Solving Jack Valenti's problem

If I promised to pay you $50,000 a year to watch 40 hours of television every week, would you do it?

Me, too. So why does Jack Valenti go around saying that it's impossible to rate TV shows according to their specific content?

Mr. Valenti is head of the Motion Picture Association of America, the organization that rates movies. He's been in the news recently concerning the launch of a rating system for television that applies a vague letter rating (such as "TV-G" and "TV-PG") but does not explain what in the program led to that rating.

Objections

To those objections, Mr. Valenti has been dismissive, saying: "It's impossible to rate 2,000 hours of TV every week."

Therefore, the ratings have to be vague and general -- and (get this) applied by the producers of the shows themselves. He did not mention any foxes or henhouses in his statement.

Calculators, please

1. A rater could be paid $50,000 annually to rate 40 hours per week.

2. Fifty raters could handle the 2,000 hours per week.

3. Fifty raters times $50,000 equals $2.5 million per year to fund the effort.

4. But we need back-up raters in case of illness and vacations. In fact, let's splurge and hire 100 raters. Now we need to find $5 million a year to hire outsiders to rate shows for their content.

This would establish an effective system -- and one that would be a lot of fun. Average people would rate shows, and viewers would get to know the raters quirks, prejudices and philosophies.

Finding the money

Let's see now. Here are three painless ways:

1. We could get a donation of a half-million dollars from each of 10 TV networks -- ABC, NBC, CBS, A&E, Discovery, AMC, Fox, WB, UPN and The Learning Channel, for example. That's chump change to TV networks; they spend that much on corporate lunches. Let them eat cake.

2. The Walt Disney Co. is world-renowned for producing family-oriented material and would certainly be a source for funding. And it seems to have a lot of loose change sitting around. When its president, Michael Ovitz, recently left the company after a grand total of 14 months in office -- during which time he did next to nothing -- he was given a severance package worth a reported $90 million. Mr. Ovitz already is a multi-millionaire and needs $90 million like you need another penny in your pocket. Let him donate his severance pay (imagine the tax write-off, Mike!), and the rating system would be covered for the next 18 years.

3. And then there's Oprah Winfrey, who's always looking for ways to make the world better. According to Forbes magazine, she earns about $170 million a year. I don't think she would have to apply for food stamps if she donated one year's pay to the rating system -- guaranteeing it would be in place for 34 years. Call me in 2031 and I'll figure out a new payment method.

Being more specific about the content of 2,000 hours a week of TV shows is do-able. But it won't be done. That's because no one in television really wants a legitimate rating system that might cause people either to shut off shows or to awaken to how often programming is objectionable.

(01-23-97) [[In-content Ad]]