_ TV violence: the case for control Should there be _ federal guidelines restricting the portrayal of violence on television — par- ticularly for family programs? An increasing number of parents’ and educators’ organizations think so — and have stated their opinions emphatically. And they’re supported by an im- posing array of alarming facts gleaned from various studies that have examined the effects of TV violence. But so far the federal govern- ment and the commission at which must of the campaign is directed, the Canadian Radio, Television and Telecommunications Com- mission, has shown little in- clination to act. Corporations in the television business have of course, put up powerful resistance to any government regulation of television programming, first arguing that TV could not be linked to social problems and later asserting that they would them- selves make the necessary changes. But the problem con- tinues and the demand for federal government intervention is growing in spite of the networks. In successive national and provincial conventions, the Home and School Federation has voiced concern over the effects that its own members had observed of television violence on children’s behavior. Initially, it sought support from program sponsors and the television networks themselves for a _ voluntary restriction by which TV stations would arrange programming with minimal violence between the hours of 2 p.m. and 10 p.m. But voluntary regulation didn’t — and doesn’t — work. For the networks, profit is the first con- sideration, well ahead of any concern for socially responsible programming. Allan Slaight, president of Global Television in Toronto voiced the television industry’s attitude to programming restraints in an interview with the Toronto Star in March. ‘‘Any voluntary controls would have to take into account that the Toronto-Hamilton area is the most competitive in the world for broadcasters right now,’ he told the paper. ‘‘Nobody can afford to lose audiences.” “The networks are private companies chasing profits with violent programming,’’ Judy LaMarsh, head of the Ontario commission on violence in the media, declared in the same issue of the Star. She added that in the U.S. — where much of Canadian programming originates — violent broadcasting ‘‘is out of control.” Faced with the refusal of the networks to police their own programming, the Ontario Home and School Federation told LaMarsh’s commission in 1976 “. . a clear responsibility lies with the CRTC to regulate broadcasting in Canada and to impose guidelines and regulations respecting the portrayal of violence during the broadcast of a_ television program.” The position adopted in the submission was subsequently adopted by the _ federation’s national convention. Last month, the B.C. School Trustees’ Association convention added its influential voice to the campaign for federal regulation of television programming and voted 251 to 76 in favor of a motion urging VIOLENCE INDEX 2205 eo wl 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 TV violence on U.S. programs, based in this graph on the number of violent characters as well as the frequency of violence per program and per hour, monitored in 1967. an amendment to the Broadcasting Act which would require the CRTC to set guidelines governing the portrayal of violence _ in programming. If the demand for federal government regulation has grown louder in the last year, it is for some very good reasons. In the first place, TV violence in the U.S. has hit its highest level since 1967 when it was first monitored. And more and more’ studies are discovering the social havoc wrought by those _ violent programs. A survey carried out earlier this year by Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania showed that of 2,200 students surveyed, aged 7 to 10, two-thirds were afraid that ‘“‘somebody bad”’ might get them in their homes. has reached its highest point since programs were first Twenty-five per cent of the students said that their fears were based on television programs ‘where people fight and shoot guns.” The more television wat- ched, the worse were students’ fears. Although the study was carried out in the U.S., Canadians cannot be unconcerned.. In fact, their children may be getting an even more distorted view because many of the U.S. programs are received in this country. Moreover, since the frequency of actual violence is lower in Canada than in the U.S., Canadians are exposed to far more fictional violence omthe TV screen than ever occurs in real life. Children are the first victims of the effects of the syndrome but they are not the only ones. The excessive overemphasis in TV The economics of Pornographic movies, once limited to dingy, store-front cinemas in the red-light ‘‘combat zones” of big cities have spread to the suburbs and towns, not only in theatres but also on closed circuit and cable television. The next target is the tube in everyone’s living room. Once made by under- ground producers operating with gangster funding, sex films are attracting ‘‘respectable” investors from the money-lending com- munity. As legitimate businesses, paying taxes, even hiring union labor, when it suits their purposes, members of the quasi-legal porno industry supply about 10 per cent of the top 50 box office attractions, according to weekly listings in theatrical trade journals. X-rated films are now booked into first-run movie palaces. At the neigh- borhood shopping centre multi- cinema, a thin cinderblock wall now separates Walt Disney’s “Snow White” from ‘What the Bellhop Saw Through The Key Hole’. Porno production costs are traditionally low although it is no longer necessary to develop the film in the producer’s bathtub. A well-known porno performer, announcing that she had just completed a three-hour feature was asked how long it took to shoot. “Three hours,’’ she replied. Such economies are appreciated by investors. Now that pornos are released under the labels of major studios and distributors, some budgets run as high as half a million dollars. Patrons paying $5 admissions want Hollywood backgrounds in full color with mood music. In their latest twist, sexploitation entrepreneurs have borrowed a tactic from big business. They turn out a full-length feature in two PACIFIC TRIBUNE—MAY 27, 1977—Page 10 editions. The hard-core version gets an X-rating, a valuable asset, while the soft-core version is given the milder R (or restricted) rating. These two categories account for 56 per cent of the 480 films rated by the U.S. motion picture agency in 1976. Of the remainder, 150 are classified as PG _ (parental guidance) and 62 G (general). With dual-standard releases the potential audience is greatly in- creased as are the profits. Two products are manufactured at the same time with the same capital outlay. Insurance against cen- sorship is built in. Should the courts rule pro or con on por- nography, all bets are covered. The double standard caper is not original. In the 1930’s when morality was defined and regulated by their own self- imposed Hays Code, Hollywood producers ~ sometimes made features in two versions, one for family fare and the other, chauvin- istically called ‘‘the South American version,’ for export. pornography Bootleg versions were screened at stag smokers behind drawn shades. Ironically, former customers for “blue”? movies from the U.S., such as Argentina and France, now accept only the expurgated ver- sions, insisting on deletion of material that violates their national standards of propriety. American pornography expands its domestic market through high pressure advertising as movie pages of daily newspapers will demonstrate, not to mention posters in theatre lobbies ‘and lurid trailers screened as “coming at- | tractions.’’ Attempts by well- meaning civic groups to curtail these excesses for the protection of children come into direct con- frontation with finance capital which controls the bulk of the entertainment industry. Next on the agenda for the monopolies is porno-TV, placing so-called “freedom of expression”’ ahead of social responsibility. Pornography is notoriously Celebrate with Hal Griffin 50 years of writing for labor Saturday, May 28, 6:30 p.m. DINNER AND DANCE FISHERMEN’S HALL 138 E. Cordova Street Adm. $5. Students, unempl. $3. Tickets Tribune office, Co-op Books sexist in its encouragement of male supremacist attitudes, but women are not its only targets. As currently in the U.S. in particular, it is often deliberately racist. Some specialized pornography features child abuse, sadomasochism, and sexual bestiality that is criminal by any civilized .code. And the violence it does to society is in- calculable. Basically an attack on humanity as a whole, its principal victim is the working class. —Robert Hart Daily World 2679 E. Hastings St., Vancouver, B.C. 253-1221 -adventure,’’ one psychiatrist put it, ‘countless social problems in its THE COMPLETE TRAVEL SERVICE We will professionally look after all your travel needs. We specialize in tickets, tours, and reservations. Call us today— for prompt personalized service. GLOBE TOURS programming on crime dramas has been shown to make adults far more receptive to increased budget allocations for more and better equipped police and to ac- cept more punitive laws and arrest procedures. Inevitably the network executives responsible for television programming argue that violent programs “are only what people want’’ and “merely reflect | the violence in society.”’ That argument, of course, ignores the formidable powers of manipulation of which television iS capable. But specious as it is, the argument has nevertheless held many regulatory agencies at bay — and violent programs become more excessive as TV ratings respond to the manipulated demand. In fact, the violence in most of the contentious television programs — Baretta, Starsky and Hutch, the Bionic Woman and the scores of others of the type — has little if anything to do with the reality it is purported to reflect. The violence on these programs 15 gratuitous, completely without cause, meaning or context. The violent crime is the basis of all action and producers outdo themselves to. create complex situations from which central — characters can only extricate themselves by violent means. “Violence is seen as a great. “and he who is best at it wins.” For the moment, parents con” cerned about the television programs that their children watch will have to monitor the viewing: But every ounce of public pressure will have to be brought to bear compel the federal government act. And the government ites a responsibility to act. ‘‘Televisio® violence needs checking in a big way,’’ Nicholas Zill, the psy — chologist who directed the study at — Temple University has em- phasized. “‘And it can’t be done merely by a Sesame Street or 4 family hour concept.” The desperate drive for profits i? television programming has left path — problems the enormity © which we are only now beginning see. Unless Ottawa begins to liste to parents and educators — an their organizations those — problems can only become worse — —Sean Griffit passports, permits