TV Ratings Clash at Cato
by L. Brent Bozell III
Late last month, Washington, D.C.'s Cato Institute hosted a
debate on television's parental-guidance ratings. Cato's own Lawrence Gasman
served as moderator. Rick Cotton, an executive vice president at NBC; Robert
Corn-Revere, former counsel to FCC commissioner James Quello; and yours truly
tackled the issue.
My fellow panelists deserve credit for representing their
constituencies well. Cotton is a mouthpiece for the television industry.
Corn-Revere, a hardened libertarian, comes from the so-what camp that
dismisses the television ratings debate as trite political posturing. Together
these gentlemen advanced a flurry of arguments dismissing the need for a
serious ratings system, and proved just the opposite in the process.
1. The public already knows what's on television. Popular
series, Mr. Cotton said, are "watched... by tens of millions... week
after week after week. Those viewers understand the sensibility of each of
There are over 90 different series on network (non-cable)
prime time TV alone. Show me a person who "understand[s] the sensibility
of... those programs." And programs vary from week to week. Quick: Tell
me what objectionable content will be found on next week's "Wings."
You can't. The only way for a viewer - a parent attempting to monitor his
child's viewing habits - to ascertain a show's content is for the network to
warn him about it with a content-based ratings system.
2. Censorship! That, warned Mr. Cotton, "is what this
discussion is really about... While some... may back off and say, 'No, no,
that's not what we meant,' that is what is at stake."
It was a half-hearted accusation - or at least it appeared
so - simply because it is so silly. Yes, some in government are prepared to
legislate a content-based system if the industry refuses to do so on its own,
and yes, it's probably an unconstitutional move. What is "at stake,"
however, is the cultural rot the entertainment industry is offering the
public, especially the impressionable young. If the networks were to focus on
that problem - and implement a voluntary content-based system as a
preventative measure - they'd have nothing to fear, would they?
3. Parents should be more responsible and, stated Mr.
Cotton, "not simply assume that [PG-rated programs] are appropriate for
their children?[PG] stands for 'parental guidance suggested.'"
Another smokescreen. Actually, it's the industry itself that
promotes the vagueness of the PG rating. According to the guidelines, PG shows
"may contain some material that some parents would find
unsuitable for younger children." In other words, PG-rated
programs are acceptable most of the time for most parents of younger children
- and they're just fine for older kids. With that in mind, how can Cotton's
own network slap a PG on raunchy programs like "NewsRadio,"
"Men Behaving Badly," "Mad About You," and, lest we
forget, "Friends" - and then demand parents show more
4. It isn't necessary. Mr. Corn-Revere took a different
approach, dismissing the proposed content-based system altogether: "I'm
always astounded when I hear descriptions of what's on television...
Even when I try to, I don't find unmarried people jumping in and out of each
other's beds." How does one respond? One rolls one's eyes, that's all..
5. There's (yet) another agenda here. "We're really
talking about the cultural agenda of the people who would like to roll back
television to when it was a positive force in American life," was Mr.
Corn-Revere's bombshell. And I proudly proclaim myself guilty as charged.
6. Television is beyond repair: "The idea that you can
sanitize television, even for a block of time, and make everybody watch what
you've decided is the good stuff, is beyond ludicrous in today's world,"
opined Mr. Corn-Revere. If you did, and offered quality programming in the
process, you'd simply be doing what Hollywood did for fifty years. And maybe
the millions of viewers who have left the networks in the past ten years might
come back, too.
7. McCarthyism! "We have the spectacle of people on
Capitol Hill giving us a show-by-show breakdown of the television schedule.
Doesn't that strike anybody as odd?" wondered Mr. Corn-Revere. "We
used to focus on issues like crime, war, and pollution. [Now] we live in a
time of cultural McCarthyism, where any demagogue can find a ready
My guess is that the Corn-Reveres sense their own
irrelevance, know they're losing the debate. Name-calling is a last resort,
when the ammunition is spent and one can only toss stones. The excuse well is
dry. Time for the industry to come through with a real ratings system.
Voice Your Opinion!
Write to Brent Bozell
Home | News Division
| Bozell Columns | CyberAlerts
Media Reality Check | Notable Quotables | Contact
the MRC | Subscribe