Psychiatric News sometimes gets things wrong, but it rarely prints a front-page article, with photo, that nearly 180 degrees misrepresents an action of the APA Board of Trustees. The January 3 article on Valenti and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) TV rating system is, alas, such an article.

The APA Board essentially said and voted "No" to the Valenti MPAA rating plan. No. It is not good enough. One would not know that from the Psychiatric News article. The APA Board was polite to Mr. Valenti, who is powerful and a good showman, but we disagreed with his system, even though his system has lots of money behind it. The APA Board agreed with the Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychological Association, and many others that content, especially violence and sex, should and could be identified and rated--as opposed to the vaguer age system now being pushed by the MPAA.

There is a better rating system, simple and clear, already available: the RSAC system, for software. It identifies sex and violence (V-1, V-2, V-3, V-4) more precisely, and helps parents know more. Eighty percent of parents, in a recent poll, and the major relevant professional groups, prefer such content rating rather than the vaguer age rating. Rather than advertising the glamorously presented Valenti MPAA system, Psychiatric News should have shown a chart of the rather simple RSAC system which the APA Board favored. Psychiatric News should still now print the RSAC chart, along with a brief note on the Board discussion and vote.

The MPAA system seems to me to (a) do as little as possible to help parents and children, (b) do as much as possible to confuse and evade the V-chip, and (c) preempt and avoid legislation and regulation. The Board said "No." We will go on trying to improve it if it is inevitable for now, but No. It is not good.

The Psychiatric News article quotes no one from the APA Board and does not mention the Board vote. It could have been written by Valenti's charming and skillful staff. That is a disservice to the U.S. debate on TV violence rating, and on continuing TV industry irresponsibility. It is also a grave disservice to anyone who cares about good reporting, to APA members, to the APA Board, and to the reputation of Psychiatric News.

Your January 3 front-page article on Jack Valenti's appearance before the Board is disturbingly inaccurate and misleading. Mr. Valenti asked if he could make a presentation so as to forestall the same rejection of the TV industry's rating system as it had already received from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Pediatrics, and dozens of other child advocacy organizations. Mr. Valenti is a salesman, a huckster for the TV industry; that is his job and he is good at it. He tried to sell his rating system to APA. He could not sell it to the Board, but apparently sold it to someone in APA. The Board rejected the rating system, recognizing it as inadequate and ineffective and a sham, and directed the president to write a letter essentially repeating the rejection already in writing from the academies of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Pediatrics (and of course offering to work together to try and improve the system).

How Psychiatric News could make this into front-page "news"--with a picture yet--and so distort the essence of the Board's position may indicate that we have gone Hollywood.

The Board and the membership have a right to expect better judgment, better perspective, and far better objectivity on the part of its newspaper.

Jerry M. Wiener, M.D.
Washington, D.C.

This situation is a first for Psychiatric News in that our report of an item discussed by the APA Board of Trustees in Executive Session has resulted in significant controversy. Ordinarily in reporting Executive Session items, Psychiatric News relies on an internally produced summary of actions, and we did so in this case. We have not interviewed Board members in such instances, and that practice was also followed here. We did, however, publish a photograph of Mr. Valenti because we believe his coming to our Board was, in itself, of interest.

The Board of Trustees is expected to resolve the issue at its March 1997 meeting, and Psychiatric News will report further developments in April.

--The Editors (Psychiatric News, February 7, 1997)