[Nicholas Johnson visited Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia and Thailand November 23-December 15, 1996. During this visit he spoke, under the auspices of the United States Information Agency, at the Universiti Kabangsan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Telekoms University, Melaka, Chinese University of Hong Kong, and Baptist University Hong Kong. The following "talking points" were used as notes, and a potential hand out, on those occasions he was asked to speak on some variation of the theme that forms the basis for the title of this document.]
Mr. Johnson is willing to take questions on any topic. Some of the points he may discuss include:
1. He is here to learn, and to share, but not to "recommend." Media policy is so closely tied to societal and personal values that every nation, culture, family and individual must evolve their own media policy. His comments relate only to the U.S. experience; he pretends to no expertise regarding Asia media.
2. Most nations recognize the uniquely powerful nature of media in one way or another. Most common, initially, was monopoly control by the state, or "public," institutions. Today many try to "regulate" commercial media.
3. Most countries' media content is neither totally free nor controlled. Those that are thought to be totally free and open (like the U.S.) in fact have restraining forces at work (e.g., corporate and advertiser "censorship"). Those thought to be totally controlled have more free ("underground") flow than officials may realize (e.g., video tapes; faxes, e-mail and Internet; unauthorized satellite dishes).
4. The mere act of "watching television" (regardless of what is watched) has significance for society. It replaces other adult activities. It interferes with the growth and development of children.
5. Media not only has enormous influence on every aspect of life and culture, it tends to replace the pre-media culture. (Andrew Fletcher (1703): "Give me the making of the songs of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.")
6. There are thousands of studies documenting the tendency of violent television programs to increase violence in human behavior (e.g., immediately after watching, 10 years later, "copy-cat" crimes). They also alter viewers' perceptions about violence (e.g., assuming the greatest risk is from strangers when, in fact it's from family members; willingness to sacrifice Constitutionally-protected civil liberties for "security").
7. Commercial media are not about content, they are about selling the audience (the "product") to the advertiser (the "consumer") at a cost-per-thousand. The programs re-enforce the commercials. The commercial values (hedonism, conspicuous consumption, acquisitiveness, external things rather than internal values) may do as much or more damage as "sex and violence" in programs.
8. Commercial media gradually gain so much economic, political and ideological power over a society that they become difficult or impossible to "regulate."
9. U.S. Constitution, First Amendment, provides: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." (Purposes: "search for truth," "safety valve," "checking value," "self-governing," "self-actualization.") U.S. starts with assumption there can be no restraints on speech and then creates the exceptions (e.g., defamation; false and misleading advertising; "fighting words;" "incitement" (as distinguished from emulation) to illegal acts; national security (WWII "Office of Censorship"); privacy; harassment; and obscenity (with debate about "indecency")).
10. Rationale for (seemingly unconstitutional) regulation of broadcasting: scarcity of frequencies, pervasiveness, access by children.
11. Types of governmental broadcast program regulation: programming categories and proportions of time; "fairness," equal opportunity (political campaigns), personal attack; "indecency" seldom used (e.g., Pacifica case; Howard Stern).
12. Non-governmental "regulation": advertisers once produced and controlled programming ("nothing that reflects adversely on business," tendency to fear anything controversial); National Association of Broadcasters (old "Standards of Practice"), program producers, networks ("Standards and Practices" departments) "self-regulation" (threat of FCC regulation, though seldom seen); in 1950s American Business Consultants (book Red Channels) pressured industry to "blacklist" persons accused of communist sympathies; "citizens media reform organizations" (Action for Children's Television, Society for the Eradication of Television ("SET Free"), Citizens Communications Center (public interest law firm), NCCB violence project); newspaper TV critics and academic commentary.
13. Philosophical (and political) dilemma. Self-imposed limits on self, family or organization (church) membership raise few if any problems. Problem arises when government, or group of citizens, seeks to impose its own personal standards upon everyone else; U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brennan complained in the Pacifica case that the Court was "making completely unavailable to adults material which may not constitutionally be kept even from children." [438 U.S. 726, 768].
14. The continuum of response. One extreme: total governmental/societal control (e.g., government ownership and operation of radio and television, print, and other media; ban on satellite receiving dishes, commercial media, manufacture, sale or importation of video tapes). Other extreme: total "marketplace regulation" (e.g., "the public interest is what interests the public;" if profitable, production continues; if not, government neither bans nor subsidizes; restrictions on pornography are the public's values, social shunning, and ultimate boredom). In between: public ownership of stations, private ownership of programming, regulatory body handles commercials (British ITV); regulatory body "licensing" (fixed terms) of spectrum space to private "owners" of stations (U.S.); each with, or without, official "censorship" body for pre-clearance, or after-the-fact evaluations.
15. The technological dimension. Technological abundance undercuts "scarcity" rationale for regulation; radically increases quantity of programming to "regulate." Technology makes possible shift of capacity for control from state to individual (e.g., cable, blocked channels, "V-chip"). Individual has choice; still society suffers from programming impact on others.
# # #