Media Chatter

     First of all lets make it clear that we are talking about a community newspaper. With that being said we must specify what kind of community we are serving. America is very diverse with many different types of people.

     Someone might say that if a letter was sent in by someone in the community then it represents a portion, no matter how small, of the community. I agree with that idea. However, that does not mean everyones’ letter needs or should be published.

     If you have limited space and you are forced to pick and chose then there are obvious choices to be made. First, I would not publish any letters that represent hate. When I say this I clearly mean any letters personally attacking someone based on race, religion or nationality. I believe this should be standard procedure anyway.

     Second, I would limit the letters to issues in the immediate community. There are other places for people to voice there opinions about things going on in the country, a national newspaper, for example.

     If it is a community newspaper then its’ purpose is to serve that community. The people want to know about their immediate area and the individuals in it. They look to their newspaper to find out how people feel about those things going on in their schools, churches, and local government.

     Finally, I would not publish articles that are of no interest to the majority. A good example would be a letter discussing the religious holidays, celebrations and food of a certain culture when the majority of the community was of a different religious background and a different culture. A letter discussing the holidays, celebrations and food of the majority would be more appropriate. The community would be able to relate to this type of article better.

     I think the key to making those tough decisions goes back to one thing, community. I think to best serve the citizens in that community you must do your research and find out who your community really is and what they like and do.

     I believe everyones’ opinion is very important and should be heard. There is a right place to voice those opinions. If you have taken on the responsibility of formulating a policy for your editors about which letters to publish then you must do your best in choosing the most desirable letters.

     In a sense you certainly would be acting as a censor. In this situation there is no choice. You can not publish all the letters. Why would you chose to publish letters of no interest to most of your readers? Why would you publish a hate letter when you had a letter about something relevant to the community, such as the local government? And if someone writes about a flood in another state and your own community has had no rain in weeks and your other option is a letter about the effects of the drought in your area, the decision is obvious.

     You are censoring the letters in one way, because you have to. But, in a sense you really are not censoring them. You are actually choosing community based letters over national based letters or letters of little interest or impact in that particular community. 

     Keep in mind, this would not be the only paper in which citizens could voice their opinions.

Movie ratings are a great tool when it comes to deciding which movie to go see.  Throughout my life, these ratings have been reasonable, accurate, and have helped me decide what movie I want to go see.  Many would argue that the rating system is wrong and that it should be much stricter.  There are things that could be a little stricter, but these movie ratings are not made by Christians.  Everyone has their own morals that they live their life by and honestly, I don’t think the movie industry is willing to lose a lot of money just because everyone isn’t completely satisfied with the ratings.  The reason many people go see new movies is because they are more intense, funnier, scarier, happier, or just better than a previous one.  In order for the movie industry to survive, it must one-up itself from previous movies.  This might compromise the movie’s rating and if it does, it just gets bumped up to the next rating level.  The ratings are simply there as a guide to let movie goers know what they should expect before they walk into a movie.  There are many websites that offer more in-depth discussions on any sort of inappropriate material in today’s top movies.  These sites base their assessments on morals.  The MPA bases its ratings on the content, so I think that the movie rating system should stay like it is and if a viewer wants to know more about a movie, go look at a website that is more in-depth.

Judy Miller was an American journalists that was born in 1948. She was jailed for contempt and not testifying. She felt she was excercising her rights as a citezen practicing the first amendment. Although, others view things differently. She slandered someone’s name because she wanted to show her rights, while other journalists think differently about this right. I do believe that there should be a limitation on things you can and cannot say. Yes, journalists relay information that public relation practitioners give them, but PR always has something positive to say about thier company or organization. I do think that journalists are given to much power to change things and make fit the way they please and by the time it comes out to the publics, it is not truth anymore, it is something that the journalists wants the world to know. I dont think that all journalism should be objective, but I do think that there should be a limitation on subjectivity from the journalist.

When asked what I thought about the current movie rating system, I think that the ratings that they give movies are very accurate, dependable, and depict the movies very well. Ever since I realized and understood the ratings that they give movies, every movie that I’ve seen seemed to match the rating that that certain movie was given. I also think that the description of why a certain movie is given the rating that it receives is very fitting and has a good reason on why they gave that particular movie that rating. As for my thoughts on the movie rating system overall, I think that it is good that there is a system for many reasons. My first reason is for the safety of the viewers, mainly focusing on the children. With movie ratings, movies that are rated G are intended for a general audience, making it suitable for children. Movies that are rated PG are asking for parental guidance and the same goes for PG-13 movies but require the viewer to be at least 13 years of age. Movies that are rated R require the viewer to be at least 18 years of age, which sets the audience at a mature enough level to handle the movie. I don’t see any need for changes in the current movie rating system mainly because of the success the ratings have on there audiences today. I think that the ratings put on movies are good not only for the viewers but for the movie industries across the world.

I just basically think it was not a good idea for A. J. Liebling to say that freedom of the press is only for those who owned one. The press makes the people and the people make the press. As difficult as it sounds its basically stating that people influence the press just as well as the press shapes the people. There is an equal responsibility on both parties on issues.

There is a such thing called freelance which gives anyone the right to be a part of the press. And if you took freelance away than there would be a lot of things going on that the press itself wouldn’t know about. The press is not around at all times everywhere in the world so people become the press themselves. Whether its paparazzi or just some simple person with a camera, we all could very easily be the press. And to further this, freedom of the press and freedom of speech go hand in hand making both free for all. So you don’t have to be the press to be the press.

The writer A. J. Liebling once said that freedom of the press belonged only tho those who owned one.

I don’t think that Liebling meant this statement to be literal. Freedom of the press is ideally what American citizens should be able to exercise. But in the democracy we live in there happens to be plenty of censorship where the government feels it’s needed. Liebling is saying that if you own the press the government should not be able to tell you what to write. The same government that gives the right to free press is also the government that takes that right away when they please.

When I read the quote by A. J. Liebling I completely agree.  In order to have freedom of press, i believe that you must own one.  In order to print something you must have a press and why should anyone have freedom to say what they want through printing unless they own a press of their own.  You should hold your tongue unless you can print what you wish to say to be able to present your opinions on certain matters.

The current movie rating system in the United States is completely ridiculous.  Over the years, the flexibility in these rules has become more and more lenient.  As the morals of this country continue to decline, the amount of trash that is allowed in movies rated PG-13 and even PG is increasing exponentially.

According to Plugged In Movie Reviews, Movies such as Fred Clause, which is rated PG, “…includes two uses of “h—” and one each of the crudities “d–n” and “a–.”   This movie that is being presented as a holiday, family film contains absurdities that many parents would not want their children to hear.

Plugged In Movie Reviews also states that in the movie The Comebacks, rated PG-13, “Characters blurt out the s-word at least a half-dozen times and make generous use of other swears, including “a–,” “d–n” and “b–ch.” God’s and Jesus’ names are both abused multiple times. (Twice God’s name is paired with “d–n.”).”  This is a type of movie that many middle-school-aged children are going to see every weekend.

Filling young minds with this kind of trash at such an early age is not beneficial to anyone.  The more that these children are exposed to the bad things in the world, the more acceptable they become.  In a world that is declining morally everyday, movie ratings should be changed so that children are raised to have more respectable morals.

Mostly I agree with what Liebling once said, that “freedom of the press belonged only to those who owned one.” The owners, or publishers, of any given press are the ones who ultimately decide what belongs in their paper. All the writers must align their pieces with what the publisher deems acceptable, because he has the right to print or not to print whatever he desires.

That is not to say, however, that writers have no freedom of the press. While publishers can publish only views in line with their own, they cannot spoon feed the reporters what to say. Every article has the stamp of that reporter on it. Many times publishers like to provide views from various perspectives in order to maintain high readership. This enables reporter 1 and reporter 2 to both share their contrasting views. It also not in the favor of publishers to throw out articles at the last minute simply because they have a differing view.

The first amendment protects the free speech of all Americans. As far as freedom of the press. the publisher or owner of the press naturally has the ultimate expression of freedom, but the reporters have their own voice too.

The movie rating system today is a little to accepting to the amount of exposure it allows in low rating movies. I feel that even one cuss word or offensive statement should be enough to classify a movie as PG 13. I feel that the movie rating system is becoming to accepting allowing more cuss words to be used. You are allowed to have a certain amount of language, sex, nudity, and violence for each level. I think that that level should be raised. I know that sometimes even in PG 13 movies, I find my Christian morals making me feel a little uncomfortable. I think that parents should pay more attention to the ratings and be more cautious of what they allow their children to see.

Although some children are mature for their age, a child should not be exposed to the violence or language of some PG 13 movies and especially not R rated movies. Even cartoon movies now and days are showing some forms of sexual innuendos. Society is changing and becoming more advanced and maturing faster due to what children are being exposed to. Although it is ultimately the parent’s decision or in some cases the child’s own decision on what they watch, parents and children should pay attention to the rating system and understand it is there to protect and inform.

Movie ratings should definitely be made stricter theses days for the younger audiences. The movie rating system has changed up and down throughout the many movie years. Some of the older PG and PG-13 movies from the 70s and 80s contained many inappropriate themes in them that kids shouldn’t have been watching. “Back to School” was a good PG-13 comedy movie but the film had certain situations that were inappropriate for the younger audience, like a nude scene that appeared in it. “Yellow Beard” was rated PG and there was some strange violent scenes and nude women in it, definitely not for young kids. One of the movies I remember very well when I was little was the movie “Gremlins”. The rating was PG, but the violence and frighten images in it was too much for me when I was young. At the least it could have been rated PG-13. The movie ended up giving nightmares for a little while.

After sometime the movie system made the ratings more stricter for the viewing audiences. A little while after the system tightened up, the age viewing ratings began to lower. Some animated/cartoon movies began having their characters cuss. PG-13 also began using cuss words more often and even throwing in the F-word occasionally. Brief nude scenes seem to appear more often as well. My parents would never let me view such content until I was mature enough to handle it. Also this will be the same rule with my family in the future.

The movie rating system that I’ve grown up with has done its job for the most part. The rules that are set and, in consideration, crucial to a movie. Depending on the movies rating one may or may not go see the movie. It’s crucial in the decision making process.

The only problem there may be is not specifically with the rating system but the world today and what it says the rating of a movie should be. Movies seem to be pushing the limits on what they can and can’t do, or show I should say. At a certain age anyone can go see whatever movie they want but once in the theater, after the dollars have been paid you should not be surprised by what you see. There is a chance that the rating gets so out of hand that it wouldn’t matter what the rating is. The system is there to help people keep their own morals and guard themselves, and their children, from taboo subjects.

Some could call that person sheltered and unworldly but entertainment industries can’t determine what is and is not acceptable. As long as it doesn’t get to that and keeps up the way it is than the rating system is all right by me. But in all cases, rules get broken, manipulated, pushed to the max, and then a change comes about. I really wouldn’t be surprised to see it change in my lifetime but for right now it’s working just fine. 

When I read the quote by A. J. Liebling regarding freedom of the press, ideas run through my mind about different sorts of publications. Newspapers, magazines, novels, and journals–all forms of publications. These all began from simple beginnings; from a man or woman who believed in the right to publish. Liebling said that only those who owned a form of press had the right to publish freely. I have to say that I find myself on middle ground with this statement. I do believe that those who publish media, and who are the behind-the-scenes workers have a certain right to publish freely. However, I also believe that there are so many kinds of publications. Online blogging or online journaling can be considered a publication. I believe that those who make an effort to stay informed and those who make an effort to understand the different kinds of publications, objectively, should have the right to publish freely. They should have a right to not only publish freely, but to form and make known an opinion on those freedoms.

Those people that are uninformed, or deliberately choose to stay ‘out of the loop’ as far as media goes, should not be allowed to speak or even publish freely. Individuals that live in our country and have no opinions on media or publication and the material included in said publications are as useful as a child given political responsibilities. To be well-informed is to be enlightened. In order to speak intelligently and freely, one must understand what he or she is speaking of. This goes for any from of publication as well. Rush Limbaugh is an example of a well-informed citizen who should be allowed (and uses this to his full advantage!) to speak and publish with absolute freedom. He owns an opinion and backs it with credible information. He has freedom when it comes to publishing, and he certainly should.

Publication is a broad description of media. I believe that anyone should be able to form an opinion and publish it freely, but without a well thought out and intelligent opinion to begin with, publication should not be allowed by any means.

The current movie rating system seems to be much more easy-going and allows more graphic material to slip through.  By graphic material I would include violence, language, nudity, etc.  The first movie that I can remember seeing that I felt should have had a higher rating was Titanic.  For me, this movie opened the doors for nudity in films that 13 year old children, and younger, can see.  Sure, some might say that it’s the parents job to make sure their kids don’t see these things, but 13 year olds have a mind of their own.  At 13 one is just gaining some independence from their parents.  This is when my mom started dropping me off at the movie theaters, and it is very easy to tell you mom you are going to see when movie and then sneak into another.  Recently I have seen multiple R rated movies that I felt should be considered pornographic material and should not be allowed in theaters at all.  For example: Good Luck Chuck, Knocked Up, etc.  Both of these movies have extreme nudity.  Some of the language that is currently permitted in PG rated movies is astounding to me.  When I was younger there were no “bad words” allowed in these movies, and now you would be hard pressed to find one that doesn’t have at least a few.  I have not noticed an issue with violence in movies as much, part of that being because I do not frequent those movies.

Overall, I feel that movie ratings should be tightened and that it should be more specific.  I do not feel that there is any nudity that should be allowed in the movie theaters, and that language could be cut down drastically.  If this means being specific with the number of cuss words allowed, then fine.  I wish movie theaters were more family friendly, the way they were in the earlier years. 

Although it has taken many years to develop the existing rating system of movies, I believe that this system still has room for improvements in the future.  While movie ratings supposedly inform parents of what movies are appropriate for their children, this information can usually be inferred from preview commercials, allowing the previews to assume the role of the movie ratings.  Because parents can determine if a movie is appropriate for their child from a commercial, I believe that movie ratings should go beyond this in the information given in the ratings.  G-rated movies often include humor that may not be understood by young children but often has somewhat crude implications.  Although young children may not catch on to these innuendos, children that are older may understand these jokes that parents may not necessarily approve of.  While PG and PG-13 movies denote the potentially offensive material within the movie, G movies are assumed to be entirely clean and so further explanations are never given or expected.  R-ratings are similar in their inadequacy in that because R-rated movies are assumed to be viewed by adults only, thorough explanations are rarely provided.  Although coarse material is expected in an R-rated movie, the extent of the offensiveness of the material is often unclear.  Because of the lack of a clear warning, many movies cause even adult viewers to be offended or appalled by certain movies that end up going overboard.  Movie ratings should include sub-ratings to explain to viewers exactly what they can expect in a movie.  Similarly, movies that are labeled as “Not Rated” are completely misleading.  No clarifications are provided, leaving the viewer unsure of what to expect or how much to expect.  No movie should remain unrated.  Movies that contain so much offensive content should either not be produced in the first place (an unlikely notion), or should be rated accordingly.  Even adult viewers need to know what they are going to be exposed to, or more accurately, what is going to be exposed to them.

In my opinion, the current movie rating system is pretty good. However, nothing is perfect and everything has room for improvement. G and PG rated movies are generally accurate in their rating. Most of them are cartoons and rarely show anything inappropriate for children. The problem starts when you get to the PG-13 movies. Technically, PG-13 movies are supposed to be for children who are over the age of 13. This is because there may be some violence, sexual content, or inappropriate language. Most of the time it is okay, however I have seen some PG-13 movies that probably should not be rated PG-13.

To me, the biggest problem is with the movies that are rated R. Even though there are ratings that are worse than R, it seems as if once it gets that high pretty much anything goes. Movies that are rated R still need to have some more limitations. For example, in the movie Knocked Up they actually show a child coming out of a woman. No one needs to see that in a movie. I thought it was very inappropriate. In some R rated movies, the F word is used in almost every sentence. I think it takes away from the actual movie if curse words are used so frequently. And, there are even some sex scenes in movies that are rated R. All of these things are things that should be limited, even if the movie is rated R.

So, for the most part, I believe the movie rating system is good. However, the I would definitely improve the limitations on the R rated movies. Instead of using it as a catch-all for every movie that does fall under PG-13 or below, make sure that it truly is appropriate for a child who is 17 years old. Even though movies that are rated R are supposed to be for children 17 and older, there still are parents who allow children under the age of 17 to see R rated movies. Also, there are adults who would like to be able to see a movie rated more than PG-13, but they don’t want to see people having sex or hear the F word every 2 seconds.

The morals of the world today are not the same as they used to be. We see things on television today that we would have never seen thirty years ago. The movie rating system are much more lenient than the used to be. The movie rating system let movies get away with more than they did even ten years ago.

I remember when I was young, you never heard a cuss word or risque saying in G-rated movies, most of the time they were not in PG-rated moivies either. These days paretns will probably want to watch a G or PG-rated movie before their young children see it. I have seen many G and PG-rated movies with vulgar language and risque saying in them. I’m scared to take my younger brother and sister to a PG-rated movie in fear that they will hear things that they are not yet old enough to experience.

We should have expected the movie rating system to get more lienent, it’s just like everything else that goes on in the world. More and more things that were not allowed thirty years ago are not even a big deal now. I hate to see what the media is putting out by the time my children are watching television. I wil probably have to watch every movie and every television show before tey watch just to see the content. I believe that the movie rating system should not allow cursing or risque saying in movies for younger audiences, but that is how the world is and we will all have to adapt whether we like it or not.

If I owned a communtiy newspaper and I had to choose certain types of letters to be allowed in my paper I would censor all letters that  have negtive connotation about my paper.  I would not want any letters that bash my paper because I want my paper to look good an to be flawless including no complaints.  In most papers you never see any sections where people bash the paper.  You will see editorials that bash other places but not the newspaper that carries this story.

In this type situation I would be acting as a censor in order to give my paper a good and clean image.  I have the say of what goes in my paper so I would not allow any opinions that  I do not agree with.  Anderson University newsletter “AU Echos”  is a newsletter about the university and there are no negative comments about the univerity carried in it.  Although there are people who have negative feelings towards the university you would never know because the newsletter who not put that into print.  Any editor that is half way intelligent to want to give their papers negative images.

Judith Miller is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalists who back in July of 2005 had a run in with the law. Miller seemed to be simply doing her job but to others their perspective was different.

The New York Times reporter was jailed for contempt of court for refusing to testify about her confidential sources before a federal grand jury involving the leaked identity of a CIA operative. Miller spent 85 days in jail before later being released after another court appearance.

Shield laws are needed, especially for cases like the Judith Miller case. Shield laws protects the confidentiality of key interview subjects and reporters rights not to reveal the sources of controversial information used in news stories.

If these laws were not present… then that could mean potential danger for hard-nose reporters. For instance, if a reporter is doing a story on street crime and they interviewed a gang member. He releases potent information about certain unsolved crimes and there is a promise made not to reveal their name and that is broken in which case all is revealed. That could spell possible danger for both parties, especially the reporter that is simply doing their job.

Yes, the United States should have a federal shield law to protect reporters, However, I am slightly torn because certain withheld information could lead to justice. I believe that their should be a shield law that would benefit both the reporters and the law…. at least that would be fair.

I think the movie ratings system works for movies aimed at older generations.  Through personal experience, I’ve learned that a movie rated PG will have some minor cursing and crude humor.  PG-13 movies generally have stronger language, sexual references, and some violence.  Movies with an R rating usually have stronger, more gruesome, acts of violence, intense language, and/or partial to full nudity.  I’ve set an expectation for the movie before I enter the theater, simply from looking at the rating.Unfortunately the same can’t be said for movies aimed at children.  I can’t remember the last time I saw a trailer for a children’s picture that was rated G.  Does this mean that parents aren’t taking their kids to the movies any more? Of course not.  Thousands, if not millions, of tickets were sold for DreamWorks film “Shrek,” which earned a PG rating.  One can not logically reason that movies like this aren’t aimed at kids.The reality is most kids that attend public school will be exposed to the language and references that should be deemed PG-13 long before they see their first movie with that rating. Does this call for a new ratings system?  Not necessarily.  Maybe just an alteration of the rules that govern whether or not a movie is G or PG.  Ultimately, it falls into the responsibility of the parent to know what their kids are watching.

The rating system is just and right in my eyes. Sure, which America becoming more and more liberal- we see more “real” scenes. Even in PG movies, we see more adult material within them. The system is flawed,sure… but what system isnt? The movie industry has came a long long way to make it system credible and resourceful. Movie critics love to rave and rant on these rated movies. The only people that suffer a little with generally wide ranged movie ratings is the parents, in my eyes. All in all, this system is fine..nothingshould or needs to be changed

The current movie rating system is not harsh enough. The MPAA allows too much sex and violence on the screens. They have become too lenient when giving ratings to movies. R-rated movies used to not have as much nudity, profanity, and violence as they do today. Because of the lenience, people are becoming numb to the graphicness of it all causing movie makers to push a little further each year. I remember seeing The Emperor’s New Groove and there was a cuss word or two in it. I was shocked! It’s a G-rated movie for children with cuss words and some adult humor. Children should not be subject to that. Parents expect G-rated movies to be clean and appropriate for their children. G-rated movies should not have profanity or suggestive material at all. Parents are starting to have to screen even G-rated movies before allowing their children to watch. That’s sad. According to movies made in the 1930’s, no profanity was allowed and now, in G-rated children’s films, we allow a couple cuss words here and there. The world is becoming so numb and careless when it comes to what we watch and what we allow our children to watch as well. Movies should be rated more strictly, not allowing so much nudity, profanity, and violence. It’s just too much.

Though ensuring balanced coverage of important news topics may seem a brilliant, equalizing endeavor, mandating equal coverage of both sides of an issue on all stations is not the answer. Honesty, not one more rule such as the Fairness Doctrine, should be employed. According to the Museum of Broadcast Communications, the doctrine was originally instituted due to the fact that radio frequencies were limited; therefore, equal coverage of opposing viewpoints was important, simply because of the the restricted number of available frequencies. But since radio stations are not the only available avenue through which to obtain information, this doctrine is no longer necessary.

Coverage of both sides of present topics is vital. But all stations should not be obligated to maintain equal coverage. Stations that lean one way or another on an issue should be open about it. Broadcasting widely-held opinions is essential and desirable, as long as it is made clear to the viewers that the information being presented is being done so in an opinionated way. It is one thing to give an opinion. It is quite another to present it as being objective. National news stations especially should be wary of how they present content and information. They hold a slightly greater responsibility to broadcast objective news. But if the operators of such a station desire to be opinionated in their presentation of news, they need to pin on their badge of courage and make their bias known. Leave the cover-up in the makeup room.

Image obtained from Google.

      As our culture changes and evolves, so do people’s perception of what is and isn’t acceptable in today’s society. Take the current movie rating system. In the past, what was only allowed in an “R” rated film is now being seen in PG-13 rated ones. The rating system cannot be blamed for this however. It is the culture we live in and things that we do that influences the movies that are made and how they are rated. Vulgar gestures and curse words are becoming more and more second nature in how we speak and act. Although this is definitely not a positive fact, it is unfortunately quite true of today’s society. In concurrence, the current rating system is only going according to how people are living and acting.     

When writer A. J. Liebling said that freedom of press only belonged to those who owned one did not take into consideration the voice of others.  I don’t believe that what he said was true.  I believe that everyone who has an opinion should be heard and they should be able to get their opinion out there in whatever way they can.  If we limit who can say their opinion than we are limiting the opinions that everyone hears so we are trying to influence other people in what those few people believe.  By letting a variety of opinions be heard we are giving more ideas to people looking for their own ideas.  It is expensive to own a printing press so by limiting freedom of press to the people that own the press we are limiting the opinions to the rich.  I know if i wanted to get my opinion out there and it couldn’t be heard i would want the people to be able to read it that is way i object to this opinion. 

Movies have been around for years and have grown as the culture has grown. Different ideas and and thoughts have been put into the movies to correspond with it’s surrounding culture. Today as we see our society becoming more liberal we see our movies becoming more free and liberal. The rating systems is correct for what it does. It has taken what the culture has found acceptable and put the movies in the right rating. Our society demands more in every aspect of life. They want something shocking, something that will keep the on the edge of their seat and catch them off guard. In the PGG-13 movies we are starting to see more nudity, or implications of nudity, and sex. The language has changed to the common language of the culture which involves vulgar language and disrespectful comments. One can’t get mad at what the movie ratings are when that is the society that we live it. It is simply what the majority of our culture agrees with.

The Fairness Law should be revived because it gives listeners the necessary knowledge of both sides of a controversy so they may evaluate the arguments and sort through the issue for themselves. A one sided argument attacking views of the opponent without letting them defend does not give as much information on viewpoints and reasoning behind each belief, and the Fairness Law guards against this by requiring that each side of an argument be represented fairly and equally. The law first took action in 1949, but faded away in the eighties after deregulation. Some may agree that the law lead to “chilling” (http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlf/farinessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm).

It would be interesting to have both sides of a debate again so one could know more information about the whole controversy, but maybe not in a way where the government seems to be forcing anything or ending in the chilling effect.

Movies have been around for the longest time. They have not always been rated, but ever since the movie The Pawnbroker showed a female in the nude, there has been pressure to come up with a movie rating system. The current rating system consists of the ratings: G, PG, PG-13, NC-17, and R. 

According to Motion Picture Association of America (www.mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp), the G rating is for movies that contains nothing in theme, language, nudity, sex, or violence, that would offend parents with younger children.  The PG rated movies are movies that parents might find some content to be unsuitable for children. PG-13 rated movies might have a theme that is not suitable for PG movies but not bad enough for R rated movies. Any drug use, nudity, or violence gives a movie an automatic rating of PG-13.   In any cases that the drug use, nudity, or violence is too extreme, this classifies the movie as rated R.  Children under 17 are not allowed to unless accompanied by an adult.  NC-17 rated movies are movies where no one under the age of 17 is allowed, not even those accompanied by an adult. These movies are appropriate only for an adult audience.

These were the standards since 1990.  I personally think that they have changed in their strictness to the ratings definition.  There are movies that are now considered to be PG- 13 that should have the rate of an R.  For instance, the movie Anchormanis rated PG-13 but should be R. It says the f-word so many times and any movie that says that word should definitely be rated R.  Another movie that should be rated R is all the Saws. The violence in this movie is horrendous! Most of the Saws start out with a victim that is being terrorized and there is blood everywhere! The cursing is nonstop and the blood shed continues all the way till the end. There is nudity in every movie and ripping of the body is some form. Children under the age 17 should not be able to see this movie! They watch movies like this and think they are so cool. However some of these torture methods show up in real life murders and people wonder where these ideas came from.

Movie ratings should be relooked at. They need to be stricter on the movies that could possible be seen by children under the age of 17.  There should be no nudity, violence, or drugs in PG-13 movies at all. I could never imagine my thirteen year old child watching a movie with those things.

People fill the movie theaters every week bringing in millions of dollars. The ages that are filling the seats range from as young as five all the way up. Each movie that is released has a rating set for viewers to follow.

The ratings start at G and continue to R. Most families with younger children will choose to view a G rated movie, PG and PG-13 are more for youth to adults and R rated movies are usually for the 17 and up viewers. The ratings are made with the intent to keep a certain age group from seeing violence or hearing foul language.

The ratings use to be equal to what was in the movie but it has now taken a turn for the worse. Parents could take their family out for a movie that would be rated PG at the least and they would not have to worry about being embarrassed. As time has passed Pg and Pg-13 are only letters and numbers. Going to an R rated movie is now what Pg and Pg-13 movies provide. R movies now contain more than you can imagine for the public to be viewing. The images and behaviors that are released in R rated movies would be expected in a none rating film.

The change of the rating scale should be highly considered. To think of what movie producers can get away with now is nothing comapared to 10 years down the road. The youth  are having images put into their head and think its ok. The ratings are staying the same but the material is changing rapidly.

The movie rating system is flawed.  In today’s day and age it is almost impossible to actually protect and shield audiences from material even if there is an age limit involved.  Brian Fitzgerald makes some great points on his web site, http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Makeup/4303/ratingwrong.html.  One main point he makes is that if a parent allows their child to see an NC-17 movie at home then there is nothing the rating department can do about it. So why not allow him to watch it in the theater?

 In another web page a blogger made his feelings known, “…each person’s value system or tolerance for certain content can be influenced by personal background, religion, or family beliefs.” http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Makeup/4303/ratingwrong.html

It is like many other things the government tries to do, make the American people have morals.  This page had an interesting new idea for a movie rating system, if anything it will be a good laugh: http://librarianavengers.org/2007/01/25/rated-b-for-bad-the-librarian-avengers-film-rating-system//.  

With the content in todays movies and society in general, its hard to know whats inappropriate and for what age. I dont feel like the movie rating system can always be trusted. With all the foul language, violence, and suggestive comments that show up in PG and sometimes even G movies its hard to know where to draw the line. I think for parents its a good idea to check out movie reviews and ratings before taking their kids to the theater or renting a movie. is a site that gives you a very detailed description about parts in movies that may be inappropriate. Since the rating system cant always be trusted its better to find out what exactly is in the movie and use your own judgement!

Judith Miller is well known for her involvement in the Plame Affair trial. As a journalist she found out about Valerie Wilson’s (aka Valerie Plame) affiliation with the CIA from top White House officials. Summoned to testify, Miller refused to divulge the name of her source, later to be uncovered as Scooter Libby, who leaked this information. “If journalists cannot be trusted to keep confidences, then journalists cannot function and there cannot be a free press,” Miller said before spending 12 weeks in jail. Released in September, Miller eventually cooperated with authorities. One of her main arguments in not wanting to give up her source was centered around her right as the “press” as stated in the first amendment.

While there is some truth to Miller’s statement on the need for journalist to “keep confidences,” when the stakes were as high as they were in the Plame case, there the need to think of a journalists need for social resoponsibility. While its main job is not to the state, there is an unstated responsibility to it. Such as with broadcasting debates, being uncooperative with investigators is not always the best decision. While it is hard to judge when journalists privacy is upheld the need for Miller’s testimony was thought important to the case against Libby.

A shield needed for journalists may be too extreme because many of sources do remain anonymous. Take Berstein and Woodward’s ”deep throat” who remained anonymous until a few years ago. Evenstill, it is hard to judge where to draw the line. While being summoned to testify may be the best way to tell when journalist confidence should be broken, in most instances, a journalists source is your most valued asset.

Miller’s oposition to investigators gave her 12 weeks in jail and she still had to testify. While it is brave for her to stand by her word, in the end, the information a journalists is much more important than from the perspective of any other average witness.

Motion Picture Association of America needs a more closer look in a movie before putting the official rating for the movie itself. Children shouldn’t be watching a PG-13 or a PG movie without their parents or an guardian with responsibilities, but should children be watching a movie that is rated G by itself? Come to think about it, most people would say “yes” to that answer, but there is another side why children shouldn’t be watching G rated movies without a parent or an guardian.

Disney’s classic 1942 “Bambi” per se. “Bambi” is rated G, which is relatively good for children and the whole family. The whole movie is about a deer surviving in the woods and then later the mother is shot by a hunter. Is this what we want our children to be watching? The Motion Picture Association of America is responsible for this kind of rating, for letting children watching this kind of behavior in a rated G movies.

Rated PG-13 movies also needs a close watch on the ratings. Seems like the audiences are watching pornography in movies theses days. Film producers seems like the audiences can’t enjoy a simple movie with a sexual act to keep the audiences alive.

The rating system should be changed, Motion Picture Association of America needs a close watch on what ratings they officially give to the films.