[Television Quarterly, Winter, 2000)] HOW TO TAME THAT TROJAN HORSE:
The Story the Media Won't Tell
When I was growing up in the 'fifties, we were the first family on our block to have a television set. I vividly remember watching the coronation of Queen Elizabeth, with most of the neighbors crowded into our tiny den. What a marvelous convenience! All these free programs came into our homes automatically, and all we had to do was turn on the set to get information and entertainment. We even had the choice between three channels! Before too long, everyone on our block had a TV, and I don't recall any of them questioning whether it was a good idea. Of course, television programming was of a different sort then. For the most part, TV producers behaved as though they were invited guests in America's homes.
Although I've been doing psychological research on the impact of television on children for the past 25 years, we don't need social science methods to conclude that television has changed and that it is no longer on its good behavior. As the other media have done, television has increasingly used violence and sex to attract audiences, and the most recent trend has been to add explicit gross-out humor to the formula. It's not hard to explain why there are audiences for these themes. Sex and violence automatically attract our attention; our species would hardly have survived if they did not. They also arouse us, prompting an adrenaline rush, and distract us from our mundane problems. And as for gross-out humor, it's no wonder kids are thrilled to hear and see all the words and actions we tell them they must control. Freud(1) was on to something when he said that the essence of humor is the expression of "repressed instincts" camouflaged by "joke-work" to make it acceptable - and the two basic elements he identified were hostility and obscenity (For children, obscenity included what I will politely call "potty issues"). The fact that young males are the most valued by advertisers and the fact that TV producers tend to be young males themselves, probably exaggerates the trend toward these themes.
Producers know easy ways to get our attention, they know sure-fire ways to arouse us, and they know how to get a cheap laugh. And sex, violence, and crudeness usually translate pretty well to other cultures, making them easily exportable and much more profitable. It doesn't take a lot of creativity or artistic genius to get ratings this way. And now that there are so many channels that have to be programmed, the shortage of creative artists can be met by cranking out movies and TV shows with these themes. I am not saying there are no wonderful programs that probe issues involving sex, violence, or even crudeness. But I am saying that there's a lot of stuff that makes money just by parading these elements for their own sake. Clearly, members of the entertainment industry are going to continue making their own choices based on what they think is important (which in many cases is simply making money), and nobody can stop them. That's The American Way.
But let's look at this situation from the perspective of parents. Here we have a device (more often several of them) that brings some good programming into our homes. Research in fact shows that educational television really makes a difference in children's success later on in life.(2) But if we want that wonderful stuff, all the rest comes into our homes automatically, too. Certainly, if 50's parents had known what television would become, this automatic delivery system would not have been so readily adopted. That wonderful device has become a Trojan Horse, leaving us with no way to stem the tide of violence, sex, and profanity into our homes - short of constant vigilance and repeatedly saying "no, you can't watch that."
Parents have very good reasons to want to exercise control. The consensus of rigorous academic research is that repeated exposure to media violence promotes desensitization, encourages aggressive attitudes and behaviors, and often causes repeated nightmares and enduring anxieties(3),(4). Television news (which increasingly mimics entertainment television) has become a prominent player in these effects as well(5). But even putting the research aside for a moment, parents ought to have the fundamental right to choose what makes up their home environment. If they want to let in Sesame Street and Blues Clues while keeping out Jerry Springer, Howard Stern, and Sally Jesse Raphael, they should have that freedom.
Here's where the v-chip should come in, but unfortunately, this device has been shunned by the industry. The v-chip is potentially so revolutionary that it should be A REALLY BIG, CONTINUING STORY. But it's a story that the industry is loath tell. The v-chip gives parents unprecedented power, power they richly deserve, but they cannot use their power if they don't hear about it. Is it a coincidence that this story is not getting out? I don't think so.
Being the author of Mommy, I'm Scared, a bookthat tells parents to be cautious about their children's television exposure, I know how difficult it is to get TV to help you promote such a message. But even before I was a book author, I came to see how the media felt about parental empowerment when, in May of 1997, I participated in a taping of The Leeza Show. The show was set up to invite parents to express their views about the television rating system, which had been introduced in January of that year. What happened at the taping was that parent after parent blasted the new age-based system, saying that it didn't give them the information they needed (did the program have sex, or violence, or what?) and that it enticed their children to watch programs designated for older kids and adults. NBC never permitted that program to air.(6),(7),(8) Not coincidentally, NBC was and still is the only major network to refuse to go along with the subsequent agreement to modify the ratings with content letters.
The result of the media's reluctance to tell the story is that few parents know the basics about the v-chip: That it is available in new TV sets now and that it permits them to block programs automatically based on their ratings. And although many have heard about the TV rating system, practically none of them know that the FV stands for "Fantasy Violence" and the D stands for "Sexual Dialogue and Innuendo."
But there are even more important aspects of the story of the v-chip that the media are virtually silent about. One is that some v-chips permit parents to block unrated programs. When the FCC approved the electronic standard for the v-chip, many child advocacy groups urged the Commission to require the device to permit unrated-program blocking. The FCC decided not to mandate this option, but of course, it did not exclude it either. In my book, I encouraged parents to seek out the ability to block unrated programs in buying a new set or a v-chip set-top box, and I suggested they lobby manufacturers to provide this option. I read in the trade papers(9) that the television industry was pressuring manufacturers not to provide unrated-program blocking. But fortunately, some manufacturers listened to parents rather than the television industry, and are giving parents this choice.
Of the few parents who have heard about unrated-program blocking, still fewer are hearing how powerful this choice makes them. First, blocking unrated programs allows parents to protect their young children from the news, which is not rated. By blocking unrated programs, they can prevent their child from stumbling into horrific images of victims of mass shootings or gruesome stories of child molestation and murder. (This seems like a no-brainer to parents, but it is incredibly controversial to almost everyone who works in news.) Second, blocking unrated programs gives the parents of very young children the power to turn normal television reception upside down - they can block everything except programs designated as TV-Y (the most child-friendly rating), something that comes the closest yet to having a childproof cap for their TV. Third, blocking unrated programs allows parents to pressure distributors who are reluctant to rate their programs. Producers are not required to give their programs ratings, but if enough parents block all unrated programs, producers may decide it's a wise business decision to provide this information to parents. This is not censorship, it's capitalism.
And parents have another great tool that they're not hearing about. Many new TV's have the option of blocking entire channels. When I discovered that my v-chip was not blocking South Park, which according to TV Guide has a TV-MA rating, I simply started blocking the entire Comedy Channel until they started sending the appropriate signal. This doesn't mean we never watched that channel. What it means is that my husband and I selected programs on that channel on a case-by-case basis. After all, it's our home and it's our eleven-year-old child that we're concerned about.
Some members of the entertainment industry call this censorship. But let's be fair: The First Amendment was never intended to force anyone to listen or watch as somebody else exercised their right to free speech. Parents have a fundamental right - indeed a duty - to ensure that the environment in their own home is healthy for their children.
Why is the television industry so up-tight about the v-chip and agitated about parents' ability to block unrated programs? Is NYPD Blue really dependent on a sizeable audience of child viewers? And does the nightly news really need to target the preschooler demographic? Of course not. What worries the media is that TV's enormous advantage is its automatic entry into homes. So much viewing is unintended - people just drift into watching programs because they're "on." Anything that interferes with this unthinking approach to television exposure may cut into revenues, they fear. This may be true to a certain extent. But it's hard to believe that parents who would block unrated programs during the day would forget that they can unblock them at night when they want to watch news and sports.
Parents who want to protect their children from what Hollywood and New York are selling to advertisers are not exercising censorship, but I'll tell you who is: It's the news media who won't provide adequate coverage of the v-chip or TV ratings, and won't give parents the honest story about the risks of exposure to television violence. When I speak to national conferences of parent groups, they are hungry for this information and bewildered by the fact that Jack Valenti, who is paid to support the media's interests, gets more air time than child advocates, mental health professionals, and academic researchers. Most parents are shocked to hear that the v-chip is actually available now, and thrilled with the option of blocking unrated programs. And they wonder why they haven't been told before.
So my one request to the industry is, Please! Let the message out. Let parents know about about the risks involved in TV exposure and about the powers they have already won to control the content that enters their homes. You'll still make your profits on programs adults want to see, but parents who care will be given a choice. And maybe our kids will grow up a little bit healthier.
Joanne Cantor is Professor of Communication Arts at the University of Wisconsin and the author of "Mommy, I'm Scared": How TV and Movies Frighten Children and What We Can Do to Protect Them. Harcourt Brace, 1998.
Footnotes
1. Freud, Sigmund. (1960). Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. (James Strachey, Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton. (Original work published 1905).
2. Collins, Patricia A., et al. (1997, April). Effects of early childhood media use on academic achievement. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development Convention, Washington, DC.
3. Paik, H., & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 21(4), 516-539.
4. Cantor, J. (1998). Mommy, I'm scared: How TV and movies frighten children and what we can do to protect them. San Diego: Harvest Books/Harcourt Brace.
5. Cantor, J., & Nathanson, A. I. (1996). Children's fright reactions to television news. Journal of Communication, 46(4), 139-152.
6. Kurtz, Howard. (1997, July 21). Looking for Leeza. The Washington Post, p. C3.
7. Bauder, David. (1997, July 25). NBC accused of censoring "Leeza." The Boston Globe.
8. Stern Christopher. (1997, July 28-August 3). Peacock net muzzles grating ratings talk. Variety.