Media Chatter

Judith Miller was not long ago a prominent journalist for the New York Times. She had connections with many government officials and top-secret information, which is where is got in a bind. In 2005 she was jailed for 85 days for contempt of court for not revealing a source who leaked information about a CIA agent. Judith Miller did not write a report about Valerie Plame, the agent whose name was leaked, but did have evidence about the situation. It was later discovered that Miller had had a conversation with Libby, the Vice President’s chief of staff. Lewis Libby did reveal that he was the source, and because of this, Miller was released, but still is facing charges. She still could get life imprisonment for contempt of court.

I believe that the government should have a federal shield law to protect their journalists, but I can see why it is serious when a secret agent’s identity is revealed. Valerie Plame could be at risk now that she is found out, but I don’t think that Miller should have gone to jail for what she did. It must have been very hard for her not to say anything and go to jail, so no matter what was done, I think that it was noble for her to an extent. I don’t think that it is fair that regular journalists have a shield and then those that are in the line of fire are not shielded. But there definitely needs to be rules as to how shielded someone can be, because then important information could be leaked, and that could put our nation in jeopardy.

I feel that the current movie ratings system is suitable for most people, but I do believe that parents should preview the content of movies before letting their children see them no matter what the rating. The rating system went into effect November 1, 1968. The rating symbles are G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17. Movies have changed a lot since 1968. A lot of movies, which were rated PG-13 in the 1970s, would most likely be rated PG today due to the change in standards. You can get away with showing younger people more because people are desensitized. They see more in every day life than a lot of people saw or heard of back in 1968.

I feel that the rating system should stay the same, but movie theaters are the ones who need to improve. They need to enforce these rating more. The rating system is strictly voluntary and does not have to be enforced by movie theaters. Movie theaters need to enforce the rating system to better serve their customers and to guarantee the safety of children. Things they see on TV and movies can scar children, therefore, parents need to preview what their children view on the big screen. You never know what might hurt a child and the rating system helps to prepare and protect not only children, but everyone who watches movies.

If I was owner of a community newspaper I would have a light policy on what kind of letters would be allowed and what kind would not. I think letters of criticism should be allowed, whether they are on our government, the newspaper itself or any other thing that deserved to have criticism. I don’t think you should censor letters just because you don’t agree with what they are saying, if you’re going to censor what you print, then what is the point of even accepting letters? The only type of letters I might not print would be the ones that don’t really pertain to articles that were being printed. A way to make sure everyone’s voice is being heard I would probably add a link to the page and post all letters on a website for the newspaper. That way people could comment their opinions on the letters. That way you’re getting more feedback and interacting with your readers. The only type of letters I wouldn’t omit would be any letter of violence, either towards the paper, government or an individual or group of people.

There are some changes that should be made to the movie ratings system in this country. Along with these changes, we need to see an increase in parental responsibility for the material that their children view. The current movie rating system is well meaning and serves as a decent guide. The MPAA issued ratings of G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17 give a pretty good general outline of content. The flaw in this system is the objective criteria that is used to categorize movies. For example, the MPAA allows one use of the “f-word” in a PG-13 movie as long as it doens’t refer to a sex act. The will however, allow many uses of the word “g–damn” in the same film. Many people, myself included, find the latter word much more offensive than the first. I would prefer to see a rating system that briefly lists possible objective content in a film. This would be similar to the TV rating system that is being used today. Listing profane language, nudity, sexual content, etc. would allow individuals to rule out films that contain material they don’t care to watch without guessing whether or not the movie is rated R because of a few uses of the the “f-word” or because of 20 minutes of on screen sex. This would also assist parents in weeding out the material that children are not ready to be exposed to while selecting movies for their viewing pleasure.

If I owned a community newspaper, I would have a relatively rational policy for what would be included in the editorial page.  I would not allow letters including violent threats or suggesting violence acts toward public officials.  By this I mean that letters saying that all politicians should be shot would not be printed.  I would allow complaints about the government to be printed because I believe people have a right to express their opinion but that the expression should have at least an element of respect for the audience and the topic.  I would also deny print to any letter including lewd or crude remarks.  There is no need to include any personally disrespectful remarks.  There is also no reason to make sexually graphic statements because you never know who is reading the paper.  A child should not be exposed to some ideas or language.  With that said, I would also not include any letters containing bad language or insensitive slang including racists, sexist, or prejudice statements.  People who want to get their letters published would need to find a respectful way to praise or complain about various issues that concern them.  By doing this, I would be acting as a censor but sometimes people don’t think before they send in an angry letter.  Sometimes people need to be censored.  I would make a policy that would make the paper suitable for those few members of a younger audience that may read the paper.  Adults have no reason to include name calling, rude, or graphic remarks when expressing their opinion.

In my opinion, over the past few years the current movie rating system has definitely changed. It seems as though it has become more and more acceptable for movies to have typical blaspheme, shocking violence, and obnoxious nudity. The audience, however, allows the obscenity to become tolerable and is made a reality by continuing to support the film makers by paying to see their films. It is almost like these issues in many movies have become a norm, in a sense, and are expected from the viewers today. Those who are constantly exposed to porn in certain movies, for example, can seriously damage their image for females/males. The loss of respect for people as human beings has become a big concern. Being exposed to issues (such as this) continuously in movies are appeared to be “okay” for certain things to be revealed on television/movies (even though it may satisfy the perverted minds of others).

Personally, I think that this has become a major issue in our society today, whether people would like to admit it or not. I think the legal controls for movie ratings are not strict enough for our society today and should be altered in a manner that can bring about a change. Partly, for my strong feelings on this issue is because of its many effects .This website explains that “in a study of convicted child molesters, 77 percent of those who molested boys and 87 percent of those who molested girls admitted to the habitual use of pornography in the commission of their crimes.” I’m almost certain that if obscenity wasn’t exposed as much, than there would probably be a lower crime rate.

There are a lot of great movies out there; however, there are a lot of things that make up these movies which are unnecessary. For an R-rated film, the requirement age is seventeen years of age and above. An R-rated film might also show a great deal of nudity, which is unfortunately accepted in the film making. Influential messages of such nonsense may be educating many teenagers that obscenity is alright in our society. Exposure can shape not only peoples values, but their attitudes and even behavior. This can also affect the families and friends around them. With this being said, I feel as though the current movie rating system should be more modest and respectful to others. Although certain things exposed in movies may not be offensive to some, it may effect someone else to the extreme, if enforced enough.  

The MPAA, the Motion Picture Association of America, is an organization that has been protecting us from the darker side of cinema deemed “not suitable for children under the age of 17” since its founding in 1922. (http://www.mpaa.org/AboutUs.asp) It came out with a system to rate films using assorted letters and numbers, G (for anyone), PG (a little bit more “intense” than a G), PG-13 (13 and up), R (to intense for those under 17) and NC-17 (not 17, no movie). (http://www.mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp) A question has been raised to me: do we need to change the rating system?

Maybe not so much as change the system, but innovate it, bring it up to times. One place where the rating system is flawed is rating comedies. Comedies today can have the same language and violence as an R rated drama, and receive a PG-13 rating. In fact, it is an unwritten trend that comedies can get away with 6 F-bombs and still get a PG-13 rating. A good example of this is the comedy “Accepted”. Even though this doesn’t necessarily bother me, it does mislead parents of 13 year olds that think they are sending their kids to a good, wholesome PG-13 comedy. The MPAA should set a code of conduct that states that no matter what genre your film is, if it has this certain thing in it a certain amount of times, it will get such and such a rating. Other than this deal with the comedies, the rating system has done its job of making parents aware of the content in movies. Overall, the rating system gets two thumbs up from me.

The current movie rating system is not harsh enough.  The MPAA is allowing way to much sex and violence on the scene.  There is too much leniency when it comes to today’s movies.  Used to R-rated movies did not have as much nudity, profanity, and violence as they do today.  The used to R-rated movies are now being rated as PG-13.  People are becoming numb to the graphicness of all of it, so movie makers are pushing a little further each year.  I remember seeing The Emperor’s New Groove and there was a cuss word or two in it and I was shocked!  It’s a G-rated movie for children and there were cuss words and some adult humor in it.  I just find that too lenient.  G-rated movies should not have profanity or suggestive material at all.  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.  What goes in must come out.  Movies should be rated more strictly, not allowing so much nudity, profanity, and violence.  It’s just too much.

When I was about 10 years of age, I was always wanting to go see the action oriented movies. One movie I can remember wanting to go see was Judge Dredd with Sylvester Stallone. However, my parents would refuse to let me see the movie since it had a R rating for violence. Finally after seeing it years later, I could understand why my parents made that desicion. There are many other movies that are released and rated by the MPAA. People are trusting the standards of this company to provide an accurate rating system for them and thier families.

 The movies rating system is observed as G for general audience, PG for parental guidence, PG-13 for material that might be inappropriate for children under 13, R for restricted without parental accompany under 17, and finally NC-17 for no one under 17 admitted.

The rating system has given out fair reviews of different movies. For example, they gave the movie Toy Story a G rating. This was a fair rating for this movie since it was appropriate for anyone. Another fair review was an R rating for the movie Gladiator which some blood and violence.

Even though these ratings have been fair, the movies that are being released are allowing more and more offensive content into the theatres. For example, the Judge Dredd movie that my parents refused me to see because of the R rating would most likely be compared to many PG-13 movies of today. Hostel was a movie that should have got a NC-17 rating then the feeble R rating that was given. This movie had brutal scenes of torture, strong sexual content, language, and drug use. This compared to Gladiator, which was rated R for only intense graphic combat makes the MPAA rating system seem a little unfair.

Overall the movie rating system is successful at accomplishing reviews of a variation of movies. In some instances their is a poor anlysis of a few choice movies, but is not as critical to change the whole rating system. The MPAA has done a great job of ranging the rating system and will hopefully continue throughout the rest of moviemaking.

The current movie rating system is appropriate in some ways and in other ways it almost doesn’t do enough to protect those watching the movies. Sadly we have became a culture where what we find appropriate for certain ages changes with each person and with time. I can remember when I was young my mom would not let me go see certain movies because she thought they were too graphic or inappropriate for my age. However today when I go to the movies I some times see adult material or major films that I think would be inappropriate for children, but there always seems to be a few in the movie theaters. On the other hand I think the rating system goes to far sometimes with certain material, a good example is “Passion of Christ” that movie was rated R, however I thought that it was appropriate for a younger audience because it was actual events based on the bible so it was something that children needed to see to help put what Jesus did for use in prospective. There is sometimes Disney movies that I feel should be rated a little stronger because they seem at sometimes a little out of character for children films.

            Either  way I think the best rating system is from the parents, it is there child so they should have the digression to let them watch what they feel is appropriate for there child because they would be the best at knowing if they were major enough for that particular movie. That’s why I am glad that they have the law where you have to be at least seventeen to see certain movies or other wise have an adult. When they decided to do that it gave many options and allowed digression to the parents

            What has become of the movie rating system today?  That is a great question.  I believe that the movie rating system is a good thing where it also can turn bad very quickly.  The ratings consist of G, PG, PG-13, R, and of course there is X.  The first four at the only ones shown in movie theaters form G to PG. anyone can get into but to get into an R, standing for restricted, rated film the viewer must have ID and be at least 17 years old.  One thought that always enters my mind when I’m viewing certain films, which is are the rating truly fair for the film.  Now given I have thought this both ways, in that some films are over rated for the material and some seem to be under rated.  I think this is due to the fact that the film industry made up the rating system themselves so that the government would stay off their backs and out of the industry but just how much right do they truly have.  With that thought in mind, it would seem that another reason they made the system up themselves is so that they could have complete control of what a movie is rated.

            That statement makes sense to me because as I mentioned earlier about some film seeming to be under rated.  At times the PG-13 runs very close to the R rated movies.  Which is pretty much proven to be true because the requirements for an R rated film and a PG-13 one are not far from each other?  One of the main reasons a movie is rated what it is given is because of language use.  Obscene language plays a big part in movie rating and another big player is violence.  So do I think the rating system is fair, to a certain extent I would say it is, because it does keep some people and children from seeing certain things.

The movie rating system is essential to the movie industry. Without this system of numbers and letters, we the viewers would be lost as to the possibly negative content of the movie. Movie ratings help define the the identifying themes of a movie and also help us determine whether to see it or not.

The rating system in itself is fine. The standards–G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17–help to make clear distinctions between them. However, the biggest complaint troubling the current ratings system is the relaxation of standards. Movie ratings are not what they were just five years ago. The standards have changed to reflect society’s plunging moral standards. Now, Americans are seeing far more nudity, sex, violence, and language in PG-13 and even PG movies. For example, it is rare these days for a G, strictly for children movie to be made. All of the recent children’s movies are full of innuendo and crude language. While most of that may be intended for the parents and over their heads, nevertheless, it is still there, subconsciously influencing.

I believe the rating system has done a fair job throughout the years. It has benefited the movie industry and the Americans who attend movies. However, the ratings should not change to reflect ever-changing society. An agreement of what is specifically acceptable for each rating should be made and held to, so that ten years from now, my children won’t be left without any decent movies to enjoy.

I remember the days of being twelve. I couldn’t wait to be thirteen so I could see pg-13 movies. Then when I was sixteen I couldn’t wait to be seventeen so I could get into rated R movies. Movie ratings are a part of every teenagers life to a certain extent and have been that way since the 1960s when ratings came out. I believe movie ratings are a great way for parents to regulate what their children are watching and monitor them. Now ratings are everywhere from T.V. to video games.

In 1990 NC-17 movies came out after much protests about adult content. NC-17 ratings meant no one seventeen years of age or younger can see that movie in theaters. The movie Show Girls was the first NC-17 rated movie ever. NC-17 movies paved the way for x-rated films. Many theaters refused to use the NC-17 ratings and were put under a lot of pressure by protests groups. Newspapers also refused to run ads for NC-17 movies. This was the result of the movie Show Girls flopping. NC-17 movies are hardly ever found today. Today directers just edit movies and cut scences to make their movies R rated. Without a rating system there would be no regulations on what kind of movies are producted and who can view them.

I think that the current movie rating system doesn’t need to be changed. I think that it is good that the MPAA established a board to rate the movies according to what is suitable for age groups. When parents take their kids to the movies, they want to know that the movie they are going to see is suitable for their children. Since they have established movie ratings people can tell what the movie is going to be like. Does it have a lot of violence in it? If so, it is probably going to be rated R, which means that it contains some adult material, and that it is probably not fit for children to watch. I think it’s also good that they have a G rating for general audiences. It’s fit for adults and children to see. Most parents wouldn’t mind taking their kids to see G rated movies, because they know already that by the rating it was given, that it won’t have bad language or violence in it.

I think that it is good that many movie theaters dont show NC-17 movies because of the graphic scenes. I think that because they dont show these movies, movie theaters are more family oriented now , which  probably helps their business out too. The current voluntary movie rating system is definently a good thing in the movie industry!

I think that the rating system in our country for the most part is great.  It has always been somewhat effective at informing the public about what age group should see the movie, but recently it has expanded and now there is a little bar in the rating bar that lists what the different problems are with the movie; rather they have nudity, bad language, or other offensive things in them.  I feel like this gives people a better understanding of what they are going to get from the movie.  I know that i do not typically like to watch movies with certain offensive things in them and when i can look at the advirtisment on TV and see what is contained in the movie then i know whether or not i should see it.

The rating system in the future, i believe, will become more well defined in the areas above PG-13, i think that the rating system will expand into more subcatagories like PG-17, or R, or more movies being rated in the over R range because the envelope is always being pushed. 

One indication of the presence of legal controls is movie ratings. The movie industry has long used a rating system to inform viewers as to the morally questionable content of their movies. Movies with less questionable content are given a general audience rating while movies with more “adult” content are given a restricted rating and can only be viewed by those over 18 or accompanied by an adult. Ostensibly, the systems looks to be a fairly solid means of letting viewers know what they are seeing. Unfortunately the rating system has been largely inconsistent. I’m not sure exactly how the system works; however, I can make some speculations as to how it appears to work and how it should be changed. In my lifetime I have watched the movie rating system degrade itself. I have seen G rated movies with cussing, PG movies with drug use, and PG-13 movies with nudity and sex scenes. The problem is that the rating system changes in response to social acceptance of lowered moral standards. The fact is that the moral standards themselves have not changed. The rating system should be unchanging and based strictly on moral standard and not on public acceptance. Categorically, the rating system is solid. For instance, movies are already rated based on the presence of bad language, drug use, violence, horror, adult themes, sex, and nudity. However, the degree to which these themes are allowed has obviously changed. The ratings must be unchangeable. Just because something is becoming acceptable, doesn’t mean that it’s becoming right. As a very general example I would suggest that movies rated G contain no questionable content, movies rated PG should only contain language and violence (language should be limited to a low number of words maybe 3 or 4 and violence should minimal), etc. In conclusion, the rating system is flawed not because of the content examined, but because of lowering standards of acceptance of questionable content. Children today are no more capable of handling adult themes than they were ten years ago. However, the movie industry has decided that it’s ok to let them see it. I personally don’t want to go see porn disguised as a PG-13 movie. Ratings must remain consistent if they are to be effective.

I have had many experiences when I have thought that my expression has gone too far, but not totally all my fault. With playing a sport, emotions are high due to the competitiveness of the game. It most always starts with the coach demanding more commitment from his players and shows his expression of unhappiness. The players make this known by showing the coach how much they want to win by fouling or basically just cheating.

This then starts the game to get more personal with true expressions coming out of each player and players find it very hard to curb their expressions due to the will to win. There isn’t a remedy for this as its part of human nature. The only solution is to curb the coaches enthusiasm for his players to do well, but if that was to be curbed then he wouldn’t get the best out of his players.

This happens at every level, and not just for players but coaches as well because being so close to an oppositions manager and at the heat of the moment, all it takes is to over hear a few choice words the oppositions coach is shouting and you will get heated and react in showing your expression of the matter, in public or not

Judith  Miller was a American reporter that had great access to top officals in our government. Because she covered top officals, there was always controversy surrounding her. Miller was once jailed in 2005 for contempt of the court. She refused to testify to the court who was investgating a CIA agent. Later she interviewed another hidden source of high offical; it was then reported that she would face criminal contempt charges with the maximum penalty of life in prison. She finally recieved a phone call from her hidden source that allowed her to reveal who he was.

The United States should have some sort of shield to protect reporters. If the public wants the news there are going to be times that a reporter must promise confidentiality. If a reporter promises this to his/her interviewer then that is there word and the reporter should not be prosecuted for this. The reporter should actually be rewarded for their good morals of keeping a promise he/she made.

I do believe however that there are times the source should be revealed. If there is a huge murder trial and a reporter has figured out who committed that murder and had a interview with them; then it should be their duty as a American to reveal who it is.

The current movie rating system is a way to keep things age appropriate.  But now-a-days, it seems like more and more things slip past and get a lower rating.  For example, the childrens movies Shrek and Shrek 2.  The first one was more for children, with some inuendos sliped in here and there to keep the parents entertained while their children watched.  But the second one, which was rated PG, was definately not for children.  I went to see it with a group of friends in the movie theater and we could not stop laughing at the, very much, adult humor throughout the movie.  But the children in the theater with us did not understand.  Some though, did, and it was NOT appropriate!

It seems like children are loosing their innocence younger and younger as time goes by.  Hollywood only eggs this on.  I think that a lot of the movies rated G and PG these days need to be rated a step higher.  What happened to the Disney movies from when we were growing up?  Those were age appropriate.  I did not know half the things my eight year old sister knows when I was her age.  When we ask her where she learned that, she says the television, or a movie. 

The rating system definately need to be looked over.  It need to be much more stricted.  That includes the television ratings as well. 

I agree with the other students with the idea that there should be another rating in between PG-13 ratings and R ratings. I also believe that the movie companies have skewed the rating system anyway. If parents should be concerned with what their children are watching. Ratings are not enough to judge a movie. When a young teenager asks his parents if he can go to the movie with his friends, his parents should have a say in which movie. There are plenty of web sites that provide parents with information on the recent and upcoming movies. The internet movie database, gives outlines of movie plots, actors in the movie, and also provides ratings and reasons for ratings. There is also the kids-in-mind website that provides detailed information on ratings and whether or not a parent should allow their child to see the movie. With many problems that our children are facing today, the majority of them are not due to the media corrupting them. There is just little guidance and control from the parents. When parents allow their children to have free reign over what is entering their minds, they are not fulfilling their roll as a leader of the family. Sure, children need to be able to make some of their own decisions but the parents need to know the outcome of those decisions. If parents do not want their parents having teen sex, they do not need to let their children see movies that revolve around teen sex. I believe that parents should not only be dependant solely upon movie ratings, but they should invest some time to their child’s wellbeing.

Going to the movie theater has been a family experience throughout the ages and now families can go without having to worry about subjecting their children to obscene language and sexual content just by glances at a few letters and numbers. The rating system is a great way to plan out which movies to see with which company. If I was a mom and I had a child that was between the ages of kindergarten and fifth grade then a G rated movie would be perfect and a middle schooler might enjoy a movie that is rated PG or PG-13. The rating system is a little sparse though because each rating covers a lot of material. The only things separating G from PG is more plot and concepts that younger kids might not understand and from PG to PG-13 is a little bit of rough language and some situations that might be violent or sexually inferred.

I do not think it really matters if people use the system when they do not even know what it means or else totally ignore it. When Devil’s Rejects came out in theaters, I crammed into the packed theater excitedly because it was the sequel to House of a Thousand Corpses directed by Rob Zombie. The first movie was filled with so much blood and gore and people getting hacked apart that I knew for sure that the second would probably be just as gory. Nevertheless, the sight that greeted my eyes when I walked to a seat was families some pretty young kids. I do not know how any parent would bring their kids to a movie that grotesque and soon enough their money was spent in vain when the the opening scene was one of the villains dragging a naked, dead woman through the woods. Needless to say all those with young children quickly exited, but they should not have had to if only they had read the rating and maybe did some research on the movie. I think some parents are simply negligent to something so convenient as a rating system that does most of the work for them in picking out a suitable movie.

I think that the rating system is a great thing that maybe only needs a little tweaking to prefect it but is otherwise a wonderful thing.

The Fairness Doctrine was “an attempt to make coverage of all controversial issues balanced and fair”, says the Museum of Broadcast Communications. According to Wikipedia, the Fariness Doctrine was repealed in 1987. 

The Doctrine was enforced throughout the entire history of the FCC (and its precursor, the Federal Radio Commission) until 1987, when the FCC repealed it in its Syracuse Peace Council decision which was upheld. The Republican-controlled commission claimed the doctrine had grown to inhibit rather than enhance debate and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace at the time, the doctrine was probably unconstitutional. Others, noting the subsequent rise of right-wing radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, suggest the repeal was more likely motivated by a desire to get partisans on the air. (Wikipedia)

The Fairness Doctine should be revived.  The lack of balance of controversy contributes to the ignorance of this society and their inabiity to make choices for themselves when it comes to political issues.  Most people opt to vote their party’s views rather than listening to EVERY side of the issue (more than just Republican and Democrat) and realize that there are more than 2 ways to skin a cat.

The general public should be exposed to things that are happening in their community and should be provided with the truth no matter how bad it is.  The community has a right to know what is going on.  All events and situations should be covered in it’s entirety and with fairness to let all people who have a side present it.  The re-instatement of the Fairness Doctrine, I believe, would help educate our nation on every issue and change the way things are.

Each weekend thousands of movie goers brave the lines at the box office in order to see a new flick.  However, often times when people get to the movie theater, they decide not to view a film based on its rating.  The movie rating system was created in the 1960’s to be a guide for parents when deciding whether or not a film will be suitable for their children.  Movie content is rated by a board of anonymous professionals and is based on current cultural standards.  However, it is ultimately left up to the parent or guardian to decide to whether or not they should take little Timmy or Susie.    

Having worked at a movie theater for two years now, I feel that the rating system is a good one, with one exception.  It is such a broad range between PG-13 and R that it is tough to help customers decide if movies are acceptable for their kids.  I believe that it would be good to have another rating in between.  Now what that rating would be, I have no idea, but the definition of PG-13 is so broad that it could mean anything from bad language to sexual innuendo. 

Ultimately, viewing a movie is the viewer’s choice (of course!), but sometimes I am amazed at how much the movie rating system isn’t used.  Each weekend I watch three and four year olds walk into an ‘R’ rated show with their parents or an older sibling.  I look and shake my head because there is no reason for these kids to watch movies such as “Departed” or “Saw III.”  I have definitely learned that people may know that there is a rating system but have no clue what it means or what to do with it.    

Movie ratings seems to have a vague or very general reason as to why a movie is rated a certain way.  I believe that the movie rating system itself is good, but the organization that places movies in a particular rating is faulty.  Looking at the reasons for the various ratings you see the statements that say, “parents should have caution when letting their child watch this film” or “parents should research thoroughly on the film before letting their child watch”.  Shouldn’t the parent thoroughly research the film before letting their child watch it no matter what the rating?

There are some movies that I see and say to myself, “well, I would have given that a lesser rating or I would have rated that one higher.” 

The problem with placing movies in the categorized rating system is who is to say what is acceptable or unacceptable?  Don’t we all have different sets of values or morals? 

The other day I was watching a movie that was rated “PG” and although it didn’t have any “obscene” language it had some crude humor and topics that were only suitable for adults.  I was watching it with my twelve year old cousins and their mom and could tell that even with the mom’s “parental guidance”  it wasn’t a movie that she wanted her children to watch.  Although it was cartoonish and had the appeal for children, it would have been more suitable to have a PG-13 rating.  The question shouldn’t be, “how should we rate this?” but rather “does the rating we give appropriately reflect what the movie contains?”

In my personal opionion I believe the current movie rating system of this time is fair.  Different people are of course going to have different opionions on this issue because some people might find some things offensive while others do not in the least bit.  It partly may depend on the kind of person he or she is or maybe even what kind of lifestyle he or she has.  But to me the board that rates the movies usually estimate the rating well.  In my personal opionion I have seen some PG-13 movies that I felt should have been rated R, but then on the other hand, I have also seen some rated R movies that I felt could have been rated down to PG-13.  I am not trying to criticize present day America, but I  slightly feel that most teenagers who are of  the age of 17 have already been exposed to certain issues that cause a movie to be rated R anyways.  I do not know how much thought and time the people who make the ratings spend on deciding what rating to give, but I definetly think they should (and I hope they do) spend a lot of time considering what rating to give a film.  This is an important decision, because it can decide if a child or teenager  should or should not be allowed to watch a film.  I can remember a time when my friends and I would get so so mad when we could not watch a film at the theatre because it was rated R and we were too young.  There have been times  I have seen rated PG-13 movies that I felt had a higher level of violence, adult themes, and profanity than certain rated R movies. Overall,  the rating system to me is more satisfying and accurate than not.   I guess it is all a matter of opionion. 

Judith Miller is an investigative reporter for the New York Times.  She was sent to jail in July 2005 for refusing to reveal the name of one of her confidential sources. This person talked to her about Valerie Plame, a covert CIA agent outed by unknown Bush administration officials in 2003 because her husband had criticized the White House over the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. Miller did not reveal her source when she was ordered to testify to a federal grand jury about the CIA leak.  Ms. Miller never even wrote the story but the judge still her to jail for refusing to testify. The columnist who revealed Plame’s secret identity, Robert Novak, never had to face the threat of jail. Miller served 85 days in jail because she felt that keeping her word as a reporter was the most important basic obligation of her profession.  In an article about this issue found on Salon.com, the author says,

…journalists are obligated to protect their sources even if the law is against them. Indeed, reporters have been willing to face jail to protect confidential sources for decades; few have been regarded by the public as criminals.

  I strongly agree with many that the United States government should have a federal shield law to protect reporters.  If reporters are forced to reveal their sources, two things will happen: they will be afraid to write the story and whistle blowers will be afraid to tell what they know for fear they will lose their job or be harmed.  Also, if reporters’ sources and all their records are protected then the public will get the truth because of the protection felt by all involved.  We can’t really have free press if people are afraid that they are going to tell what they know but suffer for it.  Inquirer managing editor Anne Gordon testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee and stated the following, which I agree with completely:

Our lawyers are bound by confidentiality, our rabbis and our priests, our doctors as well. Our society respects these promises. Whistle-blowers need to be given the same assurances – the promise that The Inquirer would stand beside them as they exposed wrongdoing. These are never promises made lightly or without deliberation, but rather promises made because there was fear, a fear made to disappear when The Inquirer gave its word. What is most important here is that the wrongdoing was exposed. Wrongdoers were punished… . I could give you a hundred examples. But I don’t need to. You read about them every day in the newspaper. You see them on TV and hear about them on the radio – but you may not realize that you are hearing about a promise of confidentiality that one journalist made to a man or woman who had a story to tell. When we hear, as a nation, about Watergate, or the fact that tobacco companies worked to make cigarettes more addictive, or that Enron was a financial nightmare, we are hearing about promises made and kept – about a pact with our forefathers that this nation would respect a free press.

I think its very important that “The Free Flow of Information Act of 2006″ gets passed because the people who are reading the articles need to hear the whole story. And also the readers need to know what’s going on behind the scenes and with this law we can find out and make some changes if necessary.

The current movie rating system in my opinion is acceptable, however i have seen some movie that received a pg-13 rating that i found far more “envelope pushing” than some movies i had seen that had reveived an R rating.  In the other hand however there are some movies that have an R rating that i personally would percieve as much more acceptable.  I beleive the reason for ratings should be more apparent.  The R and PG-13 ratings are given for so many different reasons, some of which offend some people far more than others.  For me personally, I would much rather have my little brother go see Gladiator than a movie like Hostel or some other movie that is basically a porn film.  With PG-13 movies most parents have no problem allowing their child to attending the showing.  They just assume there will be nothing that is “too bad”.  In that same light I also beleive that there are some movies with an R rating that should be placed in a category above R while under X.  The age of 17 is simply too young.  This is a time in a teens life where they are having to make vital decisions that will create who they will be for the rest of there lives.  Do you really want your kid to live out what is shown to be “the norm” by hollywood?

I believe that the current movie ratings system is pretty fair until it reaches the PG-13 and rated R levels.  The PG and G movies such as Ice Age and Cars are rated according to what content of the movie is which is geared towards younger children.  The producers of the movie would not put any material that would be deemed offensive to parents because that would reflect bad on them and conversely lead to them not taking their children to see the movies.  Companies like Disney/Pixar do a good job of making movies that can be enjoyed by all without any killing or vulgar language.

This is not the case when a movie reaches the PG-13 or R level.  A PG-13 movie now is just as offensive as an R movie might have been 20 years ago.  A movie that is rated R takes on too broad a range of movies.  Two movies that are rated R but are no where near each other in terms of vulgarity and killing are the movies Titantic and The Departed. Titanic is fairly clean movie for the most part except for the one scene of nudity where the Leo Decaprio is drawing a picture of the lead actress in the movie.  Other than that scene the movie was pretty clean.  The Departed on the other hand was probably the worst language I have heard in a movie since Scarface.  Every other word it seemed like was some sort of an explicative or every other scene was somebody getting shot in the head.  I am pretty accepting of most things that are in movies but some of things that were in the movie were offensive even to me.  In my opinion, there is no way these two movies could be rated the same.  I think that there should be a broader spectrum of movie ratings and not just the basic ratings that exist now.  For example, if a movie has a large amount of offensive language it should be rated in its own section, or if a movie like the Titanic has one offensive scene it should be rated in its own section.  The movie rating system is good for what it is, but I believe that it should be altered slightly to give the viewer a better understanding of what the movie is actually like.

As a 12 year old, more than anything in the world, I wanted to be just like my friends and go to a PG 13 movie.  I don’t even remember which one it was, but I argued for days with my parents about the issue.  Everytime the topic was brought up, my parents shot it down quickly with a “No! You aren’t old enough yet!”  At that particular point in my life I didn’t understand at all why I had to wait that few extra months to see certain movies.  I thought “I’ve heard and seen all there is to hear and see, I can take it!”  But of course, I was a naive young girl, who didn’t understand what all was out there.

I think that movie ratings are absolutely necessary, and fairly accurate.  Movie ratings are based on the opinions of a committee of parents and adults who discuss what they believe a rating should be after evaluating certain aspects (such as theme, language, and sexual content).  In my opinion, this committee does a pretty good job.  They understand what children can take and what they can’t.  They understand what children have been through and what they are prepared to see on the big screen according to their development.  There have been movies that I’ve seen that I thought should have had a different rating because I noticed an excess of language or violence.  On the other hand, I think some movies should have a lower rating.

I realized later that the reason my parents wouldn’t allow me to see certain movies wasn’t because I wasn’t of age, but because I didn’t understand exactly what was out there and what would be presented to me in the movies.  Now, I thank them for not letting me watch those movies that weren’t appropriate for me at that time.

The current movie rating system is very faulty. When I was in elementary school and I would beg my parents to see a movie, they would always rule out “R” because of language and other vulgarities. Next, they’d rule out “PG-13” because, well I wasn’t 13 and there was still too much language. Then they’d look at the PG or G rated movies and decide on one to take me to.
Today, not only are there few kid’s movies, the G rating is non-existent. Take the current leading children’s film, “Happy Feet,” it’s rating is PG for rude humor and mild peril. It seems as though every movie at the theater today contains some sort of crude language. What happened the days of “bathroom” kiddy humor without cuss words?
Instead of having a vague rating to go by, a movie should be categorized by the content of it. For instance, Casino Royale (the new James Bond movie), instead of having a vague R rating, it should be classified as extreme action with violence and strong language. So the viewer knows exactly what they are in for when they enter the theater. I personally am not that offended by cussing, but I really don’t like nudity and strong sexual content. When I chose a movie to go to, I very rarely ever choose R because it’s a toss up between what I’m going to get. Perhaps we could us abbreviations for the dominating themes, for example: SL=strong language, N= nudity, V=violence, etc.

When studying communications and taking media courses it is very important that a student obtains a full understanding of the field itself. This understanding can only be obtained by recieving the information through an eclectic mix of teaching styles. Courses that are structured around the theory aspects of media relations provide the student with a mental knowledge of what makes the media tick. Theory courses allow the student to explore what is under the surface of the media industry and to find out what makes it all work.

Courses that take a more practical approach add a completely different aspect to the education that the student is recieving. Whereas theory courses show a student why the media works, practical courses show the student how it works. Practical courses are important in every area of study, because it provides hands-on experience for the student that will prepare them for actual work within the media.

Do hands-on practical courses need to be included in the curriculum at liberal arts schools? Absolutely, because it is a school’s job to provide a student, regardless of major, with a complete and full education that will allow that student to best succeed in the future. Without having courses in both theory and in practical issues a student will not recieve a complete understanding of what it is that they will be trying to do for the rest of their lives. If practical or theoretical courses are left off of a curriculum, it is as if the school is denying the importance of either course style, and denying a student of a complete education.