Execs Oppose Net News Content Ratings
Dealing a setback to the White House and other proponents of Internet rating schemes, leading news organizations decided Thursday to oppose any efforts to rate the suitability of the pictures or stories they post on the worldwide computer network.
The decision, reached during a meeting in New York of representatives from some of the nation’s largest media organizations, could complicate the intensifying search for ways to give parents, educators and others greater control over the kind of material children encounter on the Net.
But the group failed to provide a clear direction on what many expect will emerge as a crucial issue: whether news sites on the Internet might be placed in a separate category exempt from ratings systems, and who should decide which sites qualify for such a “news” designation.
Participants at the meeting said the consensus was that decisions about the suitability of news content should be left to individuals and that efforts to grade Web pages in such categories as violence and language border uncomfortably on censorship.
“We have great faith in readers to know what’s worth reading and what’s not, and not have those decisions made by somebody else,” said Daniel Okrent, editor of new media at Time Inc. and a participant in the meeting.
Representatives from the Los Angeles Times’ parent Times Mirror Co., the New York Times, ABC News and others also attended the meeting, which was called by the Internet Content Coalition, an industry group.
The meeting is the latest example of society’s ongoing attempts to come to grips with the promise and perils of the booming Internet. After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a government attempt to outlaw illicit material on the Internet earlier this year, the Clinton administration and others began pushing the industry to devise a solution of its own.
A number of software companies have sprung up offering programs that block sites containing profanity, illicit pictures or other objectionable content. But these programs have been criticized for blocking sites about breast cancer or AIDS treatment or even controversial political groups.
Microsoft Corp. threw its considerable weight behind an effort to have Web sites rate their content much the way movies are rated. The company’s Internet browser includes a feature that allows users to block or access sites according to their ratings.
But the approach creates problems for online news services. A graphic picture of a war victim might be given a high violence rating, for example, forcing news organizations to decide between its commitment to news and its ability to reach a mass audience.
To avoid triggering filters, “the editor might not use the picture they should have used, the picture that tells the truth,” Okrent said.
That problem led to proposals that news sites be placed in a category exempt from ratings systems. But that created a new list of problems.
Many journalists shudder at the notion of having a group of elite media companies decide which sites offer legitimate news. But if sites are allowed to designate themselves, cheating could make filtering software useless.
As one participant said, “What’s to stop ‘S&M; Monthly’ from calling itself news?”
The subject of creating a news category came up at Thursday’s meeting--but participants came away with starkly different interpretations about what conclusions the group reached.
Neil Budde, editor of the Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition, said he believes the group’s rejection of Internet rating systems encompasses proposals for a so-called news label as well.
“Part of what’s implicit in this statement is that the whole use of a filter to prevent access to content is something the news industry can’t support,” Budde said.
But others, including Jim Kinsella, general manager of MSNBC online, said the issue of establishing a news label was not covered in the resolution and remains unresolved.
