Industry Watchdogs Claim Victory in TV Ratings Fight

WASHINGTON — Anticipating that the television networks are about to adopt a new system for rating their programs, a coalition of parents’ and children’s organizations is claiming a victory of David-and-Goliath proportions over one of the nation’s most powerful industries.

Although the specifics of any deal are yet unsettled, a majority of industry participants seems willing to accept the principal demand of the citizens’ groups: a rating system that would recognize potentially objectionable sex, violence and language in programs.

“The force was with us; it is a tremendous victory for parents,” says Jeff Chester, who heads the Center for Media Education.

With considerable assistance from members of Congress, Chester’s group and others in his coalition--including the National Parent Teachers Assn., the Children’s Defense Fund and the American Psychological Assn.--have worked over the past six months to force the television industry to change the voluntary system instituted last January.

But as industry insiders see it, it was the missteps of the networks themselves, more than the persuasiveness of the parents’ groups, that brought the TV industry to this juncture.

The industry’s biggest mistake, according to many people involved in the dispute, was to underestimate the depth of the anxiety that exists among American parents about the content of the programs their children watch.

“The fundamental error they made was not getting support from the parents,” says Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who is pushing the networks toward a compromise. “. . . They decided to devise a system without the support of the organizations that represent families in America.”

TV Executives Divided on Issue

Television executives argue in their defense that members of Congress, sensing a hot political issue, upped the ante. “Our biggest mistake was believing the assurances of congressmen [who said,] ‘Just introduce a movie-style rating system, and that will be it,’ ” one network executive says.

In addition, television executives have been divided among themselves on the issue, and they have managed to anger their supporters in Congress by giving a PG (parental guidance) rating to some of the raciest and most violent shows on television.

Devised last year by broadcast and cable representatives under the supervision of Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Assn. of America, the current ratings system was intended to lay the groundwork for the introduction of the V-chip, a device built into televisions that will allow parents to program their sets to block out programming that carries a rating they find objectionable.

But parents’ groups have refused to endorse the industry’s system, which divides entertainment programs into four categories: TV-G (for all ages), TV-PG (parental guidance suggested), TV-14 (may be inappropriate for children under 14) and TV-MA (for adults). The groups say these labels offer them no clue about the nature of a program’s objectionable content.

While the exact terms of the compromise remain unclear, insiders say there is no doubt the networks are strongly motivated to settle the dispute. Threatened with legislation that would impose onerous restrictions on them if they do not adopt revisions that suit parents, the networks began negotiating with parents’ groups this week in hopes of reaching an agreement soon--perhaps before a June 20 Federal Communications Commission hearing on the ratings.

According to McCain, the networks have already agreed in principle that the ratings system should be revised to disclose to parents the nature of the objectionable content.

NBC Stoutly Opposes New Ratings System

So far, participants say the negotiations have centered on a proposal by some networks that would add the letters S (sex), V (violence) and L (language) to indicate why programs were rated inappropriate for certain age groups. But there is little support among industry officials for accompanying the letters with a scale of 1 to 5 to indicate the degree of potentially objectionable sex, violence and language.

Although CBS, ABC, Fox and most cable programmers have indicated a willingness to accept the S, V and L designations, NBC stoutly opposes them on grounds that they would inhibit programmers’ artistic license. As a result, network executives say the final pact is likely to be more complex than just adding the three letters.

At a minimum, in exchange for any concessions, the networks want a moratorium on further legislation dealing with the ratings system or program content.

The public, the industry and Congress are sure to view the final ratings system, in combination with the V-chip that is supposed to be available next year, as a political victory for the parents’ groups.

“Parents for the first time will have full 24-hour-a-day control over what their children see--even if the parents are not in the living room,” says Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.).

Over time, however, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), another key player, predicts that the parents’ groups will realize that by agreeing to a new ratings system, they will have relinquished much of their leverage to gain concessions in the content of the programs. Television executives, he suggests, will be able to defend any perceived programming excesses by noting that viewers had been warned in advance.

“We will certainly have created a system in which both the TV networks and TV viewers--including the parents particularly--will have to face the reality of the content of programming on TV,” Lieberman says. Parents, he adds, will be forced “to put their V-chip where their mouth is.”

Likewise, politicians identified with the compromise are likely to be viewed as winners. As one network executive observes: “Nobody ever lost votes beating up on Hollywood.”

Vice President Al Gore has recently joined in the negotiations by meeting with both sides. “Gore wants to be able to announce the compromise and take credit for it for his presidential campaign,” says an industry source close to the talks.

But members of Congress who have been pushing for ratings reform insist they did not get involved as a means to achieve political popularity. “I’m just trying to perform what I think is my function, to respond to the overwhelmingly held views of American families. They want more information about the content of TV programming,” McCain says.

Network critics say members of Congress were forced to exert pressure on the industry because last year’s telecommunications law was widely seen as a big giveaway, and a strict ratings system seemed to be a small price to extract in exchange.

In the past, according to McCain, the broadcasters’ supporters in Congress insulated them from the political feedback of unhappy television viewers, allowing them to become “out of touch” on programming issues.

Into this vacuum stepped Valenti, a man who enjoyed a reputation for political savvy but who nevertheless--by all accounts--failed to grasp the potency of TV content as a political and parental issue.

Valenti not only wanted to pattern the TV ratings system after the movie ratings, for which he has often received credit, but he also shared the fears of Hollywood production companies that a content-oriented system would hurt revenue when reruns of network series were sold in syndication.

As one industry source explains it, the studios are “concerned about what will happen if ‘Seinfeld’ or ‘Friends’ gets a restrictive rating that would inhibit stations from running the show at 5 o’clock in the afternoon” in local markets.

The networks too are concerned that some advertisers will be reticent about sponsoring programs that are specifically labeled as containing violence.

Although Valenti and the ratings implementation committee met frequently with parents’ groups before announcing the current system last December, the groups claim they were betrayed. Chester recalls that Valenti told the groups, “ ‘I’m listening,’ ” even while the committee was developing a plan that did not take their views into account.

Indeed, Valenti told The Times he thought studies by many academics and public-interest groups decrying the impact of television violence on children were “bogus.”

Valenti maintains that the parents groups’ recommendations were rejected in favor of a system that was simple and easy to understand because of its similarity to the movie ratings that have been in place for decades.

But after the industry’s ratings plan was instituted on Jan. 1, two events helped turn the tide against it.

The first was a hearing before McCain’s Senate Commerce Committee in which the parents’ groups showed a gruesome clip of a boy getting his throat slit on Fox’s police drama “New York Undercover,” which had been rated PG. The second was a House subcommittee hearing in Peoria, Ill., last month which drew many parents outraged by television programming.

Pressure Placed on the Networks

Cable TV often contains more sex and violence than the networks but, because ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox depend on favorable regulation for their TV stations, McCain responded by putting pressure primarily on them.

“They’re the ones who can cut a deal and they’re the ones Congress can squeeze,” a congressional source noted.

Under congressional pressure, some industry allies--such as Fox Chairman Rupert Murdoch--have been threatening to break with the others and unilaterally accept a compromise to win favor with lawmakers. “We’ve expected Rupert to bolt at any minute,” says a network source.

Likewise, Decker Anstrom, president of the National Cable Television Assn., has expressed support for an S, V and L system. Unlike broadcasters, the cable industry, which relies on subscription fees as well as advertising, is not as concerned that a content-oriented ratings system might hurt advertising revenue.

Some TV companies themselves are divided. While cable mogul Ted Turner, the vice chairman of Time Warner, has expressed support for the S, V and L ratings, Bob Daly, chairman and co-chief executive officer of the company’s Warner Bros. Studios, is opposed.

Meanwhile, the National Assn. of Broadcasters, which represents local television stations, seems to be more keenly aware of the mounting public sentiment against the present ratings. As a result, sources say, it is ready to accept S, V and L ratings.

ABC, CBS Lean Toward Compromise

With ABC and CBS also leaning toward compromise, the last holdout may prove to be NBC, which broadcasts such adult-themed comedies as “Friends” and “Mad About You” during the first hour of prime time. Sitting at the table for these three networks are Martin Franks, senior vice president of CBS, Alan Braverman, ABC’s senior vice president and general counsel, and Rosalyn Weinman, NBC’s senior vice president for broadcast standards and content policy.

Richard Cotton, NBC executive vice president and general counsel, says his network bases its opposition to an S, V and L system not only on economics but also on the right of free expression. “There is tremendous potential for abuse in a bad ratings system,” he says.

Furthermore, Cotton expresses a widespread industry fear that once the networks agree to improve the ratings system, Congress and parents will begin demanding that certain shows be banned. Some programming critics, he asserts, are “really intent on censorship and getting shows they don’t like removed from television.”

McCain has assured the networks that he has no interest in banning any programs.

But statements by other members of Congress make it hard for the networks to accept that McCain can hold up his end of the bargain to prevent other legislative attempts to meddle in programming. Lieberman, for one, has made it clear he wants the networks to eliminate some of the sex, violence and profanity that he believes influence children who watch TV.

“Ultimately,” says Lieberman, “I hope it results in better programming on TV. I hope we don’t just end up doing a better job of rating trash.”

Next: Ratings viewed from America’s living rooms.