Roanoke Times Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc. DATE: WEDNESDAY, November 3, 1993 TAG: 9403180028 SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-11 EDITION: METRO SOURCE: Cal Thomas DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
It will be interesting to see what Storm and other anti-censorship watchdogs say about Attorney General Janet Reno, who last month delivered the strongest threats yet heard that if the networks don't reduce the depiction of violence, government will pass laws that will do it for them.
During the 1980s, Hollywood liberals fought all efforts to impose air-quality controls on the pollutants they dump daily and nightly into the cultural mainstream. Will they now lash out at the Clinton administration? Will television producers Harry Thomason and Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, certified ``friends of Bill,'' head a lobbying effort to ward off controls on their industry, especially after all they did to get Clinton elected?
This administration sees an opportunity to gain political points by hitting an easy target, television, and then only broadcast television (not cable), and only one category: violence. They are not threatening to deal with even more graphic violence, illicit sex and profanity promoted in gangsta rap music, on MTV videos and other so-called entertainment.
Motion Picture Producers Association President Jack Valenti thinks the administration is aiming at the wrong target. The real root of violence, says Valenti, is the erosion of values. Television can help the process along, but it is not the sole cause of societal disintegration. For example, if television had that much power, I would buy every product advertised on it and every antisocial act depicted would cause all who viewed it to react.
But doesn't it seem hypocritical for a liberal administration to threaten to censor the broadcast networks when so many of their political persuasion were attacking people who raised the same concerns a decade ago?
Of the Rev. Wildmon, the man the networks love to hate, these were some comments made in the 1980s by network executives: ABC TV President James Duffy said Wildmon leads ``a band of moral zealots ... busy inventing a national problem.'' Gene Mayer, executive vice president of CBS TV, said, ``We look upon Wildmon's efforts as the greatest frontal assault on intellectual freedom this country has ever faced.'' And Brandon Tartikoff, then president of NBC Entertainment, said Wildmon's boycott campaigns are ``the first step toward a police state.''
A decade ago, the networks and program producers said if you don't like what they broadcast, change channels or turn it off. It will be interesting to see what they say now that politicians more favorable to their political viewpoints (but at least as intolerant of their programming as Donald Wildmon) are now threatening to decide what is fit for public consumption.
Don't look for Norman Lear's People for the American Way to launch an anti-censorship campaign against the Clinton administration. And don't wait for former NBC Chairman Grant Tinker to criticize Janet Reno the way he attacked Wildmon in 1989 when he told The Washington Post's Tom Shales, ``I think he's a jerk - let's start with that. The fact that he arrogates unto himself the suggestion that he should make judgments about what is and isn't appropriate television is just beyond comment, it's so bizarre.'' Can anyone imagine Tinker (or any other Hollywood type) calling Janet Reno a jerk? Yet she is making some of the same points Wildmon made.
As we watch a liberal like Janet Reno behaving like the previously maligned ``blue-nosed, puritanical, ultra-fundamentalist, know-nothing, intolerant ministers,'' I remember a line made famous by the late comedian Jackie Gleason that now seems appropriate: ``How sweet it is!''
Los Angeles Times Syndicate
by CNB