*Margot A. Susca (Ph.D., The Florida State University) studies global ...

*Margot A. Susca (Ph.D., The Florida State University) studies global media institutions, media

law and policy, adolescent responses to media, and violent video games. She can be reached at

margotsusca [at] gmail.com.

Running Head: GOING DUTCH

Going Dutch:

What America Could Learn from the Netherlands’ Media Ratings System But Won’t

By Margot A. Susca*

The Florida State University

College of Communication and Information

University Center-C, Room 3100

Tallahassee, FL 32306

Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of The Union for Democratic Communications

October 2010

State College, PA

GOING DUTCH 2 of 31

Abstract

This paper addresses the Dutch and American media systems, specifically as each relate to

mediated sex and violence. Valkenburg, Cantor, and Peeters (2000) observed that there has been

no systematic investigation comparing televised violence in the two countries, which vary wildly

in their regulation of and acceptance of media violence. Without empirical comparisons,

literature from law, entertainment, and cultural sources must be analyzed to create an effective

comparison. This analysis consists of three parts: Exploring children's media usage in each

country; addressing legal and administrative issues that affect children's media policy in the

United States and the Netherlands; and explaining both countries' self-regulatory media ratings

systems. This paper concludes by offering suggestions about ways the U.S. media conglomerates

could adopt Dutch systems to more effectively inform parents about questionable violent content.

GOING DUTCH 3 of 31

Introduction

American media is saturated with both sex and violence yet how that material is treated

by regulators, judicial bodies, and private distributors varies. In October 2008, The Weinstein

Company released Zach and Miri Make a Porno, a romantic comedy in which two Pennsylvania

friends conceived making a pornographic film to earn money. The owner of several Utah theaters

banned the movie for its graphic language and sexual content (none of which actually is

pornographic). A New York Post reporter asked the theater-chain owner: Why ban the film?

Theater owner Cal Gunderson responded: “We feel it's very close to an NC-17 with its graphic

nudity and graphic sex” (The New York Post, 2008, ¶1). The reporter then asked why Saw V, a

film notorious for graphic and sadistic portrayals of violence, ran. Gunderson refused comment.

Television, too, treats sex and violence differently, a function of regulation. Deggens

(2008) explained the difficulty a Florida television station had editing Dexter, a premium cable

show about a serial killer, for prime-time syndication. Station workers needed to delete numerous

scenes that included vulgar language and explicit nudity. However, scenes that showed graphic

violence remained. Deggens wrote: “This is the greatest irony about the FCC's trumped-up

crusade to police indecency on television: viewers are more likely to see severed limbs on TV

than a naked woman's backside” (2008, ¶1). The regulatory and legal structures designed to

protect the public interest vary widely in their treatment of sexual or violent programming.

In The Netherlands, similar public policy concerns inform both regulatory and

administrative broadcasting issues, yet cultural sensitivities regarding sexual and violent material

varies from the United States. The two aforementioned movies offer the chance at an anecdotal

cross-national comparison of the United States and The Netherlands. The private panel that rates

American films initially gave Zach and Miri an NC-17, the United States' harshest, which

prohibits children under age 17 admittance. The film company appealed. It was eventually

GOING DUTCH 4 of 31

released with an R rating, prohibiting people younger than 17 entry without a parent or guardian-

-for its strong sexual language and graphic nudity. In The Netherlands, the film rated unsuitable

for children under the age of 12; the same rating Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

received (Internet Movie Database, 2008a; Kijkwijzer, 2010). Saw V, which a San Francisco

Chronicle reporter described as: “Watching people get mutilated in creative and disturbing ways”

(Hartlaub, 2008, ¶2) was rated R in the United States. In The Netherlands, children under the age

of 16 were prohibited theater entry based on its violence (Internet Movie Database, 2008b;

Kijkwijzer, 2010).

This paper addresses the Dutch and American media systems, specifically as they relate

to mediated sex and violence. Michael Wayne Perry (2009) explained his experience studying in

The Netherlands. He saw full frontal nudity on public television almost as soon as he arrived. In

stark contrast, it was months into his visit until he saw a television character shoot a gun.

Valkenburg, Cantor, and Peeters (2000) observed that there has been no systematic investigation

comparing televised violence in The Netherlands and the United States but the authors claimed

that the United States system is more violent and children here watch more daily. Without

empirical comparisons, literature from law, entertainment, and cultural sources must be analyzed

to create an effective comparison. This analysis consists of three parts: Exploring children's

media usage in each country; addressing legal and administrative issues that affect children's

media policy; and explaining both countries' self-regulatory media rating systems.

Children's Media—A Cross-National Comparison of Usage and Concerns

In the United States, network, cable, and satellite broadcasts bring hundreds of channels

into homes (Wilcox, 2003). Children will watch more than 10,000 hours of television before

reaching adulthood (FCC, 2004) and watch more than 17 hours a week of television plus another

five hours spent watching videos (Montgomery, 2004). Strasburger (2005) wrote: “By the time

GOING DUTCH 5 of 31

today's children and adolescents reach age 70, they will have spent 7 to 10 years of their lives

watching only television” (p. 272). Children between age 2 and 7 use media 3.5 hours per day

(Van Evra, 2004). One in six children will watch at least five hours of television each day (Van

Evra, 2004) and more than half have a television in their bedrooms (FCC, 2004). Almost two-

thirds of all children have no restrictions or rules from parents about what they can or cannot

watch (Van Evra, 2004).

In The Netherlands, access to electronic media is similar although patterns of daily

television usage are about half the average American child (Valkenburg, Cantor, & Peeters,

2000). More than 8 of 10 (84%) Dutch children and teenagers had access to a personal computer

at home and nearly one-third of those children reported using it more often at home than at

school (Krotz & Hasebrink, 2001). Nearly all (99%) Dutch children have access to television and

use it more than other media. Cable reaches 95% of Dutch families (Bakker & Vasterman, 2007)

while another report claimed cable penetration reaches 99% (voor het Regeringsbeleid, 2006).

But Dutch children spent just 112 minutes per day using television plus another 24 minutes per

day with videos (Beentjes, Koolstra, Marseille, & van der Voort, 2001). Dutch channels,

commercial and public, offered roughly 40 hours of children's programming per day (De Haan &

Huysmans, 2004). Networks including the Disney Channel, Cartoon Network, and Nickelodeon

are as readily available to Dutch children as they are to those in America. Nikken (2003)

explained that a result of the shift to American cultural products on commercial stations led

many Dutch public television producers to create better educational and informational programs.

But despite the widely available local programming, Livingstone, d'Haenens, and Hasebrink

(2001) classified European children as increasingly reliant on American and global media

products for their electronic access to culture and entertainment.

The arrival of commercial television to The Netherlands in 1989 brought about changes

GOING DUTCH 6 of 31

in children’s programming. Viewing behavior also changed (Bakker & Vasterman, 2007; Nikken,

2003; Valkenburg, 2000). Prior to commercial television, the Dutch people had access to two

publicly-financed stations (Lechner, 2008). After globalization brought media from the United

States and other European Union countries, children preferred watching imported commercial

programming to Dutch-produced public channels (Lechner, 2008). Nikken (2003) studied

children's television—programming designed for ages 12 and younger—in The Netherlands after

the birth of commercial television. He found that two out of three hours of Dutch children's

viewing consisted of American children's programming, generally animated and considered more

violent and less centered on cognitive development than was the programming provided

previously on Dutch public television. Van Zoonen (2004) explained that the switch to a

commercial system also led one nationally-run Dutch public channel to become more

commercial-like, an attempt to maintain values associated with the culture there yet still cater to

formats popular in other countries like the United States.

This heavy use of American media leads to questions about acculturation and access to

material that is shown in children's media, specifically violence. The National Television

Violence Study [NTVS], found that violence is prevalent on television and, perhaps most

importantly, demonstrated that children are at risk from what they see (NTVS, 1997; 1998a;

1998b). Forty percent of the violence perpetrated on television during Year 1 of the study was

associated with heroes or characters children were likely to admire. During 20 weeks sampled

from October 1994 to June 1995, three quarters of violence on television showed no punishment

or sanction against those who used violence. While the NTVS was not replicated in The

Netherlands nor did it address The Netherlands, the study did find that children's shows are

among the most violent programs broadcast in America. And those shows, overwhelmingly,

make their way into Dutch markets. In a study of Dutch children's fright reactions to media,

GOING DUTCH 7 of 31

Valkenburg, Cantor, and Peeters (2000) showed that almost one-third (31%) of children ages 7 to

12 surveyed by telephone revealed they had been frightened by something on television in the

last year. Three of the four products identified as causing that fright were American-made and the

fourth was German. This violence has lead to policy changes in The Netherlands, as will be

explained later.

American media is not just saturated with violent imagery, but also contains heavy levels

of sexual behavior or innuendo. The Kaiser Family Foundation funded content analyses of sex

on television in the United States (see Kunkel, Eyal, Finnerty, Biely, & Donnerstein, 2005). In its

2005 report titled Sex on TV 4, the report showed increasing incidents of sex on screen. More

than two-thirds (68%) of programs included “talk about sex, and 35% of all shows include sexual

behaviors” (Kunkel et.al, 2005, p. 4). For shows that teenagers favored, nearly half (45%)

showcased sexual behavior. Although incidents of sexual behavior or sexual discussion remained

high on programs sampled, very few of the shows contained messages about safe sex or

highlighted the negative consequences of sex. Strasburger (2005) explained that American

teenagers see suggestive and pervasive sexual imagery in media, but lack the cultural support to

understand normal sexuality or how it relates to what they see and hear daily. He wrote:

Missing from their viewing diets are the healthier aspects of human sexuality, such

as answers to questions about what it means to be a man or a woman, when is

sexual activity appropriate, what a healthy body self-image is, and how pregnancy

and sexually transmitted disease can be prevented. (Strasburger, 2005, p. 270)

In stark comparison, Dutch teenagers and adolescents appear to have that information provided

both from home and from the mass media system.

Sex in the Dutch media reflects an attitude that is part of a larger cultural atmosphere of

openness and acceptance, a message that appears far different in American society. “Sex is

everywhere in The Netherlands” (Thomson, 2008, ¶4). A 2000 UNESCO media report (Valk)

GOING DUTCH 8 of 31

shared this about the culture of sex in The Netherlands: “The media has been at the forefront of

an open dialogue: between 1993 and 1997, a prime-time talk show featured a leading Dutch pop

star discussing sexuality” (¶7). Dutch society is not necessarily more permissive just more open.

Sex education is compulsory in Dutch secondary schools (Donnelly, 2007) and available to a

majority as early as kindergarten. Students are taught about contraceptive methods but also are

encouraged to explore vibrators and masturbation (Lewis & Knijn, 2003). What they learn at

school often is a conversation that extends to home--Dutch adolescents and teenagers frequently

engage in conversations about sex with parents (Thomson, 2008). Sex is seen as a natural part of

development. In a study (Widmer, Treas, & Newcomb, 1998) of people's attitudes toward non-

marital sex in 24 countries, survey respondents from The Netherlands again revealed that

country's liberal attitude toward sex. When asked if sex before marriage is wrong (answers were

“always”, “almost always”, “only sometimes”, and “not wrong”) 77% of Dutch respondents

explained it was “not wrong” (p. 351). When asked if sex before age 16 was wrong, the results

showed a strong change. Nearly 7 of 10 (69%) respondents answered sex before age 16 was

“always” or “almost always” wrong. The average age when teenagers engaged in intercourse for

the first time was 17, one of the oldest ages in the Western world (Valk, 2000). In part, the results

revealed what many in the European health community have argued for decades: An open culture

is thought to contribute to knowledge about sex but also caution about its physical and emotional

side effects (UNICEF, 2001). That cultural acceptance is far different from the United States.

Strasburger (2005) explained that 1 in 10 American schools had no sex education. Among

schools with sex education, nearly one-third (30%) were strictly abstinence-only and only 1 in 5

offered comprehensive information. Teen pregnancy rates are nine times higher in the United

States than in The Netherlands, which has the lowest rate in Western Europe (UNICEF, 2001).

The United States' rate is the highest in the Western world and four times the European Union

GOING DUTCH 9 of 31

average. Even though The Netherlands is open about sex and sexuality, parents still requested

information about sexual content in a recent review of the media ratings system there.

Regulating Media in the United States and The Netherlands—A Comparison

The Dutch media system's origins are considered unique for the emphasis not on a

national broadcasting system or a purely commercial one, but, instead, on one founded on

principles of “pillars”, or private social and religious institutions within the country that paid for

spectrum access (Bardoel, 2003; Lechner, 2008; Puustinen, Thomas, & Pantti, 2008). This

effectively led to simultaneously operated media systems that were generally defined for niche

audiences based on political association or religious affiliation. However, the aforementioned

transmission in 1989 of commercial television, coupled with expanding globalization, led the

Dutch media system into a new era. Van der Eijk (2000) explained that the current broadcasting

system has eight Dutch television channels with three others devoted to commercial interests.

The Dutch Media Act is the regulatory mechanism by which The Netherlands allocates

spectrum, mandates the handling of sensitive issues related to children, and provides freedom of

the press. Dutch law requires that broadcasters using the spectrum provide “a mix of educational,

informational, cultural, and entertainment programs” (van der Eijk, 2000, p. 316). However,

there is generally considered a minimal amount of government interference in content

regulations (Puustinen, Thomas, & Pantti, 2008). Media law in The Netherlands is: “kept as

simple as possible” (“Dutch”, 2006, ¶1). Dutch opinion overwhelmingly leans toward parental

protection of minors from inappropriate broadcast content but the shift away from pillars and

toward commercial television has brought calls for change. In The Netherlands, public

broadcasters were: “well aware that violent programmes may damage children, but

[broadcasters] took the view that the increase of violent programmes is due to the

commercialization of television” (Price & Verhulst, 2002, p. 209). Scheuer (2003) explained that

GOING DUTCH 10 of 31

media managers motivated by profit often resort to violence in programming to attract more

audience share. To address public concerns, Dutch law requires broadcasters time-channel

programming deemed inappropriate for children to late-night hours. The Act has faced criticism

for its inherent contradiction: Guaranteeing free speech while calling for broadcasters to limit

certain daytime programming (Price & Verhulst, 2002). However, Hemels (2004) explained that

the government would only intervene in broadcasting in the cases of “racism, pornography, and

violence” (p. 6). The government does not censor programs. The onus to complain about a film

or television show lies with the public. The self-regulatory system in The Netherlands is not

without oversight. Violations may be dealt with and fines levied by the Ministry for Education,

Culture, and Science; the Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport; or the Ministry of Justice. In

this regard, the system is not unlike the American oversight of broadcasting, which may be

affected by either the Federal Communications Commission [FCC], the Federal Trade

Commission, or the Department of Justice depending on the material shown.

The FCC grants broadcast licenses and oversees that they comply with the public interest.

For the purposes of this discussion, analysis of the FCC and its handling of administrative

matters dealing with sexual and violent programming is most appropriate as is a discussion of the

judicial reviews of the regulatory mechanisms that have attempted to curb sexual content on the

airwaves. Government intervention into broadcasting matters in the United States appears in

cases not of violence, but in those that deal with language, sex, or nudity although social

scientists have long tried to convince the government of the threat violent media portrayals may

have on children. The difference in how the two are processed lies in the landmark U.S. Supreme

Court case Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation [herein Pacifica],

which provided the FCC with the authority to regulate indecent speech as a category separate

from obscenity. Indecent speech is that which involves “nonconformance with accepted


standards of morality” or includes any “patently offensive reference to excretory and sexual

organs and activities” (Brown & Candelaub, 2005, p. 1464). Potential threats to children in the

broadcast audience were at the heart of the Supreme Court decision.

Although concerns about violence and children have been evident almost since the time

of television's invention, violence still receives constitutional protection and is not considered

indecent. In 1972, the FCC received more than 2,000 public complaints regarding violent and

sexual content. By 1974, that number had skyrocketed to 25,000 (“Report,” 1975). Early FCC

complaints included requests to act against stations that broadcast violent content, specifically

that which affected children. For example, a complaint was lodged against Los Angeles,

California television station KCOP during its license renewal process in 1976. The complaint

said that wrestling programming shown by the station was “reputedly violent” and that it

“adversely affects the children of KCOP’s viewing audience” (“In Re Application,” 1976, p.

1322). The FCC explained that it would not address the complaint due to censorship concerns. In

1978, parents concerned about sexual content and course language found relief in Pacifica

though no further FCC action was ever taken regarding broadcast violence. Although television

ratings on screen warn parents about both violence and sex, the FCC has regulatory authority

over only that content judged sexually indecent, content that is considered patently offensive to

community standards (Hennessy, Bleakley, Busse, & Fishbein, 2008). Channeling violent

programming to late-night television, known as “safe harbor”, (Wiley & Secrest, 2005) in the

manner that sexual content currently is, could present a possible policy solution though raises

questions about broadcasters' First Amendment rights (Kunkel, 2003; Wiley & Secrest, 2005).

The Dutch time-channel content that may be inappropriate that is violent or sexual in nature, a

major difference from the American system.

In the United States there is more pressure to regulate sex than violence, a contradiction


when the threat to the public is weighed. A Harvard Law Review piece (1971) argued any FCC

regulation that acted upon the moral standards of a group was not regulation, but censorship, yet

concerns about sexual indecency have continued. Thompson and Sharma (1998) explained that

the increasing portrayals of sex in the media—as evidenced by the Sex on TV studies—leads to

greater calls for regulation as modern societies wrestle with secularization. As societies move

away from organized religion and toward multiple interpretations of morality, tensions emerge

about what is permissible for the society as a whole. This actually may serve to re-engage

smaller, and often more religious, segments of American society about what they see as the

declining morals on screen. Zarkin (2003) explained the role of anti-indecency groups in

framing—and forming—FCC enforcement stems from their ability to motivate members who

then petition the FCC and Congress. This type of minority influence was evident during high-

profile broadcasting indecency cases including Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl “wardrobe

malfunction”, U2 lead singer Bono’s use of the word “fucking” during a live awards show, and

shock-jock Howard Stern’s repeated fines (Wiley & Secrest, 2005). In 2004, then-FCC Chairman

Michael Powell imposed broadcast indecency fines against broadcasters worth more than the

previous 10 years combined yet 99.9% of complaints were generated from one conservative

group (Brown & Candelaub, 2005). Fear of indecency fines led several NBC affiliates to pull a

scheduled showing of the film Saving Private Ryan (Wiley & Secrest, 2005).

Previous research has addressed the issues of violence, indecency, and regulation. For

example, White (1978) highlighted the paradox of American broadcasting, as broadcasters are

shielded by the First Amendment yet regulated due to their free use of a publicly-owned

spectrum, a system very similar to The Netherlands. American researchers have tried for decades

to convince Congress that there should be a stepped-up regulatory approach to violent media.

Dale Kunkel, a leading NTVS researcher, explained to a U.S. Senate Subcommittee on


Commerce, Science, and Transportation in 2007: “It is critical that you understand that television

violence harms large numbers of children in this country, and significantly increases violence in

our society” (Kunkel, 2007, ¶18). Hamilton (1998) explained of the American model: “The

exposure of children to violence represents a market failure, since neither advertisers nor

programmers will consider the costs to society of children's consumption of violent fare” (p.

136). He explained further that networks used violence on television to attract key demographics,

which lure advertisers hungry for young males' spending power.

Anderson, Berkowitz, Donnerstein, Huesmann, Johnson, and Linz, et. al. (2003)

explained numerous psychological and pediatric organizations believe in a causal connection

between media violence and aggressiveness in children’s attitudes and/or behaviors. In 2001, the

American Academy of Pediatrics published its own report regarding the effects of media

violence and found that “More than 3,500 research studies have examined the association

between media violence and violent behavior; all but 18 have shown a positive relationship” (p.

1223). Children are prone to imitating behavior seen on television and as such may act out

violently or face sleep disturbances or increases in fear. The cultivation or social learning effects

may be so powerful that the journal suggested family pediatricians include a media history in

discussions of annual child physicals. As the debate about violence and television resurfaced as a

public health issue (e.g., Gentile, Walsh, Ellison, Fox, & Cameron, 2004; Strasburger &

Donnerstein, 1999; Willis & Strasburger, 1998), and for its cognitive developmental impacts

(e.g., Kirkorian, Wartella, & Anderson, 2008), social scientists who research media effects and

children’s television policy (e.g., Bushman & Anderson, 2001; Huesmann & Taylor, 2003;

Kunkel & Zwarun, 2006) often conflict with other scholars (e.g., Levi, 2008; Smith, 2006/2007)

who argue that proof of (or what they consider a lack of proof of) a causal link between

broadcast violence and childhood aggression does not exist. The public policy concerns about


violence are processed far differently than those related to matters of nudity or sexuality because

a legal framework exists for that process. Despite warnings from the medical and social science

community, outcomes in the United States reveal stark differences to The Netherlands in terms of

the use of research and how that is employed in a ratings system and in media law.

Yet, empirical research has explained that there may be far less danger from sexual

depictions or foul language than from violent ones. Regarding indecency exposure including

language, sexual topics, and nudity, for children and adolescents in the United States,

Donnerstein, Wilson, and Linz (1992) determined children are not adversely affected by these

types of speech or expression that receive constitutional limitations and an over-emphasis by

regulators and the public. The authors wrote: “The fact is that there is simply no credible

research that shows that exposure to nondegrading explicit sexual material, as opposed to violent

material, affects adult behavior” (1992, p. 115). If the social science research in the United States

and elsewhere points to larger effects from violence than sexual or language broadcasts,

questions naturally arise about why the regulation and ratings policy of the United States lags

behind The Netherlands. Of course, constitutional scholars including Wiley and Secrest (2005)

explain that Congress and regulators are concerned with processing concerns about violence but

must uphold the First Amendment. This has been done, they argue quite effectively, through the

use of the V-chip.

Cross-national Comparison of Media Ratings

With access to media so great for children in both countries and with public concerns

about that exposure expressed, attempts at regulating content have been made though clearly

cross-national differences remain (Lemish, 2007). Both The Netherlands and the United States

employ voluntary ratings systems for audiovisual content. Although both countries' ratings

systems address sex and violence, an analysis of how programming is rated and the use of each


system reveal differences.

Kijkwijzer is the Dutch uniform ratings system that applies to all electronic media in The

Netherlands. The extensive work from the medical community and the social sciences related to

violence and sex is reflected in the Dutch ratings model (Bakker & Vasterman, 2007;

Valkenburg, Beentjes, Nikken, & Tan, 2002). Its ratings information page (see Kijkwijzer, 2010)

explains that extensive research from experimental, longitudinal, and cross-sectional surveys

show that not just parents—but societies—should be concerned about violent media. Patti M.

Valkenburg, considered a leading expert on children's policy and media in The Netherlands, is

among several who conduct research that effects maintenance of the Kijkwijzer, which translates

to “viewer guide” or “watch wiser”. Valkenburg, Beentjes, Nikken, and Tan (2002) explained the

system dovetailed social science research with concerns from Dutch parents. In 1997, two

consumer surveys were distributed throughout The Netherlands. These surveys asked parents to

articulate their major concerns about what electronic media content their children had access to.

Hemels (2004) explained the results:

Parents were worried in particular about their children picking up bad language

from the media, becoming frightened or having nightmares, imitating media

violence, becoming more aggressive in dealing with other children, and being

exposed to sexual content too early. (p. 7)

The Dutch ratings system that resulted from those surveys began in 2001. It effectively broke

content into four age-centered bands: all ages, not for children under 6, not for children under 12,

and not for children under 16. Since then and with input from social science researchers

including Valkenburg, the Dutch system now includes a category for children between ages 7 and

9. Further, it also addresses content areas to provide information to parents. The categories, as

described by Valkenburg, Beentjes, Nikken, and Tan (2002) are: “violence, frightening content,

sexual content, discrimination, hard drugs, and abuse use of soft drugs and alcohol, and coarse

language” (p. 7). A pictogram represents each content area. According to Kijkwijzer.eu (2010),


which describes the self-regulatory system, the government monitors compliance but quality

assessments and evaluations of the system are done by an independent authority.

In order to determine the age and content rating for any video game, television show, or

film in The Netherlands, extensive coding takes place (Valkenburg, Beentjes, Nikken, & Tan,

2002). Hemels (2004) explained that there are more than 150 registered industry coders who use

an Internet system to enter media content features. Once that data is entered, a computer program

creates the appropriate rating. These results are stored online and available to the public via the

Internet. If there is violence in any program, it receives a rating of not suitable for children under

6. Violence that is “feasible, not severe, but leads to serious injury” (Valkenburg, Beentjes,

Nikken, & Tan, 2002, p 17) is rated as unsuitable for children under 12. If violence is feasible,

severe, and leads to injury, it is rated for children 16 and over, as are acts of non-consensual sex,

which is viewed as violence. To rate sexual content, the authors explained that five questions

must be asked. If genitalia is shown in the process of a sex act, that program would receive a 16

age rating. And, if the program includes gratuitous and frequent acts of sex, it would be reserved

for the strictest content rating under The Netherlands' system. A program would receive an age

rating of 12 and over, if it included one or two instances of sexual acts that were visible on

screen. Were a program to allude to sex but not actually show it, it would not receive a content or

age restriction.

Valkenburg, Beentjes, Nikken, and Tan (2002) in their analysis of the system explained

that the ratings are based in child development research and social science research and affect

when a program may run. In The Netherlands, shows deemed inappropriate for children under

age 12 must run after 8 p.m. Shows with ratings unsuitable for children under age 16 must run

after 10 p.m. (Palzer & Scheuer, 2003). In its first review in 2004, the system was praised for its

effectiveness to correctly label programming using the pictograms while being easy for parents


to understand (d'Haenens, 2009). Hemels (2004) explained recent Dutch surveys revealed that

90% of Dutch parents rely on the Kijkwijzer.

The Dutch media system, like its political system, is influenced by The Netherlands'

inclusion in the European Union, which has its own directive that establishes guidelines for

television regulation among member states. That directive was started as “Television Without

Frontiers,” [TWF] which was first established in 1989 and revised in 1997 to address the

intersection of television policy, globalization, and social issues that may result from media

crossing European borders (Pfanner, 2005; Valkenburg, 2000). In December 2009, the mission

was re-named to the “Audiovisual Media Services Directive” (European Union, 2010). Its main

mission is fourfold: “to preserve cultural diversity, protect children and consumers, safeguard

media pluralism, and combat racial and religious hatred” (European Union, 2010, ¶5).

Valkenburg (2000) explained the main function of the “protect children” piece was protection

from advertising and increasing consumerism while Scheuer (2003) described its core mission

was to reduce television and media programs that “give undue prominence to violence” (p. 2).

The European Union is devoid of specific media policy regulations and instead treats the media

system as another market (voor het Regeringsbeleid, 2006). Still, TWF required that each

European nation deliver its own system of media regulation (Lievens, Dumortier, & Ryan, 2006).

All of the European Union uses a system called Pan European Games Information (PEGI)

to rate electronic video games. The categories, content descriptors, age classifications, and

pictograms used are identical to The Netherlands rating system for other media. The similarities

exist because the same Dutch group, called The Netherlands Institute for the Classification of

Audiovisual Media [NICAM], created both. Nikken, Jansz, and Schouwstra (2007) studied how

Dutch parents used the PEGI. They surveyed 765 parents with children between the ages of 4

and 18 about PEGI. Parents were least concerned with “nudity” in games yet regarding scenes of


“gore and gross” violence, they were more likely to favor a rating system and were more likely

to regulate their own child's play (p. 330).

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 mandated electronic media industries create a

ratings system rather than face a governmental solution (Hamilton, 1998). Jordan (2008)

explained that industry self-regulation here resulted only after substantial cries for action related

to questionable programming. Brisbin (2002) suggested that the shift to an industry-controlled

regulatory environment leaves consumers uneducated about possibly questionable content, a

system that corporations both favor and benefit from. There is no input from social scientists.

This lack of input and involvement seems in sharp contrast to the Dutch system. Lipschultz

(1997) said: “The FCC has shown no interest in employing systematic methods of content

analysis that might serve to define what it is about the content that is objectionable” (p. 41). In

fact, in response to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its provisions for an industry-

created ratings system, the American Medical Association expressed concerns that appropriate

consultations with experts were missing (McDowell & Maitland, 1998). The self-regulatory

environment produces ratings categories that differ by medium (Bushman & Cantor, 2003). “The

review of the ratings systems reveals, however, that the efforts of a variety of independent media

industries have resulted in a dizzying array of ratings, icons, definitions, and procedures that are,

in many cases, difficult to understand and remember” (Bushman & Cantor, 2003, pp. 138-139).

Federman (2002) explained that many parents believed there is a system already in the United

States like that which is used in The Netherlands to oversee whether programs are being

correctly coded or accurately labeled for potentially controversial content areas.

Furthermore, whereas the system in The Netherlands applies to all media, in the United

States each medium is responsible for its own voluntary ratings, often contributing to confusion

and misuse. The most widely familiar ratings system, perhaps due to its length of time in use, is


the film ratings systems created by the private Motion Picture Association of America in 1968

(Federman, 2002). Ratings are applied by the CARA, which stands for Classification and Ratings

Administration, and members do not require any specific professional training although raters

must be parents (Federman, 2002). Five ratings categories exist: G, for general audiences; PG,

which recommends parental guidance; PG-13, which cautions parents about content; R, which

means restricted and prohibits entry for children under 17 without a parent or adult guardian; and

NC-17 (Bushman & Cantor, 2003). The television ratings system is perhaps more confusing, not

just for its mixture of letters and numbers but also for its relative newness when compared to

film ratings. The age restrictions and denotations for television are: TV-Y, which is suitable for

all children; TV-Y7, which is directed at older children; TV-G, which is recommended for a

general audience; TV-PG, which recommends parental guidance; TV-14, which cautions parents;

and, TV-MA, which is for mature audiences only. Content indicators include: FV, for fantasy

violence; V, for violence; S, for sex; L, for course language; and D, for sexual innuendo. The

Telecommunications Act of 1996 required industry leaders create a ratings system that would be

found “acceptable” to the FCC , which broadcasters and legislators agreed may be far from

anyone's “ideal” system (Hamilton, 1998, p. 149; McDowell & Maitland, 1998, p. 31).

The labels that identify sexual or violent content are designed to be read by the V-chip, a

method for parents to block content they believe may be inappropriate. Each producer assigns

the rating he or she deems most appropriate for each program. Linder and Gentile (2009) studied

American fifth-grade girls' use of media and the corresponding content and age ratings received.

They determined that two-thirds (67%) of programs that included at least one act of physical

aggression did not receive any content descriptor for violence. Six programs from their sample of

37 did not contain a V or an FV rating though the shows each contained more than 10 acts of

physical violence. If parents, then, were to program their television sets using the V-chip to block


such shows, those described in the Linder and Gentile (2009) study would not be picked up by

the V-chip.

The V-chip and ratings system have other problems. Parents may understand the age

ratings (Bushman & Cantor, 2003), however, understanding of the content ratings was much

lower (Kaiser, 2001). The survey results revealed that only 7% of parents understood that a “D”

rating contained sexual innuendo and only 18% knew “FV” ratings involved violence. In 2000,

then-FCC Commissioner Gloria Tristani explained that 39% of parents had never heard of the V-

chip. Eight years later, Jordan (2008) reported that just 11% of parents understood the operation

of the V-chip. Walsh and Gentile (2001) asked parents to rate films, video games, and television

programs then compared those results to actual ratings. Parents were provided five hours of

training to rate films, television programs, and video games. Among the findings, nearly 4 of 10

(38%) parents deemed inappropriate industry-rated television as PG for children between the

ages 8 and 12. Essentially, the authors argued that parents should continue independently

reviewing content for fear that the ratings fall short of offering accurate information. The authors

further recommended a universal ratings system, one that would, undoubtedly reflect that which

is used in The Netherlands.

Conclusion

This paper has revealed strong similarities between the foundations of media regulation in

The Netherlands and the United States as well as similar patterns of children’s television usage.

However, acceptance and understanding of media effects as well as cultural differences that

influence content reveal differences in how administrative and judicial bodies process public

concerns. Each country allows for freedom of speech and freedom of the press, yet each limits

certain broadcast content to late-night hours that may harm children. In the United States,

concerns about sex and violence in the media are processed administratively through the FCC, a


process that is based on judicial tenants that qualify matters of sexual content, harsh language, or

excretory functions as indecent and, therefore, without blanket First Amendment protection. The

Dutch system is far more laissez-faire yet operates under an awareness of potential media harms

to children. Its time-channeling standards, rooted in media law, apply to both sexual and violent

content that is deemed inappropriate for children under age 16. This content includes violence

that is severe and leads to injury or scenes of sex that include depictions of genitalia. Only

indecent sexuality or language is moved to late night in America and scenes of such explicit

intercourse would never be shown on broadcast or basic cable. This outcome is a direct result of

a regulatory system that processes and addresses moral concerns yet seemingly ignores violence

as a threat to children. Moral influence on media regulation in the United States often focuses

more on banning sexual content or language though children may not face adverse consequences

from that type of programming. Violence can run all day on American broadcasting.

Any discussion of policy concerns and approaches to address those concerns must focus

on each country's ratings system. The systems reflect both how each country uses—or does not

use--social science research and, also, how each represents the concerns of society. This analysis

has revealed stark differences both in the creation, maintenance, use, and understanding of each

country's ratings system. The Dutch ratings system is based on the cultural wants of parents, it is

uniform across platforms, and was created with an emphasis on existing social science research

and receives oversight from experts in media effects. The American ratings system offers parents

complicated letters and numbers, is created secretly, and it often goes unused. If used, research

explained here shows parents receive no real guarantee broadcasters are identifying correctly

sexual or violent themes that they may be most concerned about. The ratings systems then show

that there are differences in outcomes in both countries, differences that have powerful effects on

children. American children are exposed to more violence. They are exposed to heavy amounts


of sex, too, yet may lack the cultural openness to deal with such media saturation.

In The Netherlands, the transfer of viewership to commercial and satellite television

combined with the increasing availability of non-Dutch media has raised questions about the

quality of programming. Much of that concern is about media violence. Valkenburg, Cantor, &

Peeters, (2000) explained that one-third of children aged 7 to 12 were frightened by something

on television and three of the four products highlighted as causing that fright were American-

made. Yet, little is known about how American media is being rated—and consequently

received--by Dutch children in the wake of the Kijkwijzer. Even less is known about sexual

viewing patterns and effects using a cross-national approach. Kunkel et. al. (2005) showed

overwhelmingly that American television has themes and scenes of sexual talk and behavior

despite the moral influence on FCC matters. Do the Dutch view these American programs

similarly to sexuality or nudity already on screen there? Are the contextual features the same?

Future study should examine American programs broadcast on Dutch television to understand

how those shows are being rated using the Kijkwijzer.

A possible solution to the confusion and misuse of ratings in the United States would be

to apply a similar uniform system to media content here and require regular oversight from top

academics skilled in media effects research. Perhaps such a system could address wide variations

in how sex and violence are regulated or rated in the United States. In such a system, Janet

Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction would become just that: A malfunction and not cause for moral

panic. Furthermore, time-channeling violent program to late-night hours in the manner of

indecent shows would help to protect children from the possible harms of media violence. The

Dutch have recognized the research. And so should we.


References

Anderson, C. A., Berkowitz, L., Donnerstein, E., Huesmann, L. R., Johnson, J., & Linz, D. et. al.

(2003). The influence of media violence on youth. Psychological Science in the Public

Interest, 4(3), 81-110.

Bakker, P., & Vasterman, P. (2007). The Dutch media landscape. In G. Terzis (Ed.), European

Media Governance: National and Regional Dimensions (pp. 145-155). Chicago: Intel-

lect.

Bardoel, J. (2003). Back to the public? Assessing public broadcasting in The Netherlands. The

Public, 10(3), 81-96.

Bardoel, J., & d'Haenens, L. (2004). Media meet the citizen: Beyond market mechanisms and

government regulations. European Journal of Communication, 19(2), 165-194.

Beentjes, J.W.J., Koolstra, C.M., Marseille, N., & van der Voort, T.H.A. (2001). Children's use of

different media: For how long and why? In S. Livingstone & M. Bovill (Eds.), Children

and their changing media environment: A European comparative study (pp. 85-112).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brisbin, R.A., Jr. (2002). Censorship, ratings, and rights: Political order and sexual portrayals in

American movies. Studies in American Political Development, 16, 1-27.

Brown, K., & Candeub, A. (2005). The law and economics of wardrobe malfunction. Brigham

Young Law Review, 6, 1463-1513.

Bushman, B. J. & Anderson, C.A. (2001). Media violence and the American public. American

Psychologist, 56(6/7), 477-489.

Bushman, B.J., & Cantor, J. (2003). Media ratings for violence and sex: Implications for

policymakers and parents. American Psychologist, 58(2), 130-141.

Conley, J.L. (1993). Hollywood's last hurrah? “Television without Frontiers” directive may close


borders to the European community's broadcast market. University of Pennsylvania

Journal of International Business Law, 14(1), 87-117.

d'Haenens, L.S.J. (2009). The principle of equality in the Dutch media. In. R.P. Konig & F.J.M.

Huysmans (Eds.), Meaningful media: Communication research on the social construction

of reality (pp. 296-311). Ubbergen: Tandem Felix .

De Haan, J., & Huysmans, F. (2004). IT/Media use and psychological development among Dutch

youth. IT & Society, 1(6), 44-58.

Deggens, E. (2008, February 15). Editing Dexter: F-Words and sex before gore. St. Petersburg

Times. Retrieved February 15, 2010, from

http://blogs.tampabay.com/media/2008/02/editing- dexter.html.

Donnerstein, E., Wilson, B., & Linz, D. (1992). On the regulation of broadcast indecency to

protect children. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 36, 111-117.

Donnerstein, E., & Smith, S. (2000). Sex in the media: Theory, influences, and solutions. In D.G.

Singer & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 289–307).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dutch cabinet votes in favour of new media law. (2006, May 26). Crossroads Magazine.

Retrieved February 27, 2010, from http://crossroadsmag.eu/2006/05/dutch-cabinet-votes-

in-favour-of-new-media-law/

European Union (2010). Audiovisual media services directive: Regulatory framework. Retrieved

February 1, 2010 from http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/reg/avms/index_en.htm

Federman, J. (1998). Media ratings systems: A comparative review. In M.E. Price (Ed.), The V-

chip debate: Content filtering from television to the internet (pp. 99-132). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Federman, J. (2002). Rating sex and violence in the media: Media ratings and proposals for


reform. A Kaiser Family Foundation Report. Washington, DC: Author.

Gentile, D. A., Walsh, D. A., Ellison, P. R., Fox, M., & Cameron, J. (2004, May). Media

violence as a risk factor for children: A longitudinal study. Paper presented at the meet-

ing of the American Psychological Society, Chicago, IL.

Groves, D. (2003, September 15). Film, game ratings up for debate. Retrieved Janaury 31, 2010,

http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?

docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T8448306240&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startD

ocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T8448306243&cisb=22_T8448306242&treeMax=true&tree

Width=0&csi=139224&docNo=21

Hamilton, J.T. (1998). Who will rate the ratings? In M.E. Price (Ed.), The V-chip debate: Content

filtering from television to the internet (pp. 133-156). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Hartlaub, P. (2008, October 27). See “Saw V” if you saw “Saw IV”. The San Francisco

Chronicle. Retrieved January 30, 2010, from http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-10-27/bay-

area/17137943_1_tobin-bell-movies-horror

Harvard Law Review (1971). Morality and the broadcast media: A constitutional analysis of FCC

regulatory standards. Harvard Law Review, 84(3), 664-699.

Hemels, J. (2004). Self-regulation with regard to audiovisual productions in The Netherlands:

Kijkwijzer and the development of the European PEGI system. Retrieved February 1,

2010, from http://www.gpi-online.de/upload/PDFs/EU-Media/_Hemels-

Selbstregulierung-NL-ENG.pdf

Hennessy, M., Bleakley, A., Busse, P., & Fishbein, M. (2008). What is the appropriate regulatory

response to wardrobe malfunctions? Fining stations for television sex and violence.

Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 52(3), 387-407.


Huesmann, L. R., & Taylor, L. D. (2003). The case against the case against media violence. In

D. Gentile (Ed.), Media violence and children: A complete guide for parents and profes-

sionals (pp.107-130). Westport, CT: Praeger.

In Re Application of KCOP Television, Inc., F.C.C. 76-576 (1976).

Internet Movie Database (2008a). Retrieved January 30, 2010, from

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1007028/

Internet Movie Database (2008b). Retrieved January 30, 2010, from

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1132626/

Jordan, A.B. (2008). Children's media policy. The Future of Children, 18(1), 235-253.

Kaiser Family Foundation (2001). Parents and the V-chip 2001: How parents feel about TV, the

TV ratings system, and the V-chip. Menlo Park, CA: Author.

Kijkwijzer. (2010). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from http://www.kijkwijzer.nl/pagina.php?id=30

Krasnow, E.G., Longley, L.D., & Terry, H.A. (1982). The politics of broadcast regulation (3rd

Ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press.

Krotz, F., & Hasebrink, U. (2001). Who are the new media users? In S. Livingstone & M. Bovill

(Eds.), Children and their changing media environment: A European comparative study

(pp. 245-262). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kunkel, D., Wilson, B.J., Potter, W.J., Linz, D., Donnerstein, E., Smith, S.L., & Blumenthal, E.

(1998). Content analysis of entertainment television: Implications for public policy. In

J.T. Hamilton (Ed.), Television Violence and Public Policy (pp. 149-162). Ann Arbor: The

University of Michigan Press.

Kunkel, D., Eyal, K., Finnerty, K., Biely, E., & Donnerstein, E. (2005). Sex on TV 4. Menlo Park,

CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.


Kunkel, D., & Zwarun, L. (2006). How real is the problem of TV violence?: Research and policy

perspectives. In N. Dowd, D. Singer & R.F. Wilson (Eds.), Handbook of children, culture

and violence (pp. 203-224). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Lechner, F.J. (2008). The Netherlands: Globalization and National Identity. New York:

Routledge.

Lemish, D. (2007). Children and television: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Lewis, J., & Knijn, T. (2003). Sex education materials in The Netherlands and in England and

Wales: A comparison of content, use, and teaching practice. Oxford Review of Education,

29(1), 113-132.

Lievens, E., Dumortier, J., & Ryan, P.S. (2006). The co-protection of minors in new media: A

European approach to co-regulation. University of California Davis Journal of Juvenile

Law & Policy, 10, 98-152.

Linder, J.R., & Gentile, D.A. (2009). Is the television rating system valid? Indirect, verbal, and

physical aggression in programs viewed by fifth grade girls and associations with

behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 286-297.

Lipschultz, J.H. (1997). Broadcast indecency: FCC regulation and the First Amendment. Boston:

Focal Press.

Livingstone, S., d'Haenens, L., & Hasebrink, U. (2001). Childhood in Europe: Contexts for

comparison. In S. Livingstone & M. Bovill (Eds.), Children and their changing media

environment: A European comparative study (pp. 3-30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

McDowell, S.D., & Maitland, C. (1998). Developing television ratings in Canada and the United

States: The perils and promises or self-regulation. In M.E. Price (Ed.), The V-chip debate:

Content filtering from television to the internet (pp. 23-46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence


Erlbaum.

Moore, M. (1994). Sex and violence: European censorship of American films. The Entertainment

and Sports Lawyer, 11(4), 1; 18-30.

National Television Violence Study (1997). Volume 1. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

National Television Violence Study (1998a). Volume 2: Thousand Oaks: Sage.

National Television Violence Study (1998b). Volume 3: Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Nikken, P. (2003). Twelve years of Dutch children's television: Efforts of public and commercial

TV channels for children up to twelve years old. Communications, 28, 33-52.

Nikken, P., Jansz, J., & Schouwstra, S. (2007). Parents' interest in videogame ratings and content

descriptors in relation to game mediation. European Journal of Communication, 22, 315-

336.

Report on the broadcast of violent, indecent, and obscene material, 51 F.C.C. 2d (1975).

Palzer, C., & Scheuer, A. (2003). Self-regulation, co-regulation & public regulation. In U.

Carlsson & C. von Feilitzen (Eds.), Promote or Protect? Perspectives on media literacy

and media regulations (pp. 165–178). Göteborg, Sweden: The UNESCO International

Clearinghouse on Children and Violence on the Screen.

Pfanner, E. (2005, June 6). EU oversight for new media?; decency is one tricky issue. The

International Herald Tribune, p. 9.

Perry, M.W. (2009). Television content restriction: A cross-national examination of legislative

imperatives and documented social values. Unpublished senior thesis, Wake Forest

University.

Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P.M. (2007). Adolescents' exposure to a sexualized media environment

and their notions of women as sex objects. Sex Roles, 56, 381-395.

Price, M.E., & Verhulst, S.G. (2002). Parental control of television broadcasting. Mahwah, NJ:


Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Puustinen, L., Thomas, P., & Pantti, M. (2008). Mapping media and communication research.

Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki, Communication Research Centre.

Scheuer, A. (2003, June). The portrayal of violence in the media: The respective roles of public

regulation, media self-regulation, and co-regulation. Paper presented at the Council of

Europe Expert Seminar, Violence in Everyday Life, Strasbourg.

Strasburger, V.C. (2005). Adolescents, sex, and the media: Ooooo, baby, baby—a q & a.

Adolescent Medicine, 16, 269-288.

The New York Post (2008, October 27). Blood's in, porn's out in Utah. Retrieved January 30,

2010,

http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/item_0neuVH2YDyYXy74RqcO9VL;jsessionid=A0C

2E20C066D124B99DA9D1F9AB87E1D.

Thompson, K., & Sharma, A. (1998). Secularization, moral regulation and the mass media.

British Journal of Sociology, 49(3), 434-455.

Thomson, A. (2008, November 24). Sex education: Why the British should go Dutch. Retrieved

February 14, 2010, from

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article52088

65.ece

Unicef (2001). A league table of teenage births in rich nations (Innocenti report card no. 3, July

2001). Retrieved February 13, 2010, from http://www.unicef-icdc.org/publications/pdf/

repcard3e.pdf.

Valk, G. (2000). The Dutch model. The UNESCO Courier. Retrieved February 14, 2010, from

http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07/uk/apprend2.htm

Valkenburg, P.M. (2000). Media and youth consumerism. Society for Adolescent Medicine, 27,


52-56.

Valkenburg, P.M. (2004). Children's responses to the screen. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Valkenburg, P.M., Cantor, J., & Peeters, A.L. (2000). Fright reactions to television: A child

survey. Communication Research, 27, 82-99.

Valkenburg, P.M., Beentjes, H., Nikken, P., & Tan, E. (2002). Kijkwijzer: The Dutch rating

system for audiovisual productions. Communications, 27(1), 79-102.

van der Eijk, C. (2000). The Netherlands: Media and politics between segmented pluralism and

market forces. In R. Gunther & A. Mughan (Eds.), Democracy and the media: A

comparative perspective (pp. 303-342). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Van Evra, J. (2004). Television and child development (3rd

Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

van Zoonen, L. (2004). Popular qualities in public broadcasting. European Journal of Cultural

Studies, 7(3), 275-282.

voor het Regeringsbeleid, W.R. (2006). Media policy for the digital age. Amsterdam: Amsterdam

University Press.

Walsh, D.A., & Gentile, D.A. (2001). A validity test of movie, television, and video-game

ratings. Pediatrics, 107(6), 1302-1308.

Widmer, E.D., Treas, J., & Newcomb, R. (1998). Attitudes toward nonmarital sex in 24

countries. The Journal of Sex Research, 35(4), 349-358.

Wiley, R.E., & Secrest, L.W. (2005). Recent developments in program content regulation. Fed

eral Communications Law Journal, 57(2), 235-242.

Willis, E., & Strasburger, V. C. (1998). Media violence. Pediatric Clinics of North America,

45(2), 319-331.

Zarkin, K. (2003). Anti-indecency groups and the Federal Communications Commission: A study


in the politics of broadcast regulation. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.

*Margot A. Susca (Ph.D., The Florida State University) studies global ...

Documents

Transcript of *Margot A. Susca (Ph.D., The Florida State University) studies global ...