Communications Today, March 3, 2006

A family TV hour -- FCC Chmn. Martin's latest decency proposal -- (CD March 2 p2), is drawing mixed reaction. Sen. Brownback (R-Kan.) told us he supports the idea and would like legislation on it. But he said a bill to boost fines more than tenfold for programming judged inappropriate has a better chance than content regulation of passing the Senate. The Senate Commerce Committee plans soon to take up a House bill that would raise maximum fines to $500,000 from $32,500 for each occurrence (CD March 1 p4). Brownback isn't a member of the committee. Broadcasters are wary of Martin's latest salvo on programming decency, said people familiar with the industry who asked not to be identified. NAB and companies including CBS wouldn't comment.

"I support that effort, and I think it would be a good one to do," Brownback said in response to our question at a news conference. "The bills that are best lined up to pass now are the increase in fines" and increased oversight over radio and TV broadcasters, he said. Brownback criticized violent and sexual content in kids shows at the gathering, sponsored by the Parents TV Council. The group released a study that found children's shows on 8 cable and broadcast networks are significantly more violent than prime-time programs. There are almost 8 instances of violence an hour on the average kids show, said the PTC study. That compares with fewer than 5 on prime-time broadcasts.

NCTA defended cable programmers against the salvo from PTC, which has also supported a la carte. Every cable customer can ask "to block out any kind of programming that is objectionable," said an NCTA spokesman: "The programmers have made a commitment to code their programming. Their programming is rated, and our members specifically last year recommitted themselves to this action."

Brownback wants closer scrutiny by the FCC and FTC. The FTC should examine whether companies are targeting kids with inappropriate material, he said: "We're going to have to go after the companies, and I think you're going to see that start to move." He said he's talking with Senate Commerce Committee Chmn. Stevens (R-Alaska) about legislation, but he didn't elaborate. The Senate needs to pass a bill, he said: "We have gotten caught up in making the bill too broad, too big."

Martin's family hour has a familiar ring. PTC Pres. Brent Bozell, a frequent media critic, said the group several years ago made a similar proposal. "We couldn't get a single network to do it," he said. Broadcasters may still be reluctant, said sources. The industry should volunteer to run only family-oriented programming 8-9 p.m., Martin told the House Appropriations Commerce Subcommittee. NAB backed a family viewing hour from 1975 to 1983, said Martin in a 2003 speech calling for its reinstatement. The previous effort ended amid court challenges, said industry officials who asked not to be identified.

But VoD and PVRs make such a plan anachronistic, critics said. "I think it would be totally ineffective," said Sonia Arrison, an analyst at the Pacific Research Institute. "A family hour doesn't mean much when you have a TiVo and on demand services." The issue is more political than regulatory, said some industry sources. Arrison agreed, but said: "I don't think it's an issue that is going to go away very easily."