Perhaps It’S Time For Some Reasonable Regulation
The past few weeks have brought the latest round of attacks on the entertainment industry.
This time the issue is advertising R-rated movies with excessive sex or violence to those under 17.
The morals of popular entertainment usually come under fire during an election year, or after a tragedy such as last year’s shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado. I once thought appeals for harsher ratings systems and parental advisory labels bordered dangerously on censorship. Like many others, I felt if parents were “doing their job,” fewer activists would be demanding regulation of the entertainment industry.
Somehow my thinking started to change; I came to believe that some reasonable legislation governing what Hollywood may advertise to kids is, in fact, necessary. Maybe it was when I realized the popularity of the brawl-a-minute Jerry Springer show. Or perhaps when I saw how the show’s ratings fell after they edited out the fistfights.
Or perhaps it was the recent weekend, when my wife and I went to our local cineplex. It appeared that many kids were buying tickets, without being asked for ID, to the same R-rated serial-killer movie we were seeing.
Those “kids” could well have been 17 or over. My point is that they were never asked. And although I can’t swear to it, I would suspect other Spokane theaters similarly ignore IDs.
Like it or not, the violent and sexual material Hollywood produces gets passed on to some who may be too young for it.
I’ve never agreed with those who think some material should be banned altogether. I saw my share of R-rated movies before 17, with and without my parents’ approval. To think Hollywood pushes this down our throats is somewhat hypocritical when we plunk down our seven dollars to see it.
There is a reason, after all, that the entertainment industry makes violent movies or music with sexual overtones. People buy it.
If all those who say they hate the stuff truly felt that way, they’d watch something else or turn the radio dial.
At the same time, to say this material has no effect on children, that “TV didn’t have anything to do with that murder,” is too hard to believe anymore. It is a little disturbing that we hardly flinch when Stallone guns down an army of bad guys.
If adults aren’t bothered, and Hollywood continues to push the envelope, it’s common sense that children are becoming similarly desensitized. And with each new school shooting, it becomes tougher to deny that there’s a connection.
It’s also too easy to say all the responsibility falls on the parents’ shoulders. The cry of “it’s the parents’ job” has become so rehearsed that it has become a cliche.
Yes, parents are responsible for instilling morals. With that comes monitoring what their kids watch on television. No one can disagree with that.
However, I think solely blaming the parents of the Columbine shooters, for example, acknowledges only part of the problem.
There must be some middle ground, some way to cut down on how much violence and sexual material is advertised to children, but also to respect the industry’s freedom to produce such material. Perhaps it is as easy as demanding theaters enforce the ratings system more strictly.
Another solution could be to allow commercials for R-rated movies to be aired only after 5 or 6 p.m. If the audience for such movies is supposed to be 17 and over, it doesn’t make sense to advertise them during the cartoon hour after school lets out.
Passing laws that will discourage certain forms of artistic expression (no matter how offensive) still scares me. However, when so much “adult” material is deliberately - and successfully - aimed at today’s youth, measures need to be discussed. Monitoring a child’s activities, while also trying to instill values, is a hard enough job for a parent. With the all-out media blitz studios use to push violent and sexual material, it sometimes seems parents don’t have much of a chance. Washington, through reasonable regulation, may be able to put some of that power back in their hands.