Heading Logo

Enrollment up for Portage GED program

By Associated Press Published: July 14, 1997 12:00 AM

The lawmakers _ Sens. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and Sam Brownback, R-Kan.,

and Reps. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and Joe Kennedy, D-Mass. _ are pushing legislation

to require that early-evening television programs be free of sexual innuendo,

deletable expletives or sly euphemisms for crude language.

[Article continues below]

But a deal that other lawmakers made with the TV industry may prevent the

bills from going anywhere.

[Article continues below]

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the

Commerce Committee chairman, and seven other senators promised industry

leaders they would oppose, among other things, legislation aimed at creating

a ``family viewing hour.'' The assurance, similar to ones made by key House

members, was in exchange for the industry's agreement to adopt stronger

voluntary program ratings.

That agreement bodes ill for the new ``family viewing'' proposals, which

would grant television networks a limited exemption from antitrust laws

and allow them together to reinstate and develop voluntary programming standards.

Sponsors want to encourage production again of safe shows like ``Happy Days''

and ``Little House on the Prairie.''

But what constitutes safe ``family friendly'' programs and who decides?

In the early 1970s, ``All in the Family'' featured Carroll O'Connor as the

politically incorrect Archie Bunker. It sparked a national uproar over what

language and topics were appropriate for prime-time television, but the

program was tame by today's standards.

Sponsors of the bills insist they would give government no control over

broadcasters. ``Any guidelines or programming standards the industry chose

to adopt would be purely voluntary and could not be enforced by the government

in any way,'' Brownback said.

Groups that want to clean up TV programming like the ``family hour'' bills.

``We wholeheartedly support the bill because ... it allows the networks

to do something to clean up the content of programming,'' said Mark Honig,

executive director of the conservative Parents Television Council.

``It doesn't mandate or legislate anything from Capitol Hill but actually

puts the burden on the industry to resolve this problem.''

The industry is not impressed. It thinks the bills violate broadcasters'

free-speech rights.

``We cannot support the bills because of the First Amendment implications

and the fact that we've been there before,'' said Dennis Wharton, spokesman

for the National Association of Broadcasters. ``Essentially, the family

viewing hour was dropped because of the antitrust and the First Amendment

implications back in the late 1970s.''

Television networks followed a self-imposed set of standards until a federal

court ruled in 1982 that provisions restricting sale of advertising violated

antitrust rules. The broadcasters' group threw out the entire code in January

1983 on the ground that it made broadcasters vulnerable to antitrust lawsuits.

Since the demise of the broadcasters' code, some conservative groups say,

the time slot once known as ``family hour'' has turned into the cringe hour.

Despite the popularity of mild-mannered, family-friendly shows like ``Touched

by an Angel,'' today's children are deluged between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. by

``filthy language, sexual innuendo and perverse story lines,'' the Parents

Television Council and the conservative Media Research Center said in a

study released in May.

It examined 93 hours of programs from Jan. 30 to Feb. 26. Obscenities were

uttered at an average rate of just under one an hour, and there were 60

references to sexual intercourse _ one every 11/2 hours.

``In their race to the bottom of the entertainment barrel, the networks,

I think, are in a situation where they believe perhaps that sex and violence

sells, which I think is a misreading of the American people,'' Rep. Smith


Elliot Mincberg, legal director of the People for the American Way, a liberal

group Norman Lear helped found to counter the religious right, said he sees

nothing wrong with a new ``family hour'' policy so long as it is truly voluntary.

But he cautioned:

``What's family viewing today may be very different from what family viewing

was yesterday. Today, my guess is that `All in the Family' would be considered

family viewing, even though that was one of the specific targets of the

family viewing hour 20 years ago.''

Rate this article

Do you want to leave a comment?   Please Log In or Register to comment.