Senators Push Content-Based TV Ratings

WASHINGTON —  The television industry’s ratings system--and the content of current shows--came under sharp attack Thursday at a packed hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee.

“The [industry’s] system is like putting a sign in front of shark-infested waters saying, ‘Be careful when swimming,’ ” said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.). “Television today has become a destructive force in our culture--I wish I could wave a magic wand and get rid of some of the junk on TV today.”

Lieberman, one of 11 members of Congress testifying at the hearing, called on the TV industry to “hear the pleas” of lawmakers for a content-based ratings system that would “tell parents about the sex, language and violence in these shows. Don’t force us to legislate one.”

Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) said he intended to introduce legislation soon requiring the networks to provide content-based ratings instead of the age-based ratings system that the industry has been providing since Jan. 1. The current system, Coats declared, is either “incomprehensible, confusing or deceptive--take your pick. The industry has ignored the American public.”

“Television appeals to the lowest common denominator,” said Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.). “These same people will be telling us what wonderful service they provide; it doesn’t strike me as wonderful.”

Amid the criticism, some members of Congress expressed concerns about the possibility of government censorship of TV.

“Imposing any kind of federal government approval would be the first step down a very slippery slope,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), “a slope that leads away from the 1st Amendment protection of free expression.”

“I believe the networks should provide more information than they’re now providing,” said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). “But how are you going to encode it electronically--and how are you going to account for the substance of a movie that might be violent” even though its message is anti-violence?

Responding to mounting public calls for a system that gives parents guidance about programming content, the TV industry has been airing age-based labels (TV-PG, TV-14 and other categories) similar to those given to first-run movies.

Critics, including the National PTA and the American Psychological Assn., have blasted the industry’s approach as inadequate, saying parents need specific information about the level of sex, language and violence in shows.

Noting that about two-thirds of prime-time shows on the major networks initially fell into the PG (parental guidance) category, the advocacy group Children Now found sexual double-entendres on such popular PG-rated network sitcoms as NBC’s “Suddenly Susan” and PG-rated violence that included a gruesome scene of a man getting his throat slit on Fox’s “New York Undercover.”

“If the industry does not provide content-based ratings, the National PTA will help pass tougher measures” in Congress, said Joan Dykstra, president of the National PTA.

In the face of the criticism, Eddie Fritts, president of the National Assn. of Broadcasters, told the committee that “we believe we have complied” with Congress’ wishes for a voluntary ratings system.

“Our local stations are not reporting a widespread rejection of the system--in fact, our surveys show just the opposite,” Fritts said. “But if the mood changes and there’s a negative reaction, we’ll react and change. We’re listening.”

Jack Valenti, the chief architect of the industry’s system, cited a Pew Research Center poll that showed 69% of parents found the industry’s system “helpful” or “very helpful.”

In an interview after the hearing, Valenti, head of the Motion Picture Assn. of America, acknowledged that there had been some “inconsistencies” in some ratings. “Over the next several months,” he promised, “there will be more consistency.”

The industry also may extend the time the ratings icon is on the air from its current 15 seconds at the beginning of each show. But, Valenti said, the industry is not considering major changes in the current system.

“We agree with President Clinton and many in Congress that this new ratings system deserves a fair chance to prove itself over the course of a year, not just a matter of days,” Martin D. Franks, senior vice president of CBS, said in an interview. “For some, this is not about how best to label shows to help parents. . . . Instead, they are trying to impose their views of what should or should not be on television, and that is censorship.”