Advocacy and Public Interest Groups

Children, parents and volunteers from all sectors have petitioned, argued and lobbied for a greater public acknowledgment of the negative impact that television violence has on our society, and especially on our children. The CRTC applauded the efforts of Canadian advocacy groups to bring the issue from the grassroots level to the national spotlight.

For many advocacy groups, the hearing represented their first formal opportunity to make the case for greater involvement, by governments and by society, in controlling the increase of violence in our culture.

One major consensus among these groups was that the CRTC's definition of violence was too narrow. They felt that addressing the issue of violence should reach well beyond easily identified graphic and gratuitous violence, to the daily assault on children by so-called daytime and prime-time viewing.

They cited as problems:

• explicit sexual content, available in daytime soap operas and in "outrageous" talk shows
• the portrayal of family life as dysfunctional and verbally abusive
• the growing prevalence of coarse language, especially in prime-time sitcoms
• the ongoing stereotyping of women as victims, or the relegation of women to roles supporting the central male characters

Another cause for concern was the complaints process. Most felt that it was too hard to make their views known to broadcasters. Witnesses called for a better way for people to find out who was in charge, and how to reach them.

Other key points expressed by advocacy and public interest groups:

• By talking only about the exposure of children to violent programming, a large part of the problem is missed: another major concern is that adults who view violent programming sometimes act out on children. Simply restricting exposure is not enough. The CRTC should use whatever powers it has to eliminate violent programming.
• Industry self-regulation is welcome and encouraged, but anti-violence advocates believe that a watchdog agency is still necessary. They feel that a strong regulatory and legislative presence is essential to ensure that television programming and advertising directed at children is acceptable.
• The so-called "watershed" time of 9 p.m., as set out in the broadcasters' Violence Code, is still too early. Many children and adolescents are still watching at that time.
• Technological solutions like the V-chip, which block out programs and parts of programs, won't be available those who need them most - poor people, immigrants, people who cannot read or write, and families whose day-to-day survival takes all their energy. Experience suggests that these families won't know where to get the V-chip or how to use it, and won't be able to afford it anyway. Such solutions are more likely to be used by those who already monitor their children's viewing. (It was also speculated that computer whiz kids will find ways to crack the system.)
• At the other end of the "public interest" spectrum were the consumer and civil liberties associations, which approached the protection of the public interest from a less regulatory, less interventionist perspective.

These witnesses supported the CRTC's other options, such as a classification system for television programs that can be used along with a V-chip. They argued that individuals should decide what is right for them and their families, rather the CRTC or a panel appointed by the television industry . They support media literacy and education as the long-term solutions to media violence.