A New Case for the V-Chip, in Littleton’s Wake

The mass murder and suicide by two teenagers in Colorado brought death and terror into our homes--live and in color. Many small children, accustomed to watching midday television, were treated to the horrific tragedy because news departments preempted regularly scheduled programming. Parents, still reeling from their children having been subjected to a midafter-

noon freeway suicide inserted into cartoon shows a year ago, have scrambled to control their children’s psychological damage and terror.

Isn’t there anything we can do to change this situation?

Yes, there is something we could do, but almost certainly we won’t. It involves television ratings and filtering.

You have probably noticed small ratings symbols in the corner of your screen at the start of most shows--shows other than news and sports, that is. These ratings symbols are intended to give parents information about each show so that they can make

informed choices about whether to allow their children to watch. With a filtering device called a V-chip, they can actually program the TV to block out shows with ratings they deem inappropriate.

Brian Lowry (“V-Chip Is on the Horizon, but Does Anyone Still Care?” April 6) points out that consumers have yet to show much enthusiasm for the new technology. But without competing ratings systems that cater to the needs and interests of different types of parents, there is little chance of seeing any enthusiasm.

Unfortunately, there is only one ratings system--the one designed by the television industry--and the Federal Communications Commission has choked off any hope of broadcasting competitive systems. If we are to do anything about the problem of having children watch the mass murders in Colorado, the FCC will have to reverse its course and allow children’s advocates, educators and religious groups to attach their own ratings to television programs, including the news.

Some of the television industry ratings correspond to the content of the program: V for violence; S for sex; L for coarse language; D for suggestive dialogue; FV for fantasy violence (used only with children’s shows). Others correspond to the appropriate age of a viewer: TV-G, TV-PG, TV-14 and TV-MA. There are also a pair of ratings for children’s television--TV-Y (appropriate for all children) and TV-Y7 (designed for children age 7 and above.)

So far, so good. Who, other than a network concerned about losing viewers, could possibly object to this system? (NBC, for example, broadcasts only the age-based ratings.)

At a recent conference at the University of Southern California, we found out that there are several objections, and not just from broadcasters:

* News and sports are not rated at all. As the Colorado school murders show, some of the most violent and disturbing images are on news programs. And the problem extends to regularly scheduled news, as well as special preemptions in the middle of the day. If you want to give your child nightmares, just let him watch the news about Kosovo.

* It appears that broadcasters are not consistently and accurately labeling the content of their shows.

* The television industry adopted its “voluntary” ratings system only after intense pressure from Congress and President Clinton, making the ratings at least partially imposed by government. Those who treasure a free press bristle at anything that resembles governmental tinkering with the content of communications.

* The Federal Communications Commission has made it virtually impossible for any group (other than the television industry) to create and distribute a ratings system that will work with the filtering chips in new television sets. The Christian Coalition, for example, might want to create its own ratings system focusing on religious criteria, attach the ratings to shows and help its followers filter out offensive programming. The League of Women Voters, the NAACP and the Libertarian Party might also want to get into the ratings business, each catering to its own constituency. Further, it is technologically possible to attach ratings to particularly meritorious programming, such as science shows, and have the chip “filter in” all these shows, rather than filter out objectionable fare. But under the FCC’s rules, none of this is possible.

*

All of these objections are right, in part. Most of the bandwidth in the TV signal that has been allocated for transmitting ratings is unused under the current approach. The FCC should allow private groups to apply for the right to utilize the bandwidth to transmit their own ratings; the groups that do so will have every incentive to be accurate and consistent, thereby getting around the problem of self-interested broadcasters failing to attach S and V labels to shows. Some of the private groups will undoubtedly rate the news and sports, but that is all to the good, for it will let concerned parents reduce children’s exposure to tragedies like the one in Colorado.

Those parents who wish to use a particular group’s set of ratings can do so, thereby getting the government out of the business of choosing one, and only one, ratings system. The entire field of ratings would become much more voluntary, as a result. And the ratings would be better tailored to the needs and interests of both parents and children.

Counterpunch is a weekly feature designed to let readers respond to reviews or stories about entertainment and the arts. Please send proposals to: Counterpunch, Calendar, Los Angeles Times, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles CA 90053. Or fax: (213) 237-7630. Or e-mail: Counterpunch@latimes.com. Important: Include full name, address and phone number. Please do not exceed 600 words. We appreciate all proposals and regret that we cannot respond to each.