President Clinton challenged the television industry to devise a meaningful ratings system for television programs, or the government would do it for it. Content labeling for consumer products makes sense, but the government's fatal error was in allowing the television industry the freedom to devise the system itself. Parents and critics wanted the system to provide information that would explicitly state the level of violence, sex and foul language in each show. They wanted a system that would get parents and kids talking about what was on television so they could make responsible choices about viewing-together. They wanted an impartial standard by which television contents could be gauged.
Nutritional information is printed on food items.
Just as a parent should read the label, and determine this cereal has too much sugar, this one too many calories, and that one too few vitamins, parents should be able to read meaningful labels on television shows. Instead, broadcasting industry leaders chose to introduce a system that simply labeled programs as suitable for certain age groups, similar to the way movies are rated. The system's creators have refused to appeal to the critics' pleas for revisions. A recent random survey of members of the Parent-Teacher Association found that 80 percent of parents would like television ratings to include information on the levels of sex, violence and adult language in television programs, rather than a single overall rating. Unlike the film industry, whose ratings are given by panels of parents and people outside the industry, television producers and distributors would be responsible for rating television shows themselves.