Keeping the Broadcast Balanced : Asserting Creative Needs and Responsibility to Viewers Is a Complex Problem

Howard Rosenberg’s Oct. 19 column on “It’s More Fun to Sell Sex Than Protection” and Sharon Bernstein’s article on “Condoms: Television’s Dirty Little Secret” contain certain errors of fact and draw several misleading conclusions.

We, at ABC, and I believe this is true for NBC and CBS as well, have accepted, scheduled and presented public service announcements in 1990 (and since 1988, to my knowledge) that convey the message that condoms can aid in the prevention of the dreaded disease AIDS. The word condom is permissible in such public service announcements.

The issue of network acceptance or rejection of commercials for prophylactics that are proffered as contraceptive devices goes to the controversy relating to birth control. Its advocacy is considered by many viewers to be inappropriate for moral, religious and social reasons for television presentation in the home. The decision to present such commercials is therefore left to individual ABC-affiliated stations where community standards can be more accurately judged. It is not a taste question but one of addressing the issue.

The exercise of restraint in the portrayal or discussion of sexuality in any ABC program is a function of the review process conducted by ABC’s Standards and Practices editors. They are the ones exercising restraint. They have done battle with producers over questions of sexual language, innuendo and portrayal in 8 o’clock situation comedies from the days of “Happy Days,” “Mork and Mindy,” “Three’s Company,” “Soap,” to today’s “Who’s the Boss?,” “Growing Pains” and “Wonder Years.”

Notwithstanding the fact that there is no longer an industry-wide mandate for the “family viewing hour”--a concept that was subject to litigation dealing with the issue of freedom of expression raised by the creative community--every ABC editor gives credence to that concept’s principle: Responsibility and accountability must be maintained in programs presented for the family watching together. Moral and social values, intelligence, acceptable practices, language, etc. have changed in the last 30 years since I’ve directed this track.

Nonetheless, every effort is made to balance the need of the creative community to present new and provocative programming with the licensee’s responsibility to operate in the public interest--that is, to present acceptable programming over the free, advertiser-supported medium that is an invitee in the home.

The basic question our standards and practices editors constantly pose is: how to respond to children about a program dealing with sex when society itself has yet to treat the issue openly and frankly and in an honest fashion. The answer is as complex as the question.

“The family viewing hour,” by the way, had its genesis in the concern at the time about gratuitous violence in programming and the effect it might have on the behavior of children. I myself was the perpetrator of extending the concern to sexuality as well. I point this out merely to indicate how shifts take place in a medium that is often high-risk, competitive, copy-cat and daring.

All broadcasters strive for innovation, diversity and--most of all--success with our programming. But, in the final analysis, our audience--both by law and practice--dictates the quality and quantity of TV presentations.

However, we should not lose sight of the complete picture--the entire diverse and balanced program schedule offered to our audience. Look at the 8-9 p.m. offerings on the ABC Television Network:

* Monday: “MacGyver,” a program that eschews sex for heroism, science, controversy, the environment and pro-social behavior;

* Tuesday: “Head of the Class” demonstrates intelligence in the classroom, literate subject matter, discussion, humor;

* Wednesday: “Growing Pains,” dealing with growing up, with episodes emphasizing the evils of alcohol and drug abuse;

* Friday: The titles of “Full House” and “Family Matters” denote their content;

* Saturday: “The Young Riders” offers a diversion from the lighter comedy fare;

* Sunday: “Life Goes On” is one of the most compelling pro-social, compassionate and enlightening penetrations the media offer for family togetherness and consumption.

Our Thursday prime-time schedule is more designed for counter-programing to attract adult audiences.

Rosenberg and Bernstein have dealt with issues that are not new and that continue to occupy a great deal of our time and attention at ABC. Their criticism is not without purpose and result. One always needs stimulation, sometimes even shock therapy. The danger is in presenting the issues in inflammatory language and headlines, or in replying to them smugly or glibly.

The real answer is to keep the dialogue flowing, and be vigilant.