E Pluribus Unum

I am the father of four kids -- two of my own and two by marriage. They range in age from 6-17.

I'm also a liberal.

I've also spent plenty of time watching TV with all of my kids at one time or another. So I know (from experience) that there is plenty of good stuff on TV as well as plenty of crap, too.

And at one time or another I've told my kids what they are allowed to watch (good stuff) and what they are not allowed to watch (crap).

They didn't always like it, but that's what we (as parents) do.

I also know that some parents go beyond that: some parents petition the networks and Congress to ban certain kinds of content. Some parents are not satisfied to discipline their own kids; they want to discipline mine too. Death to Sponge Bob!

The conventional wisdom among liberals is that this is censorship. The conventional wisdom among liberals is that this is bad. And to a certain extent, the conventional wisdom is correct.

After all, this is a free-market. Anything goes. That's the American Way, baby -- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

But here's the thing: this alienates people who see themselves as parents first and political junkies second.

They have a point.

They know that when people gather in large numbers to watch crap, then crap is king. It will get supported by lots of advertising money.

So here's what one liberal would do to promote family-friendly TV: promote truth in labeling. Who could be against that?

Some of you are thinking that we already have that -- the familiar TV-MA, TV-14, TV-PG, etc. And you're right. But I'd like to suggest that we keep those ratings/logos on the screen during the entire broadcast of the show, not just during the opening 5 seconds.

In addition, put them in a uniform spot on the screen -- upper-left, lower-right, etc.

By doing these two things, a channel surfing parent will know what each program's content is as they scoot around the dial.

In addition, I'd suggest that each rating be more clearly defined.

For example, here's the existing definition of TV-14:

This program contains some material that many parents would find unsuitable for children under 14 years of age. Parents are strongly urged to exercise greater care in monitoring this program and are cautioned against letting children under the age of 14 watch unattended.

This program contains one or more of the following: intense violence (V), intense sexual situations (S), strong coarse language (L), or intensely suggestive dialogue (D).

I like what Kids In Mind has done. Their rating system has hundreds of gradations to it, rating a movie on a scale of 1-10 on three categories: Sex, Violence and Profanity.

For example, they've rated Cinderella Man 4-6-4 -- 4 for Sex, 6 for violence, and 4 for profanity. In addition, they list incidences of each (during the movie) on their web site:

SEX/NUDITY 4

• A bare-chested man opens his door, we see two scantily clad women in the room behind him, and it is suggested that the three of them have been having sex.
  
• A woman climbs on her husband's lap, they hug and kiss, he picks her up and carries her into shadows and we hear her giggling.
  
• Women wear evening gowns that reveal bare shoulders, back and cleavage, and men are bare-chested while in the boxing ring in many scenes.
  
• A man and a woman kiss in several scenes, a man kisses his wife on the cheek, and men and women dance together.
  
• A woman asks her husband about "the women" he might have seen while he was away at a boxing match.

The parents decide what they want their kids to be exposed to.

I've consulted this site many, many times during the "difficult" pre-teen years. It worked pretty well. (Note: Cinderella Man is rated PG-13).

Take another example: Revenge of the Sith is rated 2-7-0 or 2 for Sex, 7 for Violence, 0 for Profanity.

You can also search the database by dialing in your own rating limits. For example, if I dial in 3-3-3, I can find 385 movies that match that criteria (Air Bud, Big Fat Liar, among others). If dial in 6-6-6, I find 219 films that match that criteria (Anchorman, Ace Ventura, among others). I can dial in 9-9-9 and find 25 films that match that criteria (21 Grams, Shawshank Redemption, among others). You can dial in any combination (or range of combinations) you want.

Why can't we insist on a similar system (to be displayed prominently) for TV shows? All we're talking about is truth in labeling, right?

What liberal would be against truth in labeling? We insist upon it for food that we put in our bodies. Why not insist on it for ideas that we put in our heads?

Notice that I'm not saying, for example, that watching Power Rangers makes boys into karate-chopping goofballs (or worse). Nor am I saying that Sponge Bob will make your kid grow up and marry a same-sex partner.

I'm simply saying that a parent should know what ingredients go into a show that will be consumed by their kids. You read the label on the cereal box. Why not insist on similar labeling on a TV show?

The technology is there to give us truth in labeling. Let's go for it.