Violence on television is rising according to George gerbner dean of the School of Communications at the University of Pennsylvania has just completed a study what shows balance has increased in all categories of network television, including family viewing time and children's programming hours release his report to the house subcommittee on Communications, which last Thursday held the third and final day of hearings on televised violence. The hearings came at a crucial time when numerous groups including the American Medical Association have joined the ongoing free in urging the three networks to curb violent programming. The committee is not presently considering any legislative action and members said they disdain government intervention in private broadcasting on 1st Amendment grounds. Of course, the Federal Communications Commission has been blocked by the cards from mandating a family viewing scheme for the networks, but the subcommittee wish to know what is being done to curb violence later in the program will hear from FCC commissioner Richard Wiley as well asNetwork Executives who claim they are actually curtailing what they called gratuitous violence on TV First however, the findings of George gerbner Professor graebner will be questioned by subcommittee members following his presentation in all categories, including family viewing and Children's Program time and on all three Networks. Increase resulted in the highest violence index on record the other components of the violence profile confirmed previous findings of the only picture of power and risk in the world of television drama and show children's particular vulnerability to the effects of Television viewers review that significantly higher sense of personal risk of law enforcement and of mistrust and suspicion then did the light viewers in the same demographic groups are exposed to the same real risks of life. The results also show that TV is independent contribution to the cultivation of these conceptions of what they call a mean world and other aspects of social reality are not significantly altered and you are controlling for sex age education income newspaper reading and church attendance. The latest index is based on the analysis of a fall 1976 sample of Primetime late evening and weekend date daytime television dramatic programming. the analysis focused on clear cut and an ambiguous physical expressions of overt violence in any context Available evidence suggests that violence in a humorous or fantasy contacts maybe at least that effective a demonstration of some of its social classes and so-called realistic or serious violence unless there be some conventional of that on that score with the Sharon. I'd like to call your attention to a recent piece of evidence pointing in the same direction are very interesting full book read recently distributed by the Columbia Broadcasting System about some of their very excellent children's programs including some cartoons the Five Below, which interesting enough is learning while they're flat. Showing to anyone's satisfaction very clearly that indeed humorous context is a very effective way in which to achieve learning. Therefore. It would be a logical to assume that people and children can learn while they left from one type of programming but not from another which is one of the reasons why in our definition, we apply our measures of violence to all kinds of programming cartoon humorous serious without presuming that some types of formats are more effective Dollar General. The percentage of characters involved in violence and killing Rose to a second highest on record and the indicator of violent action and programs which is the number of percentage of programs with any violence to the highest point on record. That means that three-fourths of all characters were involved in some kind of violence. These are all dramatic characters, which now analyzed many thousands. a compared to 2/3 in 1975 Nine out of every ten program samples contains some violence compared to 8 out of 10 in 1975. The saturation of programs with violins indicated by the rate of violent episodes Rose to record Heights. All 6.24 play 9.5 per hour. Compared to 5.6 + 8.1 and 75 respectively. Only killing declined slightly in the composite violence index the increase in violence cuts across program categories and times as well as networks. They context of dramatic programming did not change significantly getting the possibility that the upsurge of violence was due to a sudden jump in the number of action programs or late evening or cartoon or new programs or any particular unusual programming development in our sample. They testimony copies of the testimony that you have contain the exact Network by Network figures, which I'm not going to read now. Let me only say that the violence in the ranks CBS least the NBC most violent overall CBS, please don't ABC most violent in family viewing time. CBS list and NBC most violent in late evening and ABC lease and NBC most violent in weekend Children's Program time. The other profession of our violence index with Nielsen rating figures and found no relationship. In other words to our satisfaction. The violence in the program is not an elemental popularity. Typically the most popular programs and they even found them on the top 10 and simply no relationship that maybe a relationship to the economy producing these programs return to the popularity. other components of the violence and I consider and are equally important even know that usually don't get as much attention as a they deal with a structural power demonstrated on television violence and with conceptions of social reality television. Let me just say a word about the structure of power and then a word about the effects of exposure to violence violence scenario. Is that violence TS and Victor the ratio of these two that is of those who inflict violence and those who suffer violence from are the calculus of Life chances for different groups of people in the world of television drama and candy At least I want to call risk ratios are obtained by dividing the more numerous of these figures with the last numerous within each group. So that a plus sign indicates that there more violence then then Killers or Killers than victims are killed a minus sign which is more typical indicates that there more victims including killed violence or killers of the overall violence victim racial since 1969 is -1.21 means that for every vile and everyone who perpetrates an act of violence in the world of Television 1.21 victims. Where is there usually more victims than there are perpetrators play rate of victimization is unequally distributed. Why the overall victimization ratio for men is -1.2 for women that is higher is 1.3 even more striking out of the differential risks of fatal victimization. They were nearly two male Killers for every male killed. But for every female killer one woman was killed its ratio that is 121 compared to 1/2 to my new men. So you can say that victimization that is relative to the ability to inflict violence are born by children by women particularly old women on married women lower class women by non-whites and particularly non-white women Reaper uses a kind of iniquitous social hierarchy, whatever lessons this may hold for viewers. Let me not say a word about the viewers. letters of viewer responses in our surveys 2 questions about social reality by different groups of children and adults confirm previous findings that the cultivation of fear and mistrust may be among the most pervasive effects of heavy exposure to the violent and rescue world of television drama. Several of you Gentleman on the committee pointed out the Abundant evidence in the surgeon general's report about a causal relationship between exposure to violence and certain types of violent behavior. And why The weight of evidence on that score is impressive and is convincing nevertheless. It still affects only a small minority of our population. the effects of fear of mistrust Of conceiving of a very mean world in which one has to behave in a certain particular way affects all of us. And so we're concentrating more on that side of the coin in our in our research and giving them what we call the television answer the television bias answer the questions about violence about law enforcement about trust children tend to score higher and therefore learn more from television viewers and all sex education income reading and church attendance groups are more imbued with the television view of The mean world in my life for yours in the same group. I'm attaching for your perusal a full report was all that matters logical explanations and the decay of the tabulations and additional copies are available from our office Buffalo Swiss leather. I would not like to call attention. Mr. Chairman to two additional related matters that would like to offend or add after this testimony. The first has to do with our methodology described in the full report. And as you will see from that it is the most exacting and reliable methodology and any social science research of the stock. However, we have conducted and supported several tests of definition and us and play the most recent independent test of the definitions of us conducted by the national citizens committee for broadcasting underground from the American Medical Association reported that it had Conducted to parallel studies definition and one on the industry. So just the definition. The results showed no significant Divergence in ratings does confirming that the use of the gardener definition is sound accurate and fair when measured against other standards. and of course two sampling studies of our own have been concluded and the third is still underway. The first two showed that adding a spring week sample did not significant change the results will derive from the fall sample. We are now engaged in an empirical test of the variability of the results when employing and much more extended sample one over many weeks of programming just like Spider-Man has been concluded and will be reported in about three weeks. There is however, no reason to assume. That the results of the present study what are affected by some exceptional characteristics of the sample week and as much as the increases were across the border as I've mentioned in most program categories and on all networks, and it is more than likely most unlikely that in all program categories and networks. That would have been something that's unusual in our particular scent. The second matter that I would like to call attention to us to Chairman relates to the identification of the week sample of the exact episodes of the programs included in the sample. It has been our policy not to single out individual program episodes in order to provide individual program ratings. This is based on the fact that even though we have a representative sample of the aggregate of a week's programming. We do not have a representative sample of each individual program there for data on one specific program can be as misleading as data on a single person International survey. No, however, we have received a request to identify the sample week. And the request comes from our colleagues and friends in the CBS research Department acting on behalf of the industry. We assume that the request is made in the spiritual research collaboration. To continue the competitive examination of our respective definition. And as we and our colleagues in the in the industry have undertaken from time to time and in that spirit, I would like to respond positively and ask her your good office lights our collaboration. We propose. That's we pull our research data. And those gathered or commissioned by Network researchers pertaining to the analysis of network television program content. For the purpose of competitive examination by a qualified researchers on both sides. I would like to suggest that's a custodian of these days. I should be the agency recently authorized by the United States Congress to maintain a national television archive. If you wonder where that authorization is located, you'll find it in the new copyright act toward the very end a little little known but I think in the long run, very important section of the ACT does authorized a Library of Congress to do just that? With your information mr. Chapman. And with the consent of network Representatives, it will soon testify here. We shall proceed to contact they Library of Congress talk to Daniel boorstin to make the necessary arrangements for establishing such a television data archive in the National interest. This concludes my testimony was the chairman if there any questions I will be glad to try to answer them or people who will be testifying before the subcommittee later find myself. personally, I think maybe it's the feeling of some of the subcommittee that the trying to grope our way through the first amendment question. Which I think is obviously rather crucial in and on the other side the from a personal stand when I guess in that with a a growing family. How you can how the two are compatible how the problems of the 1st Amendment are compatible with the the question of violence? How do we limit it limited is a government. I don't think we can personally what is your response sitting on this side of they they shoe ride down on yours. I have no legislative are approaching our contribution to this is taking seriously the assumption that an informed electorate is a Wise electrode which is the assumption that the first amendment is designed to protect May believe that given the kind of information that we are trying to provide to the American public today industry to the Congress to all citizens. the information itself will have the effect of making people more thoughtful and more responsible. What we believe is needed and perhaps my suggestion about a National Data archive can be carried one step further is a national information Source like they cannot exert their steaks produced every year like some of the social indicators choose why we're trying to contribute a set of cultural indicator is dealing with violence and other issues which shows not only the State of Affairs at a particular time, but which is able to follow up year after year the consequences of policies, they reality or unreality of policy changes or promises about policy changes and then you can follow up and show the American people and their parents. It seems to me that in the absence of such information about consequences. They could not very well expect people in the business to be a responsible to that wished. I don't know or which I don't believe I think the more information we can provide more information this these hearings your committee can generate and coordinate the better informed the more intelligent and more thoughtful all people around all sides of this issue will be and I think that's about as far as we can go. Dr. Greger, I'd like to follow up on that line of questioning and asked you the first question to ask you a little bit about your definition of violence. You say on page 12 of your report that the action may be accidental. It may be humorous. or serious supposed as a hypothetical that Donny Osmond pushes Marie Osmond on the stage Would that be chalked up as an act of violence? You'll have to show me they act act and they have to show for trained quarters who made who made praying before we would record it. If they act of pushing someone on the stage does not hurt or compel action against doing well on paying of hurting or killing. It would not be recorded as violent. If indeed in their opinion and this I would like to emphasize before we record any answer then before we make any observations that goes into they recorded Archives of data. We require the agreement to 4 train quarters, the reliability of judgments that particular episode would not In the opinion of these quarters in the agreement, I would not knock on sensors indicate that being hurt or killed. It would not be recorded as violent. Yes doctor Grosvenor. I was particularly interested in on page 5 of your testimony. Where are you refer to the victimization rate of women? It's a statistic that I found blood curdling. Could you? These numbers tend to be a little Bland could you give examples and more detail and what kinds of victimization were you talking about? We're just talking about murder or what is the overt expression of force intended to hurt or killed briefly and I were talking about women and men. Although the rates differ somewhat who become who suffer violence under that definition? They important factor remember that this does not mean that women are more likely to be victimized than men indeed women on television. At least I must much less likely to get involved in any kind of violence than men what it does mean is that if and when they are involved compared to their absorbing it Are suffering from it is much lower than that of men. So they're there are relatively fewer women who inflict violence compared to the number of women who get victimized by it. That is what that means. This is a we consider violence essentially a demonstration of power and one measure of power is how much punishment can you reflect on how much must you have short? It's a crude but telling measure we have a number of others but this seems to provide a kind of implicit social hierarchy in which some types of people seem to have more power than other And that is basically what it's means. I think if there's one can make further assumptions from this finding. We are teaching our women to be more afraid. And then we're not surprised and we observe that they are more afraid. We're teaching them more than others to anticipate victimization and 2 in effect. Take the role of the victim. thereby accept and inferior power role in society Thank you. What's the market? Destiny does indicate. that there has been a significant increase in violent programming after the conclusion of the family hour and in the early Saturday morning children's programming segment. What I'm wondering about it you could you share with us your views as to the ultimate overall effects that the family hour has had upon the reduction of exposure to Violent programming on the Children of America by having The Stroke by having the segment of time set aside yet at the same time on the outskirts of it bordering there has been a substantial increase in the same type of programming. Has it been any of the networks essentially circumvented the intent of the family our programming to the point with a dramatic increase right after its conclusion and a Saturday morning program is diluted any possible games which could have approved? Our data do not indicate as yet that they effects of the family viewing our which was a significant reduction of violence for a. Of 2 years particularly on CBS, as you can see from prior reports as registered any particular Trends, I think it's too early to expect that and so I can say from our point of view that while and immediate viewer response. We see no evidence that has made a difference. Or if it has it was washed out by increases late evening weekends at other times. It does indicate a beginning of a recognition on the part of networks and all who are involved of concern and that's something that something has to be done or something ought to be done and while no one knows about the ultimate outcome of that experiment may have been I think as an indication of concern and no response. It. We consider it very significant and by no means do we believe that the last word on that issue has been set but quantitatively given the increase in the amount of violent programming in the post family all. In the sad thing line. Has introduced and given no statistics which indicate the children large percentage of children America continue to watch after the conclusion of the family has there been any reduction or indeed has there been an increase in change due to the family hour and response patterns, but let me also say that it would be years of cumulative repetitive kind of almost ritualistic type of viewing most people View. As part of a style of Life they do non selectively. They view during certain hours and has become integrated into a style of life in which the repetitive patterns accumulate over the years. And while on one hand is correct to say that there has been no change in the pattern of responses that can be attributed to the family hour. It is also fair to say that it would be too early. That you need more time then a year or two of temporary change to receive any patterns. Would you be able to verbalize cars briefly? You're feeling your view as it affect. Not that so much the violent programming has in stimulating causing children to emulate that type of conduct but all of the effect which it has and P sensitizing young people in one thing normal emotional responses to Violent conduct and whether or not you think it has a permanent imprint upon the minds of young people and in their subsequent adult conduct. will SSI hearing here primarily as a researcher rather than In some other role I would speculate as in my class and that other occasions. I really don't want to depart too far from our data can we have the benefit of your expertise in the field and you have some personal judgments that you might have. We believe that they better no responses that we get are the results of long-range continue cumulative conditioning. And that they are over long-range nature in which no easy or quickly produce changes will be will be perceived. So to your second question, I think the answer is yes. I think these are lasting. Imprints. If you will that most people who are born into a television dominated culture will carry with them in one form of an order another throughout their life. Before these children are five years old that will have absorbed will have observed will have internalized. More hours of all kinds of television and here I'm no point in just singling out violence. Although that is a kind of demonstration of power in society. Then they will ever absorb other kinds of learning in a classroom. So it has a powerful formative effect as to the question of desensitization that is very difficult to say because I don't know how one would Define desensitization I think we like to call it a the cultivation of assumptions about the word when you cultivate a set of assumptions that the world is a mean and violent place in which violence repression hurting a lot of people victimization as a common practice. I think to that extent you are less likely to be outraged you're less likely to be upset. You less likely to consider really unusual and offensive when such a thing indeed happens and this is as a citizen, I would consider a matter of very grave concern because of society in which most people are many people already expect the high degree of victimization sooner or later. They're going to get it and it's just that's what television does. And the television seems to be because of its centrality in our culture because of his pervasive nature and major contributor to the cultivation of these assumptions according to its present programming Professor George gerbner dean of the University of Pennsylvania School of Communications next the committee heard from Richard Wiley chairman of the Federal Communications Commission of a correlation between violent and aggressive behavior for some children under some circumstances. I'm coming report during the 1972 Senate hearings surgeon-general Steinfeld stated that to him the causal relationship between televised violence and antisocial Behavior was sufficient to Warrant appropriate and immediate remedial action. Social science Community is not however, unanimous and its interpretation and evaluation of the role of television on human behavior sample warms us to treat with considerable caution. The claims of those who State methods are available for assessing the direct effect of television on attitudes and dated a behavior more over the surgeon general's report you to its own tentative and limited conclusions is not very satisfying. All the evidence of specific effects on television violence on our citizens may not be as clear as many would like and probably had never will be I nevertheless feel that we know enough to suggest that this is a matter in which broadcaster should take special care and caution, especially in my view with a child viewer in mind. Television after all is a unique medium and medium with a very direct and pervasive accessibility to the American home and to the young people who reside there is this subcommittee is aware. I and my colleagues as well feel strongly about the necessity for the exercise of taste discretion common sense and basic good judgment on the part of broadcast programmers same time. However, the commission believes that this is not an area in which government regulation is he the feasible desirable are constitutionally appropriate out of the limitations imposed by the First Amendment and section 326 of the communications act. We are precluded from censoring or otherwise interfering with specific program content. Moreover we are dealing here with highly subjective value has one should vary from person to person. I do not believe that it would be possible or advisable for the commission to attempt to formulate programming standards for the avoidance avoidance of excessive violence nor do I get the personal program preferences of SEC Commissioners such subjected decision-making should not be made by the government, but by the people for themselves, I recognize of course that many conscientious and well-meaning individuals are so concerned with the issue of media violence that they may tend to favor government program regulation in some cases. These are the same people who would vigorously oppose any restrictions on the freedom of press and speech and the televised news and public affairs Arena. I simply cannot agree with such a double standard in the application of the first amendment in this regard we should recall Justice Brandeis admonition to be most on guard to protect Liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Because government cannot legally engage in censorship of Television the role played by broadcasters the individuals and whom the responsibility for program selection is directly placed becomes even more significant vigorous and effective self-regulation. Simply must operate in this area. This is not to say that the primary responsibility for a child's wholesome upbringing belongs to the broadcast industry clearly instead is mr. Russo points out that lies with a parent and all too often in our contemporary Society parents are getting their traditional and fundamental obligations to institutions such as the school the government and the media. This trend I hope can be arrested but the task in front of mothers and fathers in our fast-paced civilization is indeed a difficult one and I think it is one in which television can and should provide positive assistance. It was for this reason in late 1974 that I decided to heed the urgings of congressional leaders to do something about the issue of excessive TV violence and its effects on our children. I took those urging seriously because I thought they accurately reflected public concern. Is indicated, however, I believe them. As I do now the government program regulation is not the answer. I did not utilize rulemaking procedures because I did not believe that the government could constitutionally adopt program rules in this area and I have said this over and over again since the early 1970s on the other children and tomine accordingly. I met with the leaders of the industry to encourage self regulatory reform. 1975 subsequent to these meetings the family viewing plan was adopted and implemented by the industry as a part of the nav code. Am I roll concerning the adoption of this concept has been the subject of controversy litigation and prior testimony before this subcommittee and I have nothing new to say on this subject today. I will say again. I did not seek agreement behind closed doors and I need every person who actually participated in our meetings testified under oath to the contrary. In response to mr. Galleries comments that I broached the family doing principal. Let me say that I never heard the term family viewing until CBS proposed it. My suggestion was the elimination of all the two of us violence throughout today. And I also suggested and I would say so again today that intelligence scheduling might be of assistance to concerned parents who want to monitor their children's viewing habits. And in this regard I felt there ought to be a uniform time standard across the country for the industry and I have suggested many times that this is one of the weaknesses and family viewing as it was adopted by the industry. Let me say that I strongly disagree with judge Ferguson's finding of government corruption in this matter and the commission along incidentally with the nav and the three major networks is appealing the Court's decision. Did I should point out that following the judge's opinion the nav on its own motion re-enacted the family viewing principal and I can assure you without discussion with me. The point I would like to make is that I saw a family viewing as a modern step in the right direction toward the elimination of all gratuitous and then necessary violence and objective which I had suggested as indicated to my meetings with a networks in the National Association of broadcasters. My dr. Gardner. I also saw it is an indication of responsible self-regulation by the industry assuming of course that it was to be implemented in a good faith Manor by licensees Across the Nation. I did not see it incidentally has a restriction and programming concepts are themes something to which I generally would be strongly opposed. In any case. Let's be very clear the family viewing as adopted by the industry is not a Panacea nor is it the whole answer to the problem of programming? Moreover neither I nor the commission is wedded to the concept if there are better means by which the industry responsibly can bring about a reduction of violence on television. I would walk on them as well. And I have said this before many times also in this connection. I am pleased to note several recent and encouraging actions on the part of the industry in the last several months discussions on the subject and media violence has been held a minor officials. Are they NAB the net worth and leading Hollywood program production companies seems to me that this kind of interaction holds at least the promise of significant reform in the private sector in addition Executives of several television networks have been formed their Affiliates of plans to reduce the number of action shows and their 1977-78 schedules moreover programs currently offered for syndication are now being edited to remove excessive violence. And finally leading advertisers and advertising agencies have announced the policy of restraint concerning the sponsorship of heavily violent programs. Industry self-regulation in my view also can be beneficial influence by citizen input in this regard their again, some positive signs very recently the National Congress of parents and teachers the American Medical Association various Church in consumer groups and many private citizens have publicly expressed their concern and their determination to bring about effective reforms. I am particularly. Hope all that forthcoming discussions between the NAB and representatives of such groups will bear fruit and all there is reason for at least some cautious optimism that this problem can be resolved within the private sector, but let me make it quite clear that the commission is not a guarantor for the industry's good faith and responsible action. The same effect we can ensure that industry codes will be meaningfully and Faithfully implemented that implementation of the American system of broadcasting has been left in the hands of the private broadcast license to the extent the doctor Grosvenor's most recent report and other studies before the subcommittee accurately reflect and indicate that television violence is not decreasing the broadcasters are not fulfilling their Promises to the public in this regard. I can only express my personal disappointment and dismay by such alleged actions broadcaster do a serious the service not only to themselves and Industry they represent but more importantly to the American people they serve Although these are just heartening and disturbing findings if accurate I still do not believe that it would be desirable or appropriate to substitute government censorship for our system of private broadcasting. Whatever its human failings and weaknesses. I continue to be hopeful that increase self-regulation prompted by active citizen involvement will only bring about meaningful and Lasting Solutions in this regard. I happen to believe contrary to judge Ferguson's opinion that an industry code of program standards could assess individual broadcasters and meeting their responsibilities of the public. But naturally what are such a cold will continue to exist the nature of his provisions and the extent of its Effectiveness must be decided by the industry and not by the government FCC commissioner Richard Wiley the subcommittee then heard from the three television Executives who playing the respect of networks are cutting back on violence. John Schneider president of CBS said company studies show. 36% drop in violent incidents has been achieved since the 1975-76 season Robert E Howard president of NBC soap. His Network also is striving to reduce violent both men agreed with ABC president Frederick Pierce that some violence is permissible Pierce had a popular example responsiveness Innovation and responsibilities to which I have referred than Roots a 12-hour presentation over eight nights between January 23rd and 30th 1977. The program was watch buy more viewers the total estimated 130 million people than any television program ever before how many colleges throughout the country have offered classes based on the book and the television series Scholastic Magazine estimated 12 million schoolchildren were assigned to the program is part of classroom work. I'll Be chords didn't take as long as two years for a program to grow from an idea to an actual program on the are the projects in development today will shape the future of Television ABC entertainment has approximately 45 projects in addition to the 12. We are introducing this quarter available as candidates for the 1977 fall prime-time schedule representing a wide diversity of forms and Concepts, but with increasing emphasis on Comedy and variety programs, we have for example, 15 comedy projects now and development and the number of important novels for television on the boards for next season. No, ABC's dramatic program development represents a continuing effort to present new and different forms throughout the evening. Such a popular dramatic series. That's Rich Man Poor Man and the family are established examples of this new approach. In addition. We are at Versailles in the development of melodrama fantasy and contemporary drama and Diantha sizing the detective action form which often contains incidents of violence notwithstanding this the emphasis. However, such programs have a legitimate place in a diverse program schedule the best make made programs of this type of very large audiences and the male receive commenting on these programs is both heavy and overwhelmingly positive not throughout history. The essence of some drama has been conflict and in such words violence has always been one means to resolve conflict in the present-day the 130 million people source. If you complain to ABC about the poor Trails of violence there in and certainly it would have been impossible to depict the conditions of slavery. Honestly without such poor Trails now violent incidents are call for in some of our programs. We insist that the presentation be responsible at ABC. The responsibility has two for first in terms of the content of the programs and 2nd in terms of the scheduling of the program's now with the respect the content. We require that we're programs contain conflict as a natural and dramatic consequence of plot development it be responsibly portrayed and its consequences depicted gratuitous violence serves. No useful purpose every effort is made to ensure that the trails of violence for its own sake or unnecessary depictions of excessive force are excluded. Not only have we decreased on a year-to-year basis the amount of programs dealing with violence. We have decreased the incidence of violence portrayed within those programs incidents cannot unfortunately be measured solely on a mechanical count basis qualitative aspects of program content must also be taken into consideration in evaluating the portrayal of violence within context. We are developing a system such a system with the aid of our research department at outside consultation. I'll be course of our concern about violent incidents and specifically adult-oriented subject matter in the early evening television programs in January 1975 ABC adopted what is known as the family viewing policy with which you are familiar. And as you know the sum of the policy adopted by the National Association of broadcasters in April of 1975 was declared unconstitutional by the federal district court in California November of 76 because of alleged FCC involving ABC does not agree with substantial aspects of that decision and we are appealing it. We do feel that the family viewing policy should be an integral part of the broadcasting Industries self-regulatory philosophy and is far preferable to government infringement upon sensitive First Amendment rights. Regardless of the status of our appeal we remain committed to both the broad principle of responsibility to our audience and to the specific policies that were invited in the family viewing principal. The serious issues with you are considering here are ones to which we have long given concern study and action Our concern is Manifest and the continuing development of a diversified program schedule, which seeks on a one hand to evolve new forms, very program fair, and they brought a choice for the viewer while on the other hand to intensify our efforts towards meaningful and responsible presentation of controversial subject matter including violence. Where is Central to portray human conflict and plot development. The facts are that programs which may include incidents of violence represent a diminishing percentage of ABC's overall Primetime schedule an overwhelming proportion of our Primetime programming falls in the comedy variety Sports. Lanikai the general contemporary Adventure fantasy or news and public affairs categories find the transcript of that hearing we had in Los Angeles than because I seem to recall that a number of witnesses there had spelled out a picture that was vastly different from what we have just heard. 9 referred to comments of rentals on the first day of the hearings. he was speaking for the screen Writers Guild and in response to our request that he tell us how they Creativity comes about and how what happens to it on its way to the screen. He testified as follows there is so much violence on television because the networks wanted they want it because they think they can attract viewers buy it. They attract sponsors and affiliate stations. Welcome it. There is additionally hard evidence that the Network's not only approve violence on television. They have been known to request and Inspire it and this connection. We were free of the testimony of Liam O'Brien concerning the show Hawaii Five-O before the Senate subcommittee on constitutional rights in 1972. Also to the 1972 report of the Surgeon General of the United States on violence which states and the technical report to remain in production a producer must be able to conform to the changing directives of the network those producers who are committed to particular artistic and ethical values have trouble remaining in the commercial field. Well now we heard testimony from Mr. Travel ESS that there is contact with the artists and producers from the very Inception because you don't want to start them down the road of production. That won't be won't meet Network standards. That would seem to be the restraining influence on a creative Community. What about the influences too much as to which Mr. Rentals testimony referred. Are you programmed planners out there? Of course not telling your program standards people what you're doing that you're out there trying to womp it up or was Mister rentals way off base. Mr. Rabbit Alice and I happen to know him personally is a writer and we all know what writers are like. And he is unfortunately in my previous comment one of those things that happens when we go before producers at the interpretation of our standards is relayed. Sometimes two or three times down the line and therefore there comes to the writer of a series a very negative approach or one that says all they want more violence. I have never heard in my NBC experience of a program. Executive saying that he wants more violence. You live among the staff. Are you had the staff of 43 persons, which seems inordinately high number to may just be saying no don't you live in the world? That is not seeking more but there's some other fellows out there perhaps that's whose parents. You don't cross except when you come down to Washington have the program department and the broadcast and it's Department go side by side, even though we're apart a different levels. We work very closely together for instance the program schedule. That is recommended in say April of every year is reviewed by the broadcast Anna's Department to be certain that the programs that they are recommending can meet the specific standards of our management at H series is carefully reviewed both is to the time. It's replaced and the actual concept of the show and there are more than one time several times where a program concept which went into the expensive even a pilot has been refused because it did not meet the standards that both the program Department of ourselves about should be on the air. I think it is accurate to say that we're discussing here the action adventure type of program the series and I think it's fair to say that the action adventure series is a very legitimate part of the television entertainment spectrum that form has been with us for years and drama and literature and is highly appropriate to television. Mister Intel's has indeed said there is too much violence on television and even by saying that we begin to put a quantity on it and we asked the question then how much is just right? As the scientist or unable to agree as to what impact if any television programming has upon the society or the way the society produces self. The sinuses are equally unable to tell us how much violence in action adventure programming is just right mister rentals testified about 10 days ago at the PTA Hearing in Los Angeles where I also testified and with some other people at this table, we chatted with mister rentals at some length before and after the testimony, mr. Until said there and he said it publicly from the witness stand that he knew of a few occasions when producers or writers were asked to add Violence to television programs he then went on to say that what the producers drive for in the writers drive forward to some degree. The Network's drive for is a it's a heightened sense of action the element of Jeopardy the element of excitement which is inherent to that genre of program. But again, he said he knew of only a few occasions where there was any requests made. I may say that we can program practices live in the same office areas and deal constantly with the people in the programming department. And I know what are network and I presume it's the same with our two competitors. We operate under the same ground rules. And those ground rules are that we will not have excessive or gratuitous violence. I should also note that this year. We have reduced by 24% the amount of violence in our program from first script submissions to the actual are product. In other words. If the first scripts were put on the are precisely as they came to us, there would have been 24% more acts of violence on our television net worth this year. I didn't see the full 12 hours of roots. I think I saw most of it and I should judge that the Supreme violence. in that entire series was the moment when Kunta kinta was By Invitation offered his choice of being unmanned or having his foot chopped off. And we even came to the actual Act of having his foot chopped off. I can't imagine any word any depiction of violence that could be more aggravated. It was the key to the whole story. I don't think that anyone would come to your complaining that that was gratuitous violence to go around chopping feet off in a half hour plot of how far adventure story here. So cold police show. It seems to me to be an entirely different thing. I don't think any of us disagree with that. It it relates to the whole matter. The doctor was addressing this morning. We don't know what he means by comedic violence and we must recognize the Doctor Gardner not dealing with acts of violence. Herbie talks about a television index and the television index is made up of many many things in his compilation. But apparently it was it had the same base standard of measurement in 1974 that had him 75 and 76. What was long has dr. Gardner's doing 1 week. I don't think the year-to-year comparisons are as meaningful as they might be. Well don't the rating services on which you live or die go buy one week out of every day of the year. For you not for the local stations. I don't know they go for 3 months a year for the local stations to testify that there is no correlation whatsoever between violence and the Nielsen ratings. Is that so do you all agree with that? I don't believe there's a correlation. I only speak for myself. Nielsen. Ratings, I have a top 31 programs and I would only classify three of those programs of the action type. They're in the top 31 programs Network television Executives being questioned by the house subcommittee on Communications, the subcommittee conducted hearings last week on violence on television. I'm the Old Saint Anthony.