NEW YORK — Don’t kids deserve better than this?After decades of television being vilified far and wide as bad for our children, the Federal Communications Commission last week released a report on TV violence and its impact on kids that reached the not-so-startling conclusion that “action should be taken to address violent programming.”

The report arrives three years after Congress requested it. Such a long gestation means that (based on the FCC’s own figures) the average youngster consumed as much as 4,380 hours of TV in the interim, having been deprived of the FCC’s remedial touch.

But even at this late date, the report doesn’t really have a clue. Indeed, the FCC “passes the buck” (in the words of Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein) by shuttling the problem right back to Congress.

Though stuffed with platitudes, fretfulness and equivocation, the report, at best, rings hollow. At worst, it seems to argue for censorship, using the welfare of children as its cover.

Don’t our kids deserve better?

Commending the FCC for “meaningful guidance,” Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Virginia, promised to review the report as he drafts a bill aimed at shielding children from excessive television violence.

But the report gives little meaningful guidance on how to define “excessively violent programming” in such a way as to clear First Amendment hurdles.

It also leaves unresolved how TV programming deemed violent actually harms kids. It cites research that indicates exposure to violence in the media can increase aggressive behaviour in children, “at least in the short term.” But overall findings are inconclusive.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin “talks about how exposure to violent programming can be harmful to children,” says media activist John Nichols. “Well, a lot of studies say exposure to ANY television can be harmful to children.

“You want the answer? Turn the TV off.”

The five-member commission unanimously adopted the report. Even so, Adelstein expressed deep reservations.

“This report does not deal adequately with the constitutional dimensions of regulating violence content on free over-the-air TV, or subscription-based cable and satellite TV services,” Adelstein declared in his accompanying statement. He went on to say the report “muddies the issues and legal distinctions that the courts have made regarding the ability of the government to intervene in different media formats.”

Nichols, a founder of the media-reform Web site Free Press, takes an even dimmer view of the report’s recommendations:

“They’re so vague, they basically boil down to saying: `Well, you can do something if you want to, and it’s maybe a good idea.”’

But neither the vagueness of those recommendations nor any looming First Amendment pitfalls are likely to give legislators pause.

“When it comes to issues related to what they consider problematic content on television, such as so-called indecency and violence, it’s often a bipartisan affair,” says Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. “Members of both parties will stampede to the floor of Congress to vote to, quote-unquote, clean up television.”

Especially now, with the 2008 races holding sway. Never mind what Rockefeller’s bill may specify. It will likely resound with an irresistible subtext: Children need protection from the bad ol’ TV networks. For any politician angling for votes, siding with the kids is a no-brainer.

But don’t kids deserve a more intelligent debate?

As with the anti-indecency crusade, which is still going strong after Janet Jackson’s 2004 wardrobe malfunction, the mission for anti-violence zealots may not simply be to make the airwaves safe for families and children.

“It’s not a health issue,” contends Jonathan Rintels, executive director of the Center for Creative Voices in Media. “It’s part of the ongoing culture war.”

Judging from the FCC report, legislation against TV violence could mirror anti-indecency measures currently in force.

For example, the report proposes that broadcast programmes deemed “excessively violent” be banned before 10 p.m. This already applies to “indecent” material, however obscure the definition of “indecency” remains (which leaves broadcasters guessing what’s acceptable and what’s not, as they risk fines as high as $500,000 per violation).

Of course, on-demand viewing thanks to conveniences like TiVo recorders and Web sites that stream TV shows make “scheduled airtime” an antiquated notion, pointing up the backwardness with which the government’s media-violence crackdown is being waged.

On the other hand, if the goal is to extend the chill of tacit censorship, well, that strategy can work like a charm, Rintels warns.

High penalties combined with high uncertainty about what constitutes excessive violence could furnish yet another reason “for an executive at a network or a production company to say, `No, let’s go with the safer program: the reality show, the dumb sitcom. Why subject ourselves to potential liability from the government? Who needs that headache?”’

Agreed: The media are guilty of committing offences, even as disputes rage over what they are and how they should be dealt with. But in the meantime, would any parents want their youngster to grow up with free speech being chipped away by government? Don’t children deserve protection from that?