Chip masks problem

People, fed up with nasty surprises on tv – over-the-top violent bits unexpectedly sprung at them just as Junior trickled by for one last glass of milk, not to mention the kickfest craze of kiddie cartoons – got vehement, got organized and intensely lobbied whoever would listen. The spell of the couch was rudely broken, and for those concerned with the effect of children’s exposure to tv violence, the time was ripe for an easy solution – one’s very own personal violence control monitor.

The v-chip, with its pin number-programmable violence-level blocking ability, seemed like an elegant solution to the dilemma. Those who wanted to watch certain ‘graphic depictions’ could, while those of the ‘not in my living room’ persuasion needn’t lift a finger (or more to the point, be worried about the remote control stylings of devious offspring).

Although it can operate without a classification system (signals can be blocked by time of day or title), the fact that several methods of using the technology call for content ratings has producers and broadcasters alarmed.

Last week, when he endorsed legislation requiring v-chip installation in new tv sets in the u.s. (which passed in the Senate recently), President Bill Clinton spoke to these concerns, saying: ‘This is not censorship, this is parental responsibility.’

The Directors Guild of Canada does not agree. In its submission (on behalf of actra, cca, cirpa and sardec) to the crtc on a proposed approach to tv violence, the dgc et al advocate that individuals do their own violence-control monitoring. They feel it is not too much to ask that – worst primitive case scenario – people totter over to their sets and flick the channel. They submit ‘it is important to avoid solutions that, in the guise of protecting the vulnerable, repress and censor legitimate forms of expression, and make it difficult for creators of programming intended for a grown-up audience to speak to Canadian society.’

They are particularly concerned about: the inability of simplistic rating systems to deal with context; the logistics of a ban on certain types of programming during prescribed hours; and the impact of such systems.

The dgc worries a system of labelling shows as violent or sexual ‘will leave advertisers vulnerable to boycott pressures by over-zealous minority interests seeking to establish a rule of the bland.’

The anti-violence lobby, more concerned with children’s vulnerability, would be delighted if the powers that be, deeming that violent content is going to be bleeped in a significant number of homes, laid down the law to producers as to what level of sex or violence is acceptable.

None of this ensures that kids will actually get what they need from tv.

A forward-thinking solution lies in the Children’s Television Charter, born earlier this year and based on principles from the u.n.’s convention on children’s rights. One of its seven simple tenets states children’s programs should not include gratuitous scenes of violence and sex, the other six cogent points articulate what should be attained in children’s programming: high quality, entertainment, self-development and culture-affirming programs aired in regular slots at times when kids are viewing, backed with sufficient support and funding mechanisms.

Attractive alternates to dumb violence is ultimately a crucial part of the equation, and stands to be ignored in the v-chip bandage approach to tv. A ban-based system may amount to an ostrich-like attempt to bleep out societal problems, without solving anything. Ultimately the viewers’ freedom of choice will be determined by soap marketing considerations.