This is an archive page. The links are no longer being updated.
REMARKS BY: DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PLACE: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation National Conference, Beverly Hills, California DATE: February 9, 1999
Flying out here, I was thinking about some of the differences between living in Hollywood and living in Washington. There are fewer than you might think.
You're three hours behind - and when it comes to capturing the attention of the American public, light years ahead. You produce a mini-series about the `60s. While, in Washington, people are still fighting about the `60s. In Hollywood `break a leg' means good luck. In Washington, `break a leg' means, `break a leg.'
But, perhaps the biggest difference between our two cities is that in Washington, bad publicity really is worse than no publicity. There are, of course, some unhappy exceptions to the old Hollywood rule, `I don't care what you say about me - just spell my name right.' For example, there was Waterworld - a movie that gave a whole new meaning to the word sink - and reviews to match.
I raise the perils and benefits of publicity in Hollywood - both movies and television - not because I'm trying out for a new career as an entertainment critic. After all, I work in a city where people program their VCRs to record Ben Wattenberg and still think any show named Baywatch must have something to do with environmental protection.
No, my point is that as Secretary of Health and Human Services, I'm not unmindful that just attending a conference entitled, "Sex on TV: Covering all the Bases," will likely create more interest, more "buzz" if you will, about the very programs this conference is about. But, frankly, I'm not worried about that.
Because I firmly believe that when it comes to the messages our children receive from television - no publicity is the worst publicity. That doesn't mean I've come to this conference, rod in hand. Just the opposite. I've come because dialogue is better than monologue. We should be talking to each other, not past each other.
I've come because research tell us that sex on TV is different than it was a generation ago - or even ten years ago, and so is the audience that's watching. We need to understand what that research is - and more important, what that research means.
I've come because my Department has information and tools that can help you do a better job conveying good public health messages to young people.
I've come because of major changes in the way television programs are owned, produced, marketed and syndicated - changes that encourage everyone to push the envelope in order to hold onto their share of a fragmenting audience.
But most importantly, I've come because an entire generation of young Americans are watching your programs; reflecting on your values; and making critical choices about tomorrow based on what they learn today.
That's why we have come to together - to cover all the bases. Because the future of our children is not in my hands. And it's not in your hands. But it is in our hands.
One institution that has long understood the shared responsibilities of both government and the entertainment industry is the Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser has been an indispensable source of research and clear thinking about the media's role in promoting public health.
Because, since I've been HHS Secretary, I've seen few people make a more positive -- and more important -- contribution to the discussion on the media's role in promoting public health than the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Thanks to the Kaiser foundation, millions of Americans are able to tune in to programs that not only offer quality entertainment, but also accurate - and desperately needed - health information.
Each day in America, teen mothers give birth to more than 1,300 babies.
Each day in America, over 3,400 babies are born to unmarried mothers.
Each day in America, one more young person under the age of 25 dies from HIV infection.
And each day in America, attitudes that can give rise - or help overcome -- these problems are shaped in no small part by the sexual images young people see on TV.
That's why the study Kaiser released today - together with its earlier research -- is so crucial. Because far too often the discussion over sex on TV has been shaped less by quiet research than by angry rhetoric.
It was 1961 when Newton Minow called television a vast wasteland. And, in a lot of ways, the terms of the discussion haven't advanced much since. Just a couple of weeks back, I read where Steve Allen said TV was leading America's children down a "moral sewer."
Well, I didn't come here today to issue any blanket condemnations. Instead, I want to present each of you with an open invitation. An invitation - and also a challenge - to join together in a new partnership to help make television a more effective force -- and a more caring voice -- in the lives of America's children.
Over the last year or so, President Clinton has often said that it's time we take a new approach toward solving our toughest problems. In place of the worn-out dogmas of the past, he's recognized that the public interest is often best served through private initiative. It's understanding that government can still be a powerful catalyst for change, but we can't always mandate it.
Well, today I'd like to suggest that it may be time for television and for policymakers to map out some new approaches of our own. That it's time to change the terms of a debate that's only grown more bitter as it's become more polarized -- and to find our way back to a sensible center.
What would this sensible center look like? I see it as a place where policy makers challenge television to live up to a higher standard of corporate citizenship, without abridging artistic freedom. And I also see this new, sensible center as a place where television understands that exercising greater responsibility can be achieved without abandoning principles. In fact, it could help restore them.
A sensible center that recognizes that promoting civility doesn't diminish freedom. And that exercising restraint need not infringe on our rights.
How do we get there from here? Well, obviously it takes the work of people like the Kaiser Family Foundation. And it takes each of you: women and men who not only understand television's power, but aren't afraid to explore how it can be put to work to help kids through difficult times.
I'm talking about how a show like Felicity was willing to look at the kind of pain suffered by a young woman who was raped. I'm talking about how the writers at ER have been willing to go the extra mile to provide accurate information about STDs and AIDS. And I'm talking about how the producers of Moesha had the guts to portray one girl's debate over whether to have sex for the very first time.
While most of us are only too willing to criticize TV where it's failed, the writers and producers of these shows have reminded us how television can truly succeed. But, if we want to reclaim the sensible center there are others in this industry who'll need to take a fresh look at some long held assumptions.
Because you and I both know there are still too many who shy away from even the mildest discussion of TV's shortcomings. Instead, they've taken the stance that almost any criticism of television - any call for its improvement, especially from the government -- is a the beginning of censorship.
Now, I don't always agree with what televisions' critics have to say. But, I have to tell you, I do agree with Michael Medved -- and others -- who point out how this industry has had a long record of bobbing and weaving when confronted with the role it plays in young people's lives.
They've pointed out how Hollywood too often operates in a state of denial. That it would rather cling to old myths than come to grips with new realities. For example, there's that tired claim that TV is just entertainment and doesn't really effect how people behave.
Some people really do say that. But if TV didn't impact the choices we make in our daily lives, why would any advertiser in their right mind pay Fox $1.5 to 2 million dollars just to have a 30 second ad broadcast during the Super Bowl?
Does TV have an impact? Ask the two million Americans who logged on to the Victoria's Secret web site at the very same time.
Television has a profound impact. And we not only see it in the choices we make in the marketplace, but in the choices children make in the way they live their lives. But don't take my word for it. Consider the research on the effects of media violence.
Without question, there are many different factors that affect the aggressive tendencies children have. However, research has consistently shown us that media violence is a substantial contributor to kids becoming more violent - and becoming desensitized to the harm that violence can produce.
This isn't some minority view based on anecdotal evidence. This is the consensus position of researchers and public health professionals. A position based not on anecdotes, but on literally hundreds of controlled experiments and systematic surveys.
There's a new book out by a friend of mine, a University of Wisconsin researcher named Joanne Cantor. It's called "Mommy, I'm Scared." In this book, Dr. Cantor points out that televised images can, and often do, have a devastating - and a long-term -- effect on children's anxieties. That once frightened, kids often stay frightened by these images for weeks, months and even years.
And I'm not just speaking about small children running to sleep with their parents after seeing something scary on TV. Dr. Cantor found that even though they have more resources available to them to cope with their fears, teenagers often have profound, long-term fright responses to what they see on television. And, in the case of teenage girls, one theme that terrifies them the most are stories about sexual assault.
Based on what the research has already taught us about the impact on children of TV violence, it would be ludicrous to suggest that the impact of sex on television is, somehow, any more benign.
In fact, one of Kaiser's earlier studies found that 76 percent of America's teenagers say that one reason young people are having sex is because TV shows and movies make it seem normal for teens.
That's the true significance behind Kaiser's new finding: that less than 10 percent of all TV shows that portrayed sexual activity included any reference to its risks or responsibilities.
Of course, there is that other claim we sometimes hear. That television isn't so much shaping what's taking place in our society, as it is showing us what's already going on. It's an interesting argument. But consider this: if TV were simply holding a mirror up to society, then why does Kaiser's new study find that messages about sex are featured on more than half of all television shows?
Why is it that 83 percent of soaps, 78 percent of all talk shows, 58 percent of all dramas, and 56 percent of all sitcoms have sexual content? Sure, sex is a part of life. But what numbers like these say is that, on television, sex is life.
I submit that even if all that sexual material were presented responsibly, the shear bulk of it still sends the wrong message to America's kids. The wrong message about values. And the wrong message about priorities. The message that, in the hierarchy of human needs, sex is more important than learning. More important than working. That it's more important than caring for others, or even caring for yourself.
Is television simply holding a mirror up to society? Sure it is. But it's not the kind of mirror we'd want to hang in our homes. Instead it's the kind that confuses and distorts: a mirror you'd be more likely to find at a arnival funhouse.
There's no question that it's possible to make programs that keep sexual content to a minimum. Just ask the producers of Touched by an Angel. Is it easy to make shows like these? If it was, I suppose we'd be seeing a lot more of them. But if we're going to see television rise above the lowest common denominator it's going to take a little bit of daring. A little bit of courage. And, if I can be so bold, a little more creativity.
And then there's always that other argument. It's the one we hear when all else fails: "if you don't like what you're seeing, change the channel or turn it off" And that's true. Individually each of us can do that. But even if you could spend every one of your evenings -- and all your weekends -- doing nothing but watching reruns of Mr. Ed, Gilligan's Island and the Brady Bunch you'd still be living in a society whose culture was being shaped by all the shows you weren't watching.
Think of it this way. In 1991 every family in the Los Angeles area, regardless of whether they even watch TV, was profoundly effected by the decision to broadcast the videotape of the Rodney King beating. That one, brief videotape ultimately redefined how this community thought about the issue of race and law enforcement. That's the power of television in this society.
And while the kinds of images we're talking about today are often far less dramatic than a videotape of a police beating, their ultimate impact is of no less consequence.
It's true that Americans don't want to walk away from their TVs, but I'm convinced they do want to talk back to them. Unfortunately, some of the voices that have been talking the loudest haven't always had the most constructive things to say.
For some, Hollywood has become ground zero in a cultural war. Rather than offer thoughtful, constructive criticism, they have instead demonized you. From teen births to juvenile crime to high school dropout rates, they've seldom hesitated to point an accusing finger at television. They talk a good game about protecting families, but somewhere along the way I think they forgot that TV was never intended to replace families.
But, while some of these critics may not always have their facts quite right - and while many in the creative community detest the messenger - I think it would be a serious mistake to ignore their message.
The fact is, children spend less time watching television today than they did in 1981. But it's also true that by the time they graduate from high school, the average teenager will have spent more time sitting in front of their TV than they ever did in a classroom.
The fact is that, over the course of this decade, we've seen a measurable decline in teen sex. But it's also true that half of all new HIV infections occur in young people under the age of 25. We know that three million teens are infected with sexually transmitted diseases every year and that, each year, there will be one million new teen pregnancies in America.
We know something else, too: that television is one of the primary sources of information teenagers turn to about sex.
Now I'm sure there are those who believe the responsible role for government would be to promote the kind of censorship we used to have in this country. I'm talking about going back to the days when Ed Sullivan refused to show Elvis Presley from the waist down. Or when Lucy and Ricky went off to sleep at night in separate beds.
Well, when I think of the problems I work on each day -- problems like AIDS, bioterrorism, the lack of child care and the cost of health insurance -- I'm convinced there are bigger questions facing America than whether people who tune in to NYPD Blue should see Dennis Franz' tush once in a while. That doesn't bother me. But I'll tell you what does.
It bothers me to read stories about the popularity of the Jerry Springer Show among kids. In fact, at one point last year, Springer was the most popular late-afternoon TV program among kids, ages 6 to 17 in the Detroit area. What were these kids watching? Shows with titles like "My Daughter is a Teen Prostitute," "I'm in a Bizarre Love Triangle," and "I'm Pregnant By My Brother."
Jerry Springer's response? Hey, it's just "entertainment."
Well, it may be entertainment to him, but in December, a 15-year-old boy in Florida and his younger brother were arrested for sexually abusing their 8-year-old half-sister. According to the police, the older boy claimed he got the idea from a Springer show on incest.
Now, of course, most kids who watch Springer, aren't inspired to commit crimes. But part of being responsible is also understanding that a show that may only be entertainment to a grown up, can sometimes be as credible and trustworthy as the best investigative journalism through the eyes of a child.
But what disturbs me isn't that Jerry Springer doesn't care enough to clean up his act. It's the belief some seem to have that, by criticizing Springer, they'd be caving in to censorship. In fact, all they'd really be doing is standing up for civility and standing up for our kids. And I think that's part of why you're here today.
Because, more than anyone else in this industry, you're the people who've been working to bring a new sense of responsibility to portrayals of sex on television. Portrayals that let young people know that the sexual choices they make really do have consequences.
Because what kids are talking about with their friends isn't the latest statistics on HIV infections. They're not talking about teenage girls with babies being more likely to drop out of school. And they're not talking about how teen mothers are ten times more likely to end up living in poverty. No. But what they are talking about are Ally McBeal's daydreams. They're talking about Felicity and Noel. And they're talking - an awful, awful lot -- about some kids named Joey, Jen ,Pacey and Dawson.
As I mentioned a moment ago, as HHS Secretary I have a responsibility to help shape America's response to some of the toughest problems we face today. But of all the challenges we're up against, I can think of few that are more urgent than the crisis facing our nation's children.
Let me be direct with you: today we have a generation at risk. And, in my judgement, no group is more at risk than are young girls. They're growing up in a culture that's being carpet-bombed each day with the message that not only are you never too young to have sex appeal, you're also never too young to worry about it.
Just consider this: over the course of one year alone, 66 percent of girls attending middle-school reported that they tried to lose weight. Fifty percent of elementary school students reported the same thing. Young children suffering eating disorders because they want to be as svelte as the girls they see on their favorite shows.
Back in 1958, Marya Mannes wrote that "television's primary damage (is) that it provides ten million children with the same fantasy, ready-made and on a platter." I'm here today not only to tell you that it's within your power to change what's on the menu, but that my Department is here to roll up our sleeves to help you plan a better one. That's why, over these last six years, I've made it my personal business to work with Kaiser and to reach producers and writers throughout this industry. And I've made the same offer to them that I want to make to you right now.
Work with us on story ideas. Let us help you make sure you have the public health facts you need so you're able to inform as well as you entertain. That's what we're here for.
But, even more, let's also get together and talk about some of the greatest stories never told. About girls who are popular not because they're the cutest, or the best dressed, or great dancers, or because their crush is the coolest guy in school. But girls who are popular because they're caring, confident, intelligent and independent. And, while we're at it, let's talk about boys who have something on their minds other than girls, cars, clothes, girls, money, parties and more girls.
And, one other thing: Let's start telling America's kids that they'd be a heck of a lot better off if they spent more time running, hiking, swimming - or just shooting hoops with their friends -- and less time sitting in front of the TV channel surfing.
It was just three years ago that President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It marked a turning point in how America responded to television. We said the answer isn't censorship: it's giving parents the tools they need so that families can make their own viewing choices. And while our initiative to promote the v-chip and the effort to encourage television ratings are works in progress, that approach is still the cornerstone of this Administration's policy.
No one's talking about censorship or going back to Pleasantville. But what we are talking about is parental responsibility coupled with common sense. And we're talking about something else, too: recognizing that just as a lot of your audience is children -- those kids have the right to grow up in a world where there's a little more civility. And, yes, even a little more innocence, too.
And one way we can help make this happen is by joining together through programs like this. Efforts that encourage all of us to lower our voices. Listen more carefully. And recognize that while only some of us may be shareholders, that all of us are stakeholders in the future of this industry.
Not very long ago, Vice President Gore reminded me of that old Fred Allen line: why do they call TV a medium? Because television is never well done. Well, what the Vice President points out is that in television there's a lot that's done very well. But all of us here know it could be better.
Paddy Chayefsky once said, "television is democracy at its ugliest." Well, by working together - and reclaiming that sensible center - we can see to it that television becomes democracy at its very best.