Furthermore an alliance with The Parents Television Council, a child 
protection media watch dog organization based in Los Angeles and Alexandria, 
Va., is about to release a survey of sex and violence on primetime TV, as part of its 
lobbying efforts in Congress. (See Complete article below, thanks to Dominic 
Tassone)
===========================================

SENATOR IN BIGGER ROLE IN TV FIGHT:
(Summary) 

79-year-old South Carolina Democrat Sen.Hollings unveils--for the fifth 
time--since 1993, his bill to protect children from violent programming 
during prime time labeled the "safe harbor" initiative, pronouncing "Violence 
begets violence. We all know it."

Hollings is not likely to emulate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) who scolded 
studio executives for marketing R-rated film entertainment to children.

Instead, Hollings is intent on a narrowly tailored fix in the medium he finds 
most pervasive: television, which is piped into the living room, as opposed 
to movies that you have to leave the house and pay for.

Hollings reads aloud at every chance a passage from a 1949 edition of "The 
History of Broadcasting," Page 83, internal instructions on how to make a hit 
television show:

"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."

Holdings believes that paragraph--albeit more than 50 years old--remains a 
guide for how the industry operates and provides ample justification for his 
legislative solution.
which would authorize the FCC to treat programs containing gratuitous 
violence the way it handles indecent ones, relegating them to the hours 
between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. 
==============================================
SENATOR IN BIGGER ROLE IN TV FIGHT 
(Complete Article)

Politics: As Commerce chair, Hollings relishes chance to 
push his violent-programs bill.

Los Angeles Times
By Faye Fiore
July 24. 2001

WASHINGTON -- When Sen. Ernest F. Hollings stood before television cameras 
in February to unveil--for the fifth time--his bill to protect children from 
violent programming during prime time, he hardly fit the part of Hollywood 
nemesis.

The 79-year-old South Carolina Democrat has pressed his "safe harbor" 
initiative in every Congress since 1993. It failed every time. Eminently 
ignorable. Hollywood the victor.

Then, political fortunes turned unexpectedly. The Democrats took over the 
Senate and Hollings became chairman of the powerful Commerce, Science and 
Transportation Committee, overseer of two federal agencies that regulate the 
entertainment industry. Now the plain-spoken lawmaker (he once called an 
opponent a "skunk") is positioned to advance a piece of legislation that has 
become something of a personal crusade--regulating violent television in the 
hours when children are most likely to be watching.

"Violence begets violence. We all know it. And more specifically, the 
industry knows it," Hollings announced recently in the sort of declaration 
Hollywood hates, an indication that a Democrat in the chairman's seat may be 
no friendlier to the liberal-leaning industry than the Republican who 
preceded him.

Hollings is not likely to repeat the headline-grabbing hearings held last 
fall when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) summoned studio executives to Washington 
to explain how and why R-rated entertainment is marketed to children.

He believes attempts to rein in the film industry with congressional 
scoldings are futile--"You can't embarrass money"--and movies are not the 
problem, anyway. "They are not piped into the living room. You've got to pay 
for them and go look for them."

Instead, Hollings is intent on a narrowly tailored fix in the medium he finds 
most pervasive: television.

"We are going to have hearings on television violence alone," possibly before 
summer's end, the newly installed chairman said recently.

With a mane of white hair and a gravelly drawl, Hollings is a senator right 
out of central casting, mixing the courtly mien of a Southern gentleman with 
the notorious nastiness that long has marked his state's politics. When asked 
by an opponent in 1998 to promise civility in the campaign, Hollings replied: 
"Kiss my fanny."

Widely known on Capitol Hill by his nickname, Fritz, he is immaculately 
tailored and devoutly health conscious--his drink of choice is green tea. On 
the court every morning at 6:45, Hollings is known to be a tenacious tennis 
player, a ball machine who gets everything back, as long as you hit it to 
him. He moves so little on the court that buddies call him "the Washington 
Monument."

He applies the same methodical approach to his work in the Senate. Known as a 
masterful legislator and skilled debater, a throwback to his days as a trial 
lawyer, he prides himself on his ability to find simple solutions to complex 
problems.

As governor of South Carolina in the early 1960s, Hollings presided over the 
peaceful integration of the state university system, talking to the business 
community and newspaper editors when his Southern counterparts were barring 
schoolhouse doors. Shortly after coming to the Senate in 1966, he staged an 
anti-hunger tour that led to the creation of the Women, Infants and Children 
nutritional program.

The matter of media violence is not new to Hollings. He began following the 
issue when a 1972 surgeon general's report first concluded that television 
violence can adversely affect social behavior.

Aides say his interest stems not from political capital but from his concern 
for children--he raised four and is the grandfather of seven. His second 
wife, Peatsy, is a former schoolteacher.

"If he really wanted to demagogue the issue, he could," said Ivan A. 
Schlager, former Democratic chief counsel and staff director for the Commerce 
committee. "But he doesn't run to the floor every five minutes to talk about 
Hollywood or give the scold lectures. . . . He doesn't believe in trying to 
establish his bona fides on the cultural wars. This goes back to his desire 
to protect children."

Through the years, Hollings has persisted in his mission to clean up the 
airwaves, reading aloud at every chance this passage from a 1949 edition of 
"The History of Broadcasting," Page 83, internal instructions on how to make 
a hit television show:

"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."

Hollings believes that paragraph--albeit more than 50 years old--remains a 
guide for how the industry operates and provides ample justification for his 
legislative solution.

The bill would first require the Federal Communications Commission to study 
the effectiveness of the V-chip in protecting young viewers. If the agency 
finds that remedy has failed--and Hollings believes it has--the FCC would be 
authorized to treat programs containing gratuitous violence the way it 
handles indecent ones, relegating them to the hours between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.

"It has to be excessive, gratuitous violence--not something like a series on 
the Civil War that's necessary to the plot," Hollings explained.

But industry leaders oppose the bill as a violation of the 1st Amendment.

"How do you define violence?" asked Dennis Wharton, spokesman for the 
National Assn. of Broadcasters. "One person's violence is another person's 
art form. Is 'Schindler's List' excessively violent? The answer is probably 
yes, but one could argue that broadcasters would be providing a public 
service by airing it in prime time."

In other areas, Hollings has been an entertainment industry ally, 
particularly in his defense of copyright laws that are paramount to 
Hollywood's interests.

"He believes copyright ought not be loosened or shrunk. He realizes 
intellectual property is America's biggest trade export and an extraordinary 
part of the economy," said Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture 
Assn. of America and the senator's longtime friend. 
 

=======================================================
TV's GETTING DIRTIER, BOZELL ANGRIER

PTC: Give us just one hour when kids can watch

By David Everitt

Where’s the family viewing hour?
That’s what a media watchdog is demanding to know after sponsoring a new
TV study.

The Parents Television Council, an organization based in Los Angeles and
Alexandria, Va., is about to release a survey of sex and violence on 
primetime TV. PTC president L. Brent Bozell III has seen enough of the 
study’s results to be outraged.

"The worst thing that comes up in this survey," says Bozell, "is that if
you look overall at the programming schedule during the family hour, almost
across the board it is offensive to children. There is no such thing as a
family hour anymore."

In one sense, that shouldn’t be surprising.Back in 1975, the FCC pressured 
the networks to designate their early-evening schedules for family viewing, 
but this concept quickly faded away and has not been reinstituted since then.

Bozell, though, is talking more about what should be rather than what is. 
And the trend over the last couple of years definitely does not conform
to what he thinks should be.

The results of the PTC study indicate that the incidence of TV violence
has nearly doubled since 1999. In May of that year, according to Bozell,
there were 1.6 acts of violence per hour. Since then the number has risen to
3.1 per hour.

As for sex incidents, the quantity is down slightly, "but when you look
at the context and quality of these incidents," Bozell says, "they are far
more obscene and far more graphic."

Language is the third element that the survey has measured. Bozell finds
these results just as offensive."The amount of foul language on primetime 
over the last two years just goes to show there is no control over the 
commentary we give our children.And people wonder why children use foul 
language on the street."

Who is the worst offender overall?

"There isn’t even a close second–UPN," Bozell says.
The network racked up 18.4 incidents of sex, violence and foul language
per hour. NBC comes in second with 9.89, followed closely by Fox, ABC and
the WB. CBS ranks at the bottom–or at the top, in Bozell’s view–with 3.6
incidents per hour.

To follow up on its survey results, PTC plans to call on the networks to
set aside a "safe haven," one hour devoted to programming for parents and
children to watch together.

"It’s just a simple proposition," Bozell says. "The networks set aside
one hour during primetime for children. That’s not asking too much."

Oh yes it is, others say, at least from a legal standpoint.
"The family-hour concept is not consistent with the First Amendment,"
says David Rubin, dean of Syracuse University’s Newhouse School of
Communications, "and any effort to establish it would be unconstitutional."

The concept is also, he maintains, highly impractical because of the
expanding cable spectrum and all the channels that fill it.
"When it was just three major networks, it was a lot easier to regulate and 
establish guidelines and limits for primetime programming. Whether this is a 
good thing or not, that sort of regulation is now futile because of current 
technology."

Another issue concerns how you define family viewing.
"The people who have sponsored this study clearly have one concept of
what’s appropriate for family viewing, while others in society might have
others," says Marjorie Heins, an attorney and the author of a new book on
censorship, "Not in Front of the Children."

"As for the question of sexual and violent content, which comprises a vast 
part 
of the human experience, it’s difficult to determine what is acceptable," she 
adds.

"If you’re talking about violence, are you talking about ‘The Odyssey,’
or documentaries on the American Civil War, or ‘Gunsmoke’, or cartoons? You
have to look at what is the context, what is the quality. Just counting up
violent or sexual acts is sort of a meaningless exercise."

Just the same, the PTC considers its survey meaningful enough to serve
as a springboard for lobbying the advertising community to discourage
sponsorship of objectionable programming.

Along those lines, the organization has already attempted an advertiser
boycott of "Boston Public," to get that series out of Fox’s 8 p.m. time slot.

The PTC’s success or failure with this particular show could indicate
how meaningful any future boycotts might be.

"We’re getting a number of sponsors to pull their spots from that show,"
Bozell maintains, "and we’ve just delivered 20,000 petitions to Gail Berman
at Fox, asking her to take the program out of the family hour and put this
garbage on at 10 p.m.

"If it’s too much to ask that they take a program that shows high school kids 
giving oral sex in the hallway and ask them to put it on at 10, then we’re 
really in trouble."