As a co-signer of the recent "Appeal to Hollywood" and as one who often criticizes the entertainment industry for polluting the country's cultural environment, I agree with much in Professor Lowenthal's article. He is right, of course, that our popular culture has become not only offensive but deeply harmful. This is, as he says, largely because movies, popular music, and television have replaced schools and families as the "prime educational force" in America. There is now much consensus on this point from across the political spectrum.
The relevant question is: How can we make things better? How can we convince movie producers, musicians, and television executives to cut the gratuitous violence and sexual depravity that, increasingly, are the hallmark of their craft? Lowenthal writes that we must either impose "rigorous censorship of the mass media" or face "an accelerating descent into barbarism and the destruction, sooner or later, of free society itself." I do not think "rigorous censorship" is the sine qua non of halting a "descent into barbarism."
A few years ago, I gave a speech in Hollywood in which I said: "I do not want government to try to solve this problem. I do not favor censorship. And I remain a virtual absolutist on the First Amendment." On just about every occasion since then -- whenever I take aim at some rotten movie, program, or corporation -- I have reiterated this belief. Government-sponsored censorship (beyond the minimal amount we now have) -- whatever its constitutional standing -- is not the way to clean out the cultural air ducts.
Why? For lots of reasons. Who would even want to serve on the Board of Censors? Not, I suspect, most of the people Lowenthal mentions, the signers of the "Appeal to Hollywood." To whom would this board report? How would it wield its power? How would its decisions become effective? Through law? Professor Lowenthal's quick answers to these questions raise more doubts than confidence in my mind.
It is worth noting that certain forms of voluntary regulation already exist and are considered by most Americans, including me, to be sensible and worth strengthening. The Motion Picture Association of America employs a board of anonymous film raters and has recently been criticized for using the threat of an NC-17 rating to censor sexually explicit scenes in Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut and for failing to apply that rating to South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut. Indeed, I believe that far more movies should be threatened and ultimately branded with the NC-17 rating.
But the main problem for Lowenthal's argument is democracy itself, specifically the current state of thinking among the American people: They do not want, to use Lowenthal's words, "rigorous censorship" by "governmental regulation"; in fact, they overwhelmingly reject it. Although three out of four adults agree that television, movies, and popular music are negative influences on children today, and almost as many say shielding kids from those negative influences is "nearly impossible," few Americans think government should be far more involved than it now is in determining which footage ends up on the cutting-room floor (which is what Lowenthal is advocating). To begin the widespread censoring of movies, songs, and television programs is a formula for undermining the already sagging credibility of federal authorities -- besides which it would fail. The majority of Americans do not want it and would mightily resist it. Calls for censorship will merely strengthen the hand of the filth distributors, who will portray themselves as victims of Nazi-like oppression. Prudence -- an important political virtue -- argues against Professor Lowenthal's remedy.
The best, most realistic approach aims not at silencing the entertainment executives via further government regulation but at flushing them out. We need not rigorous censorship but pointed debate. And we need to name names. The goal is to turn the people who are polluting our moral environment into social pariahs. It is clear enough that the public is bothered by much of what Hollywood produces, but right now that concern is muted, diffuse, unchanneled. And keep in mind that public opprobrium, without the aid of censorship, does work in other areas on other issues. Think of what would happen to a political figure, sportscaster, or businessman who uttered ugly racial or ethnic slurs. There would be a firestorm of criticism -- and an important lesson would be taught. Our goal should be to see that the same thing happens with entertainment executives.
My experience suggests that this approach can work, even in Hollywood. In 1995, Time Warner, Inc. severed its ties to Interscope Records, the recording label that senator Joseph Lieberman, C. DeLores Tucker, and I singled out as one of the nation's worst cultural polluters. Public disgust also prompted Barry Diller and Studios USA recently to cut much of the violence and foul language from The Ferry Springer Show. There is obviously a lot more that needs to be done; Hollywood is a particularly hard nut to crack. But I believe that even Hollywood will change, if its denizens feel the heat.
There is, I think, a limited role for government in this. Among other things, Congress ought to begin treating the entertainment industry the same way it treats the gun and tobacco industries: Invite the executives to Congress, ask them to testify in public, let them discuss the movies and music they produce. Insist that Edgar Bronfman Jr. come forward to defend the twisted lyrics of Marilyn Manson. Ask the Levins, the Murdochs, the Eisners: Is there anything you won't sell? Why was this ugly, stupid, horrible scene put in this movie? How much money are you spending promoting senseless violence and sex? Can't you make your money in less destructive ways? Or is this vulgar, degraded, and coarse material absolutely necessary? If they don't show up, do all that can reasonably be done to make them feel shamed, embarrassed, stigmatized.
In another time, in another land, Professor Lowenthal's proposal might stand a chance. But not in late-20th-century America. Now is the time for identifying and ostracizing, not censoring, the country's cultural polluters.
William J. Bennett is the author of two books being released this fall, The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators: American Society at the End of the Twentieth Century and The Educated Child: A Parent's Guide.