UpDate - Vol. 13, No. 3, Page 3
September 16, 1993
Hot topics; Faculty share expertise with Congressional committees

     Question: What do television violence, nuclear weapons in the Ukraine
and the organization of FEMA-the U.S. Federal Emergency Management
Agency-have in common?

     Answer:
     A. All three are explosive issues.
     B. All three are potentially disastrous issues.
     C. All three are topics that University of Delaware professors have
recently testified on before congressional committees in Washington, D.C.

     In the last few months, the University has been well-represented by
three experts in three distinct fields, all testifying on issues important
to the country.
     On May 12, Nancy Signorielli, associate professor of communication and
an expert on television violence, testified at a hearing on television
violence and its impact on children held by the House Energy and Commerce
Committee's Subcommittee On Telecommunications and Finance Oversight.
     On May 18, Richard T. Sylves, professor of political science and
international relations, testified on the rebuilding of FEMA before the
U.S. Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. With Sylves were two
students-Jason McNamara, a graduate student in urban affairs who has worked
extensively for the University's Disaster Research Center, and Jennifer
Harkin, an undergraduate international relations honors student.
     On June 24, Yaroslav Bilinsky, professor of political science and
international relations, testified on the effect of U.S. policy on
Ukrainian security before the Subcommittee on European Affairs of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
     Signorielli said she had to prepare her testimony quickly, as she was
asked to participate only one week before the hearing.
     "I was only allotted two minutes to speak, but I was given
considerable latitude in my written testimony. They cut you off when your
time is up, so it's important to have your statement within the time
frame." she said. "There was a question-and-answer session and five or six
people asked me questions. Then I had another minute to sum up.
     "It was very exciting to be a part of the hearing," she said. "I
didn't know until the last minute where it would be held. People do keep
walking in and out during the hearings and it's a little disconcerting. The
members of Congress may be called out to vote and their staff people are
hurrying in and out.
     "I did have the impression that the people I was talking to had
background knowledge of the subject and knew what was going on."
     Bilinsky said he was invited to testify by a member of Delaware U.S.
Sen. Joseph Biden's staff, probably as a result of several letters he has
written to the senator on the issue of nuclear weapons in the Ukraine.
     "I had been in the audience for a number of other congressional
hearings so I knew the procedure from that point of view," Bilinsky said.
"If you don't know the procedure, it can be a little depressing that not
all of the members of the committee are there throughout your testimony.
There were quite a lot of people in the room when the hearing started but
not so many near the end. But you are always assured that your written
testimony will eventually appear in print."
     Sylves said he was glad to have been able to take students along to
see the inner workings of a congressional hearing. Following are highlights
of Signorielli's, Bilinsky's and Sylves' oral testimony.

Violence on TV
     In her testimony on television violence and its impact on children,
Nancy Signorielli, associate professor of communication, drew from her work
with the Cultural Indicators Research Project, which has tracked violence
and other themes on television since l967.
     The studies define violence as any overt act or threat to hurt or kill
a person, including violence that occurs in a realistic and serious context
as well as violence that occurs in a fantasy or humorous context. Idle
threats, verbal abuse or gestures without credible violent consequences are
not included.
     The Violence Index is a measure that uses three sets of observations
to provide a single indicator of violence. The observations measure (1) the
percentage of program containing any violence, (2) the rate of violent
action per program and per hour and (3) the percent of major characters
involved in violence either as perpetrators or victims or both.
     Signorelli told the committee: "The analysis of violence in network
drama, action adventures and situation comedies found that for each year
between l967 and 1989 more than 70 percent of prime-time programs included
some representation of violence, with about five violent actions per
program and a similar number of actions per hour. About half of the major
characters in the programs were involved in some type of violence and about
one in 10 was involved in a killing.
     "Children's programs broadcast between 1976 and 1989 (especially those
broadcast in the '80s) were saturated with violence, much of it comic in
nature. Between 1967 and 1979, violence on children's programming occurred
at a rate of 18.6 acts of violence per hour. After l980, however, the rate
of violent action increased to 26.4 times per hour. These programs have
roughly five times as many violent actions as those in prime time."
     Signorielli said a study of cable-originated and broadcast network
programming, sampled in the fall of 1990 and 1991 by media expert George
Gerbner, found cable-originated children's programs had substantially less
violence than children's programs broadcast on the networks, although
general cable programming (non-child-oriented) was more violent than
similar programs broadcast on the networks.
     Signorielli told the committee: "Preliminary analysis of a week of all
prime-time network programming broadcast on ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox in
February 1993 shows that violence appeared in 63.3 percent of the programs,
at a rate of 4.2 acts of violence per program and 5.0 acts of violence per
hour.
     "The latest study also revealed that there was considerably more
violence shown in the early evening hour (before 9 p.m., EST) and that
violence appeared in 71 percent of the early evening programs compared to
only 56 percent of the late evening hours."
     Television sets in the average American home are turned on for seven
hours each day, Signorielli said.
     "Essentially, for the past quarter of a century, each evening, the
American public-adults and children alike-has been entertained by about 16
violent acts, including two murders. In addition, children are exposed to
more than 20 acts of violence during each hour of viewing on Saturday and
Sunday mornings.
     "Television violence is antiseptic with few real consequences, little
pain and even less blood. Who calls for help? Who lives with the tragic
consequences of a fist fight, gunshot wound or a very serious accident?
Dramatic violence is a quick and easy solution to any number of problems,
all of which are solved, usually to everyone's satisfaction and often
happily, typically within an hour.
     "More importantly, the increasingly popular and cheap-to-produce genre
of reality programming provides violent images in the true spirit of
voyeurism. Today, when violence occurs, those on-scene are more likely to
run to find their camcorders and start videotaping than to offer assistance
or run to the telephone to find help.
     "Studies have demonstrated that exposure to violent programming may
desensitize and lead to imitation of certain violent actions. Studies have
also found that children who watch violent programming may behave in
aggressive ways."
     She concluded her testimony by saying, "I would like to see violence
reduced on television, and particularly in programs designed for children
but such change cannot be achieved through censorship, legislation or
outright bans. Rather, we have to examine the global marketing strategies
that may be at the root of the problem. Violence is a staple in programming
because it is easily understood: it transcends language; it travels. We
need to free our creative talent from the constraints of formula-driven
programming....We must become a media-literate society."

Ukrainian security
     When Yaroslav Bilinsky testified recently before the U.S. Senate's
Committee on Foreign Relations' Subcommittee on European Affairs, the
subject was U.S. policy on Ukrainian security. Highlights of his testimony
are presented here:
     "Two nations have the greatest moral right to possess nuclear weapons:
Israel and Ukraine. The leaders of Israel have wisely decided that one
Holocaust was enough.
     "Ukraine is the victim of Stalin's genocide and of cultural genocide
under Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev. Over 5 million Ukrainian
peasants, one quarter of Ukraine's rural population, were killed in the
terror-famine of 1932-33. In addition, Stalin ordered over 2 million
Ukrainian intellectuals, workers and peasants killed in the Great Terror of
the l930s.
     "Under Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev, millions of Ukrainians were
lost to Russification-the equivalent of cultural genocide.
     "But for the grace of God, the people of Ukraine, with their
1,000-year-old history, would have been wiped off the map. No nation in
the world can deny Ukraine's moral right to keep nuclear weapons to prevent
another genocide. Least of all the Russians who-albeit indirectly-have
profited from the physical and cultural genocide of Ukrainians.
     "Secondly, as one of the successor states of the Soviet Union,
recognized as such in the Lisbon Protocol of May 23, 1992, Ukraine has the
legal right either to keep or to give up all or a part of its nuclear
arsenal.
     "The nuclear weapons deployed in Ukraine have been inherited from the
now-defunct USSR. They are the property of Ukraine and it is up to the
Parliament of Ukraine, nobody else, to dispose of those weapons in the best
interest of the people of Ukraine.
     "At the same time, the Parliament and the government of Ukraine know
that they have certain responsibilities toward the United States, and I am
sure that they will fulfill those responsibilities.
     "The long and short of my testimony here is that Ukraine does not want
to become another Bosnia. Ukraine does not want tea and sympathy-and a
tombstone! From the United States and the so-called world community,
Ukraine expects fairness and a greater understanding of its legitimate
security needs. "In return for this, Ukraine will do more than its share to
maintain a balance of power in Europe and the world. Don't forget that it
was the Independence Referendum in Ukraine, Dec. 1, 1991, that precipitated
the downfall of the old Soviet Union Dec. 8, 1991."

Fixing up FEMA
     In his verbal testimony before the U.S. Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee, Richard T. Sylves, professor of political science and
international relations and a long-time disaster policy and emergency
management researcher, spoke on political and organizational imperatives
for the rebuilding of FEMA, the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency.
     This governmental agency is a key component of the country's emergency
management and disaster preparedness policy. Highlights of his testimony
follow:
     "FEMA is the federal organizational embodiment of U.S. emergency
management. If it were dismantled or broken up into pieces, shuffled off to
other executive agencies, this would be a monumental setback to the
continuing growth of public and private disaster expertise. State and local
emergency management agencies might suffer a similar fate. FEMA needs
reforms, not dissolution.
     "Since its formation in 1979, FEMA has suffered from periods of poor
leadership, some embarrassing political appointee behavior and a poor
public image stemming from slow, disorganized and sometimes incompetent
response to disaster. It has maintained a military and civil defense
preoccupation that has not served the agency, the government or the
American public well. Moreover, FEMA officials continue to evade any first
responder disaster roles claiming to be only a disaster recovery agency.
FEMA really needs to become a capable civilian federal disaster agency that
can quickly marshal the resources to augment state and local first
responder operations. It does not have to become a federal 911, but it must
do more to help disaster victims in the response stage, otherwise the
public will never hold FEMA in high regard.
     "FEMA needs genuine authority to direct federal disaster response and
recovery operations, and it needs a presence on a civilian basis in the
Executive Office of the President. It also needs a director who is trusted
by the president to assume a lead federal role in disasters....
     "President Clinton has proposed an ambitious program of national
service under which students seeking college funding may secure federal
financial support in exchange for one or two years of voluntary service. As
this legislation is developed, I think lawmakers should include a role for
FEMA. What I propose is that FEMA be given the capacity to train a fraction
of the pool of national service volunteers....
     "...When a presidential disaster declaration is issued, a group of
these national service people would be sent to the damaged area. Each
citizen advocate would be assigned to help perhaps no more than five
families and/or small businesses. Knowing the range of government disaster
assistance programs and armed with FEMA manuals, disaster-assistance
application forms, relevant officials' phone numbers, and other needed
materials, these advocates would be a new form of FEMA outreach after a
disaster....
     "Another way to make FEMA both more effective and user-friendly is to
demilitarize it. The agency's responsibilities for nuclear war civil
defense preparedness, continuity of government and civil defense emergency
communications give it the character of an intelligence agency, not a
public service organization....
     "Retaining these operations within FEMA keeps the agency on the
periphery of emergency management as it is conducted by modern
professionals....My view is that FEMA should no longer be forced under law
to employ the dual use concept of reconciling preparedness for non-war
disasters and emergencies with civil defense against nuclear attack."
     Other points in Sylves' testimony included:
     "The U.S. suffers the highest fire losses among industrialized
nations, but FEMA has regularly cut back fire and training funds. At the
same time, relatively large sums of FEMA money are directed to war-related
national security operations....
     "FEMA gets high marks for promoting emergency planning, but modest to
low grades for its participation in the exercises and drills it induces
state and local authorities to conduct. Too often, major state and local
drills for a disaster involve all key officials except those of FEMA....If
the modeled disaster were genuine, conceivably hundreds of FEMA people
might show up, but state and local officials have little idea what to
expect from FEMA when the agency ignores test exercises....
     "(In conclusion) FEMA needs a consolidation of its funding, an end to
managerial disarray, a termination of its now out-dated civil
defense/nuclear attack mission and an overhaul of its research and training
programs so that each better reflects state-of-the-art emergency
management....It should continue to advance integrated emergency management
and the Incident Command System to state and local officials. FEMA, like
comedian Rodney Dangerfield, deserves more respect but it must adapt in
order to earn that respect."
                                        -Beth Thomas