V-Chip Is on the Horizon, but Does Anyone Still Care?

Sex. Violence. Protecting children. Morality, politics and culture.

With all these enticing elements in the mix, why don’t people seem to care about the V-chip? Perhaps because the debate, politicized from the get-go, has so seldom been waged in honest terms.

This came to mind at a recent daylong seminar, “Filtering Out Sex and Violence,” sponsored by the USC Law School. The conference brought together TV executives, academics and former government officials to explore policy ramifications associated with this technology, which allows parents to screen out TV programs based on content.

Thoughtful as the discourse was, it felt like an academic exercise that lacked any real-world resonance, despite polls showing a solid majority of people feel there is too much sex and violence on television.

“Nobody’s going to buy TV sets because they have V-chip technology,” noted Tom Hazlett, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Indeed, although manufacturers aren’t mandated to include the technology in new TV sets until July, reports indicate marketing of separate V-chip boxes in three test cities--Chicago, Indianapolis and Nashville--has landed with a resounding thud.

For all the Sturm und Drang tied to its inception, the V-chip (a name derived from “violence,” even though surveys show sexual content disturbs parents at least as much) has thus met with a collective yawn. Network executives, at first skittish regarding the prospect of frightening off advertisers by affixing a scarlet letter “V” to programs with content ratings, have breathed easier based on the lack of public response, privately deeming the one-time political hot potato a nonissue, mashed by disinterest.

How can this be, when there appears to be so much concern over the messages children encounter on TV and in movies? While there is no clear-cut answer, here are some theories.

For starters, pollsters seeking to gauge the public’s view haven’t raised a key follow-up question--namely, would those who express misgivings about sex and violence on TV walk across the street to do anything to change things. To this, I suspect many would answer, “You mean, actually walk all the way across the street?”

Whatever people may say when asked, for most this is not a top-of-mind issue. As former ABC executive Ted Harbert observed at the seminar, “You have to be suspect of the response. . . . If someone calls on the phone and asks you about [sex and violence on TV], of course the vast majority are going to say, ‘I want all this filth blocked out of the house.’ It is socially demanded that you say ‘Yes.’ ”

In addition, the goals of V-chip proponents vary widely. Liberals took up the call in 1996 because the device was seen as a service to parents, particularly low- or middle-income workers raising latch-key kids. With Republican candidate Bob Dole accusing Hollywood of creating “nightmares of depravity,” the Clinton-Gore ticket grabbed the concept as a savvy way to seize its own moral high ground.

“This fit in with their children’s agenda and was a way to take over the family values issue,” said Peggy Charren, who tirelessly championed passage of the Children’s Television Act but opposes the V-chip.

At the same time, religious conservatives, who fear immorality on TV is polluting the culture, were pushing the industry to tone down its content. To them, providing parents veto power over what their own kids watch doesn’t go far enough.

In a different sense, the same could be said of public-health advocates, who cite research showing televised violence contributes to aggressive behavior in society. From this perspective, the V-chip isn’t about helping out parents of latch-key kids; rather, it’s about the horrible things those kids may do to my kid--or me, for that matter--depending on what they view.

In a nutshell, talk of parental rights made for a compelling campaign theme but didn’t reflect what many parties to the discussion really wanted.

“The ratings system was passed as a labeling system, but there are those who want it to be a content-altering system,” said Rick Mater, a senior vice president at the WB network.

*

The irony is if the underlying goal was to curb content, the airwaves are wilder now than when the self-proclaimed V-chip marshals began threatening to ride in and clean up Dodge City. Emboldened by risque cable fare and the ho-hum reaction to the ratings system, broadcasters continue to relax standards, particularly in relation to sexuality and language. Fox, for example, is toying with a comedy that would take a page from “South Park” by bleeping out the four-letter words.

Yet even in the face of such clear breaches of etiquette, the V-chip offers a ham-fisted and awkward way of addressing them. Subjective as these decisions are, you don’t have to be a 1st Amendment purist to feel a slight chill looking at a system where the blocking option still relies on someone else’s sweeping judgment as to what you may or may not find offensive.

As Charren pointed out, broadly slapping an “S” or “V” on programs also risks eliminating fare parents might want children to see--containing sex education information, for example--along with the prurient filth. Moreover, let’s not forget the ready audience for a little prurient filth now and then--as proven by the pay TV channels, which may air Emmy-winning movies but still draw some of their highest ratings with late-night bikini bashes exposing the human body, not the human condition.

Of course, in the years to come, as people buy new TV sets equipped with V-chips, they may surprise us and choose to take advantage of the device, assuming they haven’t given up by then on television entirely. Right now, however, it’s just another technological marvel for which demand is limited to those who made political hay out of it--about as pertinent to regular folks as the age-old debate whether Superman could beat up Mighty Mouse.

While it’s appealing to ask technology to curtail undeniable excesses in a media culture that’s bursting out all over, there is still no substitute at this point for old-fashioned methods, none of which are terribly high-tech: A) Watch TV with your kids and make informed decisions about what they shouldn’t watch; B) change the channel, turn the set off, and complain loudly (advertisers aren’t exactly famous for their courage) when you see something you dislike; and C) encourage your children to read magazines and newspapers, where, of late, they can learn about oral sex and ethnic cleansing.

Oh yes, and if anyone has more bright ideas about a magic chip to help fix television, especially during an election year, make mine barbecue-flavored.