Housewife Critic of TV Finds Less to Protest

Terry Rakolta, the Michigan housewife who rocked the television industry last season by encouraging advertisers to boycott Fox Broadcasting’s “Married . . . With Children,” told journalists gathered at the Century Plaza for the TV industry’s annual summer press tour here that she has grown “less strident” since last season’s stand against explicit sexual references and violence on TV.

Rakolta, who faced some of her strongest detractors, the television critics, at the Century Plaza on a panel sponsored by the Center for Population Options, now says her campaign against sex and violence on TV is limited to free television during early “family” viewing hours.

Dubbed “The Ayatollah Rakolta” after her effort to get advertisers to pull out of “Married . . . With Children,” Rakolta spoke to critics as part of a forum on consumer-backed sponsor pull-outs and the issue of censorship. The Center for Population Options sponsored the panel because it is “concerned that this trend will have a negative impact on the future of programming that deals with controversial issues.”

Rakolta was joined on the panel by Marshall Herskovitz, one of the executive producers of a show Rakolta once attacked, ABC’s “thirty-something”; Michael Jacobs, producer of NBC’s comedy “My Two Dads,” and advertiser Sandy Inbody-Brick--each of whom presented a different view of the role of the advertiser, and the advertiser boycott, in shaping commercial television.

Rakolta, who earlier criticized “thirtysomething” for a scene involving frank discussion of birth control, now says she thinks that scene was handled in a “mature” way. She added that her unfamiliarity with the TV industry, as well as with public speaking, may have led her to be too “strident” in the past.

Still, Rakolta plans a continued effort to clean up TV (the Rakolta family, she said, no longer watches television). “There have to be checks and balances,” she said. “Whether you agree with us or not, we have a right to express our opinion.”

Rakolta does not believe that her newly formed advocacy group is encouraging censorship. “What we’re saying is, self-regulate--you know the boundaries,” she said. “We’re not in the line-drawing business. You draw the line.”

While Herskovitz said Rakolta had a right to express her opinion about a show by writing letters to advertisers, he called the control of the airwaves by the advertising industry “one of the most dangerous, subversive and destructive forces in our country today. We are all tainted by it, we are all in this,” he said.

Herskovitz believes that not only the advertisers’ influence on programming, but the advertisements themselves, represent a subversive force. They teach the American public to be dissatisfied with their possessions, their bodies and their lives.

Herskovitz added that, although complaints about the content of shows may be legitimate, he believes the American public faces a far greater danger from “sponsors controlling what we see on television” than any lapses in taste on the part of television producers.

Inbody-Brick, speaking for the advertising community, countered Herskovitz’s attack on advertisements by saying they are subject to review by the network standards departments just as the programs are. “You have to say that the buck stops with the network,” she said.

Jacobs’ show was boycotted by General Foods for including a scene in which the teen-age girl who lives with her two “dads” finds one of them in bed with a woman. He said that particular episode ended with a moral about not using sex as a way to win popularity, and added that pressure on advertisers leads to a “vast wasteland” of boring television. “I believe in freedom of choice,” Jacobs said. On the bedroom scene, he added, “You have to show the kick-off to get to the game.”

During NBC’s portion of the ongoing press tour, Entertainment President Brandon Tartikoff warned that advertiser pressure on network programming represented a “New McCarthyism.”

And, earlier this week, ABC executives echoed Tartikoff’s sentiments, although with less conviction.

“I share some of Tartikoff’s concerns,” new ABC Entertainment President Robert Iger said. “I’m not sure I would state it in the same way.

“I think that any time there are special interest-groups out there trying to impose in some form their will on the majority, then I think we have to view that as a potential problem.”

But, Iger added: “I also believe that we have a responsibility as broadcasters not only to recognize the freedom of people to express their criticisms.

” . . . I also think that the special interest groups have a responsibility to tolerate the fact that, as network broadcasters, we broadcast to an extremely diverse audience, And I think we should have a freedom . . . to broadcast a very diverse type of programming.”

Last spring, Iger startled the viewing public by deciding to pull two scheduled special programs off the air: “Scandals II” and “Crimes of Passion II,” both sequels to “reality” specials that had been fairly popular. At the time the network pulled the specials, it issued a terse statement saying the specials had not received sufficient advertiser support and that ABC was rethinking its policy on reality programming. Iger was unavailable for further comment.

Now, Iger concedes that his decision to pull the programs might have caused the misconception that he bowed to advertiser pressure.

“I guess I did create that impression,” Iger said. “My motivation was largely misunderstood.

Iger said that, after he made that recommendation, he reconsidered and decided to air the program after examining the “financial ramifications” of pulling a show just before its air date. Then, he said, the network discovered there was very little advertiser support for the program anyway. Having lost the financial incentive for airing the programs, he said, he decided to pull it.

“If that (the decision not to air the shows) created the impression that I knuckled under in some way or submitted to coercion, that’s unfortunate,” Iger said. “I felt better as a network executive not programming that show, and dealing with the impression that was created, than programming it.”

In another session with reporters, Thomas Murphy (Capital Cities/ABC chairman and chief executive officer), Daniel Burke (Capital Cities/ABC president and chief operating officer) and John Sias (president, ABC Television Group) also said they believed the network should not cave in to advertiser pressure.

“We don’t believe we should be influenced by pressure groups now more than any other time,” Murphy said.

Burke added, however, that he believes groups or individuals who voice their concerns to advertisers are using a “legitimate form of protest,” which brings advertisers “into the loop” of decision-makers controlling what ends up on the air.

While Burke defended the networks against pressure groups, he believes they should be responsive to the public’s standards. “We have an affirmative obligation to lead, but only get so far in front,” he said.