is being\nmight the topic of teen violence be treated so as\nsaid and done (something which would already\nto inform the public and analyze the problems,\nrepresent a significant improvement) but to\nyet not in any sense exploit the public's fascina-\nprovide the type of analysis routinely offered\ntion with stories involving violence?\nwith respect to other societal problems.\nThe sense of double bind stems, in part, from\nFor an example of an imaginative and probing\nSissela Bok 15\n03/06/96 WED 14:29 FAX 202 482 1635\n019\njournalistic approach to the problem of film and\nA special difficulty in this regard is that a\nTV violence, consider the article prepared by Ken\ngrowing proportion of young adults appear to\nAuletta for The New Yorker in the spring of\nperceive nothing problematic about TV violence.\n1993.8$ Auletta chose to ask \"a cross-section of\nThe March 1993 Times Mirror survey (cited on\nthe managers and artists who decide what we\np. 3) reveals this clearly:\nwatch\" the same provocative question: \"What\nwon't you do?\"86 Was there anything these\nThere is a \"video violence\" generation gap.\nindividuals would refuse to film or broadcast,\nThose under 30 are far more likely to be heavy\nand on what grounds? The answers were telling.\nconsumers of violent programming and movies.\nOliver Stone, the director of the film \"JFK,\"\n[They] are far less bothered by violence on\nanswered that\ntelevision, less likely to feel violence is harmful\nto society than are older Americans.\"\nOff the top of my head, I'd pretty much do\nanything. [...]I don't view ethics from the\nThis difference in attitudes on the part of\noutside, only from the inside. What you would\nyoung adults may be due in part to the fact that\nfind shocking, J probably would not. For me, it's\nmany of them have not yet had children them-\na question more of taste.\"8\"\nselves, and so have not had reason to try to put\nthemselves in the place of a child exposed to\nWhen asked whether he agreed with President\ntoday's levels of entertainment violence. But the\nClinton that Hollywood was too preoccupied\ndifference may result also from the desensitizing\nwith violence and sex, Stone retorted, in a\ninfluence of TV that so many studies have\nfamiliar non-sequitur related to the eighth\ndemonstrated. (See P. 2, and Notes 7 and 8.)\nrationale discussed above, that he didn't believe\nYoung adults have been more massively exposed\nthat government had the right to legislate art or\nto this influence than their elders, starting at a\ncensor it. Others responded to Auletta's question\nyounger age. If so, then the gap may well shift\nin a more modulated way, a few expressing the\nupwards in age as more and more cohorts of\nconflict they felt between doing what they\nchildren grow up having been exposed to heavy\nwanted in film and recognizing that they would\ndoses of television violence. Unless the majority\nnot want their children to see what they had\nof Americans, who are now coming to greater\nproduced. When some tried to evade his ques-\nrealization of the risk from such violence, take it\ntions, Auletta pressed farther, concluding that\nseriously enough to move the public policy\n\"many Hollywood programmers lead two lives\ndebate ahead energetically, it may then be even\n- a truth they avoid by complaining about\nharder to bring about the necessary reforms.\ngovernment censorship.\"88\nTaking this risk seriously from the point of\nAnother way in which the press can contrib-\nview of public policy should not mean granting\nute to the debate is already being explored in a\nit some unique status as the one causal factor\nnumber of publications. It involves giving voice\nrelated to the crisis of violence in American\nto the individuals with most at stake in the\nsociety. On the contrary, the policy debate about\noutcome of the violence debate — the children\nthis crisis can only do justice to the complexity\nwho know violence in their daily lives, the\nof the interlocking causal factors by looking at it\nparents and neighborhood groups who struggle\nas a national public health crisis of dimensions\nagainst sometimes overwhelming odds, the\nat least equivalent to those of, say, heart disease,\norganizations mobilizing to combat violence, the\ncancer, and AIDS.\npediatricians and social workers who work to\nIt will matter for the press, therefore, to\nhelp individuals overcome its consequences -\naddress this crisis, as the others, with the same\nand in this way to try to penetrate the resistance\ncaution about avoiding oversimplification. Doing\nmany in the public feel to even thinking about\nso will mean devoting the same attention to\nthe human dimension of the problems linked to\npublic education regarding violence as about the\nviolence. What is not yet common, however, is\nother problems. This, in turn, will call for careful\nto report in this personalized way on TV vio-\nanalysis of alternative forms of prevention, of the\nlence in its own right. The field is wide open to\npros and cons of different remedies suggested,\ncovering more extensively the research now\nand of interlocking risk factors - much as is\navailable and to focus on the plight of the young,\nnow done, for example, for diet, exercise, sur-\nthe poor, the disadvantaged and the vulnerable,\ngery, and medication when it comes to heart\nwho have been found to be most easily affected\nby such violence.\ndisease. It will call for substantive reporting of a\ncomparative nature, showing where we stand in\n03/06/96 WED 14 29 FAX 202 482 1635\n020\nrelation to other nations in combating violence,\nobstacles to fuller reporting noted above and, in\nmuch as is now beginning to be done with\nso doing, free journalists to participate more\nrespect to health care here and abroad. Such\nfully in the public policy debate now so urgently\nshifts in coverage are important in their own\nneeded regarding the interlocking factors con-\nright; but they may also help the press in its\ntributing to violence in America.\nefforts to overcome the conflicts and other\nEndnotes\nResearch for this paper was begun while I was a\nCenterwall, \"Television and Violence: The Scale of\nFellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the\nthe Problem and Where to Go From Here,\" The\nBehavioral Sciences in Stanford, California, in 1991-\nJournal of the American Medical Association, 267,\n1992, and continued in the spring of 1993 while I was\nJune 10, 1992; William H. Dietz and Victor C.\na Fellow at the Joan Shorenstein Barone Center on the\nStrasburger, \"Children, Adolescents, and Television\"\nPress, Politics and Public Policy. I am grateful for\nCurrent Problems in Pediatrics, 21, 1991, PP. 8-31;\nstimulating discussions and for suggestions from\nGeorge Comstock and Hae-Jung Paik, Television and\nFellows and members of the staff at each Center.\nChildren: A Review on Recent Research (Syracuse,\nNew York, Syracuse University, 1987); Andrea\nMartinez, \"Scientific Knowledge About Television\n1. Michael Wines, \"Reno Chastizes TV Executives\nViolence,\" Canadian Radio-Television and Telecom-\nOver Violence,\" The New York Times. October 21,\nmunications Commission, 1991; Kate Moody, Grow.\n1993, PP. Al and B16.\ning Up on Television (New York: New York Times\nBooks, 1980); Albert J. Reiss, Jr., and Jeffrey A. Roth,\n2. The New York Times, October 22, 1993. Three\neds., Understanding and Preventing Violence (Wash-\nweeks earlier, on October 4, 1993, The Los Angeles\nington. D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993), includ-\nTimes had carried an Op-Ed piece signed by Jack\ning a reference to an unpublished 1990 report by\nValenti, President of the Motion Picture Association\nGeorge Comstock and Hae-Jung Paik: \"The Effects of\nof America, which employed the \"heavy hand\"\nTelevision Violence on Aggressive Behavior: A Meta-\nmetaphor. Entitled \"Whose Children Are They,\nAnalysis,\" commissioned by the National Academy of\nAnyway?,\" the piece stressed the responsibility of\nSciences Panel on the Understanding and Control of\nparents, and stated that \"what frightens the industry\nViolent Behavior; Cathy Spatz Widom, \"Does\nand should chill the blood of every citizen is the heavy\nViolence Beget Violence? A Critical Examination of\nhand of government slowly, steadily, remorselessly\nthe Literature,\" Psychological Bulletin, 106, 1989, PP-\nintruding into the outer perimeter of the First Amend-\n3-28, esp. 20-24.\nment.\"\n8. Ron Slaby, ed., Violence and Youth: Psychology's\n3. Michael Gartner, \"Warning to the Attorney Gen-\nResponse, American Psychological Association,\neral,\" USA Today, Oct. 26, 1993, P. 13A.\nAugust 1993, Report of the American Psychological\nAssociation's Commission on Violence and Youth.\n4. The Chicago Tribune, October 23, 1993 P. 22.\n9. Ibid, pp. 32-34.\n5. Ibid.\n10. R. E. Goranson, \"Media Violence and Aggressive\nBehavior: A Review of the Experimental Research,\" in\n6. Michael Janofsky, \"A cable network fires off a\nJ. L. Berkowitz, ed., Advances in Experimental Social\nrebuttal about regulating violence,\" The New York\nPsychology (New York: Academic Press, 1970), PP. 1-\nTimes, November 10, 1993, P. D18.\n31; Martinez, \"Scientific Knowledge About Television\nViolence,\" 1991, PP. 42-43.\n7. See, for evaluations of studies of the effects of\ntelevision violence, Dave Atkinson and Marc\n11. Jeff Greenfield, moderator, Conference on \"Vio-\nGourdeau, Summary and Analysis of Various Studies\nlence in Television Programming\" Beverly Hills,\non Violence and Television, Canadian Radio-Televi-\nAugust 2, 1993. Partial transcript available on C-\nsion and Telecommunications Commission, 1991;\nSPAN. See also the transcript of a panel convened in\nDavid Barry, \"Screen Violence: It's Killing Us,\"\n1992 by the editors of TV GUIDE: Violence on\nHarvard Magazine, 96, November/December 1993,\nTelevision.\npp. 38-43; George Comstock, Television: The Key\nStudies (Santa Monica: Rand, 1975), Brandon S.\nSissela Bok 17\nDRAFT.\nOiO\nSYMPOSIUM REPORT\n\"DRUGS, VIOLENCE AND YOUTH:\nTRAGEDIES AND TRUTH\"\nPrepared by:\nENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRIES COUNCIL, INC.\nMarch, 1996\nBOARD OF DIRECTORS\nBrian L. Dyak, President/CEO\nDavid Goldsmith, Co-Chairman, Finance\nWilliam N. Utz, Co-Chairman, Policy\nRalph Andrews, Founding Chairman\nHerman Rush, Immediate Past Chairman\nNancy Dockry, Vice Treasurer\nOiC\nMichele Lee\nShelley List\nLarry Stewart\nBOARD OF TRUSTEES\nBarbara Corday, Co-Chairman, Programs\nMarv Adelson\nMarch, 1996\nJohn Agoglia\nJack Anderson\nWallis Annenberg\nJeffrey Barbakow\nDear Reader:\nAithur Barron\nFrank Biondi\nMel Blumenthal\nUniquely, the entertainment industry has demonstrated the value of the public\nNorman Brokaw\nTin Conway\nand private sector working together in the best interest of our nation's youth\nAlan D. Courtney\nWinston H. Cox\nthrough our symposium, Drugs, Violence and Youth: Tragedies and Truth. This\nJchn Daly\nreport captures the specific action steps and suggests to further an American\nRobert A. Daly\nNicole David\nagenda that reflects healthy lifestyles and healthy communities. The EIC has\nGordon Davidson\nSuzanne DePasse\nfacilitated a process to curb violence and heighten drug awareness. It is our next\nBarry Diller\nsteps that will begin to define the results.\nDoug Duitsman\nLew H. Erlicht\nCharles W. Fries\nEdward O. Fritts\nThe report is being distributed throughout the entertainment industry, to\nMichael Fuchs\nDavid Getten\nsymposium participants, appropriate elected and government officials,\nGary Goddard\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc. (EIC) trustees, and Creative Professional\nBud Grant\nJ. William Grimes\nNetwork members. The report is also available to the membership of all co-\nJules Haimovitz\nAndy Heyward\nsponsoring organizations.\nDonna Hilley\nRobert E. Holmes\nAlan Horn\nI would like to acknowledge EIC's Larry Deutchman, Sr. Vice-President,\nRobert Iger\nGnne Jankowski\nProduction and Marketing; Marie Dyak, Special Projects Director; Rolinka\nRobert L. Johnson\nTichi Wilkerson Kassel\nBennett; Lisa Rodriguez and consultants Dr. Bertram Loeb and Dr. Lloyd\nVictor Kaufman\nJohnston. Also, I extend a special thanks to our federal partners: Dr. Lee Brown,\nAlan Ladd, Jr.\nSherry Lansing\nformer Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP); Dr. Elaine\nStan Lee\nKi.n LeMasters\nJohnson, Director, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP); Dr. Alan\nMichael Levine\nLeshner, Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA); Fred Garcia\nGary Lieberthal\nMargaret Loesch\n(ONDCP); Alan Levitt (ONDCP); Bob Denniston (CSAP); Luisa del Carmen\nFrank G. Mancuso\nBettye McCartt\nPollard (CSAP) and Barbara Najar (CSAP), who have had the foresight to\nGuy McElwaine\nGerald McRaney\nembrace the entertainment industry as a viable partner in finding solutions to\nMike Medavoy\naddress drug use and violence in our society.\nLeslie Moonves\nJerry Moss\nNorm Nixon\n/. Martin Pompadur\nFinally, thanks again to the many co-sponsoring organizations, panelists and\nHarold Prince\nespecially EIC trustees: John Agoglia, President, NBC Enterprises; Brandon\nBurt Reynolds\nLee Rich\nTartikoff, Chairman, New World Entertainment; Stan Lee, Chairman, Marvel\nJay Rodriguez\nJames H. Rosenfield\nEntertainment Group; Tony Cox, cable executive; Norm Nixon, President,\nArthur N. Ryan\nNixon/Katz Associates and EIC board members Michele Lee, Ralph Andrews,\nJeff Sagansky\nLucie Salhany\nShelley List and David Goldsmith. The many caring people in the entertainment\nScott Sassa\nTerry Semel\nindustry that recognize the corporate and personal responsibility we have to\nSid Sheinberg\npressing health and social issues are sincerely appreciated. Your active\nJohn B. Sias\nHerbert Siegel\ninvolvement and support in making the symposium a successful beginning makes\nFred Silverman\nFrank Sinatra\nthe difference. I look forward to our continued work together.\nAaron Spelling\nRobert Stack\nLea Stalmaster\nSincerely,\nBrandon Stoddard\nDcn Taffner\nBrandon Tartikoff\nAnthony Thomopoulos\nLaurence A. Tisch\nDonald M. Travis\nRenee Valente\nLouis P. Weiss\nJames A. Wiatt\nBrian L. Dyak\nDavid L. Wolper\nPresident/CEO\nLEGAL COUNSEL\nKaye, Scholer, Fierman,\nHays and Handler\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nA non-profit orginization\nEAST COAST: 1760 Reston Parkway, Suite 415\nReston, Virginia 22090-3303\n(703) 481-1414\nFax (703) 481-1418\nE-Mail: [email protected]\nWEST COAST: 21243 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 224\nWoodland Hills, California 91364-2108\n(818) 887-3495\nFax (818) 887-3524\nE-Mail: eic [email protected]\nTable of Contents\nSymposium Report\nI.\nIntroduction\n1\nII.\nBackground and Purpose\n2\nIII.\nSymposium Goals\n4\nIV.\nConsideration\n5\nV.\nSymposium Recommendations\n6\nA. Television\n6\nB. Music and Music Video\n9\nC. Motin Pictures and Home Video\n10\nD. Youth Response\n12\nE. Follow-Up Action Steps\n13\nAppendices\nAppendix 1\nPlanning Activities\n14\nA.\nRecruitment of Co-Sponsors\n14\nB.\nAdvisory Committee\n14\nC.\nPromotional Efforts\n14\nD.\nThe Symposium\n15\nAppendix 2\nSymposium Evaluation\n16\nA.\nDemographics\n16\nB.\nAttitudes 16\nAppendix 3\nSymposium Proceedings\n17\nA.\nWelcoming Remarks\n17\nB.\nKeynote Address\n17\nC.\nPanel: Scope of the Problem\n17\nD.\nPanel: Creative Decision Making\n18\nE.\nPanel: Media Research\n18\nF.\nLuncheon\n19\nG.\nBreakout Sessions\n19\nH.\nReports and Adjournment\n21\nAppendix 4\nAdvisory Committee\n22\nAppendix 5\nSymposium Agenda\n23\nAppendix 5\nParticipant List\n25\n\"DRUGS, VIOLENCE AND YOUTH: TRAGEDIES AND TRUTH\"\nSYMPOSIUM REPORT\nI. Introduction\nOn October 19, 1995, a one-day symposium on Drugs, Violence and Youth:\nTragedies and Truth was held in Universal City, California. The symposium was\nconvened by the Entertainment Industries Council, Inc. (EIC), a non-profit\norganization, with funding partially provided by the U.S. Center for Substance\nAbuse Prevention (CSAP). Sixteen additional entertainment industry\norganizations served as co-sponsors of the event:\nCO-SPONSORS\nAmerican Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA)\nAssociation of Independent Television Stations (INTV)\nCaucus for Producers, Writers and Directors\nCenter for Interactive Media Social Responsibility (CIMSR)\nEntertainment Publicists Professional Society (EPPS)\nMusic Video Association (MVA)\nNational Association of Television Program Executives (NATPE)\nNational Cable Television Association (NCTA)\nProducers Guild of America (PGA)\nPROMAX International\nPublicists Guild of America\nRecording Industry Association of America (RIAA)\nScreen Actors Guild (SAG)\nVideo Software Dealers Association (VSDA)\nWomen in Film (WIF)\nWriters Guild of America west (WGAw)\nAdditional support was obtained to sponsor the symposium luncheon from\nPharmalytics, Inc. and Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays and Handler.\nPharmalytics is a leading research/development firm for human\nbiopharmaceuticals to treat cocaine addiction and overdose, whose technology\ncenters on catalytic antibodies to break down cocaine molecules in the\nbloodstream. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays and Handler is a Los Angeles-based\nlaw firm which has provided pro bono legal counsel to EIC since 1994. In\naddition, NBC, a financial and programmatic supporter of EIC since the\norganization's founding, provided in-kind post-production services for compiling\nthe symposium video presentation on violence and the media. EIC, through its\ncore funding, supported the symposium to further the intent of this private-public\npartnership.\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 1\nII. Background and Purpose\nEIC has long been concerned with the strategic role that mass media,\nparticularly entertainment, can play in promoting negative attitudes toward\nalcohol, tobacco and other drug usage and violent behavior, and the relationship\nbetween these issues, as well as in offsetting the social, economic, and\npsychological factors that support these behaviors, especially in children and\nadolescent youth. Segments of the entertainment industry as well as public\ninterest organizations concerned with these health issues have in the past\nconducted both separate and joint activities with these questions in mind, but\nclearly much more could be done if both realms were to work in partnership.\nFor many years, the entertainment industry has been accused of \"glamorizing\"\nthe use of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, as well as violent behavior, through\nthe images depicted in entertainment and the overt lifestyles led by some of its\nprominent celebrity players. As a result, EIC was founded by industry leaders in\n1983, as a catalyst to encourage use of entertainment industry resources toward\npro-social marketing of health and social issues, with an initial focus on alcohol,\ntobacco and other drugs. From 1983 - 1995, EIC carried out countless individual\nprojects in which members of the creative community participated, resulting in a\ncollective industry-wide anti-drug effort.\nEIC has historically served as a bridge between the entertainment community\nand public policy makers by facillitating partnerships between entertainment\nindustry associations, unions, companies and public interest groups and\ngovernment. The common denominator for these partnerships has been to work\ntoward the resolve of pressing health and social issues. Uniquely, the\nsymposium, \"Drugs, Violence and Youth: Tragedies and Truth,\" provided the\nopportunity to demonstrate the industries' willingness to work together as\nexemplified by the co-sponsorship of sixteen industry-based organizations and the\nsignificant involvement of the creative community.\nOne of EIC's primary efforts has been the publishing of depiction suggestions on\nthe portrayal of a wide variety of topics which have been distributed both\nindividually and collectively, as part of the notebook Spotlight on Depiction of\nHealth and Social Issues, to the creative community on such topics as alcohol use,\ndrug use terminology, tobacco use, alcohol and drug impaired driving, children of\nalcoholics, HIV/AIDS, safety belt awareness, mental illness, hearing\nimpairment, organ transplants, women and addiction, and the portrayal of older\nadults in the media. This has reinforced hundreds of television programs and\nother entertainment productions containing messages related to these issues.\nThere were two major considerations that impelled this symposium. The first\nrelates to the relationship of the entertainment industry to the country's general\nculture, particularly about drugs and violence.\nMost social scientists who have studied the issue believe that while the\nentertainment industry can play a significant and positive role in national efforts\nin controlling the effects of drug abuse and violence, the basic issues needing\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 2\nresolution are grounded in the total culture. This expert opinion, however, is not\nshared by a wide segment of the American public. Many people, including\ninfluential public officials and opinion leaders, view the industry itself as the\nmajor if not sole problem, rather than seeing it as one of many contributing\nfactors to the national issue.\nThe concern has been chiefly expressed over the depiction of drugs and violence in\nindustry products, which are seen as having a direct, controlling, and negative\nimpact on both community values and individual behavior, most particularly on\nchildren and youth. The industry and its personnel are widely regarded as\naccepting, if not actually supportive of, the presence of abusing and violent\nbehavior in daily adult life. In fact, wide sections of public opinion attribute the\ndepictions of drugs and violence so deplored in entertainment products as much\nto a moral deficit within the industry as to their seeming attractiveness for\nviewers and consequent commercial value.\nMisconceptions about both the relative significance and motivations of the\nentertainment industry minimize the industry's positive capabilities, both within\nand outside the entertainment field. Over the past 13 years, EIC and other\ngroups, entertainment organizations, and individual companies have spent\nconsiderable time, effort and money in public service activities aimed at various\naspects of the abuse of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, including the interface\nwith violence. But little is known about and less recognition is given to the\nactivities of the entertainment industry to combat harmful social behavior,\nthrough its own efforts and in cooperation with others (government, industry,\nphilanthropy, etc.). The symposium was partially designed to help overcome this\ndeficiency.\nThe second factor relates to issues within the industry. While the overwhelming\nmajority of public service campaigns developed or supported by the entertainment\nindustry have had positive social effects, they have for the most part been one-time\nactions, limited by both approach and issues and uncoordinated with other\nsimilar and parallel efforts. Conflicting, ambiguous, and specialized definitions\nof both drugs and violence (and their complex interrelationships) have also served\nto complicate previous efforts to develop industry-wide action programs.\nThe symposium was designed, first, to seek common ground on the scope of the\nissues facing the industry; and second, to help formulate an industry-wide action\nprogram on drugs and violence that would not be limited by either variant\nperceptions of the problem or past lack of concerted action. Such an action\nprogram would need as well to respond to the needs and motivations underlying\nthe expressed public attitudes. It would be able to play a significant role in\nhelping to bridge disparities between the existing level of awareness within the\nentertainment industry and the public's perception of the industry's outlook.\nEIC, as a voluntary non-profit organization without legal or other mandate, was a\nlogical choice to serve as convener, consensus builder, and the continuations\nmedium for developing, publicizing and promoting the action program. But the\nfuture implementation of the action program, it was recognized, could not be left\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 3\nsolely to EIC. It would need to be taken up and acted upon by significant and\ndecisive forces within the industry itself, along with the active support and\ncontinued cooperation of government and other interest groups. These\nconsiderations provide the ideological framework for the symposium.\nIII. Symposium Goals\nThe symposium was designed to reinforce the entertainment industry's long-\nterm commitment to social responsibility, and build a bridge between\nentertainment industry decision makers, creative professionals and leaders from\nthe research and health communities. Symposium advisory commitee members\ndesired to create an opportunity for the Hollywood community to reflect on\nprevious accomplishments and foster new approaches resulting in the\nentertainment media being recognized as a viable partner towards the resolve of\nthese critical social issues. The symposium looked to establish a proactive,\nongoing dialogue regarding the portrayal of violence, alcohol, tobacco and other\ndrug use in entertainment and the impact of such portrayals on the viewing\npublic, as well as how the entertainment community might use its resources to\nhelp reduce the impact these issues have on society. The symposium therefore\nsought to achieve the following goals:\n1.\nBring together representatives from the entertainment industry\ncreative community and select leaders from the children and youth\ndevelopment, violence, alcohol, and other drug use arenas to begin a\ndialogue between the constituents.\n2.\nCreate an open forum, free of accusations and adversarial posturing,\nwith a common goal of enhancing the accurate depiction of critical\nhealth issues through music, television and film; provide inroads\ntoward the formation of a powerful partnership.\n3.\nPresent the facts on violence, alcohol and other drug use, including\ncurrent data on the economic, social and medical costs associated\nwith these issues.\n4.\nPresent a synopsis of existing research relating to violence, alcohol\nand other drug use in entertainment.\n5.\nPresent the successes and accomplishments of the industry to date.\nThe entertainment industries have already contributed to the method\nof portraying a variety of specific aspects of alcohol, tobacco and other\ndrug use over the past ten years. It is important to establish this\nprogress as a new starting point that encourages the potential for the\nactivities and efforts yet to come.\n6.\nPresent the anticipated future activities. In advance of the\nsymposium, EIC staff and consultants developed an outline of\npossible future activities appropriate for health and entertainment\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 4\nparticipants. The outline was a result of analysis of past successes,\nas well as an examination of the rationale behind these successes,\nand an analysis of their potential replication with respect to drug use\nas it relates to violence.\n7.\nSolicit and obtain from participants feedback and suggestions on\nproposed future activities and directions.\n8.\nEnable entertainment industry participants to feel that they are an\naccepted part of the solution to the alcohol and substance use/violence\nawareness problem.\n9.\nEnable the health and advocacy participants to understand the role\nthe industry can and has been playing as a partner in their mission,\nand enable them to accept the creative community as a partner. The\nsymposium would provide health advocates with a clearer picture of\nwhat is reasonable and realistic to ask of entertainment entities.\n10.\nEnergize various constituencies to work together toward their\nmutual goal of de-glamorizing violence and the use of alcohol and\nother drugs in the best interest of children and youth.\n11.\nUtilize the input provided by participants during the symposium to\ndevelop recommendations for the industry on potential future\nactivities.\nIV. Consideration\nThe symposium represented a positive step toward an industry-wide concerted\nattack on drugs and violence, both within the industry and on a broader scale as a\nresult of the many recommendations developed by participants during the\nsymposium's breakout sessions.\nA significant result included strong statements of wide and enthusiastic support\nfrom the organizations and people who produce and create the industry's\nproducts. Although that sentiment has always been present, the symposium gave\nit a clearer voice in an atmosphere that supported proactive industry-based action\nfree of outside influences and as a single spoke in a much larger wheel of societal\nproactive measures.\nThere were many expressions of corporate management support and positive\nindications that widespread action was feasible given an atmosphere of\nencouragement and nurturing support from outside the industry. The potential\nfor partnerships was deemed essential for progress towards addressing the\nreccomendations developed at each of the topical break-out sessions.\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 5\nV. Symposium Recommendations\nA.\nTelevision\nThe overriding theme of the session proved to be \"Education and Empowerment\":\n(1) Of our industry colleagues; (2) of parents; and (3) of children. The industry\ndoes not need or want government regulation. Television can be responsive in its\nprogramming and proactive in many ways by reaching out both nationally and\nlocally. Though it is a national medium, it reaches its audience through local\nstations, local cable operators, and so on. Specific recommendations for the\nmedium included:\n1.\nUse local outlets (broadcast staions, cable systems) to get involved in\nAmerica's communities on a grass roots level with national creative,\nfinancial and inspirational support.\n2.\nSpread the message that America's problems with drugs and violence\nare not insurmountable-that there is hope-empowering people to keep\nup the fight. This can be done through local and national on-air\npromotional campaigns, TV program themes, and local community\npromotional/outreach efforts.\n3.\nCelebrate the \"indomitable spirit of man\" through on-air promotional\ncampaigns and TV program themes.\n4.\nHelp spread the word that these are health issues and not just social\nissues, through on-air promotional campaigns and TV program\nthemes.\n5.\nLet kids know that their heroes (actors, singers, athletes) don't all use\ndrugs and do speak out against drugs and violence. Help provide the\nplatform for these heroes to speak out on the air and in local\ncommunities.\n6.\nProvide messages and models in entertainment of recovery, as well as\nprevention.\n7.\nHelp restore our kids' faith in America and in its institutions through\non-air messages and TV program themes.\n8.\nUse repetition to keep positive messages coming at families to counteract\nthe steady flow of negative messages.\n9.\nModel alternatives to violence for conflict resolution in TV\nprogramming.\n10.\nEncourage parents to monitor their kids' television viewing with a PSA\ncampaign like \"It's 4 p.m. Do you know what your kids are watching?\"\nEnable parents to be more media aware so that they can be better\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 6\ngatekeepers and facilitators of their children's viewing by making\nviewing an active rather than passive experience.\n11.\nAddress and involve the syndicated afternoon talk and reality/tabloid\nshows which can confuse kids who watch. Further, the presentation of\n:\nviolence and drug use in the context of news programming is an area\nalso in need of reexamination by television news directors, especially\nwhere raids are concerned and images of drugs that can serve as visual\ntriggers for the recovering addict.\n12.\nInvolve all industry organizations, guilds, and SO on in the common\neffort-a move that was begun in the planning process for this\nsymposium and which should be perpetuated in the process of\ndisseminating the report and recommendations from this symposium.\n13.\nProduce proactive programs on the subjects of drugs and violence and\ntry to schedule them across many networks to add to their importance\nand reach with viewers (e.g., Arnold Shapiro's Scared Silent).\n14.\nEducate the people who create on-air campaigns to promote upcoming\nTV programs about these issues and call upon them to exercise\nsensitivity in their work. Plan a plenary session at the PROMAX\nInternational convention. Scenes of violence and drug use strung\ntogether out of context of the program or televised film from which they\ncome can serve to glamorize the behavior where it may not have been\nglamorous in the context of its appearance in the larger production.\n15.\nHave local outlets (broadcast stations, cable systems) pair with local\nschools and community groups to work one-on-one with at-risk youth,\nshowing them we (the entertainment community) care face-to-face.\n16.\nOffer parents more information on all TV programming by distributing\ncontent descriptions, advisories, discussion guides, and so on over the\nInternet (e.g., a guide to tonight's viewing on CBS). This could also be\ndone on EIC's planned home page through its Center for Interactive\nMedia Social Responsibility (CIMSR).\n17.\nGet advertisers involved in these efforts as partners. Help them to better\nunderstand their role in driving program content through ad buys\ntargeting specific demographics that determine ad sales rates and\nrevenues.\n18.\nGet national media companies to help EIC disseminate accurate\ninformation on these issues to people at all levels of the television\ncreative, production and programming processes for use in their\ndevelopment of programming. This can be accomplished through EIC's\nnotebook Spotlight on Depiction of Health and Social Issues and through\nEIC's planned CIMSR home page on the Internet. This can involve\nexpansion of the number of notebooks provided to creators, continued\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 7\nupdating of existing chapters of the notebook, and creation of new\nchapters addressing aspects of violence including its relationship to\ndrugs.\n19.\nEncourage depiction in entertainment TV programs of the truth about\nthe consequences of drugs (including tobacco and alcohol) and violence.\n20.\nLook for ways to define heroes and villains more carefully without\nhaving things be SO stereotypical that audiences become disinterested\nand entertainment becomes uninteresting. This requires encouraging\ncreative talent and producers to go back to solid principles of storytelling.\nThis will require the active support of the guilds representing creative\ntalent.\n21.\nEach person in the industry must take personal individual responsibility\nfor his or her role in the process from program conception to airing,\nincluding promotion and marketing, and must appeal to that sense of\nresponsibility and inherent desire to do the right thing as a\nconsideration to be examined at all phases of creation. All have a\npotential positive role to play that they can either choose to act upon or\nnot depending upon the appropriateness of the circumstances and\ncareful consideration of the specific creative situation.\n22.\nEfforts must be consistent, ongoing and repetitive. Short term\ncampaigns which expire in a matter of weeks or months need to be\nreplaced with permanent campaigns that account for generational\nreplacement within our youth population and within the creative\ncommunity.\n23.\nEncourage producers, studio publicists, and network publicists,\ncommunity relations, or other related executives to alert EIC and other\npublic interest groups about positively themed TV programs well in\nadvance of airing so that they can work with local affiliate stations or\ncable systems and grass roots organizations to work together on\npromotional or news tie-ins with the air dates of such programs.\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 8\nB.\nMusic and Music Video\nThere was much discussion and disagreement with regard to the potential for\nsuccessfully encouraging artists and record companies to censor their work.\nTherefore, proposed proactive efforts focused on these key areas:\n1.\nPublicize more widely the efforts underway or in place with regard to\nmusic video cable casting such as The Box's \"I Attend\" program (in\nwhich students with perfect attendance can go to an assembly at school\nto meet recording stars, athletes, and other role models), or MTV's\nCable in the Classroom program.\n2.\nEncourage the standards and practices departments of networks to\nincrease their awareness of certain issues and be sensitive to them in\ntheir screening processes.\n3.\nSupport for the media education or media literacy movement through\non-air awareness campaigns, fundraising and community outreach\nefforts in conjunction with EIC to increase the parental role in helping\nyoung people better understand the music and images they hear and see\nSO they can be more critical and aware and active audience participants.\nThe Music Video Association will explore some form of conference\nsession at the next Billboard music conference (editorial note: this\nconference session took place in November as recommended).\n4.\nDespite concerns about censorship, it is additionally recommended that\nEIC explore broadening the distribution of its depiction notebook,\nSpotlight on Depiction of Health and Social Issues, to record company\nproduct managers, A & R executives and producers, recording artists,\ncomposers, and music video writers, directors and producers.\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 9\nC.\nMotion Pictures and Home Video.\nAmong the recommendations provided by this group were:\n1.\nRaise media literacy through promoting the idea of individual\nresponsibility. Educate the news media and the public on how to be\nmore critical of the images they are viewing in motion pictures and\nhome videos.\n2.\nCreate a forum for freedom of expression that does not promote the use\nof alcohol or other drugs or violence, by visiting community\norganizations, high schools, etc.\n3.\nEstablish personal appearances by major celebrities from movies to\neducate youth on what is \"make believe\" in the movies and what is real\non the streets.\n4.\nEstablish an interactive dialogue between youth at risk and the\nentertainment industry in order to nurture more creative ways to\nexpress hostilities and disappointments, rather than through violence\nor the use of drugs.\n5.\nCreate field trips to major entertainment complexes involved in making\nmotion pictures in order to exhibit what is really involved (photographic\neffects, miniatures, squibs, computer animation, camera speeds, stunt\nwork, etc.) when violence or drug use are depicted on-screen, helping\nthem to understand that the on-screen world is one of dramatic\nconvenience rather than true-to-life.\n6.\nMake a commitment to ongoing work in the field of entertainment by\nrecruiting marketers to get the message across to the\naudience/consumer.\n7.\nWork with film schools to encourage in the next generation of\nentertainment professionals responsible approaches to filmmaking in\nwhich social consciousness is an automatic part of the creative process\nand respected by the entertainment community.\n8.\nNetwork with major organizations such as Women In Film, the\nAmerican Film Institute, Independent Feature Project, Sundance, the\nAcademy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and others, and\nencourage them to include information on EIC and its goals in\norganizational mailings to members. Make use of networking\nopportunities throughout the service organizations that work within the\nentertainment industry.\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 10\n9.\nPlace special emphasis on improving the image of women in\nentertainment by considering reducing the number of female characters\nportrayed as victims of violence or alcohol or other drug use, through\nspecific depiction suggestions relating to these issues as they relate to\nand touch upon women. Also needed are more heroic female role\nmodels.\n10.\nSuggest to studios that they attempt to balance their action-heavy\nblockbuster feature film release slates by financing independent, low\nbudget films that provide positive reinforcement and hopeful\nalternatives to society.\n11.\nMarket public service campaigns to entertainment companies for\nplacement on home videos, in theaters and spliced to 16mm non-\ntheatrical rental prints of feature films.\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 11\nD.\nYouth Response\nThis session arrived at the following recommendations from youth participants in\nthe symposium. These recommendations must be at the core of all future follow\nup actions of the industry, since they are derived from the ultimate target group\nover which the industry seeks to have a positive influence.\n1.\nReinforce and emphasize the parental role in the formation of both\npositive and negative attitudes of youth toward drug use and violent\nbehavior.\n2.\nConduct both local and national education to encourage:\nGreater parental concern;\nKnowledge about media efforts to control drugs and\nviolence; and\nEncourage critical viewing by both parent and child.\n3.\nDevelop national and local activities that foster parental informed\ninvolvement in their children's:\nMovie attendance;\nTelevision viewing habits;\nMusic purchases;\nFilm rentals; and\nOther forms of engagement with entertainment\nproducts.\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 12\nE.\nSymposium Follow-up Action Steps\nThe following recommendations for next action steps are based on both the formal\nresults of the symposium and the informal discussions surrounding it. They will\nbe presented by EIC to the anticipated working group that will seek to carry out\nthe symposium's findings:\n1.\nConduct follow-up symposia in New York City and Orlando, Florida.\nAlthough the West Coast remains the primary center of the\nentertainment industry's creative community, the significant\nconfluence of entertainment production in New York and Florida makes\nthis concept worthy of consideration.\n2.\nEstablish an industry-wide working committee with appropriate sub-\ndivisions to provide input into the formulation of details for an action\nplan, develop an action time table, and participate in its\nimplementation.\nThe working committee would work with EIC to undertake those parts\nof the action program that seem feasible.\n3.\nDevelop a national event or series of events that would dramatize the\ncontinuing cooperation of the entertainment industry and public interest\ngroups around drugs and violence.\nGovernment and non-entertainment industry endorsement and\nparticipation would be essential.\n4.\nFollow up the national event with local actions and community support.\nThe existence of the entertainment industry on the local scene through\nmedia such as movie theaters, video/music stores, and local stations\nand cable carriers offers an important avenue for closing the gap\nbetween the industry and the public.\n5.\nDevelop a solid basis of financial support to underwrite the action\nprogram.\nThe cost of developing both the organizational structure and the\nprogram activities should be broadly based, coming from the\nentertainment industry, government, and private sources such as\nfoundations, business, and non-profit organizations.\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 13\nAPPENDIX 1: PLANNING ACTIVITIES\nThere were a number of actions which needed to take place prior to the\nsymposium in order to ensure a successful result. These actions included the\nfollowing:\nA. Recruitment of Co-Sponsors\nEIC contacted twenty-two (22) other entertainment industry organizations\nincluding labor unions, trade associations, professional associations, and\nacademies. Of these, sixteen (16) organizations agreed to serve as co-sponsors of\nthe symposium, representing a diverse microcosm of the various entertainment\nmedia and disciplines. The participation of these groups enabled the symposium\nto be viewed by entertainment professionals as an industry-wide event, providing\nall related efforts with an instant credibility and reinforcing a sense of industry-\nownership through organizational affiliation and loyalty. The opportunity to\nfocus on developing recommendations in a proactive and cooperative (rather than\nreactive and adversarial) environment was a major attraction for prospective co-\nsponsors, many of which had sponsored or participated in previous forums which\nfocused more on defining and debating the issues than on developing positive\nsolutions.\nB. Advisory Committee\nEach co-sponsoring organization assigned one or more representatives to\nparticipate on a symposium Advisory Committee. In addition, there were several\nadditional Committee members, including EIC staff, Board Directors, and\nconsultants. The purpose of the Committee was two-fold: 1) to provide input and\nfeedback to the proposed agenda, presenters, moderators, breakout session topics\nand facilitators, promotional strategies, and other logistical or political\nconsiderations that would be vital to maximum industry \"buy-in\" and\nparticipation; and 2) to assist in promoting the symposium to the co-sponsors'\nindividual constituencies and to the industry-at-large.\nC. Promotional Efforts\nA Publicity Sub-Committee was also convened, comprised of Larry Deutchman,\nEIC Sr. VP Production and Marketing; Henri Bollinger, EIC Publicity Counsel;\nHeidi Trotta, VP Advertising, Publicity and Promotions, Walt Disney Television\nand Chairman of EIC's Publicity Committee; Ed Crane, President, Publicists\nGuild of America; and Monika Young Moulin, a Board Member of the\nEntertainment Publicists Professional Society. A publicity strategy was designed\nfor the event which included a September 13th press conference. EIC President\nBrian L. Dyak was joined by Alan Sternfeld, Sr. VP Scheduling and Strategic\nPlanning, ABC; John Miller, Exec. VP Marketing, Promotions and Event\nProgramming, NBC; Judy Price, VP Children's Programming, CBS; and\nrepresentatives of several of the co-sponsoring organizations. As the date of the\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 14\nsymposium neared, coordination was established between members of the\npublicity team and the media relations staffs of key participating federal officials.\nPro bono public relations services were provided by volunteers from the Publicists\nGuild of America and the Entertainment Publicists Professional Society who\nhelped to service the media on the day of the symposium.\nD. The Symposium\nTwo methods were used to provide participants with information: oral\npresentations at the symposium itself, and written materials through a briefing\nbooklet provided to registered participants in advance of the symposium.\nThe format for the symposium was comprised of a number of morning plenary\nsessions featuring either a single speaker or a panel and moderator. An\nadditional keynote and video presentation were featured during the symposium\nluncheon. In the afternoon, three concurrent breakout sessions were held. Each\nparticipant was assigned to one of these sessions to exchange ideas for potential\nrecommendations on proactive initiatives that industry entities and individuals in\nvarious facets of the media could choose to launch or assist. The sessions were\ndivided according to medium as follows: (1) Television; (2) Motion Pictures &\nHome Video; and (3) Music & Music Video. Each session spent approximately 90\nminutes in discussion. Half-way through the session, youth participants and\ntheir chaperones were dismissed in order to convene in a fourth breakout session\nof their own. Facilitators for each session prepared written notes of their\nrespective sessions and the action recommendations that resulted and presented\nthem in a concluding plenary session.\nBefore the symposium, participants completed a survey on opinions about various\nissues relating to the entertainment industry and its relationship to drugs and\nviolence. At the conclusion of the symposium, an exit evaluation questionnaire\nwas given to all attending.\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 15\nAPPENDIX 2: SYMPOSIUM EVALUATION\nA.\nDemographics\nThere were 129 persons present at the symposium. The largest number of\nparticipants came from the entertainment industry, divided among different\nfields as follows:\nBroadcasting/Cable casting (Television, Radio):\n32.1%\nFeature Films and Home Video:\n34.6%\nMusic/Recording:\n11.1%\nOther (Interactive Media, Public Relations,\nResearch, Associations):\n25.9%\nThe balance of the respondents ( 20.1%) were government officials, youth, or\nrepresentatives of non-entertainment volunteer organizations. Over 80% were\nrepresenting an organization that had conducted activities relating to the issues\nof drugs and/or violence. More of the organizations had been active regarding\ndrugs (56.5%) than violence (43.5%), although slightly more than half had worked\nin both areas.\nB.\nAttitudes\nParticipants were asked to rate 14 issues as to their importance in resolving\ndrug/violence problems, on a scale ranging from unimportant to most important.\nThe respondents were nearly unanimous in seeing parental and family guidance\nas the most critical factors (87.5%), followed by peer influence on youth (82.8%);\nsubstance abuse as linked to family and domestic violence (79.6%); and social risk\nfactors (75%). The factor regarded as least important was control of drug\nimportation (32.8%), followed by stricter law enforcement (42.2%). The final series\nof attitude questions related to proposed activities that would heighten the\neffectiveness of entertainment industry efforts to control drugs and violence. All\nof the suggestions received positive ratings, ranked as follows:\nDeveloping drug/violence campaigns emphasizing media literacy (82.8%).\nPublicizing past entertainment industry activities on drugs & violence (82.8%).\nProviding technical consultant pools on drugs & violence (78.1%).\nDeveloping new sections on violence for EIC's depiction notebook (65.6%).\nDeveloping a drug-related violence section of EIC's depiction notebook (62.5%).\nDeveloping EIC's on-line capabilities regarding drugs & violence (62.5%).\nDistributing drug use depiction suggestions to industry creative staffs (59.4%).\nBroadening industry distribution of EIC's depiction notebook (54.7 %).\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 16\nAPPENDIX 3: SYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS\nThe following is a summary of the proceedings of the symposium.\nA.\nWelcoming Remarks\nFollowing registration and a continental breakfast, welcoming remarks were\nmade by John Agoglia, EIC Trustee and President of NBC Enterprises, and Brian\nL. Dyak, President and CEO of the Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nAgoglia reviewed some of EIC's and the industry's past accomplishments and\nwhat the schedule would be for the day. Dyak discussed the philosophy for the\nsymposium and what the goals were, issuing a challenge to the participants to\ntake advantage of this proactive opportunity.\nB.\nKevnote Address\nDyak introduced Dr. Lee P. Brown, Director of the White House Office of National\nDrug Control Policy (ONDCP). Brown, a member of the U.S. Cabinet, spoke about\nthe important role the entertainment media can play in delivering anti-drug and\nanti-violence messages. While praising this potential role for positive good, he\nsingled out the recent release of the record Hempilation for particular criticism,\nsaying it glamorizes the use of marijuana and calls for legalization of the drug.\nThe album features such songs as \"I Like Marijuana\" and \"I Wanna Get High.\"\nC.\nPanel: Scope of the Problem\nJoan Hyler, Producer, head of Hyler Management, and President of Women In\nFilm, served as moderator for a panel comprised of federal officials.\nThe first panelist was Dr. Alan I. Leshner, Director of the National Institute on\nDrug Abuse (NIDA). EIC is presently working with NIDA on specialized\nmarketing of the public service campaign \"Get High. Get Stupid. Get AIDS\" for\nuse on home video releases, in movie theaters, on music video promotional reels,\nin trade publications and industry newsletters, on non-theatrical prints of feature\nfilms, on-line, and in unsold avails on syndicated programming, cable networks,\npay-per-view channels, and local cable systems. Leshner explained that drug\naddiction is fundamentally a brain disease expressed in behavioral ways and in a\nsocial context. Drug abuse is as much a health issue as it is a social issue.\nAdvances in science have created a \"unique disconnect\" between the scientific\nfacts and the public's perception about the true nature of drug abuse and\naddiction. He called upon the entertainment industry's creative community to\nprovide input on how to convey scientifically accurate concepts and messages to\nthe public.\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 17\nDr. Lloyd Johnston, Program Director for the University of Michigan Substance\nAbuse Center, related some of the results of his most recent Monitoring the\nFuture survey. In recent years, illicit drug use has risen among our youth,\nparticularly marijuana use among early teens. Cigarette smoking has also\nrisen, especially in young teens. There are a number of societal forces\ncontributing to these upturns, including teens' widespread belief that drug use is\nrampant among such key role model groups as actors, rock musicians, and\nprofessional athletes. Smoking on-screen and off may be on the rise in the\nentertainment industry, which would provide a strong influence on smoking by\nyoung people. He concluded that a greater awareness and sensitivity to these\nconsequences is needed among those in the entertainment industry.\nDr. Elaine Johnson, Director of the U.S. Center for Substance Abuse Prevention\n(CSAP), called for a partnership between the prevention community and the\ncreative community, praising the many ways the industry's creative talents have\nbeen use to communicate positive messages. She also pointed to the ways that,\nlike any other element in our society, the industry can inadvertently present\nmixed or pro-drug messages. By each element of society doing its part to self-\nexamine what it does and how it impacts on society, we can each play a role in\nbettering society as well. Johnson also called for more aggressive efforts to\nprovide critical viewing skills, or media education, to young people so that they\nlearn to question the images and sounds they are exposed to in popular culture.\nD.\nPanel: Creative Decision Making\nWriter/Producer Jonathan Estrin of List-Estrin Productions moderated a panel\nanalyzing the outline for a hypothetical TV police drama pilot episode (created\nspecifically for this panel) for its positive virtues as well as its excesses in the\nrealms of drug use and gratuitous violence. Panelists were Pancho Mansfield,\nDirector of Development, Showtime Networks; Roland McFarland, VP Broadcast\nStandards & Practices, Fox Broadcasting Co.; Dick Wolf, executive producer, Law\nand Order & NY Undercover, and President, Wolf Films; and Michele Lee, EIC\nBoard Director and Actor/Producer/Director Michele Lee Productions.\nEach panelist presented creative alternatives to enable the show to be less\ngratuitous while equally exciting, each from the perspective of his/her own role in\nthe creative, production and programming processes. Following this, several\nstudents ages 12 - 17, from both suburban and inner city public schools, presented\ntheir view of the show and the panelists' reactions, and the potential impact of\nsuch a show on their peers.\nE.\nPanel: Media Research\nThe panel was moderated by Robert W. Denniston, Director of the Division of\nPublic Education and Dissemination for CSAP. Ivan J. Juzang is President of\nMotivational Educational Entertainment Productions (MEE), a firm that\nspecializes in researching attitudes and behaviors of African American youth\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 18\nand hip hop culture for media and entertainment clients and providing\nrecommendations for marketing entertainment to and impacting positive\nbehavior change upon this audience segment. Dr. Jeffrey Cole, Director of the\nCenter for Communication Policy at UCLA, presented the findings of his recent\nstudy, commissioned by the broadcast television networks, of American television\nviolence. Winston H. Cox, EIC Trustee and Co-Chairman of Voices Against\nViolence, the anti-violence initiative of the National Cable Television Association\n(NCTA), discussed the major projects of the cable industry designed to combat\nviolence in society, including the Voices Against Violence Week in which cable\nnetworks air programming with anti-violence themes, and its media literacy\nproject.\nF.\nLuncheon\nBrandon Tartikoff, EIC Trustee and Chairman of New World Entertainment\nopened the luncheon program by introducing the distinguished dais guests: Bill\nBlinn, Ed Crane, Joan Hyler, Susan Boyd, Leroy Bobbitt, Laurel Sylvanus, Jim\nChabin, Charles FitzSimons, Monica Young Moulin, Jeff Finlayson, Douglass\nBergmann, Del Reisman, Tony Cox, John Agoglia, John O'Reilly, Bill Thomas,\nBrian Dyak, Elaine Johnson, Alan Leshner, and Lionel Chetwynd. The dais was\ncomprised of a representative from EIC, each of the co-sponsoring organizations,\neach of the companies that provided funding or in-kind services for the\nsymposium, and the luncheon keynote speaker.\nDr. Johnson presented awards as \"Partners in Prevention\" to EIC and the 16 co-\nsponsoring organizations of the symposium. This was followed by a video\npresentation that included several of EIC's Stop the Madness PSAs and excerpts\nfrom the PBS Bill Moyers-hosted documentary What Can We Do About Violence?\nBlinn introduced award-winning writer/producer/director Lionel Chetwynd of\nTwo Cities Film, who presented the luncheon keynote address. Chetwynd made it\nclear that the First Amendment is unambiguous about freedom of speech, and\nthat the entertainment industry, while capable of touching and moving many\nthrough its many thoughtful productions, must take responsibility for itself.\nG.\nBreakout Sessions\nTelevision.\nFacilitators:\nWilliam C. Allen, Co-Chair, National Council for Families & TV\nAlan Gerson, Sr. VP TV/Business Development, Ticketmaster\nMusic and Music Video.\nFacilitators:\nLaurel Sylvanus, President, Music Video Association\nMichael Reese, Director, Marketing, Silas Records\nMotion Pictures and Home Video.\nFacilitators:\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 19\nMaria La Magra, VP Publicity, MCA Universal Home Video\nMarie G. Dyak, Dir., Special Projects, Ent. Industries Council\nThe goals for the breakout sessions, as reviewed with each group, were as follows:\n1.\nAscertain a range of ideas relative to each medium's potential role in addressing\nthe public health issues of drug use and violence.\n2.\nPresent some initial ideas for discussion as new initiatives that EIC developed\nprior to the symposium.\n3.\nDiscuss and evaluate the potential of all the ideas introduced by EIC or others\nduring the session.\n4.\nPrioritize each idea discussed according to the following criteria:\na.\nIs it reasonable?\nb.\nIs it in the best interests of the industry?\nc.\nDoes it have benefits to the general public?\nd.\nDoes it have value to the public's perception of the pro-active role the industry\ncan and has and will play in dealing with these issues?\n5.\nPresent the group's recommendations to the entire symposium.\nFacilitators opened each session by explaining the three strategies most affecting\nthe entertainment industry's participation in social issues:\nReactive: This is what the industry seems to do most--react to the strategies of outside entities\nlooking in at them, generally attacking them, trying to influence them. This process will\nnever end. It is inherent in the creation of various ratings systems and standards and\npractices policy manuals. The industry should be prepared to react by tracking its strengths,\ncontributions, etc.\nProactive: This is what the industry doesn't do enough of-recognizing that it has a role to play\nin dealing with societal issues like any other \"community\" in society, identifying ways it can\ncontribute, and taking action to the degree any one member deems reasonable within the\nparameters of his or her daily work. It requires a consciousness or awareness of the\nrelationship between one's job and the industry's role in society. An example of this sort of\naction is the EIC notebook, Spotlight on Depiction of Health and Social Issues. EIC recognized\nthere was a role for the industry to play on particular issues, identified a way the industry\ncould impact and take action, developed and delivered the resource materials to sensitize\nindividuals, and left it to them to take action on it as they deemed appropriate and reasonable.\nPrescriptive: This is where the government or an outside advocacy group tries to dictate to the\nindustry what it should or shouldn't do in the way of content This is the area the industry\nwants to avoid, and the strategy that seems lately to be sharing the spotlight with the reactive\nstrategy.\nYouth Response.\nHost:\nStan Lee, Chairman, Marvel Entertainment Group/EIC Trustee\nFacilitators:\nKaren Barnes, Exec. VP StoryMakers, Fox Children's Network\nAaron Meyerson, VP Production/Development, DIC Films\nThis spin-off from the other breakout sessions had its own set of goals as follows:\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 20\n1.\nShare with each other what each has heard in his or her respective breakout\nsessions.\n2.\nPresent some initial thoughts and reactions to what each has to report.\n3.\nDiscuss and evaluate the potential of all the ideas that have been introduced in the\nother breakout sessions thus far.\n4.\nPrioritize the ideas that have been discussed according to the following criteria:\na.\nIs it a valid idea that can have impact?\nb.\nHow will youth peers react to it?\nC.\nDoes it have value in shaping peers' perceptions of the pro-active role the\nindustry can play in dealing with these issues?\nH.\nBreakout Session Reports and Adjournment.\nUpon conclusion of the breakout sessions at the end of their allotted times,\nsymposium participants reconvened in a plenary session in which the facilitators\nof each session reported back to the larger body the recommendations which had\nbeen agreed upon in their respective discussions. Brian Dyak thanked\nparticipants for their input, participation and support, pointing to CSAP's\nfinancial support of the symposium as a vital first step to building the necessary\nbridge between industry involvement and societal encouragement for positive\naction. The symposium's dialogue and resultant recommendations, as reported\nby the facilitators and discussed in this written report, was the second step in the\nprocess.\nIt was agreed that EIC would follow through on crafting a report to the\nparticipants, the industry in general, and to elected officials, government\nagencies and other outside organizations involved in addressing the issues of\nviolence, tobacco, alcohol and other drugs. EIC will also seek funding to be able to\nfurther the process of encouraging members of the industry to implement\nappropriate elements of the recommendations developed during the symposium.\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 21\nAPPENDIX 4: ADVISORY COMMITTEE\nAmerican Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA)\nSusan Boyd, President\nPamm Fair, Assistant Executive Director\nAssociation of Independent Television Stations (INTV)\nJames Hedlund, President\nCaucus for Producers, Writers and Directors (The Caucus)\nWilliam Blinn, Chairman, Steering Committee\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc. (EIC)\nBrian Dyak, President/CEO\nLarry Deutchman, Sr. VP Production and Marketing\nEntertainment Publicists Professional Society (EPPS)\nRebecca Segal, President\nMonika Young Moulin, Board Member\nMusic Video Association (MVA)\nSean Fernald, Immediate Past President\nLaurel Sylvanus, President\nNational Association of Television Program Executives (NATPE)\nLeroy Bobbitt, Board Member, Violence Committee\nNational Cable Television Association (NCTA)\nTorie Clarke, VP Public Affairs\nProducers Guild of America (PGA)\nCharles FitzSimons, Executive Director\nTom Cole, Chairman, Events Committee\nPROMAX International\nJim Chabin, President\nPublicists Guild of America\nEd Crane, President\nHenri Bollinger, Immediate Past President\nHeidi Trotta, Member\nMarlene Mattaschiam, Business Representative\nRecording Industry Association of America (RIAA)\nHilary Rosen, President\nScreen Actors Guild (SAG)\nRichard Masur, President/Chair, Ad Hoc Committee on Violence in the Media\nVideo Software Dealers Association (VSDA)\nBob Finlayson, VP Communications\nWomen in Film (WIF)\nDonna Shu, Associate Director\nSuzanne Goldstein, Chairman, Issues and Advocacy Committee\nWriters Guild of America, west (WGAw)\nDel Reisman, Past President\nADDITIONAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS:\nThomas E. Backer, Ph.D., President, Human Interaction Research Institute\nJoanne Reeves, Office of Corporate and Public Affairs, MCA, Inc.\nLloyd D. Johnston, Ph.D., Program Director, University of Michigan Substance Abuse Center\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 22\nLarry Stewart, Board Director, Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nIvan Juzang, President, Motivational Educational Entertainment Productions\nBert Loeb, Ph.D., President, New Focus, Inc.\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 23\nAPPENDIX 5: SYMPOSIUM AGENDA\nThursday, October 19, 1995\nSheraton Universal\nUniversal City, CA\n8:00 a.m. - 8:30 a.m.\nREGISTRATION/CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST\n8:30 a.m. - 8:50 a.m.\nWELCOMING REMARKS\nJohn Agoglia, EIC Trustee/President, NBC Enterprises\nBrian L. Dyak, President/CEO, Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.\n8:50 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.\nPREVENTION IN NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY\nKeynote Address:\nLee P. Brown, Ph.D., Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy\nExecutive Office of the President, The White House\n9:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.\nSCOPE OF THE PROBLEM\nOpening Statement/Introductions:\nJoan Hyler, President, Women in Film\n\"Relationship Between Drugs and Violence\"\nAlan I. Leshner, Ph.D., Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse\n\"Adolescent Drug Use/Perceptions of Celebrities\"\nLloyd D. Johnston, Ph.D., Program Director and Acting Director\nUniversity of Michigan Substance Abuse Center\n\"Partners in Prevention: An Award-Winning Performance\"\nElaine M. Johnson, Ph.D., Director, Center for Substance Abuse Prev.\n10:30 a.m. - 10:45 a.m.\nBREAK\n10:45 a.m. - 11:45 a.m.\nROLE PLAY: CREATIVE DECISION MAKING\nModerator/Narrator:\nJonathan Estrin, Writer/Producer, List-Estrin Productions\nCast of Characters:\nCable Programming Executive:\nPancho Mansfield, Director, Development, Showtime Networks, Inc.\nStandards and Practices Executive:\nRoland McFarland, VP Broadcast Standards and Practices\nFox Broadcasting Company\nProducer:\nDick Wolf, Executive Producer\n\"Law and Order\"/\"NY Undercover\"/President, Wolf Films\nActor:\nMichele Lee, EIC Board Director\nActor/Producer/Director, Michele Lee Productions\nYouth Reaction/Q&A\n11:45 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.\nPANEL: MEDIA RESEARCH\nModerator:\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 24\nRobert W. Denniston\nDirector, Division of Public Education and Dissemination\nCenter for Substance Abuse Prevention\nThe Hip Hop Culture:\nIvan J. Juzang, President, Motivational Educational Media Productions\nViolence Monitoring: Broadcast Television Study:\nJeffrey Cole, Ph.D., Director, Center for Communication Policy, UCLA\nViolence Monitoring: Cable Television Study:\nWinston H. Cox, EIC Trustee/Co-Chairman, Voices Against Violence\n12:30 p.m. - 1:45 p.m.\nLUNCHEON\nIntroduction of distinguished guests\nBrandon Tartikoff, EIC Trustee/Chairman, New World Entertainment\nRecognition Presentations:\nElaine M. Johnson, Ph.D., Director, Center for Substance Abuse Prev.\nVideo Presentation\nIntroduction of Keynote Speaker:\nWilliam Blinn, Chairman, Steering Committee\nCaucus for Producers, Writers and Directors\nKeynote Address:\nLionel Chetwynd, Writer/Producer/Director, Two Cities Film\n1:45 p.m. - 2:45 p.m.\nBREAKOUT SESSIONS\nTelevision:\nFacilitators:\nWilliam C. Allen, Co-Chairman, National Council for Families & TV\nAlan Gerson, Sr. VP Television/Business Development, Ticketmaster\nMotion Pictures/Home Video:\nFacilitators:\nMarie Dyak, Dir., Special Projects, Entertainment Industries Council\nMaria La Magra, VP Publicity, MCA Universal Home Video\nMusic/Music Video:\nFacilitators:\nMichael Reese, Director, Marketing/Artist Development, Silas Records\nLaurel Sylvanus, President, Music Video Association\n2:45 p.m. 3:00 p.m.\nBREAK\n3:00 p.m. - 3:50 p.m.\nBREAKOUT GROUPS CONTINUE/YOUTH REPS CONVENE\nFacilitators:\nAaron Meyerson, VP Production/Development, DIC Films\nKaren Barnes, Exec. VP StoryMaker Prods., Fox Children's Network\nHost:\nStan Lee, EIC Trustee/Chairman, Marvel Entertainment Group\n4:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.\nBREAKOUT GROUP SUMMARIES/YOUTH RESPONSE\nSummaries/Q & A:\nBreakout Session Facilitators\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 25\nParticipant Closing Remarks\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 26\nAPPENDIX 6: PARTICIPANTS\nJohn Agoglia, President, NBC Enterprises/Trustee, Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nStephanie Alexander, Independent Publicist\nWilliam C. Allen, Consultant, MTM Television/Co-Chairman, National Council for Families & Television\nBo Andersen, VP Government Affairs, Video Software Dealers Association\nHarry Anderson, VP Corporate Communications, New World Communications\nRalph Andrews, Producer/Founding Chairman, Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nDick Askin, President, Tribune Entertainment Company\nTom Backer, President, Human Interaction Research Institute\nNeal Baer, Story Editor/Writer, \"E.R.\"\nRuben Barajas, Program Director, Scott Newman Center\nKaren Barnes, Exec. VP StoryMakers Productions, Fox Children's Network\nPhilip Barry, Producer, Philip Barry Productions\nDouglass Bergmann, Director of Research, Screen Actors Guild\nWilliam Blinn, Writer/Producer/Chairman, Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors\nLeroy Bobbitt, Loeb and Loeb/General Counsel, National Association of Television Program Executives\nGina Boden, Member, Women in Film\nHenri Bollinger, Bollinger Public Relations/Board Member, Entertainment Publicists Professional Society\nAlyse Booth, Director, Communications, Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse\nSusan Boyd, Actress/President, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists\nLee Brown, Ph.D., Director, White House Office of National Drug Control Policy\nRobert Brown, Dir., New Technologies/Information Systems, American Federation of TV & Radio Artists\nDanielle Cagaanan, Executive Producer/Head, Music Video Division, Satellite Films\nJim Chabin, President, PROMAX International\nLionel Chetwynd, Writer/Producer/Director, Two Cities Film\nAvery Cobern, VP Standards & Practices, Fox Children's Network\nJeffrey Cole, Ph.D., Director, Center for Communication Policy, UCLA\nTom Cole, Producer/Events Committee, Producers Guild of America\nJacqueLynn Colton, Actress/9th Vice President, Screen Actors Guild\nWinston H. Cox, Co-Chairman, Voices Against Violence/Trustee, Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nEd Crane, Principal, Editorial Ink/President, Publicists Guild of America\nRebekah Crawford, Development Executive, Renaissance Pictures\nBarry Dastin, Partner, Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays and Handler\nAnne Deasey, Video Commissioner, Capitol Records\nBob Denniston, Dir., Div. of Public Education and Dissemination, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention\nLarry Deutchman, Sr. VP Production/Marketing, Entertainment Industries Council, Inc./President, Dynamic\nCommunications International, Inc.\nDennis Doty, Producer, Cates/Doty Productions\nBrian L. Dyak, President/CEO, Entertainment Industries Council, Inc/Chairman, Center for Interactive Media\nSocial Responsibility\nMarie G. Dyak, Director, Special Projects, Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nJonathan Estrin, Writer/Producer, List-Estrin Productions/Board Member, Writers Guild of America west\nPamm Fair, Assistant Executive Director, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists\nFern Field, Producer, BrookField Productions\nBob Finlayson, VP Communications, Video Software Dealers Association\nCharles FitzSimons, Executive Director, Producers Guild of America\nAnna Marie Galbraith, Parent\nCourtney Galbraith, Student, Oak Avenue Middle School\nRobert Garon, Independent Publicist\nAlan Gerson, Sr. VP Television/Business Development, Ticketmaster Corporation\nBarbara Goen, Director, Publicity, KCET-TV\nDavid Goldsmith, Producer, Goldsmith Co./Co-Chairman, Finance, Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nSusan Goldstein, Principal, Goldstein Media/Chairman, Issues & Advocacy Committee, Women in Film\nBarry Greenberg, Owner, Celebrity Connection\nWilliam J. Hamm, Sr. VP Drama Development, Universal Television\nBasil Hoffman, Actor\nLorrie Houchin, Student, Thousand Oaks High School\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 27\nBrad Hunt, Sr. VP Marketing, Zoo Entertainment\nJoan Hyler, Principal, Hyler Management/President, Women in Film\nSidney Iwanter, VP Programming, Fox Children's Network\nJanet Alston Jackson, Executive Director, Believe in Yourself, Inc.\nWalter Jackson, CEO, Believe in Yourself, Inc.\nElaine Johnson, Ph.D., Director, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention\nLloyd Johnston, Ph.D., Program Director, University of Michigan Substance Abuse Center\nJon Joyce, Actor/Board Member, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists\nIvan Juzang, President, Motivational Educational Entertainment Productions\nLiz Kiley, Manager, Radio Affiliations, The Box\nAndrew Knox, Screen Actors Guild\nMaria La Magra, VP Publicity, MCA Universal Home Video\nSusan Land, Manager, Comedy Development, Warner Bros. Television\nBarry Lawrence, Partner, Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays and Handler\nMichele Lee, Actor/Producer/Director, Michele Lee Prods./Board Dir., Entertainment Industries Council\nStan Lee, Chairman, Marvel Entertainment Group/Trustee, Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nAlan Leshner, Ph.D., Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse\nCarole Lieberman, M.D., Psychiatrist\nBert Loeb, Ph.D., President, New Focus, Inc.\nPat Lucas, VP/General Manager, Soundtrack Division, EMI Music Publishing\nJackie MacDonald, Executive Director, Scott Newman Center\nPancho Mansfield, Director, Original Series, Showtime Networks, Inc.\nGeorge Marcelles, Consultant, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention\nDenise Marsh, Programming Executive, The Disney Channel\nRick Mater, Head of Standards & Practices, Warner Bros. Network\nMitch Matovich, Producer, Matovich Productions\nMarlene Mattaschiam, Business Agent, Publicists Guild of America\nKent McCord, Actor/Former 1st Vice President, Screen Actors Guild\nRoland McFarland, VP Broadcast Standards & Practices, Fox Broadcasting Company\nKaren McNally, Investor Relations, Pharmalytics, Inc.\nAaron Meyerson, VP Production/Development, DIC Films\nSun Moon, Associate Producer, Carlson-Pullin Productions\nPaul Napier, Actor/Board Member, Screen Actors Guild\nMike Ney, Principal, Johnson, Bassen & Shaw\nNorm Nixon, Producer/Manager, Nixon-Katz Entertainment/Trustee, Entertainment Industries Council\nJohn C. O'Reilly, Ph.D., President, Pharmalytics, Inc.\nMary Oreck, Partner, Borenstein-Oreck-Bogart Agency\nSandi Padnos, President, Padnos Ink\nRoz Pierson, Program Consultant, The Wellness Foundation\nLuisa del Carmen Pollard, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention\nLee Powell, Student, Davis Middle School\nJudy Price, VP Children's Programs, CBS Entertainment\nStephen Pullin, Producer, Carlson-Pullin Productions\nLee Rafner, Producer, Up Front Productions, Inc.\nMichael Reese, Director, Marketing, Silas Records\nDel Reisman, Writer/Past President, Writers Guild of America west, Inc.\nMark Robert, President, Celebrity Connection\nBrian Roberts, Radio Personality, Westwood One Networks\nLisa Rodriguez, Entertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nHilary Rosen, President, Recording Industry Association of America\nPat Russell, Co-Chairman, Media Committee, Los Angeles Coalition to Prevent Violence\nJustin Saltzman, Student, Thousand Oaks High School\nRebecca Segal, VP Prog/Publicity, Sky Broadcasting/Pres, Entertainment Publicists Professional Society\nJoan Sekuler, Globalvision\nDonna Shu, Acting Executive Director, Women in Film\nDavid Suchin, Vice President, The Suchin Company\nLaurel Sylvanus, President, Telemotion/President, Music Video Association\nBrandon Tartikoff, Chairman, New World Entertainment/Trustee, Entertainment Industries Council\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 28\nGeorge Taweel, Partner, Taweel-Loos and Company Entertainment\nLydia Taylor, Member, Women in Film\nDebra Tellez, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists\nMakani Themba, Marin Institute\nBill Thomson, Partner, Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays and Handler\nHal Uplinger, Producer, Uplinger International\nLance Webster, Director of Publicity, Public Broadcasting Service\nRobert Werden, Independent Publicist\nDick Wolf, President, Wolf Films/Executive Producer, \"Law & Order\"/\"NY Undercover\"/\"Swift Justice\"\nMonika Young Moulin, Board Member, Entertainment Publicists Professional Society\nJamie Zeledone, Jr., Student, Venice High School\nJoe Zesbaugh, President, Pacific Mountain Network\nEntertainment Industries Council, Inc.\nPage 29\nWHITE HOUSE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON\nYOUTH, DRUG USE, AND VIOLENCE\nMedia Breakout Session\n2:00\nWelcome/Introductory Remarks\n-Carol H. Rasco\nParticipant Introductions\nRoundtable Discussion\n2:20-2:40 Setting the Context: The Connection between Media, Youth\nViolence and Drug Use\n2:40-3:00 Realism About Pressures Within Media Industry\n3:00-4:00 Given the connection and pressures, strategies for meeting the\nchallenge\nProviding Parents Information on and Control over Programming\n(V-chip; Rating system)\nCarol will ask Greg for update here\nMedia Literacy\nUsing the Media to Communicate Anti-Drug and Anti-Violence\nMessages, and to Promote Self-Esteem among Youth\n-Advertising Campaigns\n-Industry Education/Positive Messages in Programming\nPromoting Positive and Educational Programming\n-Public Broadcasting\n-Pressure through Public Opinion\nMAR- 3-96 SUN 17:48\nCSR INCORPORATED DC\nFAX NO. 2028420418\nP.02\nDIRECTIONS TO ELEANOR ROOSEVELT HIGH SCHOOL\n7601 HANOVER PARKWAY\nGREENBELT, MD 20770\nFrom I-95 (The Beltway) If Proceeding North:\nGet off the Beltway at Exit #22A (Baltimore Washington Pkwy. towards Baltimore). On exit\nramp, bear right immediately to Rt, 193 (Greenbelt Road). Turn right onto Greenbelt Road\n(towards NASA) and continue .3 of a mile on Greenbelt Road to the second light (Hanover\nPkwy.) Turn left onto Hanover Parkway and then take first right onto school property.\nFrom I-95 (The Beltway) If Proceeding South:\nGet off of the Beltway at Exit #22A (Baltimore Washington Pkwy. towards Baltimore). Take the\nBalitmore Washington Pkwy. towards Baltimore to Rt. 193 (Greenbelt Road). Exit to the right,\nfollowing the exit ramp to the road. Turn left at the light (towards NASA) from exit ramp onto\nGreenbelt Road and continue to Hanover Pkwy. Turn left at the next light onto Hanover Pkwy.\nand then take first right onto school property.\nFrom Washington, D.C.:\nTake the Baltimore Washington Pkwy towards Baltimore to Rt. 193 (Greenbelt Road). Exit to the\nright following the exit ramp to Greenbelt Road. Turn left at the light (towards NASA) from exit\nramp onto Greenbelt Road and continue to Hanover Pkwy. Turn left at the next light onto\nHanover Parkway and then take the first right onto school property.\nFrom Baltimore:\nTake the Baltimore Washington Pkwy. towards Washington to Rt. 193 (Greenbelt Road). Exit on\nthe right, following the exit ramp to the STOP sign, turn left and continue a short distance to\nGreenbelt Road. Turn left at the second right onto Hanover Pkwy. and then take first right onto\nschool property.\nCITY OF GREENBELT\nBaltimore Weshington Pokes/\nGreenball Rd\nHelryer Part.wry E.\nAND TECH CENTER\nROOSEVELT SCIENCE\nGreenway\nShapping\nEXIT 22\nCenter\nGreenbelt Rd. 193 the HASA)\n95\nN\nFINAL AGENDA\nDRAFT\nWHITE HOUSE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON\nYOUTH, DRUG USE, AND VIOLENCE\nThursday March 7\n8:30 a.m.\nRegistration\n9:30 a.m.\nWelcoming Remarks\nDr. Gerald Boarman\nPrincipal, Eleanor Roosevelt High School\nNational Anthem\nPerformed by Marliss Ladson, Duke Ellington School of Arts, D.C.\nGeneral Barry McCaffrey\nDirector, Office of National Drug Control Policy\nRepresentative Steny Hoyer\nSenator Paul Sarbanes\nGovernor Parris Glendenning\n10:00 a.m.\nRoundtable: Youth and Parent Perspectives on Reducing Adolescent\nDrug Use and Violence\nCo-chaired by Director Barry McCaffrey and Secretary\nof Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros\nJarrett Alexander, senior, Eleanor Roosevelt High School,\nGreenbelt, Md.\nLaVerna Fountain, Teach Teens to Teach Teens Non-Violence Institute,\nHarrisburg, Pa.\nChocka Guiden, student, Portland State University, Portland. Or.\nKari Peters, Washington Regional Alcohol Program, Sterling, Va.\nCarol Reeves, President, National Family Partnership, Greenville, S.C.\nJessica Shillander, student, New Market Skills School, Tumwater, Wa.\nBrett Sturgill, student, Benjamin Middle School, Bowie, Md.\nFINAL DRAFT\n11:00 a.m.\nRemarks to the Students of Eleanor Roosevelt High School\nDr. Gerald Boarman\nPrincipal, Eleanor Roosevelt High School\nGeneral Barry McCaffrey\nDirector, Office of National Drug Control Policy\nVice President Albert Gore\nMark Anderes\nStudent Government President\nEleanor Roosevelt High School\nPresident William J. Clinton\n12:00 p.m.\nPresidential Roundtable: Reports to the President on Promising\nCommunity Strategies To Reduce Youth Drug Use and Violence F;\nMargaret Altstaetter, Student of the Year, Students Against\nDriving Drunk, Wilmington College, Ohio\nDr. Lonise Bias, Maryland\nJames Burke, Chairman, Partnership for a Drug Free America,\nNew York, N.Y.\nJoseph Califano, President, Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse,\nColumbia University, New York, N.Y.\nCarl Cohn, Superintendent, Long Beach Unified School District,\nLong Beach, Ca.\nGovernor Parris Glendenning\nNat Glover, Sheriff, Jacksonville, Fl.\nYvonne Green, Director, Safe Schools Initiative, Washington, D.C.\nRepresentative Steny Hoyer\nJesse Jackson, National Rainbow Coalition, Washington, D.C.\nKurt M. Landgraf, President and CEO, DuPont Merck, Chadds Ford, Pa.\nKaren Lee, Senior, Eleanor Roosevelt High School and Member,\nStudents Against Violence, Greenbelt, Md.\nIzaak Prado, student, Dinuba Community School, Visalia, Ca.\nSenator Paul Sarbanes\nJeff Tauber, President, National Association of Drug Court\nProfessionals, Alexandria, Va.\nFINAL DRAFT\n1:00 p.m.\nLunch -- Hosted by DARE America and A. T. & T.\n2:00 p.m.\nBreakout Sessions\n(1) Strengthening the Justice System Response to Juvenile Crime\n- Moderated by Associate Attorney General John Schmidt\n(2) Strengthening the Law Enforcement Response to Juvenile Crime\n- Moderated by Attorney General Janet Reno\n(3) Making Schools Safe, Orderly, and Drug Free\n- Moderated by Secretary of Education Richard Riley\n(4) Strengthening Families and Creating Safe Passages for Youth\n- Moderated by Secretary of Health and Human Services\nDonna Shalala\n(5) Mobilizing Communities\n- Moderated by Secretary of Housing and Urban Development\nHenry Cisneros\n(6) The Media's Role in Preventing Youth Drug Use and Violence\n- Moderated by Domestic Policy Advisor Carol Rasco\n(7) Curbing Underage Drinking\n- Moderated by Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena\n(8) Reducing Drug Use Through Treatment and Prevention\n- Moderated by Director Barry McCaffrey\n(9) Strategies to Eliminate Gangs and Gun Violence\n- Moderated by Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin\n4:00 p.m.\nClosing Plenary\nDirector Barry McCaffrey\nAttorney General Janet Reno\nWHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE- CONFIRMED PARTICIPANTS LIST AS OF 3/6/96\nGroups\nLast Name\nFirst Name\nCategory\nState\nRace\nSex\nOrganization\nTitle\nCity\nSponsor\nP. P.08\nMED\nBlinn\nWilliam\nCA\nM\nCaucus for Producers, Writers and Dir\nChairman\nEncino\nMED\nSoehm\nHelen\nNY\nNY\nMED\nBonnette\nRichard\nBusiness\nNY\nM\nPartnership for a Drug Free America\nPresident/CEO\nNY\nDennis Burke\nMED\nCalhoun\nJohn\nPrevention Specialist\nDC\nW\nM\nNCPC\nPres\nWashington\nGreg Everts\nMED\nCampbell\nInniss\nYouth\nMO\nM\nAmericorps Members, Youthnet\nKansas City\nCorp for Nan Service\nMED\nClarke\nTorie\nDC\nPublic Affairs and Strategic Council\nVice President\nWashington\nMED\nDrozd\nCrystal\nYouth\nPA\nF\nReading\nCADCA\nMED\nDuffy\nMary\nMedia\nNY\nF\nThe Montel Williams Show\nExecutive Producer\nNY\nWH-DPC\nMED\nDyak\nBrian L.\nVA\nM\nEntertainment Industry Council\nPresident and CEO\nReston\nFAX NO. 2028420418\nMED\nDykstra\nRichard\nMedia\nKS\nM\nJunction City Police Dept.\nOfficer\nJunction City\nMOC\nMED\nEarls\nFelton\nAcademia\nMA\nB\nM\nHarvard-Sch Pub Hith\nBoston\nDOJ/OJP/NIJ\nMED\nEssner\nRobert\nPA\nPhiladelphia\nMED\nFalco\nMathea\nDC\nF\nDrug Strategies\nPresident\nWashington\nHMS\nMED\nFigel\nBrad\nDC\nWashington\nMED\nFlanagan\nTimothy\nAcademia\nTX\nM\nColege of Criminal Justice\nDean\nHuntsville\nMOC\nMED\nHester\nLucille\nDC\nWashington\nMED\nHobbs\nRene\nEducator\nMA\nF\nBabson College\nProfessor\nBabson Park\nONDCP\nMED\nJaffe\nKaren\nDC\nF\nKIDSNET, Inc.\nExecutive Dir\nWashington\nMED\nKelly\nMarcy\nMedia\nCA\nF\nMedia Scope\nPresident\nStudio City\nDOJ/OJJDP\nMED\nKem\nJessica\nYouth\nWI\nF\nWashington High School\nStudent\nMilwaukee\nMOC\nMED\nKroft\nAlexander\nNY\nThe Advertising Council\nPresident\nNY\nMED\nLadson\nMarliss\nDC\nWashington\nCSR INCORPORATED DC\nMED\nMahoney\nStacey\nDC\nF\nChildren's Express\nEditor\nWashington\nMED\nMoses\nSusan\nMA\nBoston\nMED\nNelson\nJohn\nDC\nWashington\nMED\nPhillips\nRobert\nDC\nM\nAmerican Psychiatric Association\nDeputy Medical Dir\nWashington\nMED\nRoberson\nRussell\nYouth\nAR\nM\nN Little Rock\nBoys & Girls Club\nMED\nRosen\nFredric David\nCA\nM\nTicketmaster Corporation\nChair & Chief Exec Off\nLos Angeles\nMED\nSchmidt\nJan\nMD\nAdvocates for Children and Youth\nBaltimore\nMED\nTucker\nC. Delores\nDC\nF\nNati Political Black Congress for Women\nChair\nWashington\nMED\nWoll\nDick\nCA\nM\nUniversal City\n6-96 WED 9:48\nWHITE HOUSE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON\nYOUTH, DRUG USE, AND VIOLENCE\nMedia Breakout Session\nAdvertising\nAlex Kroll\nRecent $7-8 billion initiative focusing on kids; part of\nChairman Emeritus\nNashville Conference\nThe Advertising Council\nBrad Figel\nNike--key influence on kids; Nike P.L.A.Y. Program for youth\nDirector, Government Relations\nNike, Inc.\nJohn Calhoun\nInvolved in PSA \"Take a Bite out of Crime\"\nNational Crime Prevention Council\nIndustry/Business\nBrian L. Dyak\nEIC helps promote positive messages for youth thru\nPresident and CEO\nentertainment media\nEntertainment Industry Council\nFredric D. Rosen\nTicketmaster sponsors youth-oriented corporate\nChairman and Chief Executive Officer\noutreach programs; considering new initiatives\nTicketmaster Corporation\nCable\nDr. Helen Boehm\nSenior Vice President\nPublic Responsibility and Network Standards\nMTV Networks\nJuanita Scarlett\nNickelodeon\nTorie Clarke\nFunded National Television Violence Study (done by\nVice President, Public Affairs and Strategic Counsel\nMediascope)\nNational Cable Television Associstion\nCreators/Producers\nBill Blinn\nCredits include Brian's Song, Roots, and Fame\nChairman,\nCaucus for Producers, Writers and Directors\nMary Duffy\nThe Montel Williams Show\nDick Wolf\nCreator/Producer of Law and Order, New York Undercover, and\nExecutive Producer\nSwift Justice\nPublic Health\nSusan Moses\nSquash It! Campaign; Deputy to Jay Winsten\nDeputy Director, Center for Health Communications\nHarvard School of Public Health\nRobert Phillips, M.D.\nDeputy Medical Director\nAmerican Psychiatric Association\nJohn C. Nelson, M.D.\nAMA has been very supportive of V chip and rating\nBoard Member\nAmerican Medical Association\nMedia Literacy\nRenee Hobbs\nAward-winning media literacy materials, including for K-12 educ.\nAssoc. Prof. of Communication\nBabson College\nAdvocacy\nMarcy Kelly\nDir. of National Television Violence Study; numerous campaigns for\nMedia Scope\nimproving the way public hlth and social issues depicted in media\nKaren Jaffe\nComputerized clearinghouse for kids' media; Nashville participant\nExecutive Director\nKIDSNET, Inc.\nC. Delores Tucker\nCrusade against \"gangsta\" and pornographic rap music\nNational Political Black Congress for Women\nJan Schmidt\nDisseminates ratings and information on Maryland tv programs\nMD Campaign for Kids' TV\nAdvocates for Children and Youth\nJournalism\nStacey Mahoney\nYouth journalist\nEditor, Children's Express\nAcademia\nFelton Earls\nPrincipal Investigator of Project on Human Devlpt in Chicago\nHarvard School of Public Health Neighborhoods\nTimothy Flanagan\nResearch includes public opinion on juv justice issues\nDean, College of Criminal Justice, TX\nJuvenile Justice/Police\nRick Dykstra\n'95 Crime Prev Officer of the Year; \"D.A.R.E. on the AIR\" radio show\nJunction City, KS Police Dept\nMarch 6, 1996\nMEMORANDUM FOR CAROL H. RASCO\nCC:\nJeremy Ben-Ami\nFROM:\nMolly Brostrom\nmbb\nRE:\nBriefing materials for Media Breakout Session\nAttached are:\nA list of most/key participants in the breakout session with a short bullet on\nrelevant background. I've also pulled the brief biographies submitted by the\nparticipants for further background on them. (I'll also attach the entire\nbiography book.)\nA brief outline for the session and detailed talking points.\nAs you'll see in the talking points, the strategy discussion includes quite a\nfew different strategies; it is obviously not essential/will be impossible to\ndiscuss them all. Since there are quite a few people in the session who\nworking on advertising campaigns and other ways to use the media to\ncommunicate the anti-drug and violence message, I would suggest ensuring\nthat discussion is given plenty of time.\nPlease let me know if there is anything else you need/would like as background.\nWHITE HOUSE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON\nYOUTH, DRUG USE, AND VIOLENCE\nMedia Breakout Session\nAdvertising\nAlex Kroll\nRecent $7-8 billion initiative focusing on kids; part of\nChairman Emeritus\nNashville Conference\nThe Advertising Council\nBrad Figel\nNike-key influence on kids; Nike P.L.A.Y. Program for youth\nDirector, Government Relations\nNike, Inc.\nJohn Calhoun\nInvolved in PSA \"Take a Bite out of Crime\"\nNational Crime Prevention Council\nIndustry/Business\nBrian L. Dyak\nEIC helps promote positive messages for youth thru\nPresident and CEO\nentertainment media\nEntertainment Industry Council\nFredric D. Rosen\nTicketmaster sponsors youth-oriented corporate\nChairman and Chief Executive Officer\noutreach programs; considering new initiatives\nTicketmaster Corporation\nCable\nDr. Helen Boehm\nSenior Vice President\nPublic Responsibility and Network Standards\nMTV Networks\nJuanita Scarlett\nNickelodeon\nTorie Clarke\nFunded National Television Violence Study (done by\nVice President, Public Affairs and Strategic Counsel\nMediascope)\nNational Cable Television Associstion\nCreators/Producers\nBill Blinn\nCredits include Brian's Song, Roots, and Fame\nChairman,\nCaucus for Producers, Writers and Directors\nMary Duffy\nThe Montel Williams Show\nDick Wolf\nCreator/Producer of Law and Order, New York Undercover, and\nExecutive Producer\nSwift Justice\nPublic Health\nSusan Moses\nSquash It! Campaign; Deputy to Jay Winsten\nDeputy Director, Center for Health Communications\nHarvard School of Public Health\nRobert Phillips, M.D.\nDeputy Medical Director\nAmerican Psychiatric Association\nJohn C. Nelson, M.D.\nAMA has been very supportive of V chip and rating\nBoard Member\nAmerican Medical Association\nMedia Literacy\nRenee Hobbs\nAward-winning media literacy materials, including for K-12 educ.\nAssoc. Prof. of Communication\nBabson College\nAdvocacy\nMarcy Kelly\nDir. of National Television Violence Study; numerous campaigns for\nMedia Scope\nimproving the way public hlth and social issues depicted in media\nKaren Jaffe\nComputerized clearinghouse for kids' media; Nashville participant\nExecutive Director\nKIDSNET, Inc.\nC. Delores Tucker\nCrusade against \"gangsta\" and pornographic rap music\nNational Political Black Congress for Women\nJan Schmidt\nDisseminates ratings and information on Maryland tv programs\nMD Campaign for Kids' TV\nAdvocates for Children and Youth\nJournalism\nStacey Mahoney\nYouth journalist\nEditor, Children's Express\nAcademia\nFelton Earls\nPrincipal Investigator of Project on Human Devlpt in Chicago\nHarvard School of Public Health Neighborhoods\nTimothy Flanagan\nResearch includes public opinion on juv justice issues\nDean, College of Criminal Justice, TX\nJuvenile Justice/Police\nRick Dykstra\n'95 Crime Prev Officer of the Year; \"D.A.R.E. on the AIR\" radio show\nJunction City, KS Police Dept\nWHITE HOUSE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON\nYOUTH, DRUG USE, AND VIOLENCE\nMedia Breakout Session\n2:00\nWelcome/Introductory Remarks\n-Carol H. Rasco\nParticipant Introductions\nRoundtable Discussion\n2:20-2:40\nSetting the Context: The Connection between Media, Youth\nViolence and Drug Use\n2:40-3:00\nRealism About Pressures Within Media Industry\n3:00-4:00\nGiven the connection and pressures, strategies for meeting the\nchallenge\nProviding Parents Information on and Control over Programming\n(V-chip; Rating system)\nMedia Literacy\nUsing the Media to Communicate Anti-Drug and Anti-Violence\nMessages, and to Promote Self-Esteem among Youth\n-Advertising Campaigns\n-Industry Education/Positive Messages in Programming\nPromoting Positive and Educational Programming\n-Public Broadcasting\n-Pressure through Public Opinion\nTALKING POINTS\nOPENING REMARKS\nWelcome to the Media breakout session of the White House Conference on\nYouth, Drug Use, and Violence.\nAs you heard the President say today, this day is about moving forward together\nto meet the challenge of caring for our youth and reducing juvenile drug use and\nviolence. This Administration has worked hard to meet that challenge -- from\nfighting for passage of a tough Crime bill that has put 100,000 new community\npolice officers in neighborhoods, to creating the Community Schools program,\nto improving and expanding the Head Start program for our youngest citizens.\nThese initiatives have had made real progress -- yet we must all do more.\nThere are too many youth at risk in our nation. And, drug use and violent\ncrime among juveniles has crept up.\nThe President has issued a call for all Americans -- the media, schools,\nteachers, communities, churches and synagogues, businesses and government --\nto take more responsibility for our children. He believes the best way to\nachieve this goal is by finding common ground, and building partnerships.\nAnd that is what this conference and these breakout sessions are about:\nBringing together all of you who strive to meet the challenge -- all of you who\nknow the problems firsthand, who know what does and does not work to solve\nthem -- and providing the opportunity to share this information with each other\nand people across the country -- through the report to the President that will be\ndeveloped from the discussion and recommendations of each breakout session.\nI don't need to tell all of you gathered here what an important element media is\nin meeting the challenge. The media -- television in particular for our young\npeople -- wields a tremendous amount of power in our society. As we move\ndeeper and deeper into the information age, this power only grows. Our\nmeeting here today is to continue the discussion about how to use that power in\npositive ways.\nAs many of you know, last summer at the Family Conference in Nashville, the\nPresident and Vice President urged the industry to take a leadership role in\nhelping families navigate their way safely through the modern media onslaught.\nThanks to the dedication of the President and Vice President in keeping this\nissue front and center we were able to pass the V chip in the\ntelecommunications Act. And now thanks to the vision and leadership of the\nindustry executives who gathered on February 29th with the President and Vice\nPresident, the V chip can become a reality and give responsible parents the tools\nthey need to exercise that responsibility.\nWe have with us today, Greg Simon of the Vice President's office, who has\nbeen a key player in moving forward on these fronts. Shortly, when we get to\nthe discussion of strategies, he can give us further background on the meeting\nand agreement of the 29th.\nThe February 29 agreement was a crucial, and hopefully momentum-building\nstep. But there are numerous other steps that are being taken, and others that\nneed to be encouraged. This afternoon, I hope we can share information on\nwhat is working and strategize on how to continue to move forward.\nINTRODUCTIONS\nBefore any more time goes by, let 's quickly do a round of introductions,\nincluding a brief statement on who each of you are.\nOUTLINE OF MEETING\nThese breakout sessions are all designed as \"roundtable discussions\" so please\nfeel free to jump in when you have something to add. We have a fabulous\ngroup of participants, and I'd like to apologize at the outset for not having time\nto hear sufficiently from all of you.\nTo set the context, we'll begin with a brief discussion on the connection between\nmedia, youth violence and drug use. Then, briefly again, we will talk about\nsome of the pressures within the industry that have lead to some of the negative\ninfluences. And then, most importantly, we will turn to the strategies -- given\nthe connection and the pressures, how do we meet the challenge and help steer\nyoung people away from drugs and violence and toward healthy activities?\nDISCUSSION\n2:20 Setting the Context: The Connection between Media, Youth Violence\nand Drug Use\nMarcy Kelly, why don't you start us off with your assessment of the effect and\nextent of media violence, based on the findings of the recent National Television\nViolence Study? Then perhaps, Doctors Phillips and Nelson, can provide us\nthe perspectives of the medical community on the connection between media,\nviolence and drug use.\nCan one of our youth discuss being a consumer of television violence? (Stacey\nMahoney, youth journalist, is a potential.)\n2:40 Realism About Pressures Within Media Industry\nLet's talk briefly about why there is violence, drug use, explicit sexual material\nin the media. Can our industry representatives talk about some of the pressures\nwithin the media industry?\n(Dick Wolf, Helen Boehm of MTV, Bill Blinn, or Mary Duffy of the Montel\nWilliams show are potentials.)\n3:00 Given the connection and pressures, strategies for meeting the\nchallenge\nEnough of the problem -- how do we move forward and meet the challenge,\ngiven the connection and pressures we just heard about. Let's begin with a\nstrategy that has been at the top of the news:\nProviding Parents Information on and Control over Programming through the\nV-chip and Rating system.\nGreg Simon of the Vice President's office can provide further explanation of the\nmeeting and agreement reached on February 29.\nAny other thoughts/comments on the V chip and rating system as a tool?\nAnother key tool in educating and informing parents are Media Literacy\ncampaigns.\nRenee Hobbs can you discuss some of your award-winning media\nliteracy work?\nJan Schmidt, perhaps you can tell us about the Maryland Campaign for\nKids TV.\nIf we just talked about how to mitigate negative influences, we would be\nmissing how to harness the power and creativity of the media. And we need\nthat power in not just communicating the anti-drug and violence messages, but\nin promoting self-esteem among youth.\nAdvertising campaigns have had some remarkable success at promoting positive\nsocial responses.\nAlex Kroll, please tell us about the Ad Council's recent initiatives in\nusing the media to communicate anti-drug and anti-violence messages.\nSusan Moses, can you tell us about your experience with the Squash It\ncampaign?\nBrad Figel, can you tell us about the genesis of the wonderful Nike ads\nthat work to promote self-esteem in youth?\nIndustry Education initiatives -- in which organizations such as Mediascope\nhave helped to educate writers, creators, or producers, and spur positive\nmessages in programming -- are another important piece of the solution.\nDo any of our creative industry people want to talk about how easy or\ndifficult it is to build those messages in? Does anyone want to share any\nthoughts on how effective these messages are?\nPromoting Positive and Educational Programming-- We all know that there are\nplenty of programs on TV that we are thankful exist -- Sesame Street.. How\ndo we encourage more of these? How do we support public broadcasting\nwhich, with an average of 6 hours a day of educational TV, is such a key source\nof educational programs, especially important for younger children.\nCorporate Responsibility -- Members of the media industry, like other\nbusinesses are promoting youth programs as part of being responsible\ncorporations.\nFred Rosen, can you tell us about Ticketmaster's youth-oriented\ncorporate outreach programs that provide opportunities for youth, and any\nplans you have for the future?\nMobilizing Public Opinion As we've heard, the industry needs to know what\nconsumers want.\nC. Delores Tucker, in your campaign against violent and pornographic\nart, you've succeeded in mobilizing public opinion to effect change. Can\nyou tell us about your strategies?\nCLOSING REMARKS\nAs all of you have shown today, many of the pieces that are critical to moving\nforward are out there -- building positive messages into programs, providing\nyouth healthy programming or other alternatives, developing more critical\nviewers.\nThe media executives, despite their competitiveness, were able to come together\nto help youth. Other sectors (alcohol, tobacco, gun lobbyists) need to do the\nsame.\nAt the federal level, we will continue to provide leadership and momentum to\nthis issue. But we need each of you and your neighbors -- in homes and\ncommunities across the country -- helping to meet the challenges\nlaid out for us today. Thank you very much for your participation.\n03/01/96 FRI 19:54 FAX 202 482 1635\n002\nMEDIA VIOLENCE\nChallenge:\nTo identify ways that the media can be a positive or\nnegative influence in the fight to decrease violence and drug use\namong youth, to provide parents and communities with the tools\nnecessary to educate themselves about the impacts both\npositive and negative -- of the media, and to encourage more\npositive use of the media to steer kids away from violence and\ndrugs.\nTopics to be Covered in the Session:\nThe Impact of the Media -- What influence does the media\nhave in the behavior of youth, particularly relating to violence\nand drug use? The consensus of the research community is that\nmedia violence has a negative impact on children. Three Surgeons\nGeneral, the Attorney General's Task Force on Family Violence,\nthe American Medical Association, the National Institutes of\nMental Health, the American Psychological Association and the\nAmerican Academy of Pediatrics, among many researchers, have\nfound that viewing television violence is harmful to children.\nMany of these medical organizations suggest that the amount of\ntelevised violence that American children watch has serious\nimplications for the high rates of homicide, suicide and violent\ncrime in our society.\nIn an effort to address the issue of media violence and its\nimpact on children, various solutions have been proposed ranging\nfrom limiting violent programming to late night hours, to report\ncards listing the sponsors of violent programs, to ratings and\nblocking technology. Giving parents the technology in television\nsets to block out programs that carry a rating for violence, the\n\"V chip\", was passed by Congress and signed into law by the\nPresident this winter. Within two years all television receivers\nsold in this country must contain the V chip, and the media\nindustry was encouraged to develop a voluntary rating system for\ntelevision programming -- including broadcast and cable\nprogramming. On February 29th, the industry committed to create\nsuch a rating system and to have it in place within one year.\nThe advantage of this approach is that it enables parents to\nprotect their children from programs they consider inappropriate\nwithout infringing on the rights of others to view those\nprograms. In addition, each family makes its own choice about\nwhat programs are appropriate. Parents who can not be in the TV\nroom to supervise every program can use the V chip to block\nprograms that have been identified by the programmer as\npotentially inappropriate for children. They can deactivate the\nV chip at any time to watch programs themselves, or to watch a\nmore mature program with their children.\n03/01/96 FRI 19:54 FAX 202 482 1635\n003\nIn addition to turning off programs that they feel are\ninappropriate for their children, parents need to be able to turn\non positive programming. There is a need for more educational\nand positive choices of programs for families, and it will take\nthe active participation of the public to produce such a change\nin the kinds of programming available.\nMedia Literacy How can parents and communities learn more\nabout the ways that the media impact the behavior of youth? One\nof the most important elements of an effort to reduce the amount\nof violence in popular programming and its impact on children is\nto work with families. Once parents and children understand the\npower of media images and messages, they can be more critical and\nselective viewers of television. In addition, to the extent that\nfamilies understand the impact of violence in television and\nchoose to select less violent programming, this will have a\npowerful economic impact on programmers.\nPositive Uses of the Media -- How has the media been used to\npromote more positive behaviors among youth? What has worked and\nwhat has not worked? Public health researchers and workers\nhelped to create the \"Designated Driver\" campaign, along with\nparents and communities group. This campaign is credited with\nintroducing the concept of a designated driver into popular\nculture, and helping to promote this anti-drunk driving practice\namong teens and adults. Currently an anti-violence campaign\ncalled \"Squash It!\" is being promoted in the same way.\nIn addition, the creative community has worked to include\nmore positive messages in programming, for example, talking about\nthe role of a designated driver or showing characters using seat\nbelts. Industry, advocacy and research organizations have held\nworkshops with the creative community to help writers, directors,\nand producers to develop ways to tell stories that include\nsolving problems in a non-violent way into popular programs\nwatched by children and teens.\nPossible Action Steps:\nMedia Literacy -- The President and Vice President stated on\nFebruary 29th following the meeting on television violence that\nthey would like to participate in the media literacy campaign.\nIndustry and parent initiatives have been started in this area,\nand they could be expanded to reach more families.\nIndustry Education Various organizations run workshops to\ntalk with writers, producers and directors about the ways that\nviolence or drug use are portrayed on television. This has led\nto a greater understanding amongst those working in the media\nindustry of the consequences of negative images, as well as the\nways that they can use positive messages to get across an anti-\nviolence or anti-drug message.\n2\n03/01/96 FRI 19:54 FAX 202 482 1635\n004\nIndustry Commitments to Educational Children's Programming -\n- At the industry meeting with the President and Vice President\non February 29th, there was a great deal of discussion of the\nissue of children's educational programming and ways that the\namount of programming and the quality of programs can be\nimproved. Some programming companies have committed to airing\nthree hours a week of educational programming, and challenged\nothers to make commitments to serve children with programming or\nin other ways such as supporting community projects.\nPublic Television -- Many of the research findings relating\nto television violence indicate that younger children are more\nvulnerable to the influences of media violence than older kids.\nFor younger children in particular, the effects of viewing media\nviolence are both short and long term. As kids get older, they\nare better able to put media violence in context and to balance\nit against their own life experience. Offering kids an\nalternative when they are pre-schoolers or 6 year olds, or 10\nyear olds, to violence programming is therefore critical. With\nan average of 6 hours a day of educational programming for\nchildren, public broadcasting is a critical source of nonviolent\nprogramming for young children.\n3"
}