What Happens When TV Ratings Are Wrong?

While many parents do their level best to follow the Television Parental Guidelines and the MPAA's rating system, there are rising concerns that the entertainment industry is becoming lax in their rating of programs — even leaving out particular content indicators for the sole purpose of financial gain. This raises the question: Should an industry with such strong financially invested interest be in charge of rating its own content?

Concerned parents are looking at the Television Parental Guidelines to help them make wise television viewing choices, yet the ratings seem to be an inaccurate and unreliable source of help, according to some of the parents surveyed in the June 2007 Kaiser Family Foundation's survey on media and the family*.

How is it possible for ratings to be so wrong?

The answer is because they are applied by the television producers and programmers who are financially affected by the ratings. Katherine Kuhn, author of "The Ratings Sham II" for the Parents Television Council*, explains, "What most people don't realize is that there is no independent body administering the ratings, monitoring their use, or ensuring accuracy and consistency in their application; there are no rules governing the ratings' use; they are not subject to any kind of testing to ensure their accuracy; and the networks are not penalized for failing to use them properly." Ms. Kuhn continues by pointing out, "There is also an element of self-interest at play in allowing the networks to rate their own programs. Networks are financially motivated to under-rate their programs because a more restrictive rating could scare off advertisers."

OK, so just how inaccurate are the ratings and content indicators? Is the average television consumer really getting excrement instead of fruit? Consider the following facts from Ms. Kuhn's "The Ratings Sham II":

• Two-thirds (67 percent) of the shows reviewed lacked one or more of the appropriate content descriptors
• 54 percent of shows containing suggestive dialogue lacked the "D" descriptor
• 63 percent of shows containing sexual content lacked the "S" descriptor
• 42 percent of shows containing violence lacked the "V" descriptor
• 44 percent of shows containing foul language lacked the "L" descriptor

Taking a look at the individual networks proves insightful. ABC, the "family" network, lacked one or more of the necessary descriptors in 100 percent of the thirty-one shows rated TV-14. While 92 percent of NBC's TV-14 programs lacked one or more content descriptors, the truly fascinating finding about NBC was the lack of consistency. "One episode of Medium had ten instances of profanity and no "L" descriptor. Two weeks before, an episode of the same program had three instances of profanity and was rated TV-14 L," noted Ms. Kuhn in her report. Seventy percent of Fox network's TV-PG programs were missing content indicators, and of the TV-14 shows on the CW, 89 percent lacked one or more necessary descriptors.

Television producers encourage more parental supervision and the use of the V-chip as viable alternatives to the decency laws of 2006 and any stricter regulations on the amount of violence and sex in television programs. Yet both parental supervision and the use of the V-chip are dependent on a ratings system that's not being consistently applied by the networks. Ms. Kuhn is most accurate in her conclusion, "The FCC must continue to vigorously enforce broadcast decency laws, and the American people must continue to hold the networks accountable for how they use the publicly owned broadcast airwaves."

"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." — Jack Valenti, former president of the MPAA, now deceased

We're not buying it.

*(Note: Referrals to Web sites not produced by Focus on the Family are for informational purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)

• Back to top
• Print this page
• Print this series
• Forward to a friend

Find out about...