There’s a Moral to This

Charlotte Ann Wiles, a 60-year-old receptionist in Frederick, Md., insists that she’s not a prude and admits that she even enjoys watching “some trash” on television now and again.

Still, Wiles said, she occasionally finds herself embarrassed viewing television with her teenage grandchildren, hearing phrases she never did a few years ago.

“The first time they said ‘damn’ on television they warned the world,” she recalled, complaining that there’s “no mystery anymore” in today’s programming.

“I think they’re getting away with too much--the sexuality, the language,” Wiles said. “I’m not a Puritan . . . [but] they’re just getting more explicit all the time.”

To quote a popular movie slogan, she is not alone. A Los Angeles Times Poll of 1,258 adults across the United States conducted this month, in fact, concluded that most people think there’s too much sex and violence on television and that TV is worse than a decade ago and should be doing more to clean up its act.

Seemingly most damaging for a mass-entertainment business, seven in 10 of those polled said people who work in the industry don’t share their values.

“I feel like the morals of our country are disintegrating, and television has a lot to do with that,” said poll respondent Patricia Moak, 48, an elementary school teacher in Seattle.

The results weren’t entirely grim for TV executives and producers. The industry received generally high marks for its children’s programming, and even with misgivings about levels of sex and violence, most people said they prefer that the industry police itself rather than having the federal government seek to do so.

In addition, only a small percentage of those who believe there is more sex and violence now than a decade ago primarily blame producers for what they see as that lowering of standards, more often citing changing audience tastes and a general decline in morality. Yet despite such factors, nearly six in 10 said the industry should resist providing more explicit programming, even if people want to see it.

The public’s ambivalence regarding television, as reflected in those numbers, which have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, gave both the entertainment industry and its critics positions to which they could cling, though many chose to question the ability of any poll to gather an honest assessment of the way people view television.

Indeed, a fair percentage of those contacted within the television business dis- pute the underlying notion that they are out of step with the public, insisting that the image of disengaged media moguls contradicts reality for those in the trenches.

“The majority of [people in Hollywood] are involved with nuclear families with kids in school and I think are very plugged in to the concerns of most Americans,” said Dick Wolf, producer of NBC’s Emmy Award-winning drama “Law & Order.”

“The public has had virtually no contact with the people who make the decisions at the studios and, most importantly, at the network. If they did, I think they would realize that the values that are held by the executives in this town are consistent with America at large,” said Sandy Grushow, president of 20th Century Fox Television, which produces such shows as “The X-Files” and “The Simpsons.” “There is no one in a major position in Hollywood who wouldn’t put their family first.”

“I’ve never met anybody who wants to tear down American culture with what we do,” said producer Chuck Lorre, the creator of “Grace Under Fire” and “Cybill.”

Kay Koplovitz, chairman of the USA Networks, wasn’t surprised to hear that the response proved overwhelmingly negative on the question of values; however, the executive was reluctant to read those findings as a blanket denunciation, suggesting instead that feeling at odds with the industry on even one strongly held belief can foster such a perception.

“If you thought the issue [of homosexuality] undertaken by ‘Ellen’ was different from the values you held, with all the publicity about it, you might feel that way,” she said.

Another TV producer, speaking on condition of anonymity, attributed at least part of the image problem to celebrities who align themselves with eccentric causes--such as actor Woody Harrelson championing the use of hemp--that don’t reflect most people’s daily concerns. “They’ve forgotten that they serve at the pleasure of the people,” he said.

That said, industry officials took solace in the fact that The Times Poll results seem to underscore one of their contentions: that people may wish to see television content curbed but want the industry to act on its own, not under the influence of government.

Asked about the federal government’s role in this arena, only a quarter of poll respondents said the government should be more involved in policing television content, while a third felt it should be less involved.

“We’ve seen in our own surveys that people don’t want the government to tell them what they should and shouldn’t watch,” Koplovitz said. “The government should not be entrusted with that. People would rather see the industry do it. I think what people are asking for is self-restraint from the industry.”

By contrast, Jeff Chester--executive director of the Center for Media Education, a group that has lobbied to revise the system for rating TV programs--argued that people don’t know enough about the “slew of pork-barrel gifts” the government affords broadcasters. If reminded that the networks receive free use of the public airwaves, he contends, people would be less resistant to the government mandating certain public-interest obligations.

“If the public understood that the government just gave away $70 billion of free digital channel space on the public airwaves, I think they’d have a much more critical attitude about the role of government in terms of the television industry,” he said.

Perhaps the most frequently voiced reaction to The Times Poll from industry representatives, meanwhile, stems from what they characterize as a rift between what people say and what they do in regard to their entertainment choices--a contention supported by cultural critic and author Neal Gabler, who pointed to a dichotomy regarding popular culture.

Gabler says people respond to such poll questions intellectually and thus provide answers they believe they are expected to give, when they actually react to television in a visceral way.

“Art is supposed to be good for you,” he said. “But popular culture is a guilty pleasure--you’re not supposed to say you love popular music and crappy TV shows. . . . They devote more time to it than any single activity, yet in spite of that, people still feel compelled to mouth the sentiments of the elite culture.”

Gabler lauded the pure democracy of popular culture because people “vote” for the entertainment they consume with their time and money.

Those sentiments were echoed by John Wells, executive producer of television’s top-rated program, “ER,” who alluded to a gap between what people watch and what they believe they should be doing.

“It’s like saying you want to exercise, but then you don’t get up and do it,” he said.

Network executives also point to a split between the ratings for family-oriented shows and racier fare as a sign that professed outrage about TV content doesn’t always translate into the public’s viewing habits.

“From a purely commercial point of view, it appears that the shows that are most wholesome are not the ones that get the best ratings,” said CBS Television President Leslie Moonves. He pointed to several examples of contradictory audience behavior, such as the fact that programs generating the most discussion--including NBC’s “Friends” and “Mad About You”--are some of the most popular on television.

“The biggest brouhaha is the sexual innuendo in 8 p.m. programming, more than the violence in 10 p.m. programming,” he said.

The content debate, in fact, has prompted its share of finger-pointing within the industry. Executives at the major networks remain frustrated that people seldom differentiate between their programs and those on cable networks or independent TV stations, which tend to be more permissive.

“The broadcast networks are not supplying more sex and violence--it’s about cable,” said ABC Entertainment President Jamie Tarses. The most violent programs don’t air on the networks, she noted, “but people don’t make that distinction when they tune in.”

A surprise hit like CBS’ openly religious, family-oriented drama “Touched by an Angel,” meanwhile, has shaken certain long-held beliefs and spurred imitators--after years in which similarly themed shows failed to generate such positive reinforcement.

Martha Williamson, who produces that show as well as CBS’ “Promised Land,” said that after “Touched” became a success, colleagues confided that they hadn’t thought they could attract viewers with such fare, responding to a perceived tendency by both the networks and the public to favor edgier programs.

Williamson added that the industry is not so much out of touch with viewers as “not really clear on why” they watch what they do. As for her show’s audience, she said, “They want to be reaffirmed and reminded they are the salt of the Earth and what they believe matters, and not [to] be made fun of.”

Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Assn. of America and one of the chief architects of the industry’s mechanisms for rating movies and TV programs, said Hollywood has historically struggled with its image vis-a-vis the rest of America.

“That’s been the case for many years,” he said. “The MPAA was born in 1922 when people were concerned about the sexual aberrations of Fatty Arbuckle and what they thought was the coarsening of movies.”

In Valenti’s eyes, the poll results reflect that “people are searching for some way to say that the moral values of the country are not what they’d like, that they want the country to have [stronger] moral values.”

Indeed, Americans do seem to take some of the blame themselves for the entertainment they are fed. Of those polled who said there has been an increase in sex and violence on television, three in 10 attributed the rise to “the general decline of morality today,” while only 13% said that TV producers were the primary cause.

Even Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.)--the original sponsor of the V-chip bill and one of the strongest proponents in Congress of providing parents more tools to police programming content--fell short of reading the values issue as being tantamount to labeling Hollywood as Sodom and Gomorrah.

“If you asked most people in America, ‘Do you have the same values as Hollywood?’ they’d say no--they don’t feel it represents Peoria or Main Street,” Markey said. Yet Markey agreed with “ER” producer Wells that most people realize their daily lives wouldn’t necessarily translate into compelling drama.

“Entertainment has never been meant to directly reflect our individual lives,” Wells said. “It’s always been about allowing us to have an experience that is outside our life experience.”

Markey found nothing in The Times Poll results, however, that dampened his belief in the need for program-blocking technology. Despite the public’s general lack of familiarity with the 9-month-old system for rating TV programs, which he has championed for use with the V-chip, he said the poll “confirms that parents don’t put much faith in ratings alone as a solution to the problem of violence.”

Television executives, by contrast, were encouraged that most people felt uneasy with government intervention and that 56% believed the industry will assign appropriate ratings to its programs.

Poll respondent Hank Flebotte, 53, a counselor in Springfield, Mass., said he is all for the industry reducing levels of sex and violence “if they do it themselves--people are losing freedom and rights little by little.”

“Once again we see the American people are a lot wiser than their would-be nannies,” said writer-producer Lionel Chetwynd, an outspoken critic of the ratings system and self-described conservative.

Chetwynd, whose recent credits include last year’s CBS miniseries about the Ruby Ridge standoff, maintains that television is “a lagging indicator” of eroding standards within society and should not be confused “with a root cause of what afflicts us as a people. . . . The pathologies that affect America don’t come out of a TV tube.”

Industry insiders also dispute the poll finding that television is considered worse now than a decade ago, saying people tend to view the past through rose-colored glasses. They argue that we currently reside in a golden age in terms of quality series, including such shows as “ER,” “Seinfeld,” “NYPD Blue,” “Frasier” and “The X-Files.”

“In 1959, you had 26 westerns on where people did nothing but shoot each other,” said “Law & Order” producer Wolf. “One of the reasons people don’t see it in that light is the good dramas [today] are much more realistic. . . . If you look at the Emmy nominees, and the shows like ‘Homicide’ and ‘Party of Five’ that didn’t get nominated, there are more quality dramas then there have ever been before.”

The problem may stem in part from a proliferation of channels and programs, meaning there are more bad and mediocre shows in addition to the good ones. The expansion of available programs has also diluted the pool of experienced writers, which some believe has led to more lowbrow humor and sexual innuendo within prime-time sitcoms.

As Wolf put it, “It’s very hard to write ‘Seinfeld.’ It’s easy to write potty jokes.”

Jamie Kellner, chief executive of the WB network, said that in too many comedies, “sexuality is the most important component of the show,” while adding that he believes the TV industry will become less permissive and lenient in coming years.

“I think we’re turning back the other way,” he said. “Everyone is more concerned about ethics and morality now than they were 10 years ago. We see so much negative stuff on the news now that people are realizing that things should be different.”

That said, many within the industry continue to doubt that public sentiment is really a problem, suggesting that television is not as front and center an issue with most people as the medium’s critics would have them believe. To the typical person, comedy producer Lorre said, “television’s a part of their lives, [but] it doesn’t overwhelm their lives. It’s not as important to them as it is to us.”

Still, executives note that ignoring public criticism could come at the industry’s peril if those feelings hasten a shift in viewing patterns--a motivating commercial factor they insist will always prompt them to follow audience tastes.

“There is no goal in the entertainment industry to be different from what people feel,” said Ken Solomon, president of Universal Television. “Our goal is to find the common point and values that people have and reflect them in an entertaining fashion. . . . Finding that perfect point of commonality is something we really try to do. Sometimes we do it poorly, and sometimes we do it extraordinarily well.”

“The challenge to all of us is to hear what’s being said out there,” producer Chetwynd said, adding: “As out of touch as I think we are, we’re more in touch than the politicians are.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Of Ratings and Remotes

* Will the new TV ratings system succeed in keeping children from seeing inappropriate material?

All

No: 65%

Yes: 22%

Don’t know: 13%

*

Parents

No: 60%

Yes: 30%

Don’t know: 10%

* How are they portrayed

Families

In a positive way?: 33%

In a negative way?: 55%

*

Minorities

In a positive way?: 48%

In a negative way?: 33%

*

Gays

In a positive way?: 55%

In a negative way?: 24%

* How often do you use the remote control to change channels during commercials? (asked of those who watch TV)

*--*

All Men Women Have remote 97% 97% 97% Every time 15 18 13 Several times during program 18 22 15 Occasionally 25 22 28 Hardly ever 25 27 22 Never 12 7 17 Other 2 1 2 Don’t have remote 3 3 3

*--*

* Have you ever avoided purchasing a product to send a message to an advertiser on a show you dislike?

All

Yes: 28%

No: 71%

College Graduates

Yes: 36%

No: 62%

White Christian Fundamentalist Conservatives

Yes: 40%

No: 60%

Note: Numbers may not add up to 100% where some answer categories are not shown.

Sources: L.A. Times Poll