Mr. Chairman and Commissioners of the FCC, thank you for inviting me to talk about helping parents protect their children from the effects of violent programming. I've been researching the impact of television on children at the University of Wisconsin for more than 26 years, focusing on the consequences of exposure to media violence and the impact of television and movie ratings. I have also written a book titled Mommy, I'm Scared, that helps parents help their children cope with our violent media culture. I presented many of these arguments in greater detail at the recent American Psychological Association Convention. That speech, including references to the original research, is available on my web site (joannecantor.com) for those who want more detail.
 

I know you've already heard the standard arguments about media violence research. My goal here is to put this research in the perspective of broadcasters' public interest obligations. The meta-analyses that combine all the relevant studies make a clear case that viewing media violence is a significant contributor to violent behavior. But in addition, I want to highlight certain results that show psychological harm in a more immediate, direct fashion. I'll give three examples of the types of harm I'm talking about:
 

First, children often imitate what they see on television, and this imitation is not limited to playful, harmless behavior. For example, a national survey of Israeli middle schools revealed that when World Wrestling Federation was introduced there in the mid-90's, it led to a national epidemic of serious playground injuries (including broken bones and concussions) because children -- even those who knew that what they were seeing wasn't "real" -- imitated the violence they saw.
 

Second, exposure to media violence increases hostility levels, not just immediately after viewing, but for a substantial period of time thereafter, and these increases in hostility can make an otherwise neutral interaction seem like a provocation. For example, one study showed increasingly hostile interpersonal interactions even a day after viewing intensely violent movies.
 

Third, a growing research literature shows that exposure to media violence often induces intense fears, which can produce nightmares and interfere with a healthy night's sleep. For example, a recent study in Pediatrics reported a positive association between television viewing and sleep disturbances among elementary school children; indeed 9% of parents said that TV caused their child to have nightmares at least once a week. Other research shows that stumbling into the wrong program or movie on television can induce debilitating anxieties that last for months or even years. Incidentally, the recent uproar over the Nike ad shown during the Olympics -- the one that depicted a young woman being attacked in her bathroom by a chainsaw-wielding lunatic -- demonstrates how vulnerable young children are to gory or grotesque images - even very brief ones.
 

It is important to recognize that the remedy for these harms is not censorship, but rather public information. Just as parents need information about nutrition, and labels that indicate the contents of what their children eat, they need an honest appraisal of the risks to their children's mental health that are posed by different programs. It should then be up to the parents to judge the risk that their child will imitate the violence, become increasingly hostile, or be unable to sleep after viewing. If these are effects parents want to avoid, they should be able to decide whether they prefer to limit their child's exposure or to work with their child to counteract the effects.
 

Parents can't make these decisions if they don't get this information. Although they've already won potentially valuable parenting tools -- TV ratings and the v-chip -- they aren't hearing about them. Broadcasters claim to be promoting the rating system, but the proof is in the results: According to a recent Annenberg study, fewer parents are now aware that we have a TV rating system (50%) than knew about TV ratings in 1997 (70%). And a woefully small percent know how to interpret the ratings. [I have yet to meet a parent who knows what the "D" in the ratings stands for.]
 

Of course broadcasters should be urged to program in a responsible fashion. But even if they decided to broadcast only "quality" programs at the level of Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan, parents would still need to know the content and the risks in advance. This is because children of different ages are affected differently by the same media images. We know from research that young children are apt to miss the intended meaning of a program. A masterpiece that would edify a teenager might very well traumatize a younger child for months.
 

Clearly, censorship is not the answer, but information is. In addition to information about programs, parents need more predictability in the content of commercials. Children tuning into family-appropriate shows, like the World Series or the Olympics, should not have gory and grotesque images from advertising inflicted upon them.
 

Lots of people say it's the parents' responsibility to raise their children, and as the mother of a 11-year-old son, I agree. But in order for us to do a good job of parenting, broadcasters need to provide us with three things: unbiased information about the risks and benefits of media exposure; understandable, timely information about what's in a program; and an assurance that our children won't be ambushed by horrifying images in inappropriately placed ads. These actions should be at the top of the list of broadcasters' obligations to children.