Public TV Fears Antiviolence Laws’ Effect On Programs

The FCC plans seem aimed at entertainment programs, said Wiley, speaking only for himself. “But my view is that it will start with entertainment programs and then it will make its way to news programs,” he said: “It’s a slippery slope.” The anti-violence campaign seems aimed at commercial media but “indecency had a chilling effect on our producers,” even though at first they weren’t in the crosshairs, he said. Unlike commercial broadcasters, public TV is “ill prepared” to fight FCC fines, Wiley said: “We don’t have the money.”

Most public TV entertainment shows don’t portray violence such as that seen on commercial TV or cable, but producers and stations still will be fearful, Wiley said: “And the instinct will be to tone certain scenes down.” Many factors constrain public broadcasters from crossing the line; the market should decide, he said: “What you don’t want is a government agency second guessing and holding the cudgel of fines over the heads of producers.”

Rules’ effect on public TV would “ultimately come down to the definition” of violence, said Steve Bass, pres. of Ore. Public Bcstg. and former chmn. of the Assn. of Public TV Stations. He doesn’t see direct implications for public TV in the FCC proposals, but “unintended consequences,” like those “seen from the indecency rulings,” could crop up, he said. Questions can arise as to whether violence guidelines cover scenes such as those in PBS documentary The War showing bombs exploding and people being shot, he said: “It’s not quite as simple as you might initially think, even though I think the problem with TV violence is a real problem.” Public TV’s big challenge would be when questions arise about nonfiction programs, he said: “Would we run into any problems? How would it affect news coverage, documentaries? It’s not just a matter of entertainment.”

PBS and public TV make shows for varied adult audiences, so “there are gong to be issues that come up that relate to violence and to war,” said Peter Morrill, gen. mgr. of Ida. Public TV and a PBS board member. Laws “aimed at censoring” violence on TV worry him, Morrill said: “The federal government does not have a great track record of designing laws that are not blunt objects, especially when you have clearly works of great art and introspection like Saving Private Ryan.” Excluding documentaries and news shows won’t shield public TV, since art can depict violence, he said.

The FCC report cites violence even in nature shows, said lawyer Andrew Cotlar. It is inconceivable to compare natural history with commercial TV’s “gratuitous and graphic personal violence,” he said: “Surely this demonstrates the perils of a federal regulator conducting a content analysis.” Under the law footage of people killing whales with harpoons in a show on conservation could draw sanctions, he added. As with smut, regulations to curb violence in programming eventually could ensnarl public TV even if not aimed in that direction, Cotlar said, noting that any such law would face constitutional challenge for limiting expression too broadly or with insufficient justification.

“Considering the impact of media on children’s education is of paramount importance” for PBS, said Vp Lea Sloan. Most parents believe TV influences their children and extend the most trust on program quality to PBS stations, she said: “Not only does PBS provide a safe haven for kids in their children’s programming blocks, but also carefully assigns appropriate ratings to the primetime schedule and empowers parents to use technology and talk with their children to make the right, age-appropriate viewing decisions and limitations for their family.”