Effectiveness of the V-chip technology

¶ … Chip

The growing instances of violent crime -- from carjacking to school shootings -- has created growing fear among many Americans. Policymakers, scholars and citizens have made different suggestions regarding the rising tide of violence.

Experts have disagreed about the causes of violence, but many regard the growing violence on television as a plausible cause.

This paper examines one of the most controversial steps in curtailing violence on television - the V chip. It examines whether or not V chip technology provides a good way of reducing the exposure of children and teens to violence on television.

The first part of this paper examines how V chip technology works, by blocking out graphic violence and language on television. The next part then examines the opposition to V Chip legislation and technology, both from a liberal and a conservative standpoint.

In the conclusion, this paper addresses the various concerns that opponents have raised against V chip legislation. It states that though the V chip is not a cure-all, it provides an effective step in reducing the exposure of children and minors to violence on television.

For these reasons, this paper maintains that the V chip should be made available for parents who wish to use it to curb their children's exposure to violence and graphic language on television.

Overview of V Chip legislation

In 1996, then President Bill Clinton signed into law a requirement that all new television sets should be equipped with the V chip. This silicone wafer would allow viewers to block programs deemed explicit or offensive simply by punching a key into their remote control pads (Rolfe). This would allow parents to regulate programs based on content, particularly violence, sex and profanity.

In its evaluation of almost 10,000 hours of broadcast programming from 1995 to 1997, the National Television Violence Study found that 61% of television programs portrayed acts of violence. Most of this violence was glamorized, committed by characters that are otherwise presented as positive role models. While many of the violent acts that would cause serious harm or death in real life, the programs neutralize these lethal effects through the lack of painful effects or through humor (Center for Communication and Social Policy 8).

By inflating the prevalence of violence, television contributes to increased perceptions of the world as a dangerous place (Center for Communication and Social Policy 28). This increases the motivation of a child or teen to carry a weapon. Among urban youths, studies have shown that interpersonal violence is the greatest cause of death and injury. Gun violence has replaced accidents as the leading killer of children and adolescents each year. Although violence on television is not the only factor in these deaths, pediatricians have recognized exposure to media violence as a significant risk for their constituents (Hogan et al.).

These depictions of violence and their effects highlight the ineffectiveness of current methods of regulation. The "Parental Advisory" label that appears at the beginning of a program, for example, is useless when parents are at work and unable to monitor their children's viewing. Additionally, calls to the media industry for self-regulation have gone unheeded. By allowing parents to decide beforehand which programs to be blocked, the V chip allows for greater regulation over the viewing habits of children.

Opponents of V chip legislation

Despite its promise, there is much opposition to V chip technology from both conservatives and liberals. The Media Research Center, a watchdog group allied with Rush Limbaugh, argues that mandating "the installation of the chips is hardly a business-friendly measure" (qtd in Rolfe). This conservative argument thus places business concerns above any need to counter the effects of violent and explicit television programming on children.

Other conservative groups have raised similar strong opposition to V chip legislation. The American Family Association, for example, criticizes V chip technology as a panacea. It "sounds like a good step on the surface," argues AFA President Don Wildmon, "but...it would absolve the entertainment industry of its responsibility" (qtd in Rolfe). Wildmon, a television network executive, believes that V chip would only serve to encourage networks to broadcast more explicit and violent programming. Instead, he believes that the onus for responsible programming should be shouldered by the entertainment industry and not by the government, television manufacturers or the viewing public.

The conservative argument is bolstered by more liberal thinkers who see the V chip as a dangerous step towards censorship. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has charged that the V chip may be a violation of the First Amendment (Sabey). By imposing a rating system, the ACLU argues that the V chip interferes with the freedom of expression of artists and television networks.

Some critics also argue that relying on V chip technology is discriminatory against low-income families who would not be able to afford new television sets. This is also hardship on middle-class families who are already struggling to pay for mortgages and saving for retirement (Sabey). Requiring families to shoulder the cost of replacing television sets is thus unacceptable.

Finally, opponents state that President Clinton's V chip legislation is premised on faulty suppositions. The rating system and V chip technology does not address the needs of children with parents who refuse to take responsibility. Even with the V chip, many children will still be able to rent R-rated movies or play violent video games (Sabey). Such abilities completely undermine V chip technology.

In summary, critics of V chip legislation criticize this technology based on different concerns. More conservative critics believe that television networks and manufacturers should not suffer additional business costs of this new technology. On the other hand, liberal critics decry how this law detracts attention from problems such as poverty and censorship.

Arguing for V chip technology

Critics have cited additional costs as a reason for opposing V chip technology. However, when this same technology was mandated in Canada in 1994, manufacturers reported only a $5 increase to the retail price of a television set (Rolfe). There is thus no reason why the V chip would be increased hardship for manufacturers such as Sony and Philips.

In answer to critics who charge that the V chip is a form of censorship, supporters like Edward Markey argue that this technologies actually protect First Amendment core values. The technology "empowers" parents, who get to decide the programming that comes into their homes. It is parents, argues Markey, not the government who gets to decide on programming (Markey). The lack of government intervention means that there is no violation of the First Amendment.

This argument views the V chip as akin to an "on and off" button. The technology allows parents to screen potential harmful programming from their children. However, this law does not interfere with the content of programming. Thus, an adult's right to watch any program on television or cable remains intact.

Another advantage of V chip legislation is that it does not censor the entertainment industry. Previous attempts to curb television violence failed because they try to regulate what broadcasters and artists can show on their programs and movies. Laws such as these are more likely to be challenged by First Amendment advocates, since they restrict freedom of expression.

The V chip, however, gives parents a chance to provide a "safe harbor" for children in their own homes (Markey). The decision on whether or not to use this technology is left entirely up to parents. Thus, the argument of the government acting as censor or "Big Brother" is exaggerated.

Up until now, advocates of V chip technology argue that measures designed to limit children's exposure to violence have been unsuccessful. The voluntary rating system does nothing to regulate the television viewing of children with working or absentee parents. Furthermore, it remains difficult to come up with a ratings system that is broad enough to cover everyone's values yet specific enough to identify "offensive" programming.