Television rating system attacked by lawmakers, advocacy groups

Monday, March 10, 1997

MEDIA:

Many critics call for content-based instead of age-based
warningsBy Jennifer Mukai

Daily Bruin Contributor

You’ve seen them at the movies for years ­ G, PG, PG-13, R,
NC-17, X. Now these age-based film industry rating codes have been
adapted for television, to help guide parents in finding suitable
television programming for their children.

The federal Telecommunications Act signed into law in February
1996 included, among other items, a mandate for the TV industry to
develop its own rating system. If the industry failed to do so by
February 1997, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could
step in and appoint an independent committee to create one, though
the government could not require its use.

The TV industry did develop its own rating system, implemented
widely in January of this year. Within weeks, the new system drew
heavy criticism from the National PTA, child advocacy groups like
Children Now and both Democratic and Republican members of
Congress.

Critics complained that basing the ratings on age groups does
not give parents enough information about the type, amount and
intensity of violence, adult language or sex in each show. Some
said that because of this, they find the current rating codes
misleading, citing sitcoms such as CBS’s "Ink" and NBC’s "Suddenly
Susan" as examples of shows designated TV-PG while containing
sexual innuendo and double entendres.

Those advocacy groups are now pushing for a content-based system
to replace the existing age-based system, insisting that more
accurate description of shows is necessary.

But attempting a content-based system would simply open "a whole
other can of worms," said UCLA communications professor Michael
Suman.

"If a show is PG, but ‘with sex’ in it ­ what type of sex
is it? (Actual) sex, innuendo, someone throwing around double
entendres? … Just how much (description) are you going to write
down there?" he asked.

A content-based rating system also presents the problem of how
to take the context of adult material into account, Suman added.
Citing Steven Spielberg’s "Schindler’s List" as an example, he
pointed out that a program may contain violence in order to send
out an important anti-violence message.

The Holocaust film, which aired on NBC on Feb. 21, was the first
network presentation under the TV industry’s rating system to
receive a "TV-M" label ­ "for mature audiences only."

The importance of the context of program content was also
emphasized by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) last year
in its argument against the "V-chip," an electronic censor for
parents, which is supposed to be built into new television sets by
February 1998, under the Telecommunications Act.

The V-chip is to be used in conjunction with the TV industry’s
rating system, automatically blocking programs that receive certain
ratings. The ACLU strongly opposed the legislation requiring the
development of the V-chip, saying that it would actually "empower
bureaucrats and television executives to make decisions for
parents."

This complaint stemmed partially from the fact that the TV
industry’s ratings are determined by the industry itself. While the
Motion Picture Association of America’s (MPAA) ratings are applied
to films by an independent panel, the TV ratings are assigned to
network shows by their respective distributors ­ usually the
networks or syndicators. The movie industry’s method is generally
considered unfeasible for television, given the tremendously larger
numbers of programs that must be rated each day.

Professor Tim Collings of Simon Fraser University in British
Columbia, has been developing the V-chip since 1991. He emphasized
that the V-chip is meant only as a first line of defense, for
children who might be watching TV unattended.

"Context (of a program’s content) is important," he
acknowledged, "but it’s difficult for young children to understand
context."

Besides, he added, "There’s no reason you can’t make exceptions
for certain programs, regardless of rating. But I think it’s
entirely appropriate for parents to watch shows with their
children. So, context is not really a valid argument (against the
V-chip). You don’t want the ratings explaining context to your
children, you want you explaining context."

On the TV industry’s rating system as a whole, Collings said he
felt it provided inadequate information. He attributed this to
broadcasters’ fears of how more detailed ratings may affect
viewership, as well as fear of how sponsors might react.

"I don’t believe it really has anything to do with complexity,"
he said, referring to the TV industry’s argument that a
content-based rating system would be too complex to be of practical
use to viewers.

He pointed out that the Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission (similar to the U.S. FCC) has tested
a system combining quantified ratings ­ on a scale of zero to
three ­ for violence, language and sex, and an overall
age-based rating, with positive results. According to Collings,
this test was one of a series of four that have been conducted in
five cities across Canada since 1994.

The Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on Feb. 27 to
evaluate the effectiveness of the new rating system. There, both
the current television rating system and the content of shows today
came under violent attack by several legislators.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) said
he intends to introduce legislation requiring content-based
ratings, calling the current system "incomprehensible, confusing or
deceptive ­ take your pick. The (television) industry has
ignored the American public."

Professor Jeff Cole, director of the UCLA Center for
Communication Policy, said the problem with the current rating
system clearly lies in its application, rather than in the system
itself.

"Pressure needs to be put on those who apply the ratings," he
said. "In Congress, they seem to be using this misapplication to
indict the whole system, and that I don’t necessarily agree
with."

Jack Valenti, president of the MPAA and chair of the committee
which designed the current rating system, has stood firmly by his
creation, arguing that it needs more time to be fairly evaluated.
In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, he said that the
industry is not considering any major changes to the current
system.

Howard Suber, a UCLA professor of film and television studies,
disagreed, predicting that there eventually would be major
changes.

"The TV industry will fiddle with (the current rating system),
but won’t make any substantive changes until the pressure builds
up. When it looks like a serious threat of Congress stepping in,
then they’ll throw out the whole system and start over with
something new," he said.

Suber added that it was worth noting Valenti’s association with
the movie industry. Valenti also presided over the creation of the
MPAA ratings in the ’60s.

So it was only natural that Valenti would choose to model the
new TV rating system on that of the movie industry, Suber said.
But, he continued, Valenti failed to take account of the fact that
there are differences between television audiences and movie
audiences.

Since children have to be taken to movies, parents read reviews
and have a fair idea of what will be on the screen before they walk
into the theater, he explained. But in the home, viewers are
"essentially a virgin audience when they turn on the TV. They’re
there for the flow of programs … idly looking for something to
catch their attention."

Furthermore, Suber said, "TV characteristically is not reviewed
in advance. And therefore, you have inadequate information about
what’s showing on television as opposed to what’s showing in the
movie theater."

Fourth-year biochemistry student Amanda Loka said she thought
the current age-based system should be enough. The ratings should
serve as a tool to alert parents about the suitability of shows,
not make choices for them, she explained.

"Parents should know what’s roughly suitable for their kids …
so long as they don’t leave them alone with the remote control and
cable," she said. "How much can you protect your kids?"

Fourth-year economics student Brent Yeh agreed that
responsibility for what children watch really belongs to the
parents.

"Children need parents to educate them on what’s moral and
what’s not, so they already have a basis for what to do, what to
decide," he said. He added that the education provided by his own
parents has had a large impact on him.

"They taught me what their standards of what good or bad was. So
when I come into contact with these things in the media, it doesn’t
interest me," he said.

Then again, Yeh noted with a laugh, he’s known as "the reverend"
among friends.

The FCC is currently reviewing the television industry’s rating
system, and must ultimately either approve it or appoint the
independent panel to redesign it.

According to Cole, FCC Chairman Reed Hundt wanted to hold public
hearings this month on the issue, but was unable to get a majority
agreement from the rest of the commission to do so. However,
written comments from the public are being accepted at this time.
Public hearings may yet be held in April or May, Cole added.