TV Program Ratings System Slips Out Of The Spotlight

Fri., Jan. 2, 1998

Howard Rosenberg Los Angeles Times

Call it the issue that wasn’t, and still isn’t.

Those revolutionary parental guidance ratings that define program content throughout the airwaves?

You’d think they were the major story about television in 1997, given the fueling by Capitol Hill politicians and special interest groups and the coverage granted it by much of the media (including yours truly).

In terms of space and headlines, the new ratings probably did stand tallest. Talk about your basic misreadings of U.S. attitudes, though. If this issue were a prime-time series, it would be canceled for lack of public interest.

These program labels have not altered viewing habits perceptibly, especially those of the kids they’re most designed to protect. Nor is there any public dialogue about them above a murmur.

Is the industry doing an honest job of labeling its programs, accurately reflecting what they contain? For the most part, yes. At the very least, though, it’s a topic worthy of discussion.

Mention it in casual conversation, however, and you become the babbling drunk on a bar stool whom people flee or turn their backs on. Their eyes glaze over and retreat deep into their sockets beneath leaden lids.

The evidence seems irrefutable. Measured against the death of Princess Diana or the adventures of Marv Albert, for example, the issue of content ratings is as compelling to most Americans as the fine print of their insurance policies. It’s fine print that’s in everyone’s best interest to carefully read, of course, but you know how that goes. Marv-mania was so much juicier.

Perhaps the intricacies of the ratings are intimidating or too confusing. Perhaps they are too new to have sunk in fully with a public too preoccupied with other matters to notice the symbols now appearing on entertainment programs.

Or, despite repeated outcries against TV sexiness and violence in the 1990s, perhaps the masses don’t understand what’s at stake, don’t comprehend the importance of TV programs being an open book in advance so that parents can make more informed decisions.

Nahhhhhh.

Much more likely, even if they’re parents themselves, people get the meaning just fine, thank you very much, and don’t especially care.

What else can you infer from this lack of interest?

Local journalism is essential.

Give directly to The Spokesman-Review's Northwest Passages community forums series -- which helps to offset the costs of several reporter and editor positions at the newspaper -- by using the easy options below. Gifts processed in this system are tax deductible.

Meet Our Journalists

Jesse Tinsley

Meet Jesse Tinsley. As a certified drone pilot, this veteran Spokesman-Review photographer often can be seen capturing beautiful aerial photographs of our region. Sometimes though, the job requires getting down with the dogs.
Jim Meehan

Jim Meehan is no stranger to Zag Nation. As the lead writer covering the Gonzaga men’s basketball team, he tells the stories behind the game and gets fans a bit closer to their favorite players.
Molly Quinn

There is no artist in Spokane like Molly Quinn. Her whimsical style is instantly recognizable to readers of The Spokesman-Review. She has painted gorgeous illustrations that instantly elevate the journalism accompanying it. She brings to life the stories that defy photography. She makes our pages better.
Rob Curley

Spokesman-Review editor Rob Curley loves to talk with people and learn about their lives, whether it's a best-selling author or a stranger he meets downtown on his walk to lunch. It's that inquisitive nature combined with a playful sense of storytelling that helps make our newspaper different than most.