‘V-Chip’ for TVs: Boon to Parents or Big Brother?

It’s a simple little device that fits inside the TV set and would, when activated, prevent children from watching programs that their parents don’t want them to.

What could be wrong with that?

A lot, according to the broadcast television industry, which sees the specter of Big Brother in the federal government’s proposal to give parents greater power in controlling the levels of violence, sexuality and adult language that pour into their homes.

Therein lies the problem with the legislation that Congress is on the brink of passing: The so-called “V-chip” technology won’t work if the television industry does not want it to.

And the industry definitely does not--at least, the major broadcast networks don’t. Network executives say their 1st Amendment rights are in danger of being trampled by lawmakers who are afraid to address the real issues behind violence in society.

The networks have historically ducked behind the durable shield of the Constitution when their freedoms have been threatened. But this time, they face a firing squad of unrelenting and bipartisan critics who will not go away.

Ratings Key Issue

President Clinton leads an overwhelming majority of lawmakers who want the V-chip; they say it is the advertising revenue that the networks are worried about losing. Eighty-two percent of Americans want it, according to a poll conducted in July for an industry trade publication, the Hollywood Reporter. Even the cable industry has reluctantly agreed to it--provided the broadcasters go along.

But the broadcast industry fiercely refuses to rate the voluminous amount of TV programming it runs. Rating systems work for motion pictures, video games and the pay cable networks HBO and Showtime, broadcasters say, because consumers make the choice whether to view or purchase an individual program or product.

Not necessarily so with the V-chip, which would have the power to automatically block out hundreds of entertainment programs a week. The legislation proposed by Congress would require all new TV sets 13 inches and larger to be fitted with special circuitry to block out coded programs with the push of a button. Then, if the TV industry agreed to use such codes, parents would program the V-chip to filter out shows based on a universal ratings system embedded in the broadcast signal.

“The V-chip doesn’t do anything in and of itself,” said David Westin, president of the ABC Television Network Group. “There must be some person who looks at a show and makes a judgment on that show. When you do that, you’re well on your way to censorship.”

Different versions of the V-chip amendment have been approved by the House and Senate. A joint negotiating committee is merging and finessing the two versions to avoid censorship issues. The legislation is part of a sweeping telecommunications reform bill that will likely reach President Clinton before year’s end.

“The broadcasters have a very thin argument here,” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who sponsored the Senate legislation. “They think the best thing they can do is try to misrepresent what the issue is in order to kill it. Why do they want to kill it? It has nothing to do with censorship or anything else. It’s economics. They made very clear to me the thing they’re concerned about is that it will put them at an economic disadvantage compared to the cable industry.”

The broadcast networks do fear that advertisers will avoid programs with questionable ratings because a percentage of viewers will lock them out with the V-chip, creating a form of “economic censorship.” That prospect isn’t as troubling to the cable networks, which derive only a part of their income from commercials. Unlike broadcasters, they also receive money from the local cable companies that distribute their programming.

Believing his network will not be able to compete with cable in such an uneven marketplace, Martin Franks, senior vice president for CBS Inc., says he will see the matter in court before he agrees to a ratings system. “I suspect this issue really doesn’t end until the Supreme Court makes a definitive ruling,” he said. “I suspect some people are not going to rest until the Supreme Court either says regulating content is unconstitutional or it isn’t.”

Under the Senate version of the V-chip legislation, approved by a landslide vote in June, the TV industry would have a year to devise a ratings system. If the industry fails to meet the deadline, the government would appoint an independent board to create the categories and standards that it wanted the industry to use.

Panicked by what they considered Draconian measures, ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox tried to head off similar V-chip legislation in the House. Hoping to sway voters, the networks in July announced a $2-million fund to spur the development of their own voluntary viewer discretion technology for parents, one that does not require ratings.

Representatives were not convinced, though, and the House’s V-chip amendment passed a few days later.

Network Opposition

The V-chip legislation represents the largest and most disputed effort under way to control TV violence. The Senate last month approved two more bills addressing the issue--one to limit the hours when violent programs can be shown, and the other to provide federal grants to fund a quarterly violence report card.

Rather than seek political solutions, the networks, which are awaiting the results of their own yearlong violence studies, would prefer to empower viewers through education. They point to a grass-roots movement of parents, educators and politicians who are working to teach children the hows and whys of television programming and advertising so that they will make better viewing choices.

Lost among all the noise on Capitol Hill and the reactionary behavior of the networks is the fact that Congress does not plan to force the TV industry to do anything with the V-chip.

“We’ve been trying to do some things to clarify ambiguities,” said one Senate source close to the legislation. “People have been confused about whether, in fact, the government would start rating programs if the industry did not. We’ll put in language to make it clear that the government will not rate programs.”

In fact, “there will be no government mandate to force the TV industry to [use the ratings],” the source said. “The legislation will require TV manufacturers to build the V-chip into sets, but it won’t force the TV industry to do anything. We will give them a plan for how it could be done--a blueprint--but they will have to build the house.”

The gamble in Washington is that once every TV set in America rolls off the production line with a V-chip installed, a tidal wave of public opinion will force the TV industry to enact ratings and put the V-chip to use. That way, Congress keeps its hands clean while still imposing its will.

“Once TV sets have this [blocking] capacity and broadcasters refuse to rate their programs, there will be a public outcry that broadcasters are lowering their standards to produce whatever programs they want, but they’re not giving mothers sufficient capability to protect their kids,” said Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), who coined the term “V-chip” nearly three years ago.

In 1990, Markey helped pass a law requiring the insertion of computer circuitry in all TV sets sold in the United States so they could televise closed-captioning for hearing-impaired viewers. That same circuitry can easily be encoded, Markey said, to block out programs with coded signals for less than $1 a set.

“The V-chip really meets the needs of a changed world,” said Conrad, who adapted Markey’s idea for the Senate. “You have a fractionalized media, a profusion of choice. And you have a society with many two-parent households, in which both parents are working. Given the pace of modern life, parents cannot monitor what their kids are watching, but they want the ability to keep out some of the violent images pouring into their living rooms, as well as other objectionable programming.”

Congress wants the TV programmers to devise the system to be used. Lawmakers note that HBO and Showtime have created ratings that could serve as a model. Before programs, the two networks flash advisories that categorize content with regard to language, violence and sexual explicitness.

The V-chip has undergone recent testing in Canada--where TV ratings are the norm--with support from the Canadian Radio-Television Telecommunications Commission. But volunteers in Edmonton reported that the technology was far from a perfect solution because of inconsistencies in ratings and objections that entire programs were blocked out because of a single violent scene.

Only 25% of the 58 families who completed the trial in January said they would buy a V-chip in its current format if it were available.

The broadcast networks insist that no amount of pressure, political or public, will force them to rate their programs. All rating systems are flawed, they say, and do not take into account such factors as the context of violence or whether a violent act is rewarded.

On the practical side, they maintain that the plan Congress has proposed is flawed at the core. First, the TV industry’s infrastructure is too large to support a working ratings system because of its thousands of hours of programming a year.

Second, Congress wants to preclude the rating of TV news, found in a study by the children’s cable channel Nickelodeon to be among the most unsettling programming for young children.

Third, the V-chip blocks out programs on a wholesale level. A parent who wants to protect a child from violence might unintentionally filter out such highly praised programs as the PBS documentary series “The Civil War,” or the Oscar-winning “Schindler’s List.”

Finally, roughly half of the 20 million televisions sold annually in this country are purchased as a second or third set for the home. With an estimated 220 million TVs in homes right now, it could take decades before every TV set in the country has a V-chip.

For parents who want to safeguard their children, broadcasters point to at least 20 models of TV sets or devices with parental control features already on the market. Most require parents to select individual programs, time slots or channels they wish to block out.

“I think Congress is trying to target latchkey children and ease their parents’ yuppie guilt,” said Gary Shapiro, group vice president of the Consumer Electronics Group. His trade association for TV set manufacturers had been working with the cable industry to develop a voluntary ratings system and blocking technology, but that has been derailed by the government’s forced legislation. “But I don’t think those children are the ones committing violent crime in society. Is a 17-year-old mother who’s a crack addict going to program her television set for her children?”

“No, but you know what, this does have the potential of changing the economics of producing programming,” said Markey, who co-sponsored the House legislation.

Markey and Conrad suggested that educated, middle-class parents could in effect fight the battle for lower-income parents who may or may not program their V-chip or televisions with the technology. Conrad explained: “If advertisers know that a good chunk of the market might tune out programming because it has objectionable content, you might see better programming being produced, and that would benefit everyone.”

Conrad does not believe a V-chip alone will solve the problem of violence, and he takes offense at those in the entertainment industry who believe that lawmakers are unfairly targeting them.

“I see this problem as multidimensional,” said Conrad, who has been active in various anti-gun measures. “But you can’t expose kids to 100,000 acts of violence and 8,000 murders by the time they’re 12 and not expect it to have an effect.”

Yet part of the exasperation among television executives stems from their belief that the anti-TV violence drumbeat from Washington will continue no matter what they do. Last year, under pressure from the then-Democrat-controlled Congress, the industry agreed to invest nearly $5 million to initiate two studies--one funded by the broadcast networks, the other by cable--that would monitor violence on TV for three years with periodic reports to the public.

“Nobody seems interested in waiting for the results of the studies, which everyone applauded last year,” said an irritated Franks at CBS. “The ultimate frustration is that even if we signed onto this latest go-around, with ratings and all the rest, when they don’t like the way we rate the programs, then some new group of public officials can step up and say, ‘You have your ratings all wrong. We want you to do it this way.’ After all, the topic here is the ultimate in subjectivity.”

RELATED STORY: F1