When I shop for groceries, I look at the ingredients list on food packaging. There are certain additives I try to avoid, such as sucralose or high-fructose corn syrup. If I see those ingredients listed, it goes back on the shelf, and I know to look for an alternative. It is a highly individual decision, one others might disagree with, but my choices in that matter do not affect or constrain the decisions of other families whose scruples differ from mine, any more than their preferences affect or constrain mine.
Shouldn’t parents have the ability to do the same thing when they are shopping for media content for their children?
Recommended Stories
It really is that simple: informed choice requires honest labeling.
CONSTITUTIONAL WIN FOR CHRISTIAN FOSTER PARENTS CHIPS AWAY AT ASSAULT ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Congress recognized this truth in 1996 when it passed the first major update to our telecommunications law since the 1930s. Unfortunately, that update included a fatal flaw: it left too much power in the hands of an industry that exercises hegemonic control over the culture.
The 1996 Telecommunications Act authorized the creation of a television ratings system and gave the industry an opportunity to either develop a rating system of its own or else submit to one devised by the Federal Communications Commission. So Hollywood did exactly what you’d expect it to do. It came up with a system that allowed them to check the box while avoiding any kind of meaningful oversight or accountability.
The companies that are producing and distributing content are the same companies that are determining what the content should be rated. The same companies have also been granted “oversight” of the entire system. It’s a closed system that’s meant to protect industry interests over the interests of the families the ratings system is supposed to serve.
The inherent conflict of interest in an entirely self-preserving system was evident to all from the beginning. The late George Gerbner of the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania said at the time that it was “A sideshow and a diversion.”
“It’s like the major polluters saying, ‘We shall continue business as usual, but don’t worry, we’ll also sell you gas masks to ‘protect your children’ and have a ‘free choice!’”
The failure of this self-imposed and self-regulated system became painfully obvious this past year when families learned that cartoons created for, marketed to, and rated as appropriate for young children frequently feature LGBT themes, messages, and characters. None of it was labeled or disclosed. This is only the latest example in the 30-year experiment marked by failure after failure.
Across distribution platforms, no single, uniform standard seems to apply, and the burden falls on us, as parents, to learn how to navigate different systems and different parental control standards, while running interference against a multibillion-dollar industry that’s actively working against us.
The system doesn’t protect families from Hollywood, it protects Hollywood from congressional accountability.
In fact, nothing in the current rating system serves to adequately inform and equip parents to evaluate whether the content presented is appropriate for their child or compatible with their family’s values. The lack of transparency about content that might alarm some parents sends the message — whether they admit it or not — that big media conglomerates either do not care about parental choice, or that they are intentionally and willfully working to subvert the authority and autonomy of parents who don’t agree with their political, social, and cultural worldview.
Thankfully, the FCC is now trying to give some control back to parents. It recently issued a Public Notice seeking comment by May 22 on how the television ratings system can better serve parents in today’s media environment. This proceeding offers a timely opportunity to examine whether the current system, largely designed and administered by the entertainment industry itself, is actually delivering the clear, accurate information families need.
The FCC’s inquiry does not propose content regulation. It does not dictate what the public may watch. Instead, it asks a straightforward, commonsense question: Are parents being given truthful, usable information? Or are they being handed the illusion of control?
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that schools may not hide a student’s gender transition from parents without violating parents’ constitutional rights. If parents have a right to know what is happening with their own children at school, why should we accept a media system that obscures ideological content from parents, especially when we know how powerfully television influences children’s development?
THE ETHICS OF SURROGACY: CHILDREN ARE NOT A TRANSACTION
The FCC should be applauded for this long-overdue examination. The goal should be straightforward: a system that serves families, not the entertainment industry. That means ratings criteria that are understandable; content descriptors that are used accurately and consistently; meaningful parental input; and real accountability so the labels match the content across platforms.
Parents are not seeking censorship or editorial control — just honest, intelligible information we can rely on.
Penny Nance is the CEO and President of Concerned Women for America and a former FCC special adviser. On X: @CWforA
