Thursday, May 23, 1996
Researchers disagree on possible effects of system’s creationBy
Jason Packman
Daily Bruin Contributor
What is more violent, "NYPD Blue" or the newest children’s
program, "Power Rangers Zeo"?
Soon, audiences won’t have to figure that out for themselves.
With the passage of the Telecommunications Bill in February, the
networks are now mandated to come up with a set of ratings to work
in conjunction with the violence chip, a device that allows people
to block programs that are too violent or sexual from their
television, as decided on by a ratings system.
Currently, the broadcast industry is working with the Motion
Pictures Association of America (MPAA), which oversees film
ratings, to help set up a ratings system for network
television.
"The MPAA is leading the effort to define the ratings," said
Professor Jeffrey Cole, director of the UCLA Center for
Communication Policy. "It is unclear whether the MPAA will do much
more than help develop the ratings."
Cole said that while the networks are not committed to using the
MPAA ratings system, the familiarity of the public with the MPAA
ratings would be an advantage of using it.
"These are the issues they are looking at, whether they can use
the exact MPAA (ratings)," he said. "There is some argument that
you may need a rating between G and PG; maybe there is something
not appropriate for a kid under six."
All television shows are affected by this, even those on cable
 including premium channels such as HBO or Showtime.
"They can use the actual theater ratings (for feature films)
unless they alter the program in some way. They will now have to
rate the programs they now make themselves," Cole said.
Proponents of a ratings system hope that parents will be able to
block programs of certain ratings, from their television sets.
"You can program your V-chip so that the TV in your kid’s room
is not going to receive anything higher than a PG," Cole said.
Vicky Rideout, who runs the children and the media program for
Children Now, said that the V-chip and the ratings that will go
with it will help parents figure out what is best for their
children.
"It is a way to give parents more information about the content
of what their kids are watching and it empowers parents to make
choices about what their kids will see," she said.
Rideout claimed that the invention of the V-chip gave momentum
to the idea of developing a ratings system.
"No one really thought of this technology before this professor
in Canada came up with it a couple of years ago," she said.
The V-chip was invented by Tim Collings, an engineering
professor at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia.
"I started working on it in 1991 but I started thinking about it
in earnest after a massacre that took place in Montreal in 1989,"
Collings said. "After that, there were numerous media stories
talking about TV violence, studies, censorship, etc. I got to
thinking about it and felt that there was room for a technological
solution."
The V-chip uses a technology similar to that used in closed
captioning.
"The V-chip technology is very similar, but no one had thought
about using the technology for program blocking," Collings
said.
Cole said that the motivation behind the current push for
content ratings has been largely political.
"The real reason is that 1996 is a presidential election year,"
he said. "You can attack television with almost no one to defend
it."
However, a diverse group of organizations ranging from the
Christian Coalition to the ACLU are opposed to the V-chip.
David Horowitz, who runs the Center for the Study of Popular
Culture, explained why he is very opposed to the V-chip and content
ratings.
"It is unworkable and politically motivated," Horowitz said.
"There is obviously no relation to TV violence and actual violence.
The people in Westwood watch the same TV as people in South
Central, and there is no comparison in crime rates.
"It is the worst, most heavy handed government intervention in
the media in my lifetime, including the whole McCarthy period," he
added.
He also stated that he was against ratings because they might
cause even more violence than what is now on television.
"As long as you are going to get a V rating and a smaller
audience, let’s show them some real violence to try to maximize the
audience that we have," he said. "If you get an R rating for using
the F-word once, then why not use it 100 times? Or one person dead,
why not blow up 100 people?"
Cole disagreed, arguing that a ratings system would not lead to
an increase in violence.
"Now, film producers don’t make NC-17 movies because they know a
lot of people won’t see them and they won’t get advertised in
newspapers or television and it has a stigma. You may have the same
thing happen (on television)," he said.
Rideout said she had no problem with the ratings system giving
more freedom to shows aimed at adults.
"I think that programming that is designed for adults should
have more latitude than other programs," she said. "That wouldn’t
be a bad effect to me if a program that is on later stops having so
much pressure from advertisers or whoever."
Her main concern was for shows that are on at times that
children watch television.
"My hope is that we realize that a lot of shows that are on in
the early family hours, the so-called ‘family hour,’ are really
inappropriate for kids," she said.
She was especially concerned about violence in children’s
programming
"The (UCLA Television Violence Monitoring Report) really pointed
that out that one of the worse areas of violence on television is
children’s programs. They talk about the sinister combat violence,"
she said. "If that starts getting labeled by ratings, I think that
you will see some change."
Horowitz, however, dismissed university studies that linked
violence in the media to actual violence as showing "what a sad
shape that our universities are in." He also question where the
government would limit its involvement in television content.
"The reason that this is so ominous is that if you let this
principle stand," he said. "Now this president or the next
president can say, ‘OK, television is being insensitive to
non-smokers.’ The list could be endless They could be insensitive
to pro-lifers, insensitive to pro-choicers.
"We will get a S-chip for insensitivity, and that is the way
your freedom gets frittered away," he said.