[DRAFT] Are the Television Programs for Teens Only?

[Ipsenia]

[Issue]
Several independent bloggers from "Compassionate" platform noticed that around 90% all television programs in @@NAME@@ were rated for teens (13 years old or older) and possibly with parental guide. The figure is highest in the @@REGION@@. They also concluded that more than 60% of these teen-rated programs were wrongly classified, including news programs which should had not been rated as such. They reached Head of Electronic Entertainment Rating Board of @@NAME@@ to discuss this issue.

[The Debate]
1. "This act of rating-defaulting-to-teens is clearly misleading for our citizens that watch television as primary entertainment source," said Ian Lance Taylor, a Compassionate blogger. "If there are animation programs which are for children but rated for teens, children (minors) will think twice whether to watch them or not. If they must wait until they become teenagers, they may find out that these animation will not be relevant to them anymore. Please, consider the proper program classification for all our citizens, not just for teenagers interests."
Effect: All television programs are properly classified and rated in line with the nature of program

2. "I think that the ratings are according to our procedure," said @@RANDOMNAME@@, head of EERB of @@NAME@@. "We had already considered their contents and whether these are appropriate for each audience category or not." @@HE@@ then give explanation of how programs are rated.
Effect: Becoming teenagers are rite of passage for television audiences, for they can watch any programs

[Outer Sparta]

This overlaps with other issues dealing with television programs and their classifications. If you want to persist with this draft, at least differentiate it in a way or make a unique angle. In addition, your focus is out of place (what is the issue? Is it the proportion of programs rated for teens that's too much? Is it the amount wrongly classified as rated teens?). At least narrow it down to show the real problem instead of presenting two or three different ones.

[Tinhampton]

Are Compassionate (the name of the blog) and Ian Lance Taylor supposed to be references to IRL activists I've never heard of?

The EERB chairdude in Option 2 is attempting to defend the fact that "60% of these teen-rated programs were wrongly classified, including news programs." Why? You merely assert that there exists a rating procedure without actually explaining how it works or why "news programs" were rated as being suitable for teenagers.

At least in my country (the United Kingdom), television programs do not carry an age rating. Movies are rated by the BBFC, but it does not give them a 12A/"teens" rating by default, and certainly does not classify three in every five movies as 12A by accident.

More to the point: who is enforcing the rule that prevents twelve-year-olds from watching all of this stuff?

[Ipsenia]

This overlaps with other issues dealing with television programs and their classifications. If you want to persist with this draft, at least differentiate it in a way or make a unique angle. In addition, your focus is out of place (what is the issue? Is it the proportion of programs rated for teens that's too much? Is it the amount wrongly classified as rated teens?). At least narrow it down to show the real problem instead of presenting two or three different ones.

Can you give the example of similar issues that you mention? For the second question, I highlighted that we have too much teen-classified programs, which some of them are misclassified; as one issue.

[Ipsenia]

Are Compassionate (the name of the blog) and Ian Lance Taylor supposed to be references to IRL activists I've never heard of?

The EERB chairdude in Option 2 is attempting to defend the fact that "60% of these teen-rated programs were wrongly classified, including news programs." Why? You merely assert that there exists a rating procedure without actually explaining how it works or why "news programs" were rated as being suitable for teenagers.

At least in my country (the United Kingdom), television programs do not carry an age rating. Movies are rated by the BBFC, but it does not give them a 12A/"teens" rating by default, and certainly does not classify three in every five movies as 12A by accident.

More to the point: who is enforcing the rule that prevents twelve-year-olds from watching all of this stuff?

I think the Compassionate is inspired from Kompasiana (https://www.kompasiana.com) blog, where I had seen several posts criticizing certain TV programs.

Regarding classification/rating, yes in Indonesia all programs (not just movies) are required to pass censorship from LSF (https://lsf.go.id/), although its duties are now mostly age classification. As far as I can tell, the trend of classifying as for teens by default began circa 2010. I don't know why this trend happens.

FYI, I feel distracted when I see age classification permanently on my favorite TV programs.

[Outer Sparta]

This overlaps with other issues dealing with television programs and their classifications. If you want to persist with this draft, at least differentiate it in a way or make a unique angle. In addition, your focus is out of place (what is the issue? Is it the proportion of programs rated for teens that's too much? Is it the amount wrongly classified as rated teens?). At least narrow it down to show the real problem instead of presenting two or three different ones.

Can you give the example of similar issues that you mention? For the second question, I highlighted that we have too much teen-classified programs, which some of them are misclassified; as one issue.

I don't know the exact ones, but there definitely are current issues dealing with the maturity of TV programs and appropriateness for children. I'm also not sure how some programs classified as teen would be misclassified unless if you make a follow-up to a nation that decides to enact TV classifications or if they have the notability of "smutty television."