Kaiser Family Foundation: Number of Sexual Scenes on TV Nearly Double Since 1998

Here is the press release from the Kaiser Family Foundation:

Washington, D.C. — The number of sexual scenes on television has nearly doubled since 1998, according to Sex on TV 4, a biennial study released today by the Kaiser Family Foundation. And while the inclusion of references to “safer sex” issues — such as waiting to have sex, using protection, or possible consequences of unprotected sex — has also increased since 1998, that rate has leveled off in recent years. The study examined a representative sample of more than 1,000 hours of programming including all genres other than daily newscasts, sports events, and children’s shows. All sexual content was measured, including talk about sex and sexual behavior.

The study found that 70% of all shows include some sexual content, and that these shows average 5.0 sexual scenes per hour, compared to 56% and 3.2 scenes per hour respectively in 1998, and 64% and 4.4 scenes per hour in 2002. These increases combined represent nearly twice as many scenes of sexual content on TV since 1998 (going from 1,930 to 3,780 scenes in the program sample totaling a 96% increase between 1998 and 2005). But despite these overall increases in sexual content, the number of shows in which sexual intercourse is either depicted or strongly implied is down slightly in recent years (7% in 1998, 14% in 2002, and 11% in 2005).

Among shows with any sexual content, 14% include at least one scene with a reference to sexual risks or responsibilities — up from 9% in 1998, but approximately the same rate as in 2002 (15%). In shows with intercourse-related content, more than one in four (27%) includes a reference to sexual risks or responsibilities. This is nearly double the rate found in 1998 (14%), but approximately the same as in 2002 (26%).

“Given how high the stakes are, the messages TV sends teens about sex are important,” said Vicky Rideout, a Kaiser Family Foundation Vice President who oversaw the study. “Television has the power to bring issues of sexual risk and responsibility to life in a way that no sex ed class or public health brochure really can.”

“The increase in the number of TV shows with sexual content, combined with the increase in sexual scenes per show has led to a dramatic overall increase in sexual content on TV since 1998,” said Dale Kunkel, lead researcher on the study and University of Arizona professor. “During the same period, the percentage of these shows that include ‘safer sex’ messages has also increased significantly, but has leveled off in recent years.”

Additional findings:

Sexual Content on TV

  • Among the top 20 most watched shows by teens, 70% include sexual content, and nearly half (45%) include sexual behavior.
  • During prime time hours sex is even more common with nearly 8 in 10 (77%) shows including sexual content, averaging 5.9 sexual scenes per hour.
  • Two-thirds (68%) of all shows include talk about sex and 35% of all shows include sexual behaviors.
  • Reality shows are the only genre of programming in which less than two-thirds (28%) of shows include sexual content.
  • The percentage of shows with sexual content by genre includes movies 92%, sitcoms 87%, drama series 87%, and soap operas 85%.

Safer Sex Messages

  • Two-thirds of all references to sexual risks or responsibilities on TV are “minor or inconsequential,” compared to one-third that are “substantial” or “primary” elements of the scene. Since the first study was conducted in 1998 this ratio has remained consistent.
  • One in nine (11%) network prime time shows with sex include a reference to risks or responsibilities. This rate in prime time has held relatively steady over the years — 11% in 1998 and 13% in 2002.
  • Among the 20 most highly rated shows for teen viewers, 10% of those with sexual content include a reference to sexual risks or responsibilities at some point in the episode.
  • “Over the past seven years, more and more Hollywood writers have incorporated health messages into their programming,” said Vicky Rideout. “But the potential is there to do much more.”

Sexual Intercourse

  • The vast majority (89%) of characters on TV involved in sexual intercourse appear to be adults age 25 or older. One in ten (10%) appear to be teens or young adults, down from one in four (26%) in 1998 and one in six (17%) in 2002.
  • About half of all scenes with intercourse (53%) involve characters who have an established relationship with one another. Fifteen percent of scenes present characters having sex when they have just met — up from 7% in 2002.

I think these disappointing and (although it’s politically incorrect to say) shameful statistics speak for themselves. All I have to say is, this is why there are groups like the Parents Television Council. I don’t really think it’s asking too much that broadcasters respect the so-called “family hour” and produce some quality programs the whole family can watch that don’t include 5.9 sexual scenes per hour.

Country Music DJ Bob Grayson Dies

According to Billboard Radio Monitor, local DJ Bob Grayson succumbed to cancer today. He was 60.

In 1998, Bob moved to WXCL Peoria, Ill., for a year and then moved across town to competitor WFYR as OM/PD and morning show host.

Grayson was inducted into the Country Music DJ Hall of Fame in 2000.

Council Roundup: Water Buyout (Again)

At-large Councilman Chuck Grayeb made a motion last night to direct the city manager to find out what other communities in Illinois would be interested in purchasing their water works from Illinois American Water Company. It passed unanimously.

However, IAWC’s parent company, RWE AG of Germany, has said it will sell all of its American water holdings as a unit, not piecemeal. According to the Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader:

Harry Roels, chief executive of RWE, said last week that the company would first try to sell American Water to one buyer. If one buyer cannot be found, RWE will consider spinning off American Water as an independent company through an initial public offering of American Water stock, Roels said.

So, either way, it doesn’t sound like they’re even considering selling off pieces.

Council Roundup: Heart of Peoria Commission Punts

The preliminary site plan for museum square that was proposed at last week’s council meeting was approved by the council tonight with surprisingly little discussion. Van Auken, the most vocal council person tonight (Gary Sandberg was absent), expressed her disappointment that the Heart of Peoria Commission didn’t make a recommendation, but just supplied council with their comments.

I agree with her on this one. The council commissioned these people to look at the site plan and make sure it fit with the Heart of Peoria Plan and the goals of New Urbanism. Did it or didn’t it adequately do that? Do they not know the answer to that question? Are they trying to avoid responsibility? Was it just too much work to write up a recommendation, so they just copied their notes for the council? Were they too busy “appreciating the complexity of the task”?

What they gave the council was a list of eight conditions that would bring the site plan into conformance with the Heart of Peoria Plan. Next to each item, the committee rated how well the site plan met that criterion. The scores were as follows on a scale of 0-24:

1. The axis of Fulton Street must be visually received by the Museum, and the axis must be continuous, either as a street or a pedestrian passage, through the Sears Block from Wasthington Street to Water Street. Score: 7.

2. The Sears Block must contain a mix of uses complimentary to the Museum, specifically retail and residential, in order to enhance of the Sears Block and encourage the vitality Peoria’s efforts to become a city that is active 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Score: 10.

3. The street frontages of the buildings of the Sears Block must be active. Water Street should have the highest level of pedestrian activity; Main and Liberty should provide support in their pedestrian connection between the Downtown and Riverfront; and Washington Street should allow a proper location for service areas while remaining pedestrian-friendly. Significant gaps in the street edge, low-laying structures, service uses and blank walls at the street edge all contribute to hostile environment unsuitable for street life. Score: 9.

4. All parking must be contained within the block in order to remove inactie deck facades from street level frontage. Score: 24.

5. Residential plots for any future private development must provide an attractive footprint size and orientation and allow for efficient layout of requisite parking facilities. Access to both Washington and Water Street is necessary; Washington is a B-grade street that will provide car and service vehicle access, while Water Street is planned to become an A-grade street offering a high quality pedestrian environment. Score: Not Applicable.

6. At a minimum, the height of the building(s) must be the equivalent of two stories in order to relate in scale to the urban fabric of downtown Peoria. Score: 24.

7. All open space must be designed to be complimentary to the urban context of the surrounding buildings and uses. Any natural areas, no matter their size, must be contained within hardscape and must be programmed to remain active during non-business hours while still facilitating the Museum’s needs. Score: 20.

8. The chosen architect of the Museum must be an acknowledged master, appropriate to the scale and importance of this civic site. Score: 24.

Total score: 118 out of 192, or 61%. Does that sound like a ringing endorsement? If you don’t include item 5, which the commission inexplicably rated “not applicable” instead of 0 (is it important or isn’t it?), then the score is 118 out of 168, or 70%.

Now, the Sears block is the crown jewel of downtown Peoria, right? And the Heart of Peoria Plan is supposed to be our blueprint for downtown renewal, right? Do you think 61% compliance with the Heart of Peoria Plan is a good precedent to set for downtown redevelopment?

Let’s call a spade a spade. The Heart of Peoria Commission didn’t do their job. They should have sent this back to the council with a recommendation to deny the site plan and continue working to conform it to the Heart of Peoria Plan. Instead, they’ve tacitly endorsed a site plan that in four out of eight areas identified as the most important design principles is significantly deficient.

In the absense of any recommendation from the Heart of Peoria Commission, the site plan passed unanimously.

Council Roundup: Peoria Disposal Company

Peoria Disposal Company (PDC) wants to expand their landfill in Pottstown, and some Peoria residents aren’t happy about it.  But don’t complain to the city council — it’s a Peoria County decision.

Mayor Ardis explained that PDC was giving tonight’s presentation at his request as a courtesy, but that no discussion or vote would be taken since it’s not in the city’s jurisdiction. 

Brian McGinnis, attorney for PDC, explained that they would be filing the application tomorrow morning to expand the landfill.  Once it’s filed, PDC will not be able to comment publicly on it until a public hearing is held.  That hearing will happen within 90-100 days of filing, probably in February.  So, anyone who wants to speak for or against the expansion should keep an eye out for the public hearing date.

Peoria Disposal Company was founded in 1928 by the Coulter family and has been family owned ever since.  Chris Coulter, Director of Sales and Business Development, touted the company’s 100% compliance with Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) inspections, earning them the Environmental Compliance Award for 12 consecutive years.  He also said that the company wants to expand because they will run out of capacity in early 2009 and they want to continue servicing their current customers.  They don’t expect any increase in annual waste receipts.

Ron Edwards, Vice President of Landfill Operations, tried to allay fears that hazardous waste at the site would infiltrate ground water, surface water, or air quality.  He explained all the treatments and precautions the landfill applies to hazardous waste.  One of the more surprising slides was the one comparing (contrasting, actually) PDC and Love Canal. 

Van Auken, once again, asked the questions on everyone’s mind:  Why are we one of only 16 communities who have this kind of disposal?  Why do other communities not want this kind of disposal in their cities?  Why should Peoria take this risk?

Later, during citizens’ requests to address the council, three people spoke out against the landfill expansion.  Dr. John McClain said his concern is not that PDC is bad company; in fact, he believes they are a good company.  However, there are things that they can’t control: accidents, natural disasters, terrorism.  He concluded, “We are accepting hazardous material that other communities do not want and our safety cannot be guaranteed.”  Of course, the usual objection from the Sierra Club was voiced.  But perhaps the most eloquent opponent of the expansion was Bill Cook who observed, “This expansion is privatizing the benefits and socializing the risks.”  That is, PDC gets all the profits while hundreds of thousands of residents shoulder the risk of potential contamination of our water supply.

Expect a battle on this one.

Received and filed.

Council Roundup: Civic Center Expansion

At tonight’s city council meeting Mr. Dan Silverthorne gave an update on the Civic Center expansion construction and costs.  He’s been reading the papers and wanted to clear up some misconceptions about the changes that were made to keep things within budget. 
 
First he claimed he never had any intention of asking the council for more money, but always planned to stay within budget.  Yeah, right.  Well, I guess we can’t judge his intentions without being cynical, but I do seem to remember Dan Daly quoted in the paper as saying they may need to ask the council for more money.  So maybe Silverthorne is saying he personally never intended to ask for more money, even though other officials did.
 
Silverthorne also said that plans for more parking, a food court, and women’s restrooms are not out of the plan, as reported in the press, just “on hold.”  He believes they will somehow “find a way” to add those things back into the plan sometime over the next 22 months.  I can understand budgets being somewhat fluid, over budget on some items and under on others.  But the expansion was reportedly millions of dollars over budget requiring some major cuts.  I’m not exactly sure where he thinks that money’s going to magically reappear.
 
Councilwoman Van Auken didn’t let Silverthorne off the hook without a good tongue-lashing for cutting the very items that most impact the people who pay those HRA taxes:  food and toilets.  Go get ’em, Barbara.
 
Received and filed.

Peoria Disposal Company presentation could spark controversy

I received an e-mail from a resident who is concerned about Peoria Disposal Company’s planned presentation at the city council meeting tonight.  According to the e-mail, they are going to request tripling the size of the landfill and accepting toxic waste from 15 states.
 
Anyone heard any other information on this?  I checked the city council agenda for this evening and there were no details on this presentation.
 
At a minimum, I expect there to be PDC opponents voicing their opinions during the citizens’ requests to address the council.

Water buyout proponents look at regional model

The Journal Star reports that water buyout proponent Chuck Grayeb will ask the city manager at tonight’s council meeting to see if other communities would be interested in partnering with Peoria to purchase part of Illinois American Water Company from RWE AG.  Expect this request to sail through easily.
 
I wonder how far Grayeb has thought this through.  There are cerainly advantages to a regional model like he’s proposing.  Potentially, it could give the region more leverage in negotiating with RWE.  It would also give partnering cities the ability to spread out the costs of infrastructure improvements.  However, this raises some questions, too.  How would rates be set under a regional scenario?  How would a water management company be chosen?  What recourse would customers/voters have if they’re dissatisfied with their service?  (Water buyout proponents have long held that customers could simply vote council members out of office if they’re unhappy with water rates; under a regional system, it doesn’t appear that kind of recourse would be effective.)
 
Finally, and this is no small consideration, can the city of Peoria get along with other cities in a regional partnership?  Right now, the city is at odds with the county over $200,000 in booking fees for prisoners.  Imagine the contention over a $200 million asset for Peoria alone, determining how to spread out the costs of infrastructure improvements, and setting rates for the communities.
 
As city officials say, it doesn’t hurt (or cost anything) to gauge the interest of other communities.  But while they’re gauging interest, they should start considering some of these issues as well.

Something to watch

The mayor of Lexington, Ky., Teresa Isaac, will be heading a committee that will put together an offer to buy Lexington’s water works from RWE AG of Germany according to the Lexington Herald-Leader.  RWE AG is the parent company of both Lexington’s water company and Peoria’s.  I can’t help but wonder if Peoria buyout advocates are plotting to do the same thing here.  I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that PAAG and others were already working on it.  If Lexington manages to put together an offer that RWE accepts, then I’m positive Peoria will try it, too. 

School board delays facilities vote

As WEEK predicted, the Peoria District 150 School Board voted unanimously to defer a vote on the closure of eleven school buildings and construction of six new buildings until the next scheduled meeting because board member Garrie Allen was not present due to illness.  The next scheduled board meeting is November 21.