[Senate Hearing 106-1144]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-1144
MARKETING VIOLENCE TO CHILDREN
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 13, 2000
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-009 WASHINGTON : 2003
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800, DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
SLADE GORTON, Washington JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi Virginia
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada
BILL FRIST, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan RON WYDEN, Oregon
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MAX CLELAND, Georgia
Mark Buse, Republican Staff Director
Ann Choiniere, Republican General Counsel
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director
Moses Boyd, Democratic Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 13, 2000............................... 1
Statement of Senator Abraham..................................... 18
Statement of Senator Ashcroft.................................... 19
Statement of Senator Breaux...................................... 21
Statement of Senator Brownback................................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Statement of Senator Bryan....................................... 10
Statement of Senator Burns....................................... 9
Statement of Senator Dorgan...................................... 19
Statement of Senator Frist....................................... 16
Statement of Senator Hollings.................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Statement of Senator Inouye...................................... 18
Statement of Senator Kerry....................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Statement of Senator McCain...................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Statement of Senator Rockefeller................................. 21
Witnesses
Borenstein, Dr. Daniel B., President, American Psychiatric
Association.................................................... 114
Prepared statement........................................... 115
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from California................ 34
Cheney, Lynne, Former Chairman, National Endowment for the
Humanities..................................................... 55
Prepared statement........................................... 58
Cook, Donald E., M.D., FAAP, President, American Academy of
Pediatrics..................................................... 117
Prepared statement........................................... 118
DeWine, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from Ohio........................ 36
Diaz, Tom, Senior Policy Analyst, Violence Policy Center......... 94
Prepared statement........................................... 96
Dyson, Dr. Michael Eric, Professor, Depaul University............ 133
Prepared statement........................................... 138
Fischbach, Gregory, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Acclaim Entertainment.......................................... 73
Prepared statement........................................... 76
Goldberg, Danny, President, Artemis Records...................... 61
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Hagel, Hon. Chuck, U.S. Senator from Nebraska.................... 43
Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., U.S. Senator from Utah..................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Hyde, Hon. Henry, U.S. Representative from Illinois.............. 27
Kohl, Hon. Herb, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin..................... 32
Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from Connecticut......... 29
Lowenstein, Douglas, President, Interactive Digital Software
Association.................................................... 105
Prepared statement........................................... 108
Markey, Hon. Edward J., U.S. Representative from Massachusetts... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 41
McIntyre, Jeff, Legislative and Federal Affairs Officer, American
Psychological Association...................................... 130
Prepared statement........................................... 132
Moore, Peter, President and Chief Operating Officer, SEGA of
America........................................................ 68
Prepared statement........................................... 71
Pitofsky, Robert, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission............. 45
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Rosen, Hillary B., President and CEO, Recording Industry
Association.................................................... 100
Prepared statement........................................... 102
Valenti, Jack, President and CEO, Motion Picture Association of
America........................................................ 122
Prepared statement........................................... 124
Zelnick, Strauss, President and Chief Operating Officer, BMG
Entertainment.................................................. 65
Prepared statement........................................... 67
Appendix
Dunn, Hon. Jennifer, U.S. Representative from Washington,
prepared statement............................................. 173
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, prepared
statement...................................................... 171
Peterson, Hon. Bart, Mayor, City of Indianapolis, prepared
statement...................................................... 172
MARKETING VIOLENCE TO CHILDREN
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room
SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. John McCain, Chairman
of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
The Chairman. Good morning. We have a very full and busy
hearing schedule today. For the benefit of my colleagues, I
would like to mention a couple of housekeeping items. One, as I
understand it we may have one or more votes around 11 o'clock
which will then, obviously, cause us some disruption. Also it
is my intention, because of the very long day yesterday, that
we will break around 12:30 today. Hopefully we will finish
before then, but if not, we will break at 12:30 for one hour,
and reconvene at 1:30.
We have a large number of witnesses who have great interest
in this hearing, so I would also ask my colleagues if they
would try to make their opening statements as brief as
possible. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the Federal
Trade Commission report entitled, The Marketing of Violent
Entertainment to Children. The report examines the marketing
practices of the motion picture, music, and video game
industries.
The report concludes, and I quote, ``individual companies
in each industry routinely market to children the very products
that have the company's own parental warnings, or ratings, with
age restrictions due to their violent content.'' The report
exposed, ``that extensive marketing, and in many instances
explicit targeting of violent R-rated films to children under
the age of 17 and violent PG-13 films to children under 13''.
Of the 44 R-rated films studied by the Commission, 80
percent were targeted to children under the age of 17. The
report documents extensive market research activities, citing
examples of studios testing rough cuts of R-rated films on
children as young as 12 years old, and revealed that violent
PG-13 rated movies were targeted at children 11 and younger.
One particularly disturbing quote from a marketing plan for
an R-rated movie sequel states, quote, ``it seems to make sense
to interview 10- to 11-year-olds. In addition, we will survey
African American and Latino movie-goers between the ages of 10
and 24.'' I find this patently offensive. Studios ran ads
heavily during the television programs such as The Simpsons,
Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Dawson's Creek, Xena: Warrior
Princess, Hercules, and WWF Smackdown. These programs have some
of the highest under-17 viewership.
Web sites like HappyPuppy.com and MTV.com are used to
attract kids. Comic books and the schoolhouse could not even
protect our children from the studio hacks. Quoting from the
report, ``magazines with majority under-17 audiences such as
Teen, D.C. Comics Teens, or Marvel Comics, contained
advertisements for numerous R-rated films.
``In addition, six of the studios use print media
distributed exclusively in schools, Planet Report, and/or Fast
Times, to advertise R-rated movies.''
The report notes that these periodicals are often mandatory
reading for high school students. One studio distributed free
movie passes to its R-rated movie at high schools, and
distributed promotional material to youth groups such as Camp
Fire Boys and Girls. We intend to find out which studio that
was, and if the movie executives were here today perhaps we
could have asked them.
The FTC's mystery shopper survey sent kids 13 to 16 years
old to 395 theaters, and 46 percent of the time these kids were
able to purchase tickets to R-rated films. This fact is
significant, because following a White House Summit on Violence
last year, President Clinton and theater operators trumpeted a
new zero-tolerance policy to prevent kids from buying tickets
to restricted films. This zero tolerance policy claim, like the
repeated claims before this Committee by the Motion Picture
Industry that the industry is protecting our children with
rating systems and codes of conduct, has been nothing but a
smokescreen to provide cover for immoral and unconscionable
business practices.
I want to cite in detail one example that stands out as
particularly despicable. I quote, ``At least one studio was
thwarted in its attempt to market a PG-13 film to children 6 to
11 on Nickelodeon, when the network concluded that it would not
be appropriate to air advertisements for that film because the
Nickelodeon audience is mostly children under 12, and the film
contains situations not seen on Nickelodeon, including several
gun battles, a couple of fight sequences, some devastating gun
blasts, in addition to strong language and sexual suggestion.''
The studio's advertising agency noted that it advanced
several justifications to Nickelodeon showing the ads
including, this film needs the audience Nickelodeon provides to
be successful. Though the FTC report has been redacted, after
some investigation the Committee was able to establish that the
motion picture studio involved was Sony, and the film was an
extraordinarily violent film named the Fifth Element, starring
Bruce Willis. The ad agency involved was McCann-Erickson.
There will be much said today, but thundering silence will
be heard from motion picture executives. They have all been
invited to testify. By some uncanny coincidence, every single
studio executive was either out of the country or unavailable.
I can only conclude the industry was too ashamed of or unable
to defend their marketing practices. Their hubris is stunning,
and serves to underscore the lack of corporate responsibility
so strikingly apparent in this report.
We do, however, have witnesses from the recording industry
and the video game industry. I hope that all on the Committee
will join me in commending their willingness to testify before
us today. Their cooperation stands in sharp contrast to the
motion picture industry.
As with motion pictures, the music industry is clearly
guilty of marketing violence to children. One marketing plan
cited by the FTC report states, ``the team is promoting heavily
at the local high school and colleges, and the colleges and
high schools and community centers are the focus of our
attack.''
Print ads were consistently placed in magazines like
Seventeen, Skateboarding, YM, and Vibe. These magazines have an
under 18 readership of between 40 and 80 percent. Television
programs like The Simpsons and Buffy the Vampire Slayer
represent some of the highest teen audience members on TV, and
were consistently used to market label recording products.
Though the music labeling system is basically useless, as
it contains no content information and no age-appropriate
recommendations, the FTC did conduct a secret shopper survey.
Not surprisingly, 85 percent of the time children were
successful in purchasing labeled recordings. Given the lack of
information provided, the only thing remarkable about this
number is that every child was not able to make a purchase. I
understand that the music industry has announced a series of
steps designed to address some of these concerns. I will leave
it to the witnesses to outline these changes.
To their credit, the video game industry has the most
comprehensive and informative labeling system that provides
detailed information about content and age appropriateness.
Unfortunately, this system did not prevent marketing to kids.
Nearly 70 percent of the games reviewed by the Commission were
targeted to kids under 17. One particularly shocking marketing
report stated that, ``though the game has two ratings for teens
only, I have asked Nickelodeon sales to help get an approval so
that the product can air on the network. Nickelodeon airs 27 of
the top 30 cable shows against our target demo for boys 9 to
17.''
I want to make clear that neither this report nor this
Committee intends to make the case for censorship. We make no
threat against the First Amendment. It is not my purpose to
pass judgment on the products of your industries. We all have
our own views on the quality and value of what will be defended
as art, but that is not the question today.
Defending these market practices does not defend art or
free expression. It defends the bottom line of your
corporations, and while as a defender of the free market I do
not begrudge anyone's honest profits: I do not think they need
to come at the expense of our children's well-being.
What is in question is not Government censorship but
industry responsibility. It is your responsibility to refrain
from making more difficult a parent's responsibility to see
that their children grow up healthy in mind and body into
adults who are capable of judging for themselves the quality or
lack thereof of your art.
I could go on, but time is short, and the witness list is
long. Chairman Pitofsky will provide us with the details of the
FTC report. I want to commend the staff of the Federal Trade
Commission on an excellent job. I want to acknowledge the
leadership of Senator Brownback in this effort, and many
others.
Finally, I want to get back to the motion picture industry
and their failure to present even one witness for this panel.
The Committee received essentially two excuses for why studio
executives saw fit only to send their lobbyists to represent
them. First, they were virtually all out of the country.
Secondly, they did not have the time to respond to the
substance of the report.
On the second count, the contents of this report are based
almost entirely upon data provided by the studios themselves,
thus I assume they are already familiar with it. In addition,
Committee staff have been talking regularly with studio
lobbyists for several months about a hearing in September and
the need to present studio executives.
Furthermore, the FTC has served a 15-day advance notice to
all entities involved in the pending report. Finally, there has
been an intense dialogue between the Committee and the industry
lobbyists over the past 2 weeks.
Yet here we are, with no direct representation by the
motion picture industry. This is a sad commentary on corporate
responsibility, and an affront to American families whose
children are so clearly in the crosshairs of hundreds of
millions of dollars in movie violence advertising. As such, I
am announcing today that this Committee will convene another
full Committee hearing 2 weeks from today for the sole purpose
of hearing motion picture industry testimony in response to the
FTC report.
As this hearing proceeds, invitations are being delivered
to Gerald Levin, chairman of Time Warner, Incorporated, Michael
Eisner, chairman of The Walt Disney Company, Rupert Murdoch,
chairman of Newscorp, Sumner Redstone, chairman of Viacom,
Incorporated, Edgar Bronfman, chairman of Seagram, Stacey
Snider, chairman of Universal Studios, John Calley, chairman of
Sony Pictures Entertainment, Jim Gianopulos, president of
Twentieth Century Fox, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Dreamworks/SKG,
Sherry Lansing, chairman of Paramount Picture/Viacom, Barry
Meyer, chairman of Warner Brothers, Michael Nathanson,
president of MGM Pictures, and Harvey Weinstein, chairman of
Miramax.
By that time, these individuals will have had 2 full weeks
to clear their schedules and to study the report. They will
have no excuses for failing to appear before this Committee.
Senator Hollings.
[The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John McCain, U.S. Senator From Arizona
The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the Federal Trade
Commission report: The Marketing of Violent Entertainment to Children.
The report examines the marketing practices of the motion picture,
music, and video game industries. The report concludes, and I quote:
``individual companies in each industry routinely market to children
the very products that have the industries' own parental warnings or
ratings with age restrictions due to their violent content.''
The report exposed ``extensive marketing and, in many instances,
explicit targeting of violent R-rated films to children under the age
of 17, and violent PG-13 films to children under 13.'' Of the 44 R-
rated films studied by the Commission, 80 percent were targeted to
children under 17. The report documents extensive market research
activity, citing examples of studios testing rough cuts of R-rated
films on children as young as 12 years old, and revealed that violent,
PG-13 rated movies were targeted at children 11 and younger. One
particularly disturbing quote from a marketing plan for an R-rated
movie sequel states: ``. . . it seems to make sense to interview 10- to
11-year-olds . . . In addition, we will survey African-American and
Latino moviegoers between the ages of 10 and 24.'' I find this patently
offensive.
The studios ran ads heavily during television programming such as
The Simpsons, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Dawson's Creek, Xena: Warrior
Princess, Hercules, and WWF Smackdown. These programs have some of the
highest under-17 viewership. Websites like happypuppy.com and mtv.com
were used to attract kids. The comic books and the school house
couldn't even protect our children from the studio hacks. Quoting from
the report: ``Magazines with majority under-17 audiences, such as Teen
. . DC Comics Teen, or Marvel Comics, contained advertisements for
numerous R-rated films. In addition, six of the studios used print
media distributed exclusively in schools--Planet Report and/or Fast
Times--to advertise R-rated movies.'' The report notes that these
periodicals are often mandatory reading for high school students. One
studio distributed free movie passes to its R-rated movie at high
schools and distributed promotional material to youth groups such as
Camp Fire Boys and Girls.
The FTC's ``Mystery Shopper Survey'' sent kids 13 to 16 years old
to 395 theaters, and 46 percent of the time these kids were able to
purchase tickets to R-rated films. This fact is significant because
following a White House summit on violence last year, President Clinton
and theater operators trumpeted a new ``zero tolerance'' policy to
prevent kids from buying tickets to restricted films. This zero
tolerance policy claim--like the repeated claims before this Committee
by the motion picture industry that the industry is protecting our
children with ratings systems and codes of conduct--has been nothing
but a smoke screen to provide cover for immoral, and unconscionable
business practices.
I want to cite in detail one example that stands out as
particularly despicable. I quote: ``At least one studio was thwarted in
its attempt to market a PG-13 film to children 6-11 on Nickelodeon,
when the network concluded that it would not be appropriate to air
advertisements for that film because the Nickelodeon audience was
mostly children under 12 and the film contained situations not seen on
Nickelodeon, including several gun battles, a couple of fight
sequences, and some devastating gun blasts (in addition to strong
language and sexual suggestion). The studio's advertising agency noted
that it had advanced several justifications (to Nickelodeon) for
showing the ads, including: ``This film needs the audience Nickelodeon
provides to be successful.'' Though the FTC report has been redacted,
after some investigation the Committee was able to establish that the
motion picture studio involved was Sony, and the film was an
extraordinarily violent film named ``The Fifth Element,'' starring
Bruce Willis. The ad agency involved was McCann/Erikson.
There will be much said today. But thundering silence will be heard
from motion picture executives. They have all been invited to testify.
But, by some uncanny coincidence every single studio executive was
either out of the country, or unavailable. I can only conclude the
industry was too ashamed of, or unable to defend their marketing
practices. Their hubris is stunning, and serves to underscore the lack
of corporate responsibility so strikingly apparent in this report.
We do, however, have witnesses from the recording industry, and the
video game industry. I hope that all on the Committee will join me in
commending their willingness to testify before us today. Their
cooperation stands in sharp contrast to the motion picture industry.
As with motion pictures, the music industry is clearly guilty of
marketing violence to children. One marketing plan cited by the FTC
report states that ``[t]he team is promoting heavily at the local high
schools and colleges'' and that ``[c]olleges and high schools, and
community centers are the focus of our attack.'' Print ads were
consistently placed in magazines like Seventeen, Skateboarding, YM, and
Vibe. These magazines have an under-18 readership of between 40 and 80
percent. Television programs like The Simpsons, and Buffy the Vampire
Slayer represent some of the highest teen audience numbers on TV, and
were consistently used to market labeled recording products.
Though the music labeling system is basically useless, as it
contains no content information, and no age-appropriate
recommendations, the FTC did conduct a secret shopper survey. Not
surprisingly, 85 percent of the time children were successful in
purchasing labeled recordings. Given the lack of information provided,
the only thing remarkable about this number is that every child was not
able to make a purchase. I understand that the music industry has
announced a series of steps designed to address some of these concerns.
I will leave it to their witnesses to outline those changes.
To their credit, the video game industry has the most comprehensive
and informative labeling system. It provides detailed information about
content, and age appropriateness. Unfortunately, this system did not
prevent marketing to kids. Nearly 70 percent of the games reviewed by
the Commission were targeted to kids under 17. One particularly
shocking marketing report stated that: ``Though [the game] has T rating
(for teens only), I have asked Nickelodeon sales to help get an
approval so that the product can air on the network. (Nick[elodeon]
airs 27 of the top 30 cable shows against our target demo for boys 9-
17).''
I want to make clear that neither this report nor this Committee
intend to make the case for censorship. We make no threat against the
First Amendment. It is not my purpose to pass judgement on the products
or your industries. We all have our own views on the quality and value
of what will be defended as art. But that is not the question today.
Defending these market practices does not defend art or free
expression. It defends the bottom line of your corporations. And while
as a defender of the free market I do not begrudge anyone's honest
profits, I do not think they need to come at the expense of our
children's well-being. What is in question is not government
censorship, but industry responsibility. It is your responsibility to
refrain from making much more difficult a parent's responsibility to
see that their children grow up healthy in mind and body into adults
who are capable of judging for themselves the quality or lack thereof
of your art.
I could go on, but time is short, and the witness list is long.
Chairman Pitofsky will provide us with the details of the FTC Report. I
want to commend the staff of the Federal Trade Commission on an
excellent job. I want to acknowledge the leadership of Senator
Brownback in this effort.
Finally, I want to go back to the motion picture industry and their
failure to present even one witness for this panel. The Committee
received essentially two excuses for why studio executives saw fit only
to send their lobbyists to represent them. First, they were virtually
all out of the country. Secondly, that they did not have time to
respond to the substance of the report. On the second count, the
contents of this report are based almost entirely upon data provided by
the studios themselves. Thus, I assume they are already familiar with
it. In addition, Committee staff have been talking regularly with
studio lobbyists for several months about a hearing in September and
the need to present studio executives.
Furthermore, the FTC has served a 15-day advance notice to all
entities involved in the pending report. Finally, there has been an
intense dialogue between the Committee and industry lobbyists over the
past two weeks. Yet here we are with no direct representation by the
motion picture industry. This is a sad commentary on corporate
responsibility, and an affront to American families whose children are
so clearly in the cross hairs of hundreds of millions of dollars in
movie violence advertising.
As such, I am announcing today that this Committee will convene
another Full Committee hearing two weeks from today for the sole
purpose of hearing motion picture industry testimony in response to the
FTC Report. As this hearing proceeds, invitations are being delivered
to:
Gerald Levin--Chairman, Time Warner, Inc.
Michael Eisner--Chairman, The Walt Disney Company
Rupert Murdoch--Chairman, Newscorp
Sumner Redstone--Chairman, Viacom, Inc.
Edgar Bronfman--Chairman, Seagram
Stacey Snider--Chairman--Universal Studios
John Calley--Chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment
Jim Gianopulos--President of Twentieth Century Fox
Jeffrey Katzenberg--Dreamworks/SKG
Sherry Lansing--Chairman, Paramount Picture/Viacom
Barry Meyer--Chairman, Warner Brothers
Michael Nathanson--President, MGM Pictures
Harvey Weinstein--Chairman, Miramax
By that time, these individuals will have had two full weeks to
clear their schedules, and to study the report. They will have no
excuses for failing to appear before this Committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator Hollings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
appreciate the fact that you are going to call that hearing
within 2 weeks, and I will file my statement. Let me summarize
briefly.
In the words of our famous leader, President Ronald Reagan,
``Here we go again.'' Chairman Hyde back in the House committee
back in 1952 concluded that the television broadcast industry
was a perpetuator and a deliverer of violence. In 1954, 1964,
during that 10-year period the Senate Judiciary Committee held
hearings conclusively, and I quote, establishing the
relationship between television, crime, and violence, between
1960 and 1999, 30 years, this Committee itself has had 20
hearings, Mr. Chairman, on this particular subject.
In 1969, Senator Pastore had extensive hearings resulting
in the request for the Surgeon General's study, and in 1972 the
Surgeon General reported that a causal link between viewing
violence as a child and subsequent violent aggressive behavior.
Of course, Dr. Leon Elder of the University of Michigan,
who published the famous book on this particular subject, after
a 20-year study he concluded there was a direct causal link
between the childhood viewing of television and violent
conduct.
In 1982, the National Institute of Mental Health, after 10
years of research, found the consensus among all of the
research communities that violence on television leads to
aggressive behavior.
In 1990, we put in an antitrust--you see, the strategy of
not appearing was to say, oh, wait a minute, we can do it, and
so in 1990 this Committee, Mr. Chairman, gave the industry an
antitrust exemption under Senator Paul Simon's bill, and after
they had voluntarily done it in 1992 the networks issued this
confusing standard thing, but 1993, Dr. Brandon Cantrell's
study found the same thing, that the homicide rate doubles 10
years after television is introduced in a country.
And in 1995, we finally got to the safe harbor bill that
is, excessive gratuitous violence forbidden during the periods
9:00 in the morning to 9:00 in the evening, when the youth
predominate the viewing audience. This is the practice, and
proven and tried and true in Europe and Australia and down in
New Zealand. They do not go into schools down in Australia, or
in the countries in Europe, and shoot up the student body.
We reported that out twice unanimously from this Committee.
We have that same bill in this Committee, and I would ask that
you consider, Mr. Chairman, for it to be included again on the
markup.
I think I conclude here by saying that in 1998 there were
other studies, but here were the television people and the
movie people. It was actually sponsored by the cable industry,
but it included in the study, the National Television Violence
Study, amongst other council members Chairman Beals of the
Marketing Society, Belva Davis, American Federation of
Television and Radio Artists; Charles B. Fitzsimmons, Producers
Guild of America; Ann Marcus, Caucus for the Producers and
Writers and Directors, Jean Reynolds, the Directors Guild of
America, and they found conclusively that violence on
television has been shown to have an influence on aggressive
behavior.
It is common sense. We know it, and like Pogo we have met
the enemy and it is us, because I hold up--and I will just read
three paragraphs from the history of broadcasting. They know
violence sells. This is back in 1949, 50 years ago. Man Against
Crime. Man Against Crime was sponsored by Camel cigarettes.
This affected both the writing and the direction. Mimeographed
instructions told writers, and I quote, do not have the heavy
or disreputable person smoking a cigarette. Do not associate
the smoking of cigarettes with undesirable scenes or
situations, plot-wise.
Then, moving on, cigarettes had to be smoked gracefully,
never puffed nervously. A cigarette was never given to a
character to calm his nerves, since this might suggest a
narcotic effect. Writers received numerous plot instructions.
But here is a producer's instructions 50 years ago, quote:
It has been found that we retain audience interest best when
our story is concerned with murder. Therefore, although other
crimes may be introduced, somebody must be murdered, preferably
early, with the threat of more violence to come. This is a
history of broadcasting by the industry itself.
For 50 years, we have known it. It is obvious. We continue
to have hearings. We will have another hearing 2 weeks from
now, but we have got a solution, tried and true. It is in
Europe, down in Australia and New Zealand. It is in this
Committee if we only could report it out and vote on it. It
would be a privilege. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hollings follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
U.S. Senator From South Carolina
Mr. Chairman I commend you for holding this hearing today. The
issue of the exposure of children to violence in the media has been
with us for a long time. I have been involved in addressing the issue
of television violence for several Congresses. I believe the best step
towards protecting children is to restrict the airing of violent
programing to hours when children are least likely to be watching.
In 1952, a House subcommittee first looked at the issue of violence
on radio and television. The Senate Judiciary Committee began hearings
on this issue in 1954 and the Senate Commerce Committee began hearings
in 1960. Since that time there have been studies that link aggression,
violent behavior, and a desensitization to violence in children to
their exposure to violent programming. In 1972, the Surgeon General's
report concluded that there is a causal link between viewing violence
as a child and subsequent violent or aggressive behavior. Even a study
in 1998 by the National Cable Television Association conceded that
``violence in television has been shown in hundreds of studies to have
an influence on aggressive behavior.''
In order to deal with this issue, the various industry segments
have adopted ratings systems and in 1996, Congress enacted V-chip
legislation. So far, however, ratings have not proven to be an
effective tool. With respect to television, the Kaiser Family
Foundation found that 79 percent of shows with violence did not receive
a ``V'' for ``violence'' rating. A more recent survey by the foundation
determined that 9 percent of parents of children ages 2-17 now have a
television with a V-chip and only 3 percent of all parents have
programmed the chip to block shows they deem unsuitable for their
children. With regard to movies, while 90 percent of parents are
familiar with movie ratings, children are often able to purchase
tickets and attend movies that are not suitable for their viewership.
On the music industry side, the ``Parents Advisory Label'' appears on
less than one half of 1 percent of the total inventory of music stores
and as significantly, the warnings do not appear in music videos.
Finally, as it concerns video games, 15 percent of boys say their
parents understand the ratings system and 90 percent say that their
parents never check the ratings before allowing them to buy the game.
So during these years of hearings, and studies, and ratings,
children continue to be exposed to media violence. A child before
completing elementary school will see 8,000 murders and 100,000 other
actions of violence on television alone. Now we have another study
which tells us that the industry is targeting violent media products at
children.
It is now time to take definitive action. Self-regulation is not
working. Ratings are not working. Therefore, we should take a strong
step to solve this problem by instituting a safe harbor to protect our
children. The legislation that I have introduced and that is
cosponsored by Senator Dorgan, requires the creation of a safe harbor
time period during which broadcasters and other video programmers would
not be permitted to transmit violent programming. If the industry will
not act responsibly then Congress must act.
Thanks Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing. I welcome the
witnesses and look forward to hearing their testimony.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hollings. At your request
we will place it on the markup for next Wednesday. I thank you
for your involvement. I would earnestly solicit brief comments
from the other Members of the Committee. I would appreciate it.
Senator Burns.
STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and my
statement will be very short. It may take all day just to get
the statements in here, but I first of all want to thank the
FTC, for their work, and the relationship we have had with the
FTC and this Committee and this Congress, which has been very,
very constructive and very, very good.
And also I noted that, just what the Chairman had noted a
while ago, the studios are not here, and I think it is unfair.
I think it is unfair. Now, they are sending their
representative today, a very able and capable representative.
It is unfair to him to make him come up and plead their case
when they ought to be here themselves trying to do it.
There are all kinds of pollution, and we deal with all of
them here in the Congress, but the deadliest of all of them is
noise and mind pollution to a society. It is the deadliest
kind, because it tears at the very moral fiber of a Nation and
of a society, and yet no one wants to take responsibility.
Marketing to children--where have we heard that before, and
not very long ago?--I am wondering if those folks who were as
aggressive at that little exercise that happened here in
Congress--marketing to children--will be as aggressive this
time.
I am not suggesting censorship or anything like that,
because there are a lot of us that are at this table that
served for this country and protected that First Amendment
beyond belief, because we believe in it, but we also fought for
this country because we were a responsible country, and that is
not being shown here today, and to our Chairman and this
Committee, like it should have been.
And so the schedule of another hearing, Mr. Chairman, I
applaud you, and I also want to applaud the work of Senator
Brownback in this cause, but I think it was something that had
to happen because of the kind of pollution that we are dealing
with here today.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Bryan.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD H. BRYAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Bryan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
convening this hearing, and I would like to preface my comments
by commending the Federal Trade Commission, and particularly
its very able chairman, Mr. Pitofsky.
No one would deny that the entertainment media has an
enormous impact on our youth and helps to shape the youth
culture in America. The recent study found that the typical
American child spends an average of more than 38 hours a week,
nearly the equivalent of a full-time work week, with
entertainment media outside of the school.
The findings of the recent FTC report concerning the
marketing of violent movies, music, and electronic games to
children I find most troublesome. The rising tide of senseless
violence in our country has shocked the American public. The
circumstances that led to the tragedy that occurred at
Littleton, Colorado, nearly 17 months ago has reinvigorated the
public debate about the effects of violent entertainment, of
the media, on youth, and while it may be impossible to show a
causal relationship between the youth's exposure to media
violence and violent behavior in a particular case, many
researchers have come to the conclusion, as I have, that a
child's exposure to violent entertainment media can be a factor
contributing to aggression, antisocial attitudes, and violence.
Even more troublesome and disturbing than the abundance of
violent movies, music, and video games is the manner in which
these games and movies and music are marketed to our youth. It
defies rational explanation to understand how a movie studio
can on the one hand acknowledge that an R-rated movie that it
has produced has inappropriate content for a child under the
age of 17 unless accompanied by an adult, and on the other hand
employ a marketing strategy for that movie specifically
targeted at that audience.
This type of marketing strategy makes a mockery of the
movie rating system, and is seemingly based on the presumption
that most parents would be willing to take the children to an
R-rated movie.
Parents today have a very difficult time in raising their
children. My wife and I have been blessed this past year with
three little grandchildren and a fourth is on the way. They
have responsible parents, good parents. How difficult the
challenges are for them, much more difficult than in our
generation in raising our own children. The actions by this
industry are irresponsible and, indeed, unconscionable in terms
of what it does to young people and the difficulty it presents
to parents today.
The current marketing techniques employed by the
entertainment industry has the perverse effect of complicating
a parent's job in choosing which movies, which CD's or video
games are appropriate for their children. At a time when the
entertainment industry should be looking at new and innovative
ways to provide parents with tools to help parents make
informed decisions about what type of media is appropriate for
their children, it appears that the industry is working at
cross-purposes and, indeed, is part of an effort to market
inappropriate material to young people.
Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Brownback.
STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK,
U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congratulations for holding this hearing, and the one
announced in weeks, and the one yesterday, and the one
tomorrow. You have got the Committee working hard and doing
good work for the people.
This is an important hearing and an important report that
is being released on Monday. When several of us introduced
legislation last year to authorize this FTC report, we did so
because the anecdotal evidence was overwhelming that violent,
adult-rated entertainment was being marketed to children.
It has been said that much of modern research is the
corroboration of the obvious by obscure methods. The study does
corroborate what many of us have long suspected, and it does so
unambiguously and conclusively. It shows, as Chairman Pitofsky
noted, that the marketing is pervasive and aggressive. It shows
that entertainment companies are literally making a killing off
of marketing violence to kids.
The problem is not just one industry, but can be found in
virtually every form of entertainment--movies, music, video,
and PC games. All together, they take up the majority of a
child's leisure hours, and the message they get and the images
they see often glamorize brutality and trivialize cruelty.
Take, for example, popular music. The FTC report notes that
all of the stickered music they surveyed was target-marketed to
kids, 100 percent.
Now, in the room we have some easels that show some
examples of this music by listing their lyrics. This stuff is
not for the faint-hearted, but the music industry has decided
it is for children. Nor are these obscure songs. The lyrics
from Eminem are from an album that is currently at number 3 on
the Billboard chart, after spending 2 months this summer at
number 1. He received three awards from MTV last week. The
other two featured artists, DMX and Dr. Dre, are currently in
the top 30 in the charts, and peaked at number 1 and 2
respectively.
Mr. Chairman, I would just note that as you read through
some of the words here--I could not put all of the words up. Of
course, I think you can get what Dr. Dre is saying based just
on his title--one which I am not going to pronounce. How does
it make you feel here, listening to this, looking at it, and
knowing that 100 percent of this is targeted, marketed to
children.
Now, maybe I am a little more sensitive to this than others
because I have five children, but I do not like it, and I think
it is wrong for these companies to use millions of dollars to
target this to children. It is especially wrong when they
themselves say this is inappropriate for those children! I know
it makes all of us blush and feel uncomfortable here in this
room today, and yet it is okay for a 14-year-old? Indeed, major
billion-dollar companies would spend millions selling this to
these children.
Movies are equally blatant in their marketing kits and
appalling in their content. Movies have great power, because
stories have great power--they can move us, change our minds,
our hearts, even our hopes. The movie industry wields enormous
influence, and when used responsibly the works can edify,
uplift, and inspire--but all too often that power is used to
exploit.
The Chairman. Senator Brownback, you have run out of time.
Senator Brownback. I would like to submit the rest of this
for the record if I could, Mr. Chairman. I would also urge that
we not stop at this, that we should ask these companies, all of
which have issued statements about what they want to do, to
just stop putting out some of these products.
[The prepared statement of Senator Brownback follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Brownback, U.S. Senator From Kansas
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the widespread interest in today's
hearing. It's been said that every good idea goes through three stages:
first, it is ridiculed. Second, it is bitterly opposed. And last, it is
accepted as obvious. Over the past two years, I have chaired three
hearings in this Committee on the effectiveness of labels and ratings,
the impact of violent interactive entertainment products on kids, and
the first hearing on whether violent products were being marketed to
children. When we started out, these ideas were ridiculed. Bitter
opposition shortly followed. And today, in reviewing the FTC report,
the fact that harmful, violent entertainment is being marketed to kids
is now being accepted as clear and obvious. We've come a long way.
I appreciate the industry executives who have come here today. I
wish that the many other executives who were invited to testify would
have seen fit to show up. I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that many in the
entertainment industry have shown themselves to be remarkably
unresponsive to this Committee. At each of these three hearings on
violent entertainment I chaired in this Committee, we invited numerous
industry executives--including representatives of Time-Warner,
Seagrams, Universal, Sony, Viacom, BMG, Nintendo, Hasbro, ID Software,
Midway Games, and Interscope Records. Unfortunately, none of these
enormous communications companies could be bothered to communicate with
the United States Senate. And today, I see that not one single movie
studio representative managed to show up.
Mr. Chairman, this is disgraceful. I appreciate the industry
executives who have made it here today; I am deeply troubled by the
fact that so few of them choose to do so. Their absence today is a
sharp contrast to the presence of so many concerned parents. And their
silence on an issue of such importance to so many speaks volumes about
their disregard both for concerned parents and vulnerable children.
This is an important hearing, and an important report. When I
introduced legislation last year, which was cosponsored by several of
my colleagues here today, to authorize this FTC report, I did so
because the anecdotal evidence was overwhelming that violent, adult-
rated entertainment was being marketed to children. It's been said that
much of modern research is the corroboration of the obvious by obscure
methods. This study does corroborate what many of us have long
suspected--and it does so unambiguously and conclusively. It shows, as
Chairman Pitofsky noted, that the marketing is ``pervasive and
aggressive.'' It shows that entertainment companies are literally
making a killing off of marketing violence to kids.
The problem is not one industry, but can be found in virtually
every form of entertainment: movies, music, and video and PC games.
Together, they take up the majority of a child's leisure hours. And the
messages they get, and images they see, often glamorize brutality, and
trivialize cruelty.
Take, for example, popular music. The FTC report notes that all of
the stickered music they surveyed was target-marketed to kids. Around
the room here on easels are some examples of that music. This stuff is
not for the faint-hearted. But the music industry has decided it's for
children. Nor are these obscure songs. The lyrics from Eminem
(pronounced M & M) are from an album that is currently at number 3 on
the Billboard chart, after spending two months this summer at number 1.
He received 3 awards from MTV last week. The other two featured
artists--DMX and Dr. Dre (pronounced ``Dray'') are currently in the top
30 on the charts, and peaked at number 1 and 2, respectively.
As I read over this report, I see that 100 percent ! of the
stickered albums that the FTC surveyed were target-marketed to kids.
This is both troubling and fairly predictable. Troubling in that the
lyrics you see around the room are target-marketed to young kids--
mostly young boys--whose characters, attitudes, assumptions, and values
are still being formed, and vulnerable to being warped. And predictable
in that there are few fans of such music that are over 20.
Movies are equally blatant in their marketing to kids, and
appalling in their content. Movies have great power--because stories
have great power. They can move us, change our minds, our hearts, even
our hopes. The movie industry wields enormous influence, and when used
responsibly, their works can edify, uplift, and inspire. But all too
often, that power is used to exploit. I've seen some movies that are
basically two-hour long commercials for the misuse of guns.
The movie industry has had the chutzpah to target-market teen
slasher movies to child audiences--and then insist that the R-rating
somehow protects them. From reading this report, it seems clear that
the ratings protect the industry from the consumers, not the consumers
from the industry.
Or take video games. When kids play violent video games, they do
not merely witness slaughter, they engage in virtual murder. Indeed,
the point of what are called ``first person shooter'' games--that is,
virtually all M-rated games--is to kill as many characters as possible.
The higher the body count, the higher your score. Often, bonus points
are given for finishing off your enemies in a particularly grisly way.
Common sense should tell us that positively reinforcing sadistic
behavior, as these games do, cannot be good for our children. We cannot
expect that the hours spent in school will mold and instruct a child's
mind but that hours spent immersed in violent entertainment will not.
We cannot hope that children who are entertained by violence will love
peace.
This is not only common sense, but a public health consensus. In
late July, I convened a public health summit on entertainment violence.
At the summit, we released a joint statement signed by the most
prominent and prestigious members of the public health community--
including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of
Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the Academy of
Family Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association, and the
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists. I want to read you part
of the statement, signed by all of the above organizations:
``Well over 1000 studies . . . point overwhelmingly to a causal
connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some
children. The conclusion of the public health community, based on over
thirty years of research, is that viewing entertainment violence can
lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values and behaviors,
particularly in children.''
There is no longer a question as to whether exposing children to
violent entertainment is a public health risk. It is--just as surely as
tobacco or alcohol. The question is: what are we going to do about it?
What does it take for the entertainment industry, and its licensees and
retailers, to stop exposing children to poison?
There is an additional element that this generally excellent report
fails to cover: and that is the cross-marketing of violence to kids.
That is, there is ample proof that the entertainment industry not only
directly targets children with advertising and other forms of
promotion, but also markets to them via toys. Walk into any toy store
in America, and you will find dolls, action figures, hand held games,
and Halloween costumes based on characters in R-rated movies, musicians
noted for their violent lyrics, and M-rated video games. Let me give
you just a few examples . . . [Show games]
This is an equally egregious aspect of marketing violence to
children, and one that has not yet been adequately investigated. We
need to do so. I look forward to working with the FTC to ensure that
this is done.
Another immediate step we need to take is to ensure that these
industries can enter into a code of conduct. Consumers and parents need
to know what their standards are--how high they aim, or how low they
will go. I've introduced legislation, S. 2127, that would provide a
very limited anti-trust exemption that would enable, not require, but
enable companies to do just that.
There are other steps we should consider, but a rush to legislation
is not one. Frankly, imposing six-month deadlines on an industry one is
actively fleecing for money is unlikely to bring about lasting reform.
We need to encourage responsibility and self-regulation. We need a
greater corporate regard for the moral, physical and emotional health
and well-being of children.
This report is an important step in that direction--because
although it concentrates on the tip of the iceberg, it sheds light on
the magnitude of the problem. It shows kids are being exploited for
profit, and exposes a cultural externality in this market.
Ultimately, we have asked entertainment executives to come here to
work with us, and to appeal to your sense of citizenship, and to your
corporate conscience. Our appeal is this: please do the right thing.
Stop making hyper-violent entertainment which glamorizes cruelty,
degrades women, and trivializes abuse. And stop marketing such vile
stuff to kids. Just stop it. You don't need to do it, it is morally
wrong to do it, and you are hurting kids. So just stop.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Brownback. Senator Kerry.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Kerry. Mr. Chairman, thanks for having this
hearing. I think the FTC has done a good service and an
outstanding job in placing before us a serious problem, which
is the problem of potential unfair trade practice, the problem
of not adhering to what people have said they will adhere to,
which is the standard by which they are going to advertise and
protect our children, and to that degree I think it is very
appropriate that we are here.
It is more than appropriate that we are talking about the
recommendations they have made, specifically that we expand the
codes prohibiting marketing to children, that we increase the
compliance at the retail level, which is very clearly a
problem, and that we increase parental understanding of ratings
and try to facilitate the capacity of parents to be able to
make choices.
Those are things we can do legitimately, they are things we
ought to do, and those are things which I think ought to be in
the public dialogue front and center, in the most serious way.
But I react a little bit like Fritz Hollings did. In the 16
years I have been here, I have been here many times on this
same subject. It is becoming repetitive, and that is equally
disturbing. At the same time, we have found historically that
this is not as clear-cut as some would like to make it.
To the degree that there is a false advertising process, or
that there is marketing to children, that is egregious. It is
unacceptable, and we should all be against it, but on the other
hand let us not assume that sort of pontificating role of
Washington politicians where we sit here and blame it all on
one entity. Art has always reflected life.
I mean, Elvis Presley was unacceptable for a period of
time. James Dean in East of Eden reflected alienated young
people. Alienation among young people is something that is
historical. It is part of adolescence, and we ought to be
asking ourselves perhaps equally as seriously, as we look at
the question of enforcing marketing to kids, I think we ought
to ask ourselves a little bit up here why so many kids reflect
the kind of life they reflect.
Why are so many kids out of school in so many communities
in the afternoon with no parents at home? Why are there no
after-school programs? Why is there a lack of structure in
kids' lives? Why is it that so many children are growing up at
risk in this country at a time when we are the richest nation
on the face of the planet?
Those are questions that we also ought to ask here, and we
also ought to provide some solutions to them. If you want to
empower parents to be able to make some of these choices,
parents need to also be able to be home and be with their kids.
The Chairman. Senator Kerry, your time has expired.
Senator Kerry. I think there are a lot of issues that are
on the table here, but I could not agree more that the
marketing against an agreed-upon set of principles,
specifically to avoid what has been agreed upon, is obviously
unfair, it is immoral, it is wrong, and it is appropriate for
us to try to hold people accountable, but let us let
accountability be passed appropriately to all quarters.
[The prepared statement of Senator Kerry follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John F. Kerry,
U.S. Senator From Massachusetts
Thank you Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. The FTC has
done an outstanding job documenting industry practices with regard to
marketing violence to children.
Too often lately, when we turn on the news we hear a tragic story
of a child engaging in unfathomable acts of violence. The litany is too
familiar; Littleton, Colorado; Jonesboro, Arkansas; Edinboro,
Pennsylvania; West Paducah, Kentucky; Flint, Michigan to name but a few
of the places where tragic shootings have occurred in our schools. I do
not believe that the media is solely responsible for these sad events.
But I do believe that when our young people are bombarded with
shocking, graphic violent images in the movies they watch, the games
they play, and the music they listen to, they become inured to
abnormal, immoral levels of violence.
We're not going to stop violent images in the media. Our First
Amendment wouldn't let us, even if it were possible. But we do have to
make every effort to guarantee that violent images are seen and heard
only by adults. We have to make sure that parents understand what their
children are watching, listening to, and playing. In particular, we
need to make sure that the cards are not stacked against parents who
are trying to monitor their children's activities.
Mr. Chairman, I was very disappointed to read in the FTC's report
that the movie, music and electronic game industries have knowingly and
intentionally marketed to children entertainment that each has deemed
appropriate only for mature audiences. The FTC's finding that of 35 of
44 R-rated movies--80 percent--were directly marketed to children under
17 is evidence that not enough is being done. And the problems are not
exclusive to the movie industry. The FTC found direct evidence that
children were being targeted for music containing parental advisory
warnings and for video games deemed appropriate for mature audiences.
Let's be clear here. What most parents most want and need is
information about their children's entertainment choices. But if the
ads their children are seeing are being surreptitiously placed where
the children and not the parents will see them, the parents are
starting with a distinct disadvantage.
The problem starts when a young child watching Buffy the Vampire
Slayer sees an advertisement for violent R-rated movies such as South
Park, The General's Daughter or The Beach. The problem starts when a
child reading Teen magazine or Marvel Comics is tempted by an ad for
the latest rap or hip hop CD that contains explicit, violent content.
The problem starts when a video game that features realistic shootings
and violence against women is advertised on a Web site that is
frequented by teens.
The problem continues when a fifteen-year-old can buy a ticket to a
PG-rated movie and easily slip into an R-rated movie playing at the
same multiplex. The problem continues when the seventeen-year-old
cashier at the record store sells a CD with a parental advisory to a
fourteen-year-old. The problem continues when an overworked temporary
clerk hired to handle the Christmas rush at a large department store
sell a ``mature'' video game to a ten-year-old.
It's a hard enough job being a parent in today's world. These kinds
of marketing practices, which the FTC has demonstrated are all too
common in the entertainment industry, make a parent's job that much
more difficult.
The entertainment industry has a responsibility to parents to make
their jobs a little easier. The FTC makes some concrete recommendations
regarding self-regulation and it is my hope that we will see the
industry address some of these issues quickly and stop some of the most
egregious acts of targeting young people for violent entertainment. I
believe that the industry is fully equipped to regulate itself and
alter its marketing practices to correct these problems. What I am less
certain of is whether the industry has the proper motivation to correct
its past wrongs. It should make every effort to do so, because if
Congress does not see dramatic changes in the way these industries
market their products, I have no doubt that we will be back to address
some of these issues legislatively.
I hope we don't have to do that. I believe that there are serious
First Amendment issues that we would have to consider if we felt the
need to legislate in this area. But make no mistake. I will join my
colleagues in considering legislation if I don't see the entertainment
industry taking steps to correct itself
Whether we ultimately legislate in this area or not, each of us
must recognize that this hearing and this issue should not close the
book on our discussions of children and violence. As I said earlier, I
do not believe that violent entertainment is the sole cause of violence
in our schools or elsewhere. No matter how much violence our children
are exposed to in the media, they won't go on shooting rampages if they
don't have access to guns. I'm not going to get into the entire gun
debate here, but I do want to address one legislative effort that I
have been working on, along with my good friend Senator DeWine. We
introduced legislation that will set minimum standards for gun safety
locks. The legislation would not mandate that the locks be used, but
would provide yet another tool for parents who want to protect their
children and limit their access to firearms.
Mr. Chairman, a gun lock will only keep a gun out of a child's
hands if the lock works. There are many cheap, flimsy locks on the
market that are easily overcome by a child. The legislation Senator
DeWine and I introduced gives authority to the Consumer Product Safety
Commission to set minimum regulations for safety locks and to remove
unsafe locks from the market. Our legislation empowers consumers by
ensuring that they will only purchase high-quality lock boxes and
trigger locks. I hope this Committee will hold hearings on this
legislation, because I believe that Senators will see that it is a
simple way to make sure guns are stored safely.
The gun safety lock legislation won't prevent every tragic
shooting. Likewise, limiting the marketing of violent entertainment is
not the whole answer. But both are important pieces of the bigger
picture, and both can help parents make better decisions for the well
being of their children.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from the
witnesses.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Kerry.
Senator Frist.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL FRIST,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Frist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
thanks for convening this important hearing. I say this as a
father of a 17-year-old, a 14-year-old, a 13-year-old, who
tries to be a good parent, they spend 8 hours in school a day,
they all play sports, but in addition they will collectively go
to at least 50 movies this year.
They will see, in spite of all their other activities,
probably 500 hours of television collectively, and probably
listen to over 1,000 hours of music collectively together, in
spite of trying to be a good parent, being at all their school
functions, and them being very active. Thus, I am very
concerned, and I am delighted we are holding this hearing, and
delighted with the FTC report and what has come forth.
You know, we are not talking about the slapstick of years
past, or the Roadrunner throwing an animal again at the Coyote.
Much of what my three boys are exposed to on television, in
music, and in the movies is simply vulgar and violent.
It is different than it was in the past, and culture may be
a little bit different, but it is totally unacceptable because
of the impressions that it leaves that I am absolutely
convinced will affect them as individuals, their emotional
life, their spiritual life, their happiness, their degree of
fulfillment in the future.
Congress has repeatedly gone, as so many people have said,
to the entertainment industry in the past threatening Federal
regulation, only to be reassured again and again by the
industry that voluntary standards can be imposed, that self-
regulation is the answer.
If we look back at the history of voluntary standards,
which we will hear about, 1950 to 1952 to 1983, that were
promulgated by the National Association of Broadcasters, you
see things, and I quote, like, ``in selecting subjects and
themes, great care must be exercised to be sure that treatment
and presentation are made in good faith and not for the purpose
of sensationalism or to shock or exploit the audience or appeal
to prurient interest or morbid curiosity.''
Or, in another quotation the standards were, ``violence,
physical or psychological, may only be projected in responsibly
handled contexts, not used exploitatively.'' Regardless of how
culture is changing, standards similar to this, at least as a
parent, as a responsible citizen today I would endorse.
Regrettably, it is impossible--next to impossible--to find
programs that even loosely comply with these standards today.
Are these standards arcane, are they out of date, are they
not in touch with the times, are they too traditional?
Obviously, I say no, because as a parent, taking my children to
the movies and participating with them I see what this world
has come to in terms of the presentation.
Research from the Kaiser Foundation finds that more than 75
percent of the programming in the 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. family hour
now contain, and I quote, sexually related talk or behavior,
period, close quotation, and that is in the family hour. That
represents, say, a fourfold increase from 1976.
Mr. Chairman, let me just close by reading the first six
sentences of the lead editorial in The Washington Post today,
which captures, I believe, what this hearing needs to be about,
and what our concern as United States Senators should be about.
Again, this is from September 13 lead editorial, The Washington
Post.
``When it comes to children, movies, and violence, it has
always been hard to tell whether the H stands for Hollywood or
hypocrisy. You have the studios and recording studios piously
invoking their cultural integrity and First Amendment rights as
they peddle stuff with no discernible redeeming virtues. You
have the movie theater chains pretending they cannot control
the teens who buy tickets to PG-rated films at the Multiplex,
and then stroll in to watch R-rated movies, and you have the
politicians like Al Gore, whose sensibilities on the matter
seem to depend on whether the day is devoted primarily to
soliciting money from the moguls or votes from everyone else.''
The last sentence in this first paragraph, and then I will
close: ``Now, the Federal Trade Commission has added a useful
new chapter to its tale of twofacedness.'' I am delighted that
they issued this report, and look forward to exploring it with
them further.
The Chairman. Senator Inouye.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, listening to my colleagues, I
am obviously angered by what I have heard, but we are here to
listen and to learn, and I hope that we will not make judgments
too early.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Inouye. I hope our
colleagues will follow your example.
Senator Abraham.
STATEMENT OF HON. SPENCER ABRAHAM,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN
Senator Abraham. Gee, what bad timing for me.
[Laughter.]
Senator Abraham. Mr. Chairman, in deference to your wish to
move forward, I will submit my full statement for the record. *
I will just make two observations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The information referred to was not available at the time this
hearing went to press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, I, along with several other Members of this
Committee, have very young children. Ours are actually twins
who are 7, and a 4-year-old, and so to some extent what we are
here today to talk about is sort of just over the horizon for
our family, but it is close enough to the horizon for us to be
just as concerned as every other parent is about what to do,
and while certainly I think that what the FTC has done helps us
to focus very effectively on one part of the problem, I think
we all recognize that as parents we have a responsibility, and
as leaders we have a responsibility, to speak out and to become
much more engaged.
The problem is, I can do everything possible to address the
problem in my own home, but my children want to go visit their
friends, and their friends have older siblings who maybe
already own some of these recordings, or have been marketed to,
and I cannot monitor that, even though I am doing the best job
possible. My wife and I are at least trying to do the best job
possible, and it concerns me a lot.
One of the things though, that does affect us, and it is a
concern not so specifically addressed by the FTC report, is the
fact that there has been such a dramatic increase in the
violence that is presented in animated television programs and
movies. Incredibly enough, the recent study by Harvard School
of Public Health indicates there has been about a 50-percent
increase in the violence contained and the mayhem contained in
cartoons since the release of Snow White in 1937, and that is a
pattern that pervades even the kind of programming that we
think is designed for children our children's age.
I am concerned about that as well, and I hope that as we
move forward we can investigate that a little bit more fully,
Mr. Chairman. I certainly intend to speak out against it, and I
intend to address it more directly. In fact, I will be sending
a letter today to the executives of the companies who are
engaged in the presentation of these kinds of programmings and
movies, because I think they really do need to hear from us on
that level as well.
Mr. Chairman, thanks for doing this, and I congratulate you
for the hearing.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Abraham.
Senator Dorgan.
STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. First
let me say this is not about partisan politics, certainly, and
it is not also about censorship. This report, I think, is a
constructive piece of evidence that there is targeting of
violence and vulgarity to our children, and let me just read a
sentence.
The documents show that 35 of 44 R-rated movies studied by
the Commission, 80 percent of them, were targeted to children
under 17 years of age. That is what this is about.
Now, Senator Kerry mentioned something I think important.
It is true that art is on the cutting edge of culture, and it
has been very important and will be very important. I also
liked Elvis. Of course, Elvis did not sing the lyrics of Limp
Bizkit, and probably would not have been allowed to, and
probably should not be allowed to today if he is around some
place.
[Laughter.]
Senator Dorgan. But the targeting of vulgar material,
inappropriate material in CD's and records, the targeting of
violence to 12-year-olds, 14- and 15-year-old kids is wrong,
just wrong, and this report shows that it is being done
systematically.
Now, we ought to be able to entertain adults in America
without injuring children. That is the issue. Again, it is not
about censorship. I introduced the first V-chip bill in the
Congress as a companion to the V-chip bill Congressman Markey
offered in the House. I have been concerned about these things
for a long time.
I have got a couple of young children, and I am concerned
about wanting to be a good parent in the face of all of these
influences, but let me just, Mr. Chairman, finally say this.
You are inviting people to come here and testify 2 weeks from
now. I would encourage you to ask those who are profiting from
some of these lyrics Mr. Brownback just discussed to read the
lyrics to this Committee and tell us whether they are proud of
the product they are profiting from, especially if they are
targeting that product to our children. I think it might be an
interesting thing to see whether they would want to read those
lyrics to the Senate Commerce Committee.
The Chairman. Excellent idea, Senator Dorgan.
Senator Ashcroft.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ASHCROFT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator Ashcroft. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing.
I particularly want to associate myself with the remarks of
Mr. Dorgan. I think those are very well taken, and I want to
thank Senator Brownback for his long-time and longstanding
interest in these issues, and for having been a catalyst in the
achievement of items like today's hearing and the Federal Trade
Commission report that confirms something that parents have
long feared and suspected.
Many media companies in the entertainment industry are
routinely--that is, routinely--marketing to children, and
movies, music, and games are being marketed. They are so
violent that children are never supposed to be allowed to watch
them in the first place. I think the FTC report is an
indictment of the entertainment industry for reckless
endangerment of children. The report says violent video games
are marketed to children as young as age 6, and the fact was
just mentioned by Senator Dorgan, advertising for 80 percent of
R-rated movies and 70 percent of video games targeted to
children under 17.
One marketing plan for a violent R-rated over-17 age film
stated, quote, our goal was to find the elusive teen target
audience and to make sure everyone between the ages of 12
through 18 was exposed to the film. Hollywood targets young
children because of money.
The FTC confirms too many retailers make no real effort to
restrict children's access to violent content. According to the
FTC, half of all theaters where R-rated movies are shown admit
children as young as 13, and 85 percent of children age 13 to
16 who attempt to buy mature rated music and electronic games
are able to complete the purchase--85 percent.
It is disgraceful, targeting violent games to 6-year-old
kids, selling R-rated movie tickets to 13-year-olds, writing
marketing plans to expose violent R-rated films to every
teenager under 17. There are leaders in the industry who want
America to lose its values, want children to lose their
innocence, want to pursue profits at the expense of principle.
That is why parents now call Hollywood by its, perhaps rightful
name, Hollyweird.
As a culture, we are playing with fire. Entertaining
children with graphic mayhem, murder, corrodes children's
minds. To those who think otherwise, listen to what the FTC
says, and I am quoting. The Commission's literature review
reveals that a majority of the investigations into the impact
of media violence on children find that, and I am still
quoting, there is a high correlation between exposure to media
violence and aggressive and at times violent behavior. In
addition, a number of research efforts report that--and I am
still quoting--exposure to media violence is correlated with
increased acceptance of violent behavior in others, as well as
an exaggerated perception of the amount of violence in the
society, close quote.
In its defense, the entertainment industry wraps itself in
a constitutional right of free speech, but responsibilities
accompany rights. The FTC calls on the entertainment industry
for better self-regulation. That is the first step, the right
first step to take, but more could be done.
R-rated products should not be sold or marketed to
children. Parents should monitor diligently and control what
their children watch. Entertainment leaders should produce
products suitable for their own children. Broadcasters should
reduce violence aired during early evenings, when children are
watching, and if the industry does not police itself and young
children continue to be targets of violent promotional
material, then Government should target the industry with false
and deceptive----
The Chairman. Senator Ashcroft, your time has expired. I
thank you. Senator Breaux.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN B. BREAUX,
U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA
Senator Breaux. Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening these
hearings, and also thank the patience of our colleagues who
have been sitting out there listening to us. It seems to me the
problem that has been identified by the FTC, which did the
study at the request of President Clinton, is really not that
complicated.
It seems to me the problem is that the marketing department
of the various industries did not get the memo from the
executives of the industry that rated their own products, which
clearly said that these products are not fit for a certain
class of people. If the marketing department got the memo, they
did not read it, or if they read it, they did not follow it.
I think the question for this Committee, then, is, what is
the appropriate role for Congress to help ensure that the
marketing departments follow their own company's
recommendations on the products that they have produced. Is
there a legitimate role for Congress to be involved to ensure
that they follow what their own companies have already
previously concluded.
The second concern I think is one that is really a larger
concern. We have helped parents have tools to ensure that their
own children are protected. V-chips and rating systems were
intended to give parents the tools to protect their children.
The real question is, are parents using those tools, and
the information I have is that as much as 90 percent of the
children tell us that their parents have never discussed the
ratings with them, or 3 percent say, well, we have a V-chip and
we use it, meaning 97 percent do not. How does Congress address
that problem?
So the issues are out there. I hope the hearings will help
us resolve the problems. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Rockefeller.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, IV,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Rockefeller. Chairman McCain, I think the points
that John Breaux made are very important. I would differ in
simply one respect, and that is, you never blame the marketing
department. The buck always stops at the chief executive
officer and the president, et cetera. Having said that, I
understand what the Senator is saying. I find this whole thing
really sad and deplorable.
I mentioned we were having this hearing this morning to my
28-year-old daughter. She said, ``Have you heard about the
video game where they do an electrocution, and you get to turn
on the electricity and then get to watch the person die, and
make the sounds that the person makes, I guess, when they die
in the electric chair?''
But I do think the FTC report is an enormous contribution.
I think the behavior of not just the industry but also those
who merchandize the product, the theaters and the people who
sell it; 85 percent are not denied. Young kids that come in are
not denied these products.
It is partly our fault that the Supreme Court has
constantly ruled that we cannot get involved in these things,
and freedom of speech is sacred in America, but on the other
hand, so is what we are teaching our children. We talk about
education. We spend money on education. States spend money on
education, and this is in many ways more pervasive. Children
spend a lot more time watching television and video games than
they do in the classroom, so it is extremely serious.
I think if the executives come back in 6 months not having
acted and not having cleaned up their act, they will face a
Commerce Committee and others that will be looking to do
something to clear up this problem once and for all. This
cannot happen in America.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Rockefeller. I want to
thank our colleagues from both sides of the House and Senate,
who have shown a great deal of patience. It is our practice on
the Committee to go by seniority on both sides of the aisle.
That sometimes matches the age of the witnesses, not always
though, but I think it does in this case, and we would begin
with the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
both chairmen, but we will begin with Senator Hatch.
Senator Hatch, welcome back before the Committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
Senator Hatch. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be before
the Committee. I want to thank the Members of this Committee
for the opportunity to testify on the marketing of violent
entertainment to children. As the Chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee and the father of six and the grandfather
of 19, and as an occasional song-writer, my interest in this
issue is not just professional, but it is personal as well. The
Commission should be commended for its work. This is not
insignificant amount of work.
Unfortunately, as disturbing as some of the findings may
be, they are hardly surprising. It is hard to feign shock at
the notion that children, particularly teenagers, are finding
ways to see the movies they want to see, listen to the music
they want to listen to, or want to hear and play the video
games they want to play.
Only someone who has not had the exasperating privilege of
raising teenagers might be surprised to find that kids today
are still as talented as they have always been in manipulating
the loopholes and the gimmicks and the restrictions that are
imposed on their behavior.
What is disturbing is the degree to which some commercial
enterprises are willing to go to facilitate the manipulation of
the few rules that do exist.
Just as disturbing is the fact that much of the violence
found in our popular entertainment is directed against women.
Despite historic, bipartisan legislation that Senator Joe Biden
and I and others authored to help States battle violence
against women, it is stunning how much modern music glorifies
acts of violence, sexual and otherwise, against women.
While the First Amendment may very well protect hateful
content, we must not ignore the fact that violent, misogynistic
music may ultimately affect the attitudes many young men have
toward women. The recommendations of the Commission are
constructive, but Federal regulation and election-year speeches
are not the final answer. You cannot regulate decency or
legislate taste.
The real issue is far more fundamental. Let us be honest,
any society such as ours, where the freedom of expression is
guaranteed in the Constitution, must recognize the fact that
currently is not in vogue, that with freedom there must be
responsibility and accountability, otherwise we will always be
downed and confined by those too ready to pander to the lowest
common denominator.
It would be so much easier if there were only one culprit,
one group that we could blame for our current state of
diminished mores and vacuous principles. Some want to blame
Hollywood, but what in Hollywood are we targeting?
Are we angry at those who gave us Saving Private Ryan, The
Patriot, and Schindler's List, just to mention a few, or who
produce television shows like Touched By An Angel, or
Providence? We revel in these shows because they trumpet the
very ideals we desperately seek in our own daily lives--the
importance of courage, decency, honesty, conviction, and faith.
What about the recording industry? Do we object to the
music and lyrics of Gladys Knight or Larry Gatlin or David
Foster, or do we only object to the work of those with whom we
have no cultural or personal connection?
As one who has written gospel music only to be told that it
was unacceptable because of my religious faith, I have seen
both sides of this debate on a personal level. Warning labels
on CDs and video games do help, but for many teenagers the
parental warning code really stands for, ``Buy this thing
now.''
Some want to blame television stations for airing one show
after another that portray inordinately beautiful people living
in a violent, cynical, vapid society that fortunately is still
alien to most of America, and I am not talking about the
evening news. The networks counter by asking, how does one
provide entertainment for both children and adults in a medium
that is always available to both?
What about the role of politicians, who seem to want to
have it both ways? What kind of signal is being sent to the
creative community when politicians have one hand clutched over
their heart in righteous indignation over the prevalence of sex
and violence in our nation's entertainment, and yet the other
hand is wide open, palm up, in permanent solicitation of money
and credibility from Hollywood's most glamorous?
Does anyone believe that the same indignant speeches being
made these last few days are also being given in the countless
fundraisers in Los Angeles, Nashville, or New York?
Clearly, there is no easy solution or balm that will
miraculously solve this problem, but there are constructive
steps we can all take to curtail our children's exposure to
violence.
It really is threefold. First, the entertainment industry
must stop hiding behind the shibboleth of censorship, claiming
any form of restraint or self-imposed, even self-imposed, is
nothing more than a capitulation to the puritanical. Too often,
the outrageous and shocking are little more than a cover-up for
the lack of creativity and originality, but these artists will
continue to flourish until the industry stops pretending that
the permanent coarsening of entertainment is the only way to
pay homage to the First Amendment.
There is one constructive step that Congress can take. It
is relatively simple, yet it could have a profound, positive
influence by allowing the entertainment industry to begin
making changes voluntarily. A very limited amendment to our
antitrust laws would clarify that the respective industries can
cooperate to develop and enforce responsible guidelines without
any fear of liability under current antitrust laws. The Senate
has unanimously adopted this amendment, but it has not passed
through the Congress. We should pass it before we adjourn.
Other industries in America recognize they have a
responsibility for the cumulative consequences of their
products that are being used. In Utah, we have reclaimed
abandoned coal mines. Why can we not even acknowledge that
there has been a mental and moral waste dump created from our
overinfatuation with television, movies, and music? We place
the entertainment industry on our country's highest pedestal.
The time has come for them to exercise responsibility that
should come with this honor.
Second, we must recognize the responsibility----
The Chairman. Senator Hatch, would you speed it up?
Senator Hatch. I will try if I can, Mr. Chairman. I would
like to make these few points.
We must recognize the responsibility parents have in the
marketing of violence and sex to children. We all know how
politically sensitive this subject is, but the simple fact is
that parents still enjoy the single most powerful weapon in the
battle over how their children are entertained. They still have
the power to turn off the television and stop the movies, or
unplug the CD player.
It is hard to say no. Anyone who has had to weather the
extended grounding of a teenager appreciates the difficulty
involved. There are no immediate rewards, little support, and
intense disapproval for censoring your own children, and you
have to live with those you have offended the most, and then
again, there is no reward for a parent other than the beauty of
having a well-raised adult.
Third, we have to acknowledge the importance of faith, and
Mr. Chairman, if I could just take one more minute, I would
appreciate it. A society needs a moral code to survive and
flourish. A body of jointly shared principles against which to
measure, restrain, and encourage conduct. For many of us, the
source of these principles is our religion, which provides a
comparable moral compass regardless of whether you attend a
synagogue, a church, or a mosque, yet it is not politically
correct to be religious or even morally accountable in public.
We live in a time when we have devalued the right to pray,
the miracle of birth, and the integrity of the marriage
covenant. We live in a time when fame is not a product of
achievement as much as it is the expected consequence of
notoriety.
I would put the rest of my remarks in the record, and I
appreciate having been called to be in front of this august
Committee today. I appreciate what you are doing, Mr. Chairman
and other Members of this Committee, to try and elevate these
issues to public discourse so we can all do something about
them without having the heavy hand of government come in and
force things on the creative people in our society.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hatch follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, U.S. Senator From Utah
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the marketing of violent entertainment to
children. As the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, as the
father of six and grandfather of 19, and--as an occasional songwriter--
my interest in this issue is not just professional but also personal.
The Commission should be commended for its work. Unfortunately, as
disturbing as some of the findings may be, they are hardly surprising.
It's hard to feign shock at the notion that children, particularly
teenagers, are finding ways to see the movies they want to see, listen
to the music they want to hear, and play the video games they want to
play. Only someone who has not had the exasperating privilege of
raising teenagers might be surprised to find that kids today are still
as talented as they have always been in manipulating the loopholes and
gimmicks in the restrictions that are imposed on their behavior. What
is disturbing is the degree to which some commercial enterprises are
willing to go to facilitate the manipulation of the few rules that do
exist.
Just as disturbing is the fact that much of the violence found in
our popular entertainment is directed against women. Studies show that
modern music lyrics, in particular, have become increasingly
misogynistic. Hatred and violence against women are widespread and
unmistakable in mainstream hip-hop and alternative music. Consider, for
example, the singer Marilyn Manson, some of whose less vulgar lyrics
include: ``Who says date rape isn't kind?''; ``Let's just kill everyone
and let your god sort them out'': and ``The housewife I will beat, the
pro-life I will kill.''
In 1999, I told this Committee about a new up and coming artist.
His name? Eminem, the hip-hop artist featured frequently on MTV who
wrote ``Bonnie and Clyde''--a song in which he described killing his
child's mother and dumping her body into the ocean.
Despite historic, bipartisan legislation Sen. Joe Biden and I
authored to help states deal with violence against women, it is
stunning how much modern music glorifies acts of violence, sexual and
otherwise, against women. Many children are listening to this music.
This music is marketed to our youth.
It was argued at your 1999 hearing--and will probably be argued
again today--that the fame and fortune of today's creators--be they
hip-hop artists or movie directors--are the byproduct of a free market
where consumers are free to choose. But this argument ignores that fact
that these ``artists'' have been financially and personally embraced by
industry. To be frank, these creators would not be as successful in the
marketplace were it not for the power and effectiveness of Hollywood's
production and marketing capabilities.
If the findings of the FTC report do not convince you of the truth,
then ask yourself the following:
How does industry explain a 1998 Grammy nomination for Nine
Inch Nails and a 1999 Grammy nomination for Marilyn Manson?
How does CBS/Viacom explain MTV's decision to award Eminem
``Artist of the Year for 2000?''
It is one thing for industry to defend the constitutional
rights of creators to express themselves. But it's quite
another thing to expect society to tolerate the production and
marketing of filth to young people for profit. While the First
Amendment may very well protect hateful content, we must not
ignore the fact that violent, misogynistic music may ultimately
affect the behavior and attitudes of many young men toward
women.
The recommendations of the Commission are constructive, but federal
regulation and election year speeches are not the final answer. You
can't regulate decency or legislate taste. The real issue is far more
fundamental. Let's be honest. Any society, such as ours, where the
freedom of expression is guaranteed in the Constitution, must recognize
a fact that currently is not in vogue--that with freedom there must
also be responsibility and accountability. Otherwise, we will always be
bound and confined by those too ready to pander to the lowest common
denominator.
It would be so much easier if there were only one culprit, one
group that we could blame for our current state of diminished mores and
vacuous principles. Some want to blame Hollywood, but what in Hollywood
are we targeting? Are we angry with those who gave us Saving Private
Ryan, The Patriot, and Schindler's List, or produce television shows
like Touched by an Angel or Providence? We revel in these shows,
because they trumpet the very ideals that we desperately seek in our
own daily lives--the importance of courage, decency, honesty,
conviction and faith.
What about the recording industry? Do we object to the music and
lyrics of Gladys Knight, Larry Gatlin, or David Foster? Or, do we only
object to the work of those with whom we have no cultural or personal
connection? As one who has written Gospel music only to be told that it
was unacceptable because of my religious faith, I have seen both sides
of this debate on a personal level. Warning labels on CDs and video
games do help, but for many teenagers, a parental warning code really
stands for ``Buy this now.''
Some want to blame television stations for airing one show after
another that portrays inordinately beautiful people living in a
violent, cynical, vapid society that fortunately is still alien to most
of America--and I'm not talking about the evening news. The networks
counter by asking, ``How does one provide entertainment for both
children and adults on a medium that is always available to both?''
What about the role of politicians, who seem to want to have it
both ways? What kind of signal is being sent to the creative community
when politicians have one hand clutched in righteous indignation over
the prevalence of sex and violence in our nation's entertainment and
yet the other hand is wide open, palm up, in permanent solicitation of
money and credibility from Hollywood's most glamorous? Does anyone
believe that the same indignant speeches being made these last few days
are also being given at the countless fundraisers in Los Angeles,
Nashville and New York?
Clearly, there is no easy solution--a Gilead's Balm that will
miraculously solve this problem. But there are constructive steps that
we can all take to curtail our children's exposure to violence. It is
really three-fold:
First, the entertainment industry must stop hiding behind the
shibboleth of censorship, claiming any form of restraint, even self-
imposed, is nothing more than a capitulation to the puritanical. Too
often, the outrageous and shocking are little more than a cover for a
lack of creativity and originality. But, these artists will continue to
flourish until the industry stops pretending that the permanent
coarsening of entertainment is the only way to pay homage to the First
Amendment.
There is one constructive step that Congress can take. It is
relatively simple yet it could have a profound, positive influence by
allowing the entertainment industry to begin making changes
voluntarily.
A very limited amendment to our antitrust laws would clarify that
the respective industries can cooperate to develop and enforce
responsible guidelines without any fear of liability under current
antitrust laws. The Senate has unanimously adopted my amendment to do
just that. We should pass it before we adjourn.
Other industries in America recognize they have a responsibility
for the cumulative consequences of their products being made and used.
In Utah, we reclaim abandoned coal mines. Why can't we even acknowledge
that there has been a mental and moral waste dump created from our
overinfatuation with television, movies, and music? We place the
entertainment industry on our society's highest pedestal. The time has
come for them to exercise the responsibility that should come with this
honor.
Second, we must recognize the responsibility parents have in the
marketing of violence and sex to children. We all know how politically
sensitive this subject is. But, the simple fact is that parents still
enjoy the single most powerful weapon in the battle over how their
children are entertained--the flick of the wrist--the ability to turn
off the television, unplug the computer or CD player, and say no to a
movie rental. A parent cannot protect their child in every instance, in
every activity that occurs in school, but parental supervision can
significantly control the content and quantity of what children watch.
It is not hard to find out what television shows your teenage children
are watching, what movies they are seeing, or what they are doing on
the Internet. More often than not, they tend to be the very same shows,
films and sites that are being watched by the parents.
But it's hard to say no. Anyone who has had to weather the extended
grounding of a teenager appreciates the difficulty involved. There are
no immediate rewards, little support, and intense disapproval for
censoring our own children. And, you have to live with those you have
offended the most. Then again, there is no greater reward for a parent
than the beauty of a well-raised adult.
And third, we must acknowledge the importance of faith. A society
needs a moral code to survive and flourish, a body of jointly shared
principles against which to measure, restrain and encourage conduct.
For many of us, the source of these principles is our religion, which
provides a comparable moral compass regardless of whether you attend a
synagogue, church, or mosque. Yet, it is not politically correct to be
religious or even morally accountable in public.
We live at a time when we have devalued the right to pray, the
miracle of birth, and the integrity of the marriage covenant. We live
at a time when fame is not the product of achievement as much as it is
the expected consequence of notoriety. We live at a time when those who
defend our cultural institutions, beliefs and values are routinely
ridiculed while those who desecrate them are defended and applauded.
Well, like politicians, we can't have it both ways.
Reducing the prevalence of violence, vulgarity and obscenity in our
children's daily diet will occur only when we collectively decide that
our society will benefit more from exercising responsibility than
abdicating accountability. There has to be a national conscience, but
you cannot have a conscience that is devoid of any values and
principles. However it is developed, a moral compass is critical,
because we can never truly resolve the problems caused by those who
pander in violence, vulgarity and obscenity until we recognize that the
responsibility for what our children are watching is not the burden of
someone else but our own.
The Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Hatch. Chairman Hyde.
STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY HYDE,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS
Mr. Hyde. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee. I congratulate you for having this hearing, and
certainly congratulate the FTC for its excellent report. The
issue of media violence and marketing and its connection to
youth violence demands public discussion and attention, and I
thank you for letting me be a part of the dialogue today.
I am deeply concerned that violence in movies, video games
and music, which the FTC found is force-fed to vulnerable and
impressionable children, is placing their hearts, their minds,
and yes, their souls at risk. Violence in our schools,
playgrounds, and neighborhoods results in part from a pervasive
culture of violence glorified by some segments of the
entertainment industry.
In preparing for today's hearing, I was searching for the
most articulate way to describe the crisis we are facing, and
after reading a book review I realize I could not do it any
better than Senator Joe Lieberman did in his recently published
book, In Praise of Public Life.
In his book--I hope I am not lifting too much from the
statement he is about to make.
The Chairman. I do not think he minds.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lieberman. Thanks for the promotion.
Mr. Hyde. Senator Lieberman describes, and I quote: ``a
swelling sense that much of our culture has become toxic, that
our standards of decency and civility are being significantly
eroded by the entertainment industry, shameless and pervasive
promotion of violence, sex, and vulgarity, and that the
traditional sources of values in our society such as faith,
family, and school, are in a life and death struggle with the
darker forces of immorality, inhumanity, and greed'', end
quote.
I really feel this is something that many of us are sensing
today as we come here to discuss the FTC study. Not
surprisingly, the study concludes that the entertainment
industry in America is pushing their violent products, movies,
games, and music, onto our children. They do this because they
know it sells, and heaven forbid that any sense of decency get
in the way of making a buck.
Unfortunately, we know from numerous studies that continued
exposure to violent entertainment is harmful to our children
and leaves some of them more predisposed to violent behavior.
This is a complex problem. There are multiple causes.
It would be irresponsible to place all the blame on the
entertainment industry, Senator Kerry has it exactly right, but
it is clear that part of what is causing youth violence is that
children have been overexposed to media violence, and this,
coupled with a spiritual vacuum, leaves many youngsters
desensitized to violence and unable to fully appreciate the
consequences of their sometimes brutal actions.
As popular entertainment becomes more and more violent, and
depicts more and more disrespect for life and the rights and
well-being of others, some of our kids are starting to believe
this is acceptable behavior and this is normal behavior. They
do not quite understand that acts of violence may have tragic
consequences. Much of the make-believe violence kids are
exposed to today is presented not as horror, with devastating
human consequence, but simply as entertainment. This is
particularly harmful to young people whose values are still
under development.
How do we deal with the negative influence of violent
entertainment and its marketing to children? It is not easy,
and maybe Federal legislation is not the answer. I personally
believe, though, we should not dismiss that out of hand. Last
year, I offered an amendment to the House juvenile justice
legislation that would have created a new Federal statute to
protect minors from explicit violent material.
Because the Constitution permits us to restrict the type of
sexual materials children can purchase, I believe it makes
sense that we can also prohibit the distribution of material to
minors that is so graphically violent that it is harmful to
minors. In my view, that certain extremely violent movies,
games, and music can have just as much or more of a detrimental
effect on the mental and moral health of kids than some
explicit sexual materials that many States currently prohibit
from being sold to children. In other words, violence directed
at kids can be obscenity, and this is not protected by the
First Amendment.
There was the predictable outcry from Hollywood in response
to this, and I was defeated handily on the House floor.
Nevertheless, I believe the idea still has merit and should be
reconsidered if the industry will not help in our struggle to
protect children from certain violent material.
I am not saying Government should prohibit entertainment
companies from producing these products, but I am suggesting we
recognize there is a sharp difference between what is suitable
for adults and what is suitable for children. Congress and the
FTC do not have all the answers, but we have to continue to do
what we can to help parents shield children from glorification
of violence in so much of today's popular entertainment.
Sometimes this means simply bringing attention to the
excesses of the industry. Perhaps a strong public expression of
revulsion, if we could ever muster one, will finally persuade
the entertainment industry to wake up and take some
responsibility. We can hope they will finally do a better job
implementing and enforcing their own rating systems. Perhaps
they will work more with retailers to ensure that excessively
violent products are not sold to children.
We have heard the empty promises before. Hopefully we can
get a firm commitment today from the next panel. Is it too much
to ask these companies to lend a hand to parents across America
who are doing their level best to raise their children?
I am nearly through, Mr. Chairman.
I do not wish to sound hopelessly negative. Some progress
is being made, in particular with video games as the industry
is aggressively working with producers and retailers to enforce
its comprehensive rating system and marketing code of conduct.
We should closely monitor these efforts to encourage them.
Additionally, the diligent work of Attorney General Jim
Ryan in Illinois has led retail giants Wal-Mart, KMart, and
Target to take steps to prevent kids from buying mature-rated
games, and Sears and Wards have stopped selling them
altogether. Still more, much more can and must be done.
The bottom line is, we must do something to halt the flow
of violent images threatening our children. Even the most
caring and responsible parents cannot prevent all harmful
violent influence from reaching their children. Parents need
help. Congress and the industry should stand with them, not
against them, because there is nothing we do in life more
important than how we raise our children.
Thank you for indulging me, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Hyde.
Senator Lieberman, before you came in I mentioned that we
go by seniority in both the House and the Senate in order of
our witnesses testifying, and we warmly welcome you back to the
Committee, and we appreciate the fact that you came to discuss
with us today this very important issue.
Senator Lieberman.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Lieberman. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman and
Senator Hollings for giving me this opportunity. I was laughing
to myself. In this remarkable last 5 weeks of honor and
excitement, and opportunity and gratitude and joy, there is
always the danger that you will take yourself too seriously. I
count on my wife to keep me humble, but the Senate seniority
system does that as well.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lieberman. I appreciate that very much. I have
benefited from the testimony I have just heard from Senator
Hatch and Congressman Hyde, and I must say, as full of
excitement as the last 5 weeks have been, Mr. Chairman, I miss
the Senate, and I miss my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
in the Senate, even you, John.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lieberman. Actually, particularly you, John.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. We miss you too.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lieberman. It is great to see you feeling well and,
based upon your opening statement, as shy and retiring as ever.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lieberman. I thank you for that. I think all of the
country feels secure and encouraged when your steadfast and
principled advocacy is at work.
Mr. Chairman, we are here today to talk about the threat of
violence to our country, and in particular the troubling way
the entertainment media are promoting and selling adult-rated
products to our children. But we are also talking, as the two
distinguished speakers before me have made clear and Members of
the Committee did as well, about a broader theme, the thread of
values that connect us as a Nation, and the growing concern
about the impact that the popular culture is having on our
moral fabric.
That connection I think is critical to understanding what
is at stake here, and I just want to take a moment to discuss
it.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings, as you know this
conversation has been reverberating around the country for the
last several years. It is not new. There is widespread anxiety
that so many of our common values are deteriorating, that our
standards of decency and civility and safety are eroding, that
families are weakening, and as a result that the quality of our
lives, no matter how prosperous we are, is suffering.
Many of us in public office, particularly Members of this
Committee on both sides of the aisle, under your leadership and
Senator Hollings, have tried to give voice to these concerns
and, in particular, to the complaints of parents who feel
locked in a losing competition with the culture to raise their
children, our children.
Then came Columbine, which I think was a psychic breaking
point for our country. It was a warning that the culture of
carnage surrounding our children may have gone too far, and
that the romanticized and sanitized visions of violence that
our children are being bombarded with by the media has become
part of a toxic mix that has actually now turned some of them
into killers.
So we pleaded after Columbine with the leaders of the
entertainment industry to join us at the table, along with
parents, the gun industry, and many other groups involved in
this problem, and work with us to reduce the risk of another
student rampage and help us fight the larger problem of youth
violence. That is what led to the call to the FTC to conduct an
investigation of the entertainment industry's marketing
practices, which concluded this week in a report that indicates
just how far we still have to go.
Rather than helping to shoulder the growing burden on
parents, according to the FTC report, the entertainment
industry too often has chosen to go behind parents' backs,
targeting the sale of violent, adult-rated products directly to
children. In fact, the FTC found dozens of what might be called
smoking guns about smoking guns, internal marketing plans which
show conclusively that the movie, music, and video game
industries were intentionally cutting out what might be called
the middle mom and dad and routinely, aggressively, and
intentionally marketing violent, harmful products to our
children.
This practice is deceptive, I believe it is outrageous, and
I hope it will stop. These industries have to realize they
cannot tell parents that these products are inappropriate for
their children in the ratings and then turn around and market
them to those same kids. That makes a mockery of the ratings
system that parents depend on to make the right decisions for
their children. That greatly decreases the effectiveness of the
warnings. And it greatly increases the odds that children will
be exposed to materials that hundreds of studies have
conclusively shown can be harmful to them.
That is why, in response to the FTC report, Vice President
Gore and I have demanded an immediate cease-fire in the
marketing of adult-rated products to children. And it is why we
have challenged the entertainment industry to develop their own
uniform codes of responsibility to enforce this policy, just as
the FTC has recommended, with real, self-enforced sanctions for
offending companies.
The video game industry actually has such a code, and last
year the game-makers agreed to strengthen it and step up its
enforcement. While I suppose you could say it has not worked as
well as it should have, it is a step, a significant step in the
right direction, and I think the game-makers deserve credit for
taking it. We should expect no less of the music industry,
which recently announced some encouraging changes in its
parental advisory program, and of the movie industry.
I am hopeful that these entertainment industries will now
respond responsibly to the FTC's findings, but I must say this
morning I am disappointed by the failure of the movie studios
to produce witnesses here before your distinguished Committee.
The FTC report raises serious questions, and this Committee,
not to mention America's parents, deserve serious answers, not
distant excuses.
The Vice President and I believe that vigorous self-
regulation is the best solution to this problem, and we hope
these entertainment industries will step up to the plate to do
just that in the next 6 months. The Walt Disney Company did
just that yesterday, issuing a strong statement that it would
incorporate the FTC's major recommendations into its marketing
policies, and I want to thank and commend them for that step.
But if the entertainment industry fails to act, and if they
market adult-rated products to kids in violation of their own
standards, then I believe they must be held accountable.
Specifically, if the FTC has the proper authority it should
move swiftly to bring actions under its false and deceptive
advertising rules. If the FTC finds those rules do not apply to
this unique circumstance, then we should introduce new,
narrowly-tailored legislation to augment the FTC's authority,
with the understanding, of course, that it has to be fully
consistent with the First Amendment and in no way regulate or
restrict the underlying content of the movies, music, or video
games. We are focusing on how they market, not what they make.
The FTC report also talks about where they sell, and the
critical role retailers must play in protecting children from
harm. The investigation found that movie theaters and retail
outlets at best haphazardly enforce the age-based ratings, and
often do nothing at all. An undercover sting revealed that kids
aged 13 to 16 were successful in buying M-rated games and
records with the explicit lyrics label 85 percent of the time.
Now, that kind of laxity is just unacceptable. Just as the
FTC has done, we must challenge the retailers to adopt a tough,
enforceable, voluntary code of responsibility prohibiting the
sale of adult-rated products to children, complete with real,
self-enforced sanctions for offending businesses.
Again, as has been said, KMart, Wal-Mart, and Target just
recently made a commitment to enforce exactly this kind of
policy for violent M-rated video games, as had Toys ``R'' Us
previously. I applaud those companies for lending parents a
helping hand and setting a high standard of corporate
citizenship, and I would urge the rest of the industry to
follow their principled leads.
Mr. Chairman, all of these constructive steps will not
ultimately be effective if parents are also not engaged. This
is a critical point that many in the entertainment industry
emphasize, and on this one they are absolutely right. We have
been working to give parents empowering tools to help them
fulfill what we all agree is their primary responsibility to
protect their children from harm--the V-chip rating systems, a
wide array of internet blocking and filtering technologies.
This FTC report recommends several additional worthwhile
ways to make these rules more useful, from investing ways to
better educate parents, providing better ratings with more
information, and fully disclosing the reasons for those ratings
in the ads and on the packaging. But they are not going to be
useful if they are not used, which is why we have to challenge
America's parents to do more to monitor their children's media
diets.
In the end, Mr. Chairman, what we are asking for today
again is not censorship, but simply better citizenship. The
same entertainment companies that we are calling on today
contribute so much to our culture, to our economy, and to the
American experience. They make some wonderful products that
entertain, educate, and elevate us as a people. But they are
also contributing to some serious national problems, and we
need their help, cooperation and support if we are going to
make things better.
The FTC report and we here today, I think all of us across
party lines, are saying to Hollywood quite simply, work with us
and with America's parents, provide them good information to
make good judgments, and help us meet our shared obligation to
protect our children and our country from harm.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. On behalf of
the entire Committee we thank you for this important testimony
and your continued involvement on this very important issue,
and it is very good to see you again.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Kohl.
STATEMENT OF HON. HERB KOHL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings,
and Members of this Committee for convening this hearing. The
FTC report appropriately criticizes the entire entertainment
industry for marketing violent content to children. I want to
focus my remarks today on the part of the industry that I know
best: video game producers and retailers.
To be sure, the best of the video and computer games on the
market are appropriate for children, and some are even
educational. But the FTC report confirms our worst suspicions:
too many video game companies flagrantly flout their own
ratings systems, too many game-makers peddle violent products
to young children, and too many retailers look the other way.
These companies are irresponsible corporate citizens, their
executives should be embarrassed by their actions, and the
American people should think twice about buying their products
until they start behaving.
Let me give you an example of what we are talking about.
This past weekend, I sent a member of my staff out with two 12-
year-olds to do a spot check of area stores. Our seventh-
graders walked out of Best Buy, Toys ``R'' Us, and KayBee Toys,
three of the largest video and computer game retailers in the
Nation, with the most violent and vulgar interactive
entertainment that $50 can buy.
In fact, at Toys ``R'' Us, which to its credit has a system
in place to remind employees to check identification whenever
an M-rated game is sold, our seventh-graders watched as the
cashier dismissively overrode the store's own warning system
not once, but twice. Our experience is consistent with the
FTC's findings that 85 percent of underage children can buy
adult games.
Mr. Chairman, since the beginning, manufacturers have been
equally complicit. Seven years ago, when Senator Lieberman and
I began to investigate the interactive gaming industry, there
was no rating system at all for video games. Parents had no way
to know what their children were playing. But after a series of
congressional hearings, meetings with company executives and,
most importantly, pressure from parents, we did finally get
manufacturers to agree to create and implement a rating system.
It was and remains a significant accomplishment.
Today, nearly every game sold is rated, and that rating is
prominently displayed on the video game itself. But even as
some in the industry take these laudable steps to prevent the
wrong games from ending up in the wrong hands, other bad actors
are peddling the same virtual carnage and smut specifically to
minors. Of the three industries studied by the FTC, the video
game industry is the only one with a legally binding code of
conduct. Manufacturers sign a document that explicitly states,
and I quote, companies should not specifically target
advertising to underage consumers.
Unfortunately, some of these very same manufacturers
flagrantly and repeatedly ignore their own code. They advertise
mature-rated games in magazines whose readers are predominantly
under 17. In fact, the FTC found that 91 percent of the video
game companies surveyed have targeted males under 17 in
advertising campaigns for violent and M-rated games. So we are
not talking about accidental leakage to a younger demographic,
Mr. Chairman. We are talking about a highly sophisticated
marketing strategy designed to make an extra buck by
deliberately luring young kids into buying these games.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, finding solutions is always much
harder than identifying problems. Not all of us agree about how
to shield our children from video game violence while
protecting our freedom of speech and expression. But all of us
do agree that some of these games are clearly wrong for our
children. Do not take my word for it. Ask the industry itself.
An executive of Nintendo actually said of a Sega game, Night
Trap, and I quote, ``it simply has no place in American
society.''
Mr. Chairman, that statement was made at a hearing we held
7 years ago. Since then, the industry has developed a more than
adequate rating system. Unfortunately, it now appears that we
cannot trust their executives to live up to their word. The
video game industry has no right to play dangerous games with
our children. Its executives have at the very least a moral and
an ethical responsibility to treat America's families with the
respect that they deserve.
We ought to ask them why they have not. If we are not
satisfied with their answers we need to bring them back again
and again, hold them up to public scrutiny, and do everything
in our constitutional power to improve their behavior.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Kohl.
Senator Boxer, welcome, and I appreciate your patience.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. I really learned a lot, and Mr. Chairman, I,
too, am so glad that you are well and back, and feisty, and I
hope you will tell me when I have used up 4 minutes and I will
complete in the 5 minutes if you could do that.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. I speak to you as your colleague, as a
mother, a grandmother, and Senator from California, where the
entertainment industry is sometimes getting great praise, for
example, Saving Private Ryan, and sometimes getting great
condemnation, as we have seen in many of your words today, and
certainly the lyrics that were posted by Senator Brownback. My
personal opinion is they are distressing and they are vile. I
wish I could have had next to that the lyrics of a wonderful
song from Sesame Street called, ``It's Not Easy Being Green,''
which I can attest to, and other wonderful music, the lyrics by
the Bergmans or Senator Hatch.
So as in most things in life there is good and bad, and
nothing is perfect. Certainly the FTC did a sensational job, I
think, of using documentation to show that the entertainment
industry is not paying attention to its own rating system and
its own warning labels, and this is wrong.
The good news about this report is that it is very clear.
It is very unequivocal. I have spoken to many in the industry
and they are very ready to take steps. As Senator Lieberman
said, the Walt Disney Company has made available to the
Committee, in case you have not seen it, their press release.
They are making some tremendous strides--the Touchstone
Hollywood Pictures, Miramax Films--they are putting into place
I think a very good system, and so I am very happy.
Now, the entertainment industry has received criticism
because the studio heads are not here. They decided to have Mr.
Valenti speak for them today, and I think he will have a lot to
offer in his testimony, so first----
The Chairman. So you agree the studio heads should not have
come?
Senator Boxer. I did not say that. I just said that they
have given Mr. Valenti the authority to speak for them, because
I spoke to them, and they decided rather than have all the
different voices, that is their decision, and you have every
right not to appreciate it, and I just wanted to mention that
they themselves----
The Chairman. I have only been on this Committee 14 years.
I have never seen such a thing before.
Senator Boxer. I am sorry.
The Chairman. Please go ahead.
Senator Boxer. I was saying that Mr. Valenti will speak for
them, and they, it seems to me, are taking some steps which are
important, and I hope in 6 months' time we will see even more
steps being taken.
So the good news from my standpoint is, I spoke to many of
them, and they are not defensive about this report. They want
to take steps--do I have one minute left, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Take a couple more minutes if you like,
Senator Boxer. You have been very patient this morning, and I
think we should allow you to complete.
Senator Boxer. Thank you. So the FTC report is very
important. The marketing practices should reflect the rating
system and the warning system, I think that is obvious, and it
must be done. But I guess I want to ask the question, if
everything worked out perfectly, and tomorrow all the marketing
policies were changed, would that cure the violence problem in
our society? The answer is clearly no.
As H.L. Mencken said, for every problem there is a solution
which is simple, neat, and wrong, and I think if we just look
at the entertainment industry alone, while it is very important
to do so, I hope we will give equal attention to other factors.
I would call your attention to the FBI report. They just
did a report called, The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment
Perspective, and they tried to determine whether it is possible
to predict and prevent school violence. The report recognizes
that the causes of violent behavior are complex, to quote them,
multiple, intricate, intertwined.
They mention entertainment. They also mention weapons in
the home, and when we took up this issue of the FTC
investigation the last time in the Senate we, in a very
bipartisan way, also suggested that the FTC look at the
marketing practices of the gun companies to our children.
Attached to my statement you will see some advertising by
the gun companies. For example, they are advertising a handgun
in a children's magazine when kids cannot buy handguns. They
have statements like, ``Start 'em young,'' that shows a young
child holding a look-alike of a handgun.
There is a report by a very important community group that
says Eddie Eagle, their mascot, is very much like Joe Camel, so
I would just ask us to look at that as well.
Two more quick points, and then I will be done. If you look
at Detroit, Michigan, and Windsor, Canada, they are right--
separated by just a river. They get the same exact music,
videos, everything, television. In 1997, which is the last time
we had numbers, Detroit had 354 firearm murders. In Windsor,
Canada, there were four, so they have the same entertainment,
but yet this difference in murder rate, and so therefore we
need to look at everything. We need to look at everything.
The last point I would make would echo what Senator Hatch
said, and I wanted to compliment him on the tone of his
presentation. We know there is one proven fact, that the
strongest risk factor for transmitting violent behavior from
one generation to the next is if a child sees his father
abusing his mother, and we have specific statistics.
According to the National Institute of Justice an abused
child is 53 percent more likely to be arrested as a juvenile,
and 38 percent more likely to be arrested as an adult than a
child who is not abused, so I think we need to look at
entertainment, we need to look at guns, we need to look at the
way kids are treated, and I want to just say, if we can help
Senators Hatch and Biden pass the Violence Against Women Act it
would be a big help, as well as the work your Committee is
doing.
So again, my deepest thanks to you for your patience with
me, and we all want to ensure that our children's world is
peaceful, that it is loving, and is not violent and full of
hatred, and I think we all come to this with that attitude.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
Senator DeWine.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DeWINE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO
Senator DeWine. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. As the
father of 8, whose ages range from 8 to 32, not only do I have
a personal interest, but I also think I have a little
institutional memory, and maybe some historical perspective
about these issues. I have examined, as we all have, the
findings of the FTC report, and I am convinced, Mr. Chairman,
that this industry is at war with parents. They are trying to
get between parents and their children, and it is our children,
Mr. Chairman, who are being harmed.
The entertainment industry must stop its advertising and
marketing tactics that undermine parental authority. According
to the FTC, the entertainment industry has been engaged in a,
quote, ``pervasive and aggressive marketing of violent movies,
music, and electronic games to children'', end of quote.
Now, the industry will try to tell us the voluntary rating
system is in place to help parents make informed choices about
the kinds of television programs, movies, and video games that
are suitable for children, depending on their age. The industry
will say that it is up to parents to monitor what their
children do. It is up to parents to use these ratings as a
guideline, but Mr. Chairman, the value of these voluntary
rating systems is destroyed when individual entertainment
producers go out of their way to undermine parental decisions
by enticing children to seek out the very entertainment that
the industry's ratings indicate is not suitable for them.
Mr. Chairman, this is just plain wrong. Like the tobacco
companies before them, the entertainment industry is
encouraging children to defy and deceive their parents. That is
something that we, as a people and as a society, simply should
not tolerate. We cannot tolerate a widespread and aggressive
campaign to weaken parental authority.
So Mr. Chairman, where do we go from here? One thing the
Federal Trade Commission can and I believe should do is provide
Congress with an annual report on these marketing practices so
the American people can determine if the industry is doing a
better job.
Now, Mr. Chairman, no doubt the entertainment industry can
only get better at marketing. We know they will. So, today I
challenge the entertainment industry to follow the
recommendations of the FTC report and act less like shameless
salesmen and more like concerned parents.
The entertainment industry needs to regulate itself much
more carefully and much more effectively. They need to develop
reasonable guidelines and then actually enforce them.
But, Mr. Chairman, we have all been down this road before,
how many times, and I know that some in the entertainment
industry have raised antitrust concerns as an excuse--as an
excuse for why they cannot get together, why they cannot as an
industry agree to more sensible rules and then actually police
themselves.
However, Mr. Chairman, the FTC report indicates that such
guidelines, if carefully drafted and reinforced, will not pose
any antitrust problem, and I must say, as Chairman of the
Antitrust Subcommittee, I agree with that assessment. So, I
pose this question to the industry, and to their
representatives who are here today: Mr. Goldberg, Mr. Zelnick,
Mr. Moore, Mr. Fischback, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Lowenstein, and Mr.
Valenti, do you believe that individual antitrust protection is
needed for you to implement the recommendations of the FTC
report? Mr. Chairman, although I will not be here to ask them
those questions, I would ask that each one of them address
that.
Do you have the authority today to implement those
recommendations? If you do not, I will guarantee you, gentlemen
and ladies, that this Congress will act very swiftly to give
you that authority. If you believe additional protection is
necessary, as Chairman of the Antitrust Subcommittee, I will
work with Ranking Member Kohl; and I will work with this
Committee; and I will work with Senator Brownback, who has been
a leader in this area, to make sure this legislation is passed.
Several years ago, I worked with Senator Brownback, Senator
Kohl, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Simon on legislation
designed to give the television industry, specifically,
antitrust protection because some in the industry believed or
said it might be necessary. We can do this again if you feel
that is what is needed to enforce the FTC recommendation.
Mr. Chairman, however, I would again address this to the
representatives who are here: If you believe that current
antitrust protection is sufficient to implement and enforce new
guidelines, then just do it. Develop tough standards, implement
them, and by all means enforce them. To borrow a well-known
marketing phrase, just do it. There are no reasons, no excuses
for this industry to ignore its moral responsibility to parents
and especially to children.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the indulgence of the chair. If
I could just make one final comment, the thing that candidly
puzzles me more than anything else, and I just do not
understand it, is why some of these companies that are
multimillion-dollar companies, who make a great deal of money,
cannot just look up and say, there are just certain things we
are not going to do. There are just certain things we are not
going to publish. There are just certain things we are not
going to promote. It is not a question of freedom of speech.
But, when Senator Brownback put those words up there, how
can anybody defend that? People should just say no--we are not
going to do it--we have higher standards than that. It is not a
violation of the First Amendment. It is just the right thing to
do.
I appreciate the indulgence of the chair.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator DeWine.
I am pleased to welcome back an old friend from our days on
the Interior Committee, and a person who has been involved in
these issues for many years. We appreciate your being here,
Congressman Markey, and appreciate your patience.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Senator, very much, and you, Senator
Hollings, and all the Members of this Committee. After all, you
have been the leaders on this issue. Almost every one of you
has taken a role in dealing with these issues over the past
decade, and notwithstanding some of the comments made by this
panel already by one of my former colleagues, Al Gore and his
wife, going all the way back to the first day I was in
Congress, sitting next to them on the Telecommunications
Committee in 1977, as a couple they were working on children's
television, and the role of violence in the media. And Joe
Lieberman, of course, who has become the conscience of
communications over the last 10 years, working with all parts
of the ideological spectrum to deal with that issue.
I want to begin first by praising each of the industries
invited this morning for the work they have done to set up a
self-regulatory structure designed to increase the awareness to
parents, advertisers, executives, and consumers generally of
product material that may be inappropriate for children.
Today's hearing should be focused rather narrowly on
commercial, not creative processes. That, after all, is what
the Federal Trade Commission report is all about. It deals with
methods of marketing, not movie-making, not music-making, but
marketing, and with respect to marketing the issue is even
narrower.
The FTC report deals only with marketing to audiences that
are predominantly underage for the material being sold. This
practice, found to be pervasive and routine by the Federal
Trade Commission, drives parents crazy. The Federal Trade
Commission report describes an example that parents in my
district can relate to.
A child asks a parent to take her to see Star Wars. She
knows it is rated PG. The parents remember from their own
childhood experience that this is an extraordinarily visual
experience. They go to the movie, and while waiting for the
feature presentation to begin they are shocked to discover that
they have become a captive audience for a trailer for an R-
rated movie that includes graphic sexual images and other
material. Parents feel entrapped. They pay attention to the
rating, act reasonably, but get treated as unwitting abettors
in the commercial scheme of others.
That is what this hearing should be about, the detrimental
reliance of parents on a system of warnings that is sometimes
flaunted by some companies that adopted it. I hope we can deal
with this problem through voluntary codes and through the
judicious application of existing law. After all, the trade
associations for both the recording industry and the electronic
games industry have already taken steps to prevent advertising
adult-content products on child-frequented media outlets, and
also the Walt Disney Company just announced an initiative to
prevent such marketing.
In my own view, the Federal Trade Commission already has
sufficient authority in the Federal Trade Commission Act to
bring an action against a company that repeatedly flaunts such
guidelines. Section 5 makes it unlawful to engage in deceptive
or unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce. I believe
that the Commission would be upheld if it acted to rein in a
renegade company that continues to target children with adult-
rated products even while the majority of its competitors were
steering away from such practices. It would be deceptive
because the target audience could not legally purchase the
product without parental consent. It would be unfair because it
would be the cynical exploitation of a market that other
competitors were no longer targeting.
The Federal Trade Commission report is silent on the scope
of its existing authority to rein in the renegades. I sent a
letter to the chairman asking him to provide guidance on this
subject. I know that he has already charged his general counsel
with reviewing the law in this area, and I look forward to his
reply.
But despite the common sense reaction of some industry
players to the need to curtail the practices outlined by the
FTC, others have leapt to the conclusion that Congress cannot
involve itself in the area of violent entertainment without
engaging in censorship.
Now, censorship is a strong word, usually reserved for
those occasions when the government tries to influence the
content of ideas, particularly unpopular ideas. Can that word
be applied here, assuming, we, the government, engage in
reasonable efforts to restrain the practice of marketing to
children entertainment products containing violence and
intended for adults?
It has never been the law of the land, nor will it ever be,
that those engaged in the sale of a product that harms children
will have an unfettered right to cause that harm. Commercial
speech is protected by the Constitution, but not absolutely, as
though there were no competing public good. Children in
particular, vulnerable as they are to the inducements and
messages of the free market, have always been viewed as a
special class deserving of special protection from the excesses
of the free market. Certainly they are no less a protected
interest than the purveyors of the products. Congress has made
this clear over and over again.
The critics of this congressional hearing today say that we
are using the Constitution against commerce, and that is wrong.
In fact, what this hearing is about is commerce against
children, and we are saying that there are constitutional
limits upon their ability as commerce to target the child's
audience.
This Committee has regulated the sale of cigarettes to
minors, alcohol to minors, guns to minors. This Committee has
regulated commercial speech in the Children's Television Act of
1990, Senator Hollings, and the Child Online Privacy Protection
Act of 1998, Senator Bryan, and we have enacted to enable
parents to cope with the tsunami of violent and sexual media
images through the V-chip software filters and ratings, Senator
Dorgan and you, Mr. Chairman, and many of the other Members of
this Committee.
The Children's Television Act of 1990 is particularly
instructive for this Committee. In that act this Committee
specifically limited the marketing practices of broadcasters on
children's programming, right down to the number of minutes
that a station can devote to marketing products on that
programming.
How is that constitutional? Because as the Committee stated
at the time, even where commercial speech is entirely lawful
and not misleading, children are a substantial government
interest. Who made that decision? Judge Starr made that
decision in Action for Children's Television v. The FTC in
1987. Young children cannot distinguish conceptually between
programming and advertising, and guidelines on the permissible
level of commercialization is a recognition of the
vulnerability of children to commercial exploitation.
Unlike the Children's Television Act, where the images
regulated were not violent, the FTC report deals with violent
entertainment, which has been correlated with psychological and
occasionally physical harm when beamed into the brains of
children in massive overdoses.
The harm does not have to rise to the level of a Columbine
massacre to justify concern. It is beyond argument that while
violence in the media has been found to contribute to a climate
that makes a society less sensitive to real violence, it is
never the sole nor even the most important contributing element
to pathological acts that occur so frequently on America's
streets.
The fact that this Congress has failed to act on the gun
show loophole, for example, is surely more directly related to
the death toll from guns in America than any movie or song or
video game ever written, and the fact is that real violence is
so common today that it appears on the nightly news even in
homes that use the V-chip.
We are not talking about a cure-all here. We are talking
about giving parents tools which they can use--a safety cap on
medicine, a seat belt in a car, labeling on food. We are trying
to help parents in a very tough world to do the best job they
can.
When parents are told that they have ratings that they can
rely upon, and yet there is a marketing strategy to go right
around those marketing promises, then deceptive and unfair
trade practices are being engaged in.
Does this mean the entertainment industry should continue
to market adult fare to children? Surely not, and the sooner
the leaders of these great industries concede that obvious
fact, the sooner we will remedy the problem. Parents are simply
saying, do not trick us, do not disrespect us, do not market
behind our backs, just do what it is that you have been
promising that you will do, when you say you will keep it away
from the children of our country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Edward J. Markey,
U.S. Representative from Massachusetts
Thank you for this opportunity to testify regarding the practice of
marketing violent adult entertainment to children.
I want to begin by praising each of the industries invited this
morning for the work they have done to set up a self-regulatory
structure designed to increase the awareness of parents, advertisers,
executives and consumers generally of product material that may be
inappropriate for children.
In setting up the ratings and labeling systems that are now
routinely implemented in the movie, music, video game and television
industries, the associations and members of these industries have
demonstrated their concern for the unintended effects of some of their
products on children, and have acknowledged the changing competitive
and technological landscape that now drives American popular culture.
This means that today's hearing can and should be focused rather
narrowly on commercial, not creative, processes. That, after all, is
what the FTC report is about. It deals with methods of marketing--not
moviemaking, not musicmaking--but marketing.
And with respect to marketing, the issue is even narrower--the FTC
report deals only with marketing to audiences that are predominantly
underage for the material being sold. This practice--found to be
pervasive and routine by the FTC--drives parents crazy.
The FTC report describes an example that parents in my district can
relate to. A child asks a parent to take her to see Star Wars, she
knows it's rated ``PG'', the parent remembers from his own childhood
experience that this is an extraordinary visual experience. They go to
the movie and, while waiting for the feature presentation to begin, are
shocked to discover that they have become a captive audience for a
trailer for an R-rated movie that includes graphic sexual images, rape
and vulgar language.
Parents feel entrapped. They pay attention to the rating, act
reasonably, but get treated as unwitting abettors in the commercial
schemes of others.
In another example mentioned in the report, an action figure from a
video game so violent that it is rated as unsuitable for 16-year-olds
is sold in toy stores carrying the label ``Ages 4 and up.'' Again,
parents facing this kind of cynical manipulation of an industry's own
rating system feel betrayed.
That is what this hearing should be about--the detrimental reliance
of parents on a system of warnings that is sometimes flaunted by the
companies that adopted it. I hope we can deal with this problem through
voluntary codes and through the judicious application of existing law.
After all, the trade associations for both the recording industry and
the electronic games industry have already taken steps to prevent
advertising adult-content products on child-frequented media outlets.
It is my own view that the FTC already has sufficient authority in
the Federal Trade Act to bring an action against a company that
repeatedly flaunts such guidelines. Section 5 makes it unlawful to
engage in ``deceptive or unfair acts or practices in or affecting
commerce.'' I believe that the Commission would be upheld if it acted
to rein in a renegade company that continues to target children with
adult-rated products even while the majority of it competitors were
steering away from such practices. It would be ``deceptive'', because
the target audience cannot legally purchase the product without
parental consent. It would be ``unfair'', because it would be the
cynical exploitation of a market that other competitors were no longer
targeting.
Unfortunately, the FTC report is silent on the scope of its
existing authority to rein in the renegades, so I have sent a letter to
Chairman Pitofsky asking him to provide guidance on this subject. I
know he has already charged his general counsel with reviewing the law
in this area, and I look forward to his reply.
But despite the common sense reaction of some industry players to
the need to curtail the practices outlined by the FTC, others have
leapt hysterically to the conclusion that Congress cannot involve
itself in the area of violent entertainment without engaging in
``censorship.''
``Censorship'' is a strong word, usually reserved for those
occasions when the government tries to influence the content of ideas,
particularly unpopular ideas.
Can that word be applied here, assuming we, the government, engage
in reasonable efforts to restrain the practice of marketing to children
entertainment products containing violence and intended for adults?
As long as the industry, not the government, decides which material
is unsuitable for children, the answer is clearly ``NO.''
It has never been the Law of the Land, nor will it ever be, that
those engaged in the sale of a product that harms children will have an
unfettered right to cause that harm.
Commercial speech is protected by the Constitution, but not
absolutely, as though there were no competing public good. Children, in
particular, vulnerable as they are to the inducements and messages of
the free market, have always been viewed as a special class deserving
of special protection from the excesses of the free market. Certainly
they are no less a protected interest than the purveyors of products.
Congress has made this clear over and over again.
We have regulated the sale of cigarettes to minors, alcohol to
minors, guns to minors.
We have regulated commercial speech in the Children's Television
Act of 1990 and the Child Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998.
And we have acted to enable parents to cope with the tsunami of
violent and sexual media images through the V-chip, software filters
and ratings.
The Children's Television Act is particularly instructive. In that
Act, we specifically limit the marketing practices of broadcasters on
children's programming, right down to the number of minutes that a
station can devote to marketing products on that programming. How is
that ``constitutional?'' Because as the Committee stated at the time,
even where commercial speech is entirely lawful and not misleading,
children are a ``substantial government interest.'' As pointed out by
Judge Starr in Action for Children's Television v. FCC (D.C. Cir.
1987), young children often cannot distinguish conceptually between
programming and advertising, and guidelines on the permissible level of
commercialization is a recognition of the vulnerability of children to
commercial exploitation.
Unlike the Children's Television Act, where the images regulated
were not violent, the FTC report deals with violent entertainment which
has been correlated with psychological and, occasionally, physical harm
when beamed into the brains of children in massive doses. The harm does
not have to rise to the level of a Columbine massacre to justify
concern. Any parent will tell you that efforts to raise a healthy child
in America are hurt, not helped, by the flood of violent messages
delivered routinely, daily, to America's children. It is beyond
argument.
It is also beyond argument that while violence in the media has
been found to contribute to a climate that makes society less sensitive
to real violence, it is never the sole nor even the most important
contributing element to pathological acts that occur so frequently on
America's streets. The fact that this Congress has failed to act on the
gun show loophole, for example, is surely more directly related to the
death toll from guns in America than any movie, or song, or video game
ever written. And the fact is that real violence is so common today
that it appears on the nightly news even in homes that use the V-chip.
Does this mean that the entertainment industry should continue to
market adult fare to children? Surely not, and the sooner the leaders
of these great industries concede this obvious fact, the sooner we will
remedy this problem.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Congressman Markey. We look
forward to continuing to work with you and appreciate all the
great work you have done.
Last but certainly not least, Senator Hagel.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK HAGEL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Hagel. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and Committee
Members, thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Mr. Chairman, as has been noted this morning, the FTC was
requested to conduct this investigation following the tragic
killings last year at Columbine High School. Obviously, the
concern over our children and the increasingly violent nature
in their dealings with each other is the far larger issue that
draws us here this morning.
These issues are broad, deep, and very complicated. Are we
creating a culture where children see violence as an acceptable
option in dealing with others? Are our children becoming
desensitized to violence?
In seeking answers to these questions we should not look
for the easy, glib, sound bite political answers. There are no
easy answers.
It is important that we bring some perspective to this
matter, however, and not understate the fact that most all of
America's young people turn out to be productive, responsible,
contributing young adults.
All of us in society have responsibility for our culture
and the kind of culture our children are raised in and inherit.
We all must do our part, parents, teachers, counselors,
voluntary organizations, religious institutions, lawmakers, and
yes, the entertainment industry.
The entertainment industry cannot excuse its conduct by
citing the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of expression
in the First Amendment. Yes, freedom of expression is part of
the greatness and the goodness of America. It set our Nation
apart at its founding, and has continued to represent the
foundation of freedom throughout our history.
But with freedom comes responsibility. Freedom of
expression is not freedom from accountability. Each of us is
accountable for our actions, our own actions, everything we say
and do, and yes, we are also accountable for what we create.
Some in the entertainment industry have been completely
irresponsible for what they created, and for deliberately
marketing this trash to our children, gratuitous violence,
indiscriminate sex, glorification of killing, the debasement of
virtue. What is instructive, meaningful, uplifting or, indeed,
entertaining in this garbage?
What message does this send not just to our children, but
to the world? Young children and teens are impressionable, we
know that. When they are repeatedly exposed to violence and to
mean behavior they process it as acceptable behavior. Are we
really surprised, then, to find that teens see violence in some
cases, maybe many cases, an acceptable way to settle their
differences with others? I do not think so. We are kidding
ourselves.
My children, like all children and adolescents, need
boundaries. Every day, I see how they and their friends are
exposed to things they are unprepared to deal with. They need
positive role models from whom they can learn the difference
between right and wrong. Children need to be grounded with a
strong sense of right and wrong so that they will know what to
do when parents are not around. We must help them build a
strong foundation that will last a lifetime, but not all
children are fortunate enough to grow up in homes with two
parents who have the time and resources to help guide them
through the dangerous influences in our society. These children
are especially vulnerable. Children and adolescents who have
dropped through the cracks of life through no fault of their
own are the most susceptible to this mindless violence.
Young people have always been intrigued by violence and
sex. This is not new. Our culture was once served by an
unwritten social code, Mr. Chairman. There is no one in this
room who does not understand that, nor was raised by that
unwritten social code, a public morality. Together we shielded
our children from exposure to violence and graphic acts. That
is how we protect children in a democracy, without resorting to
Government interference or censorship. Today, much of that
social code has been belittled and discarded, and the social
fabric of our Nation is showing signs of serious fraying.
It is not that children are sneaking in to see these
movies, or stealing the music and computer games. The FTC has
found that the entertainment industry is just deliberately
marketing these products to young people, some as young as 10
years old. At the same time, the industry pays lip service to
ratings, labels, and parental warnings. It is deliberately
marketing violence to our children at the same time.
This must end, Mr. Chairman. I am not here today to
advocate Government regulation of our entertainment industry.
However, let me say this. The day is fast approaching when the
American people may be willing to accept some restriction of
freedom of expression in order to protect their children. The
entertainment industry must understand that we are closer to
that day than they may realize. America's parents will rise up
to protect their children.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the testimony from
representatives of the entertainment industry. I, too, share
your dismay that the leaders of our movie industry are not here
today. I applaud you and the Committee's efforts to bring them
in here in 2 weeks. I hope that is done. I hope they will have
some explanation.
As I stated earlier, Mr. Chairman, the cultural problems
affecting our children and our Nation are complex and we all
are responsible, and we all must take part in changing it.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hagel.
We now will hear from Hon. Robert Pitofsky, who is the
chairman of the Federal Trade Commission.
And Mr. Pitofsky, as you probably know, there is a vote on,
so the Members will be returning, but since we have two
additional panels after you, or three additional panels,
actually, we would like for you to begin your statement, and I
thank you for being here. I congratulate you and the other
members of the Commission for giving us a report that I think
is very important to families all across America.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT PITOFSKY, CHAIRMAN,
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Mr. Pitofsky. It's a pleasure for me to appear here before
you and this Committee, which has been so supportive of the
work of the Commission over the years, and in particular, has
had a keen interest in this particular project.
As you know from our report, each of the three--movies,
music and video games--industry segments target marketing to
children of entertainment products with violent content that is
pervasive and aggressive. Each industry publishes a rating
warning, indicating material that isn't appropriate or
warranting parental control, and then they market these very
products to children.
Of the movies we looked at, 80 percent were marketed to
kids under 17; of the music recordings that we looked at, all
of them were marketed to young people under 17. Of the
electronic games we looked at, 70 percent were marketed to
kids.
I also am concerned as you are, Mr. Chairman, about some of
these documents. Our report is essentially a summary of the
documents that we received from the industry's own files, and
some of the documents are very disturbing.
You mentioned the one about movie marketers getting
together and thinking through how they could market a sequel to
a picture that had been R-rated, and they knew that a large
part of the audience of the first movie had been 10-year-olds,
and they've organized a focus group to think through--of 10-
and 11-year-olds, to think through how they could market the R-
rated sequel.
The Chairman. A focus group of 10- and 11-year-olds?
Mr. Pitofsky. Exactly.
The Chairman. Had you ever heard of such a thing?
Mr. Pitofsky. I had not, and I confess I was very surprised
to see that document.
A second document had to do with video games. It referred
to target marketing as males 17 to 34 due to the M rating, and
then it went on to say, in parentheses, the true target market
is males 12 to 34. Other documents talk about marketing these
products to Boy Scout groups, Girl Scout groups, 4-H clubs, and
other places where young people congregate. And they're not
isolated statements.
To the contrary, the extent and in some instances the
brazenness of marketing to children reflected in these
documents is striking, and obviously our concern is increased
when we know that at the retail level, these young people can
easily buy these products or gain access to these movies.
We cannot help but be concerned about marketing products
with violent material to young people. Scholars do indicate
rather strongly that being exposed to violent material alone is
not likely to lead someone to go out and commit a violent act.
But we are mindful of the question that Sesella Bok raised
in her book ``Mayhem.'' She was talking about television but I
think it applies here, she asked: ``Is it alarmist or merely
sensible to ask what happens to the souls of children nurtured
as in no past society on images of rape, torture, bombings and
massacre that are channeled into their homes from infancy?''
Studies do indicate that this should be a matter of concern
because there is a correlation, maybe not a causal connection
but a correlation, between exposure to these materials and an
insensitivity to violence, aggressive behavior and attitudes,
and an exaggeration of the extent to which violence is present
in our society.
It seems to me unacceptable to continue a process in which
advertisers and marketers seek new and more efficient ways to
market materials they and their industry regard as violent to
an underage audience. These practices undermine the parental
warnings and bring into question the fundamental credibility of
the rating and labeling system.
The question that needs to be addressed is: What is to be
done? The Commission report stresses that policy decisions must
be carefully considered to avoid regulating in a way that is
inconsistent with First Amendment protections for speech.
That's why we have emphasized from the very beginning of our
project a preference for self-regulation and indicated a
willingness to work with these industry sectors to try to
improve their self-regulatory processes.
We've been encouraged by constructive things that have
happened since this project was announced over a year ago. As
several have mentioned, the Walt Disney Company announced new
policies yesterday that appear to be constructive steps in the
right direction.
I believe these industries should be given a reasonable
period of time to consider whether they are ready to commit to
effective self-regulation. Industry codes that are not worth
the paper they are written on will not be acceptable. Also,
self-regulatory arrangements must extend not just to the
creators of these products but to the retailers and
distributors as well.
If self-regulation does not provide an adequate answer--and
I heard with dismay Senator Hollings' description of the
history in this area, much of which I was not aware of myself--
if it doesn't work, I see no choice but to explore law
enforcement under present statutes, like the statute of my own
agency that declares illegal deceptive and unfair acts and
practices in Commerce.
Now a legal challenge under our statute would be a
departure from the sort of things that we typically do. On the
other hand, I'm not sure we can't do it, and I have asked our
staff promptly to give us a report on the pros and cons of such
an approach.
The Chairman. We'd be very interested if you would share
that with us at the appropriate time.
Mr. Pitofsky. We certainly will, Senator.
If it turns out self-regulation doesn't solve the problem
and current law is inadequate, legislation, respectful of the
First Amendment, should be considered.
By adopting rating codes, these----
The Chairman. Very strong words.
Mr. Pitofsky. Well, I've thought about it for a long time.
I hope we don't go to that. I think it would serve everyone's
interest if the industry will come to the table and devise
adequate self-regulation. If they don't----
The Chairman. Is it indicative that the movie industry
people decided not even to show up here?
Mr. Pitofsky. It is certainly disappointing that they're
not here, and I commend you and the Committee for setting up a
hearing two weeks from now.
The Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Pitofsky. I don't mean to
interrupt, but your statement today is a very important one
because your report is so compelling, your recommendations are
equally as compelling.
Please continue.
Mr. Pitofsky. Thank you, Senator.
Well, just very briefly, by adopting rating codes, these
three industries recognize their responsibility to give parents
the information they need to monitor children's exposure to
violent entertainment materials. The challenge now is to make
that rating process effective.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pitofsky follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Pitofsky, Chairman, Federal Trade
Commission
I. Introduction
Mr. Chairman, I am Robert Pitofsky, Chairman of the Federal Trade
Commission. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the Commission's
report on the marketing of violent entertainment products to children
by the motion picture, music recording and electronic games industries.
\1\ The report answers two questions raised by President Clinton when
he requested this study: Do the motion picture, music recording and
electronic game industries promote products they themselves acknowledge
warrant parental caution in venues where children make up a substantial
percentage of the audience? And, are these advertisements intended to
attract children and teenagers? After a comprehensive 15-month study,
the Commission has found that the answers to both questions are plainly
``yes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Commission vote to issue this testimony was 5-0. My oral
testimony and any responses to questions you may have reflect my own
views and are not necessarily those of the Commission or any other
Commissioner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although all three industries studied have self-regulatory systems
that purport to rate or label their products to help parents make
choices about their children's entertainment, the Commission found that
members of all three industries routinely target advertising and
marketing for violent entertainment products directly to children. The
Commission believes that these advertising and marketing efforts
undermine each industry's parental advisories and frustrate parents'
attempts to protect their children from inappropriate material.
II. Background
The FTC is the federal government's primary consumer protection
agency. Congress has directed the FTC, under the FTC Act, to take
action against ``unfair or deceptive acts or practices'' in almost all
sectors of the economy and to promote vigorous competition in the
marketplace. \2\ With the exception of certain industries and
activities, the FTC Act provides the Commission with broad
investigative and law enforcement authority over entities engaged in or
whose business affects commerce. \3\ The FTC Act also authorizes the
Commission to conduct studies and collect information, and, in the
public interest, to publish reports on the information it obtains. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 15 U.S.C. Sec. 45(a).
\3\ The Commission also has responsibility under 46 additional
statutes governing specific industries and practices. These include,
for example, the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1601 et
seq., which mandates disclosures of credit terms, and the Fair Credit
Billing Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1666 et seq., which provides for the
correction of billing errors on credit accounts. The Commission also
enforces over 30 rules governing specific industries and practices,
e.g., the Used Car Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 455, which requires used car
dealers to disclose warranty terms via a window sticker; the Franchise
Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 436, which requires the provision of information
to prospective franchisees; the Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R.
Part 310, which defines and prohibits deceptive telemarketing practices
and other abusive telemarketing practices; and the Children's Online
Privacy Protection Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 312.
The Commission does not, however, have criminal law enforcement
authority. Further, under the FTCA, certain entities, such as banks,
savings and loan associations, and common carriers, as well as the
business of insurance, are wholly or partially exempt from Commission
jurisdiction. See Section 5(a)(2) and (6)a of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 45(a)(2) and 46(a). See also The McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1012(b).
\4\ 15 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 46(b) and (f). Section 46(f) of the FTC Act
provides that ``the Commission shall also have the power . . . to make
public from time to time such portions of the information obtained by
it hereunder as are in the public interest; and to make annual and
special reports to Congress. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 1, 1999, following the horrifying school shooting in
Littleton, Colorado, the President requested that the Federal Trade
Commission and the Department of Justice conduct a study of whether
violent entertainment material was being advertised and promoted to
children and teenagers. \5\ President Clinton's request paralleled
congressional proposals for such a study. \6\ Revelations that the
teen-aged shooters at Columbine High School in Littleton had been
infatuated with extremely violent movies, music, and video games
reinvigorated public debate about the effects of violent entertainment
media on youth. While opinions vary, many studies have led experts and
public health organizations to believe that viewing entertainment media
violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes and behavior in
children. Although scholars and observers generally have agreed that
exposure to violence in entertainment media alone does not cause a
child to commit a violent act, there is widespread agreement that it
is, nonetheless, a cause for concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Letter from William J. Clinton, President of the United
States, to Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States, and
Robert Pitofsky, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission (June 1, 1999) (on
file with the Commission).
\6\ Legislation calling for the FTC and the Justice Department to
conduct such a study was introduced in both houses of Congress
following the Columbine incident. See Amendment No. 329 by Senator
Brownback et al. to the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender
Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999, S. 254, 106th Cong.
Sec. 511 (1999); H.R. 2157, 106th Cong. (1999); 145 Cong. Rec. S5171
(1999). In May 1999, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation conducted hearings on the marketing of violent
entertainment media to children. See Marketing Violence to Children:
Hearing Before the Senate Comm. on Commerce, Science, and Transp.,
106th Cong. (1999), www.senate.gov/ commerce/hearings/hearin99.htm
(visited July 30, 2000). Based on those hearings, in September 1999,
the Majority Staff of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary issued a
Committee report on this issue. See Majority Staff of the Senate Comm.
on the Judiciary, 106th Cong., Report on Children, Violence, and the
Media: A Report for Parents and Policy Makers (Comm. Print. 1999),
www.senate.gov/ judiciary/mediavio.htm (visited July 31, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. The Commission's Study
A. Scope of the Study
In response to the President's request, the Commission, with
financial assistance from the Justice Department, collected information
from the motion picture, music recording, and electronic game
industries regarding their self-regulatory systems and marketing
practices. \7\ The Commission requested information from the principal
industry trade associations, as well as the major motion picture
studios, the music recording companies, and electronic game companies.
\8\ In addition, the Commission contacted interested government
agencies, medical associations, academics, and parent and consumer
advocacy groups. \9\ We reviewed a substantial amount of information
collected from consumers through various surveys and polls, and also
designed and conducted our own surveys for this study. \10\
Specifically, we conducted a survey of parents and children regarding
their understanding and use of the rating and labeling systems, and how
they made purchase decisions for these entertainment products. \11\ We
also conducted an undercover survey of retail stores and movie theaters
to see if unaccompanied children under 17 could purchase or gain access
to products labeled as inappropriate or warranting parental guidance.
\12\ Finally, we reviewed Internet sites to study how they are used to
market and directly access these products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Justice Department provided the FTC with substantial
funding and technical assistance to enable the FTC to collect and
analyze public and non-public information about the industries'
advertising and marketing policies and procedures, and to prepare this
written report and appendices. The analysis and conclusions contained
in the Report are those of the FTC.
\8\ The Commission received information from about 50 individual
companies, as well as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA),
the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO), the Recording
Industry Association of America (RIAA), the National Association of
Recording Merchandisers (NARM), the Entertainment Software Rating Board
(ESRB), the Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA), the Interactive
Digital Software Association (IDSA), the Internet Content Rating
Association (ICRA), the Software and Information Industry Association
(SIIA), the Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association (IEMA), and
the American Amusement Machine Association (AAMA).
\9\ In addition to industry sources, the Commission received
information from a wide range of consumer, medical, and advocacy
organizations. The American Academy of Pediatrics, American
Psychological Association, Center on Media Education, Center on Media
and Public Affairs, Children Now, Commercial Alert, Lion and Lamb
Project, Mediascope, National Institute on Media and the Family,
National PTA, and Parents' Music Resource Center were among the
organizations that provided information to the Commission.
\10\ See Appendix E (Entertainment Industry Information Requests)
of the Commission's report.
\11\ See Appendix F (Mystery Shopper Survey and Parent-Child
Survey) of the Commission's Report.
\12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Entertainment Media Industry Self-Regulatory Systems
The entertainment industries have recognized the public's concern
about children's exposure to violent entertainment and have taken steps
to alert parents to violent or explicit content through self-regulatory
product rating or labeling programs. Each of these programs addresses
violence, as well as sexual content, language, drug use and other
content that may be of concern to parents.
The motion picture industry uses a rating board to rate virtually
all movies released in the United States, requires the age-related
rating to appear in advertising, and makes some effort to review ads
foR-rated movies to ensure that their content is suitable for general
audiences. The music recording industry recommends the use of a general
parental advisory label on music with ``explicit content.'' The
decision to place a parental advisory label on a recording is made by
the artist and the music publishing company and involves no independent
third-party review; nor does the industry provide for any review of
marketing and advertising. In late August 2000, the recording industry
trade association issued a recommendation that recording companies not
advertise explicit-content labeled recordings in media outlets with a
majority under-17 audience. The electronic game industry requires games
to be labeled with age- and content-based rating information and
requires that the rating information appear in advertising. It also is
the only industry that has adopted a rule prohibiting its marketers
from targeting advertising for games to children below the age
designations indicated by the rating.
IV. The Commission's Findings
The Commission carefully examined the structure of these rating and
labeling systems, and studied how these self-regulatory systems work in
practice. We focused on the marketing of products designated as violent
under these systems. We did not examine the content itself, but
accepted each industry's determination of whether a particular product
contains violent content.
The Commission found that despite the variations in the three
industries' systems, the outcome is consistent: individual companies in
each industry routinely market to children the very products that have
industries' self-imposed parental warnings or ratings with age
restrictions due to violent content. Indeed, for many of these
products, the Commission found evidence of marketing and media plans
that expressly target children under 17. In addition, the companies'
marketing and media plans showed strategies to promote and advertise
their products in the media outlets most likely to reach children under
17, including those television programs ranked as the ``most popular''
with the under-17 age group, such as Xena: Warrior Princess, South Park
and Buffy the Vampire Slayer; magazines and Internet sites with a
majority or substantial (i.e., over 35 percent) under-17 audience, such
as Game Pro, Seventeen and Right On!, as well as mtv.com, ubl.com and
happypuppy.com; and teen hangouts, such as game rooms, pizza parlors
and sporting apparel stores.
Movies. Of the 44 movies rated R for violence the Commission
selected for its study, the Commission found that 35, or 80 percent,
were targeted to children under 17. Marketing plans for 28 of those 44,
or 64 percent, contained express statements that the film's target
audience included children under 17. For example, one plan for a
violent R-rated film stated, ``Our goal was to find the elusive teen
target audience and make sure everyone between the ages of 12-18 was
exposed to the film.'' Though the marketing plans for the remaining
seven R-rated films did not expressly identify an under-17 target
audience, they led the Commission to conclude that children under-17
were targeted nonetheless. That is, the plans were either extremely
similar to the plans of the films that did identify an under-17 target
audience, or they detailed actions synonymous with targeting that age
group, such as promoting the film in high schools or in publications
with majority under-17 audiences.
Music. Of the 55 music recordings with explicit content labels the
Commission selected for its study, marketing plans for 15, or 27
percent, expressly identified teenagers as part of their target
audience. One such plan, for instance, stated that its ``Target
audience'' was ``Alternative/urban, rock, pop, hardcore--12-34.'' The
marketing documents for the remaining 40 explicit-content labeled
recordings examined did not expressly state the age of the target
audience, but they detailed the same methods of marketing as the plans
that specifically identified teens as part of their target audience,
including placing advertising in media that would reach a majority or
substantial percentage of children under 17.
Games. Of the 118 electronic games with a Mature rating for
violence the Commission selected for its study, 83, or 70 percent,
targeted children under 17. The marketing plans for 60 of these, or 51
percent, expressly included children under 17 in their target audience.
For example, one plan for a game rated Mature for its violent content
described its ``target audience'' as ``Males 12-17--Primary Males 18-
34--Secondary.'' Another plan referred to the target market as ``Males
17-34 due to M rating (the true target is males 12-34).'' Documents for
the remaining 23 games showed plans to advertise in magazines or on
television shows with a majority or substantial under-17 audience. Most
of the plans that targeted an under-17 audience set age 12 as the
younger end of the spectrum, but a few plans for violent Mature-rated
games targeted children as young as six.
Further, most retailers make little effort to restrict children's
access to violent products. Surveys conducted for the Commission in May
through July 2000 found that just over half the movie theaters admitted
children ages 13 to 16 to R-rated films even when not accompanied by an
adult. The Commission's surveys of young people indicate that, even
when theaters refuse to sell tickets to unaccompanied children, they
have various strategies to see R-rated movies. The Commission's surveys
also showed that unaccompanied children ages 13 to 16 were able to buy
both explicit content recordings and Mature-rated electronic games 85
percent of the time.
Although consumer surveys show that parents value the existing
rating and labeling systems, they also show that parents' use and
understanding of the systems vary. The surveys also consistently reveal
high levels of parental concern about violence in the movies, music and
video games their children see, listen to and play. These concerns can
only be heightened by the extraordinary degree to which young people
today are immersed in entertainment media, as well as by recent
technological advances such as realistic and interactive video games.
The survey responses indicate that parents want and welcome help in
identifying which entertainment products might not be suitable for
their children.
V. Conclusions
Since the President requested this study over a year ago, each of
the industries reviewed has taken positive steps to address these
concerns. Nevertheless, the Commission believes that all three
industries should take additional action to enhance their self-
regulatory efforts. \13\ The industries should:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Commission's support for enhanced industry self-regulation
in the advertising context is motivated in part by our strong belief in
the benefits of self-regulation, and in part by our concern that
government regulation of advertising and marketing--especially if it
involves content-based restrictions--may raise First Amendment issues.
The First Amendment issues that have been raised in the context of
restricting or limiting advertisements for media products are
identified in Appendix C of the Commission's Report (First Amendment
Issues in Public Debate Over Governmental Regulation of Entertainment
Media Products with Violent Content).
1.L Establish or expand codes that prohibit target marketing to
children and impose sanctions for noncompliance. All three industries
should improve the usefulness of their ratings and labels by
establishing codes that prohibit marketing R-rated/M-rated/explicit-
labeled products in media or venues with a substantial under-17
audience. In addition, the Commission suggests that each industry's
trade associations monitor and encourage their members' compliance with
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
these policies and impose meaningful sanctions for non-compliance.
2.L Increase compliance at the retail level. Restricting children's
retail access to entertainment containing violent content is an
essential complement to restricting the placement of advertising. This
can be done by checking identification or requiring parental permission
before selling tickets to R movies, and by not selling or renting
products labeled ``Explicit'' oR-rated R or M, to children.
3.L Increase parental understanding of the ratings and labels. For
parents to make informed choices about their children's entertainment,
they must understand the ratings and the labels, as well as the reasons
for them. That means the industries should all include the reasons for
the rating or the label in advertising and product packaging and
continue their efforts to educate parents--and children--about the
meanings of the ratings and descriptors. Industry should also take
steps to better educate parents about the ratings and labels.
The Commission emphasizes that its review and publication of its
Report, and its proposals to improve self-regulation, are not designed
to regulate or even influence the content of movies, music lyrics or
electronic games. The First Amendment generally requires that creative
decisions about content be left to artists and their distributors.
Rather, the Commission believes the industries can do a better job of
helping parents choose appropriate entertainment for their children by
providing clear and conspicuous notification of violent content.
Industry self-regulation also should support parents' decisions by
prohibiting the direct sale and marketing to children of products
labeled as inappropriate or warranting parental guidance due to their
violent content.
Implementation of the specific suggestions outlined above would
significantly improve the present self-regulatory regimes. The Report
demonstrates, however, that mere publication of codes is not
sufficient. Self-regulatory programs can work only if the concerned
industry associations actively monitor compliance and ensure that
violations have consequences. The Commission believes that continuous
public oversight is also required and that Congress should continue to
monitor the progress of self-regulation in this area.
The Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Pitofsky.
I want to say again that your Commission is highly regarded
both in and out of Congress, and your report is a very
important one, in a way courageous. So I thank you again, and
obviously, we are going to want to work as closely together as
possible.
I share your reluctance to enact legislation, but I also
share--I think I share--your view that unless there is some
response, then Congress representing American families would
have to examine every option.
Many analogies have been made between the tobacco
companies' advertising to kids and entertainment industry
practices. Obviously, there's a huge difference in the product.
The distinct health impact of smoking is clearly more
significant, at least as far as physical health is concerned.
Are the actual advertising practices employed by the
entertainment industries to target children similar to those
used by the tobacco industry?
Mr. Pitofsky. It's an interesting analogy. There are some
things that are the same and some that are different.
You mentioned, one, the harm from smoking is more
documented. Also, selling tobacco to kids is illegal, selling
violent movies and rap lyrics to kids is not illegal. Finally,
there is the First Amendment. There is no First Amendment
protection to manufacture a cigarette. But there is----
The Chairman. Frankly, I never heard of Joe Camel or the
tobacco companies doing focus groups of 10- and 11-year-olds.
Mr. Pitofsky. I did not either, and we looked at many
tobacco industry documents as well.
In that sense, and I think that's what you're driving at,
there is a similarity. In some tobacco marketing and certainly
in marketing these materials, there appears to be a seeking out
of an audience that's inappropriate because of their age.
The Chairman. I believe we'll hear later from the movie
industry's lobbyist, Mr. Valenti, that not all ``R''s are
really ``R''s. More specifically, and I quote from Mr.
Valenti's written testimony: ``Some R-rated are hard ``R''s and
others are soft ``R''s.''
I have here a copy of the MPAA rating system. I don't see a
hard R or soft R rating system. Would you comment on this
rationale for marketing R-rated films to children and how this
distinction without a difference might prove confusing to
parents?
Mr. Pitofsky. I don't think that--I'm not sure that comment
was made as a justification rather than elaboration of the
rating system. But the point is, when the industry calls it
``R'' they're saying something about their own product.
When they then go around their own rating system and end
run it, essentially deny their own rating system and market to
such young kids, I don't see how one can defend the marketing.
It's not the rating system. Our report points out that most
people think the rating systems are fairly good. It's not the
rating system, it's the marketing that is a matter of concern.
The Chairman. Finally, and I think I get the impression
from your testimony that the advertising practices outlined in
your report are deceptive or unfair?
Mr. Pitofsky. I'm not sure about that. I'd like a little
time to think that one through.
Let me make one point about all of this. If we were to
bring a case calling their marketing practices deceptive or
unfair, given the fact that it's somewhat unprecedented, and
there's this First Amendment background here, we'd be in the
courts for several years.
That's one of the reasons why I think self-regulation is
the way to go. We're not going to sit around forever and wait
for self-regulation, but given a period of time let's see if we
can find some progress there. If we don't, then I think we
ought to go to law enforcement and possibly legislation.
The Chairman. I thank you, Chairman Pitofsky, and the other
members of the Commission for doing an outstanding job.
Senator Brownback.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, want to thank you, Chairman Pitofsky, for the work
that you've done and the work that's been done by the
Commission. I think it's outstanding and I think it's a
testament that so many people are interested in this hearing
and this focus that's here today.
I do want to draw your attention to one thing: We will have
up after you the public health industry, that is
representatives from places like the American Academy of
Pediatricians and the Psychiatric Association. They have all
signed a document, and there is a page in that document that I
believe you and your staff have seen, which points to well over
a thousand studies that point overwhelmingly to a ``causal
connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in
some children.'' I'm reading directly from the statement that
they signed.
``The conclusion of the public health community, based on
over 30 years research, is that viewing entertainment violence
can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values and
behaviors, particularly in children.'' That's the end of quote
of what six major public health organizations agreed on, so
it's no longer a correlation issue. There's causation.
One of the groups that was at this public health summit
went so far as to say that the causation link is even higher
than that between the exposure to lead and lowering IQ, and the
exposure to passive smoke and lung cancer.
So these groups don't have any question about a causation
link taking place between viewing violence and behavior.
Today though, I have the chance to talk to you. You've
heard some discussion here today about a code of conduct for
each of these industry groups, in the video games, music, and
movie industry.
You, the Commission, would support the industries, of
course, entering into a voluntary code of conduct and would
even urge them to do so. Is that correct?
Mr. Pitofsky. Yes.
Senator Brownback. What about the concept that they used to
have in television--a code of conduct where they set a floor
below which they won't go. Do you think that would be helpful
to the industry and to the American people?
Mr. Pitofsky. I think a self-regulatory code by these three
industries, perhaps one that was similar, so parents are not
confused about what the different ratings mean, would be very
useful.
Senator Brownback. Did your study look much at the issue of
cross-marketing of products? In the many hearings I've been a
part of on this, one of the things that's continued to come up
is an R-rated movie that then follows with a toy action figure
for a 5-year-old. Did you look at the issues of cross
marketing?
Mr. Pitofsky. We did. We did. It's not a major element of
our report, but we just sort of came across it because we were
looking at marketing generally. And certainly in the video
games industries in particular, you'll find a video game that's
rated for a mature audience, but the characters in the game are
then converted into a toy, and those are sold quite widely. I
think I saw a document that indicated these toys are
appropriate for sale to children 6 years old, something like
that.
Senator Brownback. In fact, I even have an example here of
ECW Hard Core Revelation. It's a mature-rated game. So that's
supposed to be for people over the age of 18, as I understand,
and then here is the cross-marketed toy, ECW Extreme
Championship Wrestling. He's got a noose around his neck. No
limit soldiers. And it says for ages 4 and up.
On the back, then, you have the ultimate ring in cage with
two breakaway tables and ladder, steel cage wrestling ring gift
set; collect them all.
It does have one warning label on here, ``Small Parts. Not
for children under age 3.'' So I guess there is some warning on
this.
But these are the sort of things that seem to illustrate
cases of clear cross marketing, where they're going for a very
young audience with this, using this as the driver that's
supposed to be for an age 18 audience.
Did you look at these, and what were your conclusions in
cross marketing?
Mr. Pitofsky. We saw it, and we thought it was an example
of going around their own label and marketing to a young
audience. I can't say we found a great deal of that, but we saw
some of it, and I think we saw, actually, the illustration that
you're using. And it's mentioned in our report.
Senator Brownback. Good. Have you had a preliminary review
by your lawyers of the possibilities of success in bringing the
actions under false and deceptive advertising that's been
spoken of this morning?
Mr. Pitofsky. I just put the question to them about 3 or 4
days ago, so it's too early for me, yes, but they are working
on this, and I do want to get back to the Committee with our
conclusions on whether we have the authority now.
Senator Brownback. I, just in conclusion, again want to
state my appreciation for your good, clear work on this topic.
Mr. Chairman, I am one that does not want to rush to
legislate on this topic. I've been pushing on this for some
period of time and have always felt the best way for us to go
at this is to shine light on what's taking place. I think we're
getting a lot of that here today.
I would hope that the industry would step up. One of the
things----
The Chairman. They haven't even bothered to appear.
Senator Brownback. Well, that's one of the points I wanted
to make, is one of the things I would point out is that the
industry has not even bothered to appear, not only at this
hearing, Mr. Chairman, but at the prior 3 years of hearings
that we've had.
And the second point is, in any of the proposals that have
been put forward, nobody is saying, we ought to just stop doing
this. It's all just a, ``Well, okay, we'll change our target;
we won't advertise in publications where 50 percent of the
audience is teenagers.''
What about just saying, you know, ``some of this stuff is
just bad. We don't have to make this much more money this
badly, we're just not going to do it.''
Have you heard of any of the companies saying, ``We just
don't need to do this, and we're going to stop''?
Mr. Pitofsky. Just not do the marketing or just not create
the materials?
Senator Brownback. Just not produce the product that is
hyperviolent, sexualized violence, doing that themselves?
Mr. Pitofsky. No, I haven't, and I think that it's a tricky
road to go down. The companies could, of course, on a voluntary
basis.
Senator Brownback. That's what I'm speaking of, on a
voluntary basis.
Mr. Pitofsky. Yes. I haven't heard much of that. And, of
course, I think we all agree that it would be very tricky to
have the government defining gratuitous violence. That's
something we want to stay away from. We want to solve this
problem but not in that way.
Senator Brownback. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thank you,
Mr. Pitofsky.
Mr. Pitofsky. Senator, I should have said, if I may;
Senator, you were one of the very first people that called my
attention to this set of issues, and you've been a most
constant supporter of this project, and I want to thank you and
acknowledge your support.
Senator Brownback. Thank you.
The Chairman. As do all of us.
We thank you, Chairman Pitofsky, and we look forward to
seeing you again. We may call you back in a couple of weeks,
but I hope we don't have to do that. Again, I want to thank you
and the Commission, and we look forward to, I think this is the
beginning rather than the end of this very difficult issue.
Thank you.
Mr. Pitofsky. Thank you.
The Chairman. We now are privileged to have before the
Committee Ms. Lynne Cheney, who's the former chairman of the
National Endowment for Humanities.
Some of the members are over voting, but we thought we
would not want to impose on your time anymore and ask you to
give your testimony. You come before the Committee not only as
a person of sterling reputation and advocate for families all
over America, but your previous position as chairman of the
National Endowment for the Humanities clearly qualifies you to
address the Committee today, and we are pleased to have you
here.
Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF LYNNE CHENEY, FORMER CHAIRMAN,
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES
Ms. Cheney. Thank you very much for asking me to be here,
Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to address this
important issue.
I thought I might begin today with a description. It's one
that I owe to my good friend, Peggy Noonan. She suggests that
we think of our children as intelligent fish swimming in a deep
ocean. And she imagines that the TV and the video games and
movies and recordings, she imagines them as waves that
penetrate through the water and penetrate through our children.
``They go through our children again and again,'' she
writes, ``from this direction and that. And, increasingly,''
she notes, ``these waves are more and more about sex and
violence.'' She writes, ``We forget, those of us who are middle
aged, that we grew up in a time of saner images and sounds. For
instance, the culture of crime only begin to explode in the
1960s. We have lived in it for 30 years, and most of us turned
out okay, so we think our children will be all right, too. But
they never had a normal culture against to which to balance the
newer, sicker one. They had no reference points to the old
boring normality. We assume they know what we know. This is not
right. We know that. But why would they know that. The water in
which they swim is the only water that they have ever known.''
Well, I wanted to read that because I think it's important
that, shocked as we all are by this FTC report, shocked as we
all are that the entertainment industry would market to
children items, products that they know to be inappropriate for
children, they would market them to children, I think we are
all so shocked at that, and I want to join in the chorus of
outrage.
But I think our shock at that, our shock at the way they
market their products, shouldn't let us forget, shouldn't
distract us from our shock at the products they market. There
is a problem with the products they market no matter how they
market them. It's shameful they're doing it to children, but
let's just remember what they're marketing.
I would like to say at the outset that I would join with
all of those who say that any legislation is on this issue is
fraught with peril. I have been a First Amendment advocate for
my entire life, and I worry very much about policymakers
legislating or regulating in a way that might threaten the
First Amendment.
What seems to me the proper stance here is for outraged
citizens, policymakers included, of course, to take it as a
duty to speak out about, to hold people who produce these
outrageous products, to hold these people responsible for them,
to shame them. And there's a model for this.
Bill Bennett and Joe Lieberman a few years ago began
distributing the ``Silver Sewer Award'' to particular
outrageous, particularly culpable people in the industry who
had produced particularly harmful products.
I take that as a model. We need to be specific. My point is
is we don't want to have blanket enunciations. They do us no
good. Several people, I have observed here earlier today, have
said we've been here before; we've been here before. Blanket
enunciations do not make much progress. Let's be specific.
And so that's what I'm here today to do, is to talk about
how we might do it and to offer myself as an example.
I have lately been very disturbed by the lyrics of the rap
singer Eminem. They were displayed in this room earlier, or at
least a part of them were. They could not be more despicable.
They could not be more hateful in their attitudes towards women
in particular. There are many groups that Eminem is quite
despicable toward. But he is a violent misogynist. He advocates
raping and murdering his mother in one of his songs. He glories
in the same song the idea that he might murder any woman he
comes across.
He talks about how he will choke the women he murders
slowly so that their screams will last for a long time.
He talks about the painting the forest bright red, or maybe
it's orange, I can't remember, with their blood. It is
despicable. It is awful.
The Chairman. Have you put yourself through the torture of
listening to this?
Ms. Cheney. I actually listened to it. And I will give
Eminem this credit: You can understand every word he says. Many
rock singers and rappers you can't understand. This is
absolutely clear. I have lyrics from this song, which is
called, ``Kill You,'' that I will be distributing today.
This is dreadful, this is shameful, this is awful. So what
to do?
I decided that since the lyrics were so hateful to women
what I would do is write the two women members of the Board of
Seagram. Seagram owns Interscope, Interscope distributes and
produces Eminem's records. So I've written to these two women.
One is Marie-Josee Kravis, the other is Michele Hooper. And
I've written them letters, which I will also distribute today.
They should have received their letters yesterday, asking them
to take up with their Board members such questions as: How can
you reconcile corporate responsibility with such social
irresponsibility?
I serve on corporate boards myself, and I completely
understand the duty that corporate directors have to
shareholders. But aren't many of the shareholders of Seagram
women? Is it to their benefit to distribute lyrics, to put out
lyrics under this record label that degrade, demean women, and
I think invite violence toward them?
Aren't many of their shareholders parents? Don't these
parents shudder at what Interscope and Seagram are doing to
their children's culture, to the culture that their children
are growing up in?
So that's a small step I've taken, and I've encouraged
these two women to contact me at any time, I would be happy to
enter into a dialogue with them.
A few years ago I wrote about another example of the
entertainment industry's irresponsibility. I don't follow the
entertainment industry closely in all its aspects, but every
once in a while something like Eminem pops up. Eminem received
three awards from the entertainment industry last week,
including Best Male Performer at the MTV awards.
Can you imagine that the entire industry honors this man
whose work is so hateful?
Well, as I say, every once in a while something pops up and
compels my interest. A few years ago it was a film, a movie,
called ``Kids''--I think I'm supposed to call them ``films''
but this is no more than a ``movie''--a movie called ``Kids''
that depicted very young teenagers, 13 and 14, having explicit
sex. One of them was HIV Positive, and he had sex with as many
of his friends, also 13- and 14-year-old girls, as he could.
These youngsters smoked dope. They attacked strangers, and
the whole film was presented as this is the way kids behave, of
course this is the way kids behave. I have no doubt that many
kids saw this film and got the idea that, well, this is the way
kids behave, even though it did have an NC-17 rating, because
it's very easy for kids to see a film like this.
But even if they didn't, what is the entertainment industry
doing to our children when they create a culture in which
children are viewed this way? When they make it seem as though
early adolescents are sexual objects, that early adolescents
should be expected to take drugs and have sex and attack
strangers?
Well, so what to do about this film? I wrote about it in
detail. This film was produced by Miramax. Senator Boxer made a
good point earlier when she pointed out that there's usually a
mixed bag here. Miramax also does some fine things. It produced
``Shakespeare in Love.''
Seagram has done some fine things. One of Seagram's
artists, one of their recordings' artists is Luciano Pavarotti.
But when these corporations do things that are so shameful
as produce and distribute Eminem, a singer whose lyrics we
looked at earlier, or a movie like ``Kids,'' shouldn't people
of stature hold them to account? Shouldn't people of stature go
to Harvey Weinstein, who is the co-Chairman of Miramax, for
example, and ask him to pledge in the future he will not fund
works that debase our culture and corrode our children's souls.
I notice that two people of stature, Vice President Gore
and Senator Lieberman, are attending a fund-raising
extravaganza that Mr. Weinstein is holding on Thursday, and I
would ask them, please, to deliver this message.
There are many recommendations that can be made
specifically about the report before us, and I certainly think
it is important, since I've focused on the recording industry,
that they have labels that actually mean something. A parental
advisory label is not a very clear indication to parents of
what the problem with the recording might be.
Unless there is some age specificity, retailers have no way
of knowing who should buy the product and who should not.
Let me also recommend that the lyrics of any recording
product that is deemed unsuitable for children be published and
enclosed with the CD, for example.
As I've said, one thing to Eminem's credit is you can
understand him, but many of the rockers and rappers you have to
listen repeatedly, as kids do. And I will tell you, the kids
know what these people are saying. It requires repeated
listening to understand.
So I would also suggest that as one specific action that
the industry might take in an effort to clean up its act and
regulate itself, that anything that has a parental warning
label on it should have the lyrics included.
We are faced with a problem that stretches across the
entire entertainment industry. I haven't meant to focus
particularly on the recording industry or just the movie
industry today because there are many problems. But the time
has come, I think, to quit issuing blanket denouncements and to
zero in and to ask people to be responsible and to be
accountable for the products that are distributed.
Thank you, Senator.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cheney follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lynne Cheney, Former Chairman, National Endowment
for the Humanities
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate being asked here to address
this important issue, and I want to thank you and other Members of the
Committee for your consistent leadership on protecting our children
from sex and violence.
It has been chilling to read about, and to hear again from
Commissioner Pitofsky, the FTC's findings which reveal how methodically
companies target adult entertainment products at young people. I know
that this report will be well read, not just in Washington DC, but by
parents who are concerned about this issue.
This FTC report reiterates what many of us have been saying for a
long time: that some in the entertainment industry are consistently
failing to act responsibly. They are producing violent, sexually-
explicit material, and they are peddling it to children. They claim
unbridled license to do so under the First Amendment; however, their
persistent irresponsibility, ironically, threatens the First Amendment
as their product is so objectionable that more and more good citizens
find appealing the idea that government regulation should remove
entertainment industry products from the public square. Let me say from
the outset that I am opposed to such regulation.
I want to focus on the larger picture for a moment. When I served
as Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities I often
testified before this august body about what Matthew Arnold called
``the best that has been thought and known in the world,'' the history
and philosophy and literature that lifts our souls and helps us
understand our experience. I've talked about the importance of
providing children with models of honesty and honor, of telling them
stories of Abe Lincoln and Harriet Tubman so they can understand the
beauty and dignity of a life lived according to high ideals.
My friend Peggy Noonan, who is a wonderful writer, suggests that we
understand the way our children are affected by such uplifting
stories--as well as by stories that demean and degrade--by imagining
little children as intelligent fish swimming in a deep ocean. The
stories are ``waves of sight and sound, of thought and fact [that] come
invisibly through the water, like radar; they go through [our children]
again and again, from this direction and that.'' The waves come from
books and movies, from music and television, and more and more they are
about sex and violence, about hate and degradation. Noonan writes:
LWe forget, those of us who are middle-aged, that we grew up in a
time of saner images and sounds. For instance, the culture of crime
only began to explode in the sixties. We have lived in it for thirty
years, and most of us turned out okay. So we think our children will be
all right, too. But they never had a normal culture against which to
balance the newer, sicker one. They have no reference points to the old
boring normality. We assume they know what we know: ``This is not
right.'' But why would they know that? The water in which they swim is
the only water they have ever known.
Cleaning up the water, the ocean our children are swimming in, is,
Noonan writes, the most important environmental issue of our time.
But where to begin? For years now, we have talked about this
problem at a high level. With this latest outrage, it seems to me the
time has come to get very specific, to name names, to say exactly what
is wrong, and to ask individuals to be accountable. So here is a name:
Marshall Mathers, the rapper otherwise known as Eminem. And here is
exactly what is wrong--or at least one among many things objectionable
about his lyrics--he promotes violence of the most degrading kind
against women. In ``Kill You,'' a song from his album ``The Marshall
Mathers LP,'' he begins by describing the satisfaction of raping and
murdering his mother and then goes on to imagine the joys of murdering
any woman he might come across. ``Wives, nuns, sluts,'' whoever ``the
bitches'' might be, he will kill them slowly, leaving enough air in
their lungs so their screaming will be prolonged. He will paint the
forest with their blood. ``I got the machete from O.J.,'' he shouts,
``Bitch, I'm a kill you.''
Eminem is not the first rapper to revel in violent misogyny, but he
has taken hatred of women and depictions of degrading and violating
them to such lengths that I have written to Michele Hooper and Marie-
Josee Kravis, the two female members of the board of Seagram, whose
company, Interscope, produces and distributes Eminem. I have asked
Hooper and Kravis to ask their fellow board members how it is possible
to reconcile corporate responsibility with the distribution of lyrics
that are socially irresponsible. ``I fully understand your duty to
shareholders,'' I wrote to them, ``but can that duty be defined in
purely economic terms? Aren't many of your shareholders women, who are
demeaned by some of the music you distribute? Aren't many of them
parents, who shudder at the debased and violent culture that Seagram is
helping create?''
I noted in my letters that the time has long passed when we can
shrug off violence in the entertainment industry by saying that it has
no effect, by saying it's just coincidence that Eric Harris and Dylan
Klebold, the murderers of Columbine High, were fans of the shock
rocker, Marilyn Manson, also distributed by Seagram. It is no longer
credible to suggest that young people aren't affected by music, films,
and video games that celebrate violence. The entertainment industry,
when it claims this, sounds exactly like the tobacco industry of a few
years ago when its leaders kept insisting that you couldn't really say
that cigarettes cause cancer.
Which brings us back to the shareholders of Seagram. Is it in their
best interest for Seagram to pursue a course that may well lead to
federal regulation? Let me reiterate that I am opposed to such
regulation. I have long been a vocal supporter of free speech, and it
is hard to imagine a law to regulate the entertainment industry that
would not run afoul of the first amendment. But we have arrived at a
situation where the entertainment industry is causing such outrage that
regulation is being seriously proposed.
At a minimum, I have suggested to Michele Hooper and Marie-Josee
Kravis that Seagram ought to work with others in the music industry to
give the current rating system more meaning by providing reasons for
advisory labels, and specifying ages. This last would make it easier to
recognize when music was being marketed inappropriately, which is a
first step if the industry is to regulate this matter itself. Age-
labeling would also give retailers information they need in order to
decide who should be able to buy certain materials and who should not.
As the FTC report makes clear, there is confusion on this point now.
While some music outlets let anyone buy anything, others do try to
impose standards, but in one instance the standard will be that no one
under seventeen can buy an advisory-labeled CD. In another, no one
under thirteen.
I also suggest that the industry require that music deemed suitable
only for those over seventeen include the lyrics so that parents can
review them and know what their children are listening to.
Mr. Chairman, as I am sure you and other Members of this Committee
know, Seagram is hardly the only culprit. That company may produce and
distribute Eminem, but the entire music industry reveres him. Last
week, he received three MTV music awards, including best male artist.
It is truly astonishing to me that a man whose work is so filled with
hate would be so honored by his peers.
We are faced with a problem that stretches across the entire
entertainment industry, including movies and video games as well as
music. But the time has come, I think, to quit issuing blanket
denouncements, to zero in with a bill of particulars, and to hope that
individuals will step up and assume responsibility.
I thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today.
The Chairman. I thank you very much, Ms. Cheney.
You mentioned fund raising. The last time I checked, some
$18 million, most of it in soft money contributions, have been
given by the movie industry to political campaigns. It would be
very interesting to see how that continues. Special interests,
again, have such inordinate influence here on our legislative
agenda.
Senator Hollings.
Senator Hollings. I thank the distinguished witness for her
appearance, and I agree, if I ran the movie industry and knew
that this was an ongoing problem for some 50 years and all you
had to do is continue to make your contributions and nothing
happened, I'd sort of continue to run it that way because, as
I've pointed out, Ambassador Cheney, what happens is, and I'll
read it again, just that one paragraph back in 1954: ``It has
been found''--this is producer's directions--``It has been
found that we retain audience interest best when our story is
concerned with murder. Therefore, although other crimes may be
introduced, somebody must be murdered, preferably early, with
the threat of more violence to come.'' That's in the history of
broadcasting.
Now my distinguished colleague, Senator DeWine, says he
just can't understand why they can't do it. They're in the
business of making money, profit. And as long as it continues
and they know violence, crime pays, they're going to continue
to do it. So really it's my contention, and you'll dramatize it
again, is that we know, you and I have been up there in
Washington quite some time, and it's up to us to act. Like the
Europeans, they have a safe harbor down in Australia now with
the Olympics. They've got a safe harbor in New Zealand. But we
just won't put it in because it'll stop it. Even though it is
for excessive gratuitous violence.
They mention, they go right away to Private Ryan or
Schindler's List, and those other things. Obviously, that's
necessary to the history. We're talking about violence that is
gratuitous and even again violence itself, it's got to be
excessive gratuitous violence. And that's the way they've
tested it. We've had the Attorney General say it stands
constitutional muster and why not try it.
But I appreciate your appearance very much.
Ms. Cheney. I think that there is something to be said for
the old fashioned concept of shame. Most people like to have
the regard of their friends, and the people who are running
these corporations I don't suspect are different from you and
me and everyone else in this room. I suspect they like to have
the good regard of their friends. But they produce this stuff,
and people don't hold them singly and individually accountable.
That's why I've written to two women on the Seagram Board
and asked them to be responsible and accountable. That's why I
would suggest that Senator Lieberman and Vice President Gore
ask Mr. Weinstein when they see him on Thursday to be
accountable.
That's why I would suggest that each of us, when we are
offended by this, take note, take names and ask people to be
responsible.
Senator Hollings. The Chairman's going to have him up here
in two weeks' time.
Ms. Cheney. That's very good.
The Chairman. I think Senator Hollings agrees with me, that
we will not issue a subpoena. We're not going to do that kind
of thing. We've never done that. Mr. Weinstein has time to
attend a fundraiser, but he does not have time to come here.
Perhaps we may be able to understand that. I don't, but maybe
others will.
We thank you, again, Ms. Cheney. Again, I think you bring
some very important suggestions to this Committee, and we look
forward to working with you, and we're very honored by your
presence.
Ms. Cheney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's always a pleasure
to be in any room where you are spreading your wisdom and good
fellowship. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Our next panel is Mr. Danny Goldberg, Mr. Strauss Zelnick,
Mr. Peter Moore, and Mr. Gregory Fischbach.
Mr. Goldberg is President of Artemis Records; Mr. Strauss
Zelnick is the President and CEO of BMG Entertainment; Mr.
Peter Moore is President and Chief Operating Officer of Sega of
America; and Mr. Gregory Fischbach is the President and CEO of
Acclaim Entertainment.
We welcome you before the Committee, we thank you for
coming today. We appreciate the fact that this is not the most
comfortable time for you, but we also appreciate the fact that
you are willing to come and address this Committee and the
American people. We thank you.
Mr. Goldberg, we'd like to begin with you.
STATEMENT OF DANNY GOLDBERG,
PRESIDENT, ARTEMIS RECORDS
Mr. Goldberg. Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings, and
Members of the Committee, I'm pleased to have the opportunity
to testify before you today.
As you said, Chairman, I'm the CEO and co-owner of Artemis
Records. It's a year-old independently owned record company.
Our current roster includes Rickie Lee Jones, Steve Earle,
Warren Zevon, and the Baha Men.
We are not a member of the record industry association. But
during the 1990s, I was president of three major labels--
Atlantic, Warner Brothers, and Mercury.
I'm speaking not only as a long-time record executive, but
also as a father of a 10-year-old girl and a 6\1/2\-year-old
boy, and I do not believe that either government or any
entertainment industry committee has any business in telling me
and my wife what entertainment our children should be exposed
to.
The United States is a diverse country with hundreds of
divergent religious beliefs, ethnic backgrounds, regional
traditions, and different opinions about art and entertainment.
Unlike the visual media, the record business is being asked
to categorize and label groups of words for the same reason
that there is no rating system for books or, for that matter,
congressional testimony. With one narrow exception, it's
virtually impossible to rate words.
I agree with the idea that Lynne Cheney and the FTC said
about making lyrics available to anyone who wants to read them,
but all parents are not going to agree with the Committee about
these lyrics. For example, the reason rating is so difficult,
for example, is on the subject of violence what kind of system
can distinguish between the words, ``I want to kill you,'' said
in an affectionate, sarcastic or ironic way, or put into the
mouth of an unsympathetic character from those same words being
used literally, advocating a crime.
Song lyrics are, by their nature, impressionistic and are
often used symbolically. No one really thought that the words
to ``Killing me softly with his song'' referred to murder or
suicide.
The one exception that I mentioned are the so-called dirty
words, the seven dirty words or ten dirty words, and for
fifteen years record companies, including my company, have been
placing parental advisory stickers on albums that have a lot of
curse words.
Please note, Senators, distinguished from the movie
business and contrary to the sloppy and inaccurate remarks of
the President and the Vice President earlier this week, record
companies have never suggested an age limit for albums with
parental advisory stickers.
My company has such a sticker on our current album,
``Spit'' by the heavy metal band Kittie because the teenage
girls in the band use several curse words over the course of
the album. There's nothing illegal about this. Critics across
the country and half a million people who bought it are morally
comfortable with it as well.
I know that there are many Americans who are offended by
curse words and don't want children exposed to them. However,
those people have no moral or legal right to impose such a
standard on my family or millions of other Americans, who, like
George W. Bush, are comfortable with cursing.
[Laughter.]
The parental advisory sticker informs retailers and parents
that such words are on the album. Other than that, there's no
universal criteria for categorizing words and lyrics. Of
course, there are subjective criteria. It's the function of
critics to criticize, of preachers to preach, of people like
myself to exercise personal moral judgments about what my
company releases.
However, people of goodwill will often have different
opinions about entertainment. I respect the fact that many
parents don't want their kids to watch R-rated movie, but I
prefer a deeper analysis of each movie, and I recently
recommended the R-rated Erin Brockovich to our 10-year-old
daughter, Katie, who's a passionate feminist and
environmentalist, because I had seen the film and I knew the
rating was only because of cursing. Others may disagree. But
this country will cease to be free the day that one group of
parents can tell all other parents how to raise their children.
Song lyrics are not literal. Listening to the blues often
makes people happy. Angry, weird songs often make adolescents
feel less lonely and more connected to other kids. Millions of
these teens and young adults feel ostracized when politicians
and academics who obviously have no real understanding of their
culture, make sweeping generalizations about their
entertainment, conveniently overlooking the fact that every
generation has embraced entertainment about sexual and violent
themes.
Gangsta rap is the direct descendent of the gangster movies
of the 1930s and 1940s, the TV Westerns of the 1950s, and
critically acclaimed films like the ``Godfather.''
Mr. Chairman, I don't like every record. Spike Lee
criticizes much of the rap culture in his new movie,
``Bamboozled.'' Criticism and immoral argument is appropriate
and an integral part of the entertainment culture. In an
Internet world, there will be ever-increasing ways for parents
to find like-minded groups who can advise them on entertainment
through the prism of their particular values. However, so-
called self-regulation achieved by political intimidation, is
the equivalent of censorship.
It's become commonplace to assert that popular culture is
popular against the wishes and values of its fans. But popular
culture gets that way because the balance of consumers, not
rule-makers, but everyday people enjoy it.
Make no mistake, Members of the Committee, their tastes,
their values, their morality are under assault today just as
much as we executives who occupy the hot seats today.
Washington is a culture of legislation and policy. Asking
the FTC or the Washington media or the Congress to analyze
popular entertainment, makes about as much sense as going to
Hollywood to restructure Medicare.
From Ralph Nader to Pat Buchanan, Washington political
leaders, in my opinion, are out of touch with the real dynamic
of the ways young people process entertainment and they condemn
youth culture.
The only result of demonizing pop culture is to drive
millions of young people away from politics. In the last
congressional election, less than 17 percent of 18- to 25-year-
olds voted, less than half the rest of the population.
I believe that 15 years of youth culture, entertainment
bashing in Washington has greatly contributed to alienation and
apathy on the part of young people from politics.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, please help stop
this trend of pushing young people away from politics.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Goldberg.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Danny Goldberg, President, Artemis Records
Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings, and Members of the Committee. I
am pleased to have the opportunity to testify before you today.
I am the CEO and co-owner of Artemis Records a year old
independently owned record company. Our current roster includes Rickie
Lee Jones, Steve Earle, Warren Zevon, and the Baha Men. During the
nineteen-nineties I was the President of three major record labels,
Atlantic, Warner Bros, and Mercury.
I am speaking not only as a long time record executive, but also as
a father of a ten year old girl and a six and a half year old boy. I do
not believe either government or any entertainment industry committee
has any business in telling me and my wife what entertainment our
children should be exposed to.
The United States is a diverse country with hundreds of divergent
religious beliefs, ethnic backgrounds, regional traditions, and
opinions about art and entertainment. Unlike the visual media, the
record business is being asked to categorize and label groups of words.
For the same reason there is no ratings system for books, or for that
matter Congressional testimony, with one narrow exception, it is
virtually impossible to ``rate'' words.
For example, on the subject of violence, what kind of system can
distinguish between the words ``I want to kill you'' said in an
affectionate, sarcastic or ironic way from those same words being used
literally? Song lyrics are by their nature impressionistic and are
often used symbolically. No one really thought that the words to
``killing me softly with his song'' referred to murder.
The one exception are the so called seven dirty words and for
fifteen years, record companies, including my independent company
Artemis Records, have been placing ``parental advisory'' stickers on
albums that have a lot of curse words. Please note Senators,
distinguished from the movie business and contrary to the sloppy and
inaccurate remarks of the President and Vice-President earlier this
week, record companies have never suggested an age limit for albums
with ``parental advisory'' stickers. We placed such a sticker on our
current album Spit by the heavy metal band Kittie because the teenage
girls in the band use several curse words over the course of the album.
There is nothing illegal about this and I and critics across the
country and the half a million people in the U.S. who have bought the
album are morally comfortable with it as well. I know that there are
many Americans who are offended by curse words and don't want children
exposed to them. However, those people have no moral or legal right to
impose such a standard on my family or the millions of other Americans
who, like George Bush, are comfortable with cursing.
The parental advisory sticker informs retailers and parents that
such words are on the album. Other than that there is no universal
criteria for categorizing words in lyrics, books, magazines,
newspapers, etc. There are, of course, subjective criteria. It is the
function of critics to criticize, of preachers to preach and of people
like myself to exercise personal moral judgments about what my company
releases. However people of good will often have different opinions
about entertainment. I respect the fact that many parents don't want
their kids to watch R-rated movies but I prefer a deeper analysis of
each movie and I recently recommended the R-rated Erin Brockovich to
our ten year old daughter Katie who is a passionate feminist and
environmentalist because I had seen the film and knew the rating was
because of cursing. Others may disagree but this country will cease to
be free the day that one group of parents can tell all other parents
how to raise their children.
Song lyrics are not literal. Listening to the blues often makes
people happy. Angry weird songs often make adolescents feel less lonely
and more connected to other kids. Millions of these teens and young
adults feel ostracized when politicians and academics who obviously
have no real understanding of their culture make sweeping
generalizations about their entertainment, conveniently overlooking the
fact that literally every generation has embraced entertainment with
sexual and violent themes. Gangsta rap is the direct descendent of the
gangster movies of the thirties and forties, the TV westerns of the
fifties, and critically acclaimed films like The Godfather.
Mr. Chairman, I don't like every record. Spike Lee criticizes much
of the rap culture in his new movie Bamboozled. Criticism and immoral
argument is appropriate and an integral part of the entertainment
culture. In an internet world, there will be ever increasing ways for
parents to find like minded groups who can advise them on entertainment
through the prism of their own particular values. However so-called
self-regulation achieved by political intimidation is the equivalent of
censorship.
It has become commonplace to assert that popular culture is popular
against the wishes and values of its fans. But popular culture gets
that way precisely because the balance of consumers--not record makers,
not rule makers, but everyday people--enjoy it.
Mr. Chairman, make no mistake, their tastes, their values, and
their morality are under assault every bit as much as the entertainment
executives who occupy the hot seat today.
Washington is a culture of legislation and policy. Asking the FTC
or the Washington media or the Congress to analyze popular
entertainment makes about as much sense as going to Hollywood to re-
structure Medicare. From Ralph Nader to Pat Buchanan, Washington
political leaders, who are out of touch with the real dynamic of the
ways young people process entertainment, condemn youth culture. The
only result of demonizing pop culture is to drive millions of young
people away from politics. In the last Congressional election in 1998,
less than 17% of 18-25-year-olds voted, less than half the rest of the
population. I believe that fifteen years of youth culture entertainment
bashing in Washington has greatly contributed to alienation and apathy
on the part of young people from politics.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, please help to stop this
trend of pushing young people away from politics.
The Chairman. Mr. Zelnick.
STATEMENT OF STRAUSS ZELNICK, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING
OFFICER, BMG ENTERTAINMENT
Mr. Zelnick. Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings, and Members
of this Committee, I'm here to testify as the father of four
children, as a concerned citizen, and as the Chief Executive
Officer of a leading entertainment company.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the obligation that we
all share to strengthen the social fabric of our country.
I want to address this issue, and I trust that you do, too,
in the spirit of mutual respect and mutual responsibility.
All of us who are raising children understand what Senator
McCain, Senator Lieberman, and others inside and outside this
chamber have said. Certain of the messages that pervade our
society make it difficult to teach our children the difference
between right and wrong. And, yes, popular culture plays a role
in creating our moral climate. But there is significant room
for doubt that entertainment is a cause of violence in America.
Popular culture may be made here, but it's consumed
everywhere, and presumably our movies, our music, and our video
games have the same impact everywhere. Yet, our country is more
violent than any other advanced society. Our homicide rate is
five times greater than the United Kingdom's, six times greater
than Germany's, eleven times greater than Japan's.
When it comes to our children, the numbers are even more
shocking. In 1995, firearms killed a total of 185 children in
the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Japan combined, but
that same year 5,285 children were killed by guns in America.
In this regard, what makes America unique is not its
possible culture but our relative ease of access to guns.
Today, over 40 percent of households in America have
firearms. That's far more than almost any other advanced
nation, and our regulations with regard to the licensing,
registration, and authorization of their use are among the most
relaxed.
Still, guns aren't the only explanation for crime and
violence among young people. There is, among other factors, the
sense of hopelessness among some of the very poor, the sense of
meaninglessness among some of the very wealthy, and the long
hours that many parents must work just to provide for their
families.
And, yes, we in the media, do share in shaping our nation's
culture. We may not change what people think, but we create a
vernacular for those thoughts. We, as an industry, must
recognize our role and play it responsibly. None of this means,
however, that the government should serve as the censor of our
art and the regulator of our speech.
Yes, violence is a terrible problem, but government
interference with free expression is a cure that's worse than
the disease.
As lawmakers, you understand better than anyone that the
First Amendment protects speech of all kinds. Yet agreeing that
government censorship is wrong, should not be the end of our
discussion, it should be the beginning.
It's up to each and every one of us to do the things we
should do, not because the government coerces us but because
our consciences command us.
In America today, our consciences command us to action
against violence.
I have acknowledged and addressed this responsibility in a
talk earlier this year at the National Academy of Recording
Arts and Sciences Entertainment Law Interview, as well as with
leaders in our industry and executives of my company.
I'd like to share with the Committee my specific views.
The record business and we at BMG do not condone violence,
and yet violence is part of the world that creates, buys, and
is influenced by our music.
Many of our artists legitimately express and comment on the
problems of our society. We need to ensure that those voices
are heard. I believe it's far better to provide an outlet for
expression than to close one; far better to promote agitation
in art than violence in life.
While we therefore sometimes explore challenging themes, we
must not exploit them. What matters most is not exercising
taboo topics but exercising personal, artistic, and moral
judgment.
We cannot set hard and fast rules for what is creative,
versus what has exploited it. Rather, we try to distinguish one
from the other, artist by artist, lyric by lyric, and case by
case.
Every time we release a record, we make a choice. As the
CEO of BMG, I am ultimately responsible for what my company
produces. It's as simple as that. I stand by our art, just as I
stand by our sense of taste and restraint. We're not always
successful in this regard. We've made mistakes. But with the
freedom to choose, comes the accountability for our choices,
both the good ones and the bad ones.
As long as artistic excellence is our most enduring value,
we won't go far wrong. And make no mistake about it, the
ultimate responsibility for deciding what music young people
listen to rests with parents in their homes not public
officials.
For many years, BMG and the rest of our industry have
voluntarily labeled records with advisories providing parents
with the information they need to make personal and moral
judgments for their families. The system is intended to help
parents decide what music is appropriate for their children
based on their values.
Yet, we must ask ourselves, are we doing enough. Does the
information we offer help parents make appropriate decisions?
Can we and should we be doing more?
On these issues, we might all benefit from a national
discussion and exchange of ideas with parents and educators,
religious leaders and artists, business people, and law
enforcement officials.
We might also benefit from a public service advertising
campaign, led by artists of all types and from all backgrounds,
sending a clear antiviolence message to our children.
In the end, the solutions will be found in our homes and in
our studios, not in a one-size-fits-all approach mandated by
our government. The answer lies in returning to first
principals not revising the First Amendment.
If parents, artists and business people take responsibility
together, we will live out the lyrics of a song from my own
youth, ``Teach your children well.'' And we will have kept
faith with our nation's heritage of freedom tempered by
responsibility.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Zelnick.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zelnick follows:]
Prepared Statement of Strauss Zelnick, President and Chief Operating
Officer, BMG Entertainment
Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings, and Members of this Committee: I
am here to testify as the father of four children, as a concerned
citizen, and as the chief executive officer of a leading entertainment
company.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the obligation that we all
share to strengthen the social fabric of our country. I want to address
this issue--and I trust that you do, too--in a spirit of mutual respect
and mutual responsibility.
All of us who are raising children understand what Senator McCain,
Senator Lieberman and others inside and outside this chamber have said:
certain of the messages that pervade our society make it difficult to
teach our children the difference between right and wrong. And, yes,
popular culture plays a role in creating our moral climate.
But there is significant room for doubt that entertainment is a
cause of violence in America.
Popular culture may be made here. But it is consumed everywhere.
And presumably our movies, our music, and our videogames have the same
impact everywhere.
Yet our country is more violent than any other advanced society.
Our homicide rate is 5 times greater than the United Kingdom's, 6 times
greater than Germany's and 11 times greater than Japan's.
When it comes to our children, the numbers are even more shocking.
In 1995, firearms killed a total of 185 children in the United Kingdom,
Germany, France, and Japan combined. But that same year, 5,285 children
were killed by guns in America.
In this regard, what makes America unique is not its popular
culture but our relative ease of access to guns. Today, over 40% of
households in America have firearms--that's far more than almost any
other advanced nation--and our regulations with regard to the
licensing, registration, and authorization of their use are among the
most relaxed.
Still guns aren't the only explanation for crime and violence among
young people. There are, among other factors, the sense of hopelessness
among some of the very poor; the sense of meaninglessness among some of
the very wealthy; and the long hours that many parents must work just
to provide for their families.
And yes, we in the media do share in shaping our nation's culture.
We may not change what people think, but we create a vernacular for
those thoughts. We as an industry must recognize our role and play it
responsibly.
None of this means, however, that the government should serve as
the censor of our art and the regulator of our speech.
Yes, violence is a terrible problem. But government interference
with free expression is a ``cure'' that is worse than the disease.
As lawmakers, you understand better than anyone that the first
amendment protects speech of all kinds.
Yet agreeing that government censorship is wrong should not be the
end of our discussion. It should be the beginning.
It is up to each and every one of us to do the things we should
do--not because the government coerces us but because our consciences
command us.
In America today, our consciences command us to take action against
violence.
I have acknowledged--and addressed--this responsibility in a talk
earlier this year at the National Academy of Recording Arts and
Sciences' Entertainment Law Initiative as well as with leaders in our
industry and executives at my company.
I would like to share with this Committee my specific views.
The record business--and we at BMG--do not condone violence. But
violence is part of the world that creates, buys, and is influenced by
our music.
Many of our artists legitimately express and comment on the
problems of our society. We need to ensure that their voices are heard.
I believe it is far better to provide an outlet for expression than to
close one, far better to promote agitation in art than violence in
life.
While we therefore sometimes explore challenging themes, we must
not exploit them. What matters most is not exorcising taboo topics but
exercising personal, artistic and moral judgment. We cannot set hard
and fast rules for what is creative versus what is exploitative;
rather, we try to distinguish one from the other, artist-by-artist,
lyric-by-lyric, and case-by-case.
Every time we release a record, we make a choice. As the CEO of
BMG, I am ultimately responsible for what my company produces. It is as
simple as that.
I stand by our art, just as I stand by our sense of taste and
restraint. We are not always successful in this regard. We've made
mistakes. But with the freedom to choose comes the accountability for
our choices--both the good ones and the bad ones.
As long as artistic excellence is our most enduring value, we won't
go far wrong.
And make no mistake about it: the ultimate responsibility for
deciding what music our young people listen to rests with parents in
their homes, not public officials.
For many years, BMG and the rest of our industry have voluntarily
labeled records with advisories providing parents with the information
they need to make personal and moral judgments for their families.
This system is intended to help parents decide what music is
appropriate for their children based on their own values.
Yet, we must ask ourselves: are we doing enough? Does the
information we offer help parents make appropriate decisions? Can we--
and should we--be doing more?
On these issues we might all benefit from a national discussion--an
exchange of ideas with parents and educators, religious leaders and
artists, business people and law enforcement officials.
We might also benefit from a public service advertising campaign,
led by artists of all types and from all backgrounds, sending a clear
anti-violence message to our children.
In the end, the solutions will be found in our homes and our
studios--not in a one-size-fits-all approach, mandated by our
government.
The answer lies in returning to first principles, not revising the
first amendment.
If parents, artists, and business people take responsibility
together, we will live out the lyrics of a song from my own youth:
``teach your children well.'' And we will have kept faith with our
nation's heritage of freedom tempered by responsibility.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Mr. Moore, welcome.
STATEMENT OF PETER MOORE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING
OFFICER, SEGA OF AMERICA
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee. My name is Peter Moore, President and Chief
Operating Officer of Sega America.
I am very glad to have volunteered to be here today as we
work together to address the concerns of the public and the
consumer market. I see these as two distinct groups comprised
of the same people, made different only by the gap and
perceptions of government and private industry.
So I am pleased to offer the experiences of Sega and to
listen to your concerns so that the interest of the consumer
market and public are both addressed and gap in perceptions is
narrowed.
Further, I am also glad to be here as the parent of three
young children. One of them, my 14-year-old son Tyler, is an
avid gamer. The issues that the Committee is addressing today
are the issues my wife and I, like most parents, must address
everyday, as we decide channel by channel, film by film, and
game by game how we want our children spending their
entertainment time.
I'm sure you will agree with me that parental
responsibility and choice are key to protecting the interests
of the children of our country.
To start, I'd like to offer background on Sega. Sega is
almost 50 years old and was started by former U.S. Army
officers manufacturing and distributing pinball machines to the
U.S. troops abroad through the 1960s and 1970s. In fact, the
name Sega, is created from the words SErvice GAmes.
Sega broke new ground in entertainment in the 1980s by
developing the first simulation-type video games. In 1998,
Sega's historic role in leading video game development was
recognized by the Smithsonian Institution during an exhibit on
innovation where the world's first three-dimensional
interactive video games, Virtua Fighter, was on display.
Continuing our cutting edge in home gaming entertainment,
Sega sells a game console, the Sega Dreamcast. We also develop
our own games for use on Dreamcast.
Our newest service, SegaNet, is an Internet-based video
gaming network that gives gamers the opportunity to play their
Dreamcast and PCs against their friends through the Internet.
It was kicked off only last week, with gamers playing football
against rivals across the country. Another first for the
entertainment industry.
For the industry overall, the U.S. market is by far the
world leader, earning over $7 billion last year in software and
console sales.
Sega of America is one of the top software publishers and
advertisers in this industry. Because Sega has historically
been at the vanguard of video game innovation, we are pleased
to begin a dialogue with you in the last few days of the 106th
Congress.
Just as you feel a responsibility to the people who elected
you, we at Sega also feel a responsibility to the people who
spent almost $7 billion last year on video games. Because many
of your constituents are our customers, you and I have a mutual
interest in building a more complete understanding of this
community.
I speak of my responsibility as a parent and of Sega's
responsibility as a corporation because, for me, as president
of the company, the two are intertwined.
Just as I am responsible for choosing the entertainment for
my children, I feel strongly that it is Sega's responsibility
to educate parents so that they can make informed decisions. I
know this firsthand. Toward fulfilling that responsibility,
Sega in 1993, introduced a voluntary rating system for our
products, which was the forerunner of the Entertainment
Software Rating Board, or E.S.R.B., the independent
organization that develops the age range and content rating
system for video games.
Fulfilling its commitment to consumer protection, the
E.S.R.B. unveiled last year the Advertising Review Council,
which serves to ensure that industry ads are appropriate,
responsible, truthful, and accurate, and market appropriately
to the correct audiences.
Over the past few months, Sega has worked closely with the
FTC to share information on our products and marketing
programs. We are glad to have participated in this endeavor as
it offers mutual opportunities for both my company and the FTC.
First: It allows Sega an opportunity to educate the
Commission on our business practices.
Second: It allows the FTC to share its concerns with us.
The report's findings show that over the past year, the
electronic gaming industry self-imposed regulations have had
great success. This effort includes industry members following
careful age and content rating procedures implemented by the
E.S.R.B., carefully and clearly labeling our products, not in
code but in plain English.
The FTC survey this year showed that 54 percent of parents
are at least slightly familiar with the system believe it to be
excellent or good. That's a substantial increase in only one
year, when from a 1999 survey, 20 percent of parents thought
their rating system helpful.
That success is due directly to our hard work and efforts
to serve and educate our consumers.
Although many marketing plans for M-rated games in the
report stated primary or secondary audiences as being 12- to
17-year-olds, that is simply a practice that we do not condone.
I assure you that we are working to ensure that such instances
do not happen in the future.
I do feel, however, as I read the section of the FTC report
that addresses marketing, that their expectations and
criticisms are based on unrealistic assumptions.
For example, in the analysis of the industry's print
advertising and gaming publications, I find it extremely
difficult to justify banning M-rated game titles from a
magazine that has over half its readership age 17 or older.
It is neither practical nor fair to imply that we should
bypass advertising media targeted to the gaming enthusiast
simply because of the possibility of spillage to a younger
demographic.
I also take issue with the portion of the report addressing
television advertising, saying that simply because we advertise
during such widely popular shows as The Simpsons, The X-Files,
and Baywatch, that our plans are--and I quote from the report--
``strongly suggesting that children under 17 were being
targeted.'' The information in the report is misleading.
For example, according to the Nielsen ratings for the 2000
television seasons, many popular programs have audiences that
are significantly over 18 years old. The Simpsons has 71
percent over 18; Malcolm in the Middle at 70 percent over 18;
Friends in cable syndication has 79 percent 18 years or above.
This type of speculation is substantiated in a document
that has all the appearance of a scientific survey.
In any industry that markets its products, there's always
the challenge to break through the clutter of messages that
bombard people every day. Even more difficult is to silo
messages to only one demographic group without having any
unintended spillage into another.
Having said that, I also want you to know that we are
thoughtful and sensitive to the fact that children may be
unintentionally receiving messages meant for an older audience.
In recognition of such a situation, Sega and the IDSA both
enjoy close relations with our retail partners and continually
work with them to develop new programs to educate consumers
about the appropriateness of the content.
I am troubled by part of this report and similar innuendo
and political stump speeches that generalize that the industry
routinely and overtly markets to audiences younger than
designated by the E.S.R.B. ratings.
Such sweeping generalizations oversimplify and
sensationalize the issue and unfairly indict companies such as
Sega for the isolated mistakes of others.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I know we all want
the same goal. We want every child and every family to be
involved in daily decisions. We in the electronic gaming
industry have proven ourselves committed to that goal, and we
intend to push further.
We want to work with you, we want you to understand our
business practices based on fact, not assumptions. We want to
learn of your concerns and thoughts.
We are an industry that is served by some of the most
artistic and creative people ever, but we know that no one
corners the market on creativity. We are open to suggestions,
but suggestions based on reality not speculation.
I want to thank you for this opportunity to offer our
significant experience as we work together to address concerns
of the public we both serve. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter Moore, President and Chief Operating
Officer, SEGA of America
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is
Peter Moore, President and Chief Operating Officer of Sega of America.
I am very glad to have volunteered to be here today as we work together
to address the concerns of the public and the consumer market. I see
these as two distinct groups comprised of the same people, made
different only by the gap in perceptions of government and private
industry. So, I am pleased to offer the experiences of Sega and to
listen to your concerns so that the interests of the consumer market
and public are both addressed, and the gap in perceptions is narrowed.
Further, I am glad to be here as the parent of three young
children: the oldest, Tara, is 17 years old; my 14-year-old son Tyler
is an avid gamer, and his younger sister, Tony Marie, is 8 years old.
The issues the Committee is addressing today are issues that, like most
parents, my wife and I must address everyday as we decide channel-by-
channel, film-by-film and game-by-game how we want our children
spending their entertainment time. I'm sure you will agree with me that
parental responsibility and choice are key to protecting the interests
of the children of our country.
To start, I'd like to offer background on Sega. Sega is almost 50
years old and was started by former U.S. Army officers, manufacturing
and distributing pinball machines to the U.S. troops abroad through the
1960's and 70's. In fact, the name Sega is created from the words
SErvice GAmes.
Sega broke new ground in entertainment in the 1980's by developing
the first simulation type video games. In 1998, Sega's historic role in
leading video game development was recognized by the Smithsonian
Institution during an exhibit on innovation where the world's first 3-
dimensional interactive video game, Virtua Fighter, was on display.
Continuing our cutting-edge innovations in home gaming
entertainment, Sega sells a game console with the highest-speed
processor on the market today, the Sega Dreamcast system, which offers
users phenomenal, realistic graphics. We also develop our own games for
use on Dreamcast. Additionally, third-party publishers also produce
games for Dreamcast.
Our newest service, SegaNet, is an Internet-based video gaming
network that gives gamers the opportunity to play their Dreamcasts and
PCs against their friends through the Internet. It was kicked off only
last week, with gamers playing football against rivals, across the
country. Another first for the entertainment industry.
For the industry overall, the U.S. market is by far the world
leader, earning over 7 billion dollars last year in software and
console sales. Sega of America is one of the top software publishers
and advertisers in this industry.
Because Sega has historically been at the vanguard of video game
innovation, we are pleased to begin a dialogue with you in the last few
days of the 106th Congress.
Just as you feel a responsibility to the people who elected you, we
at Sega also feel a responsibility to the people who spent almost 7
billion dollars last year on video games. Because many of your
constituents are our customers, you and I have a mutual interest in
building a more complete understanding of this community.
I speak of my responsibility as a parent and of Sega's
responsibility as a corporation because, for me as President of the
company, the two are intertwined. Just as I am responsible for choosing
the entertainment for my children, I feel strongly that it is Sega's
responsibility to educate parents so they can make informed decisions.
I know this first-hand.
Toward fulfilling that responsibility, Sega in 1993 introduced a
voluntary rating system for our products which was the forerunner of
the Entertainment Software Rating Board, or E.S.R.B., the independent
organization that develops the age-range and content rating system for
video games.
Building upon the E.S.R.B.'s commitment to protecting the consumer,
within the past year have unveiled the Advertising Review Council,
which sets guidelines for all video game advertising content. The
A.R.C.'s mandate is to ensure that industry ads are appropriate,
responsible, truthful and accurate and marketed appropriately to the
correct audiences.
Over the past few months, Sega has worked closely with the Federal
Trade Commission to share information on our products and marketing
programs. We are glad to have participated in this endeavor as it
offers mutual opportunities for both my company and the FTC. First, it
allows Sega an opportunity to further educate the Commission on the
consumer market that we serve as well as our business practices within
that market. Concurrently, it allows us the opportunity to hear the
concerns that the Commission carries in its effort to address questions
from the public.
The results of this dialogue and information sharing, as outlined
in the FTC's report released Monday, show that over the past year, the
electronic gaming industry's self-imposed regulations have had great
success. This effort includes industry members following careful age-
and content-rating procedures implemented by the E.S.R.B., carefully
and clearly labeling our products--not in code, but in plain English.
These efforts are positively impacting parental education about the
rating system.
The FTC's survey this year showed that 54% of ``parents are at
least slightly familiar with the system'' believe it to be excellent or
good. That's a substantial increase in only one year, when from a 1999
FTC survey, 20% of parents thought the rating system helpful. That
success is due directly to our hard work and efforts to serve and
educate our consumers.
Although many marketing plans for M-rated games in the report
stated primary or secondary audiences as being 12- to 17-year-olds,
that is simply a practice that we do not condone. I assure you that we
are working to ensure that such instances do not happen in the future.
I do feel, however, as I read the section of the FTC report that
addresses marketing, that their expectations and criticisms are based
on unrealistic assumptions. For example, on page 47's analysis of the
industry's print advertising in gaming publications, I will find it
extremely difficult to justify banning M-rated game titles from a
magazine that has over half of its readership aged 17 or older. It is
neither practical nor fair to imply that we should bypass advertising
media targeted to the gaming enthusiast simply because of the
possibility of spillage to a younger demographic.
I also take issue with the portion of the report addressing
television advertising, saying that simply because we advertise during
such widely popular shows as, The Simpsons, The X-Files, and Baywatch,
that our plans are--and I quote this from the report--``strongly
suggesting that children under 17 were being targeted.'' Unfortunately
this information in the report is misleading.
For example, according to the Nielsen ratings for the 2000
television season, many popular programs have audiences that are
significantly over 18-years-old: The Simpsons has 71% over-18; Malcolm
in the Middle at 70% over-18; Friends in cable syndication has over 79%
18-years or above.
This type of speculation is unconscionable in a document that has
all the appearance of a scientific survey. These TV shows have wide,
mainstream appeal, and as such, they inevitably capture some younger
and older consumers than the shows' core audiences.
In any industry that markets its products, there's always the
challenge to not only reach your target audience, but also to break
through the clutter of messages that bombard people everyday. Even more
difficult is to silo messages to only one demographic group without
having any unintended spillage into other demographic groups.
Having said that, I also want you to know that we are thoughtful
and sensitive to the fact that children may be unintentionally
receiving messages meant for an older audience. In recognition of such
a situation, Sega and the IDSA both enjoy close relations with our
retail partners and continually work with them to develop new programs
to educate consumers about the age and content suitability of video
games.
Sega, the I.D.S.A., E.S.R.B. and retailers are all working together
in a very tight, very well thought-out and very well-managed system. I
troubled by this report, and similar innuendo in political stump
speeches, that overlooks our positive efforts and instead generalizes
that the industry routinely and overtly markets to audiences younger
than designated by E.S.R.B. ratings. Such sweeping generalizations
over-simplify and sensationalize the issue, and unfairly indict
responsible companies such as Sega for the isolated mistakes of others.
Aside from my position at Sega, as a father of three young
children, I am angered that, based on a handful of instances,
government officials point an accusing finger at an entire industry as
the cause of all youth violence. Any responsible parent knows that
there are a multitude of factors involved in childhood development. The
more time our government spends scape-goating one of the thousands of
impressions made everyday on children, the less time is spent on real,
sustainable solutions.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I know we all want the same
goal: we want every child and every family to be informed and involved
in daily decisions. We in the electronic gaming industry have proven
ourselves committed to that goal and we intend to push further. We want
to work with you. We want you to understand our business practices,
based on fact, not assumptions. We want to learn of your concerns and
thoughts. We are an industry that is served by some of the most
artistic and creative people ever, but we know that no one corners the
market on creativity. We are open to suggestions, but suggestions based
on reality, not speculation.
I want to thank you for this opportunity, to offer our significant
experience as we work together to address concerns of the public we
both serve.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY FISCHBACH, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT
Mr. Fischbach. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to address some comments to Mr. Brownback.
I have some prepared remarks, however, with respect to a
game that we released called ECW Hardcore Revolution.
ECW, like WWF and WCW, is an organized wrestling league. It
appears on TNN every Saturday evening between six and seven. It
also uses Pay-Per-View as a vehicle for marketing itself. It
does personal appearances around the country, most of them east
of the Mississippi.
The M-rating on the product was chosen because of the
language content in the product. We felt it appropriate that
the product was rated ``M'', and that we marketed it
accordingly as an M-rated product.
The action figures that you displayed, I believe----
Senator Brownback. Here, I'll hand it to you, if you'd like
to have it.
Mr. Fischbach. --yes, were marketed, they did not come from
our company. They came from the ECW League themselves. They
licensed that product themselves. It was not licensed by us.
Senator Brownback. So they didn't have to get any
permission from you to use----
Mr. Fischbach. No, we actually----
Senator Brownback. --to put it on.
Mr. Fischbach. --had to get permission from them to use
their wrestlers in our product. So in this particular instance,
we tried to stay within the guidelines, and we tried to market
the product accordingly, and I really didn't recall that there
were action figures in the marketplace at this point.
So it was not part of our marketing practices, and we
focused our marketing for that particular product, according to
the ratings and according to the rules of ARC.
So if I may proceed now?
The Chairman. Please.
Mr. Fischbach. Thanks.
Our company was established in early 1987 and publishes
software for all of the leading hardware systems. I am the Co-
Chairman, CEO and one of the cofounders of the organization.
As a veteran in the video game industry, I am a long-time
supporter of the IDSA. That's our industry organization, and
currently serve as chair of the IDSA Board of Directors.
In addition, I strongly support and endorse the work of the
E.S.R.B. All of our software carries an E.S.R.B. rating.
Furthermore, Acclaim complies with all E.S.R.B. advertising
standards and guidelines, including the placing of rating icons
and content information on packaging and in advertising.
In this hyperaccelerated, new media world, think back a
minute. The first video games were developed in the mid-1970s.
The ability of a consumer to control the movement of an object
on the screen was considered revolutionary at the time.
In 1977, the introduction of the hugely-popular Atari 2600,
the game called PONG, created a new generation called video
gamers. Today, the original gamers who grew up playing their
Atari machines and hardware that followed, are now an average
age of 30, and they are still gamers.
At the same time the game machines were improving, the user
demographics broadened. Software wasn't just aimed at a 12- to
18-year-old male audience. Today, video games are as mainstream
as CDs, and games are being developed for people of all ages,
from Pokeman and Mary Kate and Ashley to ECW Hard Core
Revolution.
The issue, as I understand it, is appropriately marketing
video game entertainment at a time when the demographics of
gaming is broadening so rapidly.
I believe we are making great strides with the E.S.R.B.
rating system, the new E.S.R.B. Advertising Review Council and
its principals and guidelines for responsible advertising
practices.
However, as an industry, we need to continually work at and
evolve with the changing business environment in which we
operate.
Video game publishers must take direct responsibility for
how and to whom we market our games. As our demographics
continue to expand, so must we expand our efforts to ensure
that the marketing of our products is responsible.
I am pleased that the FTC recognized in its report that the
electronic entertainment industry is taking important steps to
make its existing codes that prohibit target marketing to
children even more effective.
And we are not only encouraging our colleagues in the
retail sector to enforce rating systems, we are also escalating
our efforts to make parents aware of the video game rating
system. In this regard, we are proud that golfer Tiger Woods
filmed the PSA for the E.S.R.B. last fall urging parents to
check the ratings to determine which games are right for them.
Eighty-three percent of all parents are involved in the
purchase of video games for their children. But as an industry,
Senator, we need to do more. We as publishers need to take
steps to ensure that we comply with the established Code of
Conduct, including the anti-targeting provisions, and we
definitely need to work further to elevate parents' awareness
and understanding of the rating system.
It's an ongoing process, and I believe we are committed as
an industry to improving it.
Acclaim presently publishes very few M-rated games. For
those titles that we do publish, we are careful to target our
marketing efforts to appropriate audiences. We strictly adhere
to the IDSA guidelines. For example, we confine our print
advertising, the publications that cater to our core audience,
and we do not advertise in the mass market books.
For TV advertising, we restrict our media buys to after 10
o'clock p.m.
In terms of the advertising media, our primary advertising
vehicle is print. Naturally, we choose print publications that
cover our industry and our products. These are magazines that
review the very products that we're talking about today.
The highest circulation amongst those publications reached
a mere 500,000 consumers. Definitely not mass market. Mass
media, like television is becoming less important for us. It
has become too hard to target a particular demographic,
rendering TV both inaccurate and ineffective. It is also hard
to control who is viewing our TV ad content, regardless of
which time slots or programs we purchase.
Having said all that, we know from research what leads
consumers to their purchase decisions. According to a recent
study conducted by the FairField Research, the number one
factor in making the purchase decision is game rental, followed
in order by playing a friend's copy, trying the game in a
store, reading magazine reviews, word of mouth, and reading
game packaging.
Then follows print advertising, TV advertising, point-of-
sale advertising, and web site information. So while magazine
advertising is important to us, it is not, in fact, the primary
driver in our marketing plans, which leads me to my last point.
Perhaps the most outstanding revelation about this youth
culture is that they admire their parents and the opinions of
their parents. Ninety-four percent of today's youth trust their
parents. Similarly, parents must understand that they not only
have the responsibility but the opportunity, as the FTC said,
``To be involved in the entertainment decisions of their
children.''
The variety and complexity of today's entertainment options
may have become too unwieldy a task for any parent alone.
Between books, magazines, music, movies, cellular phones, TV,
and the Internet, many parents need assistance in making
intelligent choices for their children.
Because of our prominent role in the electronic
entertainment industry, Acclaim not only supports strong self-
regulation, we are setting an example for our industry. We are
committed to continually reexamine our own and our industry's
efforts to ensure that we are getting the job done.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fischbach follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gregory Fischbach, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Acclaim Entertainment
Good Morning, My name is Gregory Fischbach, and I am the founder,
co-chairman, and CEO of Acclaim Entertainment, one of the leading
independent software publishers in the video game industry.
Acclaim Entertainment was established in early 1987 and publishes
software for all of the leading hardware systems. In addition, Acclaim
also publishes comic books and strategy guides.
Acclaim's corporate offices are located in Glen Cove, New York, and
our other domestic offices are located in Salt Lake, Cincinnati, San
Francisco and Austin. Acclaim software is distributed worldwide through
an international organization that maintains marketing, sales and
distribution facilities in all of our major markets.
As a veteran in the video game industry, I am a long time supporter
of the Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA), our industry's
trade organization and currently serve as Chair of the IDSA Board of
Directors. In addition, I strongly support and endorse the work of the
Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB). The ESRB was established in
1995 with the primary purpose of establishing and maintaining a
universal rating system for entertainment software.
All Acclaim software, whether published internally or only
distributed by our company, carries an ESRB rating. Furthermore,
Acclaim complies with all the ESRB advertising standards and
guidelines, including placing of rating icons and content information
on packaging and in advertising.
Five years ago, Acclaim established a website to support the sales
and marketing of our software. This site carries the ESRBi seal of
approval which means it is actively monitored by the ESRBi, complying
with all of its standards.
In this hyper-accelerated new media world, think back a minute. The
first video games were developed in the middle 70's. The ability of a
consumer to control the movement of an object on the screen was
considered revolutionary at that time.
In 1977, the introduction of the hugely popular Atari 2600 and a
game called PONG created a new generation called video gamers. The
Atari machine's price initially targeted it towards older kids; but as
the technology improved, prices came down, the games became more
sophisticated, and the audience broadened.
Today, the original gamers who grew up playing their Atari machines
and the hardware that followed are now an average age of 30. And they
are still gamers. As the game machines progressed, the games and the
game play features became more intricate, and the plots and game play
became more immersive.
At the same time the game machines were improving, the user
demographics broadened. Software wasn't just aimed at the 12- to 18-
year-old male audience. Today, video games are as mainstream as CD's
and games are being developed for people of all ages and genders. From
Pokemon to Who Wants to be a Millionaire, there's something for
everyone.
The issue, as I understand it, is appropriately marketing video
game entertainment at a time when the demographics of gaming is
broadening so rapidly. I believe we are making great strides with the
ESRB rating system, the new ESRB Advertising Review Council and its
Principles and Guidelines for Responsible Advertising Practices.
However, we need to continually work at it and evolve with the changing
business environment in which we operate. Video game publishers must
take direct responsibility for how and to whom we market our games. As
the demographics continue to expand, so must we expand our efforts to
ensure that the marketing of video game entertainment is responsible.
I am pleased that the FTC recognized in its report the electronic
entertainment industry is taking important steps to make its existing
codes that prohibit target marketing to children even more effective.
And we are not only encouraging our colleagues in the retail sector to
enforce rating systems, we are also escalating efforts to make parents
aware of the video game rating system. In this regard, we are proud
that golfer Tiger Woods filmed a PSA for the ESRB last fall urging
parents to ``check the ratings'' to determine which games are right for
them.
But we need to do more. We, as publishers need to take steps to
ensure that we comply with the established code of conduct, including
the anti-targeting provisions and we definitely need to work further to
elevate parents' awareness and understanding of the ratings system.
It's an ongoing process, and I believe we are all committed to
improving it.
Just who is the younger generation that we're talking about? There
are 60 million 5-20 year olds; three times larger then Generation X,
and the biggest blip on the American economic screen since the baby
boom. They are very independent, have a strong sense of self worth and
are active in environmental and social causes. Throughout their entire
young lives, they have been bombarded with information from TV, radio,
the Internet and print. This media-saturated generation is extremely
marketing savvy.
Acclaim begins its marketing plans at the initial stages of product
development. We develop games for a variety of different interests, and
attempt to develop titles that best satisfy those demands. We do this
by collaborating with our retailers to gauge what their customers want
as well as by conducting our own research to determine what types of
games consumers are interested in. This is the basis on which we
develop our tactical marketing plans on building awareness and interest
in our products.
Acclaim presently publishes very few M-rated games; but for those
titles we do publish, we are very careful to target our marketing
efforts to the appropriate audience. We strictly adhere to IDSA's
guidelines and work closely with the publications, websites, TV and
radio stations to evaluate the advertising beforehand and make changes
where necessary. For example, we confine our print advertising to the
publications that cater to our core audience and do not advertise in
mass market books. For TV advertising, we restrict our media buys to
post-10:00 pm programming and conform the commercials in collaboration
with the specific cable and network clearance departments.
In response to the FTC request for information from our company, we
uncovered a marketing plan that did recommend targeting of a Mature
game to persons for whom it was not appropriate. In fact, we never
implemented the plan, but we have nonetheless taken steps internally to
make sure our marketing plans are properly prepared.
In terms of the advertising media, our primary advertising vehicle
is print. Naturally we choose publications that cover our industry and
our products. The highest circulation amongst these publications
reaches a maximum of 500,000 consumers. Definitely not mass market.
Mass media like television is becoming less important for us. It has
become too hard to target a particular demographic, rendering TV both
inaccurate and ineffective. It is also hard to control who is viewing
our TV ad content regardless of which time slots or programs we
purchase. On the other hand, we can place content more efficiently on
the Internet and can also control who is viewing our information more
effectively.
Having said all that, we know from research what leads consumers to
their purchase decisions. According to a recent study conducted by
FairField Research, the number one factor in making a purchase decision
is game rental followed in order: by playing a friend's copy, trying
the game in store, reading magazine reviews, word of mouth and reading
game packaging in store. Then follows print advertising, TV
advertising, point of sale advertising and website information. So
while magazine advertising is important to us, it is not, in fact, the
primary driver in our marketing plans. Which leads me to my last point.
Perhaps the most outstanding revelation about this youth culture is
that they admire their parents and the opinions of their parents.
What's more, 97% of them actually say--out loud and proud--that they
like their parents and consider them confidants and friends. While the
Baby Boomers' mantra was ``Don't trust anyone over 30,'' 94% of today's
youth trust their parents and 8 out of 10 state they often have
``really important'' talks with their parents. Game publishers and
marketers must understand the importance and value of this core
relationship as it relates to home entertainment. Similarly, parents
must understand that they not only have the responsibility, but the
opportunity, as the FTC said, to be involved in the entertainment
decisions of their children.
The variety and complexity of today's entertainment options may
have become too unwieldy a task for any parent alone. Between books,
magazines, movies, music, cellular phones, TV and the Internet, many
parents need assistance in making intelligent choices for their
children. Because of our prominent role in the electronic entertainment
industry, Acclaim not only supports strong self-regulation; we are
setting an example for our industry. We are committed to continually
re-examine our own and our industry's efforts to ensure that we're
getting the job done.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this effort.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Fischbach.
You and Mr. Moore present views that are very interesting
and, contrast with those of Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Zelnick about
the importance of informing parents of the content and also the
overall issue of the rating system.
Obviously, Mr. Goldberg in his statement, and Mr. Zelnick
to a lesser degree, view this as some sort of coercion or
censorship. I do not. I want to thank you for your commitment,
both you and Mr. Moore, for improving from the situation as it
exists today. As outlined by the FTC, nearly all the game
companies have marketed violent, M-rated games to children in
violation of the IDSAs anti-targeting provision.
Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Zelnick, I'd like to engage in a
little colloquy with you, and since I would feel free to
interrupt you, please feel free to interrupt me. Seriously.
[Laughter.]
I think that's the only way I think we can have an honest
exchange of views here, because I am concerned about some of
the things that you stated in your written testimony.
First of all, could I mention, Mr. Goldberg, I think that
young people are not involved in the political process simply
because they don't believe they're represented anymore here. I
think they believe that the special interests and the big
money, the proliferation of huge amounts of money, are
unbelievable. I know you and Mr. Zelnick are both very wealthy.
You could have purchased a ticket to a fund raiser for $500,000
recently, and I'm sure you would have only done that in the
interests of good government, and yet average citizens are
unable to do that.
Mr. Goldberg. I completely agree with you about that. I
support McCain-Feingold.
The Chairman. Yes. So I really feel that is the reason why
these young people are not participating is because they're not
represented anymore.
Mr. Goldberg. But they're not represented here today,
either, Chairman.
The Chairman. Go ahead. Why not?
Mr. Goldberg. There's no young people testifying today.
There's no groups of fans or consumers or group people have
been invited, so they're also not represented in a proceeding
like this.
The Chairman. Well, I would be glad to do that, but we were
reviewing a study of marketing practices as opposed to
purchasing practices. The whole purpose of this hearing was to
review the FTC report. But I do agree with you, perhaps we
should have more young people come testify before Congress.
But I'll tell you what a lot of them would say, it doesn't
make any difference, because I couldn't afford the $500,000
ticket fundraiser.
So I'd be glad to hear--again, please feel free to
interrupt. So I disagree with you as to why young Americans
aren't involved in the political process.
Second of all, on the issue of labeling, it's my view that
any family member or any person who walks into a retail
establishment and wants to buy a product, that that person
should have the right to know what the content of the product
is. If it's a can of soup, we should know what goes into it.
I'm talking about labeling as a way of informing both
consumers and families as to what the content is so that they
will be informed in their purchases. That's the whole
rationale, in my view, behind labeling.
I'll be glad to hear your response to that statement
because, Mr. Goldberg, especially you view it as some form of
forced censorship. Please respond.
Mr. Goldberg. Well, we do label curse words because you can
have objective criteria. Either those words are on an album or
they're not, and I think the companies, our company included,
does label records with those words. That's exactly what we've
been doing for 15 years.
Other than curse words----
The Chairman. But if I could interrupt, and please
interrupt me, the label I'm talking about is mature audiences,
really suitable for certain--go ahead.
Mr. Goldberg. I don't believe that there's universal
criteria even in this country that all 14-year-olds are the
same. A 14-year-old in one family, their parents may not want
to expose them to something, and in my family maybe we do. We
have no idea----
The Chairman. But shouldn't we----
Mr. Goldberg. --how to categorize words.
I do agree, as I said, with making all the lyrics available
for parents who want to read them. I'm happy to do that,
subject to the copyright owners' permission to do so, and I
think that would be a good way. And I think with the Internet,
that's going to happen.
But in terms of categorizing a simple M, V, X, these kinds
of things, other than the dirty words, I don't understand the
criteria that could be used to create those categories.
As someone who has thought about this for a long time and
lived with lyrics, the same way book publishers don't do it,
magazines, newspapers, words don't lend themselves to those
kind of categories, except for profanity, which we do label.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, might I interrupt just for a
moment?
The Chairman. Everybody interrupt. Mr. Zelnick, you have
been strangely silent. Go ahead.
Senator Dorgan. Just on that point, we had testimony
previously this morning by Lynne Cheney, and she described, for
example, the Eminem album about the lyrics about the
satisfaction of raping and murdering his mother, et cetera, et
cetera. There may not be dirty words--there's dirty words in
that song, but in those phrases, there may not be dirty words,
but do you think that kind of lyric is appropriate for 10- 12-
year-old children?
I don't think it's just about words itself. I don't think
that's what the Chairman's asking about.
Mr. Goldberg. Well, I think that different families will
have different opinions of what age. I don't have that album in
my house, my oldest kid is 10, and we've talked about why we
don't want that labeling in our house.
The Chairman. But this brings us back to labeling. In other
words, shouldn't your family and other families know that there
are lyrics in here that talk about rape and murder without ever
using a dirty word?
Mr. Goldberg. I think reviewers and the media explain these
things to people, but there could be an anti-rape song. There
have been books, novels, written in the first person of
murders. ``Crime and Punishment,'' I think. Or Richard Wright's
``Native Son,'' where a murderer is speaking in the first
person and yet clearly the intent of that is to de-legitimize
and make ugly the murderer.
There are people who use these themes in a humorous,
sarcastic way, symbolically, not really meaning to do it, and
different people of goodwill, even different people in this
room, may interpret some of these things differently. That's
not my record so I didn't analyze them, discuss it with the
artist. But it's very hard to have clear criteria.
The debate of reviewers and discussions is the right way
for parents to get not simplistic labeling. That's my point.
The Chairman. I frankly recoiled at the lyrics that Senator
Brownback put up there. Isn't that pretty clear that something
like that should be labeled?
Mr. Zelnick, speak.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Zelnick. I'm not a big fan of interrupting people, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. I don't call it interrupting, I call it a
dialogue. And I appreciate, because you represent one of the
largest part of your industry, and it's important that we hear
from you.
Mr. Zelnick. As you can see, I'm here for that exact
reason, Senator.
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Zelnick. And I believe I'm the only CEO of a major
entertainment company that's here today.
The Chairman. And that is very much appreciated by this
Committee.
Mr. Zelnick. As I said in my remarks, I'm in favor of
rating systems, voluntary rating systems.
You may not know this about my background. I started in the
television business, then I ran a video company. For four
years, I was president of 20th Century Fox, and I was a member
of the Board of the MPAA, where we discussed this exact topic
at a time when we revised our rating system.
I was a founding member of the Board of the IDSA, where we
discussed ratings, and Greg and I discussed them together then,
when I was in the video game business, and now my parapetetic
career has led me to record in the music business. I'm on the
Board of the RAA, and one of the first topics I discussed at my
first RAA Board meeting six years ago was our rating system.
In my testimony today, I acknowledged the fact that perhaps
we need to do more in our system. The research shows, the FTC
report shows, that three-quarters of the parents served feel
that the music rating system does give them sufficient
information.
And while BMG doesn't put out very many explicit
recordings, we put out some that are labeled, about 4 percent
of our releases, and in the six years I've been CEO of the
company, we've not received one complaint from a parent on
something being inappropriately labeled.
That doesn't mean that the system is perfect, and we have
an open mind as to how we can improve that system. It is hard
for one company to do it in isolation. I think it is important
for the industry to act together and reasonable people can
disagree on a topic.
But my personal view, frankly, is that there's nothing
wrong with considering and perhaps adopting a more robust
system.
The Chairman. I thank you for that.
I want to emphasize, Mr. Goldberg, I don't believe that I,
and I can't speak for other Members of this Committee, want to
resort to censorship.
I'd be glad to do it if I knew where it ended. It's easy to
go down that path, but you never know where the end is. So I
certainly am not speaking to you as an advocate for censorship.
But what I believe is important and I think the message that
I've heard from all the Members of the Committee who have
participated, is that we work together to try to remove and
eradicate a problem that's been identified by a respected
agency of government.
Did you want to respond?
Mr. Goldberg. I would love to censor people that I disagree
with and don't like, but I agree with you. There's no way of
stopping it, and who would we empower to do so.
I think, to answer your question, Senator Dorgan, about the
Eminem album, it is--it definitely has a sticker. I just know
that from reading about it, even though it's not a record I'm
involved with. The problem is a lot of people like it anyway,
and I realize that everybody here didn't like reading lyrics
isolated, disconnected from music, disconnected from context,
and you might have hated hearing the whole album and even
meeting the artist, but millions of people like it.
And in a free society, what do you do about that, except
tell your opinion and the clash of ideas in the marketplace of
ideas.
And I think you also have to recognize that young people
have language that they use, different symbols, and have a
different feeling about this. Most young people I know feel
that's a human record not a violent record. You may disagree
with them but it might be good to hear them and hear their
point of view, the actual fans of this music, instead of
assuming how they interpret it.
The Chairman. By the way, we're going to try and bring
some--we will bring some young people up to discuss MP-3 and
some of this music downloading issue, which is obviously
another issue of concern to the panel.
Senator Hollings.
Senator Hollings. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Brownback.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to follow up on this line of questioning.
Mr. Goldberg, as I understood what you said a little bit
earlier, you're willing to work on a disclosure system that
discloses fully everything of all the lyrics in music? I want
to make sure that I get that correct?
Mr. Goldberg. I'm in favor of it and willing to do it
subject to the legalisms. In other words, record companies
don't own the copyrights to the lyrics, so we have to get
permission if our artists don't write the songs.
We usually make all the lyrics available except when we're
not permitted to, and my guess is that this could be something
that could develop as a universal thing with cooperation of the
music publisher.
I'm in favor of it because I think instead of having
simplistic ratings for lyrics, people and parents who are
interested could read all of the lyrics and make their
decisions about whether or not they want it in their house, but
I don't think you'd like all of the decisions that all of the
parents make.
Senator Brownback. I'm not concerned about that. I'm
concerned about decisions my wife and I make for our children.
I'm also concerned that when we get up in the morning,
we're eating food, and we can see the product label about how
much fat content, what's the carbohydrates in the food, etc. I
like having that information to decide. But with any of the
lyrics or the music, you just don't have that. You have a
sticker on a product, but that doesn't really tell you much of
anything about it.
And, Mr. Zelnick, as I understand, you are agreeable to
this as well, but you want it to be an industry-wide effort of
disclosure of lyrics; is that correct?
Mr. Zelnick. My point is that the recorded music industry
has to have a common standard, and I think the FTC itself
acknowledges that for each company to have a different rating
system within one specific industry would be disruptive, and
might actually make it hard for consumers to make choices.
But, Senator, I respectfully disagree. I don't think you
can analyze a creative product, a work of art, the same way you
can analyze a breakfast cereal. And the fact is that there are
subjective elements. What we try to do with our explicit
warning label now is make it clear that there, indeed, is
explicit material, as I understand it.
Senator Brownback. No, I understand that part of it. But I
thought you were saying to me that you were willing to work on
an industry-wide disclosure of all the words in the lyrics as
it came forward, as long as the effort is industry-wide, which
is what Mr. Goldberg said he's willing to do.
Mr. Goldberg. First of all----
Senator Brownback. And as a parent, I would think you would
find that helpful if you knew all the words that were in the
lyrics.
Mr. Goldberg. First of all, we have no issue with
disclosing of the lyrics in any case.
Senator Brownback. Good.
Let me ask each of you about marketing plans because that's
why we're here, about marketing plans.
The Chairman. Can I also interrupt one second?
And I appreciate your commitment at least to work with us
and others in trying to better the system.
Go ahead. I'm sorry.
Senator Brownback. Yes. I appreciate your willingness to
show up. We've been fighting for a long time to get somebody to
show up, and this is a good, positive step.
All of you are involved, and each of you are involved with
the final marketing plans of your major products that come out;
is that correct?
Mr. Moore: Sure.
Senator Brownback. Mr. Zelnick, you're not shaking your
head. You're not involved in the marketing plan?
Mr. Zelnick. Well, we put out 1,500 releases a year. So it
would be inaccurate to say that I review each marketing plan.
However, I establish policy, and I stand behind the policy, so
I am responsible in that sense.
Senator Brownback. All right. And the other three of you
are directly responsible or directly involved in marketing
plans?
Mr. Moore. As Presidents of companies, I think we all take
accountability regardless of whether we're involved or not.
Senator Brownback. All right. Because that's the point of
the hearing. We can talk about censorship, we can dive
different places here. The point of it is the marketing that's
taking place with the products, and that's been the concern
here.
I want to go particularly at the game industry, if we could
look at that, because the FTC study says that of its 118
electronic games with mature ratings for violence that the
Commission selected for its study, 83 or 70 percent targeted
children under 17. That's the FTC wording within this.
Marketing plans for 60 of these or 51 percent, expressly
included children under 17 and their target audience.
Have either of you been involved in a mature-rated video
game that has been marketed towards children?
Mr. Fischbach. We supplied certain documents. This is
volumes and volumes of documents to the FTC, and when I was
briefed before the hearing, I was shown three different
documents with basically plans--not execution and plans, plans
of what somebody had proposed within our organization.
And on the top of the plan it said, ``M-12 to 24'', so
immediately you know that that draws a flag because ``M'' is
not 12 to 24, ``M-17 to 24'' or ``17 to wherever.''
I can tell you in the execution of those plans, like with
ECW, and we may disagree with respect to the action figures and
where they fit, we did not market those products to children.
We marketed those products to the appropriate audience, and
specifically with respect to the ECW campaign, it was very
specifically focused at an older audience, and we limited our
advertising to an older audience, so we didn't try to pick up
and do something that we weren't supposed to do.
Senator Brownback. So, Mr. Fischbach, you have not been
involved in any discussions, in any marketing plans, or under
any age----
Mr. Fischbach. I didn't say that.
Senator Brownback. Well, I'm asking you if you have or you
haven't, and that's--have you?
Mr. Fischbach. No, we haven't.
Senator Brownback. So you have not?
Mr. Fischbach. No.
Senator Brownback. Have you, from Sega's point of view,
been involved in any marketing plans where there was discussion
of taking a mature product and marketing it to an underage
audience?
Mr. Moore. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. I think the
interesting thing, when I read the report, Senator, is the
differentiation between a marketing plan, a marketing execution
was not brought up.
If I read the Commission's report accurately, and read the
assertions they were making about the plan to market to 6 year
olds or 12 year olds, and I'm a marketer by profession, is my
background, then I would see Sports Illustrated For Kids,
Highlights for Children, magazines of that nature be
proliferated with print advertising of M-rated games, that is
simply not the case.
What the Commission's issue is manufacturing, such as
ourselves marketing M-rated games in gaming enthusiasts
magazines.
As Mr. Fischbach has stated in his testimony, those
magazines are very focused. The biggest one is 500,000. And
that may seem like a lot, but in the world it's minuscule.
It is our ascertion that at least 50 percent, if not more,
were 17 years and older as regards readership, and that,
obviously, from our perspective is a legitimate vehicle for us
to be able to market our products.
If we felt, if we truly felt that that was an inappropriate
vehicle for marketing our products, we simply wouldn't do it.
Senator Brownback. If I could on this point.
Mr. Moore. Sure.
Senator Brownback. Anybody in your industry that has a
mature rated product and goes ahead and approves a marketing
plan that overtly markets to children under the age of 17, you
would say, ``That's wrong, that's bad; we, as an industry, want
to stop this?''
Mr. Fischbach. Let me just respond. The answer is yes, but
not only that we've established a Council within our
organization, within E.S.R.B. that does review it and does have
sanctions and penalties for those kinds of infractions.
Senator Brownback. Has anybody been sanctioned or
penalized?
Mr. Moore. I will bring it right back to Sega's case. Last
week we launched two TV commercials. Now these were for E for
Everyone games. These were actually football games. But we fell
foul of the limitations that the ARC puts in our advertising,
and we were wrong.
What we didn't do, which we agreed to do in writing to the
advertising review council of the E.S.R.B., was actually have a
voice over for the rating of that game that was featured in
that commercial.
Even though at the start of that game commercial, had the
logo ``E for Everyone'', we neglected in our rush to get that
commercial to broadcast, to have a voice-over which says, this
game is rated ``E for Everyone.'' We were wrong.
We were notified the very next morning by the ARC in
writing, and we had rectified that within 24 hours.
Now I'm not talking about an M-rated game, I'm talking
about an NFL game, which represents 35 percent of our sales--
football, sports games in general.
But the ARC works, it watches us, they have the power to be
punitive. We were wrong. We recognize we were wrong, and we
rectified it within 24 hours.
Senator Brownback. What your stating is contrary to the
study.
Mr. Moore. In my testimony, Senator, I had issues with the
study.
Senator Brownback. Well, let me go, if I could on this
question, and this will be the last one I put forward at this
time.
Mr. Goldberg, if I could ask you, you state that the
parental advisory sticker is supposed to help inform parents
that that's what the product is about, and yet the FTC report
states that parents have no say in whether an album is
stickered or not, have no way of knowing why it was stickered,
have no way of finding the lyrics, and have no recourse if they
disagree with the manufacturer's decision as to whether to
sticker or not.
Is there any reason why parents are kept so powerless in
this system?
Mr. Goldberg. Well, I also feel there are major flaws in
the report. I don't know of any example where a parent has
asked for a copy of lyrics where they were not given them in
the companies that I ran, which were big companies. Now I have
a very small company, so we have fewer people we're dealing
with. But I don't think there's any intent to keep lyrics away
from parents.
The only criteria we've been able to establish, in my
experience, and my colleagues may do it differently, but my
experience in trying to figure out whether or not to put on
stickers, if there were curse words on it, we stickered it
because that was a specific objective criteria.
And our artists also would live with that. Our artists have
contract rights in terms of the way that they work.
Other than letting parents know the lyrics themselves or
whether or not there are so-called dirty words on them, I can't
think of any other criteria that would be rational for the same
reason that book publishers, magazine publishers, newspaper
publishers, don't have those kinds of ratings.
To me, the best answer is let the consumers have access to
the lyrics and express themselves as parents about whether or
not they want them in their homes.
Senator Brownback. I think we're going to have to work on a
system where they can be because they don't know how to get a
hold of lyrics presently. They don't know how to get a hold of
you, although I'd be happy to publish your name and address.
Mr. Goldberg. Once again, the study itself said that three-
quarters of parents are happy with the parental advisory
sticker system, so I don't think you can discount three-
quarters of the parents surveyed by the study that you,
yourself, are appraising.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank you.
Could I, before turning to Senator Dorgan, announce that
there's going to be a vote at 1:45, an important vote on
tabling the Thompson Amendment. So we would have to, after
Senator Dorgan finishes his questions to the panel, adjourn
until 2:00 this afternoon, at which time we will have the final
panel.
Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
The Chairman. Again, I want to thank the witnesses for
being here.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Never
have I heard so much credit given to people who just show up.
[Laughter.]
Senator Dorgan. But let me also say thanks for being here.
And, Mr. Goldberg, you produced some lively testimony and said
at the end of it that we were out of touch, and you've had to
join a long line in order to make that charge, as a matter of
fact.
But I would say if you held a town meeting in Arizona or
Kansas or North Dakota, I think you would find expressions of
most of the people who came to that town meeting very similar
to the expressions you hear today on this panel about pop
culture, about children, about lyrics, about violence on
television, and so on.
This is about target advertising, and let me just ask the
question in a manner similar to the way Senator Brownback asked
it.
The FTC says that the documents they have developed show
that on R-rated films a substantial number of them have been
shown to--for example, 10-year-olds, 12-year-olds, 15-year-olds
in market testing.
So with films, market testing to young teens, music, video,
is the same way. I mean, I assume that gives you some pause,
would it not? I mean, I assume that if we have a general
understanding of what we're trying to do here that a disclosure
that there is market testing of R-rated movies on 12- , 14-
year-olds kids would give you pause? Would you disagree with
that, Mr. Zelnick?
Mr. Zelnick. No.
Senator Dorgan. All right. Mr. Goldberg, does it give you
some pause?
Mr. Goldberg. Gotta wait two weeks for the movie people to
tell you that. We're not in the movie business.
Senator Dorgan. But how about music? CDs? Same thing.
Mr. Goldberg. We don't have age descriptions on our CDs.
The report was wrong about that. And all of the descriptions of
the music business have been wrong about that because, for some
reason, the FTC chose not to acknowledge that the record
business has always said that we can't come up with a specific
age criteria the way movies do. We don't have pictures, we
don't have nudity, we don't have blood. We have words.
Senator Dorgan. I understand.
Mr. Goldberg. And so all we can do is label the so-called
dirty words and, frankly, all teenagers are not the same.
There's a big difference between a 13-year-old and a 16-year-
old.
There's a difference between the way a 16-year-old in
Greenwich Village might be raised, where I live, compared to a
16-year-old maybe in your home state. There's real diversity in
this country, and there's not a possibility of universal
criteria. Therefore, the marketplace of ideas, the clash of
ideas, is how the culture is created.
We do give information about the curse words and we're
happy to make the lyrics available, but you're not going to
like all the records.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Goldberg, I don't think there's a
difference between those who live in Boston or Bismarck about
whether they think a 12-year-old would not be harmed, in the
opposite, by listening to a CD that talks about murdering and
raping your mother. I think there's generally----
Mr. Goldberg. What about if it's against murdering and
raping your mother and condemning that sort of attitude but
illustrating it through an unsympathetic character?
Senator Dorgan. Well, you know, the First Amendment is
industry. The First Amendment is not equivocal. It protects
repulsive and vulgar speech.
I happen to vote against those who want to change the
Constitution to prohibit flag desecration, because I believe
the First Amendment is very important. We haven't mastered that
for 200 years, and I don't see too many Thomas Jeffersons and
Madisons and Masons hanging around.
So I think it's important to protect that First Amendment,
and this is not about censorship. This hearing is not about and
will never be about censorship. But it is about some important
issues.
Let me try to get at this a slightly different way.
My assumption is that all four of you have some general
notion in your own minds about what kind of products you will
produce and what you won't produce.
Mr. Zelnick. Senator, let me address that.
I have a specific notion, which is what I discussed in my
testimony, but that very specific notion has to do with what my
company will do.
Senator Dorgan. Correct.
Mr. Zelnick. That may not be something that Danny's company
agrees with, and I respect Danny's right to disagree.
We have no issue, however, about providing information to
parents and providing disclosure. We also don't have any
concern about taking responsibility because the buck stops on
my desk and I take that responsibility.
I think since we're talking about marketing, we should just
establish a couple of facts.
The first is that less than 10 percent of marketing
expenditures in the record business actually go to consumer
marketing. We don't market the same way the movie business
does. I know because I ran a major movie company. We don't
market the same way the video game business does. One size does
not fit all.
Of the 10 percent of our expenditures that go to consumer
marketing, virtually none of that goes to traditional
television or print media, with the rare exception of very
straight ahead family programming. Why is that? Not only
because it would be inappropriate to market explicit material
to children, but also because the economics of our business
only allow for that type of consumer marketing for which
there's a very broad audience.
Senator Dorgan. But it's especially the former, I hope? If
you think it's inappropriate to market to children----
Mr. Zelnick. Senator, in my view, it's absolutely the case.
However, there's no reason not to bring some facts into the
discussion. In this case, the fact is that the record business
does precious little consumer marketing, and it does virtually
no consumer marketing of explicit material.
In the case of BMG, of the 2,300 major releases we've put
out in the last two years, fewer than 100 were explicit, and
more than half of those had an edited version available, and
none of those were marketed to children. That's a fact.
Senator Dorgan. Well, when you talk about bringing some
facts, the implication is there aren't that many facts here.
The FTC report is based on a set of facts, an investigation
they did. I guess I reject the notion that this isn't based on
a foundation of findings that relate to what has been
happening, what companies are doing.
Mr. Zelnick. I think if you take a look at what we've heard
this morning, and I've been here all morning, a great deal of
time has been spent on people's criticism of the content of
what we do, and that's what Danny and I specifically reject. We
take responsibility for the content of what we do.
We don't choose to market explicit material to minors, we
don't believe in it.
And I think you'll get a good deal of assent in our
industry, even among people who are not like-minded that that's
inappropriate, and that we largely agree that there ought to be
specific standards that prevent that.
Where I think you lose this constituency, is when people
venture opinions about specific material and decry it as
shameful or not artistic.
That, in my view, is not the purview of the legislature of
this country.
Senator Dorgan. Well, the First Amendment applies not just
to our constituents but to those of us who serve in Congress.
If I choose to quote something that Lynn Cheney described here
from Eminem and say I happen to agree with her description of
that, I think it's disgusting. I have a 13-year-old son, a
wonderful young guy, and an 11-year-old daughter. You've got
children. Sam Brownback has children. We're all concerned about
trying to protect these children.
My son was given a CD by a group I'd have heard of, Limp
Bizkit, and my wife listened to the CD on the way to work one
day just to make sure, before she let him open it, and she came
back and she said, ``My God.'' And she told me what the CD was
about. Well, obviously he didn't listen to it because they
apparently had two versions of that, and whoever gave it to him
gave him the version with all of the vulgarity, and it's an
extraordinarily vulgar piece.
I looked at that CD. I don't see many CDs these days, but I
looked at it, and it wasn't very easy to see that there was a
rating on it--by the way; it wasn't very easy to see--I mean, I
didn't see it at first glance, but it was there.
I mean, I have a right as a parent to make a judgment about
that, and I hope you agree that you want to help parents all
across this country make sensible judgments about content. I
hope you want to do that.
Mr. Zelnick. We agree----
Senator Dorgan. You have a right to produce it----
Mr. Zelnick. --and we've said that.
Senator Dorgan. And I was going to ask you more about this
issue of what are your lines. I mean, you draw a line about
what you want to produce and what you're proud of producing,
and what you're proud of making a profit on. All of you do
that, I guess. What are the lines?
If you draw those lines, especially with relationship to
children, I'd be interested in knowing what those lines are.
And you say it's individual per company, that's fine. I'd just
be interested in knowing what your company's individual line
is. How do you, as a CEO, draw that line?
Mr. Goldberg. Artist by artist. Record by record. There's
not simplistic one-sentence or one-paragraph or one-page
answers as to how you evaluate an artist. You have to analyze
all of what they're doing. You have to meet the artist. You
have to have everybody in your company analyze how you think it
will affect people.
And there are all sorts of things that I and all of my
colleagues refuse to put out on moral grounds, some of them
that we can make money with.
There are also things that we choose to put out that would
be offensive to a lot of people, including people in this room
that we still think have a valid place in the marketplace and
are works of arts. And it's always been thus with
entertainment. There's always been entertainment that's very
offensive to some people and very popular with others.
I don't think any two of us have exactly the same criteria.
There are records that Strauss would put out that I wouldn't,
and vice versa. But we have to go with our own conscience and
with the sensibility of the people around us, and we certainly
are happy to inform parents and other consumers and retailers
about the nature of the content.
But we're not going to get a consensus about cursing, about
whether or not violence should be depicted in entertainment or
sex depicted in entertainment. These are cosmic questions that
have been debated for hundreds of years.
Senator Dorgan. That's a fair point and the four of you are
articulate in making your points. I would just ask one
additional question.
Senator McCain, I think, asked about labeling. I was
involved early on trying to make sure that everything you buy
in a grocery store is labeled so that consumers know what
they're buying. And I think you, Mr. Goldberg, or someone made
the point, there's a difference between string beans and ideas,
or whatever the term you used.
And that's a fair point, except that in both cases labeling
with respect to content is designed to accomplish certain
purposes. If we in this country would like, if parents want to
be empowered, and if we would like to have some basic content
labeling, don't you think there's an appropriate way to agree
on, generally speaking, what is appropriate for 10-year-olds or
12-year-olds or 14-year-olds?
Now Jack Valenti does it. I frankly think those standards
are changing rather quickly having seen a PG-13 last weekend
that had words in it that would not have been in some while
ago.
But Jack Valenti in the movie industry has done it for 30
years, and if they can do it--``R'', ``PG'', ``PG-13''--why
cannot we do it in virtually every other area?
This report here suggests there's, despite the ratings,
explicit marketing by these filmmakers to kids, which is wrong,
and we're going to talk about how to deal with that. But why
can't we do that?
Mr. Goldberg. Words are different from pictures. Pictures,
there's nudity or there's not nudity; there's blood or there's
not blood. He can talk far more eloquently than me about how
they do their ratings. Words have been categorized the way
you're suggesting. It doesn't exist for books, for magazines,
or for newspapers or for congressional testimony.
All that you can do is identify if certain dirty words are
there or not. There's no other history of categorizing words,
and I think it would be a very dangerous path to ask any
industry or any group in this society to go down. I think
better to make the words available and let each family make
their own decision about them.
And that's produced a vibrant culture that, all over the
world, people admire us for our popular culture. As much as
we're seeing the dark side of it, the same freedom that creates
that ugliness creates a lot of brilliance, and I'm not so sure
you can get rid of the stuff you don't like and still keep all
the stuff that inspires you.
Mr. Zelnick. But, Senator, our goal in fact was to do what
you did with that album that you and your wife listened to;
which is to advise you when there's explicit material. In most
cases, in the few cases we put out a record like that, we put
out an edited version as well, and to encourage parents to take
responsibility to do exactly what you did.
And the Advisory, by the way, is mandated by our trade
association. In most instances, the FTC report shows that we
do, in fact, comply with the placement of the logo, which is
generally quite vivid, at least from my perspective. So that
is, in fact, the goal.
And I agree with Danny, that particularly in the case of
music and words, standards can differ. One of the watch words
of the First Amendment has been certainly with regard to
obscenity discussions, which we all remember from law school,
actually, many of us remember from law school, is community
standards apply, and people can have different points of view
in different communities, just as what's right for my 18-year-
old may be quite different than what's right for your 13- or
14-year-old or, indeed, if you have an 18-year-old.
I think the point of view is to give people appropriate
information and not to market to children, and that's the
position that we take.
To address your earlier question about standards, while the
results may be different, I think Danny and I approach it the
same way; just last weekend there was a release in question. I
spent most of the weekend reading lyrics, which were lengthy,
listening to music, and having discussions with the creative
executive in charge of an album, the label executive in charge
of that executive's group of releases, and colleagues of mine
at the corporation before we decided to release a record.
So we take this very seriously, and I've taken it seriously
for the 17 years I've been in the entertainment business; I
haven't just taken it seriously for the 5 days that I knew I'd
be appearing before Congress.
The Chairman. Mr. Moore, you wanted to make a comment?
Mr. Moore. Senator, our business is a little more complex,
obviously, because we are interactive and it is visual, and so
as a result the E.S.R.B. actually breaks our ratings into five
separate ratings to inform parents.
We have Early Childhood, ``EC'', which is suitable for ages
three plus. Everyone ``E'', 6 plus. Teen ``T'', 13 plus; ``M''
Mature, 17 plus. On the very rare occasion that a title is
befitting, we have ``AO'', Adults Only.
But the challenge is that the descriptors below inform
parents.
But it brings me back to something that Senator Brownback
was saying, is that we all wander around supermarkets. And this
weekend I was in a supermarket at home in San Francisco, where
I live, and I watched a woman study a cereal box, $1.99 cereal
box for the nutritional value. And it strikes me if parents
would spend as much time scrutinizing the entertainment diet of
their child as they do the nutritional diet, many of these
issues wouldn't occur today. Everything is there for them to be
informed.
Senator Brownback. I would disagree that everything is
there for them to--
Senator Dorgan. Let me tell you, as a parent, you can watch
the most benign programming in the world and discover
advertising that comes on during that programming pushing a
whole range of other kinds of programming that in many ways is
fairly disgusting.
Again, let me say, the First Amendment gives people the
right to produce these issues. The issue here is targeting
inappropriate things to children. I think all of us agree
that's inappropriate.
Where it's happening, it ought to stop. And we can find
mechanisms to stop it, we ought to use those mechanisms without
resorting to censorship, and I think this kind of a hearing, as
I appreciate very much the Chairman for calling it. As I
indicated earlier, I introduced the first V-chip legislation in
the Senate when Congressman Markey introduced it in the House
because that empowers parents as well. I wish more parents used
it. I want to empower parents.
But I'll tell you, it's very hard sometimes. Turn on the
radio. With what's happening in the concentration of radio
these days, you've got something being run out of Texas
someplace, or a thousand radio stations, and you're using words
and various approaches on the radio that never used to be on
the radio, and you've got your 11-year-old daughter in the car
driving down the road with you, I'm horrified by it sometimes.
And I bet Senator Brownback is as well.
There are a whole series of standards that are of great
concern, and I think parents all across the country express
this concern.
I will only say this: You're right. You travel around the
world and you discover the influence of culture from--this pop
culture--from this country especially, it's influence around
the world. You can go deep in the mountain jungles of Nicaragua
and find T-shirts on campesinos that come to the helicopter,
and you'll find the influence of what the arts in this country
have been.
I'm somebody who supports the National Endowment for the
Arts. Go to Europe and find out what's left of the 16th Century
in Europe, its wonderful art and the legacy of that art.
But by the same token, you can't do this in a vacuum. You
can't say that what I do, I have the freedom to do and nobody
else has anything to say about it.
Families and parents in this country will have something to
say, perhaps, hopefully through the marketplace some say. But I
also hope, Mr. Zelnick, you've indicated several times now and
I appreciate it and others have as well, that you will help us
find ways to provide more information to parents to help them
become good parents and be better parents in dealing with all
of these influences that head the way the American families
entertainment is.
Sam, did you have anything?
Senator Brownback. The Chairman stated that we would go
into recess until 2:00.
I would pose to each of you, though, is there anything, any
image, any word that you could state now you would not put
forth in music or a video game?
Mr. Fischbach. Our products, cost between $40 and $50 and
$60 retail, and when you talk about a child going in to buy the
product, the child has to have some sort of parental consent in
order to do that, because he's not going to be able to pull out
a Mastercard or Visa or the $40 because he can't make it.
So when you're looking at games and you're looking at
informing them, we're doing all the things within our industry
to inform the parent to make correct decisions, that parent is
making the choice for the child.
Senator Brownback. You're not helping them in some cases,
but I understand we have a difference of opinion.
But can any of you state anything that right now you would
not----
Mr. Goldberg. Ninety-nine percent of the things submitted
to me I don't put out, many of them for moral reasons.
Senator Brownback. Could you state anything there? Any
word, any image, that you would not put out?
Mr. Goldberg. I wouldn't state any individual word that no
matter how it was used. There's no one word. Not in terms of an
individual word.
Senator Brownback. There's no image, pedophiles, anything
you wouldn't?
Mr. Goldberg. I didn't say that, Senator. That's not----
Senator Brownback. No, but I'm asking you. Would you state
here today any----
Mr. Goldberg. Well, if somebody put----
Senator Brownback. --image or any words that you would not
put forward in music or video games?
Mr. Goldberg. Any individual word?
Mr. Fischbach. I think you have to look at the totality of
the game and what it is, and I think that----
Senator Brownback. It's only yes or no.
Mr. Fischbach. --we make individual choices.
Mr. Goldberg. Is there any individual word that I would bar
from my label? No, there's no such individual word.
Senator Brownback. Is there any image that you would create
with the words, that you would create on video screen that you
could say here today that we would not put forth?
Mr. Fischbach. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Goldberg. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Fischbach. There are images we refuse to put out all
the time, and there are also words that are offensive that we
don't put out also.
Senator Brownback. And what are those?
Mr. Zelnick. You can't be specific about it, and certainly
this isn't the forum to be specific about it. But I can tell
you there's plenty of stuff that crosses my desk to which I say
no.
Senator Brownback. You cannot articulate anything of any
words or any images in the country that you wouldn't do?
Mr. Zelnick. Senator, I can articulate it easily and I can
articulate it inside the company.
Senator Brownback. Please.
Mr. Zelnick. I'm not going to articulate in these chambers
the basis for these artistic and moral and ethical decisions.
It's inappropriate. The responsibility lies inside my company.
It does not lie here. It's an inappropriate question.
Senator Brownback. You wouldn't----
Mr. Zelnick. But to your question, are there things we
won't----
Senator Brownback. It is not an inappropriate question----
Mr. Zelnick. --put out?
Senator Brownback. --and we've asked you----
Mr. Zelnick. May I please finish?
Senator Brownback. --for some time.
Mr. Zelnick. Are there things that we will not put out? You
bet there are. There are things we don't put out.
Senator Brownback. And what are those?
Mr. Zelnick. Things that we feel are offensive and cross
the line and are no longer art.
Senator Brownback. Can you describe any of that?
Mr. Zelnick. I can describe in the way that I just did:
They are offensive, they offend our consciences and we don't
believe they're art.
Senator Brownback. I take it the answer is ``no.''
Mr. Zelnick. No, the answer is not ``no,'' Senator.
Senator Brownback. Well, maybe you could write it to me and
submit it, then, so that we could understand. What we've asked
for some time is for a code of conduct for the industries,
wherein you would articulate, here's a floor below which we
will not go. We don't seem to have reached that yet. We're
just--we're asking.
Mr. Fischbach. I think as the floor changes and our culture
changes----
Senator Brownback. On this one here today we've had the
marketing plans that have been put forward by a number of
companies, so that's what we're trying to get at, and
apparently we're still not quite there.
Thank you all very much for coming here. We'll be in recess
until 2:00.
The Chairman. The hearing will come to order. We will
reconvene. I would like to reconvene this afternoon.
There's a vote going on on the floor of the Senate as we
speak, and I expect other members to arrive shortly.
Meanwhile, our fourth and final panel is Mr. Tom Diaz, who
is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Violence Policy Center; Ms.
Hillary Rosen, who's the President of the Recording Industry
Association; Mr. Douglas Lowenstein, who is the President of
Interactive Digital Software Association; Mr. Daniel
Borenstein, President of the American Psychiatric Association;
Dr. Donald Cook, who's the President of American Academy of
Pediatrics; Mr. Jack Valenti, President of the Motion Picture
Association, and Mr. Jeff McIntyre, President of the American
Psychological Association.
And I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here.
Mr. Diaz.
STATEMENT OF TOM DIAZ, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST,
VIOLENCE POLICY CENTER
Mr. Diaz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In keeping with some of the former autobiographical
introductions, I'd like to say I'm the father of two,
grandfather of one, a former gun nut, a former member of the
NRA, and I may still be an expert pistol shot. But one thing I
am not is President of the Violence Policy Center. I'm the
senior policy analyst.
The Chairman. I apologize, Mr. Diaz. We'll correct the
record. Senior Policy Analyst at the Violence Policy Center.
Thank you.
Mr. Diaz. Thank you.
The Federal Trade Commission's report on target marketing
violent images to kids in the entertainment media is important,
and we applaud your work.
But we feel we should worry more about kids who are the
targets of real bullets and not media images. We should worry
at least as much about how easy it is for children to get real
guns as how many pictures of guns they see, and we should worry
twice as much about the gun industry's, to use a phrase from
the FTC report, pervasive and aggressive marketing of guns to
kids.
So we urge that, along with looking at the entertainment
industry's target marketing of violent images, you also
investigate the gun industry's target marketing of real guns to
kids.
Senator Hollings said this morning that there have been 29
hearings in the history of this Committee on the entertainment
industry. There has never been a hearing in either house of the
Congress on the gun industry as a civilian gun industry. There
have been hearings on profit-making during wartime and on
specific aspects, but never a hearing on the industry itself.
We feel that America's parents should know what the gun
industry big wigs are doing to sell real guns to their kids as
much as what entertainment executives are doing to lure them
into the movies.
Movies and video games may inspire violent fantasies, but
real killing happens when children get real guns. Sick dreams
are one thing, but real guns turn violent fantasies into
murder, and that is the core of our problem today.
Even though the causes of violence by and against young
people in America are complex, one single thread runs through
youth violence, and that bloody marker is not movies, it is not
video games, it is not competing cliques of jocks and nerds, it
is guns.
It is no accident that America's children are awash in
guns. Kids have been in the gun industry's sights for a long
time. We recoil at the blood of children shot down by firearms,
but to the gun industry, children are the lifeblood of the gun
industry, and it makes no secret about it.
The gun industry has suffered declining demand for decades
in its primary market, which is older white males. So gun
industry executives have begun to target kids, along with--and
you mentioned this this morning, Mr. Chairman--targeting blacks
and Latinos.
The gun industry is also doing that in marketing firearms.
The gun industry has launched a children's crusade to
enlist kids into the ranks of the gun culture. It has a well
coordinated strategy, that is well documented, to recruit kids
to guns, and gun makers, importers and dealers spend millions
of dollars to implement that target marketing strategy.
This crusade reflects an important fact, that except for
tobacco, the gun industry is the only consumer product left in
America that is not regulated for health and safety. The gun
industry is truly the last and wildest bunch in America.
I feel that if you investigated the industry and looked at
how it's changed in, say the last 40 or 50 years, certainly
from the time when I learned to shoot in the Boy Scouts in
Mississippi, you will find that the mix of products that the
industry sells has changed dramatically.
In 1946, handguns made up 8 percent of the market; in 1994,
they made up 54 percent of the market, and they now regularly
make up about 50 percent of the market.
This is a little toy Smith & Wesson puts out. It's a teddy
bear that it sells through its marketing program. This teddy
bear, under the existing law, is more heavily regulated than
any of the firearms Smith & Wesson makes. If they put buttons
on this, these little eyes, all of this is regulated as a
consumer product, but the firearms Smith & Wesson makes are
not.
Here's another little cammie jumper that Smith & Wesson
makes. It's called the Little Smith, all of this designed to
recruit kids into the gun culture.
Now if movies were truly the source of the epidemic of
youth violence in America, we believe we'd see similar violence
in other countries where the same films are shown but the
record does not bear this out. I won't bore you with the
details.
Allusion was made to that this morning. But it's quite
clear that the United States stands alone in terms of firearm
related deaths. Among U.S. children, 14 years and younger, our
firearms deaths are 12 times higher than the same rate among
children in 25 other industrialized countries combined.
American kids are not more evil than kids in other
countries. The difference is not movies or cliques of jocks and
nerds, the difference is guns. And we feel real progress cannot
be made until we take on this industry, stop the easy access to
firearms by children, and stop particularly, which is related
to the FTC report, the gun industry's aggressive marketing of
firearms to kids.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Diaz.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Diaz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Diaz, Senior Policy Analyst, Violence Policy
Center
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present the views
of the Violence Policy Center--a non-partisan, non-profit institute
dedicated to the study of firearms violence in America--on the roots of
violence among youth in this country. The Federal Trade Commission's
report addresses one aspect of youth violence. However, it is crucial
that we look at all facets of this issue, the gravity of which is
beyond question.
The horrible events at Columbine High School in Littleton,
Colorado, last year snapped matters into focus for all Americans.
Whether overall violence in our schools is up, down, or sideways became
beside the point. No sane society can accept its children being gunned
down in its very halls of learning. No caring society can accept a
Columbine--much less a Columbine plus a Springfield, Oregon . . . a
Jonesboro, Arkansas . . . a West Paducah, Kentucky . . . a Pearl,
Mississippi, and more. These are merely the better known school
shootings in the United States within the last three years alone.
As horrible as these school shootings are, their deeper importance
is as a warning signal of a pervasive problem festering in our society,
the growing entanglement of children and firearms. In 1998, the last
year for which data is available, 2,887 children--that is, young people
18 years of age and under--were killed by firearms. That number of
deaths, in a very ordinary year in America, is the equivalent of 206
Columbine shootings.
I. We Must Address Easy Access to Guns as Well as Exposure to Violent
Images
The causes of this epidemic of violence by and against young people
in America are varied and complex. The FTC report addresses one of
them. But one other single thread runs like a blood red marker through
all of this youth violence. That bloody marker is not movies. It is not
day care. It is not competing cliques of jocks and nerds, nor is it any
of the score of other sophisticated ``reasons'' advanced to explain
these shootings every time one occurs. The single constant factor is
the unique availability of firearms to young people in the United
States. Short of war, no other country in the world, and perhaps no
other society in history, has given its children such unrestrained
access to so many weapons capable of so much violence.
Yes, our children are bombarded from infancy with images of violent
behavior. These images--increasingly explicit and realistic in movies,
videos, and computer games--may inspire actual violent behavior among
some children and among some adults. But whatever deviant urges these
images inspire would be much less lethal if our children did not have
the ready access to firearms that our society indulges today.
This raises fundamental questions for the policy debate you are
engaged in. For example, which makes more sense? To try to change an
entire culture's imaginative arts, to regulate its literature, and
control its expressive freedoms? Or to more intelligently regulate the
single thing that we know is involved over and over and over again in
youth violence--the gun? Does it make sense to sacrifice real First
Amendment rights while tiptoeing around putative rights under the
Second Amendment, rights that the National Rifle Association and the
gun lobby have grossly inflated?
In short, we need to worry more about how easy it is for our
children to get real guns than about how many pictures of guns they
see.
II. The Gun Industry Actively Markets Firearms to Children and
Juveniles
It is no accident that America's children are literally awash in
guns. The gun industry has worked hard to make it that way. It pours
millions of guns into our society every year and aggressively seeks to
attract children to using those guns.
We recoil at the blood of children shot down by firearms. But the
gun industry sees children as the lifeblood of the firearms business.
The hard economic fact is that the gun industry has been faced with
declining demand for three decades in its primary gun-buying market--
older white males. So it has launched a crusade to recruit children
(along with women and members of minority groups) into the ranks of the
gun culture, what it euphemistically calls ``the shooting sports.'' The
industry has exerted enormous effort to develop a well-coordinated
strategy, and spends millions upon millions of dollars to implement
that strategy by recruiting young people into its heavily armed
children's crusade. It works hand-in-hand with the gun lobby and with
gun fanzines, and exploits youth-oriented magazines and other outlets,
to promote guns to children.
The industry's primary objective is to recruit future customers to
shore up its declining markets. It knows that a person exposed to
firearms as a child is about three times more likely to buy guns as an
adult than one who is not exposed to firearms. The industry and the gun
lobby are also recruiting foot soldiers in the ongoing social and
political debate about the proper role of and limits on firearms in our
society.
However, the gun industry's techniques are not restricted to simply
conditioning children to be future customers as adults. It goes so far
as to market firearms directly to kids who are too young to buy them.
The attitude of the industry is illustrated by a 1993 column by Grits
Gresham in the National Shooting Sports Foundation's S.H.O.T. Business
(distributed free of charge to manufacturers, dealers, and
distributors) which observed:
LKids can't buy guns, you say? Well, yes and no. It's true that
most students from kindergarten through high school can't purchase
firearms on their own. But it's also true that in many parts of the
country, youngsters (from preteens on up) are shooting and hunting. Pop
picks up the tab. Whether they continue to shoot and hunt depends, to a
great degree, on whether or not the desire is there. That's where you
come in. Every decade there is a whole new crop of shining young faces
taking their place in society as adults. They will quickly become the
movers and shakers. Many of them can vote before leaving high school,
whether they do or not. You can help see that they do. . . . Are you in
for the long haul? If so, it's time to make your pitch for young minds,
as well as for the adult ones. Unless you and I, and all who want a
good climate for shooting and hunting, imprint our positions in the
minds of those future leaders, we're in trouble. . . . \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Shooting Sports Foundation, SHOT Business (September/
October 1993).
Gresham raised here a key point in the industry strategy. Kids
cannot buy guns legally, but they can possess them. This is a
reflection of the patchwork nature of gun laws regulating firearms
possession by juveniles. (These loopholes are addressed below in this
statement). The industry has continuously and vigorously taken
advantage of these facts to market guns to children.
What about guns in movies, television, and electronic games? Here
we know that gun companies work to place specific firearms in such
media in order to stimulate demand for that product. This should not
surprise us. If so-called ``product placement'' works for makers of
cigarettes (Lark in License to Kill) computers (Apple in Independence
Day), running shoes (Reebok in Ghost and Nike in Forrest Gump),
automobiles (BMW in Goldeneye), and alcoholic beverages (Budweiser in
Flipper and Tin Cup), it should also work for guns.
The gun industry at least thinks that product placement works. One
gun maker, Smith & Wesson, was reported to have paid International
Promotions, a specialized product placement firm, to help get its guns
into the movies. But such direct expenditures seem to be the exception.
Instead, gun companies work closely with so-called ``prop houses'' to
cast their guns as costars.
The president of a Long Island company that supplies weapons and
pyrotechnics to movies told me last year that gun manufacturers
``sometimes reach out to us if they have a new product and they think
it will be hot.'' He said that manufacturers are ``more than happy to
provide us with what we need, or loan or give us a discount.'' A gun
handler at the premier gun prop house in California confirmed this
practice in a separate conversation with me. ``Manufacturers express
their wish to us,'' he said. ``We work closely with most everybody. We
have a long term relationship that works both ways.''
The list of specific guns and gun makers that have benefitted from
their few minutes on the screen range from Smith & Wesson's .44 Magnum
Model 29 revolver, wielded by Dirty Harry, to Glock and Beretta
semiautomatic pistols in several score movies, to so-called ``Desert
Eagle'' Magnum pistols and endless varieties of shotguns and assault
weapons.
Don't think that children attracted to guns do not know the brand
differences among guns. They do.
Having said all that, however, the key point remains this:
fascination with a given gun may be disturbing to some in the abstract.
But it becomes lethal when children can get their hands on the guns
that turn violent fantasies into mass killings. That is the core of our
problem today.
If you think the problem has gone away, think again. According to a
1999 CDC survey of youth risk behavior, one out of every 20 high-school
students (grades 9 thru 12) had brought a gun to school with them in
the past month. And for males, it was even higher, nearly one out of
every 10 had brought a gun to school. Kids know where to get the tools
to implement their fantasies. We make it easy for them.
III. Kids' Access to Guns is the Result of Lack of Regulation of the
Gun Industry
It is not a coincidence that the gun industry feels free to market
its products to children. Nor is it a coincidence that the gun industry
has completely restructured the civilian gun market in the last 50
years from one that was primarily sporting and recreation oriented to
one that now emphasizes what an NRA official candidly admitted is the
``Rambo factor''--high-capacity, high-powered handguns and military
style assault weapons, designed and primarily useful for engaging other
human beings in mortal combat.
The reason is simple. Unlike every other consumer product in
America, excepting tobacco, firearms are not regulated for health and
safety. This deadly immunity from basic product health and safety
regulation is the biggest loophole in our nation's gun laws. It is
worth noting that no committee of either house of Congress has ever
held a hearing on the civilian gun industry--although it has closely
scrutinized the health and safety aspects of the tobacco industry, the
entertainment industry, the airline industry, and even the funeral
industry.
Free from such basic regulation and rudimentary scrutiny, the gun
industry over the last three decades has deliberately enhanced its
profits by increasing the lethality--the killing power--of the products
it sells. Lethality is the nicotine of the gun industry. Time and time
again, the gun industry has injected into the civilian market new guns
that are specifically designed to be better at killing and, not
incidentally, to jolt lagging markets to life. The industry has relied
on greater ammunition capacity, higher firepower in the form of bigger
caliber, increased concealability, or all three to create demand for
its products.
We regularly see the effects of this orgy of increased killing
power all around us. Here are just a few of many examples:
The explosion of handguns. In 1946, handguns accounted for
only 8 percent of the civilian gun market in the United States.
In 1994, they accounted for 54 percent! No wonder that more
than two out of three of the one million Americans who have
died by firearms violence since 1962 were killed with handguns,
the perfect tool for killing a human being at close range.\2\
In 1998, handguns were used in 82 percent of the homicides by
juvenile offenders who used a firearm. Overall, 63 percent of
victims of homicides by juvenile offenders were murdered with a
handgun that year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Data sources: Fatal Firearm Injuries in the United States 1962-
1994. Violence Surveillance Summary Series, No. 3, 1997. Deaths: Final
Data for 1995, Deaths: Final Data for 1996, Deaths: Final Data for
1997. National Vital Statistics Report.
The growth of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons.
In the 1980s the gun industry introduced military-style assault
weapons to the civilian market. The consequences of the
unrestrained marketing of such killing machines can be seen in
events like the massacre at Columbine High School, where the
teenaged gunmen, armed with an assault pistol and a high-
capacity carbine, were able to engage an armed security guard
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in a gun battle--and win!
The promotion of ``pocket rockets.'' The gun industry has
lately been heavily promoting what it calls ``pocket rockets,''
which are very small (palm-sized) high caliber, easily
concealed handguns. These guns are ideal for stuffing into a
child's back pack. After self-proclaimed white supremacist
Buford O. Furrow, Jr. shot up the North Valley Jewish Community
Center in Granada Hills, California, last year, he used a Glock
pocket rocket to kill a postal employee, who happened to be a
Filipino-American, as a ``target of opportunity.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Alejandro Mayorkas Holds Briefing With Others on the Furrow
Case,'' FDCH Political Transcripts (August 12, 1999).
It happens that proposed legislation, S. 534, the Firearm Safety
and Consumer Protection Act, would help solve this problem by ending
the gun industry's exemption from basic health and safety regulation.
There are other loopholes in existing law that help make it easier
for children to get access to firearms.
A. Lack of Uniform Age Restrictions Makes it Easier for Kids to Get
Guns
Federal law on guns and youth is currently a patchwork. There are
no uniform federal restrictions on sales to minors or possession of
guns by minors. Instead, the law treats different classes of guns
differently and contains major loopholes, even within the restrictions.
For example:
L1. Handguns. Federal law prohibits anyone under 21 years old from
buying a handgun from a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL). And,
nominally, federal law prohibits handgun possession by anyone under the
age of 18 years old--although the law contains numerous exemptions.\4\
In other words, federal law has created a dangerous ``grey zone''
regarding youth and handguns. It is illegal for anyone under the age of
21 to buy a handgun at a gun store. But it is legal for those over the
age of 18 to possess a handgun. This leaves a dangerous gap for youth
between the ages of 18 and 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Violent Crime Control Law Enforcement Act of 1994 made it
illegal for any person, with some exceptions, to sell or transfer a
handgun or handgun ammunition to anyone under 18 years of age. The
exceptions include: temporary transfer or possession or use to a
juvenile in the course of employment, target practice, hunting, safety
instruction, and with prior written consent of the juvenile's parent or
guardian who is not prohibited from possessing a firearm; juveniles who
are members of the Armed Forces of the United States or the National
Guard; a transfer by inheritance of title (but not possession) to a
juvenile; and, possession taken in self-defense or for other persons
against an intruder into the residence of a juvenile or a residence in
which the juvenile is an invited guest. It also made it unlawful for a
juvenile, with the same exceptions, to possess a handgun or handgun
ammunition.
LThis gap is reflected in the following statistic: In 1997, 18-,
19-, and 20-year-olds ranked first, second, and third in the number of
gun homicides committed. Of all gun homicides where an offender was
identified, 24 percent were committed by 18- to 20-year-olds.\5\ And
handguns are the most common type of gun recovered from the 18-to-20
age group (85 percent according to the ATF's 1998 Youth Crime Gun
Interdiction Initiative report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Department of the Treasury and The Department of Justice,
Gun Crime in the Age Group 18 to 20 (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1999), 2.
L2. Long Guns (Shotguns and Rifles) Federal law prohibits juveniles
under 18 from buying rifles and shotguns from FFLs. But possession of
shotguns and rifles by juveniles is regulated solely at the state
level. In many states it is legal for juveniles to possess both
shotguns and rifles, although other states regulate or prohibit
possession of either of these long guns. A 1998 poll conducted by The
New York Times and CBS News found that 15 percent of American youths
owned their own gun.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Laurie Goodstein, ``Teen-Age Poll Finds a Turn to the
Traditional,'' The New York Times, 30 April 1998, A1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Gun Show Loophole Makes it Easier for Kids to Get Guns
One of the most notorious loopholes is that which allows sales of
all kinds of firearms at gun shows without background checks. These
sales are made by so-called ``hobbyists,'' many of whom are for all
intents and purposes, other than a purposively blind federal law,
simply unlicensed gun dealers. This loophole allowed a friend to buy
two shotguns and one rifle for Columbine shooters Klebold and Harris
with no background check. The friend later testified before the
Colorado legislature that she would not have bought the guns if she had
had to face a background check.
The Senate has passed an amendment that would close this gun show
loophole. The Lautenberg amendment to S. 254 (juvenile justice
legislation) would require that all firearm sales at gun shows be
transacted by a federally licensed firearms dealer. The licensed dealer
would be required to conduct a background check of the purchaser and
keep records of the gun sales carried out at the gun show.
IV. International Comparisons Show Access to Guns is the Key
If movies were truly the source of our epidemic of youth gun
violence, we would expect to see similar results in other countries
where the same films are shown. But the record does not bear this
premise out. In fact, the contrary is true. The devastating effect on
American children of the ready availability of firearms is graphically
illustrated when one compares gun death rates among U.S. children to
children who live in other countries.
The international gross sales of violent movies is often close to
and in some cases (such as True Lies and Die Hard: With a Vengeance)
greater than U.S. gross. Although children in other countries are
exposed to the same movies, videos, and music as American children, a
recent CDC study showed that the overall firearm-related death rate
among U.S. children aged 14 years and younger was nearly 12 times
higher than among children in 25 other industrialized countries
combined!
The firearms homicide rate in the U.S. was nearly 16 times higher
than that of the other 25 countries. The firearms suicide rate was
nearly 11 times higher than that of the other 25 countries. The
unintentional firearms death rate was nine times higher than the other
25 countries.
The difference is not movies or cliques of jocks and nerds. The
difference is guns. The United States has unparalleled rates of firearm
ownership. According to one study published in Popular Government,
Winter 2000, 28 percent of households in the United States have
handguns. The next highest rate of handgun ownership is Switzerland
with 12 percent. Most industrialized countries such as Canada and
France have handgun-owning households in the low single digits (4.8
percent for Canada, 5.5 percent for France).
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the Violence Policy Center strongly
believes that little real progress can or will be made on the problem
of juvenile violence unless and until we grapple directly with the
underlying problem of easy access to firearms by children and the
promotion of the gun culture by the gun industry itself.
The Chairman. Ms. Rosen, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HILLARY B. ROSEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
Ms. Rosen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am president of the RIAA. It's the trade association of
America's record companies. Our membership is as diverse as the
music they produce.
I speak for thousands of people in the recording industry
whose views on youth violence and culture are similar to this
Committee's, not just informed by our industries, but by our
families and our community.
I am proud to be a member of an industry that has worked
with artists to create the most diverse music in the world,
with an amazing mix of musical styles, lyrical imagination, and
cultural experiences.
And we're also proud of our 15-year track record of helping
parents make informed choices about their kids' music
listening.
I'm not going to go on long. It's been a long hearing
today, Mr. Chairman, and I obviously will associate myself with
the remarks of Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Zelnick this morning. I
promised I'd get them here, I didn't promise you'd agree with
everything they said, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I think we've had a very good exchange of
views.
Ms. Rosen. I think so, too.
I would ask that my full statement go in the record of the
hearing.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Ms. Rosen. I have a couple of other things that I would ask
be a part of this record as well, two white papers that we
submitted to the FTC in their examination; a media coalition
report called Shooting The Messenger, which I think informs the
issues a lot about media and violence and a survey on what
young people have been saying on this issue.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The information referred to has been retained in the Committee's
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman. Without objection, it will be a part of the
record.
Ms. Rosen. I'd like to go to the FTC report with respect to
music because, despite a lot of the fire, those who have read
the report, will see that in terms of marketing, music really
has been sort of unique.
I don't want to minimize the importance that people place
on the report, but the marketing of music really was not a
significant issue in the FTC report.
I think that the FTC findings can be summed up in a few
sentences: Parents are satisfied with the industry's ratings
system even though the FTC wasn't. Seventy-four percent of
parents said that they were. And the majority of CDs that were
stickered were also available in edited form.
And as far as I can tell, there were really one or two
instances of advertising in any place where there was a
majority underage audience. So while there's a lot of things to
be said for what's in the report, I think with respect to these
different industries, they should be looked at with some
detail.
We also have a situation in the music industry that made
the report's conclusions difficult, which is that since so much
of the music available is available in an edited version, those
three or four instances, the FTC found, where there might have
been a younger teen audience that had a marketing plan aimed
towards it, there's no mention of whether or not that was an
edited version of the music available. Perhaps the FTC knows
that, but that's not in the report.
The principal and I think most accurate criticism in the
FTC report, which I acknowledge, is that record retailers each
handle the sale of stickered product to young people in
different ways.
Some simply don't sell any stickered products at all. Wal-
Mart and K-Mart are the known examples.
Others will sell to most anybody. And then there are other
retailers all along the line in between.
I understand that this is viewed as an enforcement problem,
but in reality there really is nothing that prevents or, in my
view, can prevent retailers from determining their own policies
based on their own local community standards for themselves and
their customers.
In any event, this really is something over which record
companies don't have nor, to be honest, do we want to have any
control over.
The FTC recommends three things that all of our industries
should do: The first is establish guidelines for advertising.
We've done that.
The second is increase compliance at retail. They're going
to make their own decisions.
And the third is increase parental awareness of the label.
Seventy-seven percent of parents, the FTC acknowledges, are
already aware of it, but we can do a better job and we will do
that.
The Chairman. You're saying that the first recommendation
you're doing? The first recommendation of the FTC?
Ms. Rosen. We have advertising guidelines. The FTC report
actually----
The Chairman. You have--all right, go ahead. Please.
Ms. Rosen. Well, I'll explain that.
The FTC report acknowledges that their conclusions came out
prior to seeing revised guidelines that they then appended to
their report.
The Chairman. They weren't reviewing your guidelines, they
were reviewing your practices, your marketing practices.
Ms. Rosen. Well, what I'm saying is they found four
instances, and they were all vague.
The Chairman. It's not their conclusions, but we'll have
that.
Ms. Rosen. I understand. Is my time up or do I get a few
minutes?
The Chairman. No, no. Go ahead. Please.
Ms. Rosen. Okay. A survey by Garin-Hart shows that there is
somewhat of a disconnect about generations on this issue of
culture. They surveyed parents who said that they thought that
the most influential thing for their children were television,
movies, the Internet, games, their friends, other things like
music.
When they asked children the same thing, the number one,
two, and three most important influences that teenagers said
was their parents, their teachers, and their churches. And so I
am sympathetic with parents who feel that their children are no
longer under their moral authority or control, but in practice
is just not that case.
I think that ascribing too much power to culture is a
danger for all of us, and that the test of commitment to our
young people is not how strongly each of us in this discussion
can defend our papers or defend our positions but whether
everybody is working together to address the complex issues,
the truly complex issues that our young people are facing
today.
I think we've done a good bit of our part of that in the
last 15 years, and I'm confident that we'll do so in decades to
come.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Rosen.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rosen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hillary B. Rosen, President and CEO, Recording
Industry Association
I am President and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of
America. RIAA is the trade association of America's record companies.
Our membership is as diverse as our music.
I speak for thousands upon thousands of people in the recording
industry. Our views on youth violence and culture--just like those of
Members of this Committee and others who testify before it--are not
informed by their professional capacities alone.
They are informed by our dreams for our own kids--our concerns
about our community--and our commitment to our country.
We are proud to be members of an industry who work with artists to
create the most diverse music in the world filled with a multitude of
musical styles, lyrical imagination and cultural experiences. And we
are also proud of our 15-year track record of helping parents make
informed choices about their children's entertainment.
Throughout that period, the issue of how entertainment affects
children has wandered back and forth between the headlines from the
back pages. But we have been consistent.
Today, as the issue finds itself back on the front pages again, we
are proud to speak with you just as authoritatively and every bit as
passionately as we have for each of the last 15 years.
Today, Mr. Chairman, I want to explain how the recording industry's
system works, how it has been improved and attempt to specifically
address some of the FTC's criticisms.
I am somewhat hampered in the latter task. The public or Members of
this Committee may not realize this but while some (including this
Committee's staff) were apparently briefed on the report a few weeks
ago Mr. Chairman, we only received it two days ago. The FTC had over
one year to do all of its analysis, compile a hundred page report and a
250 or so page annex with thousand of footnotes containing significant
detail and assumptions and we have had 48 hours to look at it before
this hearing.
The Recording Industry's Voluntary Program
The premise of our system is to balance an artist's right of self-
expression with a parents' need for information to make choices based
on their children's individual situation and their own values.
In 1985, we reached agreement on that approach with the National
Parent Teacher Association and the Parents Music Resource Center.
Within months, music releases with explicit lyrics, whether about
violence or sex, were identified.
I should add that despite the emphasis at these hearings on
recordings with explicit content, they comprise a relatively small
proportion of our industry's output and the themes and language
contained in all of our music is a part of today's society.
In an average retail store with 110,000 titles, about 500 will
carry the Parental Advisory logo. That's less than one-half of one
percent of that store's total inventory. And the major labels produce
clean versions of nearly all recordings that carry the logo.
And let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, that this industry is a very
tough customer. Recently a story in The New York Times carried this
headline: ``Recording Industry's Strictest Censor Is Itself.''
Is this system perfect? Of course not. Even if it had been,
entertainment is a constantly evolving industry.
So where our system was imperfect, we have tried to improve it.
Where entertainment media evolved, we have tried to adapt to them.
Some thought we hadn't gone far enough--that parents couldn't spot
the advisory easily.
So in 1990, we established a uniform, universally recognizable
Parental Advisory logo. It is one inch by a half-inch on cassettes and
CD jewel boxes.
We have launched extensive marketing campaigns to educate both
parents and retailers about the system.
With the advent of the Internet, we recently created standards for
applying the Parental Advisory logo to online sales.
We worked with retailers to use the logo in the way they feel best
squares with their own values and needs. Some retailers, for example,
chose not to sell recordings carrying the Parental Advisory logo to
minors. We cooperate with this decision.
Indeed, we welcome it as an indication that this system is working
precisely as we intended it--by giving people the information they need
to make their own decisions based on their own values.
Our most recent attempt to fine-tune this system will take effect
just over two weeks from now, on October 1, with the implementation of
RIAA's new guidelines for the Parental Advisory label.
The revised guidelines cover the following areas.
First, they provide uniform standards to guide a label and artist
in deciding whether to apply the Parental Advisory logo. They advise
that this decision be made by weighing contemporary cultural morals.
They clarify that the logo should be applied to single-track recordings
when they are commercially released as well as full albums.
Second, these guidelines indicate that the Parental Advisory logo
should be applied in all advertising of a recording that carries the
logo.
Finally, we created Internet guidelines for the first time. These
guidelines call for a specific display of a parental advisory logo for
on-line sales. The Parental advisory should be visible from the catalog
pages all the way through to the shopping basket.
Today, the recording industry's system has taken root in the public
mind and the popular culture. They are instantly recognized. And 74% of
parents say they are effective.
So What Did the FTC Find?
From what I can tell, the FTC's findings can be summed up in few
sentences. Parents are satisfied with the industry's rating systems to
the extent that 74% said so, but the FTC is not. The majority of CD's
that carried the sticker were also available in edited form. As far as
I can tell, there was one--I repeat one--specific incident of a
television program where this music was advertised with a majority
under 17 years of age audience and three more that were questionable.
Hardly a sweeping industry condemnation. Indeed, since our guidelines
are only voluntary and have never contained any age specific
restrictions, there is nothing wrong with these companies leaving the
decision to parents to determine what their kids should own.
There were a few instances where an album was seemingly marketed to
younger teens (the actual specifics are not in the report) although
since the FTC report does not delineate whether or not those albums had
edited versions available, it is impossible to draw the conclusion that
younger teens were subjected to anything that might have been
inappropriate.
The report also says that all of its conclusions were reached prior
to having the revised guidelines issued by the RIAA, which addresses
these concerns.
The principle and most accurate criticism in the FTC report with
regard to music is that record retailers each handle the sale of
stickered product to young people in different ways. Some don't sell
any stickered product at all and others will sell to most anyone. I
understand that this is viewed as an ``enforcement'' problem but in
reality, there is nothing that prevents retailers from determining
their own policies based on their own local community standards for
themselves and their customers. In any event, it is not something over
which record companies have or want to have any control.
The FTC recommends three things that all of the industry should do:
L1. Establish guidelines for advertising--we have
L2. Increase compliance at retail--retailers make their own
decisions
L3. Increase parental understanding of the label--77% of the people
have said that they are aware but we can always do more education
Music Is Just Music
Those whose concern for our children is most sincere have the
greatest interest in ensuring the problem violence is tackled at its
real source. And Mr. Chairman, music recordings are not that source.
I wish it were possible to alter depression or anger through
musical lyrics. If it were, you would see a flood of songs urging kids
to seek help.
But the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry lists 14
signs to look for in a suicidal violent child. Music choices are not
among them.
The Committee will hear today from experts who posit a correlation
between violent behavior and explicit lyrics. That is to say that both
occur at the same time--that some youth who listen to music with
explicit lyrics also behave violently.
I leave it to people whose expertise in psychology and psychiatry
exceeds my own to pontificate on the subject but there simply are no
factual correlative studies. We have done the research. In fact, so has
the FTC. They said so in this report.
Indeed, the best evidence is experience, and experience in this
case is clear. Behind me, Mr. Chairman, are two charts. One shows music
sales rising by 4% between 1994 and 1999, and the other shows violent
crime among youth falling 27% over the same period. They are not
related and that is the point.
Another statistic that is not on a chart but is well know to any
elected official is that voting among young people is at an all time
low. I have spent much of my career encouraging young people to get
involved in the political process. To stand up for their future and to
talk to politicians about issues they care about. But young people are
a smart and cynical bunch today. They don't like it when their culture
is attacked even when it is in the guide of corporate responsibility.
A bipartisan survey by Garin-Hart Research and American Viewpoint
showed this disconnect among the generations on the issue of culture.
When parents were asked what most influenced their kids, they said,
television, movies, the Internet, games, music and their friends. When
teenagers were asked, they said overwhelmingly, parents, teachers and
their church were the most important influences on their lives.
I am sympathetic with parents who feel that their children are no
longer under their moral control. But it just isn't the case.
When we take culture that we don't understand and ascribe power and
motivation to it that is well beyond how its audience receives it we do
a disservice to young people. Young people who continue to need the
guidance and leadership of adults in their lives. It is simply wrong to
suggest that any government regulatory action can substitute for such
involvement, particularly when it comes to art.
This debate over music keeps coming back to the same thing. Despite
all of the trappings and new ways to look at the issue, the fact is
that some people just don't like the music. And that, is a freedom of
expression issue.
The Committee is concerned about violent and sexual lyrics. As a
parent, so am I. But I want to apply my own values--the needs of my
individual children--to decide what sources of entertainment are
appropriate for them.
If we attempt to apply any other standard, no bonfire will be tall
enough to burn the centuries of art that will have to go up in flames.
If violence is inherently demeaning to culture, then Verdi's
Rigolletto--in which he opens a sack to find it contains his dying
daughter--belongs on the pyre. So does Strauss's Salome--in which Herod
presents Salome with the head of John the Baptist on a platter. For
that matter the recent Dixie Chicks song where a wife exacts revenge
for an abusive spouse by poisoning his food is in theory equally
violent. A new Steve Earle song talks about a death row killer and his
crimes and the value of life and death.
Incidentally, nobody has asked for an advisory label on those CD's.
I fully understand those who with utter sincerity feel there is a
difference between rap lyrics and grand opera or country music. But
there really isn't.
But remember that these artists were criticized in their day. So
were others like them, from Picasso to Stravinsky, Flaubert to James
Joyce, Charlie Chaplin to Lenny Bruce to George Carlin to Imus--were
also dismissed in their time. Classics are rarely recognized in the
momentary heat of controversy.
And remember that the distinction between high art and the low road
is deeply rooted in individual values and perspectives.
For each person who believes rap lyrics portray a foreign world,
there is another who finds them deep and powerful because that world is
all too real.
And above all, we must remember this: In our country, expression is
not required to pass any test of validity, or even propriety, to be
both permitted and protected.
After all, the test of whether America allows free speech is not
whether it grants freedom to those with whom we mildly disagree. It is
whether we protect the freedom of those whose views--and language--make
us apoplectic.
Still, I testify today in a spirit of confidence and cooperation--
because I speak here as both an executive and a parent.
I care as deeply and passionately about my own children as I know
you do about your own. So do my colleagues in the recording industry,
from artists to executives.
The real test of commitment to our youth is not how strongly each
participant in this discussion can defend its positions or papers, but
whether every party can work together to address the complex blend of
challenges facing our children.
The last 15 years have proven that we can. And I am confident that
we can do so for decades to come. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Lowenstein, I welcome you. And I want to
emphasize the importance of your appearance here as we go
through a change in America where more and more Americans are
going to be attaining their entertainment and their music from
the Internet and with new technologies. So we are especially
pleased to have you here.
Mr. Lowenstein. I'm honored to be here, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS LOWENSTEIN, PRESIDENT,
INTERACTIVE DIGITAL SOFTWARE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Lowenstein. I originally wrote my testimony as a ``Good
morning,'' and I'll change it to a ``Good afternoon.'' I'm
thankful that I haven't had to change it to a ``Good Evening.''
The Chairman. We're not through with you yet.
Mr. Lowenstein. That's true.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lowenstein. I am pleased to be here representing the
Interactive Digital Software Association, the trade body which
represents the computer and video game software industry in the
United States.
In reference to your point, our members are also the
leading companies that will be the leading edge of publishing
games for use on the Internet.
Our industry generated $6.1 billion in retail sales in
1999. In keeping with----
The Chairman. Up from what?
Mr. Lowenstein. Well, it you go back five years, just to
give you a frame of reference, sales were about $3 billion. So
sales have about doubled. In over the five-year period, they've
been increasing on a double-digit rate pretty much every year.
Like almost everybody who's been here today, I have two
children--two daughters aged 18 and 14. I also lost an uncle 20
years ago to gun violence. A mentally deranged individual
acquired a gun, crossed state lines, shot my uncle in his
office.
So I don't take a back seat to anybody here when it comes
to concerns about violence.
I do want to start my remarks by dispelling some myths
about our industry. One myth is that video games are played
predominately by teenage boys. The fact is that the average age
of computer and video game players is 28, and 61 percent of all
game players are over 18, and 35 percent are over the age of
36.
And if you think back to Gregory Fischbach's comments, that
reflects the maturing of a generation that began playing
interactive entertainment 20 and 25 years ago.
Better than 6 out of 10 of the most frequent users of
electronic entertainment are also over 18.
A second myth is that kids buy most video games on their
own, and parents are out of the picture. In fact, both the FTC
and the IDSA report that in at least 8 out of 10 cases in the
case of the FTC, 83 percent, and as high as 9 out of 10 parents
in the case of our own research, are involved directly in the
purchase, in the buying of electronic entertainment.
These games cost $40 to $60, typically. It is very
different from the cost of a music CD or going to movies, and
there's a fundamental economic issue that makes it much more
difficult for children to buy Interactive entertainment.
The FTC put it well when it said in its report: ``It is
clear that most parents are able to play a watchdog role when
they choose to do so. This level of parental involvement,
either at the point of selection or purchase means that most
parents have the opportunity to review rating information or to
check the product packaging to determine whether they approve
of the game's content.''
A third and final myth is that most games are rated Mature
and contain significant levels of violence. Once again, the
facts say otherwise. The Entertainment Software Rating Board
that you've heard discussed this morning, and even critics like
Senator Joe Lieberman have complimented that system for its
accuracy and reliability.
Under the E.S.R.B., over the seven years it's been in
business, and 7,500 titles it's rated, only 9 percent carry a
Mature rating, indicating significant violent content.
Seventy percent are rated for everyone over six.
In 1999, only 100, 100 out of 1,500 video games released,
were rated Mature, and they represented just five percent, five
percent of the total sales to the video game industry last
year.
So far this year, of the top 20 best selling games, only
two are rated Mature and 16 are rated ``E'' for everyone, the
others are rated ``Teen.''
As to an epidemic of Mature-rated advertisements bombarding
kids, just 10 percent of all game ads placed in the 16 leading
game magazines since February were for M-rated product, and
virtually all were in magazines with a majority, or close to a
majority, of readers over 17.
In short, this industry has seen its sales double since
1995, and the bulk of that growth has been fueled by consumers
over the age of 18 and by games whose content has brought
appeal.
The video and PC game industry has a proven commitment to
effective self-regulation and responding to concerns about the
small number of our products that contain significant violence,
from establishing the E.S.R.B., to creating an advertising
code, to investing and promoting the E.S.R.B.
You've heard about the PSA we did last year with Tiger
Woods; other paid media efforts that we're committed to,
efforts to encourage retailers to enforce our ratings.
In recent days, mass market retailers such as KMart, Wal-
Mart and Target have all joined Toys ``R'' Us in enforcing the
E.S.R.B. ratings, and we're very supportive of their
commitment.
Most recently, in September of 1999, the IDSA Board took
the far-reaching step of asking the E.S.R.B. to create an
Advertising Review Council. The ARC began operations in
February by opening a dialogue with people in the publishing,
game publishing and magazine business, and actually effectively
began its operations in June.
They will not only enforce new industry content standards
covering areas such as violence, sex, and language, but also
have expanded and more dedicated resources to enforce
compliance with the ad code, including the anti-targeting
provisions.
Let me now very briefly turn to the FTC report.
We appreciate the fact that the FTC complemented the
comprehensiveness of our existing self-regulatory regime and
IDSA's efforts to ensure its efficacy. I appreciate your
comments this morning, Mr. Chairman, as well as the comments of
Senator Lieberman and Congressman Hyde, who all made reference
to our industry's efforts.
It's clear, though, that the FTC did uncover individual
company marketing plans that violate our longstanding industry
guidelines, barring the marketing of games rated Mature for
young users. We do not condone this conduct. And through
initiatives such as the ARC, launched well before the FTC
findings became public, we began taking steps to end such
practices.
Having said that, we do strongly disagree with the FTC's
fundamental and arbitrary determination that game magazines,
with what it calls a majority under 17 readership are not
appropriate outlets for advertising.
I just have about another 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Please take the time you need.
Mr. Lowenstein. Thank you.
We disagree with the FTC's standard that they use in their
report. They also said web sites and TV shows that, by their
definition, were quote, ``popular'' with teens, with kids, are
similarly inappropriate outlets for advertising.
Now I agree that placing an ad for a Mature-rated product
in Sports Illustrated for Kids or Nickolodeon Magazine is
improper, but we do not believe that ads and outlets that have
some noteworthy percentage of young readers or viewers, but a
substantial and perhaps even dominant share of older viewers is
inappropriate.
However, we are mostly in accord with the FTC's
recommendations. In fact, we've already implemented most of
them. I'll be happy to go into some detail if that would be
helpful. And we will meet with the FTC and our industry to
assess whether there are additional steps we can take to
enhance our self-regulatory system. It's clearly not perfect.
We have work to do.
We have proven, though, that with or without the FTC, our
efforts to enhance self-regulation are unwavering.
Let me say in closing that we acknowledge our industry's
obligation to market and label products appropriately. Clearly,
the FTC has found and it's indisputable, this has not always
been done, and we do not excuse these lapses, and we're
committed to ending them.
But the fact remains, as the FTC itself points out, the
parents are almost always involved in getting purchases. They
remain the first, last and best offense against children
obtaining inappropriate products. Unfortunately, according to
the FTC itself, 45 percent of parents who are aware of the
video game rating system say they do not use it.
Now I submit to you that no one has yet conceived of a law
that can mandate sound parenting. I hope, though, we can all
work together to ensure that consumers do use the tools
available to them to make informed entertainment decisions.
Thank you for your indulgence.
The Chairman. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lowenstein follows:]
Prepared Statement of Douglas Lowenstein, President, Interactive
Digital Software Association
Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to testify today on the
Federal Trade Commission's report on entertainment industry marketing
practices. I am testifying today on behalf of the Interactive Digital
Software Association\1\, the trade body representing U.S. video and
computer game software companies. Our members publish games for use in
the home. In 1999, the industry generated $6.1 billion in retail
software sales. IDSA's 32 members account for 90% of the edutainment
and entertainment software sold in the US.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ IDSA's members publish software only for the home. The arcade
game business is a different sector with its own representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe the issues raised by the FTC, and its recommendations,
deserve serious and open-minded discussion, both here in Congress and
within our own industry.
To that end, I would like to divide my testimony into three
sections: first, a discussion offering some critical and important
background about our industry, our markets, and our products; second, a
review of self-regulatory initiatives we have taken over the years to
ensure the responsible labeling and marketing of video and computer
games to consumers; and third, comments on the FTC's findings and
recommendations.
Industry Background
Majority of Game Players are Adults, not Kids
First, let me address two of the great myths about the video game
industry, to wit: 1) video games are played predominantly by teenage
boys and 2) most video games are rated Mature and have significant
levels of violence. Both are wrong.
In fact, the primary audience for video games is NOT adolescent
boys. According to research by Peter D. Hart Research Associates
earlier this year, the average age of computer and video game players
is 28 years old, and 61 percent of all game players are age 18 and
over. A remarkable 35% of game players are over 35 years old, and 13%
are over 50; 43% of the 145 million Americans who play computer and
video games are women. IDSA's own consumer research reveals that 70% of
the most frequent users of computer games and 57% of the most frequent
users of video games are also over 18.
Unlike other entertainment products, most newly released video
games cost anywhere from $40-60. Thus, it's not surprising, when you
add this to the fact that a majority of consumers are adults, that IDSA
research finds that nine out of every ten video games are actually
purchased by someone over 18. Furthermore, 84% of the kids who do buy
games say they have the permission of their parents to do so.
Similarly, in a survey completed by Peter Hart last fall, 83% of
parents said they ``try to watch or play at least once every game that
their child plays to determine whether it is appropriate.''
Notably, the FTC's own survey confirms these findings. ``It is
clear that most parents are able to play a watchdog role when they
choose to do so . . . . According to parents' responses, even more
parents (83%) are involved in the actual purchase transaction; 38%
report that they usually purchase or rent the games, and another 45% of
parents do so together with the child.''
So any discussion of how our industry markets its products take
into account the fact that a majority of those who buy and use our
products are adults, not kids, so parents are still almost certainly
going to be involved in the actual purchase. As the FTC said,
L``This level of parental involvement, either at the point of
selection or purchase, means that most parents have the opportunity to
review rating information or to check the product packaging to
determine whether they approve of the game's content.''
This does not mean our industry does not have an obligation to
market products responsibly and to label them accurately. But it does
mean that parents are the first, last, and best line of defense against
products that are not appropriate for their children.
70% Of Games Appropriate for Everyone; only 9% Are Rated Mature
With the demographics of the industry changing rapidly, so too has
the type and mix of products published by game companies. Contrary to
popular perceptions, most games do not contain significant levels of
violence. In fact, the video game rating system the industry
voluntarily set up six years ago, and which Sen. Joe Lieberman has
repeatedly praised, has rated over 7,500 titles of which only 9% carry
a Mature rating. Seventy percent are rated for Everyone over six. In
1999, only 100 out of 1,500 titles released were Mature games, and
these represented just 5% of total sales.
Not only are most games appropriate for everyone, but also most of
the best sellers are not violent. For example, in the last six months,
the top selling games have been Pokemon, Who Wants to be a Millionaire,
SimCity 3000, and racing and skateboarding games. So far in 2000, only
two of the top selling PC and video games are rated M, and 16 are rated
Everyone. What this reflects is the fact that video games are now mass
market entertainment and the range and diversity of products has
widened, resulting in a substantial market for casual games like
puzzle, board, and card games, and hunting and fishing titles, in
addition to staples like racing, football, and action games.
In short, this industry has seen its sales double since 1995. The
bulk of that growth has been fueled by consumers over the age of 18 and
by games whose content has broad appeal.
Commitment to Effective Self-regulation
The video and PC game industry has been committed to effective
self-regulation since the formation of the IDSA in 1994. We have
consistently and continuously sought to respond to concerns about the
small number of our products that contain significant violence,
balancing our absolute commitment to creative freedom with our
commitment to empowering consumers to make informed choices. We are
guided by our belief that the ultimate responsibility for controlling
the games that come into the home lies with parents--not industry, not
Congress, and not federal or state governments. According to the FTC,
45% of parents who are aware of the video game rating system say they
do not use it. I submit to you that no one has yet conceived of a law
that can mandate sound parenting.
Initiatives on Game Ratings
In 1995, the IDSA created the Entertainment Software Rating Board,
or ESRB, which uses teams of independent, demographically diverse
raters to review each and every video game. ESRB issues ratings
suggesting--and that is a key word ``suggesting'' but not dictating--
the age appropriateness of a title. In addition, ESRB ratings provide
simple but clear information about the content that influenced the
rating, such as animated violence, strong language, or suggestive
themes. The philosophy underpinning the ESRB system is to give parents
the tools to make informed choices, but not to attempt to dictate to
them what is right for their families. At the same time the ESRB was
created, IDSA voluntarily created an Advertising Code of Conduct
requiring that the ratings and content information issued by ESRB be
placed on packaging and in advertising. The Ad Code also contained a
provision advising that ``companies must not specifically target
advertising for entertainment software products rated for Teen, Mature,
or Adults Only to consumers for whom the product is not rated as
appropriate.''
Starting in 1995, the ESRB maintained an active program to provide
information on the ESRB to retailers and consumers. It established a
toll free number which has logged millions of calls since its
inception, created a multilingual web site where consumers can get
information on the age and content rating of over 6,000 video games,
and distributed millions of Parent Guides to ESRB Ratings to retailers
and advocacy throughout the country, as well as to the Attorney General
of Illinois.
In 1997, recognizing the emergence of the Internet, the ESRB
launched a new rating service called ESRB Interactive, or ESRBi.
Through this service, ESRB offers companies the opportunity to rate
their websites and video games distributed on line. More and more
companies are now rating online games and game websites with ESRBi.
In May 1999, in the weeks after the Columbine tragedy, I appeared
before a hearing of this Committee chaired by Sen. Sam Brownback, and
made a series of new commitments in response to renewed concerns about
entertainment violence. Specifically, IDSA said:
L1. it would launch a stepped up campaign to educate consumers
about the rating system;
L2. we would reach out more aggressively to retailers to encourage
them to both increase the amount of rating information available in
stores and enforce the ESRB ratings; and
L3. we would examine industry advertising practices and explore
ways we could address concerns in this area, both as to the content of
ads and the targeting of these ads.
We have redeemed every commitment made that day.
Consumer and Retailer Education and Enforcement
Last fall, ESRB launched an extraordinary campaign to raise
awareness and use of its ratings, with the centerpiece being a PSA
featuring Tiger Woods urging parents to ``Check the Rating'' of games
they buy. ESRB purchased advertising in major national publications
with significant parent readership, such as Good Housekeeping,
Parenting, and Newsweek. ESRB placed pull-out flyers in major parent-
oriented publications, such as Child Magazine. It redesigned its
consumer brochures and distributed millions to leading retailer; and it
reached out to leading national grassroots organizations with ties to
schools and parents, such as Mothers Against Violence in America and
the PTA seeking ways to partner with them to get the word out to
consumers, especially parents, about ESRB ratings and how to use them.
Furthermore, the IDSA sent letters to major national retailers
asking them to make a commitment to consumers to use their best efforts
not to sell Mature rated games to persons under 17, a step we had also
taken in October 1998. As you know, Toys ``R'' Us was the first
retailer to adopt this policy and in the last week KMart, Wal-Mart, and
Target have done so as well. IDSA supports those efforts. We believe
other retailers will soon follow suit.
In addition to all these steps, the IDSA Board this past July
renewed its commitment to another paid media campaign this holiday
season to promote the ESRB, and offered to fund 50 percent of the cost
of producing in-store educational materials on the ESRB for use by
retailers.
Yet another voluntary self-regulatory step came as a result of
discussions that began at the White House Summit on Violence. The IDSA
and ESRB completed an agreement with AOL in which AOL adopted the ESRB
ratings as the standard for games on its service. ESRB and AOL have
also formed a Task Force to promote the ESRB ratings with other leading
Internet sites.
Initiatives on Advertising and Marketing
In September 1999, the IDSA Board took the extraordinary and far
reaching step of asking the ESRB to create a new Advertising Review
Council (ARC) within the ESRB. The ARC is empowered both to ensure that
all advertisements by those who use ESRB ratings adhere to strict
content standards covering such areas as violence, sex, and language,
and to enforce compliance with all other provisions of the industry ad
code, including the anti-targeting provision. In addition, the IDSA
shifted responsibility for the ad code and its enforcement from the
association to the new ESRB ad council, and provided a major increase
in resources to support expanded staffing and more aggressive
monitoring and enforcement of advertising standards. This initiative
was undertaken long before the FTC report was completed, and reflected
our own judgment that our industry needed to revamp and step up our
approach to monitoring and enforcing our advertising standards. The ARC
unit began operations February 1--coincidentally the cutoff date by the
FTC's of its monitoring effort--and one of its first successes was
convincing virtually every top game enthusiast magazine--the primary
advertising vehicle for our industry--to adopt the ARC principles and
guidelines as their own. In addition, Ziff-Davis, IDG, and Imagine, the
three top publishers of game magazines, sit on the ARC Board of
Directors. Since February, ARC has been meeting extensively with IDSA
members to educate them on the ad code and ensure compliance.
The FTC Report
We appreciate the fact that the FTC described our industry's
overall self-regulatory program as ``the most comprehensive of the
three industry systems studied by the Commission'' and that it
recognized that ``it is widely used by industry members and has been
revised repeatedly to address new challenges, developments, and
concerns regarding the practices of our members.'' The FTC also pointed
out that quite the opposite of standing by idly, we have been
aggressive in seeking compliance with our standards. As it put it, ``to
its credit, the IDSA has taken several steps to encourage industry
members to comply with'' the industry's various ratings and advertising
requirements. Also perhaps lost in the hubbub over the report is the
recognition by the FTC that the independent rating system used by the
video game industry ``appears to be helpful to those parents who
actually use it'' and that a majority of these parents say it does an
excellent or good job in advising them on the levels of violence in our
products.
In this regard, Peter Hart completed a new survey this past July
seeking to gauge whether consumers themselves believe that ESRB ratings
are accurate. The research involved mall-intercept interviews with 410
adults nationwide, including 246 parents who were shown videotapes of
game clips and asked to rate them based on the ESRB standards. The
survey found that ``in 84% of all instances, games are rated equal to
or less strictly than the official ESRB rating.'' Hart found that the
ESRB is ``twice as likely to be more conservative than the public'' in
rating decisions. With respect to the content descriptors, the survey
found ``participants are generally in agreement with the ESRB on
violence descriptors, and in instances in which there is disagreement,
they are usually less strict than the ratings board.'' In short, the
ESRB ratings are reliable and effective.
It is clear, though, that the FTC uncovered individual marketing
plans that indicate that some of our members, in violation of long
standing industry guidelines, planned to market, and may have marketed,
games rated for Mature users to young people. Let me make it clear to
this Committee that the IDSA does not condone or excuse the marketing
of Mature rated products to persons under-17 and, indeed, we condemn
it. As I noted, six years ago and long before the recent outcry over
media violence, we ourselves voluntarily created an advertising code of
conduct, which contained an anti-targeting provision.
But it also must be pointed out that we have some legitimate
business disagreements with the FTC's analysis of industry practices
and the impression the report conveys of our industry's markets and
marketing. Thus, let me take a moment to address several facts ignored
by the FTC.
According to statistics collected by the ESRB's new Advertising
Review Council, since February 1, 2000, the 16 leading game enthusiast
magazines, noted by the FTC as the primary vehicles for industry
marketing, ran a total of 1,830 ads for games. Of these, only 188, or
about 10%, were for Mature rated product. The most M-rated ads in a
single issue was 7, and typically, each issue contains only 3 or 4 ads
for Mature rated products. This relative paucity of ads for M-rated
product reflects the fact, as I pointed out earlier, that M-rated games
are actually a small portion of the overall game market both in total
releases and retail sales. The question of whether those ads should or
should not appear in these publications is a fair point of discussion,
but let's all understand that any suggestion that companies are
flooding consumers with ads for Mature rated product is simply not
accurate.
One of our major quarrels with the FTC report is the apparent
assumption that magazines with what it calls ``a majority under-17
readership'' are not appropriate outlets for advertising of Mature
rated games, and that websites or TV shows that are ``popular'' with
kids are similarly inappropriate outlets for advertising Mature
product. We agree that placing an ad for a Mature rated product in a
publication that is clearly and squarely aimed at young readers, such
as Nickelodeon or SI for Kids, is a violation of our standards. But we
reject the FTC's operating assumption that ads in publications that
happen to have some noteworthy percentage of young readers, but a
substantial and perhaps even dominant share of older readers and users,
is inappropriate. We do not think it is unreasonable for a company to
place an ad for a game in GamePro magazine where the average age of the
readers is 18. We do not feel it is inappropriate to place an M ad in
Electronic Gaming Monthly where, according to the magazine, 59% of its
readers are 17 and over. The FTC, by the way, in some apparent zeal to
make its point, says its standard for review for game magazines are
those with a majority of subscribers age 17 or under. The problem with
this, of course, is that an M-rated game is appropriate for persons 17
and older so the FTC should have used an under 17 cutoff. It's hard to
know how this skews its data but it is clear that in the case of EGM,
it makes a dramatic difference.
In the same vein, FTC's use of a ``popularity'' test to rule out
other advertising outlets is restrictive and commercially impractical.
``Popularity'' is not much of a bright line standard. Using this
guidepost, virtually every game website and sites like mtv.com would be
off limits to advertisers of Mature products even though a majority of
viewers may be in the appropriately targeted demographic group. This is
unreasonably restrictive.
It's easy to lose sight of the fact, in all the rhetoric and
political posturing, that video games are entertainment products for
people of all ages, that they are constitutionally protected products,
and that at best, the scientific evidence linking them to harmful
effects is weak and ambiguous at best, and at worst does not exist.
Indeed, that's exactly what The Government of Australia concluded last
December after an exhaustive evaluation of all the available research
on violent video games.
The Australian Government report concluded: ``After examining
several attempts to find effects of aggressive content in either
experimental studies or field studies, at best only weak and ambiguous
evidence has emerged. Importantly, these studies have employed current
games or concerned contemporary young players who presumably have
access to the latest games. The accumulating evidence--provided largely
by researchers keen to demonstrate the games' undesirable effects--does
indicate that it is very hard to find such effects and that they are
unlikely to be substantial.''
I know this Committee will hear testimony from some medical groups
announcing that the debate is closed, but these groups make the
unscientific leap of treating video games as parallel entertainment to
TV and films even as they acknowledge that there is little research to
support the claim that video games are harmful. As Jeff McIntyre,
Senior Legislative Assistant for the American Psychological Association
said in The Baltimore Sun on June 26, 2000, ``Interactive media are so
new, scientists are uncertain how they affect young people . . . We are
not sure about it, we are real involved in getting research funded to
get some ideas about that . . . The social community is really
struggling with these issues.''
The FTC Recommendations
While we do have some issues with the FTC findings, we are mostly
in accord with its recommendations. In fact, in virtually every
instance, IDSA has already implemented these recommendations, in some
cases as many as six years ago. This does not mean our job is done. We
will carefully review all of the recommendations, and will meet with
the FTC, representatives of our industry, and advertising outlets to
explore whether there are reasonable and practical ways to enhance the
efficacy of our self-regulatory system.
With respect to the specific recommendations and our position, the
FTC recommends that:
L1. Industries establish or expand codes to prohibit target
marketing to children and impose sanctions for violations. IDSA
Response: The FTC notes that the IDSA has ``crafted a code to address
this issue.'' We did that six years ago. But in addition, a year ago,
we recognized that our industry needed to take more proactive steps to
address concerns about marketing as our industry grew and became more
sophisticated. To that end, as I have mentioned, we created a new
Advertising Review Council, or ARC, in the ESRB, increased both the
funding and personnel dedicated to monitoring and enforcing industry ad
guidelines. For the first time ever, ARC drafted and is implementing
guidelines governing the content of game ads in such areas as violence,
sex, and language. ARC took the additional step of linking compliance
with the ad code to securing a rating. Thus, any company that gets an
ESRB rating is legally obligated to comply with the ad guide and
failure to do so could trigger a range of sanctions including
revocation of the rating (which would force the product off the shelf)
to legal action for trademark infringements to referring violators to
the FTC or other appropriate agencies.
L2. The FTC called for increased compliance with ratings at the
retail level. IDSA Position: We have urged retailers for several years
to take steps to uphold ESRB ratings at the point of sale. Last fall,
we asked retailers to sign a Commitment to Consumers pledging to use
their good faith efforts to restrict the sale of M-rated products to
persons under 17. We are pleased that in recent weeks KMart, Wal-Mart,
and Target have all joined Toys ``R'' Us in adopting restrictive sales
policies and believe other retailers will follow suit in some manner.
L3. FTC called on industries to include the reasons for the rating
in advertising and product packaging and continue efforts to educate
parents. IDSA Position: When ESRB created the video game rating system
it included from the start information on both age appropriateness and
content that influenced a rating. From the inception of the ESRB,
companies have been required to put a content descriptor box on the
back of packaging showing any content flagged by the ESRB as
noteworthy. In addition, a year ago, the industry amended its ad code
to require that the content descriptors be included in all print
advertising. On the promotion front, we have been quite aggressive. The
highlight was a PSA filmed for the industry by Tiger Woods last fall
that was offered for play to every major TV network and every local TV
station in the nation's top markets. In addition, ESRB took out paid
ads in magazines such as Good Housekeeping, Parenting, and Newsweek to
educate parents about the ESRB ratings. Most recently, our Board
reaffirmed its commitment to a new paid media campaign this Fall, as
well as offering to fund fifty percent of the cost of producing
educational pieces for use by retailers in their stores.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, I will not tell you our industry has been perfect
either in its conduct or its implementation of our own standards. I
will tell you we have shown a genuine commitment to the principle of
informing consumers about the content of our products and regulating
how these products are marketed. We have proven that with or without
the FTC, with or without the heat of a presidential campaign, our
efforts to continue to enhance our self-regulatory regime are
unwavering.
At the same time, we must acknowledge that we do live in a world
where media is incredibly complex, where the Internet spans the globe,
where consumers, young and old, have access to information in ways
never before imagined. In this environment, it is simply not possible
or realistic to create an air-tight system where young people do not
hear about, or even obtain, games that are not appropriate for them. To
the extent this occurs due to industry's unambiguous effort to target
kids to buy M-rated products, it is not defensible. But to the extent
it happens as a result of the information and media explosion flooding
over all of us, it is unfair and unrealistic to point fingers.
Where does this leave us? About where the FTC said when it
commented on parents' awareness of the rating system. ``It is clear
that most parents are able to play a watchdog role when they choose to
do so . . . . [The] level of parental involvement, either at the point
of selection or purchase, means that most parents have the opportunity
to review rating information or to check the product packaging to
determine whether they approve of the game's content.''
In the final analysis, we all must work cooperatively to ensure
that parents know about and make use of the rating systems. In a world
where nearly half say they do not even pay attention to the efforts our
industry already makes, it seems to me that is a goal we all can work
towards.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF DR. DANIEL B. BORENSTEIN,
PRESIDENT, AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION
Dr. Borenstein. Good afternoon, Chairman McCain and
distinguished Members of the Committee. I am Dr. Daniel B.
Borenstein, President of the American Psychiatric Association.
Our 40,000 psychiatric physicians are dedicated to caring for
those who suffer from mental illness and advocating for the
mental health of adults and children. My testimony is on behalf
of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP).
We thank you for the opportunity to testify and for your
commitment to children's health and well being. I ask that my
full written statement be included in the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Dr. Borenstein. Parents today face the overwhelming burden
of monitoring not only their children's television viewing, but
also video games, interactive media and music. Our children are
awash in a tidal wave of electronic violence. We are convinced
that repeated exposure to entertainment violence in all its
forms has significant public health implications. As documented
by multiple studies, we know that video game play correlates
with aggression. The case against violent interactive
entertainment is building rapidly. Dr. Michael Brody, a noted
children's media researcher says, ``the negative impact may be
significantly more severe than that wrought by television,
movies, or music.'' In the face of such data, we are alarmed
and concerned about the FTC report findings that the industry
is deliberately marketing this kind of violent entertainment to
young children. (APA and AACAP support the recommendations in
the FCC report.) I would like to comment specifically on the
recommendation for an improved labeling and rating system. In
1996, we declined to endorse the MPAA proposed rating system,
deeply concerned it did not provide sufficient information to
parents. Regrettably--regrettably--we are here again today
because the media industry has not taken comprehensive,
responsible steps to consistently and accurately identify
violent content in its products, and continues to market
violence as entertainment to children.
We continue to strive for a much stronger and clearer media
rating system. When parents buy cereal for their child, they
look on the box to check the specific ingredients. But what
goes into a child's mind is just as important as what goes into
his stomach.
Parents want to know what is inside the TV program or video
game. They deserve clear and simple information. An effective
media rating system should describe content as to language,
sex, and/or violence. An informative, uniform guideline system
will help parents decide what is appropriate for their
children. Guidelines should not assume that children are
incapable of understanding double entendres, nor assume that
these situations are not harmful simply due to the child's
chronological age. (We would be glad to work with the
entertainment industry and others in strengthening the rating
system.) APA and AACAP are not suggesting that entertainment
violence is the sole, or even the most important factor
contributing to youth aggression, anti-social attitudes, and
violence. Family breakdown, peer influences, the availability
of weapons, and numerous other factors all contribute to these
problems. A public dialogue, parental involvement and clear
information about media content through an effective ratings
system are keys to enhancing the health and well being of
America's children.
We must help parents protect their children from violent
programming in the same way we help parents protect their
children from infectious disease.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the American Psychiatric
Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, I thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will
be happy to respond to any questions.
The Chairman. Thank you. Could I ask the size of the
membership of your organization that you speak for?
Dr. Borenstein. Forty thousand members of the American
Psychiatric Association. The American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry has 6,000 members.
The Chairman. Thank you, very much. You make a very strong
statement.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Borenstein follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Daniel B. Borenstein, President, American
Psychiatric Association
Good morning, Chairman McCain and distinguished Members of the
Committee. I am Dr. Daniel B. Borenstein, President of the American
Psychiatric Association, the nation's oldest medical specialty
organization which represents over 40,000 psychiatric physicians
dedicated to caring for those who suffer from mental illness and
advocating for the mental health and welfare of adults and children. My
testimony is on behalf of the American Psychiatric Association (APA)
and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP).
We thank you for the opportunity to testify on the impact of media
violence on children and youth, and for your commitment to their health
and well being. I ask that my full written statement be included in the
record.
Parents today face the overwhelming burden of monitoring not only
their children's television viewing--now estimated at an average of 28
hours a week--but also video games, other interactive media on the
Internet and music. As a nation--we are awash in a tidal wave of
electronic violence. Not long ago, one of my patients brought me this
video game, and asked what the APA cold do to keep this material out of
the hands of his 12-year-old son. And so I feel I am representing him
today, as well as the APA and AACAP.
Our organizations have been involved in the debate over media
violence since the Surgeon General's Report issued in 1973. We are
convinced that repeated exposure to entertainment violence in all its
forms has significant public health implications. We know that video
game play correlates with aggression, the primary emotional response to
playing. While less research is available on the impact of violent
interactive entertainment, the case against it is building rapidly. Dr.
Michael Brody, a children's media researcher says that, ``Preliminary
studies indicate that the negative impact may be significantly more
severe than that wrought by television, movies, or music.'' In the face
of such emerging data, we are alarmed and concerned about the recent
FTC report findings that the industry is deliberately marketing this
kind of violent entertainment to young children.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children: A Review of
Self-Regulation and Industry Practices in the Motion Picture, Music
Recording and Electronic Game Industries: A Report of the Federal Trade
Commission'' September 2000. Federal Trade Commission Report. http://
www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/09/youthviol.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FTC Report found:
70% of the games studied by the FTC were marketed to
children ages 16 and younger despite ratings on the games that
indicated that they were suitable for those at least 17 years
old. 10 video game producers released documents to the FTC
indicating that boys younger than 17 were the primary or
secondary target audiences for mature-rated games.
Hollywood has systematically marketed violent, adult-
oriented films, video games and music to children, using
popular cartoon shows and children's shows to do it.
Also, a substantial body of research has demonstrated the
association of violence or aggressive behaviors with repeated exposure
to televised violence.\4\, \5\ Simply put, the more violent
programming children view, the more likely they are to behave violently
or aggressively. Children exposed to violence are also likely to fear
being a victim of violence.
The data are clear, convincing, and overwhelming.\2\,
\3\, \4\, \5\, \6\ The repeated
exposure to violent imagery desensitizes us to violence and greatly
increases the risk that we will manifest violence in our own behavior.
We must educate parents to the health risk of exposure to violent
entertainment products in the same way we educate them to the health
risk of exposure to infectious diseases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. Transmission of aggression
through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1967, 63, (pp 575-582).
\3\ Mediascope, Inc. (1996). National Television Violence Study
Executive Summary 1994 1995. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
\4\ American Medical Association. (1996). Physician Guide to Media
Violence. Chicago, IL: Author.
\5\ Singer, D.G., & Singer, J.L. Television viewing and aggressive
behavior in preschool children: A field study. Forensic Psychology and
Psychiatry. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1980, 347, (pp.
289-303).
\6\ National Institute of Mental Health. (1982). Television and
Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the
Eighties Vol. 2: Technical Reviews. (p. iii) Rockville, MD: Author.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1996, the Motion Picture Association of America presented a
proposed television rating system to the American Psychiatric
Association. At that time, both the APA and AACAP declined to endorse
the rating system, deeply concerned it did not provide sufficient
specific information to parents. Regrettably, it appears we are here
again today because the media industry has not taken comprehensive,
responsible steps to consistently and accurately identify violent
content in its products and continues to market violence as
entertainment to children in the face of voluntary industry guidelines.
The American Psychiatric Association and American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry maintains their resolve to strive for a much
stronger and clearer media rating system. When parents go to the
supermarket to buy cereal for their child, they pick up the box and
look on the side panel to check the ingredients. The label does not
say, ``This package may contain some oats, may contain some rice, may
contain some wheat, and it might be nutritious for you.'' Quite the
contrary. Simply and precisely, the package indicates what is inside.
In the same manner, parents want to know what is inside a TV program or
a video game. They deserve the same clarity and simplicity of
information. After all, what goes into a child's mind is just as
important as what goes into his stomach.
An effective media rating system should, in a relatively straight
forward manner, communicate content issues as to language, sex, and/or
violence. An informative, uniform guideline system will assist parents
in making judgements as to what is appropriate for their children.
Guidelines should not assume that children are incapable of
understanding double entendres with sexual or violent implications, nor
assume these situations are not harmful simply due to the child's
chronological age.
In addition to issues of content, the APA and AACAP are concerned
about the process by which the ratings and content descriptions will be
applied and reviewed. We would be glad to work with the industry and
other organizations in assisting the entertainment industry in this
endeavor.
APA and AACAP are not suggesting that entertainment violence is the
sole, or even most important factor contributing to youth aggression,
anti-social attitudes, and violence. Family breakdown, peer influences,
the availability of weapons, and numerous other factors all contribute
to these problems. A public dialogue, parental involvement and clear
information about media context through an effective ratings system are
keys to enhancing the health and well being of America's children.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Joint Statement of Public Health Groups on Media Violence''
August 2, 2000. American Psychiatric Association, www.psych.org/
publicpolicy.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the American Psychiatric Association and
the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, I thank you
for the opportunity to testify before this Senate Committee. I would be
happy to respond to any questions.
The Chairman. Dr. Cook, welcome.
STATEMENT OF DONALD E. COOK, M.D., FAAP, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
Dr. Cook. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify about the
effect of media violence on the health of children and
adolescents. As president of the American Academy of Pediatrics
and as a practicing pediatrician for over 40 years from the
state of Colorado, I am testifying today on behalf of the
nation's pediatricians.
For several decades, pediatricians have been increasingly
concerned about media violence and its effect on the physical
and mental health of children and adolescents. America's young
people are being exposed to increasing amounts of extremely
graphic violence through movies, video games, and popular
music.
Research
Since the 1950s, more than 3,500 research studies in the
United States and around the world have examined whether there
is an association between exposure to media violence and
subsequent violent behavior. All but 18 of these studies have
shown a positive correlation between media exposure to violence
and violent behavior.
Children learn the ways of the world by observing and
imitating. They cannot help but be influenced by the media.
Exposure to media violence results in an increased acceptance
of violence as an appropriate means of conflict resolution and/
or problem solving. Media exaggerate the prevalence of violence
in the United States and the world and offer strong motivation
to protect oneself by carrying a weapon and being more
aggressive. Perhaps the most insidious and potent effect of
media violence is to desensitize viewers to ``real life''
violence. The more realistic, comic, or enjoyable the media
violence, the greater the desensitization felt by the children.
Child Development
Research in a variety of circumstances and settings has
shown that the single strongest correlate with violent behavior
in young children is previous exposure to violence. Before age
8, children cannot discriminate between real life and fantasy.
On-screen violence is as real to this group of children as is
the violence they witness in their home or the community. From
childhood's magical thinking and impulsive behavior,
adolescents must develop abstract thought and social controls
to prepare them to deal with adult realities. If this
development process occurs in a violent environment, it can
become distorted or changed. Media have a great potential for
shaping the hearts, the minds, and the behavior of America's
young people and we all need to understand and accept this
potential very seriously.
The causes of violence are complex. Entertainment is not
the sole or even the most important factor contributing to
youth aggression, antisocial attitudes and violence. Family
breakdown, peer influences, community problems, the
availability of weapons and numerous other factors may all
contribute to these problems. But entertainment violence does
contribute. It is an area of clear risk that we as a
compassionate society can address.
Entertainment media are a major industry in the United
States and our number one export to the rest of the world.
Media not only serve as educational tools, but also deliver
powerful messages, messages of who we are, how we live and what
we dream.
Media are a powerful tool too that we should not use
casually. As medical professionals, pediatricians want parents
and the entertainment industry to understand that films, video
games, music, TV programs and the Internet can have and do have
powerful effects on child health and behavior. They can be used
to teach wonderful, enlightening and entertaining lessons to
children, but can also show graphically violent, cruel and
terrifying images that can lead to aggressive behavior in some
children.
We invite the entertainment industry to join us voluntarily
in our efforts to reduce youth exposure to violence, none of
which has to do with bans, censorship or restriction on
creative activities. We do want our children to be less exposed
to the continual violence that pervades the media at this time.
Though many producers and consumers of entertainment media
express helplessness to change the flood of violence, the
problem will best be solved through caring people in both
communities deciding to reject media violence.
In conclusion, we are all in this together and we should
seek a collective solution. We are a society with great
resources, economic and human. The entertainment industry can
and should respond to the FTC report findings and stop or
decrease the marketing of violence to our youth.
Given the overwhelming body of research indicating the
danger posed by media violence to the normal, healthy
development of our human resources, we need to focus on
nurturing and preserving those resources, our children and our
nation's future. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Cook. How many physicians do
you represent?
Dr. Cook. About 55,000, sir.
The Chairman. And how long have you been in the practice of
medicine?
Dr. Cook. I have practiced for 44 years.
The Chairman. We thank you for appearing here today.
Dr. Cook. Thank you for asking.
Senator Hollings. He ought to take a rest.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Cook. I always keep saying next year.
The Chairman. We many times have special interests
represented here before this Committee and that is
understandable. What you and Dr. Borenstein represent I think
should have enormous credibility with anyone who observes your
testimony. And we thank you both for taking the time to be
here.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Cook follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donald E. Cook, M.D., FAAP, President, American
Academy of Pediatrics
Good morning Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify today about the effect of media violence on
the health of children. My name is Dr. Donald Cook, president of the
American Academy of Pediatrics. I am also a clinical professor of
pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver and
practice at the Monfort Children's Clinic in Greeley, Colorado. It is
my pleasure to testify on behalf of 55,000 primary care pediatricians,
pediatric medical subspecialists and pediatric surgical specialists
dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of infants, children,
adolescents and young adults.
For several decades, pediatricians have been increasingly concerned
about media violence and its effects on the physical and mental health
of children and adolescents. America's young people are being exposed
to increasing amounts of media violence through television, movies,
video games, and popular music. Video game violence, children's
cartoons, and music lyrics have become increasingly graphic. Action
films depict anatomically precise murder, rapes and assaults and video
games detail bodies being blown apart, splattering blood and body parts
on walls and floor. One of this year's best-selling music CDs contains
a song in which the protagonist lovingly puts his baby to bed and
engages in a fight with the child's mother, which ends in him slitting
her throat, her screams of fear subsiding in the gurgle of blood.
On Monday, the Federal Trade Commission issued a report on the
marketing of violence to children by the entertainment industry. As a
pediatrician, I would like to present research on media violence and
its effects on children and adolescents, examine the nature of child
development, and show why entertainment violence can affect the health
of some children.
Research
Since the l950s, more than 3,500 research studies in the United
States and around the world using many investigative methods have
examined whether there is an association between exposure to media
violence and subsequent violent behavior. All but 18 have shown a
positive correlation between media exposure and violent behavior. Some
findings:
Epidemiologists studying a broad array of factors associated
with violence, including poverty, racial discrimination,
substance abuse, inadequate schools, joblessness and family
dissolution, found that exposure to violent media was a factor
in half of the 10,000 homicides committed in the United States
the previous year.
Numerous studies indicate that a preference for heavy metal
music may be a significant marker for alienation, substance
abuse, psychiatric disorders, suicide risk, sex-role
stereotyping, or risk-taking behaviors during adolescence.
Research to date indicates that interactive media have an
even more potent and lasting effect on violent behavior than
passive media forms like television and movies. Several studies
have shown that after playing violent video games, children and
adolescents become desensitized to violence, have increased
levels of aggressive thoughts and behavior, and act hostile
toward others.
Studies designed to test the theory that experiencing media
violence leads to a catharsis, a reduction in actual aggression
due to the vicarious release of hostility, actually found
increased overt aggression because of lowered inhibitions after
experiencing media violence.
Meta-analysis, a process by which the results from many
different research studies are analyzed as a whole, shows that
the strength of the correlation between exposure to media
violence and aggressive behavior is larger than that of condom
non-use and sexually transmitted HIV, lead exposure and lower
I.Q., passive tobacco smoke and lung cancer or calcium intake
and bone mass, relationships which pediatricians accept as fact
and on which we routinely base preventive medicine.
Children learn the ways of the world by observing and imitating--
they cannot help but be influenced by media. Exposure to media
violence, particularly violence perpetrated by dramatic heroes or, in
the case of video games, the children themselves, results in an
increased acceptance of violence as an appropriate means of conflict
resolution. Media exaggerate the prevalence of violence in the world
and offer strong motivation to protect oneself by carrying a weapon and
being more aggressive. Perhaps the most insidious and potent effect of
media violence is that it desensitizes viewers to ``real life''
violence and to the harm caused its victims. The more realistic, comic,
or enjoyable the media violence, the greater the desensitization--video
games that reward killing with points and higher levels of play are
using better graphics capabilities to increase the gore, showing
spraying blood and mangled body parts, or to personalize games with
digital images such as recognizable faces on victims.
The etiology of violence is complex and multi-factorial.
Entertainment violence is not the sole factor contributing to youth
aggression, anti-social attitudes and violence. Family breakdown, peer
influences, the availability of weapons, and numerous other factors may
all play a part. But entertainment violence does contribute. The media
are an area of clear risk that we, as a compassionate society, can
address. Overwhelming scientific evidence has demonstrated that when
young people are exposed to media violence, they learn aggressive
attitudes and behaviors, develop fear of being victimized by a ``mean
world'', and become desensitized to violence. We need to recognize
these effects and take this knowledge into consideration when we choose
the media our children will use.
Child Development
Research in a variety of circumstances and settings has shown that
the strongest single correlate with violent behavior in young people is
previous exposure to violence. Before age 8, children cannot
discriminate between real life and fantasy. On-screen violence is as
real to them as violence that they witness at home or in their
community. From childhood's magical thinking and impulsive behavior,
adolescents must develop abstract thought and social controls to
prepare them to deal with adult realities. If this development process
occurs in a violent environment, it can become distorted. Media, with
which children spend more time than with parents or teachers, have
great potential for shaping the hearts, minds, and behaviors of
America's young people--and we need to take this potential very
seriously.
What Can Be Done?
Today, 99 percent of American homes have a television and 87
percent a VCR, 54 percent of children have a television and video games
in their bedrooms, and watching videos is America's favorite leisure
activity. The average American child consumes media for 6 hours and 43
minutes each day, spending twice as much time each year with media as
they do in school. Video games generate $10 billion in earnings a year,
more than the motion picture industry. Children average 90 minutes of
video gaming per day and fantasy violence games are the most popular
among children from the fourth grade on. Given what we know through
research, why is violence marketed to children? To quote Dr. David
Walsh, author of Selling out America's Children, ``Violent
entertainment is aimed at children because it is profitable. Questions
of right or wrong, beneficial or harmful, are not considered. The only
question is `Will it sell?' ''.
Entertainment media are a major industry in the United States and
our number one export to the rest of the world. The entertainment
industry is not only economically important, but it carries powerful
messages, messages of who we are, how we live, and what we dream. It
represents the spirit and culture of America--to ourselves, to the
world, and to history. It is a powerful tool, a tool that we should not
use casually. As medical professionals, pediatricians want parents and
the entertainment industry to understand that films, video games,
music, television programs and the Internet can have powerful effects
on child health. They can be used to teach wonderful, enlightening and
entertaining lessons to children but also can show graphically violent,
cruel, and terrifying images that can lead to aggressive behavior in
some children and nightmares, fearfulness or other emotional
disturbances in others.
Free speech and open discussion of society's concerns protect our
liberty. We do not want censorship, which is both unconstitutional and
ultimately unsuccessful in a free society. However, as U.S. House of
Representatives Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) asserted, ``Free
expression does not necessarily have to lead to moral chaos. Let us
join together in finding ways to help parents raise their children to
be good, productive citizens.'' We must approach the media and their
potential health effects on children as a reality of contemporary life.
With this in mind, we need to decide what sort of life we want that to
be.
Parents, health professionals, policymakers and the entertainment
industry each bear some responsibility. For example, parents should
ensure that their children are thoughtful, critical consumers of media.
They should set content and time limits on media use, monitor and
discuss the media their children consume, and take TVs and video games
out of the children's bedrooms. Health care professionals need to
recognize the effects of media on child health and ask about media use
as part of their evaluation of health risks. Pediatricians should alert
and educate parents when positive media opportunities arise, either
educational or informational. Policymakers need to enforce and in some
cases, strengthen laws and regulations that protect children as media
consumers. They should increase the funding available for media
research and support media education programs in American schools that
have been demonstrated to be effective.
Lastly, the entertainment industry needs to acknowledge that it is
an important and powerful force in American society, one that affects
all of us in many ways. Its products have both positive and negative
effects on children and their health. Too often scientific research on
the effects of media on children and adolescents is ignored or denied
by some in the entertainment industry. Yet the leading medical groups
in this country, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American
Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American
Psychological Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, and
the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry--representing
more than half a million health professionals--all echo the same
conclusion. In July, these organizations issued a joint statement on
the impact of entertainment violence on children. The conclusion, based
on decades of research, is that viewing entertainment violence can lead
to increases in aggressive attitudes, values and behavior, particularly
in children. It is time for everyone in the entertainment industry to
join us in protecting and promoting the health of our children.
If the entertainment industry accepts our invitation, we can start
talking about reasonable and practical solutions, none of which has to
do with bans, censorship or restrictions on creative activities. For
example, pediatricians in California volunteer their time to work with
writers and producers in conveying child health issues accurately and
appropriately in television shows and movies. We hope media producers
will use the American Academy of Pediatrics' Media Resource Team's
offer to serve as a resource for accurate information on pediatric
medicine and child and family health and well-being. Many in the
entertainment industry are parents, grandparents, aunts or uncles
themselves. As individuals they care deeply about children and youth.
We are simply asking them to take their personal values into the
workplace as they pursue their business of selling movies, games and
music. Though many producers and consumers of entertainment media
express helplessness to change the flood of violence, this problem will
only be solved through caring people--media producers and media
consumers--deciding to reject violent media. As the entertainment
audience, we must focus on what we want our young people to learn and
how we want them to behave. To do so, we must support positive
entertainment products and reject negative and dangerous media
products. To extend the philosophy of a wonderful movie, Field of
Dreams, ``If you do not come, they will not build it.''
Media Matters
In order for children and adolescents to be protected from the
damaging effects of media, they must learn to ``read'' and understand
media messages for what they are, rather than passively accepting them
at face value. If they are media literate, young people can consume and
enjoy media, embracing positive content and rejecting negative,
hurtful, or dangerous material. Media education teaches us to be
selective, critical viewers who make informed choices and can evaluate
and modulate media's effect on ourselves and on society.
Media Matters, a national public education campaign launched three
years ago by the American Academy of Pediatrics, helps pediatricians,
parents and children become more aware of the influence that media have
on child and adolescent health. Through lecturing at medical schools,
speaking to families, visiting elementary schools, and addressing
community groups, AAP members have been raising important issues of
concern such as the media's relationship to violent behavior and
aggression, substance abuse, obesity and poor body-image.
Conclusion
Ultimately, we are all in this together and we should seek a
collective solution. Parents, health professionals, the entertainment
industry and policymakers have critical roles in discussing and
addressing the increasing amount of media violence in society,
particularly when it comes to the health of children and adolescents.
We are a society with great resources, economic and human. We have been
very successful at developing and preserving our economic resources.
The American entertainment industry has plenty of creativity,
innovation and vision. They can respond to the FTC report findings and
stop the marketing of violence to our youth. They can make socially
responsible entertainment and they can make money, preserving economic
resources. Given the overwhelming body of research indicating the
danger posed by media violence to the normal, healthy development of
our human resources, we need to focus on nurturing and preserving those
resources, our children and our nation's future.
The Chairman. Mr. Valenti.
STATEMENT OF JACK VALENTI, PRESIDENT AND CEO, MOTION PICTURE
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
Mr. Valenti. Before you start the clock ticking, Mr.
Chairman, may I explain the absence of the movie executives
which permeated this morning's session which I listened to and
perhaps I could offer a response to that. Is that possible?
The Chairman. Absolutely.
Mr. Valenti. About a week ago, I did discuss with Mr. Buse
and Mr. Crane of your staff about the hearing. The 13th was an
inflexible date and I understand why that you could not move
it. But at that time, we did not have the report and the report
was not in our hands until 10 o'clock on Monday morning, the
11th.
Meanwhile, I got in touch with the people that your staff
wanted to have invited. That is the heads of the motion picture
divisions of each of the major studios. I got in touch with
every one of them. One of them at this moment is in London with
a worldwide meeting of his parent corporation. Another is in
Australia for a long delayed meeting there. Another one is on
maternity leave. Another is in the middle of an important
meeting appointed to a Commission by the Governor of
California. And I had one who would be here, Stacy Snyder. But
at the last minute, she said she did not want to appear by
herself.
Later on, on Monday I think it was, I talked to Mr. Buse--
who by the way has been most forthcoming and I am grateful to
Mark for being so hospitable in all of my clamorous demands. I
told him that I lamented and I was sad about this. I felt
deeply sorrowful about it. And I said if you would give us
maybe five or six weeks' notice, I will produce in front of
Senator McCain and whoever else is on the Committee.
The Chairman. Five or six weeks' notice?
Mr. Valenti. Well, that is what I told him, Mr. Chairman.
And I said I would produce those people and I will. Now, I
understand you want to have a meeting in two weeks and people
will be there. But I want to say the fact that these people are
not here is not because they are ducking and running. Because I
told them that is impossible to do. It is because they
literally had other things on their schedule that they simply
could not erase.
Now, having said that, you can start the clock if it is all
right.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir. Please proceed.
Mr. Valenti. But I am glad to be in this meeting room and
see so many of my friends and so few of my supporters I have
asked Mr. Buse to give me a blindfold and cigarette and then I
will be very happy. And I am glad Dr. Borenstein is here.
Because as soon as this hearing is over, I am going to seek him
out for professional counseling.
This is a serious hearing and it should be responded to
seriously. Let me tell you precisely what I pledge you I will
do. And I think some of the people in this room like Senator
Hollings and Senator Inouye know that in all my long years when
I pledge something to a Senator or a Congressman or to a
committee, I redeem that pledge. This is what I pledge you. I
am immediately going to California tomorrow and begin a series
of meetings with our studios in California to address seriously
the three recommendations that have been made by the Federal
Trade Commission which I think is an objective and non-strident
report. And I also want to confer with my colleagues on the
National Association of Theater Owners who are our partners in
the rating system and who are responsible for enforcement. And
we will from those meetings give you and your members a
catalogue of what we intend to do. Though I think we are doing
a lot right now.
It appears from the report that some marketing people
stepped over the line where reasonable becomes unacceptable.
And I am talking specifically about 10 and 12-year-olds in a
focus group. That is wrong. It is unassailably wrong. And there
is no excuse to sustain it.
But I wanted you to know that when we draw lines in the
creative world, those lines are ill lit and hazily observed. We
are not dealing here with Euclidian geometry where the formulas
are explicit and pristine. We are dealing with the irregular
passions of what I call subjective judgments. And I promise you
and you know subjective judgments vary widely.
I think this Committee ought to understand the rostrum
which springs our movie rating system. All R-rated movies are
not alike. You made mention of that today. And what I meant was
not for marketing. I am talking about the range, the ``R''
range and the ``PG-13'' range and the ``PG'' range, the ranges
within those categories. The ``R'' rating does not mean for
adult only. That is the province of the NC-17 rating.
What the ``R'' rating says is Mr. & Mrs. Parent, we are
giving you an advance cautionary warning. We are telling you
that before you take your children to see this movie--and
children are admitted to R-rated movies if accompanied by a
parent or adult guardian--before you do that, find out some
more about this film. Because there may be some violence or
sensuality, language or theme that you may not want your young
children to see. Many parents take their children to R-rated
films. Many parents allow other adults to take their children
to R-rated films.
So again, what the ``R'' rating says, it is an advanced
cautionary warning. We are giving it to you in advance, Mr. &
Mrs. Parent. But the decision making authority of whether or
not your children enter that theater is yours and yours alone
to make.
Now, I happen to believe that the movie industry is
probably more attentive to the needs of parents in this country
than any other business enterprise. Now, let me count the ways
when I say that. For almost 32 years, we have had a rating
system that tells parents in advance cautionary warnings so
that they can make judgments on their own about what movies
they want their children to see or not to see. It is their duty
to exercise that power and their duty alone. For almost 32
years, we have been monitoring the reaction of parents to this
movie rating system. We have a national survey that is taken
every year since 1969 under strict market research protocols.
Just two weeks ago, this latest survey was unveiled. Eighty-one
percent of all the parents in this country with children under
13 say this rating system is ``very useful'' to ``fairly
useful'' in helping them decide what movies their children
ought to see.
Two things to glean from that. One, nothing lasts 32 years
in this volatile marketplace unless it is providing some kind
of a benefit to the people it aims to serve--in this case
parents.
And number two, I do not think that only a few members of
Congress who have an 81 percent voter approval. It is a pretty
high endorsement.
Now, something else I think I ought to bring up. I know
that--or maybe you do not know that is it not a fact that
American movies are hospitably enjoyed and joyfully received by
every nation, creed and culture on this earth. Is it also not a
fact that American movie industry is viewed by expanding envy
of every developed and undeveloped country on this earth.
And finally, it is also the fact that the intellectual
property returns to this country, billions of dollars in
surplus balance of payments at a time when this nation is
hemorrhaging from trade deficits. I think that needs to be
brought to this Committee's attention.
And finally, I really think the Congress ought to feel an
immense pride in this unique creative asset and of the
contributions that the movie people make to this nation's art
and commerce and to being attentive to the needs of parents.
Now, I am rather enchanted with what I am saying up here.
But I am going to stop at this point and I thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Valenti.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Valenti follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jack Valenti, President and CEO, Motion Picture
Association of America
The FTC Report is both objective and non-strident for which
Chairman Pitofsky and his colleagues deserve much applause. The Report
makes three recommendations, one, entertainment companies should not
target the very young in their advertising, two, enforcement of ratings
should be strengthened at the retail level and, three, more information
should be offered to parents about ratings.
It is my intention to meet one on one with each of my member
companies, as well as the National Association of Theater Owners, so
that we can address each of the FTC's recommendations.
Do we make mistakes in the movie industry? Of course we do. We are
not perfect, nor is anyone else, in public or private life. The person
who declares himself to be innocent does so with reference to a witness
and not his own conscience.
Is it suitable to `target' very young children in advertising R-
rated films as reported in the FTC study of movie advertising. No, it
is not. But if I have one regret about the Report it is this: It makes
no claim to distinguishing between different kinds of movies for
different audiences, nor does it specify why certain TV programs are
certified by the FTC as ``youth oriented.''
The FTC cites TV programs which it claimed ``were most popular
among the under-17 group,'' such as Xena: Warrior Princess, and South
Park. For example, Zena: Warrior Princess's audience is 77% ``18 and
over.'' South Park's prime audience is 79% ``18 and over.'' Which means
that the percent of audience ``under 17'' is quite small. Indeed of all
the TV programs catalogued by the FTC as ``popular among teenagers,''
all of them (save one) have an ``18 and over'' audience ranging from
79% to 63%. Therefore, with only one exception, not any of the cited TV
programs, from which flows the FTC's charges, can by any stretch be
labeled ``for under-17s.'' Yet, this description of ``popular for
under-17s'' programs is the platform on which the FTC places much of
its case and is at odds with the realisms of the TV marketplace. (One
interesting item in the FTC citation of ``popular for under-17s'' is
that the show which has the second highest under-17 audience of all the
TV programs mentioned in the Report is WWF Wrestling! See Appendix 1 of
the Report). A TV program with 70%+ viewers 18-and-over may attract
young viewers under 17. The reality is that in a TV/cable/satellite
landscape avalanched with available programming, it is well nigh
impossible to exile young viewers from any of them.
Perhaps marketing people stepped over that line where
``reasonable'' becomes, to some people, ``unacceptable.'' But the
location of that line, where what is right becomes wrong, is ill lit,
hazily observed. Who among the critics has a magic surveyor's rod to
precisely say ``this is the place where the line is drawn?'' We are not
dealing with Euclid's geometry where the equations are pristine and
explicit. Not at all. We are dealing here with the irregular passions
of subjective judgments, which vary widely.
Every creative work is brimming over with subjectivity. Each person
who watches or reads or listens absorbs the essentials of that creative
work through his or her personal prism. Therefore there can be no
irretrievable finality about what is good and what is bad creatively.
The nature of the human condition is that we don't all use the same
gauge to measure music or paintings or poetry or novels or films or TV
programs. What some account to be unwholesome and unworthy, others may
judge to be innovative and inventive. There is no all-seeing, elite,
self-designated authority in art, movies, music, literature, TV
programs, etc. who can, with Olympian clarity, say ``this is suitable,
this is not, this is alright, this is not.'' I believe that every
citizen in this free and loving land understands with great clarity
that the government cannot enter where the First Amendment stands
guard, for that Amendment is the guarantor of the Constitution itself.
In 1999, there was a total of 461 films released in the
marketplace. Of this total, the seven major studios distributed 133
films. Their subsidiaries (many of which operate with full creative
autonomy) released 85, for a total of 218 for the major studios and
their subsidiaries. The non-major distributors released 243 movies. Not
all of these films merited the designation ``a very fine film.''
Between the idea and the finished print so much can go wrong and often
does. And with so many movies entering the marketplace, is it not
conceivable that some mistakes were made, in the script, in the actual
production, in the distribution and marketing design?
The Committee must understand the rostrum from which springs our
voluntary movie rating system. Not all R-rated films are alike. We are
not dealing here with bananas or canned beans. Some R-rated movies are
`hard' R's, that is at the top of the R scale, and others are `soft'
R's, at the bottom of the scale.
Moreover, the ``R'' rating does not say ``for adults only,'' which
is the province of the NC-17 rating. It plainly states that children
are admitted to R-rated pictures if accompanied by a parent or adult
guardian. Therefore, if children see or read an ad for an ``R'' film,
it is not a violation of the rating system. Not at all. Many parents go
with their children to ``R'' films. Other parents allow their children
to see such a film with other adults. The ``R'' rating offers an
advance cautionary warning to parents, with the clear understanding
that the decision-making choice belongs to parents and parents ONLY.
The men and women who inhabit the movie and television industry are
mostly parents, who love their country and their community, who care
deeply about their children, who work hard every day to teach their
children God's commandments so that their future will be furnished with
all the assets which provision the life of good and decent citizens.
They try harder to be more attentive to the needs of parents than any
other enterprise in the fifty states.
Let me count the ways.
For almost 32 years, through our voluntary movie rating system, we
have been offering advance cautionary warnings to parents about
individual films so that parents can more watchfully and carefully make
their own decisions about the films they want their children to see or
not to see. Only parents should have that power and it is their duty to
exercise it.
For almost 32 years, we have been monitoring parents' reaction to
movie ratings. In the latest of annual surveys conducted by the Opinion
Research Corporation of Princeton New Jersey, with 2,300 respondents,
the rating system got an all-time high in parental endorsement.
This year some 81% of all parents with children under 13 found the
movie rating system ``Very Useful'' to ``Fairly Useful'' in helping
them choose the films they want their children to see or not to see.
Nothing lasts 32 years in this volatile marketplace unless it is
providing a benefit to the people it aims to serve.
Moreover we make ratings available to parents in many different
locales. All advertising carries the rating and a legend that defines
that rating category. We have web sites: (1) `filmratings.com' which
allows a parent to get specific reasons for ratings, (2)
`parentalguide.org' which offers to parents a guide to ratings systems
for movies, TV programs, videogames and music, (3) `MPAA.org' gives
specific reasons for ratings, (4) `Moviefone.com' gives specific
reasons for ratings, (5) Weekly bulletins which catalogue movies rated
that week along with reasons for the ratings are sent to magazine,
newspaper and TV movie critics. Reviews of just about every movie
released appear in publications and on television. There is no scarcity
of ratings advice for parents. But we are going to try to do more.
For almost 32 years the movie industry has been the only segment of
our national marketplace, including all business enterprises, that
voluntarily turns away revenues in order to redeem the pledge we have
made to parents. No other non-entertainment American enterprise can
make that statement.
But the question before this Committee is one that has not been
asked, and therefore not answered. The Question is: Is there a problem?
Is it the moral decay which critics insist that entertainment
inflicts on the American family? If the critics are correct then crime
in America should be mightily on the rise. That has to be the
melancholy result if the experts are right.
Yet what the critics offer is vastly different from the facts. The
latest FBI statistics reported last week revealed a 10% drop in crime
last year. Crime is down all over the country, a decline which has been
on a descending line over the past seven years, and is now at the
lowest point since the FBI began recording detailed crime data.
During the last five years there has been a 28% drop in juvenile
crime! Today, 16/100 of one percent of all juveniles in this country
are involved in serious crime though not necessarily convicted, and of
that percentage almost half are recidivists, chronic criminals. That
means that 99-and-84/100 percent of all juveniles are NOT involved in
serious crime.
Is it a fact that American movies and TV programs are joyously and
hospitably received by every other country, creed and culture in the
world? The answer is YES.
Is it a fact that our movie and TV industry is viewed with
expanding envy by every nation on this planet? The answer is YES.
Is it a fact that intellectual property is America's greatest trade
export, the largest jewel in America's trade crown, returning billions
of dollars in surplus balance of trade while our nation bleeds from
trade deficits? The answer is YES.
Indeed the Congress should feel an immense pride in this unique
American creative asset and the daily contributions of the movie and
television industry to this nation's art and commerce and the endurance
of its responsibility to American parents.
To conclude:
We are going to continue to honor our obligation to parents, an
obligation which we publicly pledged to redeem almost 32 years ago. To
this very hour we have demonstrably kept our promise.
We are going to examine how we advertise and conduct research so
that we do not deliberately seek out the very young in the promotion of
``R'' rating films.
We are going to work closely with the National Association of
Theater Owners, our long-time partners in the voluntary movie rating
system, to increase the effectiveness of ratings enforcement. I might
add it is my judgment the theater owners have done and are doing a good
job in a most difficult area.
All this we pledge.
The Chairman. Mr. McIntyre.
STATEMENT OF JEFF McINTYRE, LEGISLATIVE AND FEDERAL AFFAIRS
OFFICER, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Senate Commerce Committee. I am Jeff McIntyre,
the Legislative and Federal Affairs Officer for the American
Psychological Association. I am honored to be here to represent
that group before you.
I have years of work on children and the media as a
negotiator for the development of a television ratings system,
as an advisor to the Federal Communications Commission's V-Chip
Task Force, as a member of an informal White House Task Force
on Navigating the New Media, as a member of the steering
committee for the upcoming Decade of Behavior Conference on
Digital Childhood, and most importantly, as a representative of
the research and concerns of the over 161,000 members and
affiliates of the American Psychological Association.
With the issuance of Monday's Federal Trade Commission
report on the marketing of violence to children, we come to the
heart of a matter long addressed by psychological research--the
detrimental effects of the repeated exposure of children to
violence.
Foremost, the conclusions drawn on the basis of over 50
years of research by American Psychological Association
members--including the Surgeon General's report in 1972, the
National Institute of Mental Health's report in 1982, and the
industry funded, three-year National Television Violence Study
in the 1990's--shows that the repeated exposure to violence in
the mass media puts children at risk for:
increases in aggression;
desensitization to acts of violence;
Land unrealistic increases in fear of becoming a
victim of violence, which results in the development of
other negative characteristics, such as a mistrust of
others.
If this sounds familiar, it is because this is the
foundation upon which the public health community, in
coordination with the leadership of Senator Brownback, issued a
joint consensus statement on what we absolutely know to be true
in the public health community regarding children's exposure to
violence in the media.
While the industry has sought refuge in obscure arguments
over the semantics of methodological language, certain
psychological facts remain well-established in this debate. As
APA member Dr. Rowell Huesmann stated before this Committee in
May of last year--just as every cigarette you smoke increases
the chances that someday you will get cancer, every exposure to
violence increases the chances that, some day, a child will
behave more violently than they otherwise would.
Hundreds of studies have confirmed that exposing our
children to a steady diet of violence makes our children more
violence prone. The psychological processes here are not
mysterious. Children learn by observing others. Mass media and
the advertising world provide a very attractive window for
these observations.
The excellent children's programming (such as Sesame
Street) and the pro-social marketing (such as that around
bicycle helmets) that exists is to be commended and supported.
It is, however, the basic psychological principles in quality
children's programming that raises the concerns here today.
Psychological research shows that what is responsible for the
effectiveness of good children's programming and pro-social
marketing is that children learn from their media environment.
If kids can learn the positive behaviors via this medium, they
can learn the harmful ones.
The role of ratings systems, in this discussion merits
attention. The APA has supported valid efforts such as Senator
Holling's ``Safe Harbor'' bill, and continues to advocate for
more accessible content information to be made available to
families. There continues to be consistent concern over the
ambiguity and implementation of current ratings systems. It
appears now that ratings systems are being undermined by the
marketing efforts of the very groups responsible for their
implementation and their effectiveness. That, Chairman McCain
and Members of the Committee, is a significant lack of
accountability and should be considered when proposals for
industry self-regulation are discussed.
Also undermined here are parents and American families. As
the industry has shown a lack of accountability in the
implementation of existing ratings system, parents have
struggled to manage their families' media diet against
misleading and contradictory information. (For instance,
marketing a rated R film to children under 17.) While the
industry has made some information regarding the ratings
available, more information regarding content needs to be made
more accessible. As with nutritional information, the content
labeling should be available on the product and not hidden on
web sites or in the occasional pamphlet.
Generally speaking, most adults see advertising as a
relatively harmless annoyance. However, advertising directed at
children, especially at young children, that features violence
generates concern. The average child is exposed to
approximately 20,000 commercials per year (this is only for
television and does not include print or the Internet). Much of
this is during the weekend morning or weekday afternoon
programming. Most of the concern stems not from the sheer
number of commercial appeals but from the inability of some
children to appreciate and defend against the persuasive intent
of marketing, especially advertising featuring violent product.
The recent Federal Trade Commission report heightens these
concerns. Recently as a result of the ``Children's On-Line
Privacy Protection Act,'' the Federal Trade Commission ruled
that parents have a right to protect their children's privacy
from the unwanted solicitation of their children's personal
information. We would argue that, based on the years of
psychological research on violence prevention and clinical
practice in violence intervention, parents also have the right
to protect their children from material that puts them at risk
of harm. With the considerations in place for children's
privacy, the precedent for concern about children's health and
safety is well-established.
In conclusion, parents have the right to not have their
children specifically targeted by those selling violent
product. Decades of psychological research bear witness to the
potential harmful effects on our children and our nation if
these practices continue. Chairman McCain and Committee
Members, thank you for your time.
The Chairman. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McIntyre follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeff McIntyre, Legislative and Federal Affairs
Officer, American Psychological Association
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Senate Commerce
Committee. I am Jeff McIntyre and am honored to be here to represent
the American Psychological Association before you.
I have years of work on children and the media as a negotiator for
the development of a television ratings system, as an advisor to the
Federal Communications Commission's V-Chip Task Force, as a member of
an informal White House Task Force on Navigating the New Media, as a
member of the steering committee for the upcoming Decade of Behavior
Conference on Digital Childhood, and most importantly, as a
representative of the research and concerns of the over 161,000 members
and affiliates of the American Psychological Association.
With the issuance of Monday's Federal Trade Commission report on
the marketing of violence to children, we come to the heart of a matter
long addressed by psychological research--the detrimental effects of
the repeated exposure of children to violence.
Foremost, the conclusions drawn on the basis of over 30 years of
research by American Psychological Association members--including the
Surgeon General's report in 1972, the National Institute of Mental
Health's report in 1982, and the industry funded, three-year National
Television Violence Study in the 1990's--shows that the repeated
exposure to violence in the mass media puts children at risk for:
Lincreases in aggression;
Ldesensitization to acts of violence;
Land unrealistic increases in fear of becoming a victim of
violence, which results in the development of other negative
characteristics, such as mistrust of others.
If this sounds familiar, it is because this is the foundation upon
which the public health community, in coordination with the leadership
of Senator Brownback, issued a joint consensus statement on what we
absolutely know to be true in the public health community regarding
children's exposure to violence in the media.
While the industry has sought refuge in obscure arguments over the
semantics of methodological language, certain psychological facts
remain well established in this debate. As APA member Dr. Rowell
Huesmann stated before this Committee in May of last year--just as
every cigarette you smoke increases the chances that someday you will
get cancer, every exposure to violence increases the chances that, some
day, a child will behave more violently than they otherwise would.
Hundreds of studies have confirmed that exposing our children to a
steady diet of violence makes our children more violence prone. The
psychological processes here are not mysterious. Children learn by
observing others. Mass media and the advertising world provide a very
attractive window for these observations.
The excellent children's programming (such as Sesame Street) and
pro-social marketing (such as that around bicycle helmets) that exists
is to be commended and supported. It is, however, the basic
psychological principles in quality children's programming that raises
the concern. Psychological research shows that what is responsible for
the effectiveness of good children's programming and pro-social
marketing is that children learn from their media environment. If kids
can learn positive behaviors via this medium, they can learn the
harmful ones.
The role of ratings systems in this discussion merits attention.
The APA has supported valid efforts such as Senator Holling's ``Safe
Harbor'' bill, and continues to advocate for more accessible content
information to be made available to families. There continues to be
consistent concern over the ambiguity and implementation of current
ratings systems. It appears now that ratings systems are being
undermined by the marketing efforts of the very groups responsible for
their implementation and effectiveness. That, Chairman McCain and
Members of the Committee, is a significant lack of accountability and
should be considered when proposals for industry self-regulation are
discussed.
Also undermined here are parents and American families. As the
industry has shown a lack of accountability in the implementation of
the existing ratings system, parents have struggled to manage their
families' media diet against misleading and contradictory information.
(For instance, marketing a rated R film to children under 17.) While
the industry has made some information regarding the ratings available,
more information regarding content needs to be made more accessible. As
with nutritional information, the content labeling should be available
on the product and not hidden on websites or in the occasional
pamphlet.
Generally speaking, most adults see advertising as a relatively
harmless annoyance. However, advertising directed at children,
especially at young children, that features violence generates concern.
The average child is exposed to approximately 20,000 commercials per
year (this is only for television and doesn't include print or the
Internet). Much of this is during the weekend morning or weekday
afternoon programming. Most of the concern stems not from the sheer
number of commercial appeals but from the inability of some children to
appreciate and defend against the persuasive intent of marketing,
especially advertising featuring violent product.
The recent FTC report heightens these concerns. Recently as a
result of the ``Children's On-Line Privacy Protection Act'', the
Federal Trade Commission ruled that parents have a right to protect
their children's privacy from the unwanted solicitation of their
children's personal information. We would argue that, based on the
years of psychological research on violence prevention and clinical
practice in violence intervention, parents also have the right to
protect their children from material that puts them at risk of harm.
With the considerations in place for children's privacy, the precedent
for concern about children's health and safety is well established.
In conclusion, parents have the right to not have their children
specifically targeted by those selling violent product. Decades of
psychological research bear witness to the potential harmful effects on
our children and our nation if these practices continue. Chairman
McCain and Committee Members, thank you for your
time . . .
The Chairman. I think it is worthy to note before we turn
to Mr. Dyson that representatives in the American Psychiatric
Association, the President of the American Academy of
Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, all are in
agreement that the present ratings system is both inadequate
and not sufficient information to parents. That is a pretty
strong indictment of the present system in my view. And I think
the respect with which these three professions are held by the
American people might be instructive to the industry.
STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL ERIC DYSON, PROFESSOR, DEPAUL
UNIVERSITY
Dr. Dyson. Thank you, Senator McCain. I am Dr. Michael Eric
Dyson, the Ida B. Wells Barnette University Professor at DePaul
University. And I am honored to be here. Senator Brownbeck and
I have shared time on ``Meet the Press.'' And though we
disagreed, we are committed in common to the future of our
children. And, Mr. McCain, you with your blistering brilliance
on the campaign trail really won the imagination of many
Americans even like myself to the left of you. But we
appreciate the fire and plainspokenness with which you
negotiated your time in the spotlight.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Dyson. So I would like to, taking a cue from Mr.
Valenti, ask for 15 minutes to preach my sermon. And then on
the official 5 minutes spread the hat to collect money for my
sermonizing here today. I am an ordained Baptist minister as
well, but do not hold that against me.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Dyson. And you make a
compelling argument. Take the time you need, sir.
Dr. Dyson. Thank you, sir. That is dangerous, but I will do
so. I think what we have heard today is very compelling in
terms of the necessity for an equally shared responsibility
about the violence of American society and how that violence is
packaged, shaped, redistributed on the open market. And the
marketing of violence, the seduction of violence, the
titillations that are associated with violence, the erotic
sheen that often accompanies violence is something that is
deeply problematic to many of us who are parents, like I am of
three children, who are concerned about shaping the egos,
shaping the mindset, shaping the perspectives of young people
in order to deter them from a life that is fruitless and to
redirect them into paths and channels that are very productive.
But the problem I have with so much of the discourse
surrounding this issue of violence is that implicitly there is
a function of censorship. We know that there is no explicit
censorship. We know that all of us share in common the
development of responses that defend the First Amendment. But
there is an implicit censorship that goes on when we begin to
give the voice and microphone to some groups of people and not
to others.
So what I am concerned about--I will make three very quick
points and end here. What I am concerned about is the necessity
to hear from those young voices, those very powerful voices,
sometimes admittedly angry voices, sometimes bitter voices,
sometimes voices that are dipped into the deep pools of
profanity, sometimes vulgarity. But I am not so much concerned
about the curse words as the cursed world they occupy and what
hurt they experience in order to produce some of the deeply
reflective, deeply self-critical and also deep problematic
lyrics that they put forth.
So I think first of all, what is important about hearing
from those young people--a disproportionate number of whom, by
the way, happen to be African American and Latino voices. First
of all, is that they tell truths about their situations that
are avoided in textbooks and schools and, we dare say, in the
United States Senate at some points, in synagogues and so on.
The reality is that the violence is old and it has been
around a long time. But the reality also is that we have not
really attacked certain forms of violence as equally as we have
done others. So that the Duke, John Wayne, would not be brought
before a Senate Committee to, in one sense, give a mea culpa
for the way in which he romanticized and idealized this kind of
romantic western machismo that dare we say has informed even
the Senate careers of some of our colleagues here today. But at
the same time, Snoop Doggy Dog is brought front and center
rhetorically and symbolically, if not literally, to talk about
why it is that he chooses to make a living by telling the truth
about what he understands. So violence in John Wayne is
acceptable. Violence in Snoop Doggy Dog is not acceptable.
Number two. Violence matters most when it occurs in the
mainstream and not so-called outside of the mainstream. This is
why we applaud President Clinton for having the FTC put forth
this report after Columbine. But the reality is violence
pervaded America way before Columbine. It struck Latino and
African American communities in disproportionate numbers. And
yet, the reality is that rapper L.L. Cool J, by no means a hard
core rapper, released an album yesterday that contains these
lyrics: ``I don't mean this in a disrespectful way. But
Columbine happens in the ghetto everyday. But when the crap
goes down, you all ain't got nothing to say.''
Now, this is from a person who is well-received as an actor
and as an entertainer in society, but he understands that there
has been a targeting of vicious specificity locating itself
within African American communities when it comes to violence,
and Latino communities. Those forms of violence are seen to be
much more pathological and naturalized in a way that is
destructive. And the violence of the larger society is not
taken seriously until that violence happens in a mainstream
white community where now it becomes a national problem and a
public health problem and a plague. And the reality we have to
ask then is that why is it that these voices that have been
locked out, that have been marginalized, see as a necessity to
articulate their understanding of the world and sometimes
violently so to make a point, and a very powerful point.
Number three. If we are really concerned about the lives of
kids, then we have got to not shred the safety net in terms of
welfare reform. That targets poor, black and Latino and poor
white kids in very specific ways. Because if there is
diminished capacity for providing health care and providing
child care for your children, that is much more destructive
than a rap lyric that may or may not lead to a violent
behavior.
Number four. We have got to stop this war on drugs that
really has translated, as Lani Guinier said, into a war on
black and Latino youth. And as you know, Mr. McCain, the
reality is that a report was issued earlier this year that the
human rights of many African American and Latino youth are
being violated in an international report from Amnesty and
other forces unleashed this report saying that the American
government ought to be ashamed of itself for the way in which
it has stigmatized black and Latino youth in disproportionate
fashion, leading to their imprisonment and their arrest and
therefore stigmatizing their lives for the duration of their
time in this nation.
Furthermore, I heard this morning about the Senator
expressing outrage about the video game that deals with the
electrocution of a human being. And as repulsive as that is,
the reality is that in Texas 130 some odd people have been
legally executed on capital punishment and a capital crime. And
the reality is a disproportionate number of those people happen
to be black and Latino men. So I do not want to get rid of a
game that may push our buttons in very problematic and
provocative ways until we get rid of the practices themselves
that the game points to.
Finally, I think that----
The Chairman. Mr. Dyson, I would agree with you if we still
held public executions.
Dr. Dyson. Well, it is not about public executions. It is
about if we do it in private, Senator McCain. The reality is
that the horrible shame that is going on in private that is not
publicly talked about, the horrible shame is not simply the
exposure of the executions. It is the numbers of black and
Latino men who are being subjected to this form of I think
racially motivated legal lynching so to speak. So I think that
you are absolutely right in terms of the publicity. But the
reality is that it is more shameful that it is not made more
public so that more people can be outraged by it.
Two more points and thank you so much for your indulgence.
Another reason that these young people have to be heard from,
and we ought to hear their voices, is that they bear witness to
the invisible suffering of the masses. And this is what I mean
by publicity. We have to hear what they are talking about. We
have to be confronted with what they are talking about. Even if
we find it personally repulsive and reprehensible.
So that for me stigmatizing blacks and avoiding the
collective responsibility for the drug war is something that
needs to be talked about. Master P said ``I don't own no plane.
I don't own no boat. I don't ship no dope from coast-to-
coast.'' So we know that the flooding of black communities,
whether intentionally or not, inadvertently and Latino
communities with drugs is not talked about as deeply and
systematically as it needs to be. And yet, the stigmatization
of those who abuse drugs who happen to be non-violent offenders
who end up in jail need to be talked about as well and it is
talked about much in rap music.
Finally, in terms of racial profiling, the late rapper
Tupac Shakur said, ``You know, just the other day I got lynched
by some crooked cops. And to this day, those same cops on the
beat getting major pay. But when I get my check, they taken tax
out. So we paying the cops to knock the blacks out.''
Now, here is a problem for Commerce. The subsidization of
your own oppression through tax dollars that lead to the
imprisonment of your own people. That is something that needs
to be talked about. And were it not for these R-rated lyrics
that, yes, contain repulsive narratives about rape, murderous
fantasies that really are deeply destructive. But what is even
more destructive is the environment in which they operate, the
world in which they exist and the world that curses them in a
very serious and systematic fashion.
I will end here. We need to hear those voices because as
Mr. Goldberg said earlier, and as you have already alluded to
very brilliantly, Senator McCain, many of these young people
are disaffected from the political process. And one of the
reasons they are disaffected from the political process, we can
look here today. They are not being represented. We can look
here today. They are not being represented. With all due
respect to the ingenuity of the Senate, for the most part, Mr.
Inouye and others to be exceptions, this is a white male club.
And if those people felt that they could have their own
viewpoints, perspectives and sensitivities respected in a
profound way and a kind of empathy that says that the person
sitting across the board from me is really concerned about me
because he or she has been through what I have been through.
And therefore, they know the circumstances under which I have
existed, then we would have much more faith in the political
process that would at least alleviate some of the suffering and
the pain.
So for me, the reality is that many of these young hip
hoppers certainly need to be talked to and talked about, but
more importantly we should listen to them. Because the messages
that they often put in our faces that we do not want to hear
because they make us uncomfortable are the messages that we
need to hear.
The political process can only be enhanced. The American
democratic project can only be strengthened. And the
citizenship of America can only be deepened with a profound
engagement with some of the most serious problems that these
young people represent and they tell us about.
This is why--and I will end here--Nah said--a young
rapper--``it's only right that I was born to use mikes. And the
stuff that I write, it's even tougher than Dice.'' Absolutely
true. And the reason it is tougher than dice because they are
rolling their dice in a world where they are taking a gamble
that their voices can be heard, that their viewpoints can be
respected, and that their lives can be protected. Thank you
very kindly.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for a very strong
statement and a very eloquent one, Mr. Dyson. It is the
intention of this Committee to try to get testimony from and
representation from young Americans, especially when we are
talking about some issues that are coming up such as this
business of MP3, Napster and the music and who is going to get
what, and what accessibility are young people going to have to
that music.
But again, I would argue to you these young people do not
have the $500,000 to buy a ticket--by the way, Mr. Valenti,
even though at least one of your witnesses could not be here, I
notice that he is able to host a big multi-million dollar soft
money fundraiser, had the time to do that, but not to appear
before this Committee. And these young people will not
obviously think it matters whether they would take the time or
effort if there is no resonance to their views and their hopes
and their dreams and their aspirations.
And you mentioned my presidential campaign. The one thing I
heard from young Americans all over this country, they do not
feel they are represented here. So why should they be involved?
Why should they take the time to come and testify before this
Committee? When it is the money, the $18 million that Mr.
Valenti's industry has already contributed to political
campaigns. Well, obviously they are going to keep giving
because there are three major fundraisers scheduled in the next
few days. So I do not think they want their money back or they
would not be attending these. Go ahead, Mr. Dyson.
Dr. Dyson. I think that not withstanding--and, of course, I
have been a severe critic of corporate capitalism and the way
in which it has disproportionately affected the American
political process. And I think that we would not simply point
our finger at Hollywood. My God, if we are going to talk about
the way in which corporate capitalism has undermined the best
interest of the citizenry, we have got to start with the United
States Senate. And I think that what these young people
understand is that--and not just the Senate, but Congress and
local municipalities and governments--Because justice is being
bought. I think your point is absolutely right in bringing it
and brave by the way.
But this is what I want to say. They are not concerned
about--they do not even know about a $500,000 per ticket soiree
that might be held.
The Chairman. I disagree with you. I disagree with you,
sir. I talked to them. They know there is something wrong.
Dr. Dyson. No, no. I agree with you.
The Chairman. They know there is something wrong, Mr.
Dyson.
Dr. Dyson. They do. They do. But I am saying that about the
soiree.
The Chairman. They may not know that it is $500,000, but
they know there is something wrong.
Dr. Dyson. No, they know. Absolutely right, Senator McCain.
I do not disagree with you. I am just saying that they do not
know specifically the details about a $500,000 soiree. But they
do know, as you have said, that money is corrupting the
political process. But they do not just simply look at Mr.
Valenti. They do not simply look at the recording industry.
The Chairman. Well, I do not allege that they do.
Dr. Dyson. Because the recording industry has given them an
opportunity to express their viewpoints with the United States
Senate with the exception of Ed Brooke and Carol Moseley Braun
has not given much opportunity for young African American
people to have a political career at the highest levels and
echelons of representative democracy.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Dyson. And I appreciate our
exchange.
Dr. Dyson. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Dyson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, Professor,
Depaul University
The contentious debate about the relationship between music lyrics
and societal behavior is surely controversial. The assertion that
violent lyrics cause violent behavior is neither convincing nor
conclusive. The obvious causes of social violence--economic inequality,
racism, and racial profiling--are all but ignored when the focus is on
the music of (minority) youth. Often the efforts to ``objectively
investigate'' the roots of social violence amounts to little more than
racial scapegoating of black and latino youth. In order to avoid such a
measure, it is necessary to explain the origins of the most
influential--and controversial--contemporary form of popular culture:
hip-hop music. By examining the racial sources, social uses and musical
roots of hip-hop culture, I hope to underscore how simplistic it is to
blame music lyrics for social violence. And while it is most likely
illegal to commercially curtail artistic expression, in light of the
racial subtext of much of this debate, it is certainly unjust.
For many black and white Americans, hip-hop culture crudely
symbolizes the problems of urban black youth. The list of offenses
associated with hip-hop culture is culled from rap lyrics and the
lifestyles they promote. The list includes vulgar language, sexism,
misogyny, homophobia, sexual promiscuity, domestic abuse, parental
disrespect, rejection of authority, and the glorification of violence,
drug use, rape, and murder. And it's true that even a casual listen to
a lot of hip-hop will turn up these and other nefarious attitudes. At
least if you listen to the style of hip-hop known as gangsta rap. The
gangsta rap genre of hip-hop emerged in the late `80s on the West Coast
as crack and gangs ruled the urban centers of Los Angeles, Long Beach,
Compton, and Oakland. Since hip-hop has long turned to the black ghetto
and the Latino barrio for lyrical inspiration, it was inevitable that a
form of music that mimicked the violence on the streets would rise.
It was just as predictable, though not to the degree that it has
happened, that a huge backlash against gangsta rap and black youth
would emerge. Among the factors that made black youth culture ripe for
such an attack is a general ignorance about the range and depth of hip-
hop culture. Ironically, this ignorance helped make gangsta rap an
economically viable music. Anti-rap crusader C. Delores Tucker can
shout as loud as she wants, and she's certainly earned the right, but
she was nowhere to be found when rap group Public Enemy was at its
revolutionary height calling for a united black nation to fight racism
and the powers that be. True, their brand of hip-hop brushed too
closely to anti-Semitism and they certainly could have used a few
lessons in feminist thought. But few people quit listening to Sinatra's
``Fly Me to the Moon'' (it was really named ``In Other Words'', but
Sinatra's Billie Holiday-inspired phrasing was so impeccably memorable
that he shifted the song's emphasis) because of his occasional racism
or his denigration of women as broads.
It's clear that the rise of hip-hop culture has provoked a deep
black nostalgia for a time when black communities were quite different
than they are now. When children respected their elders. When adults,
not young thugs, ruled over neighborhoods. When the moral fabric of
black communities was knit together by a regard for law and order. When
people shared what they had, even if it was their last crust of bread
or drop of soup. When families extended beyond blood or biology to take
in young people in need of rearing. When communication between blacks
on the street was marked by courtesy more than cursing. When black folk
went to church, and even if they didn't, respected the minister as a
source of moral authority. And on and on.
A cure for such nostalgia can be found in works like Morals and
Manners Among Negro Americans, edited in 1914 by W.E.B. Du Bois and
Augustus Dill. Du Bois and Dill surveyed hundreds of leading blacks
about the ``manners and morals'' of black youth. Wouldn't you know it?
Many black leaders lamented the negative impact of popular culture on
black youth. One leader blamed moral decline on movies, which ``have an
unwholesome effect upon the young people. Roller skating, ragtime
music, cabaret songs, and ugly suggestions of the big city are all
pernicious. The dancing clubs in the big cities are also vicious.''
Another leader worried that black youth ``hang around the corners in
great numbers, especially the boys. Many of them are becoming gamblers
and idlers.'' Keep in mind that these degenerate black youth make up a
generation now praised for its high morals. That should stop us from
writing the epitaph of what has been mislabeled a lost generation of
black youth. (Even here, racial distinctions prevail. If white kids are
demonized as ``slackers'', at least they're seen to be slacking off
from a Protestant work ethic they can recover through hard work. What
can you do when you're lost? Often, you get written off. That happens
to too many black youth.)
The relation of nostalgic blacks to hip-hop culture can be viewed
in the following way: there is a perception of aesthetic alienation and
moral strangeness in black youth. Both of these perceptions, I believe,
depend on a denial of crucial aspects of history and racial memory.
Amnesia and anger have teamed up to rob many blacks of a balanced
perspective on our kids. With such balance, we might justly criticize
and appreciate hip-hop culture. Without the moderating influence of
historical insight, joined to what might be called the humility of
memory, we end up mirroring the outright repudiation our kids face
across this country.
The aesthetic alienation of hip-hop has partly to do with
perception. Rap is seen as wildly differing from the styles, themes,
and tones of previous black music. Well, that's true and not true.
Certainly the form of hip-hop is distinct. The skeletal rap crew is
composed of a DJ (disc jockey), a producer, and an MC (master of
ceremonies, or rapper). (Technology has enhanced, occasionally blurred,
and sometimes redivided the crew's labor over the last fifteen years.)
In many cases, there are at least a couple of rappers. In some cases,
there are several. The DJ commands a pair of phonograph turntables.
Among other functions, the DJ plays fragments of records through a
technique called scratching: manually rotating a record in sharp, brief
bursts of back and forth rhythmic movement over isolated portions of a
song, producing a scratching sound.
The producer has several devices at her command, including a beat
box and a digital sampler. The beat box, or drum machine, is an
electronic instrument that simulates the sound of a drum set. A digital
sampler is a synthesizer that stores in its computerized memory a
variety of sounds (a James Brown scream, a TV theme song, a guitar
riff, a bass line) that are reproduced when activated by the producer.
The DJ and the producer work together in laying down backing tracks for
the MC. The tracks consist of rhythms, scratches, beats, shrieks,
noise, other sound effects, and loops, which are fragments of existing
songs reworked and repeated in new musical contexts.
The MC, or rapper, recites lyrics in a rhythmic, syncopated
fashion. The rapper's rhetorical quirks, vocal tics, rhyme flow, and
verbal flourishes mark his or her individual style. In the early days
of rap, MC's often simulated sonic fragments with their voices, causing
some rappers to be dubbed human beat boxes. Rappers can use a variety
of rhyme schemes, from couplets in tetrameter to iambic pentameter.
Their rhyme schemes can employ masculine and feminine rhymes,
assonantal and consonantal rhymes, or even internal rhymes. Rappers may
use enjambment, prosody, and sophisticated syncopations to tie their
collage of rhymes into a pleasing sonic ensemble.
But hip-hop's form joins features of black oral culture, especially
toasts (long narrative poems) and dozens, to a variety of black musical
styles. As Gil Scott-Heron once remarked, hip-hop fuses the drum and
the world. Blues music is the style of black artistry most closely
associated with hip-hop. The blues spawned stock characters within its
lyrical universe, including the hoochie-coochie man, the mojo worker,
the lover man, and the bald man bluesman. Their relation to hip-hop's
(and `70s blaxploitation flicks') macks, pimps, hustlers, and gangsters
is clear. Plus, the rhetorical marks and devices of blues culture,
including vulgar language, double entendres, boasting, and liberal
doses of homespun machismo, link it to hip-hop, especially gangsta rap.
And in case you're thinking, ``Yeah, but the blues and early jazz
weren't nearly as nasty as rap,'' think again. There are lyrics
contained in the songs of the great Jelly Roll Morton, for example,
that would make Snoop Doggy Dogg wince in embarrassment. You can read
Morton's lyrics in their most distinguished place of storage, the
Library of Congress. (Does this mean in the next century that that
august institution will house the Dogg's Magnum Snoopus, ``Doggystyle''
for future generations to lap up or howl at?) Modern technology,
together with the urban and secular emphases of black culture, has
helped expose localized traditions of vulgar black speech--including
agrarian blues, signifying, toasts, and the dozens--to a worldwide
audience. And millions of blacks are angry and ashamed.
If black nostalgia has distorted the relation of postmodern black
youth culture to a complex black past, this is nowhere more powerfully
glimpsed than in comparing hip-hop with a high point of black
modernism: jazz music and culture. Critics like Stanley Crouch and
musicians like Wynton Marsalis have relentlessly attacked hip-hop
culture for its deficits when compared to jazz. In conversation--in
truth, they were herculean arguments between us that raged for hours at
a time--neither of these gifted gentlemen has had anything good to say
about hip-hop culture.
Crouch maintains that hip-hop is, in a memorable phrase comparing
rap to the infamous, racist 1915 D.W. Griffith film, ``Birth of a
Nation with a backbeat''. Marsalis thinks rap reflects a fascism that
mars humane art. Plus, rap is rooted in a banal, mindless repetition of
beat, signaling a lack of musical imagination and invention. Inspired
by the likes of Ralph Ellison, but especially by Albert Murray, Crouch
and Marsalis argue that the artistic possibilities of jazz--its heart
pumping with the blood of improvisation, its gut churning with the
blues--embody the edifying quest for romantic self-expression and
democratic collaboration that capture Negro music and American
democracy at their best. For Crouch and Marsalis, hip-hop negates
everything jazz affirms.
Many fans of black music, including stalwarts of soul and R&B, most
certainly agree. They simply add their music of preference, and perhaps
their own string of modifiers, to Crouch and Marsalis's list. (That's
because Aretha ain't about democracy. She's about the imperious demands
of gospel genius as it baptizes and is transformed by secular
sentiments. I'm not so sure that Crouch and Marsalis stand ready,
however, to reciprocate. Whether Aretha, Sam Cooke, Otis Redding,
Marvin Gaye, Donny Hathaway, or Al Green counts in their reckoning as
much as, say, early Miles or middle Coltrane, Sarah Vaughan or Ella
Fitzgerald, or Ellington or Armstrong, is highly doubtful.) Despite the
issues that separate black musical purists of any sort, their shared
disdain for hip-hop culture's claims to art unite them as citizens of
the Republic of Nostalgia.
The only problem is that, like hip-hop, jazz has a history of
cultural attack. That history has been buried under an avalanche of
nostalgia that hides jazz's grittier roots. For instance, during the
Jazz Age and the Harlem Renaissance, the response to jazz by a large
segment of the black bourgeoisie, black intellectuals, and black
artists anticipated the attack on rap. Such responses reflected, and
were partly driven by, the negative response to jazz of large segments
of white society. Jazz was viewed as a cultural and artistic form that
compromised decency and morality. It was linked to licentious behavior
and lewd artistic gestures. With its ``jungle rhythms,'' its blues
base, its double entendre lyrics, and its sexually aggressive dancing,
jazz, like hip-hop today, was the most widely reviled music of the
1920's and '30s. Headlines in respectable publications asked questions
like: ``Did Jazz Put the Sin in Syncopation?''. According to the Ladies
Home Journal, jazz was responsible for a ``holocaust'' of illegitimate
births. A Cincinnati-based Catholic newspaper railed against the
``sensuous'' music of jazz. It said that ``the embracing of partners--
the female only half dressed--is absolutely indecent.'' Blues pioneer
W.C. Handy's daughter, Lucille, was sternly admonished by the Colored
Girls' Circle of an elite school for ``making a fool'' of herself by
singing and dancing her father's blues and jazz. ``It [continuing to
sing and dance] will be under the peril of death and great danger to
yourself,'' the letter concluded.
Many Harlem Renaissance intellectuals detested ``gin, jazz, and
sex.'' The publications of black organizations, from the NAACP's
magazine, Crisis, edited by W.E.B. Du Bois, to the Socialist Party
supported magazine, Messenger, edited by A. Philip Randolph and
Chandler Owens (with assistance from George Schuyler), expressed
opposition to jazz as well. For many Harlem Renaissance intellectuals,
jazz was not viewed as a serious artistic achievement on par with
European classical music. The great irony of blacks worshiping European
music is that European composers such as Richard Strauss were, at the
same time, expressing profound admiration for jazz. In 1926, one of the
most important debates about the relation of black intellectuals to
black mass culture took place in the pages of the Nation, between
George Schuyler and Langston Hughes. In his essay, ``The Negro Art
Hokum,'' Schuyler argued that there was no such thing as a distinct
Negro art apart from American art. Schuyler said that Negro art
occurred in Africa, but to ``suggest the possibility of any such
development among the ten million colored people in this republic is
self-evident foolishness.'' Schuyler argued that ``slave songs based on
Protestant hymns and biblical texts'' and ``secular songs of sorrow and
tough luck known as the blues'' were ``contributions of a caste'' in
certain sections of America that were ``foreign to Northern Negroes,
West Indian Negroes, and African Negroes.'' For Schuyler, defining art
in racial terms was ``hokum''.
Hughes's response, which ran a week later, became one of his
signature essays. Entitled ``The Negro Artist and the Racial
Mountain,'' Hughes's essay lamented the veiled desire of some black
artists to be white. Such artists feared their own racial identity.
Hughes argued that the black middle class was denying a crucial part of
its heritage by denying the ``beauty of [its] own people'' and that
Negroes should stop imitating ``Nordic manners, Nordic faces, Nordic
air, Nordic art.'' In their stead, he urged Negroes to embrace ``the
low-down folks, the so-called common element, and they are the
majority--may the Lord be praised.'' Hughes argued that the ``common
people will give to the world its truly great Negro artist, the one who
is not afraid to be himself.'' For Hughes, the racial mountain was the
inability of the black bourgeoisie to accept Negro art from the masses,
Hughes exhorted his fellow Negroes to let ``the blare of Negro jazz
bands and the bellowing voice of Bessie Smith singing blues penetrate
the closed ears of the colored near-intellectuals until they listen and
perhaps understand.'' Hughes's words are still relevant.
By rehearsing this bit of jazz history--one that is conveniently
overlooked by Crouch and Marsalis as they attack rap and proclaim jazz
as America's classical music--I am not arguing that we should
romanticize black folk culture. Neither am I equating black folk art
and pop culture. The big business of how black culture is packaged as a
commodity to be bought and sold in the marketplace with billions of
dollars at stake prevents such an easy equation. I'm simply arguing
that all forms of black music have been attacked both within and beyond
black culture. Blues and jazz, rhythm and blues, and soul have been
viewed as indecent, immoral, and corrupting black youth. To be
nostalgic for a time when black music offered a purer aesthetic or a
higher moral vision is to hunger for a time in history that simply
doesn't exist. (Of course, another way of stating this is to say that
all black music has an aesthetic appeal, and a moral vision, that will
at first be assailed, but whose loss will one day be mourned and
compared favorably with the next form of hated black music to come
along.) When Marsalis, Crouch, and other critics perched aloft the wall
of high black culture throw stones at hip-hop, they forget that such
stones were once thrown at their music of preference. Bebop was once
hip-hop. Ragtime was once rap. Bluesmen were once b-boys. What is now
noble was once notorious.
Crouch, Marsalis, and other critics have argued against hip-hop
even being called serious music. Of course, these critics hold the same
grudge against latter-day Coltrane, Eric Dolphy, Ornette Coleman, Cecil
Taylor, Albert Ayler, Archie Shepp, Don Cherry, and almost any avant-
garde jazz artist who championed unorthodox harmonies, departure from
chord-based improvisations, atonal ``noise'', and dissonant melodies.
Neither Ellington nor Armstrong, heroes for Crouch and Marsalis--and
for me, too--would be today what they were when they played. To be
sure, they'd still be geniuses. But the character of their genius would
be greatly altered. Their relentless reach for the edge of experience
pushed them to keep growing, experimenting, and improvising.
Conservative advocates of jazz end up freezing the form, making jazz an
endless series of explorations of already charted territory. It's a
process of rediscovering what's already been discovered. Such a process
led someone to remark that the problem with so much of contemporary
neotraditionalist jazz is that Thelonius Monk couldn't even win the
annual contest that's sponsored in his name! The very spirit of jazz--
its imperative to improvise, which can often lead into dangerous,
unmapped territory--is thus sacrificed in the name of preserving the
noble, heroic traditions that grow out of a specific time in jazz's
history. What's really being preserved is the product, not the process,
of improvisation. But that's another story.
At base, the perception of the aesthetic alienation of hip-hop
culture is linked to a perception that black youth are moral strangers.
I mean by ``moral strangers'' that black youth are believed to be
ethically estranged from the moral practices and spiritual beliefs that
have seen previous black generations through harsh and dangerous times.
The violence of black youth culture is pointed to as a major symptom of
moral strangeness. Heartless black-on-black murder, escalating rates of
rape, rising incidents of drug abuse, and the immense popularity of
hip-hop culture reinforces the perception of an ethical estrangement
among black youth. In arguing the moral strangeness of black youth,
many critics recycle bits and pieces of old-style arguments about the
pathology of black urban culture. Widely popularized in Daniel
Moynihan's famous 1965 study of the black family--whose pathology was
partially ascribed to a growing matriarchy in black domestic life--the
notion that black culture carries the seeds of its own destruction is
an old idea. The argument for black cultural pathology is really an
updated version of beliefs about black moral deficiency as ancient as
the black presence in the New World.
Still, there's no doubt that terrible things are happening to black
youth. To pretend otherwise is to ignore the obvious. Black youth are
killing and being killed. Crime and violence go hand in hand. High
unemployment is entrenched. Teenage pregnancy is epidemic. How can we
explain these facts? I think we've moved from a theory of moral
strangeness to a theory of how power has shifted away from adults to
young people in many urban homes and communities. Highlighting such a
shift by no means sidesteps issues of morality, values, or
responsibility. It simply gives us a handle on specific changes in
black youth culture that have had a vicious effect on black life.
I think there is a juvenocracy operating in many urban homes and
communities. For me, a juvenocracy is the domination of black and
Latino domestic and urban life by mostly male figures under the age of
25 who wield considerable economic, social, and moral influence. A
juvenocracy may consist of drug gangs, street crews, loosely organized
groups, and individual youths who engage in illicit activity. They
operate outside the bounds of the moral and political economies of
traditional homes and neighborhoods. The rise of juvenocracy represents
a significant departure from home and neighborhood relations where
adults are in charge. Three factors are at the heart of such a shift.
The first is the extraordinary violence of American life. As
historian Richard Slotkin has argued, the frontier myth at the base of
our country revolves around ``regeneration through violence.'' America
renews itself at the altar of devotion to violence as a rite of
national identification. It is important to remember this rite as cries
go up about the exceptional violence of black youth. Black youth are
viewed as innately inclined to violent behavior. The lyrics and images
of hip-hop are used as proof of such a claim. Well, as strong and
pungent as hip-hop is, as offensive as it can be, it is still art. It
isn't life, no matter what some hip-hoppers claim about its
``realness.'' Indeed, without making too strong of a point of it, hip-
hop's existence may be keeping a lot of black youth away from drugs,
crime, and life on the streets because they get to rap about such
things in the sound booth. Thank God for what other hip-hoppers
derisively refer to as ``studio gangstas.''
It is simply dishonest to paint black youth as the primary source
of violence in America. In fact, more often than not, black youth are
the victims, not the perpetrators, of violence. Although they are only
5.9 percent of the population, black males account for 40 percent of
homicide victims. Black men over 24 are the victims of homicide at a
rate of 65.7 per 100,000. For white males in that age group, the figure
is 7.8 per 100,000. Youth between the ages of 12 and 17 are the most
common victims of crime in America.
There were 33,651 Americans killed in the Korean War. There were
47,364 Americans killed in the Vietnam War. There were 37,155 Americans
killed with firearms in homicides, suicides, and accidents in 1990. In
1991, 45,536 Americans were killed in motor vehicle accidents. The same
year, 38,317 Americans died from gunshot wounds. Now firearm incidents
surpass motor vehicle accidents as the most likely way Americans will
die. Among white Americans, 28.4 per 100,000 die from motor vehicle
injuries; 15.2 per 100,000 die from firearms. For Latinos, 28.7 per
100,000 die from motor vehicle accidents; 29.6 per 100,000 die from
firearms; 140.7 out of 100,000 black males between 20 and 24 were
killed by firearms in the same year. One in 28 black males born in the
United States is likely to be murdered; 93 percent of black murder
victims are killed by other blacks. Firearms in the hands of young
black and Latino men has clearly altered the urban landscape. Firearms
have given juvenocrats the ultimate weapon of death.
The American addiction to violence, the political economy of crack,
and this nation's fetish for firearms account for the rise of a violent
juvenocracy. Of course, there are ethical dimensions to juvenocracies
as well. Are juvenocracies corrupt? Yes. Are the people who participate
in juvenocracies often morally vicious? Yes. Should the destruction
that juvenocracies leave in their wake, especially in black and Latino
communities, be opposed? With all our might. But unlike the culture of
pathology arguments, or even arguments about black nihilism, my theory
of juvenocracy doesn't locate the source of ethical erosion and moral
corruption at the heart of black communities. Why? Because the behavior
of juvenocrats can be explained by generic, or better, universal
principles of human action. Murder, robbery, assault and battery, and
drug dealing are not peculiar to black culture. They occur everywhere.
A theory of black pathology or nihilism confuses the matter by asking
us to believe that these problems are endemic to black communities.
They are not.
Moreover, rap highlights undervalued problems. One of the most
intriguing and undervalued aspects of contemporary rap is its struggle
with the problem of evil. In formal theological circles, the branch of
thought that addresses this question is called theodicy. Theodicy
attempts to understand and explain why bad things happen to good, or at
least, innocent, people. It also tries to understand human suffering in
the light of asserting that God is good. How can a good God allow evil
to exist and to harm her children?
Hard core rappers, including Notorious B.I.G., 2 Pac Shakur, and
Snoop Dogg have all, in varying ways, grappled with the problem of
evil. Interestingly, this salient dimension of hard-core rap has been
overlooked, perhaps because it is hidden in plain sight. In addressing
evil and hard-core rap, it is helpful to remember that theodicy also
has a social expression. One of sociology's towering thinkers, Max
Weber, conceived theodicy as the effort gifted individuals to give
meaning to the suffering of the masses. Indeed, the appeal of King and
Malcolm X rested largely on their abilities to make sense of the
suffering that their followers endured. Of course, King's and Malcolm
X's theodicies had vastly opposed orientations. King argued that the
unearned suffering of blacks would redeem American society. Malcolm
believed in mutual bloodshed: if blacks suffered, then whites ought to
suffer as well. More recently, black leaders as diverse as Colin Powell
and Louis Farrakhan have urged blacks to take more responsibility in
dealing with the suffering in their communities. Hard-core rappers, by
contrast, dismiss such remedies. They celebrate the outlaw as much as
they denounce the institutions they view as the real culprits: the
schools, churches, and justice system that exploit poor blacks.
Paradoxically, the fact that rappers are struggling with suffering and
evil proves that in fact they are connected to a moral tradition, once
championed by King, that they have seemingly rejected. Moreover, the
aggressive manner in which rappers deal with evil--putting forth images
that suggest that they both resist and embrace evil--is disturbing
because it encourages us to confront how we resist and embrace evil in
our own lives.
The suffering masses that concern hard-core rappers are almost
exclusively the black ghetto poor. According to many gangsta griots,
the sources of this suffering are economic inequality, police
brutality, and white racism. These forces lead to a host of self-
destructive ills: black-on-black homicide, drug addiction, and the thug
life that so many rappers celebrate and, in a few cases, embrace. For
instance, in his ``The Ghetto Won't Change,'' hard-core rapper Master P
expresses the widely held belief among blacks that the carnage-inducing
drug trade flourishes in the ghetto because of government complicity
and white indifference. On ``Point Tha Finga,'' Tupac Shakur gives
voice to the rage many blacks feel when they realize that their hard-
earned wages are subsidizing their own suffering at the hands of
abusive police. For Shakur, the ethical line drawn between cops and
criminals is even more blurred by the police's immoral behavior.
But blurring the lines that divide right from wrong is what seems
to set these urban theodicists apart from their colleagues in
traditional religious circles. Even Martin Luther, who shook the
foundations of the Catholic church, dropped his moral anchor as he
launched his own theodicy in the form of a question: ``Where might I
find a gracious God?'' As Luther understood, the purpose of a theodicy
is, in Milton's words, to ``justify the ways of God to men.'' This is
especially true when a God whom believers claim to be good and all-
powerful allows evil to occur. The problem with most thuggish
theodicies is that their authors are as likely to flaunt as flail the
vices they depict in music. Unlike traditional theodicists such as
King, hard-core rappers maintain little moral distance from the evil
they confront. Instead, they embody those evils with startling realism:
guns, gangs, drugs, sexual transgression, and even murder are
relentlessly valorized in the rhetoric of gangsta rappers. Although
gangsta rappers are not the only popular cultural figures to do that,
their words provoke a special outrage among cultural critics. For
instance, although the 1996 film Last Man Standing, starring Bruce
Willis, was filled with gratuitous violence, it was not denounced
nearly as much as Snoop Doggy Dogg's equally violent 1993 album,
Doggystyle. Neither did the Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle True Lies,
which was swollen by crude ethnic stereotypes, come in for the bitter
attack aimed at Tupac Shakur's ``2Pacalypse Now.'' When it comes to
guns, we still feel safer when they are in the hands of white men, even
if they are thugs.
Moral ambiguity is at the heart of hard-core rap's struggle with
evil. When it comes to dealing with that idea, hard-core rappers are
treated far differently by critics than are the creators of gangster
films. In The Godfather, for example, Francis Ford Coppola's characters
pay lip service to a code of respect, loyalty, and honor. Still, they
are ruthless murderers. Coppola is considered a brilliant artist and
his characters memorable creations. The hard-core rapper and his work
are rarely credited with such moral complexity. Either his creations
are taken literally and their artistic status denied, or he is viewed
as being incapable of examining the moral landscape. It is frightening
for many to concede hard-core rap's moral complexity.
With that, we end up where we began: the rise of juvenocracy has
been complemented by the cultural fascination with, and revulsion to,
the pop culture of black youth, especially hip-hop. For many critics,
the two go hand in hand. But that's a mistaken perception. That's not
to say that gangsta rappers, for instance, don't identify with real
gangsters. That they don't feed off one another. That their styles and
social aspirations are not easily confused. Still, most real gangsters
don't listen to gangsta rap for inspiration to do what they do. They
check out old-school grooves. Too many of them have said so for us to
ignore it. A lot of gangsters prefer Al Green to Snoop Doggy Dogg. Too
often, then, black youth are all lumped together--in the media, in
discussions by black intellectuals, in the analyses of cultural
critics, and in the public imagination.
Unlike Ralph Ellison's character in his famous novel, and the bulk
of black folk for a long stretch of our history, black youth suffer,
not from invisibility, but from hypervisibility. The surplus sighting,
and citing, of young black bodies--in crime stories on the news, in
congressional hearings about demeaning imagery in pop music, in
shopping malls where they hang out, in police profiles where they are
stigmatized, in suburban communities where they are surveilled--has
draped paranoia and panic around their very limbs. In all wrong ways,
black youth are overexposed. (Is it any wonder, then, that they dress
in oversize clothing to hide their demonized bodies, to diminish the
measuring of their alleged menace?)
And unlike James Baldwin and generations of black folk, black youth
don't suffer from namelessness. They suffer from namefulness, from too
many names. The sheer nameability of black youth, the ease with which
they are mislabeled, promotes young black youth a negative solidarity,
a unity produced by the attacks they have in common. Like Thomas
Hobbes, black youth understand that human beings wield power through
calling names and avoiding names. As Hobbes knew, black youth also know
that names venerate and vilify. Names influence events. Hip-hop culture
has provoked the naming, really the misnaming, of black youth:
sadistic, self-destructive, violent, brutal, narcissistic, nihilistic,
pathological, immoral, and, for some, evil. Hip-hop has fought back. It
uses strategies of naming, renaming, unnaming, and overnaming its own
culture and the cultures--racist, rich, elite, bourgeois--against which
it strives.
Instead of nostalgia, we need serious, rigorous analysis and
critical appreciation of black youth. Instead of attacks on hip-hop
culture, we need sharp, well-informed evaluations of its artistic
statements and ethical imagination. Black nostalgia must be replaced by
an even stronger force: the historic black determination to remain
undefeated by pessimism from within black culture, and paranoia from
beyond its borders. We must not be prisoners of our present
circumstances, of current events. We must be prisoners of faith.
The Chairman. Dr. Borenstein, Dr. Cook and Mr. McIntyre, if
the present rating system is not satisfactory--first of all, I
do not know if you have seen this piece that is put out by the
entertainment software rating board. Have you seen it, Dr.
Cook?
Dr. Cook. No, I have not.
The Chairman. Would you pass it down? And Mr. McIntyre. Not
only would I like you to glance at that, but what changes need
to be made to the ratings system to make it more effective and
more informative for Americans? Maybe I could begin with you,
Dr. Borenstein. I am not recommending that. I am just noting
that there are some ideas out there. What do we need to do?
Dr. Borenstein. Senator, I am not prepared at this moment
to tell you in detail what more needs to be done.
The Chairman. I do not expect that.
Dr. Borenstein. But I think this is a good beginning.
However, as I think about individual movies, for example, you
could have the Private Ryan movie, and it shows the horror of
war and the pain of war. Then you can have glorified violence
showing in a war movie, but it is glorifying the violence. And
that is a very different thing. And I think we can begin to
make some distinctions between movies that show violence in one
way or violence in a different way. An historical piece is one
thing if it is done properly. Many movies do not show that
people are actually hurt when they--the pain and suffering that
is involved with the violence. They tend to glorify it and
things like that. And I think we can make those kinds of
distinctions, and we are willing to work with the entertainment
industry and others to do so.
The Chairman. Dr. Cook.
Dr. Cook. I feel that we need to continue to work to see if
we cannot simplify this so parents can understand it better. It
is fairly simple now. But many people do not understand what it
is. But I am not sure how we can get people to basically react
to it and learn what these symbols mean. But I think we have
something lacking in the system now. Parents cannot always tell
by looking at the symbol that is there exactly what they are
going to find in the movie or in the video or whatever it is.
And I think that is what concerns them more than anything not
being able to read what is there when they see the ratings. We
need to be a little more careful about getting that explicit
enough so that they can understand.
Mr. Lowenstein. Mr. Chairman, can I make a brief comment on
that?
The Chairman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lowenstein. Since this is the video game rating system
that you passed out, the Entertainment Software Rating Board. I
think it is an important point to note that this rating system
does provide very simple information on age appropriateness and
content. Moreover, a video game is very different from a movie
or a CD in terms of how it is marketed. The packaging is a
primary component of the marketing. It is very difficult to
pick up a video game package and not have a pretty good idea of
what the content of the game is. That is supplemented by a
rating that says the age appropriateness and indicates the
content, whether it is animated violence, realistic violence,
suggestive themes, and so on.
So this system is very simple. It has been tested
extensively. And the research suggested nearly 80 percent of
Americans think it is helpful in making decisions. And I would
just very briefly add that we approached some of these medical
groups on this panel last fall and asked them for their help in
getting information out about this rating system. We cannot do
it alone. And I would reiterate today--unfortunately they were
not able to help last fall. We will once again offer to work
with them, to try to get information. I am not asking for them
to endorse the system. But I think it is, in virtually
everybody's opinion, a helpful tool for parents to use. And we
would like to get it out in as many people's hands as we
possibly can.
The Chairman. Mr. McIntyre.
Mr. McIntyre. I think the point actually that Mr. Goldberg
from Artemis Records made on this morning's panel that all
children are different and all families are different is an
important one to consider in the consideration of rating
systems. All children are different. We know based not only on
individual situations, but also based on developmental levels.
In that instance, it is the parent's duty and the parent's
power, and the parent's power only, to be able to make the
decisions for healthful habits for their individual children.
As such, they should have as much information as possible so
they can make their own decisions for them. Having a ratings
system that ultimately is based on age categories does nothing
if I have a young child that is having tendencies towards
violent actions, is getting into fights in school and whatnot.
I may have liberal attitudes about language or sexuality or
whatnot, but I absolutely want to protect that child from
violence. When I go in and see a ``PG'' or ``PG-13'' movie or
see a teen rating on a video game, although there are some
qualifiers if you take the time to dig into it, it does not
tell parents the amount of information that they need in order
to take the actions that they and they alone should be taking.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Valenti, I know that you know
that I have great respect for your distinguished career,
including very honorable service during a very difficult time
of transition in the history of this country you served for
many years.
I am also concerned as I said, about this cynicism that
pervades the country now. We are looking at the lowest voter
turnout perhaps in history in this upcoming presidential
election. According to The New York Times yesterday, Mr.
Valenti dismissed the Democrat's proposal as carefully
calibrated political posturing. ``Frankly,'' he said, ``if I
were running for office, I would be trashing the movie industry
myself.'' What does that mean, Mr. Valenti?
Mr. Valenti. It means exactly what it says, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. So there is no sincerity.
Mr. Valenti. No, I am saying to you that realistically--and
I have been in politics all my life--I know that when you trash
the entertainment business, your poll numbers go up. I have
talked to a number of pollsters in this town. And I am not
being critical, because I would be doing the same thing. But
that is not the issue. I am as concerned as you are about what
is going on in this country. And I yield to no man in my
respect for you, Senator. As I have told you sitting across the
dinner table, you are one of the few Americans I know, you and
Senator Inouye, who really define what the word sic means. So
there is nothing you could say that would ever get me mad at
you. That is for sure.
But I would like to discuss what we are doing. There has
been a dismissal of our rating system. These three gentlemen
say the rating system is not working. That chart shows a record
of 31 years of polling in this country. We have an all time
high in parental endorsement. And it is swept away with casual
regard. I do not understand that. We are going right to parents
with children under 13. Nobody at this table--with maybe Doug's
exception--has children under 13. I am saying to you that
parents are saying we think what you are doing is useful, very
useful. Do you think that anything would last that long?
And by the way, we are the only enterprise in the entire
country of all business enterprises, not just entertainment,
that deliberately and voluntarily turns away revenues in order
to redeem this obligation that we have to parents. I am not
saying you have to love us, but somebody ought to say, you know
something? That is not a bad job.
Dr. Borenstein. Chairman McCain, I must apologize. I have
to leave to catch an airplane and get back to patient care. I
thank you very much for the opportunity to appear.
The Chairman. Thank you for being with us. And I want to
apologize to you for the delay in your appearance. And I
appreciate you taking the time and effort to be here. Maybe if
there is good news in the inconvenience, it is that we have
forced on you that there is obviously great interest in this
issue. And your testimony is very important to us.
Dr. Borenstein. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Hollings.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have hung back
because the office is filled up. We are all behind in our
schedules. But I wanted out of respect for Mr. Valenti to tell
him that I would persist in the TV violence measure that we
will markup here on next Wednesday. There is no one that I have
greater affection for or respect. Jack Valenti is the smartest
fellow that I have met up here in 34 years.
The Chairman. I agree.
Senator Hollings. He is literate. I read his books. And he
does a hell of an outstanding job for an industry that in a
sense ought to be trashed because they trash themselves. We
(Congress) would have to stand in line to trash them. Look, you
are a wonderful performer. However, in the history of
broadcasting, producers said to put in murder and get some more
violence. We have been knowing this now for 50 years. And to
come in here and have the unmitigated gall to try to take
credit for the lowering of the crime rate in this country.
Whoopee! As I said, I just have to stay back with that
statement of yours.
Let me tell you the put offs I have had to go through.
Because back there when Pastore started, exactly the arguments
about Euclidean geometry and it is imprecise and there is no
real causal connection or anything else of that kind. All of
that is true. It is hard to prove, but we all know it. We all
know it when we see it as a Supreme Court Justice said.
In this case, we have had the Surgeon General. We got a
Surgeon General report. We have had the psychiatric, the
pediatric, the American Medical, the psychological, all of
these studies have been, Professor Huron of Michigan has
written a book. The Institute of Mental Health made a ten year
study.
So that was all during the early 1970s and 1980s. By 1995
when we finally got to a bill--and incidentally, you put me off
with Paul Simon. I have got the fellow you spotted already on
this Committee. I know you, and you know me. It was suggested
then that a study should be conducted. We have got to study. If
we only give the industry added trust exemption, violence would
go down and the violent movies would stop for children and that
kind of thing. Instead, we have got the FTC study saying they
are marketing it.
Now, we had that. And in 1995, you asked about the
constitutionality. We had to get the Attorney General and all
the law professors because I am sorry Dr. Borenstein just left
because it has to be very carefully couched in the legislative
language in the sense that we have got to strand the strictest
review by the court itself. So it has got to be not just
violence, but it has got to be gratuitous violence, not
necessary to the plot. And even then, it has got to be
excessive gratuitous violence. And incidentally, that does not
only work in Europe. A Senator from California came and said,
well, wait a minute. They go from Detroit over to Windsor,
Canada and they do not seem to have that trouble. So the
problem is somewhere else. So Windsor, Canada has got the Safe
Harbor Practice--right, which is similar to my bill.
But the ratings. You have got the V-chip and the ratings.
In Canada, I know that the ratings are no good--I mean, the
ratings might be accurate or whatever it is, but they do not
respond to reality. And the V-chip does not. The evidence this
morning is 97 percent have never used the V-chip, only two or
three percent ever will. So that is not going to help us.
So you say they love their children, and I know they do.
But they love money and that is the competition. That is the
argument we have got on the floor. They love their country, but
they like to produce overseas. They could care less about the
jobs overseas. And going over there. Because they make a bigger
profit. This is the China bill. I am not against China. I am
against the United States because we do not have a policy.
It is not mistakes, Mr. Valenti. You say it is mistakes.
Those mistakes will happen. They have got an affirmative action
policy to distribute, market and include violence and market
that violence to children. There is no question in my mind
watching this thing over the many years. I have got to continue
to insist, and I wish I could do something to help you because
you deserve it. You are one of the most talented, deserving
individuals I have ever known. I say that in all fairness. But
this has got to continue. We have got to do what we found works
and that is have a safe harbor bill. I would be glad for you to
respond.
Mr. Valenti. Mr. Chairman and Senator Hollings, thank you
for the kind words and thank you for what I think are probably
some other truths that you talk about. I had no idea to be
honest with you--before I answer your question about safe
harbor--that our companies were actually putting 10- and 12-
year-olds in a focus group. I did not know that. Now I do. And
I can guarantee you, that is not going to happen anymore.
On the Safe Harbor bill, I do not know how you define
gratuitous. The great professor of philosophy, Garnett Hardin,
said that how do you define enough? And he said, well, enough
is when it is more than enough. Gratuitous means that there is
more than enough. But I would think that the courts would have
as much difficulty doing that, as you pointed out, that Justice
Potter Stewart said I cannot define pornography, but I know
what it is when I see it.
I would think that before you can have such a bill, there
has to be written down with some precision. Because if you are
going to employ sanctions against somebody, you ought to know
what they are being sanctioned for. And it has to be defined
clearly. Whereas you and I both know, I think the courts would
not find that congenial.
So I think that is one of the things that has to be done.
And we are trying desperately to do what we think is right. I
have tried to lay before you a rating system. But a rating
system only works if parents use it. Now, you were involved in
the organization, the TV ratings. We went with all these child
advocacy groups and we had D for dialogue, L for language, S
for Sex, V for violence. And we have a rating system. But you
cannot force parents to use it. About 40 to 50 million
television sets are equipped today with a V-chip. How do you
say, Mr. & Mr. Parent, damnit use that V-chip? I do not know,
Senator.
Senator Hollings. Well, if the Chairman will indulge me,
number one, with respect to precision, that would be a mistake.
Gratuitous means not necessary to the plot and not necessarily
under the circumstances of that particular film. Let us say it
since we are talking about movies. You would allow the Federal
Communications Commission as they have determined about
obscenity from time-to-time on an ad hoc basis.
So generally, we know what is gratuitous violence. We had
the CBS Vice President come up when you were there one time
before and were testifying. They had a little bit of violence
at the bar. But then it became totally gratuitous because it
was not necessary to the plot. And that is all it was is just
throwing people through windows, breaking windows over their
heads, hitting them in the head with a hammer and everything
else like that. And it was supposed to be a calm show.
But in any event, you are not going to have that precision.
Do not ask us to legislate precisely, because we will never
legislate. You know that. You are smart. That will never
happen. So we will never get that law. Otherwise, you say how
are you going to get through to parents? We live in the real
world. I have got five grandchildren. I have got five TVs
upstairs, downstairs, down in the workroom and everything else.
You think I am going to follow the child all the way around the
house and everything else? I really would be an athlete if I
did that.
So you cannot depend on the ratings and the parents. That
has got to be said. Somebody ought to say it because everybody
who is a parent around here knows it, you just cannot catch up
with the children. And the rating, if you got that rating here
that says VAO, oh, boy. I am a 14, 15-year-old, 12-year-old,
and I can read that. That is for adults only. That is the one I
am going to find. I am going to get that one quick. I can tell
you that right now. So you are advertising. You are upgrading.
And the V-chip, Hollywood says, well, you have got the V-
chip. Now you can put as much violence as you want because we
can depend on the parents to use the V-chip. So really the V-
chip has had a counter-productive effect in the sense that they
put on more violence and come up here and testify. Well, you
have got the V-chip. It is up to the parents. That is not going
to work. We have got a real national problem with respect to
violence in our society. It is not in these other societies. We
know how they control it. It is worth a try here.
Mr. Valenti. But, you know, Senator, if I may respond. It
is just like in the political world--and I keep coming back to
that because I spent my life in it. Two candidates in my home
state of Texas----
The Chairman. Could you summarize? Really, we have three
other Senators.
Mr. Valenti. I am sorry. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Go ahead. Go ahead. Please.
Mr. Valenti. I was just going to point out people have
different views. I might say my opponent is indulging in
negative advertising. And he says, no, I am not indulging in
negative advertising. Somebody might say there is too much
violence. Somebody said, no, there is not too much violence. I
only point out the incongruity of trying to precisely say this
has too much violence. That does not. It is a problem of human
logistics, Senator.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Valenti. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Thank you. Sitting here and listening to
the witnesses, one can conclude that everyone agrees that
exposing a child to violence will have a negative impact upon a
child's development. No one disagrees with that.
Having said that, I would just like to note a few things.
About a month ago, I had the privilege of addressing a high
school class. And in the question and answer period, one of the
students stood up and said can you suggest some of the best
movies you have seen? So I said, ``Yes. I would recommend
Saving Private Ryan.'' I would recommend Schindler's List. And
recently I saw The Patriot. And the same thing was echoed here
on the panel. Several witnesses pointed out that Hollywood does
good work. And they cited specifically those three, Schindler's
List, Saving Private Ryan and The Patriot.
And here I am, I recommended these three monumental films.
I just learned today--because I was just curious. I asked my
staff sitting in the back here, by the way, what ratings do
these three get, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan and The
Patriot? She had no idea. So she had to go out and check. You
know, I had committed a crime. They are all ``R''. I
recommended to young kids, 14, 15, 16, that they should watch
these three R-rated movies.
I cite this to suggest that what we are confronting here is
not easy obviously. I do not know what the answer is. I hope we
do not come to a situation like tobacco where we will require a
retailer to set aside a private room where all our video
cassettes are going to be displayed and only adults may enter
the doorway. What would you suggest?
Mr. Valenti. Well, Senator Inouye, you know we have an
adults-only rating. It is called ``NC-17'' where children are
barred from attending the movie. And most video stores will
have a separate place. If they do sell or rent those, they will
do it separately. And no child can rent it or no child can buy
it. The Blockbuster stores and others are very, very serious in
enforcing that.
I am saying to you we are dealing with some vagueries of
the human condition that is beyond the power of any one or two
people or any one or two groups or any one or two industries to
be able to fix in somebody's mind how they should react to a
particular situation.
I think Mr. Goldberg was talking about that all children
are different because they come from different backgrounds. And
all parents are different. I do not believe anybody that is a
mere mortal can make these judgments about other people. So all
we do in this free and loving land is to try to give people
some advance information about what it is they eat, what it is
they do, what they see, what they read. And then let them make
those judgments, much as we do in an election booth. We offer
candidates and we say choose one that you like to vote for.
That is the only way I know to deal with it. It is imperfect.
It is clumsy and it is awkward. And sometimes it causes
frustration, makes us vexed. That is part of being a free
republic.
Now, if I were an enlightened despot, I could deal with
this. And, by the way, that is a thought that is kind of
congenial to me as a matter of fact. But we do not have that
kind. When the Soviets were in power, you did not have anything
on television that the Kremlin did not want.
You pay a price for that though. And so I am saying to you
that I do not know of any way that you can inflict upon others
your own judgments. And your, I mean, the Congress or a group
or an association, whatever. You cannot do it any more than the
majority/minority leader can fix upon the members of his party
how to vote on a particular thing or how to respond. You cannot
do it.
Dr. Dyson. Can I add something to the response if I may,
Senator? You know, what strikes me as intriguing and at least
worthy of the same sort of intense scrutiny to which we subject
this whole rating system and about music or videos and movies
is the fact when we think about television, you know, we cannot
calibrate the intensity of the psychic violence that was done
when say back in the 1950s when father knew best, when America
generally through the haze of nostalgia has a claim that is the
golden age of television and cinema and filmmaking and so on.
The reality is that there was so much stuff that was done to
devastate the minds of the average American, including young
black kids, young poor white kids, Latino kids, Asian kids,
minority kids, gay and lesbian kids, my God.
And during the era of father knew best, the rates of
domestic violence that were intensely expressed in American
society were never reflected on television. And what happened
through the haze of nostalgia, we romanticize the American
family as the kind of locus classicus of everything that was
good. When indeed there was so much pathology going on.
Number two. When you think about that era of father knew
best and black and white that we now romanticize, Lassie had a
television program and Nat King Cole could not stay on for a
year. Now, what does that say to a young person growing up? I
can look at a dog, look at Timmy and Lassie, Sister June and
everybody else who was on the show--because I checked it out--
the dog had a program and Lassie was worthy of being followed.
Bow wow wow. What you saying, girl? Bow wow wow wow. Let us
follow her out. But a black man of enormous talent, on whose
back Capitol Records was built, could not stay on television
because of the revulsion for black skinned skill and talent in
one segment.
And I am saying look at the psychologically violent
consequences to young people. So I am saying all that to say
this. That when you begin to try to calibrate, it is not only
about the resistance of a Euclidian geometry or an Archimedean
point of objectivity from which we can look at television and
say and radio and say and lyrics and say and movies and say
that stuff is bad.
Of course, we have common sense. We know when stuff is
destructive or not. But the reality is there is so much more
that is destructive that never shows up on the radar screen.
There is so much more that does violence to young people who
are growing up that has nothing to do with whether somebody
said damn or hell or some other word. It is about the realities
that they confront and the inability to make those realities
visible and to make the United States Congress take those
seriously. I think we have to put those in context as well as
these other things about which we eloquently discourse here
today.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, I'm happy I was hear to
listen to this panel here. Dr. Cook, is there a difference in
violence, say in the three movies that I cited, and other R-
rated movies? When is violence real violence?
Dr. Cook. No. No, it is not. There is varied--many
different grades of violence, and some are intentional, some
violence is intended to harm, some is unintentional. There's
many different types and grades of violence, and so violence
isn't violence isn't violence.
Actually, something that no one has mentioned here today,
there has been a slight decrease in the amount of violence in
the United States in the last few years. This is particularly
true, except in 15- to 24-year-olds. And in that group, the
violence hasn't decreased. So some of the things we're doing
somewhere are working. We just need it to work better and more
effectively so the rate will continue to drop. But the violence
rate increased up until about 1992 or 1993 and then has begun
to come down slightly since that time.
So I think that's important. There are things out there
that are happening that are positive to make that occur.
Senator Inouye. Dr. Cook, I want to thank you for your
contribution. The statistics that you cite among African
Americans can be duplicated in the Native American----
Dr. Cook. Yes, sir.
Senator Inouye. --population of the United States----
Dr. Cook. Yes.
Senator Inouye. --in some cases, worse.
Dr. Cook. Uh-huh, absolutely.
Senator Inouye. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir. I'm unaware of whether
Senator Breaux or Senator Kerry arrived first. Senator Kerry?
Senator Kerry. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. It's been
very interesting listening to a lot of this. I apologize that
some of us have not been able to be here throughout the
hearing.
I mean, as I said earlier today, there's some really tricky
aspects to this that I know Senator Inouye was particularly
sensitive to, and others, I think, have been.
And Mr. Dyson, I was particularly struck. I came in--I
didn't hear all of your testimony, but I couldn't agree with
you more strongly about the perceptions of young people and the
difficulties of our trying to amass judgment on some aspects of
what we hear. Certainly one person's profanity can easily be
another person's protest.
Dr. Dyson. Uh-huh.
Senator Kerry. And that's always been true. It has always
been true. And I can remember, during the turmoil of the 1960s
and early 1970s in this country, there was an awful lot of
profanity that was part of the political protest. And
obviously, it would be sanctioned by the court under the First
Amendment.
And if I were black or Latino or some other minorities in
America, I could find a lot of four-letter words and a lot of
other kinds of words of powerful alliteration with which to
describe this institution and the political system's lack of
response. I mean, after all, 48 percent of the kids in New York
City don't graduate from high school.
Dr. Dyson. Yeah, right.
Senator Kerry. There are more African Americans in prison
today than in college.
Dr. Dyson. Uh-huh.
Senator Kerry. And if I were a young black person growing
up in those circumstances in this country, notwithstanding the
extraordinary opportunities that there are, and there are--I
mean, there are just amazing opportunities for people. And you
look at a person like Devall Patrick in Massachusetts, who came
out of the south side of Chicago, happened to get a great
scholarship, went to Harvard, became----
Dr. Dyson. Yeah.
Senator Kerry. --Assistant Attorney General for Civil
Rights. I mean, there are people of enormous distinction who've
made it. But the problem is, systemically there is a sense
still of much too great a set of hurdles and too many barriers.
And you look at what was in the paper--I think it was
yesterday or today--that the reports are now--the surveys
they're doing on the application of the death penalty----
Dr. Dyson. Yes.
Senator Kerry. --that is showing the same kind of very
disturbing trend lines with respect to race and otherwise.
Dr. Dyson. Uh-huh.
Senator Kerry. So I would caution my colleagues a little
bit with respect to sort of a blanket statement with respect to
what we hear. Music has always been a form of expression, from
the beginning of time, and an enormous political tool, I might
add.
Dr. Dyson. Right.
Senator Kerry. And, in many cases, it is. Now, that being
said----
Dr. Dyson. Right.
Senator Kerry. --it is really hard to find any excuse and
certainly any political redemption----
Dr. Dyson. Uh-huh.
Senator Kerry. --in some of the lyrics that we see. There
is, in fact, a particularly onerous aspect of the anger that is
expressed in some of the lyrics. It's a kind of anger of
domination that is particularly violent against women. And I am
a parent, though my kids have now made it through college and
seem to be okay, but I would have--I had serious reservations
about that. And I think any parent has to have serious
reservations about what they hear.
And my question to any of the panelists who can answer this
adequately--and then I want to ask Mr. Valenti something about
the movies, per se. And, of course, there's a distinction
between some of the music, between the software, between the
video games, between movies. I mean, there's a lot of gradation
here, and we have to also be thoughtful about that--but with
respect to the music, it does strike me that some of what we've
heard in the last ten years goes over a line that any
responsible corporate entity ought to have second thoughts
about sponsoring notwithstanding some desire in the public at
large to perhaps buy it.
I can understand, maybe, pirate companies selling it. I
could understand an underground network that makes some of it
available. I find it very hard to understand why the most
upright, upstanding, respected corporate entities in the
country are advertising it are--or are in on it, supporting it,
investing in it. And I wonder if--I mean, isn't there some
measure--short of legislation and overreach by a legislative
body, isn't there some way for a more adequate and responsible
level of restraint to be exercised from the industry itself, or
is that simply, after all these years, asking too much?
Ms. Rosen. Well, Strauss Zelnick and Danny Goldberg earlier
talked a little bit about, as executives, how they evaluate a
record as it comes across their desk. And there are complicated
measures that are not always definable, but they start with
artistic integrity, they start with who the artist is, how
they're saying what they're saying, how the music affects their
messaging, and sometimes it really has nothing to do with
trying to make a point; sometimes it's really just
entertainment.
And I think that, to be frank, Senator, it probably is
expecting too much to think that, at any given point, music is
somehow going to be acceptable. You know, I've heard, over the
last few days, this, sort of, ``Well, you have six months to
clean up your act.'' And with respect to the marketing
practices and the FTC report and things, that's going to be
looked at carefully, but I don't make any promises to this
Committee, and I don't think anyone in the music industry would
or should somehow suggest that music is going to change, that
artists will change, that artists are not going to continue to
seek out their own voice and their own possible distribution
for that voice.
And some artists like being on the edge. That's how they--
that's how they experience their emotions, and that is how they
express their emotions. Other artists don't go there. But I
wouldn't even know where to suggest that somebody draw the line
as an abstract occasion. That's why----
Senator Kerry. Well, it's a self----
Ms. Rosen. --executives have to do that every day, and they
do.
Senator Kerry. Well, I guess it's a self- --I mean,
obviously, it's a self-drawn line, but there are certainly
lyrics--and I'm not going to go into them here and now--but, I
could--I mean, there were some that I just find--I mean, I'm
pretty open-minded and pretty willing to accept anybody's right
to be edgy and sometimes even over the edge, but it's hard to
find any social redemption of any kind--or artistic
redemption--I mean, yeah, there's a beat, there's--you know,
you can find that.
But even in some of them, there seems to me it's very hard
to find that rationale that I know you can always articulate.
Ms. Rosen. Well redemption is a lofty goal. I think it's
sometimes asking too much when you're just talking about
entertainment. I agree with you----
Senator Kerry. Well, lots of things are entertaining, but
they're not always allowed by the law.
Ms. Rosen. Well, I understand. But in the case of speech,
that is allowed by law, but what you heard this morning from
some articulate guys, I thought, was not, ``We'll do anything
because we can.'' Yes, the First Amendment does allow----
The Chairman. Obscenity is not allowed by law, Ms. Rosen.
Ms. Rosen. I'm sorry?
The Chairman. Obscenity is not, according to the United
States Supreme Court----
Ms. Rosen. I understand. I was just going to get there. I'm
not making a First Amendment argument, and I don't think the
executives today made a First Amendment argument. I think what
they said was, we take responsibility for what we put out in
each piece. It's individually examined. And some piece of it
has value to those who create it and has an audience, and so
they put it out.
So I don't think that there is just sort of this blind
attachment to free speech. I think it is a sincere desire to
have a diversity in the marketplace and to pursue that with all
possible artists.
Dr. Dyson. Can I add very briefly in regard to that point,
Senator Kerry? I think that--take for example--what Ms. Rosen
is saying--take, for example, the album--the first album by
Notorious B.I.G.--Biggie Small's. Now, on that album, you would
find stuff, I would find stuff, all of us, most of us would
find stuff that's pretty repulsive.
His song celebrating his girlfriend is called, ``Me and My
B----,'' and we can fill in the blanks there. Now, even though
he means it as a term of affection, he goes on to iterate how
this woman has really helped him, and so on and so forth. On
that same album, he's got many other songs, like ``Things Don't
Change.'' ``Back in the days our parents used to take care of
us, look at 'em now. They're even blankin' scared of us,
calling the city for help because they can't maintain. Darn
things don't change. If I wasn't in the rap game, I'd probably
have a key, a kilo, knee deep in the crack game, `cause the
streets is a short stop. Either you sling and crack rock, or
you got a wicked jump shot. Damn, it's hard being young from
the slums, eatin' five-cent gums, not knowing where your meal's
coming from. What happened to the summertime cookout? Every
time I turn around, a brother's being took out.''
Now, if you restrict because of vulgarity and profanity and
misogyny and unwarranted sexism, the commercial viability of a
particular album--on that same album is an eloquent
exhortation----
Senator Kerry. But that's not what I'm----
Dr. Dyson. --(inaudible crosstalk)--to deal with.
Senator Kerry. --that's not what I'm talking about. That--
--
Dr. Dyson. And I'm saying on the same album, though, the
complex amalgam----
Senator Kerry. That's not----
Dr. Dyson. --of the good and the bad together.
Senator Kerry. Sure, but that's not what I'm talking about.
That's a powerful statement. I mean, at easy blush--someone
would say there's a--I mean, there's a whole lot contained in
that. I don't think that's what I'm talking about, but I don't
want to get bogged down here.
Dr. Dyson. Right.
Senator Kerry. I think most people--it's exactly what Jack
Valenti said, you know, when--you can't necessarily define
pornography, but you know when you see it. People know when
they are reading a lyric or a paragraph----
Dr. Dyson. Sure.
Senator Kerry. --that has absolutely no value except for
shock value.
Dr. Dyson. Right.
Senator Kerry. And I think people can do that pretty well.
And somehow that stuff finds its way into mainstream marketing.
And, in many cases--and I think you have to recognize this--we
all know how celebrity works in America, and we know how the
marketing and----
Dr. Dyson. Yeah.
Senator Kerry. --and sort of, build up is.
Dr. Dyson. Sure.
Senator Kerry. You can create a demand for it.
Dr. Dyson. Yeah.
Senator Kerry. One can create a sense of acceptability to
it and build it into something than any, sort of, real movement
has created or--
Dr. Dyson. Yeah.
Senator Kerry. --legitimacy. So again----
Ms. Rosen. But that----
Senator Kerry. --I don't want to get into this----
Ms. Rosen. --that's not really true, with all due respect.
You can't buy popularity. I mean, artists get popular because
people are attracted to what they say. If you could buy
popularity, 85 percent of the records that we put in the
marketplace wouldn't fail or----
Senator Kerry. Let me say----
Ms. Rosen. --or, you know, or something----
Senator Kerry. --let me say that--you know, you and I are
good friends. We don't disagree on a lot, but I will disagree
on the notion that, number one, you can't buy popularity.
Witness some political races in this country. Number two----
Ms. Rosen. Well, in our business, you can't.
Senator Kerry. Yes, indeed, in your business, you can.
Ms. Rosen. You can----
Senator Kerry. Remember when the Monkees----
Ms. Rosen. --you can buy attention.
Senator Kerry. --the Monkees were completely created out of
whole cloth----
[Laughter.]
Senator Kerry. --completely created out of whole cloth----
Voice. Oh, no, not the Monkees.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kerry. --and they were given a creation and an
existence that had no----
Ms. Rosen. But they----
Senator Kerry. --relationship--built on the popularity of
the Beatles, correct?
Ms. Rosen. No, but they were sustained because people
were----
Senator Kerry. `Cause it mimicked----
Ms. Rosen. --attracted to what was offered. There is a
difference between buying popularity and buying attention.
Senator Kerry. Of course, because it was pure mimicking of
what was already there, and I can give you--I can create some
mimicry and put it out there. That doesn't mean it has
legitimacy, in and of itself. The original does. But then you
create--I mean, I don't want to get lost in this argument,
because it's a----
Dr. Dyson. Because Mickey Dolenz did have skills.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kerry. Let me just ask one last question on a
different subject. Mr. Valenti----
The Chairman. Can I make a point, John, very quickly? This
hearing is about marketing and an FTC report about marketing.
If we want to have a--hearing about content and whether or not
it's obscene or not and all that, that is not the subject nor
the focus of this hearing. This hearing is not about
censorship. It's about marketing and the conclusions reached by
the FTC. That's what this is all about. I want to----
Senator Kerry. That's what I'm----
The Chairman. --emphasize that again.
Senator Kerry. --trying to get to, and I agree with that,
Mr. Chairman, which is why I wanted to ask you, Mr. Valenti, in
terms of the marketing, the ads that appear in the newspaper on
a number of movies that have--almost all have some sort of a
rating, you know, box--very small, usually. But what you can't
find in this anywhere is sort of a description of the rating. I
mean, you see the ``R,'' but you don't know if it's rated ``R''
for violence or ``R'' for sexual explicitness, et cetera.
And the question is, when asked, in the FTC report, I
believe the industry said, ``Well, we don't have space to be
able to do that.'' Now, even when you go to the Web site
advertised, again, in extraordinarily small print on these, and
you try to--you can get the trailer, and you can get some
information about the movie, but you don't get any linkage to
the film ratings dot-com site, you don't get any indication of,
again, what--there's no greater tool, if you will, for a parent
to be able to understand what the movie might be about.
And when you look at the ads themselves--I mean, this is,
you know, a New York Times advertisement--it's pretty hard to
understand where the space problem is in that ad. And this is a
Washington Post ad for ``The Watcher''--again, pretty hard to
understand why there isn't space.
And I asked my staff to go in and look at the Web sites on
the marketing and see if they could find any explanations of
what this might be about. And the best they could find out, it
was--you know, it seemed to be about the strangulation of a
woman, but no further kind of light shed on the nature of the--
on the nature of the rating itself.
I wonder if the industry, I mean, could not be
spontaneously encouraged to sort of come out and say, ``Well,
we can do a better job of making certain that people really
have an explanation at their fingertips.''
Mr. Valenti. Point's well taken. In fact, that's one of the
omissions that we're going to fill, that every Web site, I
think, ought to carry the reasons for the ratings and have
linkage to parentingguide.org, to filmrating.com, to Moviefone
and all--and the MPAA Web site, as well, so that they're all
interconnected by linkage.
Now, Senator, one of the things that--you saw a full-page
ad there. Those full-page ads are only in the large newspapers.
Maybe 80 percent of the country doesn't get full-page ads. It
would break a company. And when you get into quarter-page ads,
there's not any room, because that ad--the size of type in that
ad is all worked out with creative rights committees between
the writer's guild, director's guild, actor's guild, and the
producers, so that there is a--there's literally kind of an
architecture of that ad mutually agreed upon.
So that if we placed those ratings reasons in the full-page
ad and somebody--and there will be people say you've got to
make them bigger, now we've got to go through that whole
process, because that ad is carefully textured with both the
creative community and the producers.
As far as making rating reasons visible, I think you hit a
point that I've already put down on my notes that I'm going to
take up with each of the companies. We're going to have rating
reasons.
Now, to go beyond violence----
The Chairman. I'd ask you to summarize your answer, Jack.
Mr. Valenti. Well, but that's----
The Chairman. We're in the fifth hour of this hearing.
Mr. Valenti. --that's all I need to say, Senator.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Kerry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Brownback?
Senator Brownback. Yes. These are specific and direct to
Jack, if I could. And I have a great deal of respect for you,
as well, and your great talents. In the report, on page 13, the
industry itself, your industry, the MPAA, takes the view that
children are appropriate targets for such films--these are
``R'' and ``PG-13''--so long as parental accompaniment or
guidance is provided. Marketing documents reviewed by the
Commission indicate extensive marketing and, in many instances,
explicit targeting of violent ``R'' films to children under the
age of 17, and of violent ``PG-13'' films to children under 13.
That's in the report. It's on Page 13 of the report.
Mr. Valenti. I have it right here, Senator.
Senator Brownback. My question to you--just really, as an
industry--we've got a third of our children out there being
raised by single parents. Do you feel this is appropriate
industry policy to target market these types of films to that
audience? This is a policy statement, as I understand, of your
industry.
Mr. Valenti. With all due respect to the FTC, that's simply
wrong. We don't make policy statements about how marketing is
done. We just make the ratings system, which is not connected
to the movie industry at all.
I'm the only person that is connected to the movie industry
that has any power over the ratings system. I hire the people
there, and no one can get to that ratings system without
knocking me down, and they haven't done so in 32 years. This is
a wrong statement.
Senator Brownback. You are saying that you do not target
market ``R'' and ``PG-13'' films?
Mr. Valenti. I'm saying the ratings system doesn't. We just
give a rating. Now, what happens after that----
Senator Brownback. But I'm--well, let me sharpen my
question, then. Maybe I'm not asking it----
Mr. Valenti. All right.
Senator Brownback. --appropriately. These are ``R'' and
``PG-13'' films.
Mr. Valenti. Right.
Senator Brownback. The study says that there's extensive
marketing to audiences of children under the age of 17 and
children under 13 of ``R'' and ``PG-13'' rated films, and that
your industry thinks that's okay.
Mr. Valenti. Well, now----
Senator Brownback. Is that correct or incorrect?
Mr. Valenti. --it says here that the ``MPAA takes the
view.'' Well, I--are they speaking for all seven companies? Are
they speaking for me? They're not speaking for me, 'cause I
don't take that view at all.
Senator Brownback. Okay, so you say you disagree with this
view.
Mr. Valenti. I'm saying this, Senator. I think that all
``R'' ratings films are different, as I said when I first made
my statement; and that, therefore, I went on television saying
I thought children 13 and 14 ought to go see Saving Private
Ryan--that's an R-rated film--because I thought it would--I
wanted to let them know where the gift of freedom came from.
I'm saying to you that we have--we, the MPAA, has no----
Senator Brownback. But the----
Mr. Valenti.--authority over that.
Senator Brownback. --Fight Club, then, I would presume
you'd say that's inappropriate for children under the age of
17.
Mr. Valenti. I do not think--this is my judgment--I do not
think we ought to target under 17 for any picture that's R-
rated.
Senator Brownback. Will you be working toward that in your
association?
Mr. Valenti. I said it--yes. The answer is yes----
Senator Brownback. Thank you.
Mr. Valenti. --that we ought not be targeting under 17.
Senator Brownback. Very good. I'll look forward to working
with you on that. Now, Ms. Rosen, we had two of the executives
in earlier, and they said that they would be willing to work on
providing lyrics easily to parents, which has been something
that has been very difficult. And I would like to work with you
on two items. Number one is getting these lyrics readily,
easily available to parents. And the second is to have the
parents involved in the ratings system, which they're not
currently involved in. Will you be willing to do this, and to
work your industry forward towards both of those topics?
Ms. Rosen. Well, I was delighted to have something I could
finally agree with Lynne Cheney on. I thought it was a
productive suggestion, and I think that it exactly makes the
point that if lyrics are available, people can make their own
determination.
Senator Brownback. So you will work with us to do both of
these items?
Ms. Rosen. No, not the second--tell me the second one
again, sir?
Senator Brownback. Parents involved in the rating----
Ms. Rosen. Yeah.
Senator Brownback. --process.
Ms. Rosen. No, I don't support that. I think that the
current system, as a voluntary system, works. We have
virtually, in my four years as president of the RIAA, I've
never had a phone call from a parent saying, ``This record
should have been stickered, when it wasn't.'' You know, that
part of the system, I think, works.
But I do agree that there are some innovative ways we could
look at to make lyrics available. I'm for that.
Senator Brownback. Well, I would hope that you would take
it to your industry to discuss having parents involved in the
ratings systems and, if you could, to bring that up to your
board, to have them discuss that very issue. My hope would be
that they would not be objectionable--object to having parents
involved in the ratings system.
Ms. Rosen. Involved in----
Senator Brownback. If you could do that----
Ms. Rosen. --what way, Senator?
Senator Brownback. What's that?
Ms. Rosen. Involved in what way?
Senator Brownback. In helping to set the ratings.
Ms. Rosen. Oh, 74 percent of parents in the FTC's own
report, which was quite critical in many areas, said that
parents are satisfied with the system, so I don't think that's
going to change. I don't want to--I'm certainly willing to
discuss it with anybody, but I don't want to raise false
expectations with you.
Senator Brownback. Well, if you would be willing to discuss
it with anybody, I would appreciate you discussing it with your
board.
Ms. Rosen. Sure.
Senator Brownback. Thank you. I would note, to Mr. Valenti,
that your ratings system, while received well by parents, on
Page 11 of the report, the last question the FTC asked was,
``How does the ratings system do in informing you about
violence?'' Good or excellent, 48 percent; fair or poor, 50
percent.
I think that probably applies some across the board to your
ratings systems of the various industries here. So, I would
hope you would look at that as saying, ``Here's a way we need
to work harder to get more of this information out and
available to parents--similar to the lyrics issue.''
Mr. Lowenstein, I want to applaud your industry for putting
forward a code of conduct. I appreciate you at least setting
forward and saying, ``Okay, we're going to put some standards
here,'' so that the rest of the country can measure you by the
standards you set for your own industry. I would hope you could
set them higher than a low bar, but I appreciate the
willingness of you to come forward.
The problem is, as I've noted so far, it appears very few
members of the industry are complying with the code, as this
report documents. What steps can we expect that the IDSA will
enact to ensure compliance with the code, and will there be
consequences for your members if they don't comply with the
code?
Mr. Lowenstein. Let me make two comments on that, Senator.
First, understand that the code is far broader than simply the
target marketing provision. So when you talk about compliance,
we're talking about ratings on packaging, we're talking about
content information on packaging, we're talking about ratings
in advertising. We recently required members to put content
information in advertising, as well.
There is a whole range of provisions in this code, most of
which are complied with at a very high level. The target
marketing issue clearly is a problem, and the FTC identified
it.
As I indicated in my testimony, we took the initiative last
September to create a new self-regulatory body within the
independent ratings board to more aggressively police and
monitor the advertising practices of our industry.
The sanctions in there are quite strong--the way this will
work is that when you ask--when you apply for a rating from the
ratings board, you sign a document that obligates you to a set
of terms and conditions, including compliance with the
advertising code.
If, in the judgment of the ESRB, you have violated the
advertising code, it has a range of sanctions it can bring
against you, including revoking the rating, which would be
commercially disastrous; you would basically lose your shelf
space. They can proceed against you on trademark grounds, for
fraudulent use of and mis- representative use of a trademark.
They can even refer the matter to the FTC under their own rules
and regulations.
So we think we have built some teeth in. I want to make
sure you understand that the ARC unit really began its
operations in June or July, so it is, I freely admit, a work in
progress. We are committed to making sure it's effective, and
our board, as I said, in September, well before we even knew
where the FTC was going to come with its findings, moved
forward to try to address the advertising issues.
Senator Brownback. I look forward to working that more with
you. And I would just ask all three of you, as representatives
of industries that are powerful, important, and key in
influencing the hearts and minds and souls of young people, to
think about this: we've got now the entire public health
community saying that the level of intake of violent
entertainment in this country is harmful. The entire public
health community is saying that, and that it's causation--not
just correlation; they're seeing causation now.
I would hope that would cause each of you pause as you
think about your defense lines of basically saying, ``Look,
it's the parent that has to stop this stuff,'' and that you
would say to yourselves, ``Do I want to be a part of an
industry that's freely and willingly pushing products that the
entire public health community is saying are harmful to
children? And do I want to push those knowing that about a
third of our children in the country are in a single-parent
household that struggles in the first place anyway?'' These
single parents are really trying to fight back, but you're
cramming it down there with millions of dollars of advertising
money.
So you make it pretty tough on two parents. You make it
extraordinarily difficult on one. This is an issue the entire
community says is harmful. So I would hope that you would take
those thoughts and statements to heart. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Breaux?
Senator Breaux. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for
your patience and for being here all day long and also for this
particular panel for being the last, but not least, panel to be
heard. I have just a couple of points that I'd like to explore.
If--and maybe Ms. Rosen and Mr. Lowenstein and Mr. Valenti
could perhaps decide who might respond to this--if next week in
the Senate Finance Committee I offered an amendment to the tax
code that said no company can deduct the cost of marketing or
advertising a product to underage children that the company
itself has rated as unsuitable to underage children, would you
all be able to support that amendment?
Mr. Valenti. Well, first, we don't, in any of our ratings
systems, say anything is unsuitable. We say it may be
inappropriate, but the parent makes that judgment on ``R'',
``PG-13'', and ``PG''. On ``NC-17'', we say flatly, ``No child
should go into this movie.'' The children would be barred.
Senator Breaux. So if there is advertising that is used to
promote that product to underage children under the age that
you have rated it as being unsuitable, would you be able to
support an amendment that said if any industry does that, that
they would not be able to deduct the cost of that marketing and
advertising under the tax code?
Mr. Valenti. Well, what I'm--I guess my answer, Senator, is
that the ``R'' rating we don't say is unsuitable. That's a
parent that makes that judgment. We say there's violence in
here, there's some sensuality, there's some language, and you
may not want your child to see it, but you may want your child
to see it. It's your decision.
Senator Breaux. The problem I have, Jack, is it seems that
the FTC report indicates that there is, in fact, advertising
and marketing of entertainment products to people that the
industry itself has recommended that a certain group of young
people not see. And my point is if that's the industry's
determination, this is not proper for young people to see, then
if you advertise to that group of children, is it fair to get a
tax deduction for that advertising?
Mr. Lowenstein. Senator Breaux, may I just make a brief
comment? I think it's very important to look at this on a
number of levels. First of all----
Senator Breaux. I have a very simple question.
Mr. Lowenstein. Well, no--except the proposal isn't simple.
For example, the FTC----
Senator Breaux. My proposal is very simple. You don't get a
tax deduction for marketing to children.
Mr. Lowenstein. Well, we need to define ``marketing with
children,'' Senator. The FTC----
Senator Breaux. Advertising----
Mr. Lowenstein. Well, the FTC would say that if you
advertise in a publication where 50 percent or fewer of the
readers are--or more of the readers are under 18, that
constitutes target marketing. I'm not sure I would agree with
that standard, because, in fact, you have half the population
of a publication, or even a majority of a publication, which is
appropriately targeted--the products are properly targeted to--
--
Senator Breaux. Well----
The Chairman. Let me, if I could, interrupt my colleague to
say--let me simplify it for you. The FTC has said the following
outlets in the Kansas City market were targeted with flyers
and/or posters for the films: Campfire Boys and Girls, YMCA of
Greater KC, Boys and Girls Club of Eastern Jackson. Does that
simplify it for you?
Mr. Lowenstein. Well, I--you know, I can't--it simplifies
it in a specific example, but----
The Chairman. Specifically distributed flyers to young
people urging them to see a film that was rated ``R'' or NC-17.
Mr. Valenti. Let me respond, Senator, by saying----
The Chairman. I don't want to--I'm sorry, Senator Breaux--
--
Senator Breaux. That's all right. That's fine.
The Chairman. --but let's not complicate this, as Senator
Breaux says. This is pretty simple. They advertise directly to
young children.
Senator Breaux. And your argument, Mr. Lowenstein, is
that-- how do you define advertising to young children? I'm
asking the principal question.
And if we can determine how--that the company is, in fact,
advertising to children--maybe advertising in teen magazines in
which mostly people under 17 read--you know, is that--if you
advertise a product that your own company has said is not
suitable for that group of people that you're advertising to,
is it proper to continue to get a tax deduction for that
marketing and advertising expense?
You apparently say, ``Well, it may not be advertising to
those children.'' Let's find out where you, in fact, are. Is it
still proper to get a deduction for advertising to that group?
Mr. Lowenstein. Well, to be very honest, you know, I
don't--I want to reserve judgment on that, because----
Senator Breaux. Okay, that's good. Ms. Rosen?
Ms. Rosen. I have a simple, but unpopular, answer. And the
answer is no, I wouldn't support it. Although we don't have an
age-based system, so it wouldn't affect it directly, but I
think what you will do is put yourself in a constitutional
Catch-22.
Senator Breaux. Well, the point I would make is that this
is not Congress determining that it's unsuitable.
Ms. Rosen. No, no. That----
Senator Breaux. This is a----
Ms. Rosen. --that's my point.
Senator Breaux. --this is the industry itself----
Ms. Rosen. I get it.
Senator Breaux. --that has made the ratings system that
determines that this product----
Ms. Rosen. Let----
Senator Breaux. --is not----
Ms. Rosen. --let me just finish my point----
Senator Breaux. --suitable for a particular----
Ms. Rosen. --my point.
Senator Breaux. --group of people and yet apparently
continues to advertise to the group that the industry itself
says is not suitable to see this product.
Ms. Rosen. If Congress enacted that----
Mr. Valenti. Senator, I'm----
Ms. Rosen. Let me finish, Jack. If such a statute were
enacted, regardless of what anyone at this table said, any
guideline that had an age-based recommendation would be
withdrawn, because you would be taking away the voluntary
incentive in the marketplace to create an age-based rating.
And the constitutional Catch-22 that Congress would be in,
unfortunately, is that you couldn't impose an age-based rating
system, because that would be unconstitutional. So you----
Senator Breaux. So the industry would withdraw their age
rating recommendations?
Ms. Rosen. If you created--whether it was a tax issue or
criminal sanctions that people are talking about the FTC should
do, whatever it is, that creates disincentives for voluntary
systems, people are going to react. And it----
Senator Breaux. It just seems----
Ms. Rosen. --doesn't make any sense.
Senator Breaux. --it doesn't--I mean, the inconsistency of
the FTC report seems to me to be this--they find that companies
apparently market to the very people that the companies have
said are unsuitable to view the product. I mean, that is a huge
inconsistency. Jack, I think you----
Mr. Valenti. Senator----
Senator Breaux. I said----
Ms. Rosen. I'm not saying it's right----
Senator Breaux. --it earlier, that the marketing----
Ms. Rosen. --I'm just saying that'll be the response.
Senator Breaux. --department must not be listening to the
executives who rate the movies.
Mr. Valenti. Senator, I've got to respond. I think this is
one of the most important questions that you--anybody's asked.
Now, I want to tell you----
Senator Breaux. It could be the last question, too.
Mr. Valenti. --let me tell you about what we say, that an
``NP''--``R'', restricted, under 17 requires accompanying
parent or adult guardian; signifies that the rating board has
concluded the filM-rated may contain some adult material.
Parents are urged to learn more about this film before taking
their children to see it. An ``R'' may be assigned due to,
among other things, language, theme, violence, sex, or a
portrayal of drug use. That's what we say. We don't say
``unsuitable.''
Senator Breaux. How about NC-17?
Mr. Valenti. I beg your pardon?
Senator Breaux. How about NC-17?
Mr. Valenti. NC-17 signifies that most parents would feel
that this film is patently adult, and children 17 and under
should not be admitted to it, period. That is----
Senator Breaux. But isn't it inconsistent to say that we,
as an industry, feel that this is something a certain category
of people should not view, but yet we're going to spend
advertising dollars to encourage them to see it?
Mr. Valenti. Senator, I don't know how to make it simpler.
I've read to you what our rating category is. It doesn't say
``unsuitable.'' It doesn't say you can't go. Parents make that
judgment. We say ``it may''--that parents might--``it may
contain.'' That's not ``unsuitable,'' Senator, not at all.
Senator Breaux. Okay, let me use another line in a
different area. We have warning labels in this country on
everything. We have warning labels on drugs--how you use them;
please take them with food--if you don't, it's going to make
you sick. We have warning labels on food products--how to cook
the food, how to prepare it so it's still safe. We have warning
labels on machinery--how to use it so you don't injure
yourself. We have warning labels on cigarettes.
They've been out there for a long period of time saying, in
fact, ``If you use this product, it can kill you,'' in effect.
Warning labels, in my opinion, are only effective if people
read them, understand them, and follow them.
Now, the question I have--it seems to me that we've had
these warning labels established by Congress, working with the
industry. Mr. Valenti, you've established it for the motion
picture industry. The disturbing thing that I have that I think
that--I don't know how Congress solves this problem--is the
fact that a recent study indicates that 92 percent of young
boys play the video and electronic games. They understand the
industry's ratings system, but 90 percent of these kids say the
parents never check the ratings systems or what they buy and
what they bring home.
On the V-chip issue, which we had hearings on and made a
great deal to do about the V-chip on televisions, that 91
percent of the broadcasts and cable televisions are rated by
the age-based system. This is the Kaiser Foundation study, and
it went on to say that nearly one in ten parents, 9 percent--
only 9 percent of children ages two to 17 now has a television
with a V-chip. And one third of these parents, which is 3
percent of all the parents in the country have programmed the
chip to block shows they deem unsuitable for their children.
That tells me that 97 percent of parents are not using the
tools that we gave them to block out objectionable material
that they themselves would determine unsuitable based on the
ratings for their own children.
The reason I bring this up in this capacity is that it
seems to me that the ratings systems, no matter how we write
them, are only going to be good if people use them. And I
think--and maybe our psychologist friends, Dr. Cook or Mr.
McIntyre, can comment on this.
I mean, apparently, what I'm hearing from the Kaiser
Foundation study is that parents are not really doing what they
should be and are coming to Congress to tell us to do more than
perhaps we are capable of doing under the Constitution of this
United States. I mean, if 97 percent of the families with
teenage children don't use the V-chip, isn't that a great deal
of their fault why this is being viewed by underage children?
Dr. Cook. Absolutely. And I would agree with those figures.
I'd never seen them before, but just knowing what we see
parents do many times, I think those are probably correct
figures. It's appalling that, you know, people don't use the
tools we give them to protect themselves, but, unfortunately,
it's the truth, and I believe that.
Senator Breaux. Mr. McIntyre, any comment on that?
Mr. McIntyre. I think that the burden of being--the burden
of parenting in today's society is one that is loaded with a
lot of potholes to have to work around. I think the----
Senator Breaux. Isn't a V-chip a major way of getting
around watching every television in your house? You say you
plug it in and say, ``You'll never watch this series,'' period.
Mr. McIntyre. I'm sorry, can you repeat that, please?
Senator Breaux. That was what we tried to do with the V-
chip, so you didn't have to run around and look at five
television sets in your house and say, ``Don't watch this,
don't watch this, don't watch this.'' You use the V-chip, and
you block out anything that's rated a certain rating that you
don't want your children to see.
Mr. McIntyre. Absolutely. And we think that the V-chip and
the ratings systems that Jack and I actually hammered out after
several weeks of contentious negotiations is something that
will still prove to be helpful to parents of this aged----
Senator Breaux. But what does it say to you that 97 percent
of the families apparently don't bother to use them?
Mr. McIntyre. I do not necessarily ascribe that to the
burden of the parents to--to that. I think that the V-chip and
the ratings system has not necessarily been advertised in the
ways that it could be to be most profitably used.
There have been some ventures out there. We have certainly
ventured, as an association and as the signatories to the V-
chip agreement, to lobby and to try to teach this to our
parents and their families, but it is not the end all and be
all. It also has to be met with better implementation, and it
also has to be met with better accountability when ratings are
not assigned appropriately. We have, as I understand--and I'm
not a member of the----
Senator Breaux. 91 percent of broadcasts in cable
television is age related--age rated----
Mr. McIntyre. That's right.
Senator Breaux. 91 percent--and yet 97 percent of the
people who are parents with teenage children don't bother to
use it.
Mr. McIntyre. Well, I think that also speaks to the
inability of an age-based ratings system to be able to truly
address the needs of today's parents.
Senator Breaux. They're not using it no matter what the
rating is, is what I'm saying.
Mr. McIntyre. How do we know that, sir? We don't have a----
Senator Breaux. The Kaiser Foundation study. If you have
something better than that, I'll listen to the numbers.
Mr. McIntyre. Dr. Roberts of the Kaiser Foundation is an
APA member. I'm very well associated with the study, sir.
Senator Breaux. Well, I mean, does that--is there a study
that says that more than three percent of the American parents
are using it?
Mr. McIntyre. We see--no, sir--point-blank.
Senator Breaux. All right, the final question--I mean, it
seems to me that ratings can be confusing. If we have ratings
on labels, on records, or on video games, or on movies--and
there's an awful lot of things we rate--I mean, I would just
mention all the warning labels we've got on every other product
that we use as consumers in this country--can you have a
uniform ratings system that would make any sense? Could you
implement something like that? Would it work? Is it a good idea
to have all entertainment products rated under one ratings
system? Is that possible? Anybody?
Mr. Valenti. I'll respond to that, and then my colleagues
can, also. All of these ratings systems are based on different
ways to come to a rating.
We have 13 parents in California who see every movie--466
of them last year--and they put a rating on it. The music
people have a mature label they put on it, and I think that's
done by the record labels, or the--and the video games people
have their own rating. I think they have three people who rate
every video game. And the television, as Mr. Dyson and I can
tell you, we work together with child groups, PTA, and
everything else, and come up with a ratings system on
television, but those ratings systems are applied by the
producer or the distributor of the program. So you have four
methods of determining ratings.
Another thing, if you don't have a universal ratings system
that totally duplicates television, then you have demolished
the use of 50 million V-chip television sets in America,
because the manufacturers cannot change the circuitry. So,
therefore, if you have a universal system, it would have to be
a duplication of the television system, and you don't have an
``NC-17'' rating in television.
And by the way, Senator, we don't market ``NC-17'' movies.
I want you to know that.
Having said that, I believe that you cannot have that kind
of a rating system to fit one-size-fits-all. It can't be done.
And I will tell you this, I would be reluctant to abandon a
ratings system that has a 32-year record. I just don't think we
ought to do it with 81 percent--and by the way, that's exactly
what the FTC finds--and satisfied people, 81 percent of
parents.
So I would be reluctant to abandon something that has
worked and is working for some mystical one-size-fits-all
that's not going to work because of the different ways that
these things are gauged.
Senator Breaux. Can I ask one short question of Dr. Cook,
Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Whatever you'd like.
Senator Breaux. It's the last one. Dr. Cook, you had
indicated some statistics on violent crime and crime among
teenagers, in particular.
Dr. Cook. Yes.
Senator Breaux. Some of the facts that I've seen, and some
of the testimony that's been here today, it seems to be
contrary to what you indicated. And I'd give you a chance to
comment on that.
Between 1993 and 1998, according to the National Crime
Victimization Survey of the Justice Department, violent crime
rates fell 27 percent, and property crime rates dropped 32
percent. That represents the lowest level recorded since the
survey's inception, in 1973.
And in particular to what we were talking about, violent
crime committed by children and teens is at its lowest since
1987 and has fallen 30 percent from 1994 to 1998. The arrest
rate for weapon violations among juveniles also saw a 33
percent drop between 1993 and 1998. And school violence--
fights, injuries, and weapons carried through the door--has
been steadily falling since 1991, according to studies by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
It seems that is contrary to what I think I heard you say
about it spiking up.
Dr. Cook. No. No, I don't think so. I said that the general
rate of violence in the country has decreased since 1992 or
1993, and the figures that I have--and I must admit that the
last figures I have I got out of The Denver Post, which isn't
necessarily maybe the most accurate thing in the world--but
they indicated that the figures for the 15- to 24-year-old age
group had not decreased like the rest, that it had continued on
a slightly upward rate.
Senator Breaux. Yeah.
Mr. Valenti. Actually, it's gone down.
Dr. Cook. Yeah. Well, that----
Mr. Valenti. It fell 28 percent in the last five years--
juveniles under 17.
Mr. McIntyre. Mr. Breaux, if I may----
Dr. Cook. That doesn't jibe with what I----
Mr. Valenti. That's the FBI statistics.
Dr. Cook. --you know, with what I have.
Senator Breaux. Those were Justice Department figures. I'm
sorry.
Mr. McIntyre. Senator Breaux?
Mr. Valenti. FBI, sir.
Mr. McIntyre. Senator Breaux?
If I may interject just a moment.
The Chairman. Could I----
Mr. McIntyre. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
The Chairman. --could I ask, Senator, Mr. McIntyre to
respond, and then anyone else who wishes to respond? Go ahead.
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm quoting from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Report on Youth
Violence in the United States that violent injury and death
disproportionately affect children, adolescents, and young
adults in the United States. And homicide is the second leading
cause of death for persons 15 to 24 years of age. It is the
leading cause of death for African Americans. Homicide is the
second leading cause of death for Latino youths.
If that does not--is considered a problem, sir, I would
like to----
Senator Breaux. No, that's not what I----
Mr. McIntyre. --have an evaluation of the criteria there.
Senator Breaux. Don't try and put words in my mouth,
McIntyre. What I said was that--what I quoted was from the
Justice Department, saying violent crime rates among teenagers
and juveniles and school crimes had been consistently dropping
since 1992. I'm not saying that homicides among teenagers is
not disproportionately higher than other parts of the country.
What you've cited is totally consistent with the figures
I've cited. They're not inconsistent in any way. I'm talking
about--violent crimes among juveniles, school violence in
schools, arrests among juveniles have all dropped. Homicides
among teenagers are disproportionately higher than the rest of
the public. That statement is totally consistent with what I
read initially.
Mr. McIntyre. It is my belief, sir, since 1977, we've had
an average of 17 youth homicide victims per day in the United
States. If, in fact, this is consistent with what you've said,
then we are in agreement that this constitutes a problem. And
regardless of anything----
Senator Breaux. The point I'm asking Dr. Cook was--he said
it was--violent crimes among teenagers was increasing as media
violence increased. That is not what the statistics showed from
the Justice Department and the Center for Disease Control.
Those numbers have consistently, over the last seven years,
been declining at a pretty steady rate. Is it still too high?
Of course it is; but it's not increasing, it is decreasing. And
that, I don't think can be contradicted.
The Chairman. Could Dr. Cook respond?
Dr. Cook. Senator Breaux, I think what we're doing is using
different age groups when we're talking about our statistics.
Those that I talked about, the one group, if you lump them
together, are the 15- to 24-year age group that have not
dropped.
Now, the U.S. crime rate, I think which is the FBI rate,
says that this is dropping, under age 18. So we're really
talking about two different sets of statistics.
But generally, I agree with you a 100 percent, that overall
violence has dropped in the United States since 1992 if you put
everybody together in one thing. It's just a small sliver that
hasn't gone down yet.
Senator Breaux. I thank all the----
The Chairman. Senator Breaux, I think----
Senator Breaux. --members of the panel.
The Chairman. --I think Mr. Lowenstein wanted to respond.
Mr. Lowenstein. I just want to make one comment, not on
this issue. You asked what can be done to get parents to use
the systems, and I don't have a magic answer to that. But one
thing I come back to, it's in the FTC report, it's something I
think everybody at this table can continue to work together on,
and that's public education.
We, for example, had a PSA that Tiger Woods filmed for us
telling people to use the video game ratings system, last fall.
We could barely get that on network television, I will tell
you. It was very difficult to get that PSA on.
I would hope that these medical groups here will take a
proactive effort and work with us to get word out to their
members and out to consumers about these ratings systems. I
think we can start to make a difference, but we need to
continue the public education effort.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Breaux.
This hearing is approaching its sixth hour, so I want to
thank the witnesses for their patience, for their input. We
will be having another hearing in a couple of weeks. Thank you
for your cooperation, and I obviously appreciate the spirited
dialog and exchanges that we had. I think all of us are better
informed.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, the proceedings were adjourned at 4:25 p.m.]
APPENDIX
Prepared Statement of Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, U.S. Senator from Vermont
In the wake of the tragic Columbine High School shootings in
Littleton, Colorado, where 14 students and a teacher lost their lives
on April 20, 1999, public concern about the causes of violent acts by
children in our country reached an all-time high. The President and the
Congress tried to respond to this concern.
Within two months, both the House and the Senate took up and passed
juvenile justice legislation, which included studies proposed by
Senator Lieberman, and others, on the marketing practices and guideline
systems used by the entertainment industry and on the causes of and
ways to prevent youth violence. These proposals never become law,
however, because the Republican majority in Congress has refused to
proceed with the juvenile justice conference for over a year.
Senate and House Democrats have been eager for more than a year to
reconvene the juvenile justice conference and work to craft an
effective juvenile justice conference report and law. Indeed, on
October 20, 1999, all the House and Senate Democratic conferees wrote
to Senator Hatch, the Chairman of the juvenile justice conference, and
Congressman Hyde, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, asking
that the conference be reconvened immediately. In April 2000,
Congressman Hyde joined our call for the juvenile justice conference to
meet as soon as possible in a letter to Senator Hatch, which was also
signed by Congressman Conyers.
Months ago, the President of the United States took the
extraordinary step of inviting House and Senate members of the
conference to the White House to urge us to reconvene and proceed to
final enactment of legislation before the anniversary of the Columbine
tragedy. The Republican majority has rejected his pleas for action, as
they have those of the American people.
The Clinton-Gore Administration did not wait for the Congress to
act. Instead, the White House energized a number of federal agencies to
convene experts and examine the issue of youth and school violence. On
June 1, 1999, the President ordered the Department of Justice and the
Federal Trade Commission to conduct a joint study of the marketing
strategies and practices of the motion picture, recording, and video
game industries to determine whether these industries are marketing to
children violent material rated for adult viewing. This comprehensive
study of major record companies, Hollywood studios and video game
manufacturers was released earlier this week and contains important
findings and recommendations. This is the report, requested by the
President, that is the subject of these hearings.
But that is not all the Clinton-Gore Administration did to respond
to the concerns of the American people on the issue of youth violence.
On May 10, 1999, the President ordered the United States Surgeon
General to prepare a report on the causes of youth violence and ways to
prevent it. The Surgeon General is bringing together experts to review
and evaluate existing research on the root causes of youth violence,
with special emphasis on media that have emerged since previous
reports. We anticipate this report by the end of the year.
Moreover, the President directed the Department of Education and
the Department of Justice to develop a guide to help school personnel,
parents, community members and others identify early indicators of
troubling and potentially dangerous student behavior. This guide,
called Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools, was
prepared by an independent panel of experts in the fields of education,
law enforcement and mental health and completed and released in the
summer of 1998 free of charge to every school in the nation.
In addition, the Department of Justice has provided important
financial assistance through the COPS in Schools Grant Program
throughout the last two years. The Department of Justice, the
Department of Education and the Surgeon General have promoted a Safe
Schools/Healthy Students Initiative to provide 50 communities with up
to $3 million per year for three years to link existing and new
services and activities into comprehensive community-wide approaches to
promote healthy childhood development, prevent school violence and
juvenile drug abuse. This is a constructive way to alert everyone in a
community to available resources for addressing youth violence and
crime prevention.
Most recently, the Department of Justice has made available a
threat assessment perspective on school violence developed by the
Critical Incident Response Group and the National Center for the
Analysis of Violent Crime of the FBI. Just last week, components of the
FBI made available a study entitled ``The School Shooter,'' pointing
out a number of factors that contribute to violence.
We all recognize that there is no single cause and no single
legislative solution that will cure the ill of youth violence in our
schools or in our streets. Focusing exclusively on violence in
entertainment as a cause of youth violence would be ineffective and
misleading.
Yet all of us as parents, and many of us as grandparents, are
frustrated by the violence, obscenity and other inappropriate material
available to children in multiple media, on film, on TV, in video games
or on the Internet, and parents are looking for help in protecting
their children. The easy way out for both parents and eager-to-please
legislators would be to adopt some form of government censorship that
simply banned inappropriate material. The Congress has taken the easy
way out before--for example, by broadly banning so-called ``indecent''
material over the Internet.
We have to remember that films like The Patriot, Saving Private
Ryan, Schindler's List and The Hurricane are among those receiving
``R'' ratings that invite parental permission before a teenager sees
them. Many parents chose to have their teenagers see those films,
although they include graphic scenes, and to consider the important
values, lessons and human history those motion pictures involve.
Our Constitution, thankfully, does not allow the easy way out, as
the Congress learned when the Supreme Court unanimously struck down the
Communications Decency Act. The First Amendment rightly restricts
Congressional efforts to dictate what others may say or believe and
leaves to parents the responsibility for helping their children choose
appropriate entertainment.
Interestingly, the FTC report noted, in parents' responses to who
selects and purchases movies, that an adult or an adult and the child
together do so almost 97 percent of the time. To the extent that there
are gaps in the enforcement of the various ratings systems adopted by
the entertainment industry, this report should serve as a wake-up call
to all.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bart Peterson, Mayor, City of Indianapolis
Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings, and distinguished Members of this
panel, I would like to thank you for calling this hearing and
presenting me with the opportunity to share my views and experiences
with you regarding the marketing of violent materials to our nation's
youth by the entertainment industry. In the wake of the conclusions
reached by the Federal Trade Commission in its recently released
report, I am pleased to share with you a step that we have taken in
Indianapolis to help reduce children's exposure to violent video games.
We live today in a culture steeped in violence. From movies and
television to music and video games, violent images so pervade American
popular culture that many of us feel immune to their effects.
But recent studies show we are anything but immune. Even more
disheartening, violent media--including violent video games--is
especially popular with the most impressionable and the least mature
consumers of popular culture: our children. As the Federal Trade
Commission's recent investigation found, the home video game industry
has marketed its products to children under age 17, despite ratings
indicating the games are unsuitable for children that young. In another
disturbing trend, many of the school shooters of the past few years
were avid violent video game players. Investigators have attributed
several of the shooters' accuracy to the ``training'' they received
from playing realistic violent video games.
Studies show that playing violent video games increases people's
aggressive thoughts and behaviors. In a study published in the April
2000 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Drs.
Craig A. Anderson and Karen E. Dill found that repeated exposure to
violent video games increased players' aggressive thought patterns,
which can lead to increased aggressive behavior. Drs. Anderson and Dill
also noted that the active nature of violent video games may well make
them even more dangerous than other forms of media violence, such as TV
and movies. Likewise, in a joint statement on the impact of
entertainment violence on children, the American Medical Association,
the American Psychiatric Association, and several other prominent
health organizations concluded that viewing violence can desensitize
children, possibly leading them to engage in real life violence, and
that the effect of violent video games and other interactive media may
be ``significantly more severe'' than other forms of violent media.
In my own experience, I have found that when I share excerpts of
popular violent video games with concerned parents, they are generally
shocked at the level of violence in them. The days of Pac-Man are long
over, but even the most conscientious parents often seem unaware of the
kinds of games their children play and how violent these games actually
are.
Nonetheless, nothing generally stops an unsupervised child from
walking into an arcade and playing horribly violent video games.
Parents can control whether their children play violent video games at
home or watch violent TV shows; they should also be able to control the
kinds of video games their children play outside the home.
That's why I proposed a city ordinance to restrict children under
age 18 from playing video games with graphic violence or strong sexual
content without parental consent. The ordinance--which is widely
considered to be the first of its kind in the nation--requires
businesses to label all games that contain graphic violence or strong
sexual content. In addition, video arcades must erect a partition to
separate these games from other games. Recently, the Indianapolis City-
County Council passed the ordinance unanimously, with the support of a
broad coalition of citizens and community groups.
I believe this ordinance puts parents back in the driver's seat
when it comes to violent video games. It enables parents--not video
game marketers--to decide whether their children should play a
particular game. As studies show, violent video games affect different
children differently. Some parents may decide certain violent video
games are suitable for their children, but the choice should lie with
them. Regardless of whether parents allow their children to play these
games, this ordinance will both raise their awareness about the games
and encourage them to play more active roles in monitoring their
children's activities.
The recent report released by the Federal Trade Commission clearly
shows that the entertainment industry, including video game
manufacturers, is not effectively regulating themselves. Alternative
solutions are needed to allow parents to make informed decisions
regarding their children's access to violent materials. I firmly
believe that a small amount of local regulation, such as the ordinance
recently passed in Indianapolis, can play a large role in reducing a
problem that is increasingly plaguing our society.
I would like to again thank the Chairman and distinguished Members
of this panel for allowing me to express my views. I would be happy to
answer any questions, and to assist the Committee in any way in its
efforts to address this important issue.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jennifer Dunn, U.S. Representative From
Washington
Mr. Chairman,
With the release of the Federal Trade Commission report on
marketing violence to teens, serious damage has been done to the
relationship between the entertainment industry and American families.
Parents in America have come to depend on the voluntary ratings system
used by the industry as a marker for what they will and will not let
their children read, see, and listen to. By intentionally advertising
materials to children that are inappropriate for their viewing, this
industry runs the risk of government intervention to monitor their
marketing practices.
As the Co-Chair of the Bipartisan Working Group on Youth Violence,
I want to bring the work we have already done on this issue to bear.
After careful deliberation and consultation from outside experts, the
24 Republicans and Democrats on the Working Group agreed that
``ultimately parents are on the front line in trying to protect our
children from violent images. But Congress can play a role in
encouraging our schools and communities to help educate parents about
the resources that are available.'' These resources include the V-Chip
and TV ratings to help parents limit their children's access to
inappropriate content on TV. In addition, many television stations are
airing Public Service Announcements to educate kids and parents about
the connection between youth violence and intolerance.
Nevertheless, it's unconscionable that at the same time parents are
using the industry rating system to gain more control over what their
children see and hear, the entertainment industry is undermining these
systems by advertising adult images during TV shows intended for
general audiences. For instance, why advertise for the excessively
violent movie The Way of the Gun during an episode of the teen drama
Dawson's Creek? The Working Group on Youth Violence recognizes the
efforts of the entertainment industry to monitor itself. By
deliberately appealing to young people with their violent material,
however, the industry dissipates the good will extended for their
voluntary deeds. I do not approach the issue of government regulation
lightly. Yet when the private sector fails to provide the necessary
leadership to protect children from inappropriate materials, parents
have a right to demand accountability.