From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: record album stickering
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:44:45 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep14.173512.28371@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <BuKuoC.Aoq@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep14.141006.19839@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>
>>>Any rating not applied by someone other than the artist themself to their 
>>>creative work is a form of censorship...
>>
>>  Saying so does not make it so.   
>>
>>  I say labeling is informational; no different from putting the
>>  sodium content on a can of soup or requiring that the content
>>  of something match the description on the box in order to avoid
>>  false advertising charges.

>There is a big difference between "quantitative" factual labelling of
>incredients in a food product, and about the "qualitative" judgement
> of an artistic work. 

  "Language", "nudity", and even "violence" can all be objectively
  defined for movies.    CD's are a little tougher but I'm willing 
  to consider some panel's opinion.  Remember, I don't have to 
  *agree* with the panel; I merely have to be familiar enough with
  its standards to understand what THEY mean by "violence" -- it
  doesn't have to match what *I* mean.    Back when I got cable
  the TV Guide listed cable movies with descriptive warnings.  If
  I saw "graphic violence" on the list as a parent I would certainly
  use that as a data point.

  BTW, when we consider the role that record companies and producers 
  and others play in the record industry in determining what records
  ever get heard, based on their commercial potential, tie-in deals,
  who's drinking buddies with whom, or even who slept with whom,
  it's a little self-righteous for popular musicians to talk about
  "artistic integrity".  It's a business.  If if it's got some art,
  great, but mainly it's a business.


>>  Parents need to have some way of determining what is appropriate 
>>  material for their children to view/listen to, and a label
>>  indicating language, violence, nudity, etc, is not in and of
>>  itself censorship as long as the vendor is free to sell the item 
>>  and the public is free to buy it.  
>>
>
>If parents need a "ratings" service, some entrepreneur should take
>up the challenge, if the current media reviewers on TV and newspapers
>are not enough. 

  If they do, fine, but this has not been proposed.


> Of what use is an "rating" by an anonymous reviewer
>for a parent who is truly concerned...one would think a truly concerned
>parent would want to have a reviewer who they can choose and be
>certain as to their qualifications and values.

  This would be a good supplement to labels, but again, it's 
  hypothetical.  If my (also hypothetical) son were to come home
  and ask if he could buy a particular CD, there's no way
  to "look up" a particular review of it.   If I *happened* to
  see one in some newspaper, great, but most reviewers review
  only a miniscule fraction of the CD out there, so developing 
  loyalty to a particular reviewer doesn't help.  

  Labeling is not the be-all end end-all of the problem.  But it
  does provide one more data point than exists now to help 
  parents make decisions.   


---peter





Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43830 talk.politics.mideast:19625 misc.headlines:6203