Why Hollywood may just roll its eyes over scolding

By SARA FRITZ

© St. Petersburg Times, published September 18, 2000

WASHINGTON -- Let's suppose, for just a minute, that American parents decide to take the advice of Jack Valenti, the movie industry's top lobbyist who thinks that parents -- not the filmmakers or the composers of rock songs -- should be solely responsible for protecting their children from violent, sex-filled movies and music.

How much success would these parents have in preventing their children from enjoying those songs and movies? Probably, none. After all, the best way to motivate a teenager to do something -- or to like something -- is to make it absolutely forbidden.

Now, let's suppose, for another minute, that parents instead decide to follow the example of America's leading politicians when it comes to standing up against offensive movies and music. In that case, parents would warn their children against it only once every four years.

That, of course, wouldn't work either.

My point is this: Entertainment industry executives -- like teenagers -- can easily sense the difference between a perfunctory scolding and the real thing. Since most politicians get worked up about the entertainment industry's preference for violence and sex only in election years, it's not surprising that industry moguls don't take them too seriously.

Clearly, the entertainment industry views the current election-year frenzy about violence and sex in music and film as a perfunctory exercise on the part of politicians. That is why Valenti finds the courage to lay all of the responsibility on parents. He knows from experience that this thing is going to go away after Nov. 7.

Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore's track record on this issue is particularly instructive.

In the mid 1980s, Gore's wife, Tipper, mounted a crusade against sexually explicit rock lyrics, and her husband supported it. But as Gore prepared to mounting a bid for the presidency in 1988, he and his wife backed away from the issue.

According to Variety, Hollywood's newspaper of record, the Gores apologized to entertainment industry leaders during a tense meeting on Oct. 28, 1987, in the executive dining room of MCA Records. Gore reportedly told them that he had come to realize that earlier Senate hearings on rock lyrics that he had supported were "not a good idea."

To be sure, Gore is not the only politician who has tried to have it both ways on the issue of offensive movies and songs. But his record for reversals on the subject is one of the most well-documented, and it must offer comfort to industry executives whenever they hear Gore's running mate, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, accuse them of harming the minds of America's children.

Nor is Gore the only politician who relies heavily upon contributions from entertainment industry moguls to finance his campaigns. Yet his eagerness to raise money from the very industry that he and Lieberman have attacked is yet another reason guys such as Valenti can feel so sure that the issue will fade once again.

The entertainment industry has contributed more than $13-million to Democrats so far this year, and much of it is going to elect the Gore-Lieberman ticket.

Just last week, at the very same time Gore and Lieberman were criticizing the entertainment industry on the stump, three top industry executives helped Gore and Lieberman raise $6.5-million for the Democratic party by throwing a musical benefit at Radio City Music Hall in New York. This week, Gore will go to Hollywood for a fundraiser that includes some entertainment executives.

The contrast between their words and deeds has been so stunning that Republican party chairman Jim Nicholson chose to hold a news conference outside Radio City last Thursday night to make sure nobody missed it. Meanwhile, Bush said of his opponent: "I hope America gets to see the inconsistencies of how this man is conducting his campaign and what he's telling the people."

But Gore indicated he saw no inconsistency. In fact, he used the opportunity to chide the industry once again. "It's wrong to market inappropriate material to children," he said. "We believe in this strongly."

Gore paints himself as a leader who stands up to powerful special interests. But what message do you send in standing up to these interests at the same time you have your hand out asking for their money?

Yet money is not the only motivation for politicians to trim their criticism of the entertainment industry now and then. Money was not the issue last week when Lieberman visited the radio show of acerbic "shock jock" Don Imus, who specializes is racism, gay-bashing and anti-Semitism.

Lieberman accepted Imus' invitation, I assume, because his audience is made up of the very people whose vote Gore and Lieberman are trying to win. As it turns out, Lieberman has been a regular on the Imus show for many years.

Even Imus chided Lieberman about raising money from the entertainment industry that he so frequently criticizes. "Isn't if fair to suggest that it at least looks hypocritical?" Imus asked.

Lieberman's reply was as follows: "The question is, "What do you do when you disagree with people who are your supporters and even friends?' And I think the reason this is not hypocritical is because Al Gore and I spoke out early, quickly and strongly and said the show business people have to stop marketing to kids."

Now there is a breathtaking ethical leap: If you speak out early against something you think is wrong, you can soft-pedal its importance in the future.

Of course, Republicans have the same inconsistency problem, even though they are somewhat less dependent than Democrats on Hollywood money.

Remember how former Vice President Dan Quayle, who worked for Bush's father, railed against the sins of Murphy Brown and other television characters? Still the Bush administration took no other steps to persuade the entertainment industry to change its ways.

Returning to my parenting metaphor, I feel I must point out the similarity between this kind of politics and the parent who tells his kid, "Do what I say, not what I do."

-- Sara Fritz can be reached by e-mail at fritz@sptimes.com or at (202) 463-0571.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright