RATING WARS

By Richard Zoglin

It all seemed so simple and congenial, like the cozy wrap-up to an episode of Home Improvement. Faced with a growing outcry against violence on television, some 30 top TV-industry executives convened at a White House summit last February and vowed to take action. They promised to devise a rating system for TV shows that would alert parents to programs containing high levels of violence, sex or rough language. With these ratings as a guide, parents could lock out objectionable shows by using the V chip, a device mandated in this year's Telecommunications Act and scheduled to be installed in new TV sets starting in 1998.

But last week reality--and a major ruckus--set in. Once again battle lines were drawn, with parents and other child advocates on one side and a phalanx of TV executives on the other. Poll data were cited, lawsuits threatened, rhetoric ratcheted up--much of it coming from Washington politicians, who know that standing up for children against the big bad wolf of television is politically a no-lose proposition--even after an election.

The fight erupted over the TV industry's proposed rating system, the product of nine months of work by a 21-member task force overseen by Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America. The plan, which was still being fine-tuned last week, establishes six broad rating categories. Children's programming would be labeled either TV-Y (for shows acceptable for all ages) or TV-7 (for shows with some violence or other material unsuitable for children under seven). Other fare would be classified as TV-G (for all audiences); TV-PG (parental guidance suggested); TV-14 (not suitable for children under 14); or TV-M (for mature audiences only). The ratings would be made by the producers and distributors of shows, and would be printed in newspaper TV listings so parents could use them as a guide for shielding their kids from rough stuff on the tube.

Sounds tidy, if a little unoriginal, as the proposed ratings vary only slightly from the well-known M.P.A.A. ratings (G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17) affixed to theatrical movies. What many child advocates object to is that the ratings would not specify the content that makes a show potentially objectionable. The advocates were hoping for a system closer to one being tested in Canada that rates shows, on a sliding scale of 1 to 6, in each of three areas: violence, sex and language.

"Rather than having Hollywood judge the content that is appropriate for children of the same age across the country," says Vicky Rideout of Children Now, an advocacy group based in Oakland, California, "tell parents what's in the show and let them decide what is appropriate for their kids to see." Dr. Marjorie Hogan of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which was a consultant to the Valenti panel but opposes the new system, says, "I'm a parent of four, and what I really want when I look at a movie or a television program is to know what the content is. Is there sexuality? Is there violent content? A rating of TV-PG doesn't give me that information." In a survey released by the Media Studies Center, 79% of the parents polled said they preferred a system that specifies the objectionable content to a general one giving only age limits.

The sizable cadre of TV watchdogs in Washington were once again roused to chastise the industry for shirking its responsibilities. Representative James Moran, a Virginia Democrat, said the TV industry has "reneged on its pledge" to create a useful rating system "and has instead proposed a toothless system that tells parents nothing about whether a show contains violence, sexual content or profanity." Representative Edward Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who was the V chip's initial backer in Congress, objects to giving the rating responsibility to the people who produce and distribute shows. "If you look up conflict of interest in the dictionary," he says, "you will see that it is defined as letting TV producers rate their own shows."

The brouhaha served only to rile Valenti, who fiercely defended the rating system at a press conference and vowed not to change it under pressure. "I can certify to you right now we will not use any other TV-ratings guidelines," he said. Any government effort to impose another system, he added, would be an unconstitutional infringement of broadcasters' First Amendment rights and would be met by a lawsuit "in a nanosecond." In his Friday press conference, President Clinton expressed cautious support for the new ratings and urged that they be given a trial period of 10 months. "This must be an industry-based thing," he said. "The government should not be involved in this."

Those who favor the new system defend it on several grounds. A more complicated rating method would be too difficult to understand and use, they contend. "The trade-off is simplicity versus complexity," says Martin Franks, a senior vice president at CBS and a member of Valenti's committee. "Our focus groups say parents want a brighter line. They already know the M.P.A.A. codes. What they need is a simple reminder system that ties into the V chip to block programming out of the home."

As for having the shows rated by their producers and distributors, backers of the system say it's the only practical way of dealing with such a huge volume of material. And with hundreds of different people doing the rating, the more complicated the categories, the less chance for consistency across the board. "A Canadian-type system would be the kiss of death," says Dick Wolf, creator of Law & Order and New York Undercover. "An age-based system can reach a greater consensus than a subjective evaluation of content."

Another consideration: more detailed ratings might be too cumbersome to be listed widely in newspaper program grids, which would defeat their purpose. In a letter to Valenti, the Newspaper Association of America has urged "brevity and simplicity" in the ratings so that they will be more likely to be carried in program listings. Steven Reddicliffe, editor in chief of TV Guide, says the magazine supports Valenti's system because it is "quickly readable and graspable. Breaking it down even further can really confuse people."

But will a simple system do the job? Just as in movies, most prime-time television shows will probably fall into the large middle ground--particularly the PG rating, which might well include everything from Boy Meets World to a racy episode of Seinfeld. In truth, the system seems motivated less by an urge for simplicity and more by a desire to avoid the red-flag V rating, which would probably scare off many advertisers--and, once the V chip comes into operation, erode the ratings of violent shows. "I think the industry has gone out of its way to develop a rating system that will not tell parents whether there is violence in a program," says Kathryn Montgomery, president of the Center for Media Education.

Whatever the categories, any rating system will leave plenty of loopholes. News and sports programming--most of it live--will not be rated. MTV won't rate individual music videos, only whole program blocks. Finally, no matter how simple or complex the ratings, they won't do any good unless parents pay attention and use them.

--Reported by Melissa August/Washington, Jacqueline Savaiano/Los Angeles, Gavin Scott/Ottawa and William Tynan/New York

With reporting by MELISSA AUGUST/WASHINGTON, JACQUELINE SAVAIANO/LOS ANGELES, GAVIN SCOTT/OTTAWA AND WILLIAM TYNAN/NEW YORK