MANILA, Philippines — The Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) recently called for a public consultation on proposed amendments to existing classification ratings of television programs.

MTRCB chair Grace Poe-Llamanzares sent television networks and Anak TV a copy of the said proposed rating system.

Henceforth, the board wishes to classify TV programs for:

• G, for General Patronage
• PG, requiring Parental Guidance; and
• SPG, requiring Strong Parental Guidance

In her memo, Llamanzares said that “it had been seven years since MTRCB last adopted changes in the classification ratings for TV programs and recent controversies involving prime time programs warrant a revisit of the existing system.”

Doomed to fail?

The move is laudable but we fear it is doomed to fail like previous ratings schemes. Something is seriously missing in the equation: massive media education.

For many years, we have met thousands of parents and teachers who confess they notice the PG sign but because of its seeming permanence onscreen, they have become inured to its presence, eventually ignoring it. It is like seeing the same tree outside one’s window day after day.

We presented our position paper to the hardworking MTRCB chair, not questioning the proposed changes but simply underscoring certain realities that MTRCB may have glossed over in its deliberations.

Media education is needed

Anak TV is elated that there will be newer, more stringent classification ratings. However, from years of experience, ratings without the benefit of massive grassroots information and media education will not help much.

Only the more sophisticated, more educated families, usually in urbanized areas, will heed the warnings and ratings. Sadly, the larger population will continue to ignore the warnings because they were not made to understand the importance of being prudent in using media.

If networks, particularly program buyers, writers, producers and directors can be made to understand the need for classification as essential to child protection, rather than as a cumbersome layer in government oversight; if parents are made to undergo crash information courses (through television too) about the importance of circumspection and wisdom in using media; if education seriously includes media literacy in the curriculum, then all these efforts at classification will work.

It boils down to media education which is what is sorely missing in the landscape.

After massive media education, a parent will be wiser than to allow children to watch television relentlessly. A parent will be wiser than to keep his child up after nine in the evening, knowing that 9 p.m. is proper bedtime for the kids and knowing that television will thereafter be more risqué as it will pander to adults who can afford to sleep much later.

Networks will consequently find it easier to produce, promote and sell more programs that do not require ingredients of sex and aggression in order to recover investment.

Media education will also convincingly explain to parents that media and government are partners but should not be expected to raise their children. It will reduce the howling from parents and NGOs against inanities, sexualism, commercialism and violence because all these will be properly relegated to after watershed hours, i.e. 9:01 p.m. to 5:59 a.m.

Television stations will generate more income because in addition to family friendly programming during the 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. period, they can make more sales during the overnight adult programming phase. A child exposed to adult programs after 9 p.m. is now the concern of his family, not the government.

The Filipino child should be paramount in the thoughts of the reviewers of the guidelines. Adults can easily fend for themselves; children cannot.