[Senate Hearing 108-952]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-139 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Carolina, Ranking
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine Virginia
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada RON WYDEN, Oregon
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 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 JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana, Ranking
CONRAD BURNS, Montana JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi Virginia
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia RON WYDEN, Oregon
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire BILL NELSON, Florida
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
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
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 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 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.
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 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 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 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.
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 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 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 audiences'', 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.
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 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 detailed 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.
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, 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 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.
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-to-reach 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.
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 industry 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 first-ever 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-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.
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-in-mind.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 industry-based 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.
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 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, 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Attachments rating the recently released films Anaconda
(Screen Gems, Columbia Tri-Star Motion Picture Group 2004) and Cellular
(New Line Cinema Productions 2004).
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 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-in-mind.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 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).
\3\ See News Release, Federal Communications Commission, FCC Adopts
Children's Programming Obligations for Digital Television Broadcasters,
MM Docket 00-167 (rel'd September 9, 2004).
\4\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See www.fcc.gov/parents/tvratings.html.
\6\ See http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/ratings/ratings.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 invested 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 research 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.
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.
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 age-based 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 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 cross-marketed 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 M-rated 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 are getting these mixed signals. So I think that there
is cross-media 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,
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 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 M-rated
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 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 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
three-fourths 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 three-fourths 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 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
click-through 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 content-based 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Kaiser Family Foundation, Kids and Media @ the New Millennium,
Kaiser Family Foundation, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Kaiser Family Foundation, Parents, Media and Public Policy: A
Kaiser Family Foundation Survey, September, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 advocates 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Ibid.
\4\ Ibid.
\5\ Ibid.
\6\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Ibid.
\8\ Kaiser 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Kaiser Family Foundation, Parents, Media and Public Policy: A
Kaiser Family Foundation Survey, September 2004.
(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
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 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 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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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 cancer, 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.
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.
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:]
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 V-Chip 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.
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.
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 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 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 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.]
A P P E N D I X