((Jack)) Just ahead . . . who do Californians say won the first presidential debate? It’s the first time voters get to see Al Gore and George Bush side by side…Clip from debate …And the senior vote, it could provide the edge . . and they’re watching closely, listening carefully.

((Melissa)) Plus. . . sounding off on another hot election topic . . . violence and the media. What changes, if any, are in store for movies to tv? Hello , I’m Melissa Crowley.

And I’m Jack Kavanagh. Those stories, next.

((Jack)) Thank you for joining us. Just ahead . . a debate over what we watch. Are movies and television too violent, especially for young eyes . . . .we’ll take a look. But right now . . . a look at the first presidential debate of this election.

The first is considered crucial because it historically draws the most viewers and sets the tone for other debates. Polls show this is the closest race in 20 years. How did the candidates do among California voters?

Michael Isip watched the debate with a group of senior citizens to see if their questions were answered.

DEBATE PACKAGE

Two men . . . two podiums . . and an audience of millions of Americans… It’s the first time voters get the chance to see the candidates side by side…What happens here could swing the race either way.

((Jim Lyons, Retiree)) You get a chance to watch them, listen to them a bit, see their temperament. with only one month left, polls show candidates running neck and neck . . and that one third of the vote may be senior citizens . . who are watching closely and listening carefully . . . …especially to health care issues.

((Herbert Cohen, Retiree)) They did not deal with basic issue, which is price control on prescription drugs

((Jim Lyons, Retiree)) What are you going to do about these problems of immunization and children that are still going without ?

For some, it is all about experience and the kind of experience

((Perry Diaz, Realtor)) Being governor of Texas for 7 years he demonstrated that he could work with the Democrats as well as the Republicans.

((Karen Raasch, Business Owner)) Obviously, Gore has the most experience. He has 24 years, as he said, of experience in the Congress. Besides experience, these voters say they want to see substance over style.

((Jackie Antee, AARP)) You know, it’s wonderful to have someone with a lot of charisma and a lot of style we like that, but it’s not necessary to be President.

((Karen Raasch, Business Owner)) I thought he did very well, I’m not offended by his stiffness.

And in the end, the consensus is: they need to hear more from the candidates.

((Peter Szego, Retiree)) I think the biggest problem is that in some of the biggest issues their differences were blurred.

((Livida Dedalles, AARP)

I don’t think debates answer all the questions because thy are a little bit too rehearsed.

I’m Michael Isip for California Capitolweek.

END DEBATE PACKAGE

(( Jack )) By the way, a poll released this week by the California HealthCare Foundation and the Field Institute . . . .shows Californians prefer Al Gore's prescription plan to George Bush's by nearly a 2-to-1 ratio. Gore backs prescription coverage under Medicare. Bush would offer government incentives to encourage drug coverage under private plans. Now , senior citizens are not the only important voting block in this year’s race. Both candidates are targeting women and minorities.

Joining me now, a diverse panel of voters who will give us their reviews of this first debate:

PRES. DEBATE DISCUSSION PT. 1

((Jack)) Alice Huffman, who won?

((Alice Huffman, Democratic National Committee)) Absolutely Mr. Gore.

((Jack)) Why?

((Alice Huffman)) By a substantial margin. It isn’t just how he said what he said. It’s what he said, and what he stands for. It’s his whole package. It’s the fact that he is experienced and he does know what he’s talking about, and he does care about middle class people.

((Jack)) Chiling Tong, same question to you: who won?

((Chiling Tong, Bush Delegate)) Of course, Bush won.

((Jack)) Why?

((Chiling Tong)) Well, Bush spoke from his heart about the trust of the American people. He empowers Americans to make decisions for their own lives, and Gore thinks all the decisions should be made in Washington, D.C. by the government.

((Jack)) Charlene, who won?

((Charlene Zettel, Assemblywoman [R] San Diego)) Absolutely, George Bush. You know, he was grace under fire. Repeatedly, Gore attacked and misstated Bush’s positions, and the governor just remained polite, composed, and continued to articulate his position.

((Jack)) Sophia, what do you think?

((Sophia Chavez, Democrat)) Absolutely, Gore won. It was, I think, evident in the way he articulated his ideas and plans. He gave solid, concrete examples from his experience as Vice President, and I think that the American people will make the right choice when they see the next debate also.

((Jack)) Watching this debate, it was clear to everyone that a very close race just got closer because it looks like both sides did pretty well in that debate. Let’s go back and revisit part of it. It was the issue of character, and here how it was presented by Governor Bush to Vice President Gore.

((Jack))

It would almost seem like that question didn’t get answered very well, did it?

((Chiling Tong, Bush Delegate)) Well, actually, talking about character, there is much difference. I think Gore [sic] spoke from his heart about the trust of the Americans, and I think his message was very open and inclusive. He said repeatedly, “Immigration is not a problem to solve. It is a symbol of a successful nation,” but look at Gore. I think he is very much programmed, and look at what has happened in the last eight years. Gore and Clinton’s administration has brought shame to the Asian community talking about the fundraising scandal.

((Jack)) All right, on this particular issue of character though, Gore did not answer the question, did he, Alice?

((Alice Huffman, Democratic National Committee)) I think it was a fair question, and I also think that the American people are tired of character assassinations and debate about character as opposed to issues. I, for one, thought both men handled that question quite well. I thought the softness with which it was brought in by Bush was very tasteful and tactful, and I thought it was right for Mr. Gore to move back to the issues. The character issue, this was not a Gore administration; it was a Clinton administration. This campaign is going to be won on the basis of what’s good for the American people, and you have to stay with the issues, especially if you want to bring the voters back to the table. They’re tired of the smear campaign.

((Jack)) All right, Charlene, let me ask it this way: Would Bush have been better to just let that one go and not bring it up because it didn’t come up until the end of the debate.

((Charlene Zettel, Assemblywoman [R] San Diego)) It was the moderator that asked the question, and as a candidate, you answer the questions. I think it’s important to bring up accountability when you’re running for public office. If you’re doing something illegal. If you’re doing illegal fundraising, you need to be held accountable. It’s not a character assassination when somebody denies that they don’t know a fundraiser is occurring. I think that’s a bunch of bunk when you have a politician that’s been in politics for twenty years such as Gore, and then he says, “I don’t think it’s a fundraiser?”

((Jack)) Sophia, some people think that this character issue doesn’t stick. Is that what going on here?

((Sophia Chavez, Democrat)) I think that, ultimately, the American public will see everything for what it is. I think that there is a lot of mudslinging in the debates that’s going to occur as we get closer to the elections, and I think—

((Jack)) So what’s the consensus? We don’t care about this issue? It’s not a hot issue?

((Alice Huffman)) Why is character just one issue in the campaign? Why is character just campaign-financing? If you want to deal with character, then you have to go to some of the broader issues about character to make it stick for me, and I don’t think either person is in a position to want to talk about the real issues of character.

((Jack))

All right—

((Chiling Tong, Bush Delegate)) Gore said that there should be no controlling legal authority regarding the fundraising scandal. If Bush is elected, there will be a controlling legal authority, and Bush will set a moral standard. That is the character difference between Bush and Gore.

((Alice Huffman, Democratic National Committee)) Bush can’t talk about fundraising. Both sides have gone the limit to get the money, and so that’s where the hypocrisy is.

((Jack)) Charlene?

((Charlene Zettel, Assemblywoman [R] San Diego)) But I think we’re talking about being trustworthy. Who can you trust? A candidate can say anything, but do you trust, do you believe them? I believe Governor Bush.

((Alice Huffman)) And I believe Vice President Gore.

((Jack)) All right, one of the biggest that lasted this whole debate, that kept coming up for the whole ninety minutes was taxes, taxes, taxes. Let’s take a look at how the tax argument was framed.

((Jack)) Charlene, when you look at the polls and what voters are interested in, taxes aren’t up there on the top. Education’s up there; health care’s up there; crime’s up there, but taxes are not a big issue.

((Charlene Zettel, Assemblywoman [R] San Diego)) Absolutely, and Governor Bush has a wonderful record when it comes to education. I personally visited the schools in Texas. I visited poor communities, ethnic minority communities where their kids were performing just as good [sic] as any wonderful, private school in America.

((Jack)) But does this tax issue stick in California?

((Charlene Zettel)) I believe it’s an important issue because you have a lot of people coming off of welfare, hard working people, and they’re going to have to start paying taxes after they start earning twenty-one thousand dollars? I think that’s ridiculous. Under the Bush plan, a single mother earning twenty-two thousand dollars is not going to have to pay taxes until she starts earning almost thirty-two thousand dollars.

((Jack)) Sophia, how does that play on your side of the argument?

((Sophia Chavez, Democrat)) I think that Gore’s plan is much better because I think that it’s going to work for all people, not all working people, not just a small, minute group, and I think that the one percent that will benefit from Bush’s plan—it’s just not—

((Charlene Zettel, Assemblywoman[R]San Diego)) I have to say that if you take a look—Deloyt and Tusch did a report, an independent accounting firm took a look at both plans, and—

((Jack)) On behalf of the New York Times, in fact.

((Charlene Zettel)) And he said that the Bush plan is better for low and middle income working families.

((Alice Huffman, Democratic National Committee)) It’s the “trickle down” theory.

((Charlene Zettel)) No, it is actual tax cuts for—

((Alice Huffman)) We’ve been through the “trickle down” period before.

((Charlene Zettel)) No, it is an actual tax cut.

((Jack)) Well, the question then becomes, “Should these tax cuts, if they’re available, should they be targeted to specific areas, or should it just be an across the board tax cut?”

((Chiling Tong, Bush Delegate)) Well, Bush’s tax cut is for everybody. Gore’s tax cut is just for certain people.

((Jack)) In other words, Bill Gates’ tax cut would be the same as mine, only with a lot more zeroes at the end. Is that correct?

((Alice Huffman, Democratic National Committee)) Yeah, but we live in a country where we understand the tension between business competition and the people, and the government is supposed to have a fair redistribution formula, and that’s what we’re talking about: “How do you tax the wealthy to pay for services that the poor can’t pay for?” Now why should middle-class people—we have a booming middle class because of the policies of the Democrats—why should we risk in a good economy with the best middle class that we’ve ever had, doing things that would return us to a large debt to the middle class, and the poor becoming poorer, and the wealthy becoming wealthier? I mean this is about a whole society, and not just about the elite.

((Jack)) Chiling?

((Chiling Tong, Bush Delegate)) For the past eight years, he [Gore] is a part of the system. He is a part of the problem. If he cannot figure out how to fix social security, Medicare, and cut taxes for the last eight years, how can we trust him for the next four?

((Sophia Chavez, Democrat)) We’ve had a surplus now since Gore and Clinton have been the administration, and I think that the economy is good right now, and I think the simple message should be that, “If something is working fine, why change it?”

((Charlene Zettel, Assemblywoman[R] San Diego)) Do you think education is working fine? Do you think Social Security is not going to go bankrupt?

((Alice Huffman, Democratic National Committee)) Social Security has the highest surplus that it has ever had, and it will remain fine, especially if it remains a trust fund for everybody, and if the money isn’t taken out of it, risking that people will not have Social Security when they retire.

((Jack)) Charlene, give me the last word.

((Charlene Zettel, Assemblywoman[R]San Diego)) Let’s go back to specifics. You take a working family of four earning fifty thousand dollars. Under the Bush plan, this family will get a tax cut of two thousand dollars. Under the Gore plan, this family will get two hundred and eighteen dollars. No comparison. Two thousand dollars under the Bush plan, and two hundred dollars by Gore.

((Jack)) We’re running out of time here—

((Alice Huffman, Democratic National Committee))

On education, you don’t fix it by destroying it.

((Jack)) Thank you all for joining us. By the way, the next Presidential debate is October eleventh in North Carolina. We would like your thoughts on how the first debate went.

Who won and why? Which candidates best addressed your concerns? Send us an email to capitol week dot org or send us a letter to the address on your screen. Melissa?

((Melissa))

Thanks Jack. Another election issue centers on violence and the media. A recent Federal Trade Commission report revealed, quote, "pervasive and aggressive marketing of violent and sexually explicit movies, games and music to children” This month, the Federal Communications Commission is investigating television programming. The industry says they can and will self-regulate. But is that enough?

VIOLENCE IN THE MEDIA PACKAGE

Today’s class debate: the potential affect of violent entertainment.

((Student)) You take it how you wanna take it. He’s going to do whatever he’s got to do to get his money.

In this case, lyrics from this best selling cd.

((Vicky Stoneham, Oakland Teacher)) A healthy-minded person might be able to watch something and say, “Okay, that’s wrong. I don’t condone that. I’m not going to be a part of that.” Someone else watches that who might not have discipline, who might not have a healthy mind and start to imitate or emulate.

The debate on curbing violent messages extends to the halls of government.

((John McCain, US Senator)) Will you or will you not market R-rated movies to children under the age of seventeen?

Senate Hearings followed a scathing FTC report that major studios targeted children for violent movie screenings. Studio heads apologized, but stopped short of promising never to do so again.

((Stacy Snider, Universal Studios)) If I were to pitch Boys N the ‘Hood to the senators here, it might contain graphic violence, it might contain strong language, and, yet, that is an example of a movie that was personally inspiring to me. It would be a movie that I might choose to take a mature children[sic] to.

The motion picture industry instead propsed a series of self-policing iniaititives that 8 studios signed onto…

…The candidates have been pushed to take action as well, Gore criticized for receiving millions from hollywood while running mate, Joseph Lieberman, testified about negative influence of violent images.

Lynne Cheney blasted Eminem lyrics as quote, ‘they could not be more harmful. ‘

The big screen, music and now tv industry all facing increasing scrutiny.

((Charles Berger, UC Communications Professor)) News broadcast are now subject to ratings just like entertainment programming, and the formula that we’ve know for a long, long time that the entertainment industry uses to do that is to use sex and violence to do it.

Professor Berger’s study found that that skews the view of our world, and desensitizes us to violence… …The senate will tackle TV next, but for now urged the entertainment industry to clean up its act.

((Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Senator[R] Texas)) If you don’t try to make this really work, that you are going to see some kind of legislation. Meantime, some private groups are taking action.…from producing videos that help parents pick appropriate material …to travelling puppet shows and plays that encourage positive conflict resolution… …The goal- curbing any negative influence of violence –images that can be difficult to avoid .

((Student)) That was just in the newspaper, so it’s not just movies and television and stuff like that. It’s all on the news, so you’re going to see it.

END VIOLENCE IN MEDIA PACKAGE

((Melissa)) Hearings resume this month on what can be done about television content.

And joining us now for more on this issue:

Stan Staham with the California Broadcasters Association. And Dr. Judith Reisman . . .

Thank you both for joining us.

VIOLENCE IN MEDIA DISCUSSION

((Melissa)) Dr. Reisman, you’ve studied this issue for a long time.

((Dr. Julia Reisman, Institute for Media Education)) Right.

((Melissa)) Are these regulations that they’re talking about enough?

((Dr. Julia Reisman)) As I said, “Should I just sit here and laugh?” Of course not, and, look, we’ve been at this for thirty years. In 1972, the Surgeon General’s report on television violence identified hundreds of studies that showed that television violence—and, of course, that includes sexuality—is causing copycat activity, and we had all kinds of statements back then about how the industry was going to police itself. That’s been going on now since 1972. Can you believe that it’s going to change?

((Melissa)) All right, Stan, let’s get you in on this as we talk about this issue, and also, is there a difference between going to a violent movie or listening to violent music and what we watch on the news?

((Stan Statham, California Broadcasters Association)) No, I don’t think so. Television is television, but I think Judith is absolutely wrong because there have been countless studies that there has been no correlation, no direct fact, that relates something in television or something at the local theater to something that happened in real life, and when she attacks television, she attacks the county library. Nobody is going in and censoring the county library, and so why should they come in and censor television when we offer everything? We are a video library of everything that happens.

((Melissa)) Dr. Reisman, would you respond to that?

((Dr. Julia Reisman)) Well, with all due respect, you sound just like—big media sounds just like big tobacco. You know, that’s exactly the line that the public relations people for big tobacco taught them to take twenty years ago. Now, they’re on the line, and they’re telling the truth—well, not telling the truth, but they have to tell the truth because a lot of the marketing information has been leaked out to Congress, and, yes, they’ve been using focus groups, kids as young as nine years of age, which you know, to test market things that are R-rated.

((Melissa)) Julia, how about the ratings? Are they making a difference? Is the rating system working?

((Dr. Julia Reisman)) Of course not, and they knew it. That was their first ploy to say, “let’s have a ratings system!”

((Stan Statham)) That wasn’t a ploy at all. Let me tell you how wrong you are.

((Dr. Julia Reisman)) Okay, tell me.

((Stan Statham)) Television—

((Dr. Julia Reisman)) Tell me, Stan.

((Stan Statham)) I will. You need to give me some time. Television regulates itself more than any other media, because you're to blame as a parent, or they’re to blame as parents and guardians. We give you the V-chip. You don’t use it. We give you the ratings; you don’t use them. What television ought to do is almost a continuous, around-the-clock, “good parents gone bad,” next, on Jerry Springer because the parents don’t take control—

((Dr. Julia Reisman)) Stan, with all due respect, you never gave us the—

((Stan Statham)) Even though you continue to try to interrupt me. Now I’m going to give you some silence. Hit it.

((Melissa)) Judith, let me ask you this question: is there any substitute for parental involvement? We’ve looked at legislation, Stan talked about some of the options that are on the table, is there anything that can replace that?

((Dr. Julia Reisman)) Oh, of course not. I mean, obviously, the most important thing is to have children who are in charge of what their children do or do not watch. We’ve had parents who have removed the TV from their homes. We have parents who have substituted videos, where they can just get specific videos and use those for those children. We’re very fortunate to have those parents. The majority of parents are, number one, not going to do that. Number two—Stan knows this—that we have a huge population of single parent families now, thank you very much, and we have a huge population of divorced situations where children are not being guarded and not being watched. Even when I was doing Captain Kangaroo, we were already facing the fact that parents were turning off—

((Stan Statham)) Can I agree with Judith?

((Melissa)) Go ahead, Stan.

((Stan Statham)) Let me agree with you.

((Dr. Julia Reisman)) Oh gooooood!

((Stan Statham)) We have the V-chip and the ratings system and remote controls, and yet the parents won’t use them, and so now it’s become the industry’s responsibility to put on only Touched By An Angel but not Sex in the City? I’m sorry, that’s censorship, so you and your people are not going in and censoring magazines or newspapers or all of those other industries, and, by the way, those Senate hearings didn’t talk about television. They talked about all of those other media sources.

((Melissa)) Let’s talk about the censorship issue. I know that people have talked in the past—when I was younger, there were westerns on television with violence, there was music that my parents objected to. Now that conversation—I guess the content has increased in terms of violence. Is there a difference though? Why do you think that there’s all this attention focused now? Do you feel that the level of violence has escalated?

((Dr. Julia Reisman)) Obviously. Everyone know, including Stan, that the shoot-‘em-ups in the old day—and by the way, in the old days we had the singing cowboys and they didn’t shoot anybody then, but they had the singing cowboys—so, everybody knows that there’s a slight difference between Sex in the City and other types of materials that were viewed then, but I want to catch something that Stan said, and I want to get this across. When you talk about that you gave the V-chip and that you gave us all those—you didn’t give those things to us. We forced those upon your industry, and one more thing, if we’re going to talk about freedom of speech, let’s understand one thing: who controls the media? Who controls mass media. You know that we’re talking about massive media control, big media control. We've got AT&T, we’ve got Disney, we’ve got Viacom, and we’ve got a couple others. A huge conglomerate that controls everything we see.

((Melissa)) Go ahead and jump in here, Stan.

((Stan Statham)) Well, they control all of the media, but you’re wrong again, of course, because as you know, you didn’t force us to put ratings on television programs. There is no law in the United States of America or in this state that requires that. It’s a volunteer ratings system just as it is with the motion picture industry—

((Melissa)) I’m going to jump in here. We’re in our final minute. Unfortunately, we can’t get into everything. In our last few moments, is this going to change, Stan?

((Stan Statham)) Not for a long time. That’s the bad news. The good news is, no problem, it’s the parents’ responsibility. Television has over five hundred channels now. There’s a library. Pick your favorite program. There’s all the good stuff and all the other stuff and all the stuff. It’s a video library.

((Melissa)) Julia, final thought?

((Dr. Julia Reisman)) Stan knows it’s not going to change because these media will blame everybody but themselves for what they, in fact, make a profit on, control, and deliver to the public, and they know that the competition is pushing up the violence and pushing up the sex and that everything else kind of disappears as a result thereof. Anyway, it’s great we were here.

END VIOLENCE IN MEDIA PACKAGE

((Melissa)) Thank you both for joining us. We’d like to know what you think.

Is Television content too violent? What is the best way to protect children? Send us an email to capitolweek dot org or send a letter to the address on your screen.

Here’s a look at what’s coming next week . . . Jack?

(( Jack)) Next week , a look at Proposition 35. Would putting public projects up for competitive bids speed up construction of highways and other infrastructure. Plus . . . Proposition 39, the school bond measure. It’s supposed to help schools, but at what cost to property owners. That’s all for this week. I’m Jack Kavanagh. Thanks for joining us.

((Melissa )) And I’m Melissa Crowley, we’ll see you next time.