Spotlight on Violent Media Content Not Seen Illuminating Easy Regulatory Answers

The Trump administration put the spotlight on violent media after last month's school shooting in Parkland, Florida, but experts see big First Amendment hurdles to FCC or congressional action aimed at addressing such content. One big issue is defining violent media in a way that can be consistently and reliably applied, emailed broadcast lawyer David Oxenford of Wilkinson Barker, noting that the same violent act is seen very differently in the context of a live-action show versus a Looney Tunes cartoon. The White House last week hosted a closed-door meeting on media violence, focusing largely on video games (see 1803080067).

Expanded government oversight over video content also would raise large practical concerns, said broadcast attorney Jack Goodman. TV shows are rarely completed very long before airing, making it difficult for them to be viewed in advance by the FCC or a federal ratings body, and the amount of content involved would require a massive effort, he said. There's also less of a statutory basis for regulators to police content involving extreme violence than there is for sexual content, Goodman said, adding it's highly unlikely a federal ratings body or increased FCC oversight of violent content will happen.

Asked about violent content regulatory issues, the FCC didn't comment. Neither did Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, who with fellow lawmakers asked the FCC in 2004 to undertake in inquiry on the effects of violent programming on children (see 0407290139). The result, three years later, was a report that made several recommendations, including that Congress put time channeling restrictions on excessively violent TV programming, restricting such content to later hours when kids would be less likely to watch (see 0704270101). The report also raised the idea of Congress imposing TV ratings, though it said such a system would inherently face challenges in ensuring ratings accuracy.

The growth of on-demand video services and DVRs probably made the time channeling restriction moot, said Michigan State University law professor Adam Candeub, a former Media Bureau attorney. He said V-chip adoption in the U.S. came about largely through voluntary regulatory efforts, with the government acting as facilitator, and regulatory tackling of violent content likely would take the same approach and involve "a lot of convincing and working together" because of First Amendment protections.

Citing excessive media violence on TV, former Commissioner Michael Copps, who was among the commissioners approving the report, emailed that the nation's media "have done a terrible job of disciplining themselves," leading to "profoundly negative societal effects. ... The FCC needs to do more than just turn its eyes the other way." Most people would welcome action, but "the power and money of Big Media keep Congress and the Commission from meeting their responsibilities to our families and kids," he said.

Violent media is unquestionably tied to aggressive behavior, psychology experts told us. But the links to violent behavior are more tenuous, and there's no scientific linkage between violent media and major violent events like school shootings, said Dimitri Christakis, director-Center for Child Health, Behavior and Development, Seattle Children's Hospital Research Institute. He said the debate on violent media as a causal factor in real-world shootings is "a little bit of a misdirection," since such violent content is "part of the problem, but a small part," alongside such issues as a history of being bullied or marginalized, ready access to firearms and mental health. But Christakis said he would like to see restricted access to violent video games for younger players, plus parents being aware of the effects of those games.

It's impossible to say violent media has a causal relationship with violent behavior, but it's "definitely a risk factor," said Ohio State University communication and psychology professor Brad Bushman. Unlike many risk factors -- such as poverty, low IQ and coming from a broken family -- violent media and gun access "are two we can actually do something about."

Debates about restricting certain types of media are largely a waste of time due to First Amendment protections, and the discussion should be more about parents paying attention to content consumed by their children, said developmental psychologist Douglas Gentile, who runs Iowa State University's Media Research Lab. "That could have a powerful effect," he said, saying a universal ratings system across types of media would be "much more effective."

Any industry-controlled ratings system that doesn’t allow parents recourse to appeal ratings may make the problem of violence in media worse, said Parents Television Council Program Director Melissa Henson in an interview. She said before the introduction of movie rating systems, nearly all movies were appropriate for all audiences. “The ratings gave [studios] cover” to produce more explicit content, she said. For ratings to work, they need to be overseen by an independent body, since industry-controlled ratings bodies are incentivized to keep ratings acceptable to advertisers, regardless of the content, Henson said. This has led to “ratings creep,” wherein content that in past decades would have been considered only appropriate for adults is now rated acceptable for children, she said.

Most consumers don’t realize how little oversight the government exercises over content, Henson said. TV viewers think all content is viewed and approved beforehand, when in fact regulators respond only when there is a complaint, she said. The process of assigning ratings should be more transparent, she said.

Demand for Common Sense Media's ratings and reviews service -- which covers media from movies, TV and streaming video to apps and books -- has grown from 2 million unique visitors a month a couple of years ago to more than 5 million monthly today, said Betsy Bozdech, executive editor-ratings and reviews. Because there always will be people who ignore or miss a rating, a better option than mandatory ratings is urging parents to do research for more informed choices, she said.