A New Kind of TV Guide

For millions of parents facing a popular culture that bombards their children with violence, vulgarity and sex, the new television ratings system offers hope that they may finally be able to draw a protective circle around their families.

In an era in which many parents feel they have lost control over the influences affecting their children--when, in the words of University of Chicago psychologist Froma Walsh, there is “no safe haven”--the new system suggests they can exercise control, “if not over the whole world, at least over their own homes.”

The separate code letters flagging violence, sex, bad language and innuendo offer practical guideposts for setting family rules, especially for working parents whose latch-key children fend for themselves or who depend on caregivers whose surrogate judgment may differ from their own. Some analysts expect the new ratings to stir some parents to action.

At the same time, however, some experts in child development warn that the new system is likely to have the least impact on those who need protection most: children in weak or damaged families who are most susceptible to the toxic effects of televised sex and violence, especially violence.

“Media violence makes a big difference to children, and the more the children see, there’s a long-term effect of it,” says Yale University psychologist Alan Kazdin, who has done extensive research on the roots of violence in children. But “this is going to fall on non-listening ears for many people . . . and many of the people who need it most are not going to be the ones to be very concerned about it.”

The new system was reluctantly agreed to last week by all the major networks except NBC after intense bargaining with child advocacy groups and members of Congress, who threatened legislative action if voluntary changes were not accepted. In exchange for embracing the new system, which takes effect Oct. 1, broadcasters and cable operators got a de facto moratorium on efforts to legislate new ratings.

The code letters S, V, L and D, denoting sexual situations, violence, coarse language and suggestive dialogue (plus FV for children’s shows with fantasy violence), will be added to the present labels, which rate programs as suitable for viewers of various ages but offer no hint of what might be objectionable about particular programs.

Moreover, starting in February, when all new TV sets must come equipped with V-chips, advocates of the new rating system hope parents will have vastly greater ability to control what their children watch.

The V-chip and its accompanying technology could enable parents to black out all programs that failed to meet their criteria. A code known to the parents would allow them to disable the system and watch any show they choose.

David Walsh, a psychologist and head of the National Center for Media and the Family in Minneapolis, believes great attention must be focused on the yet-to-be-decided technical questions about how the new ratings system will be linked to the V-chip.

“It’s very, very important to leave options open,” he says, because how the technology develops will determine “how useful the system is to parents in making television child-friendly.”

More Parental Control

In theory at least, all this could lead to a great leap forward in the amount of filtering and control exercised by parents; opinion polls show very high levels of public dissatisfaction with present-day viewing fare.

A Pew Research Center survey early this year of parents with children under 18 living at home found that 75% of those questioned believe there is too much violence on television. And 54% expressed “a great deal of concern” about the amount of sex and violence their children are exposed to.

A Yankelovich poll in June reported that 73% of respondents would welcome the sort of expanded, content ratings system that has now been adopted.

But the polls also show a high level of skepticism about the effectiveness of ratings. The Yankelovich poll found that 76% of those questioned did not use the present ratings system at all. And 62% said ratings systems in general would not keep children from seeing inappropriate violent or sexual material.

Interviews with parents this week reflected those crosscurrents. Most parents were concerned about what their children see but doubtful that ratings alone could make much difference. Nor are they of one mind about a host of related issues.

“Kids are exposed to too much at too young of an age,” Gayle Minas of Granada Hills said. “Parents need to have a certain control over their children’s intake of programs.” She sees the new ratings system as a positive move. So much of today’s television, she said, is “just disgusting.”

“At one point,” said James Bell, father of two teenage girls and minister of music at a large Atlanta church, “I was so disgusted with them watching too much television, and the content, that I had the televisions removed from our house. It didn’t last long because the kids had a fit. We put them back in.”

Still, he said, “Some of the stuff on television is extremely disturbing to me. . . . It is not who we are or who we want our children to be.”

Bell is excited about the V-chip: “That’s a wonderful thing to happen. Most parents are working, and they are not in the home a lot of the time. Even if they are in the home they are often distracted by other responsibilities and duties, and they can’t sit there in front of the television and monitor everything that is seen and heard.”

Kim Pou of Miami, 39, who with husband Alfredo has three boys, 13, 11 and 4, believes the ratings will diminish tensions by allowing parents to lay down consistent policies instead of making ad hoc decisions that lead to arguments.

“Often Alejandro is in the middle of something, and I see what it’s about and tell him to turn it off. And of course he doesn’t want to. That’s a problem.”

For Margaret Rasmussen of Minneapolis, mother of a 10-year-old boy, depending on a rating system puts the responsibility in the wrong place. “I guess I just don’t want to rely on other people for that sort of thing,” she said. “It’s more my responsibility than other people’s.”

With so many parents working, said Rene Bryan, a Miami accountant and father of three, a system for labeling programs with potentially objectionable sex and violence “is like putting a sign on the refrigerator: ‘Don’t eat the ice cream.’ ”

Martin Davidson of Chicago, father of 13-year-old George, scorns the whole idea of ratings.

“When does this intrusion stop?” he asked. “It’s almost Orwellian. . . . When do they monitor what we watch? Before a parent becomes a parent, he has values to pass on. I don’t see that watching TV will turn George into a serial killer or a cross dresser. . . . He is made of stronger stuff.”

Violent Behavior

Many researchers, however, say watching large amounts of violent TV is a significant contributing factor in violent and aggressive behavior.

Yale professor Kazdin, a member of a 1993 American Psychological Assn. commission on juvenile violence who treats children with such problems, likens the influence of violent programs to the risk factors in heart disease: No single factor is usually fatal, but the danger rises exponentially as factors accumulate.

Such things as violent conflicts between parents, repeated harsh punishment in the home, parental rejection and lack of supervision are among the leading factors pushing young children toward a lifetime of violent and aggressive behavior, the APA commission and other researchers have concluded. Large doses of violent television can also play a significant role.

“A constant diet of watching aggression on TV, in fact, influences how aggressive a person actually is,” Kazdin said. “The difficulty is, it’s one of many factors and they compound their influence. So, for example, if one is in a home in which there are harsh child-rearing practices, let’s say a lot of spankings . . . and you put that and TV together, those really accumulate.

“If you’re being raised by Mother Teresa and you see a little bit of aggression on TV, it’s not going to do anything. But that’s not what the situation is.”

In the end, however, experts and parents seem to agree that only concerted action by parents and the community as a whole can change what is shown on TV.

“It’s a social issue,” Kazdin said. Society must decide what it wants and what consequences it is willing to accept. “Maybe this is the price of a free country and of a Constitution and of a Bill of Rights.”

* Times staff writer Joe Mozingo in Los Angeles, freelancer Mike Clary in Miami, and researchers John Beckham in Chicago, Anna M. Virtue in Miami and Edith Stanley in Atlanta contributed to this story.