I'm disappointed in the FTC report that failed to give the MPAA enough credit for the voluntary parental-warning system it has employed for nearly 30 years. If such provisions didn't exist, then there would be reason for parents and child advocates to blame the media for presenting violent content to its audiences without fair warning. But the fact is that with tools such as the MPAA rating system, TV Parental Guidelines and the V-chip, which all offer precautionary information to audiences, some parents still don't want to be held accountable for what their children watch. Instead, they want the government to baby-sit and set regulations that challenge the First Amendment. I sure hope parents get it together and police what their children watch in the theaters and on television because the price of this baby sitter is much too high.
Parents often fail to take control.
By Monica L. Ewing Daily Opinion Editor V iolence in the media and its effect on children is not apt to be an issue that will ever fade from the American public consciousness. Each high-profile violent crime that is committed renews the debate. Each new study or report brings a new swell of voices admonishing the media to clean up its act. The latest blow to the entertainment industry came last month when the Federal Trade Commission issued a report rebuking movie studios for marketing R-rated movies to kids as young as 9 years old. President Clinton ordered the inquiry after the April 1999 Columbine High School shooting.