Commentary: Most TV Not Suitable For Kids Anymore (April 6, 2004)

V-chips notwithstanding, most of the programs on television that I have seen in the late afternoons and early evenings are far from suitable for children younger than 13, yet the local stations broadcasting these overly mature programs that don't belong on earlier than 10pm. Everything from soap operas, which used to be far tamer back then, to reality shows, are dealing with issues bordering with risque and mature subjects that are so poorly dealt with on television that these programs should not be on when most of the children are up and easily impressioned by what they accidentally stumble onto. At some point, the government is going to have to put the hammer down and get these local stations to put on something more suitable for the children to view, but not necessairly aimed at them.

Parental complaints about TV programs have existed for decades, yet sex, violence and crude language steadily proliferate. Now that the "wardrobe malfunction" during the otherwise horrible rap-infested Super Blow halftime show has been exposed to younger ones without any warning, it is causing a ripple effect on the radio airwaves such as Howard Stern being dropped from six Clear Channel affilliates, the firing of Bubba the Love Sponge heard on a few Clear Channel stations on the east coast, the dropping and editing of some comedy songs on the Dr. Demento Show, the passage of various zero-tolerance on indecency policies for all employees that work in Viacom and Clear Channel, and all else, yet television remains untouched and has no interest in toning down the mature subject matters whatsoever.

Some parents set their TV sets to tune out certain programs and whole channels by using the V-chip, yet the children can still figure out how to defeat the features since the TV sets don't have a password. Other parents simply don't care about what their children is exposed to since they'll be exposed to it sooner or later.

Some children's shows are rather hard, where sometimes crude language can pop up without warning, and the children can emulate what they see on television, with the parents responding to punishing them for bad behaviour. The broadcasters are to blame for failing to keep the airwaves safe for all ages to watch like it was back in the 60s when there was once a Television Code of ethics broadcasters have to follow. Today, anything goes, even mentioning of private parts during reruns of off-network fare in the late afternoons.

Forget "Parental Guidance Advised," just clean up the shows and move Springer and the soaps to 10pm and later when the children are supposedly in bed by then. If the broadcasters won't do it, the federal government should step in and act on complaints of television indecency and fine the broadcasters for such violations. Parents shouldn't have to foot the bill for devices to filter-out bad words or buy expensive television set that have the V-chip installed. The broadcasters should either show decent programming suitable for all ages and relegate the racy stuff to 10pm or else expect to pay hefty fines for violations in the code of decency.

Numerous resources are available to help parents decide what their children should be watching. The national PTA publishes a guide called "Taking Charge of Your TV," for example; the conservative Parents Television Council compiles a critique of virtually every prime-time network show.

As for cable television, there should be no need for Cox Communications to force people who want to purchase extended cable services to pay for inappropriate programming not suitable for them. L. Brent Bozell III, a father of five who is president of the television council, wants Congress to pressure cable TV companies into offering "a la carte" service, so parents can pay only for the channels they want their family to see.

"As bad as broadcast TV has gotten, its nothing compared with what children consume day and night on basic cable," Bozell wrote recently to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Cable television may be free from federal rules on decency, but that doesn't mean that they can say four-letter words in the morning and afternoon when the children can pick up on the use of the F-word and use it in school where they call their teachers a "f--ker face" and say "s--t" with their classmates, unaware what those words really mean.

Internet radio can't be regulated, though there is a lot of adult content not fit for children under 12. The solution is to make all mature websites host their content on a top-level domain called ".xxx", and easily allow the browser makers to let parents download a version that does not recognize .xxx domains or let anyone surfs to a website that contains that upper level domain. That's the only sensible way for parents outside of Net Nanny to censor web content for their children.

Ten of the largest cable TV providers, which reach 85 percent of all cable subscribers, offered to provide channel-blocking technology in the form of cable boxes or filtering devices for free to subscribers who don't have it. This doesn't go far enough. There should be built-in super cable tuners inside TV sets and video recorders that are password protected so that children don't defeat the purpose for dealing with cable television services outside of the broadcasting stations, which need to follow a strict set of decency rules. The cable tuners can tune in any cable channel the subscriber is willing to pay for, and completely block out channels they don't find worth paying for. Once 90 percent of all cable subscribers have such a device, then the cable companies can toss out the long obsolete cable boxes and digitally scramble every channel they offer so that the only way to receive the cable services is when a consumer purchases a TV and video recorder with a super cable tuner.

It's not enough just to block channels if that doesn't mean that the cable subscriber isn't allowed to not pay for the channel they are blocking. It's about taking away a vote for an offending or uninteresting cable service in the form of consumers not paying for such as channel; that's the American way of doing business.

Yes, there is a First Amendment issue, but anything that is broadcast over the airwaves for free is subject to decency rules the broadcasters have to follow if they want to keep their licences and their businesses. That's why Clear Channel dropped Howard Stern because they fear the unknown: how many more possible consumer complaints during the last three years of the Stern show will get the attention to the FCC, who acts on compaints and has already fined Clear Channel over $750,000 in indecency complaints so far, and with new House legislation that would raise a performer's indecency fine from $11,000 to $500,000, I don't see Clear Channel wanting to take any more chances with Stern until they are assured that the syndicator, Viacom, foots the bill for indecency complaints on behalf of Clear Channel.

Parents Television Council: http://www.parentstv.org/
National Coalition Against Censorship: http://www.ncac.org/

On an opposing side, comedian George Carlin famously dissected "The Seven Words You Can't Say on Television" in 1972 as a way to explore what everyone was so uptight about. Now that kind of humor is okay for mature listeners, but clearly is not intended for kids younger than 13 to listen to. Those between 13 and 18 should listen with their parents, where they can discuss with their children what those words mean and to not abuse such language in public places.

So what does the 66-year-old Carlin think of the current handwringing over what is indecent, profane, obscene, immoral, lewd or insulting? "More of the same, more of the same. What are we, surprised?" says Carlin.

He blamed it on religious moralism, media commercialism and election-year politics. "The whole problem with this idea of obscenity and indecency, and all of these things - bad language and whatever - it's all caused by one basic thing, and that is: religious superstition. ... There's an idea that the human body is somehow evil and bad and there are parts of it that are especially evil and bad, and we should be ashamed. Fear, guilt and shame are built into the attitude toward sex and the body. ... It's reflected in these prohibitions and these taboos that we have. Mix that with TV or radio, and you've got a problem.

"What I always remind people is, radio and television and - as it happens - newspapers and magazines too, are advertising media. ... When you have commercialism involved you have the kind of fear that advertisers are very afraid of offending some potential customer. They don't want to lose a sale. So they have this need to inspect and clean up and watch the content in order not to hurt their own sales. It's based on success at the cash register.

"And yet, they're very inconsistent_ on that Super Bowl broadcast of Janet Jackson's there was also a commercial about a 4-hour erection. A lot of people were saying about Janet Jackson, 'How do I explain to my kids? We're a little family, we watched it together ...' And, well, what did you say about the other thing? These are convenient targets."

On the Net: http://www.georgecarlin.com/

Aside of all that, children are easily impressionable, they pick up on the wrong way to dress too often from the music channels, the wrong way to talk, the wrong way to act, and so forth. If a parent can't take on the proper responsibility of raising a child, then they should give up their children for adoption and the parents do jail time for failing to keep harmful content away from the kids.

Schools should become a police state with adults stationed strategically all over the taxpayer-funded schools so misbehaving children will be taken out of the campus and their parents fined for the embarrassing display of indecent behaviour and appearance of their children. TV stations should expose offenders in their news broadcasts where parents, who let their kids talk like Russel Crowe, dress like some ugly R&B and hip hop singer, or emulate Jackass stunts, be exposed to shame and ridicule for failing to be a proper parent.

Furthermore, the Boy Scouts of America, an otherwise great organization, should take the blame for getting the wrong message to the first grade boys about gay or rumored to be gay kids in school. What is the Boy Scout Organizations telling the boys about gay kids that turns them into bullies in elementary school where they get to freely pick, tease, and beat up a poor kid who may or may not be gay? This happened to me in school and I'm not gay. Parents who let kids be bullies or who are taught to harass different people should be fined and spend some time in prison, and their children in Juvenile Hall.

If the Boy Scouts don't want to admit gays, fine, then just use your resources to teach the boys to not be a bully or the organization isn't going to look good in the eyes of God. There's something wrong with an organization that is otherwise is good at the belief of God which I strongly believe in, and I know that it's a sin to beat up or take someone else's life, regardless of what some corrupted organized religion thinks about deviated children in one way or another. You can't be morally straight if you're going to also be a bully.

It's time that someone created a Scouts organization that is acceptable to all children, regardless of being straight, gay, allegedly gay, allegedly asexual, or transgender. I wouldn't allow my kids to join the Boy Scouts, I never did myself, because I think that somehow, their idea of being religiously moral is perverted to also mean to beat up or even execute gay or allegedly gay children.

I know that God has created handicapped people including people born with gender abnormalities that cause a boy to develop into a woman on the top half and a girl to develop into a man on the top half and other kinds of handicapped sexual disabilities. If you pick on such handicapped people, then you are offending God as well.

It's time that the schools and television clean up their acts and stop the spreading of bad examples of humanity children pick up on and emulate without thinking of the consequences of such copying.