U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

81–139 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 108–952 

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MEDIA RATINGS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, 

AND SPACE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, 

Ranking 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

JEANNE BUMPUS, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

ROBERT W. CHAMBERLIN, Republican Chief Counsel 

KEVIN D. KAYES, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

GREGG ELIAS, Democratic General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND SPACE 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana, Ranking 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on September 28, 2004 ..................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Brownback ........................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Ensign .................................................................................. 40 

Statement of Senator Smith ................................................................................... 40 

WITNESSES

Glickman, Hon. Dan, President and CEO, Motion Picture Association of 

America ................................................................................................................. 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Kinney, David G., President and CEO, PSVratings, Inc. ..................................... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

Miller, Patti, Director, Children & The Media Program, Children Now ............ 36 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Podesta, Anthony T., Executive Secretariat, on Behalf of the TV Parental 

Guidelines Monitoring Board .............................................................................. 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Letter dated October 18, 2004 to Hon. Sam Brownback from Anthony 

T. Podesta, Executive Secretariat, Parential Guidelines Monitoring 

Board .............................................................................................................. 52 

Thompson, Sc.D., Kimberly M., Associate Professor and Director, Kids Risk 

Project, Harvard School of Public Health .......................................................... 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Valenti, Jack, Former Chairman and CEO, Motion Picture Association of 

America ................................................................................................................. 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Vance, Patricia, President, Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) ...... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

APPENDIX

Steyer, Jim, CEO, Common Sense Media, prepared statement .......................... 59 

(1) 

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MEDIA RATINGS 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND SPACE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Sam Brownback, 

Chairman, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS 

Senator BROWNBACK. Good afternoon, everybody. I call the hearing to order. 

We are here today to revisit a growing concern of this country, 

how to truly empower parents with an honest, user-friendly, and 

consistent account of the content in all entertainment products. As 

represented by the posters on either side of me, many find the current ratings systems overwhelming and confusing. As a result, parents are left to fight an uphill battle. 

Our economy puts heavy demands on working moms and dads. 

Today’s average parent has little energy left to master the intricacies of the multiple ratings systems. Adding to the challenge are 

inconsistencies in ratings between mediums, ratings creep, and 

media marketing departments that continue to target young audiences with inappropriate content. This makes setting clear boundaries on entertainment for children virtually impossible. 

This concern over ratings is not new. Four years ago this month, 

Chairman McCain held a hearing that examined the marketing of 

violence to children. There he pushed the idea of creating a uniform ratings system for all media. Then in July 2001, Senator 

Lieberman echoed this call in his hearing on ratings systems. Their 

joint legislative effort to establish a system for labeling all violent 

media was met with fierce opposition as an unconstitutional regulation on industry. Yet it seems that no efforts have been made to 

voluntarily coordinate the ratings systems to respond to parents’ 

concern. 

I called this hearing because this concern is not going away. In 

fact, it is escalating in the wake of new studies that show exposure 

to violent and sexual material can desensitize children to violence, 

potentially cause ADHD, and lead to early teen sexual activity. 

Those are the recent studies. 

Last week the Kaiser Family Foundation released a study that 

showed a majority of parents are worried about the amount of sex 

2 

and violence their children are exposed to on TV. Overall, they 

found parents are more concerned about inappropriate content on 

TV than in any other media. Yet the television ratings are amongst 

the most confusing out of all of the forms of media. The study 

found that, while many parents have used the V-Chip, too many 

still do not know what the ratings mean or even that their TV includes a V-Chip. 

Further evidence of the frustration with media ratings is the 

emergence of new independent ratings systems. We have with us 

today a representative of these systems, Mr. David Kinney of 

PSVratings. Systems like PSV do a more thorough job of rating, 

not just for levels of sex, violence, and profanity, but also more specific concerns such as the use of drugs and alcohol and attitudes 

toward women. We are pleased that Mr. Kinney could join us today 

to explain more about how independent ratings are fitting into the 

entertainment industry landscape. 

We are honored to have with us today two representatives from 

the Motion Pictures Association, the new President, Secretary, 

Congressman, now President of the Motion Picture Association, 

Dan Glickman, a fellow Kansan. I am delighted to welcome him to 

the Committee and to this prestigious position. And the former 

Chairman, Jack Valenti, who has for 36 years had first-hand 

knowledge of the ratings systems for movies and also for television, 

and we are fortunate to have him here and to have his expertise 

as well. 

We are also honored to have Patricia Vance, President of the Entertainment Software Rating Board; Dr. Kim Thompson, Associate 

Professor and Director of Kids Risk Project at the Harvard School 

of Public Health, who has just completed the first study on ratings 

creep; Patti Miller, the Director of the Children and Media Program at Children Now; and Mr. Anthony Podesta of Podesta 

Mattoon, who is representing the TV Parental Guidance System. 

Thank you all for being here today to help discuss and talk about 

the current ratings systems and explore ways that they can be 

made more useful for parents. I expect a number of my colleagues 

will be joining us throughout the hearing. We have a vote that is 

currently in action. I think several of them will be back. We may 

have some opening statements by some of the other members when 

they come in. 

We would like to start off the hearing because I have a number 

of questions, too, and we have a large panel of people to present. 

To respect seniority, if I could, Mr. Valenti, I would like to go with 

you first, if you would be willing to give us your thoughts and expertise on this topic. You have been around it for a long period of 

time and we would like to go with you first if you would be willing 

to testify. 

STATEMENT OF JACK VALENTI, FORMER CHAIRMAN AND 

CEO, MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 

Mr. VALENTI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I cannot dispute the 

fact that I have been around a long time. That is a matter of 

record. 

Mr. Podesta will go into some of the details of the entrails of the 

TV rating system, but I would like to say that I want to pay tribute 

3 

to Decker Anstrom, former President of the National Cable and 

Telecommunications Association, now the Chairman of the Landmark Communications Company, and to Eddie Fritts, President of 

the National Association of Broadcasters, who along with me spent 

almost 2 years of our time trying to put together a TV rating system. 

Tony will go into the details, but I will tell you in the beginning 

one of my great heroes is a 14th century Franciscan monk named 

William of Occam, and he comprised something which has come 

down in the last 600 years to be what is known as Occam’s Razor 

that, freely translated from the Latin, means: Entities are not to 

be multiplied except out of absolute necessity. Or to put it in plain 

English, keep it simple, keep it simple. 

That is what we tried to do in the original version of the TV ratings. I think the criticism that the TV ratings are confusing has 

some merit to it, because after we put these ratings out there was 

some concern on the part of some people who felt strenuously and 

passionately that they did not do enough, and so we went back to 

the drawing board and as a result of that what you have now are 

really about seven different ratings along with ‘‘D’’ for ‘‘dialogue,’’ 

‘‘S’’ for ‘‘sex,’’ ‘‘V’’ for ‘‘violence,’’ and—what is the other one—‘‘L’’ for 

‘‘language.’’ 

All of that bred a kind of a confusion and I can understand that. 

But I think one of the good things that came out of the Kaiser 

study, which you spoke at last week and I stayed to listen to the 

findings, was that the people who use the V-Chip like it. The problem is that many people do not even know they have a V-Chip. 

One of the ways to remedy that, Mr. Chairman, was, I thought, 

was to have at the retail sales where every television set is sold 

be a yellow placard on that television set that says: ‘‘In this set is 

a V-Chip. See the other side for how to work it.’’ I think that is 

the best way to get the education across, because then you would 

go direct to the people who are buying the TV sets. About 25 to 28 

million TV sets are sold every year. So since the ratings went into 

effect, there is probably 125 million sets in the country today that 

have the V-Chip in it. But I will let Mr. Podesta go into the details. 

Now about movie ratings. The movie rating system, Mr. Chairman, will be 36 years old on November 1, and I like to believe that 

nothing lasts 36 years in this explosive, dynamic, and sometimes 

difficult marketplace unless it is providing some kind of a benefit 

to the people that it aims to serve, in this case the parents of 

America. 

By the way, we urge parents to not just look at our ratings, but 

look at Mr. Kinney’s ratings and all the others, read ‘‘Parents’’ 

magazine, talk to your neighbors, find out more you can about a 

movie. We urge that. 

But I want to show you something that I believe is a telling blow 

against those who say the movie rating system is not working. I 

think the best measure of an election is how the people vote. The 

best measure of a rating system is how the people vote. One of the 

things that we found in the Kaiser study was that 45 percent of 

the respondents found the ratings, movie ratings, to be very useful. 

That comports almost identically with the ORC, Opinion Research 

Corporation’s, survey that we take every year. 

4 

If I may, may I stand and show you something here, Mr. Chairman? I will sit so the microphone can catch me. 

This is the latest survey from ORC. We have taken these every 

year since 1969, with approximately 2,600 respondents, with a plus 

or minus error probability of about 3 percent. We came out this 

September with the largest parental approval in the history of the 

ratings system. These are for parents with children under 13: 82 

percent said that they found the ratings to be very useful to fairly 

useful in helping them decide what movies they want their children 

to see or not to see. 

I am elated because the parents are the people that this system 

is directed, not to producers, not to studio heads, not to directors, 

writers, anybody else, directed at ratings. And they are the ones 

that are telling us, yes, we trust you and we believe in it. 

As a matter of fact, what the Kaiser Foundation found was that 

45 percent thought that movie ratings were very useful, and I 

think another 37 percent found the ratings system, 47 percent, to 

be fairly useful. So they had a 92 percent approval by parents. 

So I do not want to go on any further. I think this is putting before you what parents are saying, I think to me is the essential, 

not just the ornaments of a survey, but the essentials of a survey. 

This is what I think that we have come forward with, and I am 

quite proud. So when November comes around about 4 or 5 weeks 

from now, we are going to let the people know that we are 36 years 

old and we hope to be 37, 38, 39, and whatever. 

Thank you, sir. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. I 

do not know if this will be the last time you will testify here. Dan 

is shaking his head no. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BROWNBACK. But I know you have been here many, 

many times and we do deeply appreciate the thoughts and the 

words that you have put forward over many years in representing 

the Motion Picture Association. You have done a fabulous job. 

The new, incoming President, I do believe this is your first testimony in front of this committee, is Mr. Dan Glickman, who is familiar with the industry. His son works in the industry. We go 

back a long ways. I want to welcome you in front of this committee. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAN GLICKMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 

Mr. GLICKMAN. Thank you, Senator. First of all, it is a pleasure 

having my first testimony before Congress before a Kansas, before 

a friend, and on this particular subject, and sitting next to my 

friend and mentor Jack Valenti, the father of the movie ratings 

system. 

Actually, you understated his time at MPAA. He has been here 

38 years. I know he looks impossibly young to have been here that 

long. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Right. 

Mr. GLICKMAN. I am here as much to learn as to be with you. 

But this is a very important subject and I would just have a couple 

of things to say, then would like to let the other witnesses talk 

about this. This is a very important issue to me, to the parents of 

5 

this country, and it is one that obviously, working with Jack, I am 

going to be intensely involved with. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Dan, get that mike a little closer to you. 

Mr. GLICKMAN. Yes. There are a couple of themes I would just 

like to mention quickly. One is the technical proficiency of young 

people with technology. This is a different world than when I was 

growing up or even perhaps when you were growing up, where our 

children, even children below the teenage years, have greater familiarity with technology than Ph.D.’s in technology might have 

had 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, that issue will have a lot to do 

with what technology is used, how the ratings systems are dealt 

with in the future, because in many, if not most, cases children 

know more about their technology than their parents ever will or 

are ever going to be able to do that. 

Second of all, the media choices before an average American are 

truly staggering in number, hundreds of choices available on a television set today and probably that will grow in the future. 

The third thing, of course, is the hectic pace of American life can 

be overwhelming for many parents. Just coping and surviving with 

the economic challenges that are there have positioned a lot of parents not to be in a situation necessarily where they are on top of 

or capable of watching their kids at all particular times. So advance cautionary information about entertainment options for children have in my mind assumed even more importance than they 

have before. 

We take pride in the ratings system, the movie ratings system, 

which Jack designed. He designed it thoughtfully and creatively 

and basically the people who actually do the ratings are parents 

themselves, and I think it explains why the system has been so 

good and for so long. 

So in summary, I just would say that I am in the learning mode 

right now, but I appreciate the opportunity of being here to talk 

about a subject which I know is so important to you personally, but 

also to parents all over this country. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you very much. We appreciate that. 

I next call Patricia Vance, the President of the Entertainment 

Software Rating Board, and I appreciate your being here today and 

your presentation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Glickman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DAN GLICKMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, MOTION

PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

On behalf of the members of the Motion Picture Association, Inc., I want to express my gratitude to Chairman Brownback and the members of the Subcommittee 

for convening this hearing. 

As you may know, this is my first hearing as the President and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America and I am very pleased that the subject covered 

by my first Congressional hearing in this position is media ratings. I say this because I am not just the head of the Association that gave birth to the most familiar 

media ratings system on the planet but because I am a father, a grandfather and 

a consummate consumer of movies who has benefited from the motion picture ratings system for decades. I am very proud to represent the Association responsible 

for this success story. 

Today children are often more proficient with technology and consumer electronics 

than their parents. The media choices facing an average American family are truly 

staggering in number. The hectic pace of American life can be overwhelming for 

6 

many parents. For these reasons, advance, cautionary information about entertainment options for children have, in my mind, assumed more importance than ever 

before. 

The Motion Picture Association of America takes pride in the fact that the movie 

ratings system is recognized, familiar and such an engrained part of our popular 

culture that it is known and recognized by 98 percent of American moviegoers. Its 

triumph is owed to its simplicity. It is a common language that every parent speaks 

and easily understands. A movie rating is included—along with the reasons the rating was selected for that film—in all advertising for films. It is the dominant system 

for advance cautionary information about movies. 

This phenomenal success is owed largely to the man sitting next to me today. I 

realize that Jack Valenti, my predecessor, needs no introduction. He is, as you 

know, quite literally the father of the 36 year-old movie ratings system. He was instrumental in the development, implementation and continuing oversight of the TV 

Parental Guidelines. Any Congressional hearing on the issue of media ratings would 

be incomplete without his participation and insight and I am thankful that he has 

agreed to continue his leadership of the movie ratings system and share his knowledge with us today. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACK VALENTI, FORMER CHAIRMAN AND CEO, MOTION

PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

THE VOLUNTARY MOVIE RATING SYSTEM

How It All Began 

When I became President of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) 

in May 1966, the slippage of Hollywood studio authority over the content of films 

collided with an avalanching revision of American mores and customs. 

By summer of 1966, the national scene was marked by insurrection on the campus, riots in the streets, rise in women’s liberation, protest of the young, doubts 

about the institution of marriage, abandonment of old guiding slogans, and the 

crumbling of social traditions. It would have been foolish to believe that movies, that 

most creative of art forms, could have remained unaffected by the change and torment in our society. 

A New Kind of American Movie 

The result of all this was the emergence of a ‘‘new kind’’ of American movie— 

frank and open, and made by filmmakers subject to very few self-imposed restraints. 

Almost within weeks in my new duties, I was confronted with controversy, neither 

amiable nor fixable. The first issue was the film ‘‘Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf,’’ 

in which, for the first time on the screen, the word ‘‘screw’’ and the phrase ‘‘hump 

the hostess’’ were heard. In company with the MPAA’s general counsel, Louis Nizer, 

I met with Jack Warner, the legendary chieftain of Warner Bros., and his top aide, 

Ben Kalmenson. We talked for three hours, and the result was deletion of ‘‘screw’’ 

and retention of ‘‘hump the hostess,’’ but I was uneasy over the meeting. 

It seemed wrong that grown men should be sitting around discussing such matters. Moreover, I was uncomfortable with the thought that this was just the beginning of an unsettling new era in film, in which we would lurch from crisis to crisis, 

without any suitable solution in sight. 

The second issue surfaced only a few months later. 

This time it was Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, and the Michelangelo Antonioni film 

‘‘Blow-Up.’’ I met with MGM’s chief executive officer because this movie also represented a first—the first time a major distributor was marketing a film with nudity 

in it. The Production Code Administration in California had denied the seal of approval. 

I backed the decision, whereupon MGM distributed the film through a subsidiary 

company, thereby flouting the voluntary agreement of MPAA member companies 

that none would distribute a film without a Code seal. 

Finally, in April 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutional power 

of states and cities to prevent the exposure of children to books and films that could 

not be denied to adults. 

It was plain that the old system of self-regulation, begun with the formation of 

the MPAA in 1922, had broken down. What few threads there were holding together 

the structure created by Will Hays, one of my two predecessors, had now snapped. 

From the very first day of my own succession to the MPAA President’s office, I had 

sniffed the Production Code constructed by the Hays Office. There was about this 

7 

stern, forbidding catalogue of ‘‘Dos and Don’ts’’ the odious smell of censorship. I determined to junk it at the first opportune moment. 

I knew that the mix of new social currents, the irresistible force of creators determined to make ‘‘their’’ films and the possible intrusion of government into the movie 

arena demanded my immediate action. 

Within weeks, discussions of my plan for a movie rating system began with the 

president of the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) and with the governing committee of the International Film Importers & Distributors of America 

(IFIDA), an assembly of independent producers and distributors. 

Over the next five months, I held more than 100 hours of meetings with these 

two organizations, as well as with guilds of actors, writers, directors and producers, 

with craft unions, with critics, with religious organizations, and with the heads of 

MPAA member companies. 

The Birth of the Ratings 

By early fall, I was ready. My colleagues in the National Association of Theatre 

Owners joined with me in affirming our objective of creating a new and, at the time, 

revolutionary approach to how we would fulfill our obligation to the parents of 

America. 

My first move was to abolish the old and decaying Hays Production Code. I did 

that immediately. Then on November 1, 1968, we announced the birth of the new 

voluntary film rating system of the motion picture industry, with three organizations, NATO, MPAA, and IFIDA, as its monitoring and guiding groups. 

The initial design called for four rating categories: 

G for General Audiences, all ages admitted; 

M for mature audiences—parental guidance suggested, but all ages admitted; 

R for Restricted, children under 16 would not be admitted without an accompanying 

parent or adult guardian; (later raised to under 17 years of age, (and varies in 

some jurisdictions)); 

X for no one under 17 admitted. 

The rating system trademarked all the category symbols, except the X. Under the 

plan, anyone not submitting his or her film for rating could self apply the X or any 

other symbol or description, except those trademarked by the rating program. 

Our original plan had been to use only three rating categories, ending with R. It 

was my view that parents ought to be able to accompany their children to any movie 

the parents choose, without the movie industry or the government or self-appointed 

groups interfering with their rights. But NATO urged the creation of an adults only 

category, fearful of possible legal redress under state or local law. I acquiesced in 

NATO’s reasoning and the four category system, including the X rating, was installed. 

So, the emergence of the voluntary rating system filled the vacuum provided by 

my dismantling of the Hays Production Code. The movie industry would no longer 

‘‘approve or disapprove’’ the content of a film, but we would now see our primary 

task as giving advance cautionary warnings to parents so that parents could make 

the decision about the movie-going of their young children. 

Changes in the Rating System 

We found early on that the M category (M meaning ‘‘Mature’’) was regarded by 

most parents as a sterner rating than the R category. To remedy this misconception, 

we changed the name from M to GP (meaning General audiences, Parental guidance 

suggested). A year later we revised the name to its current label, ‘‘PG: Parental 

Guidance Suggested.’’ 

On July 1, 1984, we made another adjustment. We split the PG category into two 

groupings, PG and PG–13. PG–13 meant a higher level of intensity than was to be 

found in a film rated PG. Over the past years, parents have approved of this amplifying revision in the rating system. 

On September 27, 1990, we announced two more revisions. 

First, we introduced brief explanations of why a particular film received its R rating. Since, in the opinion of the Ratings Board, R rated films contain adult material, 

we believed it would be useful to parents to know a little more about that film’s 

content before they allowed their children to accompany them. Sometime later we 

began applying the explanations in the PG, PG–13 and NC–17 categories as well. 

These explanations are available to parents at the theater (by telephone or at the 

box office), in certain media reviews and listings, and also made available on the 

MPAA’s World Wide Web Home Page on the Internet. This Internet address is 

http://www.mpaa.org. 

8 

Second, we changed the name of the X category to NC–17:NO ONE 17 AND 

UNDER ADMITTED. The X rating over the years appeared to have taken on a 

surly meaning in the minds of many people, a meaning that was never intended 

when we created the system. Therefore, we chose to reaffirm the original intent of 

the design we installed on November 1, 1968, in which this ‘‘adults only’’ category 

explicitly describes a movie that most parents would want to have barred to viewing 

by their children. That was and is our goal, nothing more, nothing less. 

We have now trademarked ‘‘NC–17:NO ONE 17 AND UNDER ADMITTED’’ so 

that this rating symbol and the legend can be used only by those who submit their 

films for rating. 

The Purpose of the Rating System 

The basic mission of the rating system is a simple one: to offer to parents some 

advance information about movies so that parents can decide what movies they 

want their children to see or not to see. The entire rostrum of the rating program 

rests on the assumption of responsibility by parents. If parents don’t care, or if they 

are languid in guiding their children’s movie-going, the rating system becomes useless. Indeed, if you are 18 or over, or if you have no children, the rating system has 

no meaning for you. Ratings are meant for parents, no one else. 

The Rating Board does not rate movies on their quality or lack of quality. That 

is a role left to film critics and audiences. Had we attempted to insert ourselves into 

judging whether a film is ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘bad’’ or ‘‘indifferent’’ we would have collapsed 

the system before it began. 

The criteria that go into the mix which becomes a Rating Board judgment are 

theme, violence, language, nudity, sensuality, drug abuse, and other elements. Part 

of the rating flows from how each of these elements is treated on-screen by the 

filmmaker. In making their evaluation, the members of the Ratings Board do not 

look at snippets of film in isolation but consider the film in its entirety. The Rating 

Board can make its decisions only by what is seen on the screen, not by what is 

imagined or thought. 

There is no special emphasis on any one of these elements. All are considered. 

All are examined before a rating is applied. Contrary to popular notion, violence is 

not treated more leniently than any of the other material. Indeed many films rated 

X in the past and NC–17 now, have at least tentatively been given the ‘‘adults only’’ 

rating because of depictions of violence. However, most of the directors/producers/ 

distributors involved have chosen, by their decision, to edit intense violent scenes 

in order to receive an R rating. 

How The Ratings Are Decided 

The ratings are decided by a full-time Rating Board located in Los Angeles. There 

are 8–13 members of the Board who serve for periods of varying length. They work 

for the Classification and Rating Administration, which is funded by fees charged 

to producers/distributors for the rating of their films. The MPAA President chooses 

the Chairman of the Rating Board, thereby insulating the Board from industry or 

other group pressure. No one in the movie industry has the authority or the power 

to push the Board in any direction or otherwise influence it. One of the highest accolades to be conferred on the rating system is that from its birth in 1968 to this hour, 

there has never been even the slightest jot of evidence that the rating system has 

ever deliberately fudged a decision or bowed to pressure. The Rating Board has always conducted itself at the highest level of integrity. That is a large, honorable, 

and valuable asset. 

There are no special qualifications for Board membership, except the members 

must have a shared parenthood experience, must be possessed of an intelligent maturity, and most of all, have the capacity to put themselves in the role of most 

American parents so they can view a film and apply a rating that most parents 

would find suitable and helpful in aiding their decisions about their children’s 

moviegoing. 

As the MPAA President, I take no part in rating decisions, and do not overrule 

or dissuade the Board from any decisions it makes. 

No one is forced to submit a film to the Board for rating, but the vast majority 

of producers/distributors do in fact submit their films for ratings. Any producer/distributor who wants no part of any rating system is free to go to the market without 

any rating at all or with any description or symbol they choose as long as it is not 

confusingly similar to the G, PG, PG–13, R, and, NC–17. The rating symbols are 

federally-registered certification marks of the MPAA and may not be self-applied. 

The Board Votes on Ratings 

The Board views each film. Each member present estimates what most parents 

would consider to be that film’s appropriate rating. After group discussion, the 

9 

Board votes on the rating. Each member completes a rating form spelling out his 

or her reason for the rating. 

Each rating is decided by majority vote. 

The producer/distributor of a film has the right under the rules to inquire as to 

the ‘‘why’’ of the rating applied. The producer/distributor also has the right, based 

on the reasons for the rating, to edit the film—if that is the choice of the producer/ 

distributor—and come back to the Board to try for a less severe rating. The reedited 

film is brought back to the Board and the process goes forward again. 

Appeal of Ratings 

A producer/distributor who for any reason is displeased with a rating can appeal 

the decision to the Rating Appeals Board, which sits as the final arbiter of ratings. 

The Appeals Board comprises 14 to 18 members who serve terms of varying 

length. They are men and women from the industry organizations that govern the 

rating system. 

They gather to view the film and hear the appeal. After the screening, the producer/distributor whose film is being appealed explains why he or she believes the 

rating was wrongly decided. The chairman of the Rating Board states the reason 

for the film’s rating. The producer/distributor has an opportunity for rebuttal. 

After Appeals Board members question the two opposing representatives, they are 

excused from the room. The Board discusses the appeal and then takes a secret ballot. It requires a two-thirds vote of those present to overturn a Rating Board decision. 

By this method of appeal, decisions of the Rating Board can be examined and any 

rating deemed a mistake set right. 

The decision of the Appeals Board is final and cannot be appealed. 

What The Ratings Mean 

G: ‘‘General Audiences-All Ages Admitted.’’ 

This is a film which contains nothing in theme, language, nudity and sex, violence, etc. which would, in the view of the Rating Board, be offensive to parents 

whose younger children view the film. The G rating is not a ‘‘certificate of approval,’’ 

nor does it signify a children’s film. 

Some snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation but they are common everyday expressions. No stronger words are present in G-rated films. The violence is at a minimum. Nudity and sex scenes are not present; nor is there any drug 

use content. 

PG: ‘‘Parental Guidance Suggested. Some Material May Not Be Suitable For 

Children.’’ 

This is a film which clearly needs to be examined or inquired into by parents before they let their children attend. The label PG plainly states that parents may 

consider some material unsuitable for their children, but the parent must make the 

decision. 

Parents are warned against sending their children, unseen and without inquiry, 

to PG-rated movies. 

The theme of a PG-rated film may itself call for parental guidance. There may 

be some profanity in these films. There may be some violence or brief nudity. But 

these elements are not deemed so intense as to require that parents be strongly cautioned beyond the suggestion of parental guidance. There is no drug use content in 

a PG-rated film. 

The PG rating, suggesting parental guidance, is thus an alert for examination of 

a film by parents before deciding on its viewing by their children. 

Obviously such a line is difficult to draw. In our pluralistic society it is not easy 

to make judgments without incurring some disagreement. So long as parents know 

they must exercise parental responsibility, the rating serves as a meaningful guide 

and as a warning. 

PG–13: ‘‘Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some Material May Be Inappropriate For 

Children Under 13.’’ 

PG–13 is thus a sterner warning to parents to determine for themselves the attendance in particular of their younger children as they might consider some material not suited for them. Parents, by the rating, are alerted to be very careful about 

the attendance of their under-teenage children. 

A PG–13 film is one which, in the view of the Rating Board, leaps beyond the 

boundaries of the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, or 

other contents, but does not quite fit within the restricted R category. Any drug use 

content will initially require at least a PG–13 rating. In effect, the PG–13 cautions 

10 

parents with more stringency than usual to give special attention to this film before 

they allow their 12-year-olds and younger to attend. 

If nudity is sexually oriented, the film will generally not be found in the PG–13 

category. If violence is too rough or persistent, the film goes into the R (restricted) 

rating. A film’s single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only 

as an expletive, shall initially require the Rating Board to issue that film at least 

a PG–13 rating. More than one such expletive must lead the Rating Board to issue 

a film an R rating, as must even one of these words used in a sexual context. These 

films can be rated less severely, however, if by a special vote, the Rating Board feels 

that a lesser rating would more responsibly reflect the opinion of American parents. 

PG–13 places larger responsibilities on parents for their children’s movie-going. 

The voluntary rating system is not a surrogate parent, nor should it be. It cannot, 

and should not, insert itself in family decisions that only parents can, and should, 

make. Its purpose is to give prescreening advance informational warnings, so that 

parents can form their own judgments. PG–13 is designed to make these parental 

decisions easier for films between PG and R. 

R: ‘‘Restricted, Under 17 Requires Accompanying Parent Or Adult Guardian.’’ 

In the opinion of the Rating Board, this film definitely contains some adult material. Parents are strongly urged to find out more about this film before they allow 

their children to accompany them. 

An R-rated film may include hard language, or tough violence, or nudity within 

sensual scenes, or drug abuse or other elements, or a combination of some of the 

above, so that parents are counseled, in advance, to take this advisory rating very 

seriously. Parents must find out more about an R-rated movie before they allow 

their teenagers to view it. 

NC–17: ‘‘No One 17 And Under Admitted.’’ 

This rating declares that the Rating Board believes that this is a film that most 

parents will consider patently too adult for their youngsters under 17. No children 

will be admitted. NC–17 does not necessarily mean ‘‘obscene or pornographic’’ in the 

oft-accepted or legal meaning of those words. The Board does not and cannot mark 

films with those words. These are legal terms and for courts to decide. The reasons 

for the application of an NC–17 rating can be violence or sex or aberrational behavior or drug abuse or any other elements which, when present, most parents would 

consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children. 

Appraisal 

In any appraisal, what is ‘‘too much?’’ becomes very controversial. How much is 

‘‘too much’’ violence? Are classic war films too violent with scenes of marines storming a beach and slaying hundreds, wounding thousands? Is it the graphic cop killing, the gangster shoot-out, or the slap across the face of a woman that determines 

‘‘too much’’? How much is ‘‘blood spilled’’ to be given emphasis? Where is the line 

to be drawn between ‘‘this is alright’’ and ‘‘this is not alright’’? 

The same vexing doubts occur in sex scenes or those where language rises on the 

Richter scale, or where behavior not considered ‘‘normal’’ is revealed on the screen. 

What follows is disagreement, inevitable, inexorable, and oftentimes strident. That 

is what the rating system has to endure and confront. We understand that. We try 

to do our level best so that most parents would find our ratings mostly accurate and 

mostly useful. 

But, importantly, we urge and implore parents to care about what their children 

see and watch, to focus their attention on movies so they can know more about a 

film before they consent to their children watching it. 

To oversee the Rating Board, the film industry has set up a Policy Review Committee consisting of officials of MPAA and NATO. These men and women set guidelines for the Rating Board to follow, and make certain that the Board carries them 

out reasonably and appropriately. 

Because the rating program is a self-regulatory apparatus of the film industry, 

it is important that no single element of the industry take on the authority of a 

‘‘czar’’ beyond any discipline or self-restraint. 

Advertising and Trailer Policy 

Film advertising is part of the film industry’s self-regulatory mechanism. All advertising for rated motion pictures must be submitted to the Advertising Administration for approval prior to its release to the public. This includes, but is not limited to, print ads, radio and TV spots, pressbooks, videocassette packaging and theatrical and home video trailers. 

Trailers are an important aspect of the program. They are approved for ‘‘all audiences,’’ which means they may be shown with all feature films, or ‘‘restricted audiVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:33 Jun 04, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\81139.TXT JACKIE
11 

ences’’, which limits their use to feature films rated R or NC–17. There will be, in 

‘‘all audience’’ trailers, no scenes that caused the feature to be rated PG, PG–13, 

R or NC–17. 

Each trailer carries at the front a tag which tells two things: (1) the audience for 

which the trailer has been approved, and (2) the rating of the picture being advertised. The tag for ‘‘all audience’’ trailers will have a green background; the tag for 

‘‘restricted’’ trailers will have a red background. The color is to alert the projectionist against mismatching trailers with the film being shown on the theater 

screen. 

How the Rating System Is Used By Theater Owners and Video Retailers 

Motion picture theater owners, who co-founded the rating system in 1968, were 

the first group in the entertainment industry to voluntarily enforce its guidelines. 

NATO estimates that the majority of the theater owners in the Nation observe the 

rating system. 

In the mid-1980s, as watching movies on videocassettes at home soared in popularity, video retailers joined theater owners in embracing the voluntary guidelines 

of the rating system. Parents who relied on the rating system to determine which 

films their children viewed in theaters found the information provided by the rating 

classifications equally helpful in home video. To facilitate its use, ratings are displayed on both the videocassette package and the cassette itself. 

The Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA), which is the major trade association for video retailers in the United States, has adopted a ‘‘Pledge to Parents’’ 

which strongly endorses the observance of the voluntary movie rating system by 

video retailers. 

The Public Reaction 

We count it crucial to make regular soundings to find out how the public perceives 

the rating program, and to measure the approval and disapproval of what we are 

doing. 

Nationwide scientific polls, conducted each year by the Opinion Research Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey, have consistently given the rating program high 

marks by parents throughout the land. The latest poll results show that 76 percent 

of parents with children under 13 found the ratings to be ‘‘very useful’’ to ‘‘fairly 

useful’’ in helping them make decisions for the movie-going of their children. 

On the evidence of the polls, the rating system would not have survived if it were 

not providing a useful service to parents. 

The rating system isn’t perfect but, in an imperfect world, it seems each year to 

match the expectations of those whom it is designed to serve—parents of America. 

12 


928GLICK1.eps
13 

STATEMENT OF PATRICIA E. VANCE, PRESIDENT, 

ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE RATING BOARD 

Ms. VANCE. My pleasure. I just have to link this up. OK, there 

we go. 

Before I begin—can you hear me? 

Senator BROWNBACK. Yes. Get that a little closer if you would, 

Patricia. That would be great. 

Ms. VANCE. I just want to thank you, Chairman Brownback, for 

the attention you have shown over the years to the critically important issues being discussed today and also for your past praise of 

the ESRB rating system. 

I am going to start my remarks this afternoon by providing background on how the ESRB rating system came into being. Ten years 

ago the games industry created the ESRB with one central mission: 

to provide parents and consumers at large with the information 

they need to make educated purchase decisions when it comes to 

computer and video games. The rating system, although voluntary, 

has been universally adopted by game publishers and retailers 

alike. Today virtually all computer and video games sold in the 

U.S. carry an ESRB rating. 

After consulting a wide range of child development and academic 

experts, analyzing other rating systems, and conducting nationwide 

research, the founders of the ESRB concluded that parents wanted 

two elements in a rating system, that is age-based categories and, 

equally if not more importantly, objective and detailed information 

about what is in a game. 

Based on this research, the ESRB rating system was created, 

consisting of rating symbols for age appropriateness on the front of 

the game packaging, and on the back content descriptors stating 

why a game received a particular rating or indicating content that 

may be of interest or concern. There are five age-based rating categories, ranging from early childhood to adults only, and over 30 

content descriptors currently in use. 

In rating nearly 1,200 games each year, raters must consider a 

wide range of content elements. There are few hard and fast rules 

when it comes to rating games. The manner in which a particular 

act is depicted, the context in which it occurs, the intensity of the 

image itself, and the degree of player, which is unique to our rating 

system, all can greatly affect the assignment of a rating. 

To ensure that the ratings we assign reflect the standards of average American consumers, every year ESRB commissions Peter 

Hart Research to survey parents across the U.S. Last year this research found that parents agreed or even thought our ratings were 

too strict 84 percent of the time, the highest ever. 

Furthermore, as you know, Chairman Brownback, a new survey 

released by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation last week 

found that the majority of parents thought the ESRB ratings were 

very useful. They also thought the ESRB rating system was the 

most effective among all rating systems. 

While most games still carry an E rating, over the past few years 

we have seen a gradual increase in the teen and mature categories. 

Some critics feel that the ESRB rating standards have become 

more lax over time, commonly referred to as ‘‘ratings creep.’’ In 

fact, if ratings creep were occurring the reverse trend would be 

14 

seen. Instead, we believe the shift we are experiencing is attributed 

to the aging demographic of today’s gamer. Two-thirds of gamers 

today are over 18 and the average age is 29. It naturally follows 

that the industry would produce more games targeted at older consumers, who now make up a majority of the market. 

Further, the Subcommittee asked that I comment on universal 

ratings. Though I understand its appeal, candidly I have serious 

concerns about creating a uniform system of ratings. Fundamentally, I do not believe there is anything confusing or unclear about 

ESRB ratings. Quite the contrary, research indicates that they are 

both easily understood and useful to parents. 

Some have even suggested that game ratings be based on a numerical count of particular types of content, such as acts of violence. Trying to quantify content in an interactive medium, when 

players control the frequency of actions and the outcome of events 

themselves, is particularly impractical. Moreover, Mr. Chairman, 

the recent Kaiser study concludes that a clear majority of parents 

surveyed think a single ratings system is unnecessary. 

Finally, I want to direct your attention to the extensive efforts 

we are making to raise consumer awareness in use of the ratings 

system. We agree that it is vital. According to a study conducted 

by the Federal Trade Commission, parents are involved in the purchase or rental of games 83 percent of the time. Keeping this in 

mind, last fall we launched a multi-channel consumer marketing 

campaign targeting parents. The campaign is composed of a public 

service announcement and a retail partnership program. To date, 

I am happy to report that the campaign continues to generate 

broad exposure from both media and retail partners. 

We are also pleased that industry and ESRB efforts to encourage 

retailers to prevent the sale of mature-rated games to minors are 

taking root. We encourage Congress to support these efforts to further raise consumer awareness and responsible use of the ratings 

system. 

Thanks for inviting me here today and I welcome any questions 

you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Vance follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICIA VANCE, PRESIDENT, ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE

RATING BOARD (ESRB) 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to present an overview of the ESRB rating system and more broadly discuss the critically important 

issues surrounding the most effective ways to inform consumers, especially parents, 

about the content of the entertainment their families consume. 

Background 

The ESRB has been in existence for ten years. It was created in 1994 with one 

central mission: to provide parents and consumers at large with the information 

they need to make informed computer and video game purchase decisions. Today, 

we remain extremely proud of the ESRB rating system and the information it provides to parents. Indeed, the Federal Trade Commission and leading policymakers 

have praised it for its effectiveness and comprehensiveness. The rating system, although voluntary, has been universally adopted by the industry and today virtually 

all computer and video games sold in the U.S. carry an ESRB rating. In fact, most 

retailers in the U.S. refuse to stock games that do not carry an ESRB rating. 

After consulting a wide range of child development and academic experts, analyzing other rating systems, and conducting nationwide research, the founders of the 

ESRB concluded what parents really wanted from a video game rating system were 

both age-based categories and, equally if not more importantly, objective and deVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:33 Jun 04, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\81139.TXT JACKIE
15 

tailed information about what’s in the game. Parents surveyed agreed that a rating 

system should inform and suggest, not prohibit. Respondents also agreed that the 

rating system should not attempt to quantify objectionable incidents; instead it 

should reflect the overall content and objective of the game. 

The ESRB Rating System 

Based on the research conducted in 1994, the ESRB rating system was created 

with two equally important parts: 1) easily identifiable rating symbols, found on the 

front of game packaging, suggesting the most appropriate age group for each game, 

and 2) content descriptors, found on the back of game packaging, clearly stating why 

a game received a particular rating or indicating content that may be of interest 

or concern. 

Here’s an illustration of the two parts: 

The five ESRB rating categories include: 

• EC—Early Childhood means the game may be suitable for ages 3 and older, 

and is specifically designed for young children. 

• E—Everyone means the game may be suitable for ages 6 and older. E—rated 

games may contain minimal cartoon-like violence or comic mischief, and are 

generally appropriate for a wide range of audiences. 

• T—Teen means that the content may be suitable for ages 13 and older, and may 

contain violence, limited amounts of strong language, or suggestive themes. 

• M—Mature means that content may be suitable for ages 17 and older and may 

contain sexual themes, intense violence, or strong language. 

• AO—Adults Only means that the product is intended only for ages 18 and over. 

Over 30 different content descriptors are currently in use. They span various categories of concern to parents, including but not limited to violence, language, suggestive or sexual content, and use of controlled substances 

As a point of reference, of the 1,176 games rated by the ESRB in 2003, 57 percent 

were rated E—Everyone and 32 percent were rated T—Teen. Games rated M—Mature represented 10 percent of games rated, with EC—Early Childhood representing 

most of the remaining 1 percent. 

Ratings Creep? 

Comparing the above data to prior years shows that the E for Everyone category 

has been declining slightly each year, while the Teen and Mature categories has 

been gradually increasing. It’s not surprising that there are more Teen and Mature 

games because over the last decade the core audience for games has steadily aged. 

In fact, today, the core audience is 18–35 years old and the average age of game 

players is now 29 years old. Thus, it is perfectly logical to see game publishers create more titles aimed at this older consumer. 


928VANCE1.eps 928VANCE2.eps
16 

This upward shift in ratings assigned would refute assumptions that some critics 

have made about ‘‘ratings creep’’ in our system, since evidence of ‘‘ratings creep’’ 

would suggest that lower categories are getting larger, not smaller. But, just to be 

sure, as a test, we recently selected ten top-selling Teen and Mature-rated games 

from five years ago and ran them through our standard rating process to determine 

if they would receive the same ratings today. Raters had no idea they were evaluating 5-year old game titles. The results of the test were that all ten games received 

the same ratings they had originally received. 

Recent Improvements 

As we have done periodically since establishing the ESRB ratings system, last 

year, the ESRB took several pro-active steps to further ensure that consumers are 

getting the most out of the rating system. One step was to add several new content 

descriptors to provide greater nuance in several categories. Four new descriptors in 

the violence category alone were added to the system. A second pro-active step 

taken was to increase the visibility of the content descriptors on the back of every 

game box. This was achieved by repeating the rating symbol on the back of the box 

next to the content descriptors in an authoritative ‘‘seal’’. All games shipped to 

stores in the last year carry this new ‘‘seal’’. And the third step the ESRB took to 

increase the effectiveness of the rating system was to add the age ‘‘17+’’ to the M— 

Mature rating symbol and 18+ to the AO—Adult Only rating symbol, so consumers 

more clearly understand the specific age range we are suggesting. 

Senator Joe Lieberman, who has worked closely with Chairman Brownback on 

issues related to media violence and monitoring the video game industry’s ratings 

and marketing practices, remarked of these enhancements, ‘‘I appreciate the ESRB’s 

ongoing commitment to helping parents make smart choices for their kids. I hope 

parents will return the favor by making better use of these better ratings, for in 

the end they have the primary responsibility to protect their kids. . ..’’ 

Rating Process 

So, what is the process for assigning ratings? In order to have a game certified 

with an ESRB rating, software publishers fill out a detailed questionnaire explaining exactly what’s in the game. This questionnaire is submitted to ESRB along with 

actual videotaped footage of the game and relevant supplementary materials (e.g., 

soundtracks, cheat codes, scripts). The video footage must not only accurately represent the final product as a whole, but it must also show the most extreme content 

of the game. In the event that the ESRB discovers undisclosed pertinent content 

that would have affected a rating after a product has shipped, enforcement measures can be taken, including the imposition of significant fines and corrective actions 

(e.g., re-stickering or recalling product). 

Once the submission is received and checked for completeness, a minimum of 

three raters independently view video footage of each game and, for every scene, as 

well as the overall product, recommend a rating and content descriptors they deem 

most appropriate. ESRB compares the raters’ recommendations to make sure there 

is consensus. Usually, the raters agree on an overall age rating and their recommendation becomes final. However, when the raters recommend different ratings, 


928VANCE3.eps
17 

additional raters will review the game in order to reach consensus. Once consensus 

on a rating is reached, ESRB issues an official rating certificate to the game’s publisher. If a publisher is not satisfied with the rating issued, it may re-submit the 

game with changes and the process starts anew. 

In rating a game, raters must consider a wide range of content elements including 

but not limited to violence, sex, humor, language, and use of controlled substances. 

There are few hard and fast rules when it comes to rating games. The manner in 

which a particular act is depicted, the context in which it occurs, the intensity of 

the image itself, and the degree of player control (unique to our rating system) all 

can greatly affect which rating category and content descriptor(s) ultimately are assigned to the game. Some have suggested that game ratings be based on a numerical count of particular types of content, such as acts of violence. I cannot say if this 

would work in other media. But trying to quantify content in an interactive medium 

when players control the frequency of actions and the events themselves is particularly impractical and pointless. Those who have played or studied video games universally recognize that the element of player control makes the medium and consequently its rating system unique. 

It is critical to note that ESRB raters have no ties to the industry and are specially trained by us to rate computer and video games. Most ESRB raters have prior 

experience with children, either as parents, caretakers, or through prior work and 

education. They are part-time employees of the ESRB, and typically attend one 

rater session per week. The ESRB strives to recruit raters who are demographically 

diverse by age (must be over 21), martial status, sex, race, and cultural background 

to reflect the U.S. population overall. 

Research 

In order to ensure that the ratings we assign reflect the standards of average 

American consumers, we conduct consumer research on an annual basis in ten different markets across the U.S. This research has consistently shown that parents 

overwhelmingly agree with the ratings that we apply. Peter D. Hart Research Associates, a nationally renowned independent opinion research firm, tests randomly selected video games rated during the prior 12 months with parents of children between the ages of 6 and 17. We show parents clips of actual game footage and ask 

what rating they would apply. Then, we compare their responses to the actual rating assigned by the ESRB. 

Last year this research found that parents agreed, or even thought our ratings 

were too strict, 84 percent of the time. Parents described the actual ratings as 

‘‘about right’’ in 77 percent of all instances and ‘‘too strict’’ 7 percent of the time. 

Ratings issued by watchdog groups like The National Institute on Media and the 

Family, with whom Chairman Brownback has worked closely over the years, also 

confirm that ESRB ratings are reliable and, in fact, NIMF’s own ratings agree with 

ESRB an overwhelming portion of the time. We think that’s pretty good. And we 

recognize that in a pluralistic society like ours, which encourages and embraces differences among its citizens, no rating system could ever achieve 100 percent popular 

consensus. However, it is clear that ESRB ratings are well within the American 

mainstream, and that’s exactly where we want to be. 

Other opinion polls conducted by Hart Research show that parents not only agree 

with specific ESRB ratings, but that 90 percent of them say the ESRB rating system 

provides the kind of information they need. Moreover, approximately 75 percent say 

it’s an effective tool that helps parents shield their children from inappropriate 

game content. 

Supporting the Hart research is a new survey released by the Henry J. Kaiser 

Family Foundation last week, which found that among all entertainment rating systems (TV, movies, music, and games), parents found the ESRB ratings to be the 

most useful, with 91 percent finding them ‘‘somewhat (38 percent)’’ to ‘‘very useful’’ 

(53 percent). 

Of course, some have expressed concern about some aspects of the ESRB system. 

We respect these concerns and have worked hard to maintain a dialogue with any 

and all persons who care about giving parents accurate ratings information. Like 

anything else, though, it is important for observers to look beyond the headlines and 

carefully examine the methodologies of those who have issued studies critical of the 

ESRB or other systems. For example, the headline of the Harvard press release earlier this year publicizing Professor Kimberly Thompson’s study of Teen games reads, 

‘‘Ratings of Teen-rated video games do not always fully describe content.’’ Sounds 

pretty ominous. But in truth, Professor Thompson concluded that 95 percent of instances of violence found in games included in the study were properly labeled by 

the ESRB. In other words, in the category of greatest concern among parents, ESRB 

18 

content descriptors were applied to virtually all of the 81 games included in the 

study. 

The Harvard study also suggested that ESRB was not issuing content descriptors 

labeling other relevant content. For example, the study stated that a game depicting 

a character holding a non-lit pipe—not smoking it—should have a ‘‘Use of Tobacco’’ 

content descriptor. Here we have an honest disagreement about rating theory and 

standards. ESRB raters would not have applied a ‘‘Use of Tobacco’’ descriptor in this 

case because the content was not significant from a contextual standpoint, and characters were not actually smoking. Similarly, unlike the Harvard researchers, we 

would not apply a ‘‘Reference to Alcohol’’ descriptor if a couple of unmarked bottles 

appear on a table in a scene. Our consumer research leads us to conclude that neither would most parents. All this said, I have great regard for Professor Thompson 

and I believe she is committed to helping us enhance the ESRB rating system and 

we welcome a continuing dialogue with her and others. 

Universal Ratings 

The Subcommittee asked that I comment on the issue of universal ratings. Candidly, I have serious concerns about this idea, though I understand its appeal. In 

the case of video game ratings, I think it is clear that our system is well received 

and considered effective and easily understood by consumers. Moreover, there is little evidence that consumers are confused by the current media rating systems. 

What is confusing about a game with a Mature 17+ rating with an Intense Violence 

content descriptor? It is not complicated or difficult for a consumer today to understand what type of video game they are purchasing. At a minimum, by picking up 

a box, checking the ratings information and looking at the title, images, screen shots 

and descriptions right on the packaging, it’s hard to imagine a consumer would not 

know what he or she is getting. And a recent study by the Henry J. Kaiser Family 

Foundation confirms that nearly six out of ten parents surveyed think a single rating system is unnecessary. 

I would also be concerned about whether it is even practical to develop a coherent 

single rating system that actually does simplify information for consumers. All 

media are not the same. Motion pictures and television programs usually involve 

visual depictions of real actors on film in realistic situations; music consists of auditory and occasionally visual elements. Music, film, and TV are passive media. But 

games are interactive. This element of player control makes games unique among 

entertainment media and it is not at all clear to me that one could devise a single 

system that could accurately or effectively capture the different aspects of various 

entertainment media. 

Raising Consumer Awareness 

Hopefully, by now you have a better understanding of the ESRB rating system, 

how it was developed, how we apply ratings, and what consumers think about those 

ratings. Now, I want to direct your attention to the extensive efforts we are making 

to raise consumer awareness and use of the rating system. 

First, it’s important to define who the ‘‘consumer’’ is. According to a study conducted by the Federal Trade Commission in September 2000, parents are involved 

in the purchase or rental of games 83 percent of the time. The ESA has found in 

similar research that adults make 90 percent all game purchases. Regardless of the 

data source used, it is clear that, parents are either involved in or ultimately making the decision about what games their kids are playing an overwhelming majority 

of the time. 

Keeping in mind the significant role parents play in making purchase decisions, 

the ESRB launched a multi-channel consumer marketing campaign in October 2003 

featuring the slogan ‘‘Ok To Play?—Check The Ratings’’. The campaign, composed 

of a public service announcement (PSA) and a retail partnership program, encourages parents to use both components of the rating system (rating symbols and content descriptors) to determine if a game is appropriate for their family. 

During the first six months of the campaign’s launch, the print PSA campaign 

(see attached ad) generated more than 500 million gross consumer impressions. 5 

of the top 10 consumer magazines including TV Guide, Better Homes and Gardens, 

Good Housekeeping, Family Circle, and Ladies’ Home Journal, plus Entertainment 

Weekly, Redbook, Parents, Working Mother, and Disney Adventures have run the 

print PSA. More than a dozen top game enthusiast publications have also supported 

the campaign, and over 20 websites have run an online banner version of the ad. 

Furthermore, several major national retailers (e.g., Wal-Mart, Toys R Us, EB 

Games) have included a ‘‘ratings legend’’ that ties into the campaign in their print 

circulars and catalogues. 

19 

The second critical part of our consumer awareness campaign is the launch of a 

unique retail partnership program. The goal of the program was to ensure that 

when consumers were shopping for computer and video games that they would be 

educated about and reminded to check the ratings. But rather than send posters or 

stand-alone brochures to stores that consumers may not notice, we succeeded in getting 12 of the top 14 retailers of games in the US, representing over 85 percent of 

all sales, to incorporate ratings education into their in-store display fixtures. All 

participating retailers, including Wal-Mart, Best Buy and Toys R Us to mention 

some of the largest, have re-printed and installed new signs for their game displays 

this year. ESRB has also provided these retailers with training materials for sales 

associates to learn about the rating system, and signage supporting store policies 

restricting the sale of Mature rated games (see attached store sign composite). . 

Since launching the retail partnership program, the ESRB has conducted audits 

measuring compliance from retailers in displaying ‘‘Ok To Play?—Check The Ratings’’ and store policy signage. The most recent information from last month, which 

surveyed more than 4,100 store locations from six chains, indicated that 62 percent 

of stores were displaying their signs. 

Recently, the ESRB expanded the retail partnership program to include local 

independent retailers and cyber cafe ́ businesses, working closely with the Video 

Software Dealers Association (VSDA) and iGames to help penetrate these hard-toreach outlets. 

We encourage the Chairman, Subcommittee members and Congress to support 

these efforts to further raise consumer awareness and use of the rating system. 

Other ESRB Activities 

On a final note, ESRB work does not begin and end at ratings. In addition to the 

Rating Board, the ESRB is responsible for the oversight, compliance, and enforcement of industry-adopted advertising and marketing guidelines. This is performed 

through the Advertising Review Council (ARC) of the ESRB, which publishes the 

industry’s Principles and Guidelines for Responsible Advertising Practices defining 

standards for responsible advertising practices, and providing information on enforcement, complaint resolution, appeals, and compliance. Additionally, specific marketing rules are codified in the ESRB Advertising Code of Conduct, addressing everything from the required size of rating icons on game boxes to the audience composition of media vehicles in which M—Mature rated ads may appear. All publishers of games certified with an ESRB rating are legally bound to these marketing 

guidelines. 

The ESRB diligently monitors compliance with guidelines and in the event that 

a game publisher inappropriately labels or advertises a product; the ESRB is empowered to compel corrective actions and impose a wide range of sanctions, including monetary fines where appropriate. 

In 1999, the ESRB launched the Privacy Online division in order to assist industry companies in the development and ongoing management of the online collection 

and use of personal information. The FTC endorsed the Privacy Online program as 

a ‘‘safe harbor’’ under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). The 

division services companies in the development of privacy policies, ongoing monitoring and enforcement of stated practices, privacy complaint filtering and processing, employee training, and continuing consultation. 

Closing Statement 

I hope this testimony provides a clearer and broader understanding of the ESRB 

than when you arrived today. Thank you for inviting me here today and I’m grateful 

to have the opportunity to explain what we do and how we do it. We take great 

pride in our work and the service we provide to parents and other consumers of 

computer and video games. I look forward to having a constructive dialogue with 

members of the Committee and answering any questions that you may have. 

Thank you. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you, Ms. Vance. We appreciate that 

presentation. 

Next we would like to go to Mr. Anthony Podesta, Co-Chair of 

the Podesta Mattoon Group and here on the television rating system. Mr. Podesta, thank you for being here. 

20 

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY T. PODESTA, EXECUTIVE 

SECRETARIAT, ON BEHALF OF THE TV PARENTAL 

GUIDELINES MONITORING BOARD 

Mr. PODESTA. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for inviting 

the TV Parental Guidelines organization to be here at this hearing 

today. I am reminded of the old adage after following Mr. Valenti 

and Mr. Glickman that everything has been said, but not everyone 

has said it. But I will give you a little more information on how 

the ratings system came to be what it is. 

In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Congress invited the 

entertainment industry to come together and create a voluntary 

ratings system. Led by Mr. Valenti and Decker Anstrom of the 

NCTA and Eddie Fritts of the Broadcasters Association, they convened a meeting of some three dozen individuals from all across 

the entertainment industry, including all of the major companies 

and guilds and the like and went through a series of meetings on 

a weekly basis that went on for hours and hours and hours and 

hours trying to sort out the complicated issues that were before us. 

That group met over the course of the summer of 1996 with academic experts, with religious experts, with child advocacy experts, 

and across that period of time tried to hear from as many people 

as possible on this. In December 1996, the TV parental guidelines 

were announced by Mr. Valenti in a meeting at the White House 

and in meetings with the Congressional leaders here on Capitol 

Hill. 

We produced a system that had a small number of characters. 

We have the characters on the boards behind us: ‘‘TV–Y’’ and ‘‘TV– 

Y7’’ for children’s programming, ‘‘TV–G,’’ ‘‘TV–PG,’’ ‘‘TV–14,’’ and 

‘‘TV–MA’’ for non-children’s programming. There was considerable 

discussion about that simple system and some in the advocacy community thought that it would be helpful to provide more information to parents. Another series of meetings were had. There were 

hearings on Capitol Hill. 

Indeed, in addition to the consultations that were had in 1996 

there were a series of negotiations between the child advocacy community and the entertainment industry, which led finally to an 

agreement by the advocates and by the industry to add descriptors 

to the system. So there is ‘‘S’’ for ‘‘sexual content,’’ ‘‘L’’ for ‘‘language,’’ ‘‘D’’ for ‘‘suggestive dialogue,’’ and ‘‘V’’ for ‘‘violence.’’ All of 

those are appended to certain programs. 

That ratings system as modified was presented to the FCC and 

is now embedded in every television set that has been produced 13 

inches or larger, and it is hard-wired into literally millions of television sets that have been in the marketplace and in people’s 

homes across the country. 

Today some 2,000 hours a day of television programming are 

rated under this system, everything with the exception of news and 

sports and commercial, commercial matter. The ratings appear for 

15 seconds at the front of each program. 

Let me spend a minute as well, if I may, Mr. Chairman, on the 

Monitoring Board. As a result of these discussions that we had in 

1997, a board was founded, and we have been the secretariat of 

that board since its foundation, to bring together entertainment inVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:33 Jun 04, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\81139.TXT JACKIE
21 

dustry representatives and people from the child and parent and 

psychological and medical and religious community. 

Today that board is composed—indeed, Mr. Valenti and Ms. Miller are members of that board. We are the institution that is there 

to guarantee the integrity of the system. At the beginning people 

were uncertain about what it meant. The board meets periodically, 

twice a year normally, but upon the call of the chairman as well 

in the event that there is a need for review of how a particular program has been rated. 

The purpose of the board is to serve as a mechanism that parents or individuals or researchers or anybody else could say, there 

is a mistake being made here. Indeed, in the period in the early 

days of the TV rating system we had several complaints, and indeed the board met, reviewed programming, and in a couple of occasions actually encouraged the program runner, the broadcaster, 

the cable network, to re-rate the show in a more strict or cautionary fashion, and indeed that did occur. 

The board also has a second function, which is to educate parents. We have run thousands of 30-second spots on virtually every 

broadcast and cable television network in the country over these 

past 7 or 8 years, trying to educate parents about this rating system. We have an annual effort at the National PTA Convention to 

try to bring the TV rating system to the PTA and to try to have 

its local organizations educate parents about this. We take that 

public education effort very seriously and work at it very hard. 

We appreciate this opportunity and I am happy to answer any 

of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Podesta follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANTHONY T. PODESTA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT, ON

BEHALF OF THE TV PARENTAL GUIDELINES MONITORING BOARD

Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Brownback and Ranking Member Breaux 

for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the TV Parental Guidelines Monitoring Board. As the Executive Secretariat of the Monitoring Board, I am grateful 

for the chance to discuss the TV Parental Guidelines and answer any questions you 

may have about the television ratings system. 

The TV Parental Guidelines is a voluntary rating system that gives parents information about the age-appropriateness and content of television programs. Used in 

conjunction with the V-chip, which is now standard in all TV sets 13 inches and 

larger, the TV ratings allow parents to block out programming they think is unsuitable for their children. The system is an effective tool to help parents supervise the 

programming that comes into their homes. 

Every segment of the entertainment industry was involved in the creation of the 

TV guidelines, including national broadcast networks; affiliated, independent and 

public television stations nationwide; cable programmers; producers and distributors 

of cable programming; syndicators; entertainment companies; and members of the 

creative guilds representing writers, directors, producers and actors. They all came 

together to collaborate on the development of the ratings system. As you can imagine, this was no small feat. 

Led by the Motion Picture Association of America, the National Association of 

Broadcasters, and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, this firstever collaboration among the entertainment industry had one clear goal: to devise 

a TV ratings system that was easy to understand, easy to use, and effective. The 

industry knew that parents were the primary audience for this ratings system, and 

its efforts focused on creating a tool that would help parents monitor and supervise 

what their children were watching on television. After several months of consultation both inside the television industry and with other groups that had an interest 

in the TV ratings, the industry announced the TV Parental Guidelines in December 

of 1996. This age-based system had six categories—two exclusively for children’s 

programming—TV–Y and TV–Y7, and four for general audience programming—TV– 

22 

G, TV–PG, TV–14 and TV–MA. Each category had a corresponding detailed description of the content that might be found in programming carrying that rating. 

After a period of public comment, during which parents expressed interest in having more information about the content of programs, the industry agreed to revisit 

the system to determine how this information could be provided. During the spring 

and early summer of 1997, industry leaders had extensive discussions not only with 

parents, but also with national children’s and parents’ advocacy groups as well as 

medical, religious, and educational groups. Among the groups involved in these discussions were the National Parent Teacher Association (PTA), the National Education Association (NEA), the American Psychological Association (APA), the American Medical Association (AMA), the Center for Media Education (CME), the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Children 

Now, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and the National Association of 

Elementary School Principals (NAESP). 

These groups spent hundreds of hours on this process, and it was important to 

the integrity of the system that a majority of them supported the final product. The 

result of these discussions was that television programming would continue to fall 

into one of the six categories (TV–Y, TV–Y7, TV–G, TV–PG, TV–14, and TV–MA), 

but that content labels would be added where appropriate. These content labels are 

FV for fantasy violence, which is used exclusively for TV–Y7 programs; V for violence; S for sexual content; L for language; and D for suggestive dialogue. These last 

four labels are used in the general audience categories of TV–PG, TV–14 and TV– 

MA. 

On July 10, 1997, the revised ratings system was ratified by leading family and 

children’s advocacy groups, as well as television broadcasters, cable systems and 

networks, and television production companies. Congress signaled support for the 

system and agreed to give it a chance to work. And, after accepting public comments 

on the system, the FCC deemed the TV Parental Guidelines ‘‘acceptable’’ in March 

of 1998. 

In addition to coming together to create the guidelines, the industry also devised 

a process for implementing them. Because of the huge amount of programming involved—some 2,000 hours a day—the industry volunteered to review the programming and apply the guidelines episode-by-episode to avoid blanket ratings for a program that might be accurate one week, but not the next. Today, aside from news, 

sports, and advertising, everything you see on television has been rated by the industry, and the information is available for parents to use. 

In order to give parents real-time information about a program’s rating, the ratings icons and associated content symbols—for example, TV PG–V—appear in the 

upper left-hand corner of the screen for 15 seconds at the beginning of all rated programs. The ratings information is also included in published television listings and 

appears in electronic program guides. 

In order to ensure that the TV ratings are applied accurately and consistently, 

the industry created the TV Parental Guidelines Monitoring Board. When the Board 

receives widespread and verifiable criticism about a specific program’s rating, it reviews the program and makes recommendations about the appropriate rating to the 

relevant parties. 

When the TV Parental Guidelines were implemented, the industry knew that to 

be effective, parents and others needed to understand what the ratings meant and 

how to use them. The industry undertook a comprehensive public education campaign that we continue to build on today. Industry trade associations, individual 

broadcast and cable networks, affiliates, cable operators, and independent television 

stations have produced public service announcements to educate the public and promote the TV Parental Guidelines and parental controls. Millions of dollars have 

been spent on public service advertising, and the industry has made substantial investments to update the TV Parental Guidelines website and brochure. The brochure is available in both English and Spanish. In addition, each year, the Monitoring Board hosts a booth at the annual PTA Convention and distributes information on the ratings system. 

We have seen the results of this public education campaign firsthand. Parents 

send their questions, concerns, and suggestions about the ratings system to the 

Monitoring Board. Over the years, we have received more than 2,500 letters, e-mails 

or phone calls about the guidelines. 

Virtually all of the negative feedback about the ratings came at the beginning of 

the implementation process. The positive effects of the industry’s outreach efforts 

can be seen in the type of feedback we receive. We have not had any recent complaints about how a television program is rated. We know from our own polling and 

from surveys done by organizations like the Kaiser Family Foundation, that parents 

find the system helpful. 

23 

The TV Ratings System was created in conjunction with a broad cross-section of 

public advocacy groups to provide parents with a useful tool to help supervise the 

television programming that comes into their homes. We believe it serves that purpose. We understand that educating parents about this system is an ongoing process, and the industry remains committed to playing a continuing role in this process. 

Chairman Brownback, Ranking Member Breaux, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify before your Committee on the TV Parental Guidelines. I look forward to answering any questions you may have on the system. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. Podesta. I do have some 

questions I want to raise with you on this system when we get to 

the discussion. 

Mr. Kinney, Chief Executive Officer of the PSVratings group. Mr. 

Kinney, thank you for joining us, this is a private ratings group, 

and we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID G. KINNEY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

PSVRATINGS, INC. 

Mr. KINNEY. Good afternoon, Chairman Brownback, and thank 

you for inviting me to testify today. 

I am relatively new to Washington. I am David G. Kinney, founder and President of PSVratings, as well as the Chair of the Coalition for Independent Rating Services. Let me say a word about 

each, please. 

The Coalition for Independent Rating Services brings together 

five competitive organizations that provide independent ratings. 

The coalition members include PSVratings, Critics Inc./kids-inmind.com, Coalition for Quality Children’s Media/KIDSFIRST!, 

Family Style Film Guide, and Grading the Movies. 

The coalition’s goal is to increase dialogue and awareness about 

the value of independent rating systems among policymakers and 

the public at large. The coalition recently submitted comments to 

the FCC on the impact of violent programming on children. The coalition noted its support for an open V-Chip, which would allow 

consumers to access ratings systems of their choice, including independent competitive systems like ours. 

We plan to participate in the FCC’s rulemaking on interactivity 

and digital television and to work with partners in the industry toward an open V-Chip that could one day allow consumers, not 

merely to block violent programming, but watch programming that 

meets their preselected preferences for family viewing. 

That is what independent rating services are all about. We do 

not produce content. We simply provide information about the content. As such, independent rating systems provide a market-based 

solution to supplement industry-based rating systems such as 

MPAA, RIAA, and ESRB with the independent information consumers want and truly need. 

As the CEO of a corporation that has invested millions of dollars 

into the technology that enables us to meet the consumer demand 

and do it objectively, I can say that in fact the existing industrybased rating systems most assuredly do not adequately meet the 

demands of the consumer. In fact, parents do not want to be told 

what the entertainment industry thinks is suitable for their children. Parents want reliable information that will enable them to 

make that decision for themselves. 

24 

Today’s hearing begs the question of whether or not it is possible 

to create a solution that can meet the needs of parents and consumers while protecting the freedom of expression of the entertainment industry. The answer is yes, it is possible. The solution is information. 

I speak specifically for PSVratings when I say that we believe 

that the entertainment industry should be free to express themselves as they deem appropriate, but common sense dictates that 

social responsibility requires that freedom of expression be balanced with freedom of information. 

The Committee has asked about the scientific process for developing ratings. I cannot speak to the process for the other members 

of the coalition, but I conceived the PSVratings system and spearheaded its development. Please allow me to summarize how the 

precise system that Dr. Thompson envisions in her study can actually work. 

Our solution, called ‘‘PSVratings,’’ provides parents and all consumers with comprehensive, accurate, and objective information 

about the profanity, sex, and violence in media, and it does so without judgment or calls for censorship. As you can see, we use a universally recognized traffic light, color-coded to alert consumers to 

the level of profanity, sex, and violence in the media. 

When viewed in relation to existing industry-based ratings systems, parents can immediately see the different levels of profanity, 

sex, and violence in similar industry-based ratings. As you can see, 

there is a great divergence in the levels of profanity, sex, and violence even among movies given the same industry ratings. 

Consumers can now go to currentattractions.com to access more 

comprehensive information about the levels and amounts of profanity, sex, and violence content, as well as the context in which 

it was used. As you can see, the PSVratings system offers relevant 

content-specific information which can greatly benefit not just the 

consumer, but film makers and studios as well. By clarifying and 

simplifying the decisionmaking process, PSVratings supports the 

entertainment industry’s effort to reach the family audience. Moreover, with this technology-based solution studios and distributors 

could have the option of presenting multiple versions of their offerings with various levels of profanity, sex, and violence and thus 

open up additional channels of distribution, such as to airlines, 

schools, etcetera. 

As to the scientific process for developing ratings, the PSVratings 

system employs algorithms governing in excess of 3,000 descriptor 

rules and over 10 million potential rule combinations, managed by 

a board of experts in child psychology and education. Their job is 

to ensure that the PSVratings system factors in child development. 

While the technology behind the PSVratings system is very complex, as you can see, the consumer interface and display of data 

could not possibly be more user-friendly or simple to use. 

The Committee has also asked whether a more uniform system 

for all forms of media is needed. Among the benefits of PSVratings 

is that we have developed a system that is universally applicable 

to all media. PSVratings began with a focus on the home videoDVD market, both because parents rent and buy more videos than 

any other market segment and because we were fairly successful 

25 

at obtaining screeners. We have now expanded to box office releases, but admittedly still cannot provide the public with the information they seek until the end of the first day of release without 

prior access to the movie content. 

We are also working on video games and music and will soon be 

providing ratings for these media as well. In terms of online media, 

we have also developed the capability to monitor and rate 

chatrooms in real time, as well as a strategy for rating Internet 

sites and keeping those ratings updated. 

Finally, I would like to offer that the PSVratings system could 

also be applied to television and make V-Chip programming tailored to the sensitivities and maturity levels of everyone in the 

household as easy as selecting a level of profanity, sex, and violence, if again we could get prior access to the content. 

I will close now by stating that I look forward to the opportunity 

of working with the Committee and my fellow panelists in implementing solutions that protect children by providing parents with 

the information they need to make informed purchase and rental 

decisions, while at the same time protecting freedom of speech and 

the intellectual property of content producers against piracy. 

On behalf of the Coalition for Independent Ratings Services and 

PSVratings, I thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kinney follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID G. KINNEY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, PSVRATINGS, INC. 

Good morning Chairman McCain, Chairman Brownback, Senators. Thank you for 

inviting me to testify today. I am David G. Kinney, founder and President of 

PSVratings, Inc., as well as the Chair of the Coalition for Independent Ratings Services. The Coalition for Independent Ratings Services brings together five organizations that provide independent ratings. The Coalition members include: 

• PSVratings, Inc. 

• Critics, Inc./kids-in-mind.com 

• Coalition for Quality Children’s Media/KIDS FIRST! (CQCM) 

• Family Style Film Guide; and 

• Grading the Movies 

The fact that these independent ratings systems exist and are used by concerned 

parents and others is evidence of the public’s demand for more information than 

currently is being provided by the industry’s systems. 

Executive Summary 

The Coalition’s goal is to increase dialogue and awareness about the value of independent ratings systems among policymakers and the public at large. To this end, 

the Coalition recently submitted comments to the FCC’s on its proceeding on the 

impact of violent programming on children. The Coalition noted its support for an 

open V-chip, which would allow consumers to access rating systems of their choice, 

including independent, competitive systems like ours. We plan to participate in the 

FCC’s Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on interactivity in digital television, 

to work with partners in the industry towards an open V-chip that could one day 

allow consumers not merely to block violent programming, but have programming 

that meets their pre-selected preferences be suggested for family viewing. For instance, the PSVratings system could enable parents to program their V-chip by simply selecting the level of Profanity, Sex and Violence they deem appropriate for their 

children based upon the individual maturity level and sensitivities of each of their 

children. 

My company, PSVratings, is a supplement to industry-based ratings systems such 

as the MPAA, RIAA, and ESRB systems. I have been asked to come here and testify 

today on whether the existing ratings systems are effective in assisting consumers 

in discerning what is appropriate entertainment for their children. To that end, let 

me emphasize that we are a private corporation that has invested millions of dollars 

26 

1See Attachments rating the recently released films Anaconda (Screen Gems, Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group 2004) and Cellular (New Line Cinema Productions 2004). 

into technology that enables us to fill a void in the marketplace for the data that 

parents and consumers demand specifically because the existing industry based ratings systems do not, in fact, fulfill the information requirements of parents and consumers. In fact, we have found that parents do not want to be told what the industry thinks is suitable for their children. They want objective information to make 

that decision for themselves. I have attached our market research to my testimony, 

in order to be fully responsive to the Committee’s questions on the effectiveness of 

the industry’s systems. 

Our solution, called the PSVratings system, provides parents and indeed all consumers with comprehensive, accurate and objective information about the: Profanity, Sex and Violence in media. We use a universally recognized traffic light, 

color-coded to alert consumer to the level of content in each category. When viewed 

on our consumers website, called Current Attractions (www.currentattractions.com), 

consumers can access more comprehensive information about the nature of content 

in those categories.1 The PSVratings system offers relevant, content-specific information. Such data can greatly benefit not just the consumer, but filmmakers and 

studios as well. By clarifying and simplifying the caregiver decision-making process, 

PSVratings supports the entertainment industry’s effort to reach the family audience. Moreover, with this technology-based solution, studios and distributors could 

have the option of presenting multiple versions of their offerings with various levels 

of profanity, sex and violence and thus open up additional distribution channels, 

such as to airlines, after school programs, family restaurants, pediatric offices, etc. 

The Committee has asked about the scientific process for developing ratings. With 

algorithms governing over 3,000 descriptor rules, resulting in over 10 million combinations, managed by a board of experts in child psychology and education, the 

PSVratings system is extremely complex. While the technology behind the 

PSVratings system is very complex, however, as you can see from the slides, the 

consumer interface and display of data could not possibly be more user-friendly or 

simple to use. In response to the Committee’s interest in examining the process for 

developing ratings, I have included a more detailed description of this sophisticated 

process in an attachment to my testimony. 

The Committee has also asked whether a more uniform system for all forms of 

media is needed. The benefit of PSVratings is that we have developed a system that 

is universally applicable all media. 

PSVratings began with a focus on the home video/DVD market both because parents rent and buy more videos than any other market segment and because we were 

fairly successful at obtaining screeners. We have now expanded to box office releases. With respect to the Committee’s question on systems providing consumers 

with effective information, our market research demonstrated that consumers ideally would like ratings information before the release day. However, we still cannot 

provide the public with the information they seek until the end of the first day of 

release, without prior access to the movie content. There is a great diversity in the 

nature of the content, even among movies given the same industry ratings. We also 

are working on video games and music and will soon be providing ratings for these 

media as well. We have developed the capability to monitor and rate chat rooms in 

real time, as well as developed a strategy for rating Internet sites and keeping those 

ratings updated. Finally, we could also apply our system to television if, as previously stated with respect to films, we could gain prior access to such content. Such 


928KINNE1.eps
27 

2See In the Matter of Violent Television Programming And Is Impact on Children, Notice of 

Inquiry, MB Docket No. 04–261 (rel. July 28, 2004) and Comments of Coalition for Independent 

Ratings Services in MB Docket No. 04–261, Notice of Inquiry In the Matter of Violent Television 

Programming And Is Impact on Children (Sep. 15, 2004) (available at www.indepen 

dentratings.org). 3See News Release, Federal Communications Commission, FCC Adopts Children’s Programming Obligations for Digital Television Broadcasters, MM Docket 00–167 (rel’d September 9, 

2004). 4See also In The Matter of Second Periodic Review of the Commission’s Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television, MB Docket No. 03–15, RM 9832, Report and Order, 

at para. 154–168 (discussing and adopting the Advanced Television Standards Committee 

(ATSC) Program System and Information Protocol (PSIP) standard into the FCC rules as part 

of the DTV advanced digital television standard) (rel’d September 7, 2004). 5See www.fcc.gov/parents/tvratings.html. 6See http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/ratings/ratings.htm. 

access would of course be done in a manner consistent with protecting the content 

producers’ intellectual property rights. 

The Coalition 

The Coalition for Independent Ratings Services (‘‘Coalition’’) is a coalition of independent ratings service providers, including PSVratings, Inc., Critics, Inc./kids-inmind.com, Coalition for Quality Children’s Media/KIDS FIRST! (CQCM), 

FamilyStyle Film Guide, and Grading the Movies. The simple fact that so many 

competitive systems have developed in the last several years is evidence of consumers’ demand for more information to help them determine the suitability of a 

particular film, TV show, video game, music CD or Internet site for their families. 

Independent ratings can provide objective information to consumers, because their 

market incentive is to satisfy consumer demand for effective information. 

Box office sales research reflects that PG–13 movies garner the highest receipts, 

so there are strong incentives in the industry to secure a PG–13 rating. Likewise, 

box office receipts decline with NC–17 ratings, so there is a strong incentive to secure at least an R rating, instead of the economic-impactive NC–17 ratings. Box office receipt figures have a strong impact on additional box office attendance, and 

later on video distribution receipts. So there is a strong economic incentive to secure 

ratings that will attract broader audience, regardless of the actual content. In contrast, the independent ratings systems’ top priority is to build trust in their product—objective information about the content of programming. With an independent 

ratings system, there is no conflict of interest between transparency and revenue 

maximization. 

The Coalition’s goal is to increase dialogue and awareness about the value of independent ratings systems among policymakers and the public at large. To this end, 

the Coalition recently submitted comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s proceeding on the impact of violent programming on children.2 The Coalition noted its support for an open V-chip, which would allow consumers to access 

rating systems of their choice, including independent, competitive systems like ours. 

We plan to participate in the FCC’s Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 

interactivity in digital television 3, to work with partners in the industry towards 

an open V-chip that could one day allow consumers not merely to block violent programming, but have programming that meets their pre-selected preferences be suggested for family viewing.4 For instance, the PSVratings system could enable parents to program their V-chip by simply selecting the level of Profanity, Sex and Violence they deem appropriate for their children based upon the individual maturity 

level and sensitivities of each of their children. 

The Coalition has already had some policy success working with the FCC to inform consumers of the availability of ratings systems independent of those developed by the industry. The Coalition commends the FCC’s leadership in posting a 

link to the Coalition’s website on the FCC’s Parents Place page discussing TV Ratings.5 The Coalition has asked the FTC to likewise post a link to the Coalition on 

the FTC website page discussing entertainment ratings.6 Because the FTC covers 

a broader array of media product, beyond television program and including film and 

games, the Coalition hopes this Committee might encourage the FTC to likewise 

post a link to the Coalition—the only coalition organized to represent entertainment 

ratings providers independent of the industry—and thereby inform consumers of the 

availability of alternative ratings independent of those developed by content producers. 

PSVratings, Inc. 

My company, PSVratings, is a supplement to industry-based ratings systems such 

as the MPAA, RIAA, and ESRB systems. We are a private corporation that has inVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:33 Jun 04, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\81139.TXT JACKIE
28 

vested millions of dollars into technology that enables us to fill a void in the marketplace for the data that parents and consumers demand. We have found that parents 

do not want to be told what the industry thinks is suitable for their children. They 

want the information to to enable them to make that decision for themselves. I have 

attached our market research to my testimony, to be responsive to the Committee’s 

questions on whether the industry’s systems are ‘‘effective in assisting consumers 

in discerning what is appropriate’’ for their children. 

Our solution, called the PSVratings system, provides parents and all consumers 

with comprehensive, accurate and objective information about the Profanity, Sex 

and Violence in media. 

We use a universally recognized traffic light, color-coded to alert consumers to the 

level of content in each category. When viewed on our consumer website, called Current Attractions (www.currentattractions.com), consumers can access more comprehensive information about the nature of content in those categories. The 

PSVratings system offers relevant, content-specific information. Such data can 

greatly benefit not just the consumer, but filmmakers and studios as well. By clarifying and simplifying the parent decision-making process, PSVratings supports the 

entertainment industry’s effort to reach the family audience. Moreover, with this 

technology-based solution, studios and distributors could have the option of presenting multiple versions of their offerings with various levels of profanity, sex and 

violence and thus open up additional distribution channels, such as to airlines, after 

school programs, family restaurants, pediatric offices, etc. 

In fact, the creation, development and management of PSVratings is founded 

upon the conviction that filmmakers, producers and artists have an important right 

to express themselves through their creative works. 

At the same time, PSVratings believes that freedom of expression must be balanced with freedom of information. Consumers have a right to the information necessary to make informed purchase and rental decisions. PSVratings is dedicated to 

empowering parents, caregivers and consumers to make informed entertainment 

choices for themselves and their families, by giving them the objective information 

they need. 

The PSVratings system makes no judgment of suitability or appropriateness for 

any given audience or age group. We believe that suitability is an individual choice. 

We simply provide the comprehensive and objective information to enable consumers to make that choice based on their own individual standards of suitability. 

Scientific Process for Developing Ratings 

I happened to have remarked during one of our company meetings a few years 

ago that in order for the PSVratings system to be as simple as possible for consumers on the front end, it would end up being extremely complex on the back end. 

That is true. 

With algorithms governing over 3,000 descriptor rules, resulting in over 10 million 

combinations, managed by a board of experts in child psychology and education, the 

PSVratings system is extremely complex. The five steps developed by PSVratings 

to produce objective media ratings are as follows: 

1. The PSVratings Standard is managed by an independent board comprised of 

child psychiatrists, child psychologists and educators. This group of experts is 

responsible for the application of ratings to the rules that underlie the 

PSVratings system. While the ratings values of the PSVratings system are intended only as a guideline as to the levels of Profanity, Sex and Violence in 

media, consumers can be confident that the guideline is based upon current reVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:33 Jun 04, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\81139.TXT JACKIE

928KINNE2.eps
29 

search on the impact of media on children. Thus, the PSVratings Standard is 

built upon a foundation of scientific knowledge independent of any commercial 

interest. 

2. Data Capture Specialists are rigorously trained to ‘audit’, as opposed to ‘review’, media and identify all instances of Profanity, Sex and Violence without 

any judgment or interpretation. Not only do they note the occurrence itself, but 

they recognize relationship combinations for as many as 15 different character 

types (man, woman, teen, child, fantasy figure, role model, etc), the relationship(s) between the character types, the consequences of the occurrence, the 

level of graphic detail and whether it is seen, heard or sensed. 

3. Once the Data Capture process has been completed, every element of the information is mapped to any or all of the applicable rules in the PSVratings database. Data Mappers are extensively trained in the process of locating and identifying the appropriate rule(s) from the in excess of 3,000 rules and 10 million 

rule combinations. In instances in which a situation is encountered for which 

there is no rule, a new rule will be created and submitted to the PSVratings 

Standards Board for approval and rating. 

4. To ensure data integrity, the entire Data Capture process is basically repeated 

by the Data Validation department. The Data Validation department, however, 

works completely independent of the Data Capture department. While Data 

Capture is dedicated to ensuring comprehensive and accurate capture of data, 

Data Validation is incentivized to find any possible errors by Data Capture. 

Data Validation ensures that every instance is captured, every instance is 

properly reported and every instance is properly mapped. 

5. The final step of the PSVratings process, prior to release, is a comprehensive 

Data Integrity review of every reported and mapped ratings instance. The Data 

Integrity division operates independent of the Data Development (Data Capture and Data Validation) division. Working with the PSVratings Standards 

Board, the Data Integrity division has access to the rating of the rules of the 

PSVratings Standard, but has no ability to go back and change any of the data 

supplied by the Data Development division. Thus, no individual can influence 

the rating of an individual media title. Upon approval by Data Integrity of the 

accurate mapping of all ratings instances, the proprietary technology of the 

PSVratings system generates a rating based upon a matching of the audit data 

with the rules of the PSVratings Standard. 

A Uniform Ratings System 

The Committee asked whether a more uniform system for all forms of media is 

needed. The benefit of PSVratings is that we have developed a system that is universally applicable to all media. While PSVratings has itself developed a uniform 

system, which we believe is more responsive to consumer needs than a plethora of 

different systems for different entertainment products, PSVratings discourages the 

Committee from considering a requirement that the industry generally develop a 

single system. Because of the conflict of interest in the industry between transparency and revenue maximization, PSVratings believe that independent ratings 

provide helpful competition and objective information that the consumer needs in 

making decisions about the suitability of a particular program or game for a member of their family. A mandate for a single, uniform system across the industry may 

very well, if coupled with any legal recognition of that single uniform system, 

marginalize competitive, independent systems that provide objective information 

free of any conflict of interest. 

With respect to PSVratings’ uniform, universally applicable ratings system, we 

began with a focus on the home video/DVD market both because parents rent and 

buy more videos than any other market segment and because we were fairly successful at obtaining screeners. We have now expanded to box office releases. With 

respect to the Committee’s question on systems providing consumers with effective 

information, our market research demonstrated that consumers ideally would like 

ratings information before the release day. However, we still cannot provide the 

public with the information they seek until the end of the first day of release, without prior access to the movie content. There is a great diversity in the nature of 

the content, even among movies given the same industry ratings. We also are working on video games and music and will soon be providing ratings for these media 

as well. We have developed the capability to monitor/rate chat rooms in real time, 

a strategy for rating Internet sites and keeping those ratings updated. We could also 

apply our system to television if, as with films, we could gain prior access to content. 

30 

Effective and Reliable Ratings Systems 

The data provided by PSVratings and other independent systems is useful for a 

number of audiences including but not limited to: parents making choices for their 

children; grandparents buying gifts for grandchildren; adults going on a first date 

or planning double-dates; child advocates, academics, researchers and government 

agencies doing research; studios analyzing the correlation between box office results 

and various levels and types of content; and retailers offering value added services 

for customers. Rating systems that are independent of the content producer can 

produce more reliable and therefore effective ratings for the above uses than the industries’ own ratings, given the conflict of interest noted above. 

Conclusion 

I look forward to working with the Committee and my fellow panelists on implementing solutions that protect children and improve consumers’ experience by providing parents and others with the information they need, while at the same time, 

protecting freedom of speech and the intellectual property of content producers 

against piracy. On behalf of the Coalition for Independent Ratings Services and 

PSVratings, Inc., I thank the Chairmen and the Committee, and their staff, for 

holding this important hearing. 


5STEPS.eps
31 

Senator BROWNBACK. I thank you, Mr. Kinney. That is very 

thoughtful and very provocative. I look forward to pursuing it more 

with you. 

Dr. Kim Thompson, Associate Professor and Director of Kids 

Risk Project at Harvard School of Public Health. Dr. Thompson, 

welcome. 

STATEMENT OF KIMBERLY M. THOMPSON, SC.D., ASSOCIATE 

PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR, KIDS RISK PROJECT, HARVARD 

SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 

Dr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify here today. I appropriate the opportunity and I appreciate your 

recognition of the important role of media in the lives of children, 

and I hope that this will be a beginning of some transition with the 

media ratings systems that we have today. 

Senator BROWNBACK. I have five children. It is a very personal 

issue. I understand it very personally. 

Dr. THOMPSON. As a parent, a consumer, an educator, and an active academic researcher of media content, I am excited to have the 

opportunity to talk about the effectiveness of the ratings systems. 

Over the past several years my research group at the Harvard 

School of Public Health has conducted several studies that quantitatively evaluated the actual content of popular media, particularly products marketed to children. We focused our studies on ratings for younger audiences. 

The work includes rigorous peer-reviewed studies assessing violent content and depiction of substances in G-rated animated films, 

violence in E-rated and teen-rated video games, a comparison of 

content and ratings for teen-rated video games and analysis of 

movie content and ratings for films released in the last 10 years, 

and I am happy to provide details about any of those individual 

studies. 

The most recent one I think is the one that is of most interest 

to the Committee today, where we used data from the MPAA and 

two independent resource that watch the entire released movie and 

provide consistent and detailed content information to parents. 

Those are kids-in-mind and ScreenIt. We demonstrated quantitatively that ratings creep has occurred over the last decade and 

that today movies do contain significantly more violence, sexual 

content, and profanity on average than movies of the same agebased rating a decade ago. 

With today’s children spending more time on average consuming 

media than in school, it is no doubt that the media serve as a powerful, pervasive, and persuasive influence in the lives of our children. One of the things that we researchers need to do is make 

sure that we are using science and evidence-based research to understand the potential impacts of media, both positive and negative, on children’s perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. I 

think that is one of the things that would be something to have 

more emphasis on, is really research in this area. 

Given the important role of media ratings as the current strategy 

in our self-regulatory system, it is critical that Congress ensure 

that the system is working and it does protect children. I want to 

emphasize that our self-regulatory system is one that gives us the 

32 

freedom to create and the freedom to choose that are reflecting 

deeply held values by Americans. We have to remember that freedom really depends on responsibility and that is true when it 

comes to media as well. 

So based on my research, I do believe that the existing ratings 

systems provide very useful information to parents and it is not a 

surprise that in fact parents are saying that on the opinion polls. 

At the same time, we are not asking them what else they would 

like to see in the ratings. We are just asking them are they useful. 

I think there is certainly a lot more that we could ask parents and 

certainly learn from them if we delved into it more. 

I think one of the things that is interesting is to compare the existing ratings systems to provide some context for those. Right now 

the MPAA provides age-based ratings and non-standardized rating 

reasons. So basically there is a set of categories that provide parents with standard age-based information, but the rating reasons 

are very welcome, very helpful, but not standardized, so it is not 

clear that parents know what to expect. 

I do think that the MPAA could easily provide standardized descriptions of content that would better inform parents about what 

to expect when they see a specific rating reason, kind of along the 

lines of what the ESRB does with its content descriptors. 

The ESRB system for video games also provides an age-based 

rating and content descriptors, and the ESRB does clearly define 

the content descriptors on our website—on its website. I think one 

of the things that is important about our studies is we have found 

what we have reported as some inconsistencies with respect to the 

application of those content descriptors and also a lack of transparency in how they are assigned. So some question as to whether 

or not all of the content is getting rated and also whether or not 

the fact that the ESRB is not actually playing the games as part 

of rating process is leading them to potentially miss content that 

might be of concern to parents. 

Finally, with respect to television ratings, I think they do present 

confusing information to parents and particularly with respect to 

the four content designations, the ‘‘V,’’ ‘‘S,’’ ‘‘L,’’ and ‘‘D.’’ Those are 

assigned not necessarily consistently by networks. There does not 

seem to be a standard for those either. Those also only apply to the 

three highest age-based ratings of ‘‘PG,’’ ‘‘TV–PG,’’ ‘‘TV–14,’’ and 

‘‘TV–MA,’’ and they also mean different things depending on the 

age-based rating. So there is certainly a lot of potential for confusion there and no information for parents about depiction of substances, which is something that the MPAA and the ESRB both 

provide. 

Where this all comes together for me is what we are calling now 

convergence of media. We are now seeing video games and movies 

and television products and they are all on the Internet and they 

are similarly produced or produced at the same time, often crossmarketed very heavily. In some cases we are seeing inconsistent 

ratings. So for example we will see a teen-rated video game associated with an M-rated movie, or a PG–13-rated movie with an Mrated video game. 

That makes it confusing for people when they are trying to tell 

their kids that this is something that seems OK or not OK, and you 

33 

are getting these mixed signals. So I think that there is crossmedia marketing happening. I think that is evolving. The media 

are evolving very quickly, and this is an area where I think there 

is an opportunity to try and explore universal rating systems, 

which is what we recommended in the paper, although I have to 

say I have not looked at the PSV system, nor have I endorsed that 

system. So I do not want to have people infer from your statement 

that that was the case. 

I do think that the bottom line is that we are already in the next 

generation of media and it is really time for us to take a look at 

whether or not we can make an improvement to the ratings systems, get rid of the alphabet soup that we see on the posters up 

there, and try to figure out whether we can have some more effective tools for parents. 

I think one of the biggest issues is that we do not have a rigorous 

research-based system. We do not have standard definitions. It is 

not clear what parents should expect, and that does mean that 

sometimes people are surprised. I think it is the industry’s responsibility and I think that they are doing a good job. I just think that 

they could do a better job. 

So I want to be clear that I think that what we are talking about 

is improving and possibly changing in a way that just makes it 

easier, but also provides more information to parents. 

I really think it is all about incentives and making sure that we 

are creating the right incentives for everyone to act responsibly. 

Parents need to make good choices. The industry needs to provide 

good information. Everybody needs to do their part. That is what 

self-regulation depends on. 

I think I will wrap up by saying that Americans really need to 

realize that we do not have a national research agenda in this 

area. There are not very many academics who actually pay any attention to this particular topic. I think that this is a time when we 

should really seriously consider creating a national agenda that 

would help us use research and good science to guide our discussions about children and media, and in that regard I hope that the 

Senate will seriously consider the Children and Media Research 

Act and look at the opportunities to actually create incentives for 

good evidence to help us understand what positive and negative effects media might have on children. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Thompson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KIMBERLY M. THOMPSON, SC.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR

AND DIRECTOR, KIDS RISK PROJECT, HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH

Statement of Kimberly M. Thompson, Sc.D., Associate Professor and Director, 

Kids Risk Project, Harvard School of Public Health and Children’s Hospital Boston 

before the United States Senate Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Science, 

Technology, & Space Washington, D.C. September 28, 2004 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much for recognizing the important role of media in the lives of children and for inviting me to 

present my views on the effectiveness of media ratings. As a parent, consumer, educator, and active academic researcher on media content, I welcome the opportunity 

to comment on: 

1. the effectiveness of the existing ratings systems for video games, television, 

and motion pictures in assisting consumers in discerning what is appropriate 

entertainment for their children, 

34 

2. the lack of a scientific and research-based process for developing ratings, and 

3. the need for a more uniform and reliable ratings system for all forms of 

media. 

Over the past several years, my research group at the Harvard School of Public 

Health has conducted several studies that quantitatively evaluated the actual content of popular media products marketed to children. This work includes rigorous 

peer-reviewed studies assessing the violent content and depiction of substances in 

G-rated animated films, violence in E-rated and T-rated video games, a comparison 

of content and ratings for T-rated video games, and an analysis of movie content 

and ratings for films released in the last ten years. Each of these studies yielded 

significant insights including: 

• Every one of the 74 animated G-rated animated feature films (100 percent) reviewed contained violence against another character (http://www.kids 

risk.harvard.edu/faqs1.htm).1 

• Nearly 60 percent of the 81 G-rated animated feature films reviewed showed 

characters smoking and/or consuming alcoholic beverages (http://www.kids 

risk.harvard.edu/faqs2.htm).2 

• 35 of the 55 (64 percent) E-rated (for ‘‘Everyone’’) video games studied contained 

violence (http://www.kidsrisk.harvard.edu/faqs3.htm), with injuring characters 

rewarded or required for advancement in 33 games (60 percent).3

• We observed content that could warrant an ESRB content descriptor in 39 out 

of 81 games (48 percent) T-rated (for ‘‘Teen’’) video games for which the ESRB 

had not assigned a content descriptor, and we did not observe the content indicated by an ESRB content descriptor within one hour of game play for seven 

games. These games may be a source of exposure to a wide range of unexpected 

content (http://www.kidsrisk.harvard.edu/faqs4.htm).4

• In the random sample of 81 T-rated video games we played: 

» 79 games (98 percent) involved intentional violence, representing 36 percent 

of game play time, 

» 73 games (90 percent) rewarded or required the player to injure characters, 

» 56 games (69 percent) rewarded or required the player to kill, and 

» we observed 5,689 human deaths for these 81 games, occurring at an average 

rate of 61 human deaths per hour of game play time (http://www.kids 

risk.harvard.edu/faqs5.htm).5

• Using data from the MPAA and two independent resources that watch the entire released movie and provide consistent and detailed content information to 

parents (Kids-in-Mind and Screen It!) we demonstrated quantitatively that ratings creep occurred over the last decade, and that today’s movies contain significantly more violence, sexual content, and profanity on average than movies of 

the same age-based rating (e.g., G, PG, PG–13, R) a decade ago (http:// 

www.kidsrisk.harvard.edu/faqs6.htm).6

With today’s children spending more time on average consuming media than in 

school, the media serve as powerful, pervasive, and persuasive influences in their 

lives. As the peer-reviewed, science-based research of my group and the studies of 

other researchers demonstrate, entertainment media represent an important source 

of exposure for children to messages that may positively or negatively affect their 

perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Given the important role of the media 

ratings as the current strategy in our self-regulatory system—a system that gives 

us all the freedoms to create and to choose media and that reflects values deeply 

held by all Americans—Congress must ensure that the system works and protects 

children. Freedom depends on responsibility. 

Effectiveness of the existing ratings systems 

Based on my research, I believe that the existing ratings systems provide useful 

information for parents, but I also see large opportunities for improvement. Parents 

must currently grapple with an alphabet soup of rating symbols representing inconsistent approaches to rating media. 

The MPAA provides its age-based rating (e.g., G, PG, PG–13, R) and rating reasons. While the rating reasons provide some information about content and they are 

far superior to just giving parents the rating alone with no explanation, they do not 

necessarily tell all parents about all of the types of content that children might experience. The age-based ratings also reflect the relative standards of the anonymous 

members of a mysterious group and no standardized definitions for content exist. 

Could the MPAA provide a standard description of what the rating reasons mean 

35 

so that parents really know what to expect (as intended by the content descriptors 

used by the ESRB)? Also, since many parents express concerns about the depiction 

of substances and normalization of substance use in media, could the MPAA provide 

an indication of whether or not the film includes depiction of substances? In our 

most recent study, we found that the MPAA mentioned alcohol or drugs in its rating 

reason for 18 percent of films, while Screen It! assigned a score above ‘‘none’’ for 

tobacco and/or alcohol/drugs for 95 percent of films and above ‘‘none’’ for alcohol/ 

drugs for 93 percent. What is the harm in providing transparent and consistent information about content so that parents can make their own well-informed choices 

about what media are appropriate for and with their children? Also, if ratings continue to creep, then parents need to know that they must stay calibrated. Creating 

standards so that parents know what to expect provides an important opportunity 

for the industry to help parents and to provide a level playing field for media producers. You can put anything you want into a movie, but that doesn’t mean that 

you can market it inappropriately to children and expect no consequences. 

The ESRB system for video games similarly provides an age-based rating (e.g., E, 

T, M) and also provides content descriptors that the ESRB defines clearly on its 

website (www.esrb.org). Our studies suggest, however, some inconsistency in the application of these content descriptors and a lack of transparency in how they are 

assigned. Since the ESRB does not play the games prior to assigning a rating, the 

ESRB ratings by definition do not reflect full knowledge of the game content and 

leave raters without the opportunity to experience the full range of content that ultimately gets released in the final game. The ESRB requires game manufacturers to 

provide examples of the most extreme content, but do they do so? Should parents 

expect the content descriptors to provide information about all of the types of content in the games, or have the content descriptors now become more like the 

MPAA’s rating reasons indicating only some of the content? With the information 

to parents very unclear on this, and parents and kids easily able to observe omissions as they experience actual game play, the ESRB should in my opinion focus 

more on ensuring the quality of its information and worry less about its advertising. 

Parents will use a system that they trust and that they find reliable, and perhaps 

the lack of use of ratings reflects a lack of trust. 

Television ratings (e.g., TV–Y, TV–Y7, TV–Y7–FV, TV–G, TV–PGTV–14, TV–MA) 

represent an area that I’ve spent the least amount of time studying as an academic. 

However, as a parent I can comment that I find it confusing that the same four content designations (V, S, L, D) assigned to the three highest age-based ratings (TV– 

PG, TV–14, TV–MA) mean different things depending on the age-based rating. 

Thus, with TV ratings parents must know the age-based rating and what the content designation means for that rating. I appreciate that TV uses some analogous 

symbols to movies, but why couldn’t all of the age-based symbols used by all three 

of these media use the same symbols so that parents only need to know one set of 

these? Also, since individual networks and cable systems each assign their own ratings, should parents expect any consistency here? If parents can’t expect consistency, then should we be surprised if they don’t find the information very useful? 

Finally, the TV ratings provide no information about substances, something that the 

MPAA and the ESRB provide. 

This all comes together with the convergence of media and cross-media marketing. 

In our studies we’ve noted high-profile media products with inconsistent ratings 

across media platforms that challenge parents who are trying to use the systems 

and that in my view undermine the collective authority of the rating boards. For 

example, we found that the T-rated video game Enter the Matrix game manual contained a $3 rebate toward the purchase of the R-rated movie The Matrix on DVD, 

which clearly indicates the continued marketing of R-rated violent entertainment to 

children in spite of the Federal Trade Commission reports efforts to get producers 

to stop this. (Terminator 3 provides another example where the T-rated game includes discussion by the developers about the how the game provides an extension 

to the R-rated movie, and the PG–13 rated film The Chronicles of Riddick and Mrated video game The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay provide an 

example going the other direction.) 

The bottom line is, we’re already in the next generation of media products, and 

it’s time for the rating systems to come into this century so that they can be effective tools for today’s parents. 

Lack of a scientific and research-based process for developing ratings 

In my view, many of the current problems with the existing systems derive from 

a lack of a scientific and research-based foundation for providing ratings information. A rigorous system of ratings must begin with some standard definitions that 

can be used to classify content and to clearly and consistently inform parents. While 

36 

these definitions and classifying content includes subjectivity, that’s no excuse for 

not trying to be as objective as possible. Our studies have demonstrated that using 

consistent definitions can work and provide comparative information, and I believe 

that it’s time for the industry to start to perform its own content analyses and accurately report the ingredients of its products to consumers. I believe that the industry 

can better label its products and in doing so help parents make better choices, and 

that this is required as media continue to push the boundaries and consume more 

time in the lives of our children. 

Need for a more uniform and reliable ratings system for all forms of media 

In late September 2000 Senator McCain chaired hearings related to the first Federal Trade Commission report and asked leaders of the industry about the possibility of creating a universal rating system for media. Four years later we’ve seen 

no progress from the industry in this regard, and a continued reluctance to even 

engage in the debate. I believe that it’s time to create the incentives for the industry 

to act to begin to develop a universal rating system and to improve the reliability 

of its ratings for all forms of media. I appreciate the important differences between 

interactive media and non-interactive media, and I still believe that it’s possible to 

create a better system that will be easier for parents to use and provide more information about content that will help parents and kids make better media choices. 

It’s time, and I join the call for industry to lead the charge in developing the next 

generation of media rating systems. 

In all of my work in this area, I’ve come to appreciate the critical need for more 

research to further understand and characterize media content and their positive 

and negative impacts on kids. Americans should realize that we lack a national research agenda on children and media and currently few incentives exist for the academic community to play a significant and much-needed role in this area. In this 

regard, I urge members of Congress to take up the Children and Media Research 

Advancement Act (S. 2447) and to ensure that research and high-quality evidence 

guide our discussions about children and media. 

Thank you very much again for the opportunity to testify today. 

References 

1. Yokota F, Thompson KM. Violence in G-rated animated feature films. Journal 

of the American Medical Association 2000;283:2716–2720. 

2. Thompson KM, Yokota F. Depiction of alcohol, tobacco, and other substances 

in G-rated animated feature films. Pediatrics 2001;107(6):1369–74. 

3. Thompson KM, Haninger K. Violence in E-rated video games. Journal of the 

American Medical Association 2001;286(5):591–598. See related letter at: Journal of 

the American Medical Association 2001;286(16):1972. 

4. Haninger K, Thompson, KM. Content and Ratings of Teen-Rated Video Games. 

Journal of the American Medical Association 2004;291(7):856–865. 

5. Haninger K, Ryan MS, Thompson KM. Violence in Teen-Rated Video Games. 

Medscape General Medicine 2004(March 11);6(1). (Available at: http:// 

www.medscape.com/viewarticle/468087). 

6. Thompson KM, Yokota F. ‘‘Violence, sex, and profanity in films: Correlation of 

movie ratings and content.’’ Medscape General Medicine 2004(July 13):6(3). (Available at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/480900). 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you, and thank you for the plug for 

CAMRA legislation. I am an original co-sponsor of that and I have 

been pushing it and seeking more research-based information for 

us to guide this, because these things are forming our children, 

these entertainment products are, and we really need to know 

what is in them and what it is doing to our children’s minds as 

they develop. Thanks for that plug. 

Finally, let us get to Ms. Patty Miller, Director of the Children 

and Media Program from Children Now. Thanks for joining us. 

STATEMENT OF PATTI MILLER, DIRECTOR, CHILDREN & THE 

MEDIA PROGRAM, CHILDREN NOW 

Ms. MILLER. Thanks. Children Now would like to thank the Senate Commerce Committee for holding this hearing on media ratings. It is a very important topic, especially given the fact that the 

37 

average American child is spending almost 6 hours a day with 

media and in fact children spend more time with media than they 

spend doing anything else except for sleeping. 

There is no question that parents are extremely concerned about 

the content to which their children are exposed across entertainment media, especially on television. According to a new Kaiser 

Family Foundation poll released last week, six in ten parents are 

very concerned that their children are being exposed to too much 

sexual content on television, 53 percent are concerned about violent 

content, and 49 percent are concerned about adult language. 

I have been asked to comment today on whether the existing 

media ratings systems are effective in helping consumers discern 

what is appropriate entertainment for their children. But before 

advocates can answer that question, we must first understand the 

answers to several other important questions. One, are parents 

currently using the ratings systems? Two, can parents depend on 

the accuracy of the ratings? And three, has the media industry 

done enough to support ratings systems? 

Start with one: Are parents currently using the ratings systems? 

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation poll, about threefourths of parents say they have used the movie ratings, about half 

say they have used the music advisories and video game ratings. 

When it comes to TV, about half of parents say they have used the 

TV ratings, one in four say they use them pretty often. Unfortunately, many parents still have not heard of the TV ratings and in 

fact one out of five say they have never heard about them. Many 

parents still also do not recognize the content-based TV ratings. 

Two, can parents depend on the accuracy of the ratings systems? 

Sadly, the answer is no. A large number of parents, four out of ten, 

say that ratings do not accurately reflect the content of shows, and 

research confirms their concerns. According to another Kaiser Family Foundation study, content labels were only applied to one out 

of five programs with violence, sexual material, or adult language. 

A National Institute on Media and the Family study found that 

parents often disagree with the TV ratings that were assigned to 

shows for particular age groups. 

When it comes to movie and video game ratings, there are serious issues as well. Dr. Thompson has already talked about the ratings creep issue when it comes to movies, so I will not talk about 

that here. But a Children Now study found that more than threefourths of video games rated ‘‘E’’ for ‘‘everyone’’ contained violent 

content, half of which was significant to the plot. 

With these kinds of statistics, how can we honestly tell parents 

that they can rely on the various ratings systems to make informed 

choices for their children? 

Finally, three: Has the media industry done enough to support 

the ratings systems? Again, the answer is no. In order for media 

ratings to work, the media industry needs to provide accurate content information to parents. Children Now believes that the following recommendations should be implemented to ensure that existing media ratings systems are effective: 

First, provide parents with more descriptive and accurate content-based information. Each media ratings system should provide 

content-based information. Some parents are more concerned about 

38 

1Kaiser Family Foundation, Kids and Media @ the New Millennium, Kaiser Family Foundation, 1999. 2Kaiser Family Foundation, Parents, Media and Public Policy: A Kaiser Family Foundation 

Survey, September, 2004. 

violence, others are more concerned about sexual situations or suggestive dialogue. Content-based ratings are essential as they enable 

parents to make decisions based upon their own values and their 

own preferences. 

Further, while the age-based ratings seem to be more recognizable to parents at this point, those who have used the ratings are 

twice as likely to say that content ratings provide more useful information than age-based ratings. I think it is interesting with the 

ESRB ratings, which I think provide the most content information, 

that parents find those most useful, according to the Kaiser poll. 

Second, we need to increase parental awareness about the TV 

ratings. Currently the TV ratings are displayed for about the first 

15 seconds of a show; instead, broadcasters should display them 

throughout the course of a show or, at the very least, as some 

shows are doing now, after each commercial break. Broadcasters 

also should provide parents with more information about the TV 

ratings through broad public education campaigns that could include more PSAs and making ratings information available I local 

newspapers. 

Third, use digital technology to provide more information to parents. Broadcasters should take advantage of emerging clickthrough interactive technology to provide on-demand ratings information to parents. How great would it be if parents could click on 

the TV rating on the screen to find out what it means, as well as 

get more detailed information about why it received that particular 

rating? 

Children Now believes that by adopting these recommendations 

the media industry would take a major step in ensuring that parents have the tools they need to make informed choices about their 

children’s media consumption and it would decrease the need for 

regulatory action. Media ratings systems can only be truly effective 

when parents know they are available, parents know how to use 

them, and when they provide accurate and descriptive contentbased information. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Miller follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATTI MILLER, DIRECTOR, CHILDREN & THE MEDIA

PROGRAM, CHILDREN NOW

Children Now would like to thank the Senate Commerce Committee for holding 

this hearing today on media ratings. It is a very important topic, especially given 

the fact that the average American child spends almost six hours a day with media.1

In fact, children spend more time with media than they spend doing anything else, 

except for sleeping. 

There is no question that parents are very concerned about the content to which 

their children are exposed across entertainment media, especially on television. According to a new Kaiser Family Foundation national poll of parents released last 

week, six in ten parents say they are very concerned that their children are being 

exposed to too much sexual content in the TV shows they watch; 53% are very concerned about violent content and 49% are concerned about adult language.2

I’ve been asked to comment today on whether the existing media ratings systems 

for the television, video game and motion picture industries are effective in helping 

consumers discern what is appropriate entertainment for children. But before advoVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:33 Jun 04, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\81139.TXT JACKIE
39 

3 Ibid. 

4 Ibid. 

5 Ibid. 

6 Ibid. 

7 Ibid. 

8Kaiser Family Foundation, Rating Sex and Violence in the Media: Media Ratings and Proposals for Reform, November, 2002. 9 National Institute for Media and the Family, Parents Rate the TV Ratings, May 1998. 10 Brooks Boliek, ‘‘Researchers Cite Ratings Creep,’’ The Hollywood Reporter, July 14, 2004. 11 Children Now, Fair Play: Violence, Race and Gender in Video Games, December 2001. 12Kaiser Family Foundation, Parents, Media and Public Policy: A Kaiser Family Foundation 

Survey, September 2004. 

cates answer that question, we must first understand the answers to several important questions: 

(1) Are parents currently using the ratings systems? 

(2) Can parents depend on the accuracy of the ratings systems? 

(3) Has the media industry done enough to support ratings systems? 

(1)Are parents currently using the ratings systems? 

According to the recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll, about three fourths of parents say they have used the movie ratings, while about half of parents say they 

have used the music advisories and video game ratings.3 When it comes to television, half of parents also say they have used the ratings, one in four of whom say 

they use them often.4 Unfortunately, many parents still are not familiar with the 

TV ratings; one in five say that they have never even heard of them.5 And many 

parents don’t recognize the content-based TV ratings, with only half able to identify 

the ‘‘V’’ rating and fewer able to identify the ‘‘L’’ and ‘‘S’’ ratings.6

(2) Can parents depend on the accuracy of the ratings systems? 

Sadly, the answer is no. A large number of parents (four out of ten) say that ratings do not accurately reflect the content of the shows 7; research confirms their concerns. According to a 1998 Kaiser Family Foundation study, content labels were 

only applied to one out of five television programs with violence, sexual material or 

adult language.8 Further, a National Institute on Media and the Family study found 

that parents often disagreed with the TV ratings that were assigned to shows for 

particular age groups. For example, only about one fourth of shows with a TV–PG 

rating were approved by parents for 8-to12-year-olds and only about one in ten 

shows with a TV–14 rating were acceptable to parents for 13-to 17-year olds.9

When it comes to movie ratings, there are serious accuracy issues as well. According to a recent Harvard University School of Public Health study, there has been 

a significant increase in violence, sex and profanity in films over the last ten years, 

suggesting that the age-based movie ratings (specifically PG, PG–13 and R) are increasingly lenient.10 And video games ratings raise concerns as well. A Children 

Now study found that more than 3⁄4 of games rated ‘‘E’’ for everyone (79%), contained violent content, half of which was significant to the plot.11 With these kinds 

of statistics, how can we honestly tell parents that they can rely on the various ratings systems to make informed choices about their children’s media consumption? 

(3) Has the media industry done enough to support the ratings systems? 

Again, the answer is no. In order for media ratings to work for parents, the media 

industry needs to provide accurate and descriptive content information to parents. 

Children Now believes that the following recommendations should be implemented 

to ensure that existing media ratings systems are effective in helping parents: 

(a) Provide parents with more descriptive and accurate content-based information.—Each media ratings system should provide parents with content-based 

information. Some parents are very concerned about violence; others are more 

concerned about sexual situations or suggestive dialogue. Children Now believes that content-based ratings are essential as they enable parents to make 

decisions about what their children see based upon the parents’ own values 

and preferences. Further, while the age-based ratings seem to be more recognizable to parents, those who have used ratings are twice as likely to say 

that content-based ratings offer more useful information than age-based 

ones.12

(b) Increase parental awareness about the TV ratings—Currently, the TV ratings 

are displayed for the first 15 seconds of a show. Instead, broadcasters should 

display the ratings throughout the course of a show, or at the very least, as 

some shows are doing, after each commercial break. Broadcasters also should 

40 

provide parents with more information about the TV ratings through broad 

public education campaigns that could include public service announcements 

and making ratings information available in local newspapers. 

(c) Use digital technology to provide more information to parents.—As television 

transitions from analog to digital, Children Now believes that broadcasters 

should take advantage of emerging click-through, interactive technology to 

provide on-demand ratings information to parents. Parents should be able to 

click on a TV rating on the screen to find out what it means as well as more 

detailed information about why it received that particular rating. 

Children Now believes that by adopting these recommendations, the media industry would take a major step in ensuring that parents have the tools that they need 

to make informed choices about their children’s media consumption and decrease 

the need for regulatory action. Media ratings systems can only be truly effective 

when parents know they are available, know how to use them, and when they provide accurate and descriptive content-based information. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you, Ms. Miller. 

Senator Smith, did you have an opening statement you wanted 

to make? 

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON 

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, let me put it in the record, but 

simply to welcome our guests. This is a very important topic and 

I think I am here in part to learn, but also to suggest that I think 

Jack Valenti’s pioneering on this long ago brings us to the stage 

where we can actually talk about doing this without government 

involvement, but as responsible people trying to give parents the 

tools. I am frankly here to find out how the Secretary of Agriculture feels about nutrition labeling for kids when it comes to 

media. So, there are lots of good ideas here. 

Mr. GLICKMAN. Former Secretary of Agriculture. 

Senator SMITH. Former, absolutely. 

But I think that that has been referenced, some sort of labeling 

that provides us the information we need to protect our kids, but 

also to live under the freedoms provided under the First Amendment. So that is really the balance we are striking. 

And I salute Jack as he leaves his service to this industry for the 

pioneering work that his industry did. Obviously, as new technology and new media outreach is available to kids, we are looking 

to see where we go from here and what we can yet do. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you, Senator Smith. 

Senator Ensign, do you have an opening statement you would 

like to make? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it. I will try 

to keep it fairly brief. 

The ratings systems to me, whether they are on video games, 

movies, television, wherever they seem to be applied, would basically be information. That is what we are trying to give people, information to make informed choices, and to try to be as responsible 

as we can about that. Obviously, if we make them too cumbersome 

they will become ineffective. So I can appreciate wanting to limit 

the amounts of information somewhat, but also providing out there 

41 

enough information, especially where we know when there is content in movies, television, video games, or whatever, that we have 

pretty good scientific evidence that leads to unhealthy behaviors, 

behaviors that are not good for society, behaviors that are not good 

for the individual, then I think that as individuals, as industries, 

I think we owe that to the American people to help them make 

those types of decisions, and especially to parents when they are 

involving making decisions for their children. 

As a father of three, we look at, OK, what is going to be healthy 

for my kids, what are the kinds of entertainment that we are going 

to allow our children that are going to make them better people, 

that will not actually make them have worse behavior. We all know 

by the studies certain kids are influenced much more than other 

children based on what they watch, what they hear, those types of 

things, whether it is music or whatever it is. 

I happened to be one of those kids when I was growing up that 

was greatly influenced, I mean tremendously influenced, by some 

of the things that I saw on television. I know that there are a lot 

of kids like me when I was a kid. So I think we have a tremendous 

responsibility out there, much greater than any of us realize, to 

have—to put in the right content, because if we have bad content 

going out we know we are going to end up with bad types of behavior. 

Just as an illustration—and Jack, you and I, we have talked 

many times about this and now that we have somebody taking 

your place here, Mr. Glickman—we have had several hearings in 

the last—we had one hearing plus a meeting out in California. It 

has to deal with smoking in movies. I know that there is the idea 

of profanity, violence, all of the other types of things, but I am just 

using this as an example: that I have always felt for a long time 

that what we see affects behavior. I do not think that there is any 

question about it, and for people that argued against it, people 

would not pay $2 million for a 30-second ad in the Super Bowl if 

they did not think that what you watched affected your behavior. 

I mean, I think that is pretty obvious. 

So how do we do this in a responsible way? Well, in smoking we 

know now, pretty good evidence—and I have been through it now 

and seen the studies, and I think it is maybe not causative, but it 

is a pretty strong a correlation of evidence—that the more kids 

watch smoking and the more incidents of smoking that they watch, 

whether they are in smoking households or non-smoking households, the more kids are going to start smoking. I mean, there is 

pretty good evidence for that now. 

I understand that people want to have creative freedom. I totally 

understand the First Amendment. I have never called for censorship up here, for banning smoking in movies, for R-ratings, or any 

of that. But it would seem to me that if you put that as one of the 

labeling factors—Jack, you have said that you tried to only you do 

not want to start regulating legal behaviors. 

Well, you know, profanity is not illegal, but yet profanity is one 

of those things you take into account in the ratings systems. Well, 

smoking actually kills people. Long-term smoking actually kills 

people, and we know that if kids start smoking when they get 

42 

older—if we stop them from smoking by the time they are 21, the 

chances of them ever starting smoking are virtually nil. 

You know, we hear about the Tobacco-Free Kids campaign, regulating nicotine, all that kind of thing, and yet the biggest influence 

is what these kids are seeing. So it would just seem to me that we 

really need to consider this. By putting in the ratings, it would 

seem that we are going to raise a lot more awareness among the 

actors, the directors, the producers, to ask the question: Do I really 

need to put this smoking scene in? 

It is the same thing we have done with violence and things like 

that. It at least makes people aware. It allows parents to make 

those choices on things like that. 

So I would encourage, Dan, as you take on this responsibility, 

take a real hard look at this. You have some really good people in 

Hollywood that feel similarly as I do and I would encourage you to 

work with them and encourage them to have much more responsible movies, but also in the ratings systems take a look at doing 

something like this. 

Thanks. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you. 

We will run the question clock at 7 minutes. I am going to start 

off with Dr. Thompson and then, Mr. Podesta, I want to direct this 

to you, too. I want to ask you a question as a parent, not as a Senator but as a parent. I have got four children at home, televisions 

in the house, several televisions, not in any kid’s room. I have 

watched the studies. The pediatricians are saying kids should not 

watch television under the age of two at all. I absolutely agree with 

that. 

If I had a perfect world in my home and I was a perfect dad, 

which I am not—I wish I were, but I am not—we would be able 

to in our own home limit what comes into that in the television and 

the Internet, in particular—I do not see it as pervasive on the 

radio—sexual material, violent material, language material; we 

could as a consumer keep that out of our home. We would know 

ahead of time it was headed this way on this show, or when the 

scene comes up we could program the television that it does not 

show this type of scene. 

Are those sorts of things possible for us to do today? And in your 

studies, what did you find the optimal conditions that a parent 

wanted in their own home to control the entertainment product 

coming into their home? Dr. Thompson, why don’t we start with 

you. 

Dr. THOMPSON. I will start. Actually I have not done studies that 

survey parents. I have never asked that question to parents and so 

I cannot answer. That is just a research study I have not done. 

I think the strategy that I always take is that media teach and 

kids learn, and so the reality is that parents need to be ready to 

talk to their kids about what they see and to help make good 

choices with and for their kids. Basically, with V-Chip technology 

my understanding is that you can, you can actually set your television to allow or not allow any kind of programming that you 

would like or not like your children to view, but you need to invest 

the effort in understanding the system and programming your television to do that. 

43 

Senator BROWNBACK. But now is that actually the case? Because, 

Mr. Podesta, if it is ranked ‘‘V’’ all I can do is blank the whole show 

out. Why could we not program that entertainment product for 

when the violent scene comes up that that is when it goes out, so 

that we are not blanking the whole show? 

Dr. THOMPSON. I will take a stab at that one, which is that that 

would imply rating every second of the program or every subset of 

whatever time unit you would want to do. Now, ironically enough, 

we do that in our studies. We have actually quantified every second 

of movies to figure out how much violence is in them, and it can 

be done. 

I think the question is is that the information the parents want, 

and we have not asked that question, so I cannot answer it. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Ms. Miller, have you asked that question of 

parents? 

Ms. MILLER. We have not actually asked that question of parents, to find out that, if in fact they could actually cancel out 

scenes, would they want to do that as opposed to the entire show. 

So we do not know the answer to that. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Could you inquire of them? Because it 

seems like, with us going to digital, all-digital entertainment product, you could program this into the entertainment product. And 

with the convergence that you are talking about, Dr. Thompson, 

which is on us now, of video games being piped into the home, of 

the movies being piped into the home, of television entertainment 

products being piped in, you are going to have a whole series of 

confluence going right into the home, which is the most invasive 

place. 

This is where people generally want us to help them the most 

because they do not like callers coming into their home, they do not 

want unwanted things coming up on their Internet. I think on their 

television they would like to have a better system of control. So it 

is a consumer choice issue. It is not a regulatory issue; it is a consumer choice issue. 

Mr. Podesta? 

Mr. PODESTA. Mr. Chairman, I am not an engineer, but there 

were extensive discussions in a proceeding at the FCC on how to 

implement the V-Chip and it was determined by a group of engineers in consultation with the FCC and the FCC adopted the 

standard, that it was difficult to block out short programming. So 

the way the system works and the way the TV sets have been manufactured I believe is only to operate with a signal at the front end 

of the program which blocks off, which blocks off the whole program. 

I suppose that engineers smarter than I could develop a different 

system, but that is the system that the FCC chose. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Mr. Kinney, you seem to be working at the 

front edge of this type of situation, where the consumer drives the 

issue and drives the choice. You talk in your testimony like that 

is something that is doable with your system right now. 

Mr. KINNEY. Senator, actually yes, that is exactly how our system works. We do record every single instance of profanity, sex, 

and violence. We break it down contextually, and we do that to the 

44 

one-hundredth of a second for every single thing that we rate. The 

technology does exist to do that. 

In fact, the reminds me, I was asked at one point, do you not fear 

competition from a company like Clear Play. And my response was: 

Only if consumers want to watch the 7-minute version of ‘‘The Passion of the Christ.’’ Rather than that, what it could do is and what 

I was suggesting earlier is that the technology could enable the entertainment industry itself to substitute various levels of profanity, 

sex, and violence if they chose, so that they could generate different 

versions of their content, which I thought, perhaps naively, but 

that I thought would then open up additional channels of distribution for them. 

So in fact yes, it can be done. 

Senator BROWNBACK. It could be like food products, where they 

have a basic version, then they have a lite version to it, and people 

get to choose which one they would like. 

Mr. KINNEY. That is how I envision it, sure. And that is what 

I was suggesting I would like to work in cooperation with the industry to help them do that. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Can the industry, Mr. Kinney—I would be 

open to others to answer this—can the industry itself actually set 

the ratings? Here I wonder if there is an inherent conflict of interest. Mr. Valenti, you may want to jump in on this. 

Mr. VALENTI. I will after Mr. Kinney. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Sex and violence sells. We use it to sell 

toothpaste. The connection between sex and violence and toothpaste is tenuous at best, I think, but we use it to sell every form 

of product virtually. And here is an industry that has a fiduciary 

duty to shareholders to maximize profits, and is there not this huge 

conflict for the industry to rate something and at the same time 

need to use this to be able to sell a product where they have a fiduciary duty to shareholders to manage their assets and make as 

much income as they can? 

Can the industry actually rate these products fairly? 

Mr. KINNEY. Mr. Chairman, my position all along has been that 

the entertainment industry has a primary responsibility to their 

shareholders and perhaps secondarily to their customers, the consumer that watches the movies. Certainly sex and violence sells, so 

that is why our position has always been that we take an approach 

that objectively says what is in it as opposed to saying, this should 

not be allowed to be produced. 

I believe that the entertainment industry—yes, sex and violence 

do sell, so for that reason—I mean, I am not one to say that the 

industry should not produce sex and violence. What I do believe is 

that they have to balance, as I always say, the freedom of expression with freedom of information. As long as a parent or any other 

consumer knows what they are purchasing before they are exposed 

to it or they expose their child to it, it is the parent’s responsibility 

to determine what is appropriate for the children. 

As to whether or not the industry can self-regulate itself, I think 

the MPAA system has been around, as has been said, for 36 years. 

It is fairly useful. As Dr. Thompson pointed out, though, if you ask 

me if something is useful and you do not give me an alternative, 

then of course I am going to say it is useful. 

45 

So I just think that the industry systems need to be supplemented with the content information that parents and all consumers need to make informed decisions. And I do not think that 

that defeats the purpose of the entertainment industry to make 

profits for its shareholders. 

Mr. VALENTI. Mr. Chairman, let me try to give you some facts, 

and not dealing with anecdotal information. Mr. Kinney says that 

sex and violence sells. I should present to him a list of the highest 

grossing pictures of the last 2 years. Number one is ‘‘Finding 

Nemo.’’ Unless you find a lot of sex and violence there, I do not 

know. 

Sex and violence does not necessarily sell. Every movie is different. It is not like a can of Campbell’s soup that they run one 

million cans off of an assembly line. Every movie is different. You 

are not dealing here with Euclidean geometry. Every one of these 

systems that you are talking about is subjective. When you have 

any kind of a variance of violence, what is too much violence? The 

Supreme Court to this very hour, Mr. Chairman, is unable to define pornography or obscenity. So this is something that is quite 

subjective. 

So let me just give you about three or four points. Point number 

one is that research and reasons—8 years ago the motion picture 

rating system—well, first let me tell you that when we started it 

I realized there would be pressure brought by producers and the 

big moguls that run the studios. I got the Motion Picture Association directors to sign a resolution that they would abide by the 

rules of the ratings system and they would submit every one of 

their pictures and that the only two people in the industry who 

would make policy for the motion picture ratings would be the 

president of the National Association of Theater Owners and the 

president of the Motion Picture Association of America. 

The biggest claimants to disharmony about the ratings system 

come from the studios and from independent producers. But in 

order to get to the rating board they have got to go over me and 

John Fithian, the president of the National Association of Theater 

Owners. Not once has that ever happened. Even the most fierce 

critic in Hollywood of the ratings system—and most of the critics 

do come from the creative community—never once have challenged 

the integrity of the system. 

Do we make mistakes in ratings? Of course we do, because we 

are normal people and in a subjective environment you are going 

to make mistakes. 

When I first started the ratings system, I hired a number of social scientists and so-called child behavioral experts and I said: 

Show me the demarcation lines that we can deal with this. But, 

like the Supreme Court, they got bogged down and it all came out 

to subjectivity. 

Eight years ago we started giving ratings for every movie, ratings, information ratings, and we sent them to every movie critic, 

every newspaper critic, every television critic in the country. 5–1/ 

2 years ago, we have now put them in every ad in the newspapers 

that are over—I do not know the size of it; I think it is a fourth 

of a page or more—you will see the legend on every film. If it has 

submitted for a rating, it has the reasons for the rating. 

46 

You can go to filmratings.com and find the ratings of 18,000 

films, and of those that had the reasons you can find them there. 

You can go to parentalguidance.org. Every movie studio has its own 

site where it shows you the movies that it has and they are rated. 

So the reasons for ratings are there. 

Two more points and then I will—let us talk about ratings creep. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Mr. Valenti, I want to get to it, but I am 

way past my time. If you can stay on this question, if you do not 

mind. 

Mr. VALENTI. Yes, sir, I will. 

Senator BROWNBACK. And if there is anything else, I want to go 

to my next colleague on this. 

Mr. Glickman? 

Mr. GLICKMAN. I just, I wanted to say two things. Number one, 

to Senator Ensign: I spoke yesterday to the National Association of 

Attorneys General. They had their annual meeting, and this issue 

came up and I told them I would continue to work with them on 

that. In truth, the directors and a lot of the creative community do 

in fact recognize the need to significantly reduce smoking in the 

presentation of movies and it is something we are going to continue 

to work on. 

The other thing I would point out, the House just passed, just 

within the last few minutes, H.R. 4077, which has two pieces to it. 

One is that it makes it a Federal crime to engage in camcording 

movies illegally, in order to protect the copyright. 

The other part of it is the Family Movie Act, which deals with 

a piece of litigation that we were involved with involving Clear 

Play. Without going into great detail on that, Senator Hatch and 

others have been involved in that on this side of the aisle. Clear 

Play may address some of the issues that you are talking about, 

Senator Brownback. We still worry about copyright considerations 

with that in the replicating, those issues, and reproducing a modified movie. 

But there are a variety of ways that one might look at these 

issues. I just thought I would mention it since it passed the House 

today. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Senator Ensign. 

Senator ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to follow up just a little bit, because I have heard from 

directors and producers and creative people talk about that they do 

not like somebody messing with their content. I can appreciate 

that. What I do not understand, because I think of what Mr. 

Kinney talked about, about maybe expanding their markets because—if you could have modified versions of a film—I mean, you 

already have modified versions of film. You have on the airlines— 

I fly on the airlines every week. 

Why is it OK to have a modified version for the airline? Why is 

that OK for the directors to have that, but if parents wanted, say, 

whatever you call it, an airline version of the movie—because there 

is a lot of movies that I would love to be able to share with my 

children, but they have just a few scenes that make it unacceptable, but they are awesome movies as far as the moral message in 

the movie and just the inspirational part of the movie, and you 

would love to let your kids watch that. But you have got to watch 

47 

it with them and you have got to fast-forward, so you almost have 

to do your own editing anyway if you are going to do that, and 

sometimes you do not quite get it just right and it is a royal pain. 

It would seem to me that that would be a market that would be 

there. 

Then second, a follow-up to that, that I would love some comments on is, we have unrated versions of movies, too. You go into 

a video store, you see that, and it says: Buy the unrated version. 

So it seems to me that there are already several versions. Why 

would not a family friendly version be acceptable? If you can go the 

other direction, why would you not also want a family friendly? 

Mr. Glickman, on your—or I guess, Jack, it was you, when you 

talk about quarter-page ads. The problem is you cannot read. 

Those things are such in small print now, the ratings, like why it 

is there. Unless you get a magnifying glass out, you cannot, even 

with reading glasses. Some of the print now is so small, when you 

go to buy a video or a DVD or whatever it is, you go to buy it, on 

there some of the print is—that is just a comment to the industry 

in general: Make the thing a little larger so you can read it, so it 

makes a little sense. If you are going to have why it has a certain 

rating, make it a little larger where people can read it. Some are 

good and then some are just you cannot read it at all. 

Mr. VALENTI. Let me answer about the airline version. The airline versions are edited by the director. The industry offered to 

Clear Play to give them the airline versions, which would be edited 

by the directors, taking out severe acts of violence, all language, 

and all overt sexual material. But Clear Play did not want to do 

that and we could not come to grips with it. But the airline version 

was offered as a way to do what you are suggesting, Senator Ensign. But as I said, in the negotiations it fell apart because Clear 

Play did not want to do that. 

Senator ENSIGN. Well, I would suggest that there should be—if 

there is anybody out there in America listening to this, they ought 

to put together a company that would do it, if that is the only way 

you can get it done, because I personally think that there would 

be a fairly large market of parents out there that would like to see 

that. So hopefully we can get that done. 

Mr. VALENTI. About unrated films, Senator, I should tell you that 

the very premise of the rating system is based on voluntarism. The 

strength of our force in the courts—we have been sued a lot of 

times by people for various reasons. We have always won because 

there is no compulsion. If you do not wish to submit your film for 

a rating, you do not have to. No one is compelled to do anything. 

But I would say that about 98 percent of the films that enter the 

theatrical marketplace and the home video marketplace are rated. 

Mr. KINNEY. May I mention something? 

Senator ENSIGN. Yes. 

Mr. KINNEY. Senator Ensign, with regard to if there were a company out there that did that, we do not take copyrighted material 

and alter it and then present it. We do provide exactly all of the 

information that would enable a parent to know exactly what the 

profanity, sex, and violence is at any given moment in a film. So 

the families do have somewhat of a resource to come to. 

48 

Then with regard to—I just want to clarify a couple things. I did 

not say that the entertainment industry is set up to sell sex and 

violence. I simply agreed that in fact, as anybody knows, sex and 

violence do sell, especially in this country. 

Finally, with regard to subjective versus objective, I have made 

the claim and I will stand here today or sit here today and say that 

the PSVratings system is objective. We are not a bunch of parents 

that live in Los Angeles who make a determination as to what the 

rest of America would think. We simply put together the information and present it objectively. 

Even with regard to the colors that we use, they are just an indication of various levels. The fact of the matter is—and personally 

I do not agree with it—there are parents out there who think it is 

cute if their little 3-year-old uses the ‘‘f’’ word. I do not think so, 

but those parents are free to look at a movie that is rated red for 

profanity. So we do not make judgments. We are not a subjective 

system. We objectively give you exactly the information that is in 

the media. 

Senator ENSIGN. Ms. Vance, if you could just comment on your 

organization’s decision, how you came to a decision about tobacco, 

why you put it in, and some of maybe the violence in some of your 

ratings systems, why you decided to do that? 

Ms. VANCE. Earlier in my testimony we went through the system 

itself. We have over 30 content descriptors currently in use. We did 

not always have 30. We have introduced a number of descriptors 

over time. 

We have introduced controlled substances probably 3 or 4 years 

ago, broken down into drugs, tobacco, and alcohol. We actually fairly recently in the system introduced or differentiated the way that 

we apply those descriptors between use of and reference to. 

We introduced four more descriptors last year in the area of violence, because clearly that is an area of great concern to many parents and we wanted to make sure that we had enough nuance in 

the descriptors that we were using to distinguish between cartoon 

violence or fantasy violence and more intense forms. So we now 

have descriptors suitable for that. 

Can I just address one comment? Objectivity in a ratings system 

is very dangerous. Context has to be taken into account. In fact, 

in the study that was done at Harvard there was some differences 

of opinion in terms of where we would apply content descriptors. 

There were instances where, say, a character was holding an unlit 

pipe. Well, that would not qualify, particularly in a teen game, for 

a tobacco descriptor. Or unmarked bottles sitting on a table; you 

can make an assumption that they are alcohol. Nobody is using 

them. 

So objectivity is a very dangerous thing. Subjectivity has to come 

into account, because these are creative products and a depiction 

can vary. The way you depict something can vary all the way from 

an ‘‘E’’ through ‘‘M.’’ 

Senator ENSIGN. I think that there is no question that a lot of 

this is subjective. What is OK for one parent is not OK—I mean, 

I look at certain movies, take violence for instance or smoking. Depending—smoking if it is made to look cool by the lead actor versus 

if it is somebody who is smoking and hacking and getting lung canVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:33 Jun 04, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\81139.TXT JACKIE
49 

cer, one thing could be a positive negative influence on children, so 

that could be a good smoking in a movie, where another one could 

be a very negative influence for the kids because it is encouraging 

them. 

The same thing with violence. There is gratuitous violence. There 

is historical. Certainly ‘‘Saving Private Ryan,’’ which was an incredible movie, was very violent. ‘‘The Passion of the Christ,’’ very 

violent. But they were historically accurate. 

And the same thing even sometimes with smoking in movies. We 

talked about this with some of the directors. You know, Franklin 

Delano Roosevelt, he had the big long cigarette. That is historically 

accurate. To not have that—I am just saying that sometimes—that 

I agree with you; it is just more information. 

Also, the reason, Mr. Chairman, I am so glad you are—more of 

these hearings are important, and we keep talking about this. It 

is simply to draw attention to what kind of a society are we going 

to have. The video game manufacturers I think have done a superb 

job in going from what I believe was a very irresponsible industry 

in the early stages—and there are still some irresponsible actors in 

it. But several of the companies now are becoming more and more 

responsible, giving parents more. The retailers in cooperation, we 

can have more responsibility there. The same thing with the movies and the theater owners, and keeping—if it says ‘‘NC–17,’’ that 

means ‘‘NC–17.’’ 

There is a lot of responsibility. If we can bring it more to public 

knowledge, awareness, corporate responsibility, parent responsibility, all of it working together, I think we can have a healthier 

society. And I think in the end that is what we should be looking 

at. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you. 

Mr. Podesta, on the TV ratings, I think this is backed by the Kaiser study. Of all the ratings involved, and I have been around this 

for several years, I think these are the least understandable. I really have—my favorite is the ‘‘FV’’ one of all on the TV ratings, because I look at that and I immediately think ‘‘family viewing’’ instead of ‘‘fantasy violence’’ on it. 

I just, I look at the set of them and I really think these are the 

least useful of the entire groupings. I do not know if you guys are 

going in toward revamping or if you have looked at some of these 

studies that have been coming out recently about television ratings 

systems. That is in the environment that is the most invasive, in 

the home. You go to a movie and you pick it out, so you have made 

some conscious choice. A lot of times, television things, you are just 

roaming through the channels. 

Are you looking at revamping some of this or do you believe the 

system is pretty acceptable? 

Mr. PODESTA. Mr. Chairman, the system has been approved by 

the FCC and the FCC standard has hard-wired the system into 

millions of television sets that have been produced. I think it is 

also important to look at the Kaiser data on whether parents who 

use the system find it to be useful or not useful. Indeed, 88 percent 

of the parents who use the system—and slightly more than half 

do—have found it either to be very or somewhat useful. 

50 

So we have a job to do in terms of acquainting people with the 

system and we take that responsibility seriously. 

If I may, I would also like to just speak to the point about whether or not the shows are misrated. We have a very open process. 

Any parent, any advocacy organization, any researcher who finds 

anything that is misrated in our system has immediate recourse. 

We have regular meetings at which child advocacy organizations 

like Children Now sit with people from the producers and directors 

guilds, people who actually rate the shows on television, and we 

have very open conversations about standards and the like. 

We are a very young system compared to the motion picture ratings system. I could not say to you that no one has ever made a 

mistake, but I think we have strictly adhered to the standards that 

have been set by the voluntary effort of the industry and thousands 

of hours of television programming are accurately rated. 

Is it a perfect system, Senator? I think, as with any system that 

a group of people devise, it is probably not—probably no one of us 

thought it was perfect, but I think it has a very useful purpose for 

American parents. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Mr. Podesta, the Kaiser Family study—I 

am quoting from Ms. Miller’s testimony now—said: ‘‘Unfortunately, 

many parents are still not familiar with the TV ratings. One in five 

say they have never even heard of them. Half of the parents say 

that they use the ratings’’—it would seem to me it ought to be 

much higher—‘‘one in four of whom say they use them often.’’ I 

think you are getting a much higher take on the movies, the ratings system, and a lot better understanding of those. 

Are you planning any programs to advise parents more at least, 

if we are stuck on this system, to tell them at least what these 

things stand for? 

Mr. PODESTA. We work very hard. We produce literature. There 

is a brochure that is available to anyone. Any organization that 

wishes to can download it on the Internet and make it available 

at the local level. As I said, we work closely with the PTA. We have 

worked closely with medical organizations, pediatricians, to try to 

get this information out in the hands of parents. 

We have also spent millions of dollars—we have also provided 

millions of dollars of public service advertising to try to educate 

parents on the system. There are parents who are eager and anxious to use the system and inform themselves and there are other 

parents who may choose not to do so. But it is for no lack of effort 

on the part of the industry and no process that we have undertaken that has led to that ignorance. 

I would just also say that—— 

Senator BROWNBACK. But it is not working. 

Mr. PODESTA.—the motion picture ratings have been here for 

nearly 40 years. We are only 6 or 7 years old and we aspire to get 

to 75 or 80 percent over a period of time. 

Senator BROWNBACK. I do not think you are on the right track 

to make it yet. 

Here is another quote: ‘‘Many parents do not recognize the content-based TV ratings. Only half are able to identify the ‘V’ rating 

and few are able to identify the ‘L’ or ‘S’ rating.’’ I wonder how 

many would appropriately interpret the ‘‘FV’’ rating. 

51 

Ms. MILLER. I think the number is really low. I think it is something like 12 percent. I think again this really comes down to education of parents. In addition to one out of five parents not knowing 

the TV ratings, two-thirds either do not have a V-Chip or are not 

aware if they have a V-Chip. 

In order for the system to work, it really requires much more 

public education than has been done. It is interesting; since January, all of a sudden there is a lot more talk about the V-Chip and 

TV ratings and education. I think that had a lot to do with—— 

Senator BROWNBACK. Superbowl. 

Ms. MILLER.—Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction. You know, 

I am glad that that was an outcome of that event, but that is just 

not enough. I mean, if we really are going to ask parents—— 

Senator BROWNBACK. She needs to be invited back to the Superbowl, does she not? 

Ms. MILLER. There needs to be a lot more ongoing public education that is done in a variety of ways—again, newspaper ratings, 

on-screen ratings that appear not just for the first 15 seconds, public education actually at hours when parents are actually watching 

television, not in the middle of the night. There needs to be a concerted effort on the part of the industry to get this information into 

the hands of parents. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Mr. Podesta, is this impossible to do, when 

a violent scene comes up to put and have it programmed such that 

there is up in the upper right-hand corner a light, white-colored 

‘‘V’’ for ‘‘violence’’ showing when that scene is on the television and 

requiring that in the TV rating product when you are putting it 

up? Mr. Podesta? And then I will be happy to catch you then, Mr. 

Valenti. 

Mr. PODESTA. The system as it has been adopted by the FCC 

blocks out the entire program, not a scene, as I think the Senator 

is suggesting. 

Senator BROWNBACK. I understand, but could you program—— 

Mr. Podesta: I fall back on my lack of engineering knowledge to 

know that. But the system that they adopted does not do that, and 

it may be possible, but I would be speculating, which I should not 

do. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Would you mind inquiring in your group 

and then letting me know if that would be possible to do, just possible to do? And I realize the FCC has put this in place. 

Mr. PODESTA. I am happy to do that, Senator. But just if I may 

point out that all of us in the content and broadcast and cable and 

production industry were largely bystanders in the FCC process 

that worked a lot with the manufacturers of hardware to set the 

standard. So no one is here representing the television set manufacturers, and some of the issues really are in that arena. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Understood. 

Mr. PODESTA. But I would be happy to supplement my testimony 

with an answer as well. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

52 

TV PARENTAL GUIDELINES

Washington, DC, October 18, 2004 

Hon. SAM BROWNBACK, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Senator Brownback, 

Thank you once again for inviting me to testify before the Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space on September 28, 2004, on the subject 

of media ratings systems. 

I appreciate having the opportunity to elaborate on my testimony in writing. During the hearing you asked me about the feasibility of modifying the television VChip or perhaps using an alternative means to block not just programs, but scenes 

within programs. 

In order to provide a complete and accurate answer to your question, we consulted 

a number of technical experts to determine if it is possible to block separate scenes 

for content or language. 

The V-Chip information packet (ratings packet) is part of a technology called Extended Data Service (XDS). The specification for XDS (and Closed Captions) is contained in a technical standard called EIA!CEA-608-8, published by the Consumer 

Electronics Association. XDS is data sent in the ’TV signal that conveys detailed, 

program-specific information as well as television network/station or cable network 

information. XDS information packets, using the closed captioning technology, are 

carried on a space available basis within that data stream. XDS packets are sent 

repeatedly during a program (different packets have different repetition rates) to 

allow the TV set to capture all the data associated with a program should a viewer 

join a program in progress. 

In order to block a specific scene or phrase, a ratings packet would need to arrive 

at a TV receiver at the exact moment the scene begins and then another packet 

would have to arrive at the exact moment that the scene ends to un-block the ’TV 

set. This would require what is called ′′frame level′′ accuracy. 1 Indeed, blocking a 

single word would likely require a ratings packet to be sent followed by another just 

one to two frames later. 

It is not possible to send ratings packets to the ’TV set with this level of precision. 

CEA standard tests revealed that the ratings packet typically arrives at a TV set 

approximately every 1.5 seconds. However, because closed captions have priority 

and XDS packets must wait for holes in the caption traffic, it can be as long as three 

seconds between packets. This repetition rate was deemed adequate at the time the 

V-Chip technology was developed based on the requirements for the nt ratings system, yet it is dearly inadequate for frame accurate blocking. 

For Digital Television (DTV), the Content Advisory Descriptor is the data structure that contains the rating for a particular program. The Advanced Television 

Systems Committee (ATSC) DTV standards specify that this descriptor be carried 

in the Program Map Table (PMT) or the Event Information Table (Em and apply 

to an entire program. There are no means in the ATSC standard by which the Content Advisory Descriptor could be applied to a segment of a program. 

The television industry created the lV ratings system, and consumer electronics 

manufacturers developed the V-Chip technology, following enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The ’’Parental Choice in Television Programming′′ section of the Act (Section 551) contains carefully crafted statutory language that was 

adopted following intense negotiations involving a wide range of stakeholders. 

The statute specifically prescribes a method for blocking ′′programs.′′ It makes no 

reference to rating or blocking programming on a scene-by-scene basis. The law calls 

for inclusion of a device in certain television sets to block ′′display of all programs 

with a common rating.′′ The statute also includes a provision anticipating further 

technological advances, but even this section makes no mention of rating or blocking 

less than the entire program. The statute reflects the authors’ understanding that 

programmers would identify and rate content on a program-by-program basis and 

that lV sets would contain technology to block on that same basis. 

I hope that you find this information useful. If you have any further questions 

on this subject, please feel free to contact me any time. 

Sincerely, 

ANTHONY T. PODESTA, 

Executive Secretariat, 

Parental Guidelines Monitoring Board. 

53 

Senator BROWNBACK. Mr. Valenti. 

Mr. VALENTI. Two facts, Mr. Chairman. One is, as to Janet Jackson, even if you used your V-Chip it would not work because Janet 

Jackson is in the Superbowl; sports are not rated. 

The second point is that when the manufacturers put in the 

FCC-mandated technical design it was impossible to change. They 

told us that. So if you tried to change what is in the V-Chip mechanism today, you could not do it except by having a new design, and 

you would obsolete the V-Chip in 125 million sets that are now in 

place. 

Senator BROWNBACK. That is a good point. 

Dr. Thompson, I want to ask you, and I will get to some of the 

others, but you stated in your testimony, you called for uniform 

ratings, I believe, is that correct, in your testimony? 

Dr. THOMPSON. Yes. 

Senator BROWNBACK. The Chairman of this Committee, Senator 

McCain, called for that 4 years ago. Joe Lieberman I believe has 

called for that previously. I have worked around this system. How 

would you do that? How would you move forward on a universal 

rating system? Have you thought that through any further? 

Dr. THOMPSON. Yes. I think the most important thing—there are 

big differences between the media and I recognize that and my research respects that. There are differences between interactive and 

non-interactive media. But I do think that what it comes down to 

is standards and actually having clear definitions for what you 

mean by violence and what you mean by smoking or tobacco. 

If you are not going to count unlit cigarettes, are you going to 

count pipes that are lit but are not in someone’s mouth? Do you 

not count drugs that look like drugs but have a name like ‘‘Scuma’’ 

or something else, but have the effects and have a major role in 

the game? 

These are questions that I think are important ones and they 

transcend the media. Some of these questions about how we are 

talking about violence are things that I think we could make some 

headway on and at least provide transparency to parents so we 

know what it is that is or is not getting counted. 

I think that the first step is to try and come up with a set of 

standards. If they cannot apply to all media, then we should at 

least learn that by trying it. We should not just assert that up 

front. Then I think the existing ratings boards can implement those 

standards within their own media. I do not think we have to 

change fundamentally our entire system in the way that the ratings actually function. I think the issue is making it clear that 

there should not be opportunities for cross-media marketing where 

you get inconsistent ratings. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Let me probe you a little more on this. 

What you are calling for is the FCC to establish a series of objective standards? 

Dr. THOMPSON. I do not think the FCC has to do it. I think it 

should be something that the industry wants to do. I do think that 

this is a self-regulated industry that has worked very well and that 

if they can actually figure out how to come together to work on this 

then that would be the best option. 

54 

Senator BROWNBACK. And it would be all of these entertainment 

industries coming together to establish a series of objective standards? 

Dr. THOMPSON. Well, again we are getting into objective-subjective. I do think that the reality is there is some subjectivity. There 

are always the borderline calls. So the key issue for me is just 

knowing what is and what is not in the category or what does and 

what does not count, and that is where the current systems really 

lack a lot of transparency. 

Senator BROWNBACK. So let me go at this then. You are saying 

to get all the industries together and have them establish, here is 

what counts for violence, here is what counts for sexual material, 

here is what counts for language, and describe, descriptors on that, 

and then have those applied uniformly throughout the entertainment industry products; is that what I hear you saying? 

Dr. THOMPSON. That is the concept. Now, again I think we have 

to realize that we do have age-based ratings that are very helpful. 

Parents do like age-based ratings. At least they report so on studies. 

I personally think that we need more categories. I think there 

are big differences between a 6-year-old and a 13-year-old and it 

makes sense to me that we might have more age-based categories 

if we were starting it all over again. So I think it is time to actively 

really evaluate the media systems, look for opportunities to use single symbols that could apply for each rating board. 

I know that each rating board would have to deal with the legal 

aspects of that, since these are all copyright issues. I suspect that 

that is something they could figure out if it was in their collective 

best interests. Right now I do not know that they have the incentives to actually do this. So I think that is why we are seeing people coming up with other systems. But I do think that this is the 

time for us to recognize that media are converging. The Internet 

puts everything in everyone’s house—movies, TV, radio. You name 

it, it is there. We really need to think about how we can provide 

better, more effective information for parents that gives them information about content, tells them about the ingredients, but does so 

in a way that they can make their own informed and empowered 

choice. 

Senator BROWNBACK. That last statement I certainly agree with. 

This is one where we really need to be there. 

This has been an excellent panel. I did not know if anybody 

wanted to add anything or they felt like they were not heard. Mr. 

Kinney? 

Mr. KINNEY. Just one follow-up. I believe that there is a need to 

simplify the ratings system. I think, though, my personal opinion 

is that the entertainment industry should be allowed to do what 

they are in existence to do, create entertainment content. And I believe that the ratings system will better come from the private industry. This is a market-driven society. 

We even at PSVratings have worked for 3 years on developing 

our technology and refining it in anticipation of competition. We 

welcome competition. It is competition that is going to make us 

make our system better. So if we compete with other independent 

ratings systems, we will fulfil the needs of parents and consumers 

55 

better because we will have to in order to survive. And it will be 

up to us to market our systems and make parents and consumers 

learn how to use them and make them aware of the availability of 

them. 

Again, this is a market-driven society. I believe that the solution 

should come from the private sector. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Ms. Miller? 

Ms. MILLER. I just wanted to add that in a digital television 

world there is the capability for an open V-Chip as television transitions and we move to a digital system. So I think that is something that can be looked into. 

But I just wanted to say, for parents really more content information is better. What we really have to make a commitment to 

while we have the systems that we have now is to do what we can 

to make them work so parents can make empowered, informed 

choices. 

Mr. VALENTI. May I have one second, sir? 

Senator BROWNBACK. Yes. 

Mr. VALENTI. The great omission in this panel, Mr. Chairman, is 

the file swapping sites on digital. They are not only not rated, it 

is very difficult to find them. If you go to digital, any 10-year-old 

kid today can go up and get Morpheus and Gnutella and Imesh 

and eDonkey and bring down at the speed of light the most squalid 

perversions of pornography that will shake the very foundations of 

your comprehension. 

It is there. I do not know why nobody talks about it. It is awful. 

I have seen it and I have had people call me. I had one mother in 

California send me the pictures that her son brought down on a 

color printer, that I could not even look at myself, it was just so 

awful. 

So you have to deal with that. We have been trying to get the 

Congress to understand this and trying to find, through technology, 

through education, through narrowly focused and narrowly drawn 

pieces of legislation, to deal with this, because it is there, Senator. 

It is much alive. 

If you go on, for example, one of these file sites, you will find that 

some 400 to 500 million people are on it at any particular time and 

they are swapping 850 to 900 million files, and about half of it is 

this squalid pornography. 

Senator BROWNBACK. I am familiar with that and the Congress, 

as you know, has tried to pass legislation and the court has struck 

it down. That is why I keep on in these things trying to move to 

more and more of a consumer choice issue, so that we give the information to the consumer, but then empower them technologically 

as well to block, if we can get that system in place. 

Mr. Glickman, I do not mean to put you on the spot with this, 

but when you were Secretary of Agriculture you did a lot on food 

labeling. It was good work. Do you see a problem or do you see any 

analogy of going there in this industry? Basically, what we are trying to do is get products labeled and whether it is the most squalid, 

which Mr. Valenti just said, but requiring that labeling be on there 

and give the consumer the ability to accept or reject. 

Mr. GLICKMAN. But you have a lot of the same issues involving 

objectivity and subjectivity. In the case of food, quite frankly, there 

56 

is a lot more hard science available as to what has an effect on 

your body and what does not than there is with respect to the 

kinds of entertainment intellectually received, observed, or listened 

to. So because that hard connection is not there, then you have to 

make basic judgments based upon what you think your good judgments are. Quite frankly, in the case of the movie ratings perspective, I think those judgments have been quite valuable. 

I think there are some parallels there, but quite frankly the 

amount of scientific evidence involving food and consumption of 

food is much, much greater, much different than it is in this industry. 

Senator BROWNBACK. So you would support Dr. Thompson’s call 

for the CAMRA legislation to get a lot more intellectual information? 

Mr. GLICKMAN. I do not know enough about that specific legislation, but I think it is always useful to get more information on 

these kinds of issues. 

Senator BROWNBACK. I really do think that is a valuable piece for 

us to get, because the hard science is coming here, but we do not 

have it fully developed yet. 

Ms. Vance—— 

Mr. Glickman. The other thing, of course, is that you have all the 

First Amendment intellectual property rights and freedom of expression issues when it comes to these issues, which are not necessarily at play when it comes to food. 

Senator BROWNBACK. I understand. 

Ms. VANCE. I just wanted to make one comment. It gets back to 

evidence. There is no evidence, at least with video games, that consumers are dissatisfied with the standards that we are using for 

our ratings and for our rating categories or the assignment of content descriptors. I think where we are most concerned right now 

is trying to understand why parents choose to ignore our ratings 

and bring home inappropriate games for their children. 

We have the ratings system. It has been out there for 10 years. 

Every single box has prominent labels, every ad has prominent labels. So why is it that nine out of ten purchases involve an adult 

and why is it that many of those adults choose to ignore those ratings and bring home games that are inappropriate for their children? That is I think our biggest issue right now. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Have you done any surveys of parents to 

tell you why? 

Ms. VANCE. Not deep enough, no. And I think it would apply to 

everybody. The same would apply—I am a parent, I am a mother. 

I experience this frequently when my children go to other children’s 

homes and their parents take them to inappropriate movies or 

bring home inappropriate movies to their children or watch inappropriate television programs. I think it is fairly pervasive in the 

consumption of entertainment and I think that would be a very 

good use of effort and time and expenditure, to really understand 

what motivates particularly parents to choose entertainment product and why some parents choose to ignore it. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Well, thank you all very much. I anticipate 

that this will be an issue that will continue to come forward, and 

that we need to provide the parent with as much information as 

57 

we possibly can. Hopefully, we can get the CAMRA legislation 

through for the research. I think everybody is agreeing on that. 

I hope as well we can provide and make this easier for the parent, not more difficult. My experience on this has generally been 

it has been the parent—the child is pushing to see and get more 

and more racier material and the parent is pushing back, and the 

society is pushing with the kid or the industry is pushing with the 

kid, with the child. I would like to make this as easy and as friendly for the parent to be able to use and do what they believe is right 

for this. 

I thank you all for trying. It has been several years we have had 

panels like this. I do think we have been making progress on a 

tough subject. Thank you for coming. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:18 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(59) 

A P P E N D I X 


928COMM1.eps
60 


928COMM2.eps
61 


928COMM3.eps
62 

Æ 


928COMM4.eps