Media Chatter

It’s important for a parent to discern what movies their children can, or cannot watch. How are they to know unless watching the movie themselves? The current system is very helpful in this matter.

G- General Audiences

PG- Parental Guidance Suggested

PG-13 – Parents Strongly Cautioned

R- Restricted (Under age 17 requires adult accompanyment)

NC-17 – No one under the age of 17 allowed.

(Current Film Ratings)Parents can usuall tell by the rating the movie has received whether or not it is suitable for their child. A Los Angeles Board decides the ratings based on a parental point of view. For parents who do not know much about the movies their children want to see, it’s an excellent way for them to make good decisions.

Theaters are very good about checking IDs before admittance into a rated R movie.  I get checked all the time, and while it is a hassle, it should be done and I know parents appreciate it.

     The current rating system for the movies shown in America is for the most part effective. While there are only four main ratings (G, PG, PG-13, and R), the ones we have cover the basis for what needs to be classified and rated as what. The ratings system lets moviegoers know what movies are appropriate for them to see and which ones are not. The G rated movie is suitable for anyone to see, especially children. The PG rated movie is suitable for most anyone to see with the exception of young kids due to some innappropriate content. The PG-13 rated movie is probably the most common rating and is acceptable for people 13 and older due to some language and violence. Finally, the R rated movie is for an audience of 17 or older due to strong language, heavy violence, and maybe nudity. While these ratings are sufficient, there might could be one more rating between PG and PG-13. The ratings system helps movie companies know who to market their movie to. They don’t want to advertise an R-rated horror movie to young children watching a saturday morning children’s show. Also, with the movie companies rating the movies themselves it keeps the government from intervening and placing ratings that are too restrictive and unfair.

The current system for rating movies is not something that is being forced on the movie industry. It is a voluntary system developed by those in the business to keep themselves and other colleagues in check and within certain boundries. There are two main reasons for this. One reason is so production companies will know who to advertise and market the movie towards. They have to know who is going to see the movie, so they know exactly how to see the movie. They are not going to sell a lot of advertising to the Disney Channel for a movie based on a sergent from Desert Storm. The second reason is because if they did not keep themselves in check, the government would. Without a rating system in place, standards and practices might feel the need to come up with a more strict, smothering rating system.

As of right now there does not seem to be that much of a problem with the system. There is not much doubt it could be better because there are only really four main ratings–G, PG, PG-13, and R. Because the movie industry has established their own system, I do not believe it would be anyone’s place to try and change that.  Sure the system has faults and it is not always up to par, but they have at least a system in place to keep themselves in balance.  There could be more specific ratings based upon the direct contact of each film, and that would be more than likely make a lot more parents more secure about what their kids are watching.  However, if these changes are to be made, I think it needs to be put in place by the film industry and no one else.  They are at least doing something to censor themselves and keep themselves within proper limits, so they should be rewarded by being left alone by the government and other regulatory agencies.

There has been some argument over the subject of how four-year, liberal arts colleges present information in communications classes.  Some people think that they should only present theory of the subject matter.  They believe that facts and histories should be shared with students taking classes on things like newscasting and copywriting.  On the other side of the coin you have those people who think the students should be taught moreso on the practices than the theory.  They think that hands-on work and experience in these fields are going to help more than just the history of the newspaper.

While I believe strongly in knowing the history and theories behind the certain things you are studying in your college career, I also believe that hands-on practice is the only true way to really learn everything about some of the different mass communications.  If you are going to make exclusive those hands-on experiences into a different kind of college or university, you need to make the entire subject exclusive.  Although, I believe these should be and need to be offered at liberal arts colleges and universities.  Without being able to get real job experience while learning the ways around the career, communication students are not going to be fully prepared, and they will not be as effective in their chosen professions.   

My first time on the internet I was eleven years old.  It was the summertime and all of my friends used the internet for its social aspect, kind of like the phone.  My parents bought a subscription for AOL, which at the time was the most popular cite.  I spent hours and days on the computer doing different things like updating my profile, adding new buddies, taking quizzes, talking to my friends, and of course shopping.  My parents would have to drag me off of it at night and make me go to bed.  I thought it was the best thing ever invented.  My reaction to the internet was greater than any reaction with other mass media.  I was so obsessed with the internet because of the freedon you had.  Someone could shop, send an e-mail, and chat with friends all at the same time. 

When I was in middle school I always listened to the popular music at the time, never really have an absolute favorite.  Then one day I was watching television, when these 5 gorgeous guys came on singing the sweetest song, I wanted to melt.  Right then I became hooked to the group NSYNC.  I loved all of there songs and posted there pictures up all over my room.  As a sixth grader all I knew is that they sang the best songs, and of course they were cute!  Everytime the group would make a CD or even star on some television show, I had to have it, and memorized all of the words.  I considered myself a very loyal fan. 

As I became older I started to notice that there weren’t as many of their songs out, and popular music was heading in a different direction.  Before I knew it NSYNC was gone and they were splitting up to do separate projects.  As time and time went by I started listening to different groups and different types of music, and it actually became lame for people to admit they used to like NSYNC.  Now that im older I don’t really care for that type anymore, my taste in music has grown up with me.  When I was younger I listened to music where nobody had any problems, and everyone had a perfect life.  Now I listen to music that has more, and deeper emotions.  I believe that my interests have helped to mold my identity.  I enjoy all types of music now, whether it be rock, rap, or pop.  It just goes to show you that the media does have a big part in what is “cool” or “trendy.”  With enough publicity a boy band or a hard rock band could be the “it” band, but for how long?

Judith Miller is a Ney York Times reporter that was jailed for 85 days (twice as long as any other American reporter) for refusing to reveal the identity of her source used to research Valarie Plame. Plame was an undercover CIA officer that had  criticized Bush’s claim that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from Africa. After this White House officials revealed the identity of Plame by contacting reporters to write stories about the situation. Miller did not write a story but was put in jail for not telling who contacted her from the White House. You can read more about the issue and more about Miller at http://judithmiller.org/.

This brings up an interesting issue. Should there be a federal shield law that would protect reporters such as Judith Miller. If so, what should be the parameters around that law? Ther should be shield laws, but there should be rules on what the press releases as well. If a reporter is writing a story that is could endanger national security (such as the whole wiretapping story ran by the New York Times) then that reporter should be fired and put in jail. President Bush was not listening in on everyone’s conversations, but only the ones that seemed suspicious. It is not like Bush even cares what is going on in your or my life anyway. It was an effective measure taken to help protect American national security. If national security is involved, then there should be limitations on what reporters can report. Other than those instances, reporters should be protected by shield laws.

Movies are a big part of the American culture. The rating system for movies is a controversial subject. Some think that the rating system is too lenient, while others say that the rating system is “strict”. I think that the rating system has good standards but I believe that those who create the ratings for movies are squeezing material into a lower rating when it should be at a higher rating. I do not think that the rating system should be changed because it tends to “keep” its word. If the movie is rated G then it usually is for all audiences. But when more and more violence and sexual content is squeezed into PG-13 movies, the controversy erupts. The people who tag the movies with these ratings need to be more in the range of each individual rating. If they do this then the movie ratings will be much more reliable. In the end, movies will continue to get around the rating system and continue to expose controversial material to the public.

AJ Liebling, “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.” I would have to agrree with him to some extent. The First Ammendment gives us freedom of speech and press, but the media and press have twisted and miscontstrued our democratic rights.

The press that AJ Liebleing speaks of now covers all types of media. Unless you have access to publishing your thought or idea to a large majority of people you really don’t have that freedom of press. The average person has no say what is published in a newspaper or seen on the evening news. In this regard AJ Liebling would be absolutely correct.

If AJ Liebling was speaking about obtaining a press being the problem he would be astounded to see the public’s response to this problem. Blogs, not unlike the means by which I am typing this entry, are popping up anywhere and everywhere. The internet has become a “press” to both the writer and the common person.

This recent rise in blogs has become both good and bad at the same time. So much information has entered the internet it is hard to decipher between what is truth, and what is Jimmy down the street typing about what he thinks about the American economic situation. Perhaps freedom of the press should not pertain to everyone. Perhaps selective freedom of the press should be limited to people with real, relavent, and educated opinions.