Ratings Battle Gets an ‘I’: Irrelevant

Editor’s note: Beginning today, Brian Lowry will write a weekly column analyzing trends and developments in the television industry. TV critic Howard Rosenberg’s column continues on Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

*

Although no one has declared victory lately in the once-heated dispute about imposing content ratings on the television industry, a review of this fall’s lineup suggests the battle is over, and both sides have lost.

As you may recall, the television networks initially resisted the introduction of ratings on 1st Amendment grounds, fearing the labels would lack context and, more significantly, cost them money if skittish advertisers backed away from shows with restrictive designations. Advocacy groups and legislators, meanwhile, argued that parents needed more information to protect their children from seeing inappropriate material.

Under pressure from Congress, which threatened to rake the networks over the coals on regulatory matters, the TV industry capitulated. Always pragmatic about such matters, Rupert Murdoch--whose Fox network has long been considered the most boundary-pushing broadcaster--began waving the flag of surrender first.

Movie-style ratings of TV-G, PG, TV-14 and MA (mature audiences) started appearing in the corner of the screen in January 1997. Advocates were still unsatisfied, prompting most networks to revise the system in October by adding S, V, D and L to certain programs--specifying concerns about sex, violence, dialogue and language.

So why have the advocates lost?

Because in truth, providing parents more information was never the sole point of the content ratings debate; rather, for many the issue centered on the impression that television has pushed the level of what’s acceptable in prime time beyond parameters with which they are comfortable.

Those who object to casual jokes about sexuality, coarse language, acceptance of homosexuality and irreverence toward authority see a liberal TV industry promoting a social agenda as they go about their ostensible mandate of filling time between commercials. For those critics, the ratings barely masked a desire to compel programmers to curb content, turning back the clock to the days of “Bonanza,” “Father Knows Best” and “The Adventures of Ozzie & Harriet.”

L. Brent Bozell III, chairman of the conservative Media Research Center, articulated that view last year, saying the ultimate goal--ratings or not--is to rid the airwaves of shows that promote “filth and pollution in our living rooms.” Is it such a radical notion, he asked, “for the networks to just go back to what they once did and put on good programs?”

In an open letter to the networks, a bipartisan congressional group urged them to voluntarily reinstate “the family viewing hour,” which they said now features “sitcoms and dramas promoting promiscuity and obscene language.” Even when the industry agreed to alter the ratings, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) suggested the action may be insufficient to clean up the “garbage” on television.

The networks have countered by saying it’s naive to expect what worked in the 1950s to do so today. Based on fall’s programs, in fact, they have apparently decided what many have long suspected--namely, that the content issue galvanizes only a tiny but vocal minority, and most viewers don’t really care. With ratings in place, then, the networks can now fairly say not only, “If you don’t like it, turn the channel,” but also add the disclaimer, “And, hey, we warned you.”

Programmers have another rationale for offering more adult programming, based on the premise that the children whom advocates want to shield from permissive fare have already largely abandoned the major networks; instead, many of those kids now watch videos, Nickelodeon, the Cartoon Network and other channels tailored to their interests--an argument, based on data from Nielsen Media Research, that appears to be accurate, if, perhaps, self-defeating.

Broadcasters have thus forged ahead with material in prime time that surely would have raised eyebrows a decade ago.

Take, for example, the new Fox sitcom “Costello,” which features language in its premiere episode that might well cause “NYPD Blue’s” Det. Andy Sipowicz to blush bright red. Scheduled to air at 8:30 p.m. on Sept. 8, the half-hour includes 16 uses of “ass,” “bitch” and “whore,” plus equally creative terms that bring the total of once-objectionable words--especially for that time slot--to roughly one per minute.

*

In similar fashion, Fox’s “That ‘70s Show”--which made its debut Sunday and inspired talk among critics regarding a casual depiction of teens high on marijuana--would probably have spurred less discussion had the network observed past decorum and scheduled the show after 9 p.m. instead of Sundays after “The Simpsons,” which boasts a large following among children and teenagers.

Cultural warriors who lobbied for content ratings will be hard-pressed to gloat about winning that war upon sampling these new programs. The networks have managed to become gradually more permissive without sacrificing support from advertisers, who seem to accept that standards have relaxed (or, depending on one’s point of view, eroded) over the years.

In short, advocates won a political victory that has provided a tool for parents but hasn’t achieved the goal some harbored of changing what’s on TV. Programmers have just as much, and perhaps more, latitude in televising programs sure to outrage many of those who called for the ratings.

So how have the networks lost?

Because their viewership continues to dwindle, and while much of that has to do with the sheer volume of options available, there’s no way to measure how many of those heading elsewhere have done so after being offended by something they saw on broadcast television. While “least objectionable” or “lowest-common denominator” programming seems a dated concept, the idea of “broadcasting” inherently requires walking a fine line when it comes to alienating segments of the public.

In that respect, the networks find themselves caught in an awkward bind. No matter how much racier their programs become, they remain tame relative to what’s shown on cable outlets, especially pay services free to run uncut movies, raunchy comedies and series such as Home Box Office’s almost absurdly graphic prison drama, “Oz.”

*

Existing checks on network programming--including constraints imposed by advertisers and affiliated stations, which don’t want to draw flak in their local communities--still prevent them from competing at that level, even though there’s evidence that a portion of the audience seeks out more provocative fare, turning a show like the foul-mouthed animated series “South Park” into a hit by the Comedy Central channel’s modest ratings expectations.

The bottom line is, programmers have by all outward indications reached a simple conclusion: Most of those wonderful people sitting out there in dimly lit living rooms don’t fret overly much about what’s currently on the air.

The networks could well be right, but that won’t provide much comfort if they can’t entice those jaded viewers to set their remote controls aside long enough to watch them.