CHAIRMAN REED E. HUNDT SPEECH BEFORE THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION'S ANNUAL CONVENTION LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 13, 1994 Thank you, Dale [Kunkel], for that kind introduction. Although your theme is the family, I know that in a larger sense the APA theme is always: "What is the purpose of life? Why are we here?" But because this is the first time that a chairman of the Federal Communications Commission has had the honor of addressing the American Psychological Association to my knowledge, I suppose you could well ask the question more specifically of me: Why am I here? So perhaps I should begin by explaining why I think I'm here, or maybe it would be better to say to this group why I feel I'm here. I am extremely interested in communications and in psychology, but I'm not a communications theorist or a psychologist. In fact, the secret I need to share with you is that I'm actually a lawyer. Now that I have admitted this, some of you are thinking that I'm making progress in my therapy. Perhaps you are remembering the famous remark that a lawyer is just a cynic's version of a psychologist. But let me be even more honest with you. I want to reveal the truth to you by telling you a James Thurber story about the football player at Ohio State who was asked in a history class to name one mode of transportation. He couldn't do it and the professor was desperate to pass him because he was a very good football player. So finally the professor said, "Look, how did you get here?" The player said, "My father sent me." So let me admit that I'm here, first and foremost, because my wife brought me. Dr. Elizabeth Katz graduated from CSPP 14 years ago and is a practicing psychologist in Bethesda, Maryland. She took me to this convention in Toronto last year and agreed to bring me again this year. Please give her a positive report so that she invites me again next year. Of course, the other reason I'm here is because of the wonderful job the President and the Senate have given me. To do my job better, I need your help. I'd like your help in connection with what may be the single most important development in our economy over the next couple of decades, with what may be also the most important factor in the formation of our national character in the next century. I refer to the communications revolution, also known as the information superhighway. My message to you is this: The country needs you to help build the information superhighway. We don't want you to lay the fiber optic cables. We do want you to tell us how to use them. We don't need you to invent interactive television. We do want you to tell us how to use it to make sure that all the children in this country benefit from the communications revolution. And we need you to tell us how we can make sure that the television, as you see it today and as the telecomputer that it may become, can be used to improve society. And finally, we need you to help us all figure out how to limit and curtail the possibly negative effects of such problems as violence on television and entertainment to the exclusion of education or information. In return for your help, I am positive that the communications revolution will bring you new and improved tools you can use to do your job. After all, psychologists more than anyone believe in the salubrious effects of communication, both one-on-one and group interaction. Isn't it the discovery and communication of previously buried truth that is the key to mental health? I suggest that you, more than anyone, will know how to use many new ways in which, on the information highway, we can aspire to engaging, multidimensional, interactive communications: the electronic version of the communications that have always been central to your profession. The communications revolution is much older than, say, Freud. It might be said to have started when Samuel Morse invented the telegraph in the 1840s. Morse predicted that the telegraph would make "one neighborhood of the whole country." But Henry David Thoreau commented in Walden that, "We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate." Morse and Thoreau defined two competing views about modern communication, and these views have continued to compete ever since. I believe that Thoreau and his successors, the information highway's nattering nabobs of negativism, are wrong. First, the people in Maine and Texas have lots to talk about -- whether it's the marriage of Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley or health care reform. And because Maine and Texas do, in fact, talk, and because they talk more when the price of talking goes down, it is inherently important that they can talk with each other. Furthermore, the availability of cheap, effective communication has already changed the way businesses are organized, the way families can stay in touch with each other, the way we are entertained, the way our world and work is. And without question, one of the changes was exactly what Morse predicted -- even though it was the telephone and the television more than the telegraph that was responsible. This change is that communication has really made the world McLuhan's "global village" and Morse's "one neighborhood." And in this village there has been an evolving global consciousness that the print media could not create. We have seen examples of this again and again. We all watched the reports of Tipper Gore representing all of us in reaching out to the suffering in Rwanda. She was the very avatar of our wish to help, to show we care. Even more important, her presence there was a result of and played a key role in furthering a conscience of caring that leads the world to help the victims of the Rwanda tragedy, and more than that, helps reduce the likelihood of more Rwandas. I learned a similar lesson during a trip I made to Moscow to negotiate with my Russian counterparts late last month. The view there, held by President Yeltsin and his colleagues, is that last fall, when armed gangs threatened the government, TV saved Russia. This is because over the broadcast media, unarmed artists and politicians, businessmen and writers, broadcast an appeal to the citizens to come into the streets and oppose the gangs. The appeal worked. The government was saved. That is no small accomplishment for a communications medium. So it turns out that as we all know, seeing is believing. But more than that, seeing is caring. That's the most important aspect of the electronic neighborhood that Morse predicted. It permits us to develop a common conscience about the world's ills and opportunities. At the end of Portrait of the Artist, James Joyce's protagonist, Stephen Dedalus, summoned his muse as follows: "Old father, old artificer, stand me now and ever in good stead as I go to forge the conscience of my race in the smithy of my soul." He did that forging through writing. Today the conscience of the human race is forged in the electronic smithy of modern communications. Modern communications is now making a quantum leap ahead. The metaphor to describe the pace of invention is the building of the information superhighway. The notion of an "information superhighway" has so captured the public imagination that most people approve of the concept, even though, according to a recent Harris poll, two-thirds say they don't know what it means. In reality, the information superhighway already exists in the form of our country's great, parallel communications networks. These are the familiar telephone, cable, broadcast, satellite and cellular systems. The most important aspect of the development of these parallel systems is that they will all be able to combine and compete to deliver broadband, interactive services: two-way, full motion video, voice, and data transfer. Within only a few years, the ability to meet and talk together over the airwaves and through fiber optics as if we were in the same room, the same therapy group, can be commonplace. Within only a few years access to knowledge, both visual and text, will be almost infinite over the information superhighway. At the FCC, we're trying to promote the growth of the information superhighway. One of our main concerns is that for that highway to be used best, everyone in our society needs a fair chance to ride on it. However, we currently face the prospect that the information superhighway does not and will not for too long reach our children in their classrooms; that it will not include minorities, the disabled and the elderly to the same degree that other Americans will be included. So it is possible that the communications revolution will mean the lives of some Americans will be enriched while others will only see what Cervantes described as the gap between haves and have nots grow greater. I think the information highway should be a bridge over that gap -- not some sort of 1950s construction project that divided rich and poor neighborhoods in so many towns. And I think the information highway has to bring opportunity and healthy development to our children, not leave them unprepared for the stresses of society in the next century. Let's talk about the risks and opportunities the information highway creates for our children. Today's schoolchildren remain largely cut off from the modern information age. In only half the classrooms are there computers. Worse, in only four percent of the classrooms are the computers connected to telephone lines. Only one out of twenty-five classrooms presently has the opportunity to connect to the information superhighway. Meanwhile, the computer age has arrived at many homes. Twenty-two percent of non-minority primary schoolchildren have computers at home. Many of them have modems that enable them to roam through cyberspace. But less than seven percent of minority children have computers at home. These statistics show the information highway dividing us, not bringing us together. Building the information superhighway to the classroom will bridge income and racial gaps in our society. It will give opportunity for participation in our economy to all children. Now why hasn't this happened yet? Why aren't there even phone lines in twenty-four out of twenty-five classrooms? Some say we live in a finger-pointing culture. So who should we blame for our children to date being excluded from the communications revolution? We could blame the school boards. We could say that school systems should be spending more than they currently spend on technology -- out of an average of over six thousand dollars spent per pupil per year, less than one hundred dollars goes to technology. But this criticism is otiose. Everyone knows local school boards are strapped for cash. So I really don't think we should place the blame on the school boards. We could blame the government. (This is often done, at least in Washington.) But I would say that the government has really been taking the lead in this area. And I'm not saying that just because I'm from the government. President Clinton called in the State of the Union Address for us to connect every classroom in the country, as well as every clinic and library, to the information superhighway by the end of the decade. The leadership of the House and Senate Committees that oversee communications issues have fashioned legislation that would put into law the President's goals. That legislation has been approved by the House of Representatives with only four "no" votes and on Thursday was approved by the Senate Commerce Committee with only two "no" votes. So, as far as I'm concerned, the government should not bear the blame. So who's left to blame? Surely some responsibility should be assumed by the most educated people in society. I mean to include scientists, physicians, lawyers, and yes, psychologists, in that group. In my view, the members of this group have not shown that they believe that connecting children to the technological wonders of the communications revolution is important to the development of children. One reason, I believe, is Thoreau. I refer to the anti-technology bias that is shared by many of the most educated people in this country. Often, anti-technology views are expressed as indifference. We've all heard someone say (maybe we've all said): "I didn't have all those fancy computers when I was in school. I learned without them. I don't see why my kids need them." As a former teacher, I personally believe that access to the modern tools of communication can make a positive contribution to our society. For example, Project TELL is an experiment in the homes and schools of inner city New York children. The study showed that when "at risk" students, whose performance tends to worsen over intermediate school years, had access to computers, they showed less decline in school performance as they made the transition from elementary to intermediate school. These students had a far more positive attitude about their educational future than they had before participating in the project. Furthermore, the computer proved to be an unexpected resource for other family members. But above all, the time the children spent on the telecommunications networks increased the time they spent reading, writing, and learning cognitive and technical skills. Yet the new world of learning available in cyberspace is denied to almost all our kids in schools. I think this is intolerable. I hope you will agree. I urge you to inspire in parents and educators a great impulse to meet the President's challenge. To develop our children's lives in better ways, to build a healthier country, let's connect all the classrooms to the information highway. You can see the values here, so I'm counting on your help in persuading the Senate to pass S.1822 and encouraging all local schools to take advantage of its opportunities to connect the classrooms to the information highway. Now let us discuss the much-travelled, broad, one-way, middle-lane of the information highway: television. In the near future, TV will become more sophisticated, two-way, more capable of narrowcasting, more diverse as it embraces digital technology. The threshold issue here is coming up: the commercial development of digital signals and what is called Advanced Television (ATV) or High Definition Television (HDTV). But let's focus on the social aspect of TV. The APA has rightly noted that "television is an all-important feature of modern life" and that we have not realized all "the potential benefits of the medium." As a country, we must at last move to a full realization of the potential of TV. More than forty years ago, when television was in its infancy, Edward R. Murrow said this about television's potential: "This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that we determine to use it to those ends." However, television has a host of detractors. In a recent book called Amusing Ourselves to Death, an inheritor of the Thoreau attitude, Neil Postman, claims that in our country right now, "all public discourse increasingly takes the form of entertainment." This entertainment, he argues, comes to us predominantly over the television. Indeed, television has helped create our culture of entertainment. But he says, television, unlike print, is a medium that cannot further or even permit serious, rational discourse. Therefore, the defeat by television of print as a dominant medium is a disaster for our culture, he says. The result, Postman claims, is that "much of our public discourse is dangerous nonsense". Thanks to television, we are, he says, "getting sillier by the minute." I disagree strongly with these views. First of all, it is just wrong to say that print is dead. One day after Samuel Morse demonstrated the telegraph by sending a message from Washington to Baltimore, the line was used to provide news to a Baltimore newspaper. Thus now do our multiple media communicate with one another; thus do they feed on each other. So now newspapers comment on the television shows and the news magazines reply to the dailies and the radio and TV talk shows prove that no one can ever have the last word on any subject. Taken as a whole, all of our rich and diverse media make up a great palimpsest, a national conversation that records, glosses, critiques and annotates our public ruminations. Second, I don't think that TV is trivial simply because it can be entertaining. There is nothing trivial about the impact on all of us of seeing the scenes in Rwanda -- or watching the beating of Rodney King. So let's not fail to recognize that the medium and its messages are both important. What then is to be done with this great tool? In Big World, Small Screen, the APA's Task Force on Television and Society concluded that "the U.S. is almost alone in the world in having no coherent policy about television". The APA recommends "that we have such a policy and that it serve two objectives: promoting quality, diverse programming that serves the needs of all, especially children, minorities, the aged, and the disabled; and that it protects citizens and society from harmful effects." Let me outline the policy I think we should work toward. First, we want a policy that promotes choice, opportunity and fairness in media markets. Second, we want a policy that redefines, restates and renews the public interest responsibility of broadcasters. In this new social compact, the key word is responsibility. Responsibility means that the TV industry must recognize the full implications of its huge role in our society. Specifically, responsibility means that the TV industry must address the needs of all Americans in its programming -- children, minorities, the disabled and the elderly. Responsibility also means admitting the real impact of TV violence. Violence is perhaps the biggest single social problem in the country. In particular, violence by and against youth is increasing at a frightening rate. The relationship between viewing violent acts on television and aggressive behavior is well documented. In fact, in a 1982 report, the NIMH concluded that "(t)he research question has moved from asking whether or not there is an effect, to seeking explanations for that effect." Certainly, there are many factors that determine violent behavior -- the proliferation of guns and drugs, poverty, poor education and chronic joblessness. But the social science research indicates that the mass media's depiction of violence is a valid contributing factor. It is also supported by public perception. In a recent national poll conducted by The Los Angeles Times, seventy-nine percent of those polled indicated their belief that media violence directly contributes to the problem of violence in American society. There is a deep concern about TV violence in Congress. I have discussed the topic with Senators Hollings, Inouye, Simon and Dorgan, Congressman Markey and many other members of the House and Senate. The attention that these members of Congress have given to the issue of TV violence has prompted a number of voluntary efforts by the television and cable industries. In February, the cable industry announced a comprehensive, industry-wide anti-violence initiative. For example, MediaScope has been hired to monitor the cable industry's programming for violent content and to provide a report of its findings to the public. Most of you know that Ed Donnerstein will be one of the lead researchers on that project. The television industry has made similar efforts. The broadcasters have hired the UCLA Center on Communications Policy to serve as an independent monitor. A few weeks ago, ABC announced that this fall it will introduce a new on-air logo to designate certain programs as "particularly enjoyable for family viewing." The Family Viewing logo will appear in place of the standard network logo, in the lower right-hand corner of the screen, at the beginning of a program and after each commercial break. This can be a break-through. For years, broadcasters said that no one would watch programs specifically designated as suitable for children. ABC will try to prove that this conventional wisdom is all wrong. It is very important for broadcasters, programmers, and others to address the issue of televised violence. But the most effective advocates of change are likely to be those who watch television -- the audience. In particular, the 120,000 members of APA can have a tremendous impact by analyzing, reporting on, and speaking out against televised violence. Another responsibility that the TV industry must fully embrace concerns the possibility of educational programming. Earlier I spoke about the importance of creating educational opportunities for children at school. But our commitment to children cannot and should not end at the schoolhouse door. Television has the potential to reach children beyond the schoolhouse door -- to bring to our homes shows which inspire our children's intellects and animate their imaginations. The research shows that television can play a role in educating and inducing pro-social behavior in children. For example, a 1990 longitudinal study showed that children's vocabularies improved when they watched "Sesame Street" on a regular basis. Several studies have shown that preschoolers learn such pro-social behaviors as task persistence, imaginativeness, and empathy from watching "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood." The passage of the Children's Television Act of 1990 can be attributed in part to the impact of this social science research. The Act limited the amount of advertising time on programs aimed at children. The Act also mandated that the FCC establish standards to ensure the availability of programming which serves "the educational and informational needs of children." Your colleague, Dale Kunkel, will be reporting in an upcoming article on a study he conducted to assess the efforts of stations to fulfil their obligations under the Act. He reports that while some stations list such generally recognized educational programs as "Beakman's World," and "Name Your Adventure," others list cartoons such as "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" and "The Jetsons." Others list prime time comedies such as "Full House" and prime time dramas such as "Highway to Heaven." I'd have to say that I was truly surprised to read that one station listed the John Water's movie "Hairspray" as educational. These examples have led some critics to question the utility of the current broad definition of educational and informational programming. On June 28, the Commission held an en banc hearing on children's television. Twenty-six witnesses discussed a variety of proposed standards and evaluated their merits in relation to one another. We heard a broad range of suggestions from the witnesses. We need your continued help in sorting through these ideas. We know that TV can be an effective educational tool, especially for young children. There is no one better suited to guide our thinking on this subject than you. Please take the responsibility to help us, the country and our children. We all, government and broadcasters, experts, parents, and viewers, want TV to achieve its full potential and play its full role in the communications revolution. The information highway -- generally available voice and video communications -- will create a "communicopia". There is no limit on the kinds of communication that can be fashioned in the near future. We all need your help in figuring out how to use modern communications to have a more healthy society, especially for our children. We all need to share this responsibility. That's my message and I'm grateful that you've given me a chance to deliver it. Let us remember Morse's words: The tools of communication make "one neighborhood of the whole world." But the open question is whether this neighborhood will include everyone, or whether it will be restricted: no room for the disadvantaged, the poor, the children. To make sure that the one world of modern communications includes children in schools and benefits children in front of the TV, includes the poor as well as the rich, includes all races and language groups, we need your help. You psychologists are ideally equipped to teach us all to take responsibility for exploiting the information highway's potential. After all, psychologists know that the ability to communicate deep, profound truths is the very essence of mental health. Surely such communication need not be only in officially designated therapy sessions. Surely in a healthy society and in the lives of healthy people, such communications can and should take place in and through all the media of the time. So I ask you to be leaders in our national discourse on the communications revolution. I know you will help. Thank you.