STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE
Re:  In the Matter of Violent Television Programming and Its Impact on Children, 
MB Docket No. 04-261
Members of Congress requested the FCC launch an inquiry regarding negative 
effects of violent programming, the constitutional limitations on restricting violent 
programming when children are likely to be viewing, and the constitutionality and public 
interest basis for adopting a definition of “excessively violent programming that is 
harmful to children.”  While I recognize the difficulty in drafting narrowly tailored and 
constitutionally sustainable definitions in this matter, after reviewing the studies and 
meeting with researchers and those who have been involved in this debate for decades, I 
am convinced that something must be done to help parents minimize the pernicious 
effects of violent programming on their children.  Congress faces difficult issues 
everyday and constantly walks a tight constitutional line, but, as Albert Einstein once 
said, “In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.”
Like many of the parents, experts and health professionals we heard from, I am 
deeply concerned about the negative effects violent programming appears to have on our 
children.  Many of us, as parents, have witnessed our children acting out a fighting scene 
from an episode of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, been shocked by our children’s 
callousness towards violence, or been awakened by a frightened child climbing into bed 
after having a nightmare because of something they saw on television.  While the Report 
we submit to Congress today recognizes that there is some research refuting the causal 
relationship between violent programming and aggressive behavior, the vast majority of 
studies indicate that violent programming does have a negative impact – ranging from 
increased desensitization to violence to sleep abnormalities to heightened fears of 
becoming a victim – on children.  I’m sure the 81 percent of parents who believe that 
violence on television contributes to violent behavior in children will agree with many of 
our findings.
The debate regarding the impact of violent programming is not a new one.  In 
fact, it made its official debut in 1952 with the first Congressional hearing on the matter.  
The discussions, the political rhetoric, the hearings, and indeed the promises made by the 
industry during those hearings have been remade, rehashed, reinvented, and recycled in 
the following 55 years.  While I support self-regulation first, these discussions have been 
going on for far too long.  It is time that more effective steps are taken to protect our 
children.
Following the passage of the 1996 Communications Act, countless parents and 
advocacy groups, the FCC, and indeed Congress strongly encouraged the industry to 
adopt a “ratings system.”  Today, we have an age-based system with general content 
descriptors warning of violence, language, sexual situations, and suggestive dialogue.
While this was a positive, voluntary industry step, it has proven to be insufficient 
to protect our children.  Individual networks rate each of their programs, leading to 
inconsistencies across channels, and even across shows. Age-based ratings may 
reasonably reflect the content of the shows, but content descriptors frequently are not 
used or would be considered inaccurate by an impartial observer.  For example, a 
program may very well have violent content, but if the network does not believe it 
constitutes “moderate” violence, a “V” label is not applied.  The industry also frequently 
labels intense violence in children’s programs as “FV,” for comedic violence or fantasy 
violence, regardless of whether it is fantasy or realistic, merely because it appears in 
children’s programming. Yet, research shows that children aged 7 and younger often 
perceive fantasy or comedic violence as reality.
The industry should implement ratings reliably, more completely, consistently, 
and accurately.  A properly implemented ratings system would be a very useful tool for 
parents when used together with the V-Chip.  Unfortunately, notwithstanding government 
and industry educational efforts, more than half of Americans do not know their 
television is equipped with a V-Chip and two-thirds have never used it. Thus, effectively 
educating parents about the V-Chip is an additional necessary step. Further, our report 
notes that the industry could voluntarily commit itself to reducing the amount of 
excessive violence viewed by our children.  A good first step would be to readopt a 
family hour during which there is no violent content, period. 
Over the past few years, sources from outside the industry have introduced new 
tools and technology designed to help parents make smart choices about what kind of 
violent content is age-appropriate and available to children.  For example:
· Parents Television Council provides on its web site a rating of a significant 
number of network programs based on PTC employees’ log of every instance 
of violence, language, sexual situation, and suggestive dialogue.
· Common Sense Media has rated more than 6,000 media titles from a kids and 
family perspective – including violent content ratings. These reviews are 
distributed not just through Common Sense’s website, but also through major 
Internet and cable partners such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Road 
Runner High Speed. 
· TV Guardian technology actually detects and filters profanity and other 
offensive phrases chosen by the parent – including “hate words” and racial 
slurs – while you watch movies or television shows. 
While independent information can facilitate parental control, in today’s 24/7 
media environment, parents need more help. Our Report concludes that the available 
tools and technological “fixes” are not sufficient to protect our children from violent 
programming.  There is no doubt that parents are the ones who know their children best, 
and are the first line of defense in keeping their kids from viewing violent content they 
aren’t ready to see.  But both the industry and the government have an important role to 
play: in educating the public about the problem as well as potential solutions; in 
encouraging the development of more and better tools; in brokering partnerships so that 
parents have better access to accurate information; and in listening to both experts and 
parents across this country. I pledge my assistance in these efforts.
I will close with this thought: we, parents, must take responsibility for the media 
that is viewed inside our homes, but also must be active in changing the media landscape 
outside our homes.  I encourage all parents to let your local TV station know when 
something you find inappropriate is aired, and be sure to notify your representatives in 
Congress. If enough parents speak out, perhaps we will not only improve the tools that 
are available to parents to help minimize their children’s exposure to violent content, but 
we will actually see an increase in the amount of family-friendly, uplifting and nonviolent 
programming being produced.