Dossier D.C.

Violent films, such as Natural Born Killers (l.) starring Woody Harrelson, and videogames like Mace, the Dark Ages (r.) have come under fire. is our culture toxic? the senate thinks so. it claims the makers of violent movies, videogames and music are peddling death to kids-and that their marketing practices should be investigated. Capitol Hill is turning the Columbine tragedy into political fortune. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) cites ads in gaming magazines aimed at teenagers for videogames Destrega, which states, "Let the slaughter begin," and for Carmageddon, which boasts, "As easy as killing babies with axes." Hatch says ads for Resident Evil 2, a violent videogame rated for adults only, appeared in Sports Illustrated for Kids. Not to be outmaneuvered, Democrats exhibited gun ads in youth magazines. During debate on the Senate floor, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) held up gun ads and a catalog of colorful photos from gun maker Beretta's "Youth Collection" that touted "an exciting, bold designer look that's sure to make you stand out in a crowd." Boxer's proposal-to require an investigation of gun marketing practices along with the Federal Trade Commission study of violent entertainment aimed at children-was reluctantly accepted by Republicans. Why are the parties likely to find the big bad wolf in opposite camps? Money. Republicans point to Hollywood because it's a big Democratic supporter. (Ironically, many GOP politicians who denounce Hollywood accept its lucre. Bob Dole's '95 anti-Hollywood speech did not include legislation.) Conversely, Democrats lay the Littleton, Colo., massacre at the feet of the National Rifle Association, which supports the wide availability of guns-and the Republican Party, (although Hillary Clinton recently slammed filmmakers for debasing the culture). Did someone say elections? "The issues are deeper than the media, advertising and products," says Paul Kurnit, president of New York-based Griffin Bacal who agrees that advertisers should be sensitive to the audience videogames target. "It relates to what's going on in the family, in schools and what kind of communication we have with our kids." Welcome to round two in Congress' war against media violence. Last time politicians traveled this road, we got the V-chip. Now, with national attention riveted on Littleton, legislative proposals are attempting to curtail commercial speech. For instance: Several proposals have been attached to a massive juvenile justice bill called "The Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act." One proposal requires the National Institute of Health to study whether violent videogames and music lyrics adversely affect a child's emotional and psychological development. Another allows the FTC and the Department of Justice to subpoena entertainment-industry marketing plans and internal memos to determine who is marketing violence to children. More telling, a joint probe by the FTC and DOJ would allow Congress to launch what ad lobbyists call "a fishing expedition" to determine the extent companies target violent and sexually explicit material to kids, and "whether such content is advertised or promoted in media outlets in which minors comprise a substantial percentage of the audience." The study would also include whether retailers honor voluntary industry codes and labeling systems. "This is a modest but necessary first step toward encouraging a sense of corporate responsibility among some of the most powerful corporations in the world," says Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), who introduced the legislation along with Hatch, Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Wayne Allard (R-Colo.). Advertisers, however, fear that the Republican thirst for revenge against Hollywood, combined with a political desire to create knee-jerk solutions to complex problems, has created enough momentum to get the bill passed. But first things first. Lieberman and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) recently introduced a separate bill that would create a national commission of experts to study youth violence. Lieberman said he and his colleagues will "push the entertainment industry to stop glorifying and romanticizing violence. In particular, to stop marketing murder and mayhem directly to kids." Ad lobbyists heatedly counter that there's no evidence that violent media content prompts kids to pick up a gun and kill. "Before you talk about enforcing codes and censoring marketing, you need to know what the causes of violence are," says John Fithian, counsel to the Freedom to Advertise Coalition in Washington, D.C. While research indicates that viewing violence can cause aggression, studies conclude that the leading determinant of violent behavior is upbringing. Predictably, politicians have been silent on this finding. Poor parenting, after all, is not a traditional vote-getter. So what's the responsible thing to do? Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), a moderate, says Hollywood and the NRA alike "bear some responsibility to end the madness." Byrd's nonpartisan plea hopes to transcend political backbiting, a notion Edgar Bronfman Jr., CEO of Seagram, Universal Studio's parent company, seconds. "Violence is not an entertainment problem; it's a societal problem. The government [should] deal with it ... rather than create a quick fix that may be popular but is ultimately a disservice to constituents," says Bronfman, one of the first Hollywood CEOs to speak out. Until now, moguls have been reluctant to discuss the issue with lawmakers or testify. They may change their mind after the Senate's violence study, which will try to determine whether any of their companies' current marketing practices violate federal law. This raises a thorny problem for the FTC because, unlike tobacco, there is no federal law that says marketing violent media content to those under 18 is illegal. To bring a case under its unfair trade practices statute, as it did with Joe Camel, the FTC would have to prove that entertainment companies deliberately target violent content to kids-and that it caused harm. The irony, as advertisers know, is that Hollywood reduced smoking in movies and ads so kids didn't get the wrong idea. But glamorizing weapons, which is equally dangerous, continues unabated. "There is no statute that says you can't advertise an R-rated movie to 15-year-olds," says Douglas J. Wood of the New York-based law firm Hall Dickler Kent Friedman & Wood. "They would have to show that not only was there intent to do something wrong, but that 15-year-olds didn't know any better and were harmed by improper enticement." Meanwhile, Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.) has resurrected an unwelcome idea advertisers thought was dead. His proposal would give the Federal Communications Commission power to decide which TV shows are violent. Any show deemed unsuitable for kids would be banished to late-night hours. Though Hollings' proposal was defeated, he vows to win approval. Republicans were reluctant to include it at this time because of a previous agreement with the entertainment industry that gives the V-chip three years to work before imposing content restrictions. By 2000, all new TV sets 13 inches or larger must include it. Still, a number of shows do not carry a "V" rating for violence. One expert testified last week that even with the V-chip ratings, four out of five shows would still carry violent scenes. Dan Jaffe, executive vice president of the National Association of Advertisers, has another worry: The Senate has forgotten the First Amendment. He wonders how far Congress will go to curb media violence. "We are not concerned about giving parents power to protect their families," Jaffe says, "but now the government is putting itself in the role of parent-and that's dangerous. A national nanny is not the solution to these problems." ƒ

Brand Marketing

Dossier D.C.

Wendy Melillo

About

Subscriptions

Events

Publications

WORK SMARTER - LEARN, GROW AND BE INSPIRED.

Subscribe today!

Wendy Melillo