While this topic may be a little outdated, I think that it's one that still warrants addressing. The topic is the television rating system If, by now, you haven't noticed those annoying little white boxes in the upper-left corner of your t.v. set, look for them...because they're there.
While the talk of their necessity has been given, I can't help but think that this is just a hollow attempt to appease some complaining members of the public (a group that seems to grown more and more with every passing day).
Let's start with a broad statement: ratings as a whole are virtually useless. If you stop and think about it, they are inexorably linked to the time period and the society determining the ratings. Do you think movies today would have been judged and rated the same had they been around thirty years ago? Thirty years ago, people thought one of the most offensive four-letter words started with 'd' and ended with 'n'. Times have indeed changed.
The rating system is also based entirely on age - as if age is somehow the end-all be-all of maturity. What people are saying with ratings like 'PG-13' is that you may be twelve years and eleven months old but cannot quite handle the content of a certain film by yourself. But wait another month and - poof! - you are somehow automatically mature? It doesn't work that way...and it never will. If I were to sit on whatever committee determines what the ratings are, I'd motion for a totally new system - one based not upon age, but rather upon intelligence. 'PG-13' would be replaced by something like 'IQ-80'... and so on.
It's obvious that ratings work in movie theaters, but there is no real way for these t.v. ratings to be even the slightest bit effective in places like the home. It's easy to enforce something that is privately owned, such as movie theaters; but televisions are found inside individuals' houses and are thus under their control. Each network determines all its shows ratings...not some official organization. So, shows are rated not on how they affect the viewer, but how the network thinks they'll affect the viewer. Some networks are much more lenient than others. Why there's no t.v. ratings standard, like with motion pictures, is beyond me.
Seriously - how many people do you think are going to see that a show is rated a certain way and then decide not to watch it? I realize that the ratings are not really meant to get people to stop watching programs, but this could be a secondary purpose. People are going to watch the shows they like, regardless of a letter or number placed at the top of the screen. They know a good show when they see one, and they'll keep watching it so long as it is on. This is especially true in the area of children, who are always talked about as the prime beneficiaries of these ratings. Kids deserve more credit than we give them; they can tell when a show is good or bad - yet there's this feel that they can't make up their minds. Maybe it's the parents that can't make up their minds.
When it comes to effective deterrence, these ratings have nearly as much ability as the Maytag repairman's basset hound.
Another major fault is that they don't even explain why a certain show warrants a certain rating - they only give obscure content descriptions. Thus, the only way someone can determine what the show really contains is to sit and watch it - but the ratings should have already established that. This all but fails the purpose of the ratings.
The double standard with these ratings is hilarious. You are warned against the content of 'NYPD Blue', but when it comes to the news, you're on your own. And which one - pound for pound - contains the most violence? Well, ok, 'NYPD Blue' wins that one, but only because of Dennis Franz. You know what I mean, though. You can turn on any news show at random and get a lot more bloodshed and violence than you will on any t.v. program. And, of course, no story can be complete without footage to show what happened, entreating the viewer to the story as well as the live action. And yet, with all the explosions, assassinations, drive-bys, and the like there is absolutely no rating standard for the news.
With all these faults, I just can't see why these new ratings have been placed into effect. I know they were called for in part by parents who wanted some help in controlling what their children watch on television. I hate to say it, but in a way they are asking for the opportunity to take less responsibility for their children's viewing habits. A real parent wouldn't rely on the networks as some childhood safety blanket to try to stop their kids from watching certain programming; they'd do it themselves like any self-respecting adult would. This new need for a uniform rating system is just another way people are trying to get the government to solve the problems that they should be taking care of themselves.
The one good thing about these ratings is that they are small and easy to ignore - a habit that I've already embraced, and what most of America will hopefully be doing in the weeks and months to come.
Back to Mike's columns.
Back to Left and Right.