COPPS, MARTIN TIE OBJECTIONABLE PROGRAMS TO MEDIA CONCENTRATION

Copps said call for broadcast code had gone unheeded by broadcasters. He said FCC’s enforcement of “constitutionally-sanctioned laws” to protect children “is a sham.” Martin said increased competition for viewers had led many cable and broadcast networks to increase “amount of coarse programming” appealing to adults and “to decrease the family-friendly programming… particularly notable during prime time.” Trend is “even more disturbing” in face of many studies documenting harm of such programming to children. While praising by name ABC and Pax TV for doing better job than others in offering family programming, Martin was critical of cable networks and satellite systems for packaging family shows with objectionable programming. As for blocking technologies such as V-chip, Martin said few parents “know about these technologies and… fewer still can figure out how to make them work… I believe cable operators and satellite providers, too, must rethink their level of responsibility to the viewing public.” But, he said, “we [FCC] don’t define what is family entertainment.”

Commissioners questioned whether increase in “coarse” programming was related to concerns about media concentration. Martin said FCC should address issue and “we need to do more.” Copps said it was time for Commission to examine “the potential correlation between increasing indecency problems and increasing media consolidation… Is it just coincidence that the rising tide of indecency on the airwaves is happening alongside the rising tide of consolidation?” Citing his “race to the bottom” programming analogy, Copps said: “I've begun to wonder if there even is a bottom.”

And, he said, despite questions about ownership consolidation and its results in radio, Commission this spring is scheduled to vote on relaxing TV ownership rules and “much, much more… I don’t want to be identified with the process of automatic deregulation.” He said public could do much in bringing concerns about programming to FCC: “It’s really watershed times for all [concentration, objectionable programming] of these issues… I'm frankly concerned about consolidation in the media, and particularly concerned that we are on the verge of dramatically altering our nation’s media landscape.” That shouldn’t be done, he said, without a “national dialog, debate and careful analysis that these issues clearly merit.” He said he still hoped to hold several hearings on issues around nation if funding could be made available, perhaps from universities and think-tanks.

Disputing networks’ claim that family friendly programming doesn’t attract viewers, David Balsiger of Grizzly Adams Productions said “in 25 years, we've never had a family show fail.” Producers of shows are in constant conflict with networks, which exert undue pressure on content, he said, saying “more than 2,000 studies have linked televised violence to real violence.” Lawrence Meli of Goodlife TV Network said family audience was “clearly underserved” by broadcast and cable networks. Families viewing together is form of self-censorship, he said, and “we need to bring back the living room standard.”

James McCleary of Main Street Entertainment said he was “very alarmed by the absence” of family friendly programming on TV and cable networks. He said he was “mystified” why there was “a lack of good family product,” while suggesting many producers of such shows didn’t have sufficient funding to produce quality shows to compete with regular entertainment programming. There was no one on panel to answer criticisms or defend current TV and cable network programming.