Content Ratings

The content ratings issue is increasingly buried within a contentious environment of miasmic confusion and dire disagreement. Nor does it help that these ratings organizations have some of the most poorly designed and difficult to understand sites on the Internet, it's enough to make me want to filter them out. But anyway, this report will work to make sense of the annoying acronyms, the constellation of associations and organizations as well as the ratings themselves, their criteria and who is making the value judgments.

People want ratings for different reasons but superficially the most common boilerplate reason is to protect children from objectionable material be it on television, films, TV or the Internet. Yet despite the common element of seeking content ratings for entirely benevolent reasons it would be naive to believe that is always the true motivation. Many private organizations and defense leagues seek to stifle open debate especially that of their ideological opponents and see filtering as a golden opportunity to manipulate and categorize heterodoxy as "hate" or "pornography". The definitions clearly are the crux of the matter although the mechanics of filtering and rating seem to get much more media coverage, unfortunately.

Fundamentally, the only question of ultimate concern is not how the ratings system works, or even what the symbols mean, but who is defining the categories and who is actually rating the material; everything else is smoke. And yet that's often the toughest question to answer. Even when the filtering is self-imposed it invariably utilizes third part software or lists, most of which are clouded behind "trade-secrets" and the subterfuge of certain ideological objectives. All ratings involve value judgments and those decisions will always be contentious because no two people have exactly the same values nor are such judgments ever truly objective or even quantifiable for universal use. Because this is a wholly subjective and opinionated endeavor, likely the only reasonable solution for an issue that has no perfect answers is to employ a system of self-rating within a flexible architecture allowing for the end user to pick and choose which list or filter from their favorite organization with which to use on their television or home computer. This still leaves public and corporate information access filtering open for further debate.

These filtering templates, lists of sites that users can import into their computers and plug into their browsers to block certain sites according to the values of organizations, are the current trend. And it seems to me a fairly good idea because it allows both different values and also freedom of the individual to decide. But clearly there are not perfect solutions here. [See PICS below]

Movie Ratings

In the first half of the 20th century the Catholic church worked with Hollywood to edit scripts and control film content so as to make it acceptable to mainstream America. This system seems to have worked fairly well primarily because the majority of the film production companies and owners were conservative people like Walt Disney, and even if not Catholics, were at least sympathetic towards the church and the churchgoing public. But gradually from the thirties to the early fifties a new breed of movie producers rose to prominence in Hollywood. They were not Catholic or even Catholic sympathizers, they were Jewish; from Adolf Zukor to Sam Arkoff they knew how to do what the conservative old school only achieved infrequently with huge budgets and big names actors - make lots of money marketing to the masses. One example of this new school was the film production company AIP. American International Pictures was built upon cheap and fast shoots aimed at teen audiences during the fifties and sixties.

Monsters, space invaders, juvenile delinquency and biker movies may have been reviled by adults as tawdry trash and maybe it was, but nevertheless it was a hit with the teen audiences. Famous film maker Roger Corman for instance could shoot a movie in ten days, these 'B' movies often not more than an hour in length were then shown coupled with slightly higher quality 'A' films at drive-ins across America. These movies were made so cheaply that profit was almost guaranteed, the only problem was the subject matter, admittedly tame by today's standards, was often deemed unfit for public display hence the presentation at road shows and at drive-in theaters at the edge of town. But this was the new trend and their production model remains true to this day, and even though the budgets and special effects have increased immensely the exploitation concept is the same: mass-market appeal through cheap, unambiguous thrills.

It was a defining characteristic of 1950s 'B' movies to promise far more than they ever delivered.

The side effect of this trend is an increasing backlash, for that same mainstream that slurps down the tawdry entertainment often rejects it as too violent, too suggestive, morally subversive or using whatever the current euphemism is at the moment. The transparent hypocrisy beneath this is of course the obvious fact that movies are made because people pay to see them and the more thrilling and sinful the flick the more people will buy a ticket to watch it, basically, which is why R rated movies make more money than G rated ones and why movie production companies create more R rated movies in any given year.

The public desire for ratings and controls on content goes in cycles often related to contemporary events such as school shootings or as the case is right now - terrorism. Today Hollywood is jumping on the September 11th terror attack bandwagon to promote war, government policy and a general ambiance of feel-good patriotism, even promising to tone down or at least alter the violence levels that seem less appropriate given the carnage of attacks on New York and Washington DC. Whether or not we'll see Warner Bros. cartoon characters beating up Osama bin Laden like Hitler in 1943 remains to be seen.

Despite the vacillating interest in mass media content controls, and despite the numerous, ineffectual government legislation imposed upon the industry, ratings have proven remarkably ineffective, hence the chronic public demand for either a new ratings system, like for television, or the transplantation into new mediums such as the Internet. The reason for this ineffectiveness rests on some very simple but powerful psychological principles which are far too often ignored within the content ratings debate.

First of all, every movie production company has a direct incentive to push the envelope in violence and sex over that of the competition because it confers an immediate monetary advantage by increasing audience appeal. New and novel just like flashy and exciting is a guaranteed box-office draw. Secondly, audiences seek such excitement as a catharsis from the monotony of everyday life, they seek the highs and lows of melodrama and violence in contrast to the boredom and tedium of the real world, movies are an escape, they are a cultural narcotic that is both legal and about the most widely accessible release the public can find. The best drug gets the most buyers. Third, ratings are fundamentally doomed to be subverted if for no other reason than basic human psychology - anything out of reach is twice as desirable! It's more fun to get into see an R rated move when you're not supposed to because that forbidden fruit seems twice as nice.

Movie ratings are a prime example of counterintuitive phenomenon. The 1950s era was the last era of direct censorship, yet that didn't stop people form seeing movies about drug abuse, sex and gang violence. It was merely channeled into less reputable arenas like traveling road shows and carnivals or "unaccredited" movie houses to circumvent the censorship. Movies released before November 1969 (1968 according to some sources) were not rated. Before this films were either considered acceptable for the general public or were denied a seal of approval and labeled "adults only".

A chronic problem with ratings systems is a lack of temporal consistency, the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) is a case in point. Many older "adults only" movies would be considered R or PG today, or even the reverse in some cases. When movie ratings were first employed in the early seventies the actual result was not a decrease in sex and violence but a significant increase! It was a cinematic free for all to see how much gratuitous material and extreme content could be packed into a new film to get that coveted R rating since R rated movies made, and still do make, the most in dollars. This lead to a public backlash and the extreme content shifted from blood and violence to extreme language and swearing in the eighties. The gratuitous content category changes but the profitable production paradigm remains unaltered.

A consistent rating is not what the MPAA delivers, they label a movie according to the whim of present fashion and nothing else. It's not too well known how the MPAA operates, but basically they rate movies using a group of semi-volunteers from "all walks of life" who attempt to break down the content of the film and put it into the most appropriate category based on their own moral opinion.

Ratings actually do the opposite of what's intended because they absolve the entertainment production companies from any responsibility for their content. With a rating system broadcasters can put nearly anything on TV now because they flashed an 'MA' symbol in the corner for five seconds. And that moral responsibility to promote a healthy culture and positive community standards is the only force that can counter the inexorable slide into degeneracy within a system based upon profit through mass-market appeal and a media addicted society apparently incapable of turning it off or finding creative and wholesome entertainment alternatives.

Internet Ratings

In the case of the most recent Internet material ratings, apparently this is done by content providers themselves through a self-rating system based upon filling out a questionnaire asking about sexual and violent material appearing on the web site based upon Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) standards. Where the demand for Internet content provider ratings is coming form seems less certain because anyone can get filtering software and install it on their own computer, porn sites have under 18 turn-away features although that's primarily to protect themselves legally rather than stop under age viewers.

Filters themselves have enormous flaws, often to the point of being totally outrageous. Yet for lack of better means for limiting child access to pornography, for example, many parents still use them. One problem with filters is that it's often difficult to understand what is actually being blocked, an issue made worse by the filtering companies that usually refuse to list what they're excluding. Some software will block entire directories or web domains based upon a single page or reference to objectionable material. A similar, more egregious example is the common blocking of free web-hosting sites such as Angelfire or GeoCities in entirety because the filtering companies claim they contain no redeeming content!

Filtering software will always have flaws, the object is to minimize them. Secondly, the value judgments inherent within the system of filtering must be recognized and carefully used. It's one thing for a parent to filter their child's Internet access, perhaps even acceptable for a private corporation, but it's quite another for public libraries or especially government through mandate to block public access to information.

The filters mandated for use in libraries that receive federal aid are currently being questioned in court and the prognosis is not looking good for their continued use in that setting. It's typical of developers in the industry to decry the pointless nature of these legal trials for the reason that the technology on trial is outdated by the time it reaches court! Filters are an example of this phenomenon because the software being used in public libraries in accordance with federal law(s) and on home computers is obsolescent. I don't want to promote complacency on the issue but given the pace of technological change if you don't like the way things are now, just wait a few years. Actually this principle has a lot more applicability in everyday life than most recognize. Anyway, the most likely replacement is neural network computing, basically software that can learn and adjust rather than just censor according to a list. One private company working on this is called RuleSpace and although not yet commercially available their product they claim to be able to make content determinations much more accurately. Still it's important to keep in mind that the technical details just like the actual lists of sites filtered remain closely guarded corporate secrets; which is why I think open source ratings tags are a slightly more palatable development.

Music Ratings

Honestly the content labels on music and CD's has to be the most pathetic and inconsistent of any media. Theoretically, just like R rated movies, stores aren't supposed to sell the product to minors if labeled as offensive but I have never heard of this being enforced. Which is probably a good thing because the explicit lyrics label is employed with very little accuracy and often completely left off the album when it's really needed. In fact the only CD I own with such a label does not even have any explicit lyrics in it! Besides that many teens actually look for the explicit lyrics label to decide which CD to buy, so the stated objective of blocking young listeners from hearing raunchy content is at best defeated and worst completely subverted.

Television Ratings

The television ratings system is voluntary. Not all broadcast and cable networks rate their programs; some only show age ratings but not content labels. Furthermore news programming is exempt from the TV ratings. TV ratings are determined by the creator of the program and or the network broadcasting the show.

Overseeing the consistent application of television ratings is the 'Parental Guidelines Monitoring Board' which consists of 24 members, six from the broadcast industry, the cable industry, and the "creative community" as well as five non-industry members from child advocacy, medical, religious and educational groups. The public wishing to question the given rating for certain programming can contact the Board. The form and quality of resulting rectification of grievance remains unclear.

	TVY All Children This program is designed to be appropriate for all children. Whether animated or live-action, the themes and elements in this program are specifically designed for a very young audience, including children from ages 2 - 6. This program is not expected to frighten younger children.
	TVY7 Directed to Older Children This program is designed for children age 7 and above.It may be more appropriate for children who have acquired the developmental skills needed to distinguish between make-believe and reality. Themes and elements in this program may include mild fantasy violence or comedic violence, or may frighten children under the age of 7. Therefore, parents may wish to consider the suitability of this program for their very young children. Note: For those programs where fantasy violence may be more intense or more combative than other programs in this category, such programs will be designated TV-Y7-FV.
	TVG General Audience Most parents would find this program suitable for all ages. Although this rating does not signify a program designed specifically for children, most parents may let younger children watch this program unattended. It contains little or no violence, no strong language and little or no sexual dialogue or situations.
	TVPG Parental Guidance Suggested This program contains material that parents may find unsuitable for younger children. Many parents may want to watch it with their younger children. The theme itself may call for parental guidance and/or the program contains one or more of the following: moderate violence (V), some sexual situations (S), infrequent coarse language (L), or some suggestive dialogue (D).
	TV14 Parents Strongly Cautioned This program contains some material that many parents would find unsuitable for children under 14 years of age. Parents are strongly urged to exercise greater care in monitoring this program and are cautioned against letting children under the age of 14 watch unattended. This program contains one or more of the following: intense violence (V), intense sexual situations (S), strong coarse language (L), or intensely suggestive dialogue (D).
	TVMA Mature Audience Only This program is specifically designed to be viewed by adults and therefore may be unsuitable for children under 17. This program contains one or more of the following: graphic violence (V), explicit sexual activity (S), or crude indecent language (L).

Radio Ratings

Radio broadcasts in America are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) based upon community standards. Commercial radio stations must regularly renew their licenses to broadcast and the FCC is supposed to manage public complaints concerning the quality and substance being broadcast. The best opportunity to have a radio station shut down for indecency (or whatever reason) is during the public comment period of license renewal. All radio stations are required to post public notices and seek public comment during this time frame.

Ratings Associations

Common Sense Media's self-description:
We exist because media and entertainment profoundly impact the social, emotional, and physical development of our nation's children. As a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization, we provide trustworthy information and tools, as well as an independent forum, so that families can have a choice and a voice about the media they consume.

ICRA, Internet Content Ratings Association (the forerunner of RSAC)
ICRA is a nonprofit organization founded in early 1999 by several Internet invested companies such as AOL and Microsoft with the aim to promote self-regulation of the Internet. ICRA welcomes new members, but prices range from $5,000 to $30,000.

The Pan-European Game Information (PEGI)
Here's the PEGI self-description: [The PEGI] age rating system was established in 2003 to help European parents make informed decisions on buying interactive games. Designed to ensure that minors are not exposed to games that are unsuitable for their particular age group, the system is supported by the major console manufacturers, including PlayStation, Xbox and Nintendo, as well as by publishers and developers of interactive games throughout Europe.

PICS, Platform for Internet Content Selection
PICS doesn't itself rate anything, it instead sets out technical standards so ratings from multiple sources work with different filtering software. The PICS specification enables meta-tag labels to be associated with Internet content, in other words it's a few lines of code added to HTML web pages. PICS was designed with good intentions to allow parents and teachers to control what children see on the Internet. But like so many plans this novel means of self-rating to filter content turned out to be a two-edged sword, for as easy as parents can block information so can government do the same to adults, even mandating censorship. PICS can (and will) also be used in other ways. Still it's about the best 'solution' at the moment.

RSAC, Recreational Software Advisory Council
Features a remarkably useless web site void of substantive material such as why ratings are needed or what they mean.

Filtering Services

According to second party sources these are the simplified specifications on some common Internet filtering services.

Cyber Patrol
Rates sites for fifteen categories ranging from "alcohol & tobacco" to "violence/profanity" but assigns only one of two values within each category, either CyberNOT or CyberYES.

RSACi
Participating content providers rate their own sites along a scale of 0 through 4 on four dimensions: violence, nudity, sex and language. RSAC's business plan for RSACi charges a fee to video-game manufacturers who participate in its video-game self-rating system.

SafeSurf
Content providers rate using nine values in nine categories.

CYBERSitter
Maintains a single list of objectionable sites. Users can not block portions of that list.

CyberPatrol 6, N2H2 Internet Filtering 2.0, Secure Computing SmartFilter 3 and Websense Enterprise 4.3 all have been tested in court and shown to block legitimate material.

News

• Attorney General pushes for mandatory Internet ratings, CNET news, April 20, 2006

• Google criticized for blocking Internet sites in China, CNET news, January 26, 2006

• Ratings creep' seen as films get graphic, Washington Times, July 15, 2004
  Nasty Language on Live TV Renews Old Debate, FCC Takes Heat for Ruling on Adjectival Usage, Washington Post, December 13, 2003

• Revealing look at what the N2H2 filter censors - CNN? ESPN? even Yahoo!

• Filter-Bashing Alive and Well, Wired Magazine June 24, 2003.

References & Resources

• How to disable your blocking software - a guide for multiple filters from Peacefire

• Kids-in-mind, media content analysis site

• Safe Surfing guidelines for kids, BBC UK

• The Classification and Rating Administration (CARA) - Film Ratings

• The V-chip

• The MPAA

• Test a website for Cyber patrol censorship

Other References Used:
Internet ratings = http://www.newsbytes.com/pubNews/130488.html 12.05.99
MPAA to rate Internet = http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,3229,00.html
op ed on NC-17 = http://search.nytimes.com/search/daily/bin/fastweb?getdoc+site+site+75258+0+wAAA+MPAA%7Eratings
internet ratings from 1996 = http://search.nytimes.com/search/daily/bin/fastweb?getdoc+site+site+14259+17+wAAA+ratings
MPAA + CEO's meeting = http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/en/story.html?s=v/nm/19990523/en/industry-violence_1.html
internet ratings news story http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7619193.html?tag=pt.msnbc.feed..ne_7619193
Net Label Delusion http://libertus.net/liberty/label.html
rating the net, laws http://www.law.wayne.edu/weinberg/rating.htm
TV ratings http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/6578/ratings.htm
ACLU may lead to censor.. news http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,5882,00.html
reasons for movie ratings http://www.filmratings.com/questions.htm
MPAA ratings, history why wont work http://www.cep.org/ratings.html
Variety AIP salute story http://www.findarticles.com/cf_vrty/m1312/6_380/65861149/p1/article.jhtml

The Psychotronic Video Guide, Michael J. Weldon 1996
Science Fiction Film Source Book, David Wingrove 1985