Escape Pod Ratings

[theWallflower]

I'm suprised no one's made a real topic about this before, so I'll make one.

I'm concerned about how these warnings and ratings are being handled with EscapePod.  I'm not saying that I fear censorship is the next level, but I'm becoming increasingly annoyed with their frequency and irrelevance, often just an avenue for a "cute" joke, making them hard to take seriously.  When every story contains a warning, none of them mean anything.

I understand that there is some concern with stories that have copious violence or sex, and that warnings may be necessary for those with adult content, but Episodes 149 - 154, five in a row, all contained R-rated material (or worse) and accompanying warnings, while 148, an episode containing blatant examples of racism, was PG. 

I'm not saying I want EscapePod to only run certain content of stories, nor do I want to hamper free speech.  I'd rather there not being warnings at all.  There's really no need for warnings.  If they're being downloaded for children audiences by adults, then it's the responsibility of the adult to listen to the story determine if that content is suitable, not a third party.  If it's a child downloading it, then there's nothing that can be done to stop them, it's a free Internet.  Plus, I don't see anyone stopping playing a week's EscapePod because they heard a warning and went "oops, this isn't suitable".  The blanket statements don't mean anything, so someone won't know if they are offended until they listen to it. 

Books aren't rated.  Movies are rated because they have visual and audio stimuli which is more intense to the senses.  How much a book stimulates you is dependent on your imagination.  So I'm wondering why try to rate stories on content when their logical parents (books) aren't.  I think most books with controversial adult content (Catcher in the Rye and Huckleberry Finn come to mind) have their content presented in a plausible, realistic fashion, not in a vulgar, over-the-top fashion as movies do.  In the literature world, we have Harlequin romances for that.  I have never heard of a book store refusing to sell any book to anyone, including self-help and Kamasutra-like books (though that's a blanket statement, and I'd love to hear anyone's experiences to the contrary). 

So my question is, what determines how an EscapePod is rated and what warrants a warning?  How many F-bombs does it take before it becomes an R?  Is there objective criteria being used, or is it someone's arbitrary decision?

And my comment/statement/reason I'm blabbing is whether the warnings are necessary or a waste of bytes.  My vote would be to do away with the warnings, but I'm curious what others think.

[scottjanssens]

The ratings are there because some listeners asked for them.  I've seen feedback from parents who've said they listen to "R" rated episodes before determining whether or not they feel it's suitable for their child.

If they're not useful to you, ignore them.  I don't have children and don't offend easily, so they serve no purpose for me.  That does not mean they're useless.  It just means that I'm not who they're intended for.

[Swamp]

I, for one, very much appreciate the warnings.  I actually have chosen not to listen to an episode becuase of the warning--not very often, but it has happened.  If it is R, then I look at why.  Many times I will listen anyway for a while and if I don't like it, I will stop.  If it is X, it is probably for a good reason, at least in my experience.  Steve seems to be conservative in his ratings, I think just to be on the safe side.

Is it censorship to have a rating?  Censorship would be resitricting access or outright banning something?  Like you said, it's a free internet.  Steve isn't restricting anything; he is just posting a warning.  He doesn't have to.  It is something he chose to do as a courtesy.  And again, I appreciate it.  For those who don't care about the warnings, it is only 5 seconds out of your life.  I also like the humorous warnings.

I did want to touch on one thing you said:

If they're being downloaded for children audiences by adults, then it's the responsibility of the adult to listen to the story determine if that content is suitable, not a third party. 

On the whole, I agree with you.  It is ultimately a parent's responsibility to detemine the suitability of material their children are exposed to.  However, you are assuming the adult wants to slog through and expose themselves to a bunch of crap (speaking generally, not EP specifically) in order to gauge the material.  A rating with expanations (not just a blanket rating) helps give the adult a heads up.  As I said, it's a courtesy.  Without the rating, the adult might have some unpleasant sloggings and decide the effort wasn't worth it and just stop listening.  I know that may be their loss, but it would be unfortunate.

I guess what I'm saying is for the amount of nuisance it is for those that don't care about the rating compared to the benefit it is for those who do, it is a great thing.

[wintermute]

I have no use for the ratings; I'm happy to listen to any of the stories, and some of the ones with warnings have been some of the best.

Having said, they've never bothered me, and have often made me laugh, or at least made me more interested in the story. And I'm sure that other people find them useful, so I can't think of any reason why they shouldn't stay.

[birdless]

I like the ratings and how they are sometimes used as a vehicle for humor. Also, I want to know if the story is going to have explicit content. It doesn't necessarily mean I won't listen, but I don't frequently watch/listen/etc. explicit content, so I'd prefer to know ahead of time if it's going to have "mature subject matter."

[corporatewhore]

Books aren't rated.  Movies are rated because they have visual and audio stimuli which is more intense to the senses.  How much a book stimulates you is dependent on your imagination.  So I'm wondering why try to rate stories on content when their logical parents (books) aren't.  I think most books with controversial adult content (Catcher in the Rye and Huckleberry Finn come to mind) have their content presented in a plausible, realistic fashion, not in a vulgar, over-the-top fashion as movies do.  In the literature world, we have Harlequin romances for that.  I have never heard of a book store refusing to sell any book to anyone, including self-help and Kamasutra-like books (though that's a blanket statement, and I'd love to hear anyone's experiences to the contrary).

Wow. Claims like these require cited references.

[CammoBlammo]

I like the ratings, or at least warnings, because I often listen to my podcasts in the car with my children. If I know there's NSFMiL¹ I content in the cast I can put something l a little safer on.

Does a three second warning really turn people off that much?

¹Not Safe For Mother-in-Law. My kids can cope with adult themes to a point, but if the f-bomb is dropped in the presence of my kids and mother-in-law much embarrassment ensues.

[Russell Nash]

I think the big question was about censorship.  If you look at the blog page you can see how many stories of each rating have been run.  Currently there are 68 R and 6 X rated episodes.  I don't think consorship is the problem.  We're more likely to just lose some of the easily offended.

[theWallflower]

I never said anything about censorship. In fact, I distinctly said that in my second sentence.  What I am saying is that I don't think the warnings serve a purpose. 

It's true that there are explanations with the ratings, but like I said before, many of them consist of a "cute joke" about the content.  The serious parts of it contain things like profanity, nudity, drug use, and violence.  Well what does that mean?  Nudity?  Not sexual content, but nudity.  How can text be rated R for nudity?  Would a medical journal be rated R then?  According to the ratings system, The Big Guy is considered to be just as mature and 'bad for kids' as Freedom with a Small F is.  My point here is that even the explanations are meaningless.

I don't know if anyone watches Family Guy in syndication, but at the beginning of every episode they say "viewer discretion is advised".  And I always comment about how that's the most useless and meaningless thing to say.  What does that mean?  What do they expect I'm going to do now that I've seen that.  Am I expected now to turn it off?  By the time I see something that I think might be offensive, I've already seen it, the damage is done.  And on the opposite end, if I do turn off the TV, I may be missing something that I would consider okay.  Escape Pod is the same way.  I have no clues about the context these things are presented in.  The drug use might be being used in a negative light, but I'd never know that. 

But I see there are contrasting opinions, especially ones contradictory to my conjecture.  I would love to hear from the people who said that the warnings did turn them off from listening, and hear more detail about specifically why. 

[wintermute]

I don't know if anyone watches Family Guy in syndication, but at the beginning of every episode they say "viewer discretion is advised".  And I always comment about how that's the most useless and meaningless thing to say.  What does that mean?

I think it means you're not supposed to tell anyone about it.

[Russell Nash]

Wallflower, you obviously don't have kids.  Parents are the main target for these warnings. 

Thanks to auto downloading and smartlists, I'm on the road and listening to podcasts without ever knowing what's on my iPod.  Half of the time I'm in my car my kids are with me.  If Steve says the episode is rated R, I punch the skip button.  My five y.o. is wonderful at pretending he's not paying attention and then asking questions about what he heard.  I don't need him asking about some of the things that come up in these stories yet. 

The warnings are meaning less for you, but odds are in less than ten years you'll be glad they're there too.  Until then the five lost seconds won't kill you.

[Swamp]

I would love to hear from the people who said that the warnings did turn them off from listening, and hear more detail about specifically why. 

Regarding children, I think that's been covered.

For myself, let's start with the X's:
---
EP150: This, My Body
Rated X. Contains graphic sexual and culinary scenes.
I didn't listen.

EP126: The Sweet, Sad Love Song of Fred and Wilma
Rated X. Contains explicit sex of several kinds. Not recommended for younger audiences.
I didn't listen.

EP104: Lust for Learning
Rated X. Contains explicit sexual description, sexual innuendo, sexual themes — and some sex.
I may have listened to the very beginning,  but stopped.

EP043: Little Worker
Rated X. Contains sex, violence, domestic slavery, and furries you don’t want to mess with.
I honestly don't remember this one, so I must not have listened to it. (And I've been all the way back to EP001)

EP039: My Friend is a Lesbian Zombie
Rated X. Contains profanity, sexual situations, and the undead, in various combinations.
I listened to part of it,  but stopped.  It wasn't really offensive; just didn't like it.

EP020: The Burning Bush
Rated X. For blasphemy and anatomy. Really.
I actually listened to this one. It went against my tendency to avoid stories with blatant disrespect for religion, but what can I say, I was intrigued by the title.  The story was mediocre and not that funny.
---
Now for the R's (only a couple examples because there are so many stories and not that many I haven't listened to based on warnings):

EP139: Acephalous Dreams
Rated R. Contains scenes of strong graphic violence and sexual assault.
I didn't listen.

EP120: The Sundial Brigade
Rated R. Contains strong themes of violence and terrorism, strong language, and some sexual content.
I listened to part of it, but wasn't in the mood for it at the time.  I may listen to it in the future.
---
Though Pseudopod doesn't generally issue warnings due to the inherant nature of the genre, there was a warning regarding Flat Diane for scenes of sexual violence involving children, which I heeded and did not listen.
----

For the most part, I'm not easily turned away, but strong sexual content, especially with assault, will do the trick most of the time.  It's not a judgement of the quality of the story or author, nor is it a comment on those who listen; it's just my personal preference to try to avoid that in my media choices.  Extreme violence will do it as well, but my gauge on that varies.  For some other stories, I stopped listening based on my enjoyment rather than content.

[Listener]

Perhaps there's a way to drop specific rating information in the info file that appears when you click your center iPod button.  So, for example, the warning at the top might be "this story is rated R; please see the show notes for more information".  Then, if you care, you can pause, click, and see:

"This story is rated R for scenes of terrorism and graphic violence.  It is not intended for listeners under the age of 18."

You can't please all of the people all of the time.

I personally don't mind the content warnings.  I realize Steve often does them amusingly, which occasionally makes it hard to tell if it's a hard warning or not (ie: "this story contains boobies" vs "this story contains scenes of consensual sex between adults"). 

This week's PodCastle, for example, contains LOTS of sexual references and also a fair bit of adult language.  I would almost have rated it a hard R or even MA (I don't believe in the X rating, or NC-17) because it contains direct references to ***SPOILER*** a disembodied human phallus, still alive in a surrealist way, being used as a sex toy by a consenting adult ***END SPOILER***.  But I would also include WHY... "This story is rated R for semi-explicit scenes of consensual sex, and also for adult language."

Okay, I've rambled enough.

[theWallflower]

Wallflower, you obviously don't have kids.  Parents are the main target for these warnings. 

I do have kids actually, although she's just a four month old baby, so these issues haven't really come up in practice.

My point regarding kids though, is that the ratings do not tell me whether or not I consider them all right for a five year old (unless it's X, which makes it obvious).  The content warnings do not tell me whether or not I consider it all right for a five year old.  If I were to listen to that, then The Big Guy, which (contains exclamatory profanity) is lumped in the same category as Acephalous Dreams (which contains homosexual pedophiliac gang-rape!).  The only way to determine whether the story is all right is to listen to the podcast in its entirety.  That renders the warnings meaningless. 

Swamp, I was hoping you could go into more detail.  I was wondering at what point did you stop listening to those podcasts and why.  Don't you think you might be missing out on a good story by not listening just because it contains mature themes/scenes?

[Swamp]

The content warnings do not tell me whether or not I consider it all right for a five year old.  If I were to listen to that, then The Big Guy, which (contains exclamatory profanity) is lumped in the same category as Acephalous Dreams (which contains homosexual pedophiliac gang-rape!).  The only way to determine whether the story is all right is to listen to the podcast in its entirety.  That renders the warnings meaningless. 

Your particular example holds true if you're only looking at the "R" rating.  The descriptions tell you about the content.  Compare:

EP152: The Big Guy
Rated R. Contains strong language and testosterone.

EP139: Acephalous Dreams
Rated R. Contains scenes of strong graphic violence and sexual assault.

The difference in the content of these stories is quite relevant by the descriptions.  You can debate what use of "strong language" deserves an R rating, but you can't be "offended" by listening to Acephalous Dreams and say you weren't warned.

Swamp, I was hoping you could go into more detail.  I was wondering at what point did you stop listening to those podcasts and why.

My Friend is a Lesbian Zombie - The lesbian thing didn't bother me.  If I remember right, I think I listened to the first 5 minutes or so and was turned off by the vulgar language and frivilous attitude.  I figured it couldn't get better from there.

Lust for Learning - I felt leary of the story based on the warning, but when the first few lines talked about children in a classroom, I just fast-forwarded to the outro.

The Sundial Brigade - Based on the intro, I could tell where the story was going, and I just wasn't in the mood for it at the time.  It didn't feel like an escape from what I could catch on any cable news station, so I stopped.  As I said, I will probably go back and listen to this one.

Don't you think you might be missing out on a good story by not listening just because it contains mature themes/scenes?

I chuckled a bit when I read that question, mainly because years ago, I used to make that same argument.  The short answer is: I've determined that possibly missing out on a good story/book/movie isn't the end of the world for me.  It's not going to ruin my life.

I think we get so caught up in having to keep up with pop culture or having something to discuss on a forum that we don't stop to consider whether it's really that important to us.  I think the realization happened for me after watching The Accused with Jodie Foster and Kelly McGillis.  The ending rape scene disturbed me greatly.  I felt sick and disgusted.  I said to myself, "You know, I don't have to watch that type of stuff if I don't want to.  I have a choice as to what I watch."  I know the movie makers wanted to make a impact against rape, but I don't think I actually needed to witness one to be against it.

I know I've given a lot of examples of sex.  That's mainly because that's the easiest culprit and the most prevelant.  One more example.  As a Christian, you would probably guess that I flocked to the theater with many others when The Passion of the Christ came out.  I didn't.  From everything leading up to it, I knew that it was basically two hours or more of Christ's violent treatment and graphic suffering.  I didn't want to sit through that.  I don't want to take away from the positive impact that film had on other people's lives, but for me it wasn't a requirement for me to understand His suffering and Grace.  I personally felt relationship with my Savior doesn't rely on a movie.  Again, I have nothing against the movie or those who loved it, but it wasn't for me.

Anyway, I know I got off topic and threw some religion in there too, but you asked the question and got me thinking. 

[eytanz]

Lust for Learning - I felt leary of the story based on the warning, but when the first few lines talked about children in a classroom, I just fast-forwarded to the outro.

Just so no one gets the wrong idea, Lust for Learning is about college students, and contains no underage characters.

[Swamp]

Just so no one gets the wrong idea, Lust for Learning is about college students, and contains no underage characters.

That's good to know.  I'm still not that broken up about missing it though.  As I said, I was trigger ready to fast-forward anyway due to the warning.

[wintermute]

Just so no one gets the wrong idea, Lust for Learning is about college students, and contains no underage characters.

That's good to know.  I'm still not that broken up about missing it though.  As I said, I was trigger ready to fast-forward anyway due to the warning.

Yeah, it wasn't a great story, to be honest.

[theWallflower]

Your particular example holds true if you're only looking at the "R" rating.  The descriptions tell you about the content.  Compare:

EP152: The Big Guy
Rated R. Contains strong language and testosterone.

EP139: Acephalous Dreams
Rated R. Contains scenes of strong graphic violence and sexual assault.

I'm glad you brought this up.  Let's examine these.  First - The Big Guy.  Contains strong language.  What strong language?  Is it sexual in nature?  Is it violent?  Is it exclamatory?  Is the strong language the same as I would hear in an R movie?  There's no Content Rating policy on the site so I can't tell what criteria is being used.  And testosterone?  What does that mean?  I hope I'm not supposed to take that seriously.

Now compare and contrast with Acephalous Dreams.  It's not just sexual assault, it's rape.  It's homosexual pedophiliac gang rape.  It's violent.  It's shocking.  It's nothing I want my kids to listen to.  I don't know if there are people out there who would turn it off it said homosexual pedophiliac gang rape but keep it on for sexual assault.  I guess it would be a small percentage.  But the point is there is a difference, and it's being glossed over.  And strong graphic violence?  What's the difference between graphic violence and strong graphic violence?  Also, how can it be graphic if it's in a story.  Also what context is the violence being presented in?  Bambi's mom getting killed showed very little, yet had a much more profound effect than watching Scar (or Scar's shadow) get mauled apart by Hyenas, or a man's silhouetted hung by vines in Tarzan.

But my point is, it's not telling us what's really going on in the story.  Either they need to be more specific, or someone needs to post a rating policy to 'decode' what these things mean.

[DKT]

Your particular example holds true if you're only looking at the "R" rating.  The descriptions tell you about the content.  Compare:

EP152: The Big Guy
Rated R. Contains strong language and testosterone.

EP139: Acephalous Dreams
Rated R. Contains scenes of strong graphic violence and sexual assault.

I'm glad you brought this up.  Let's examine these.  First - The Big Guy.  Contains strong language.  What strong language?  Is it sexual in nature?  Is it violent?  Is it exclamatory?  Is the strong language the same as I would hear in an R movie?  There's no Content Rating policy on the site so I can't tell what criteria is being used.  And testosterone?  What does that mean?  I hope I'm not supposed to take that seriously.

Now compare and contrast with Acephalous Dreams.  It's not just sexual assault, it's rape.  It's homosexual pedophiliac gang rape.  It's violent.  It's shocking.  It's nothing I want my kids to listen to.  I don't know if there are people out there who would turn it off it said homosexual pedophiliac gang rape but keep it on for sexual assault.  I guess it would be a small percentage.  But the point is there is a difference, and it's being glossed over.  And strong graphic violence?  What's the difference between graphic violence and strong graphic violence?  Also, how can it be graphic if it's in a story.  Also what context is the violence being presented in?  Bambi's mom getting killed showed very little, yet had a much more profound effect than watching Scar (or Scar's shadow) get mauled apart by Hyenas, or a man's silhouetted hung by vines in Tarzan.

But my point is, it's not telling us what's really going on in the story.  Either they need to be more specific, or someone needs to post a rating policy to 'decode' what these things mean.

Wallflower, I think I understand where you're coming from.  I'd even agree with you to some extent, if we were talking about the MPAA ratings.  But we're not, we're talking about Escape Pod. 

No, the ratings don't give specifics, and that's fine by me.  It's clever enough to be amusing, and says just enough to let people like Swamp know if they want to listen to an episode.  (I'm only using Swamp as an example because he's posted in this thread. Far be it from me to try and push "Lust for Learning" on people.)  And I'm pretty sure Steve has said before the ratings are mere guides to give parents a heads-up, or if he should receive an angry email from a parent, he can respond and say "I'm sorry, but it was rated R/X/whatever.

Honestly, most of the time, I don't pay attention to the ratings because I'm the only one listening on my commute/at work.  I do enjoy the "cutesy," humorous tone Steve uses.  (Personally, I'd like a similar warning at the beginning of every story, even the G-rated ones, because I think they're great hooks.  But that's just me.)  If my kid was listening, I'd probably appreciate the ratings even more because for me, any kind of "sexual assault" is enough for me to know she's not ready to listen to that.  Ditto graphic violence, regardless of whether or not it's strong or not.  It's warning enough for me. 

And I don't want to know "what's really going on in the story" until I listen to the story.  The generic ratings are general enough to give me an idea of what tone to expect, and allow me to discover the rest of the story, including the horrors and passions, for myself.   

[Listener]

And I don't want to know "what's really going on in the story" until I listen to the story.  The generic ratings are general enough to give me an idea of what tone to expect, and allow me to discover the rest of the story, including the horrors and passions, for myself.   

In the Science Fiction Book Club, the magazine/catalog rates stories with a warning, followed by the potentially-offensive content.  It usually falls into these categories:

* explicit violence
* explicit language
* explicit sex
* mature themes (ie, when a book is based on sex or religion but isn't necessarily explicit in nature)

Then, if a book is really "bad", they preface it with "graphic".

I can't say that would necessarily work for EP, but it's accurate.  And as a teenager, I read a lot of great sci-fi BECAUSE SFBC said it had explicit sex in it.  There wasn't always a lot, but I was a teenager and we all know what THEY are like.

(Yeah, embarrassing, but *shrug* I'm in my 30s... I'm way past it now.  Now I write that stuff instead.)