A Power Ranger Trade War?

A nasty trade spat over the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers? Let’s not.

Here’s the story: I am chatting with U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor about those dreary trade disputes with Japan when he laughs and quips that in reality, Washington dukes it out even more often with another Pacific Rim ally: quieter, gentler, northerner Canada. But because U.S. politicians can’t score that many voter points bashing Canadians, hardly anyone knows about longstanding disputes over grain sales, fishing rights and the like.

And while Kantor didn’t mention it at our meeting a few months ago, one potential new trade quarrel stems from the Canadian public’s growing resentment of TV show exports from America. Usually I don’t give transparently protectionist sentiment a second thought: Foreign audiences ought to have the same right to view trashy American TV in their countries as Americans do here. Especially since (very parochially speaking) many of America’s programming exports come from Southern California, generating many jobs and a powerful antidote to the all-too-recent recession. And gripes about American “cultural imperialism” have long been vote-getters for Canadian politicians.

But American TV is absolutely notorious among Canadians for being more violent than anything produced in Canada. Indeed, for years now, especially after some grisly crimes perpetrated by disturbed Canadians who may have been influenced by violent movies or TV, public opinion north of our border has been demanding that the government “do something.” The U.S. position has been that any crimp in our ability to export our TV programming to Canada could violate free trade.

But after what happened last week, perhaps America will have to dismount from its high horse about TV exports, whether kids’ shows like the “Mighty Morphin Power Rangers,” which many Canadian parents find too violent, or the next grisly ax-murder miniseries. Last week, President Clinton, meeting with America’s top TV moguls at the White House, emphasized anew that something does have to be done about TV violence and that the so-called V-chip, along with a rating system for TV, would be a good starting point.

The V-chip approach adds a tiny blocking device to a TV set, enabling parents to exercise a measure of control over what their otherwise unmonitored TV sets can receive. It doesn’t automatically block programs; it simply allows parents to zap any show that is coded as containing violence or sex, even if they are in another room reading Shakespeare.

Now here’s the fun part: The V-chip was invented in Canada, first embraced in Canada and first tested by Canadian viewers. It’s also what Canadian parents could use to block American TV shows, which most Canadians receive over cable systems. It might well be called the “Canadian solution,” but any unilateral blocking of American TV shows is troubling to Washington.

Keith Spicer, the chairman of Canada’s equivalent to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, defends his country’s approach: “Our problem is with TV violence, not TV sex. Sex is life-affirming, but violence is life-denying.” He was speaking at a luncheon Friday arranged by the UCLA Center for Communication Policy, which produced a clarifying, nationally acclaimed U.S. study last fall: It suggested that while American TV was not nearly as violent as some critics contend, there was enough on the air to warrant doing something serious about it. “Canadians wanted action,” said Spicer, “and they wanted everyone involved to assume their share of responsibility. The public was not looking for censorship but greater sensitivity from the industry.”

Last May, when Sen. Bob Dole challenged Hollywood trash in a major political speech, he was of course challenging Bill Clinton, who happened to have been much blessed by Hollywood’s abundant campaign giving. But last week, with the U.S. TV network power structure at his elbows, President Clinton power-morphed the violence issue away from the Republicans by embracing the V-chip pioneered by Canada and obtaining the networks’ agreement to develop a TV rating system not unlike the one in place for American movies.

Despite all this, Kantor retains a residual suspicion about Canadian motives. “We’re experiencing with Canada a number of issues that suggest that country is trying to limit our access to its markets--not just with TV but in books and magazines and other areas,” he told me Monday. “We’re not looking to stand idly by and let Canada erect barriers to trade. We’d like to cooperate with them on this issue, not have something foisted on us. Let’s develop a common system.”

Just a few years ago, when Canada’s Spicer would come to the States in an effort to sell his get-with-it message to the American entertainment and political establishments, he was viewed as some kind of crackpot Redcoat dissing America’s hallowed 1st Amendment. But the V-chip, developed by a Canadian professor, doesn’t undermine freedom, it empowers individual parents. Says Spicer: “In Canada, parents said that if 30-second TV ads can change attitudes and buying patterns, the full-length programs with violence must also have an impact.” The Canadians are right; the issue here isn’t political freedom, it’s the medical issue of children’s psychological health. Washington had better be wary of getting on the wrong side of this one.