If a reader lives up to his promise, sometime this week an envelope will arrive at the Union-Tribune with a copy of a story that appeared the other day on page 3 of “Family,” which is what the features section is called on Saturdays.
The syndicated article by Jane Horwitz of the Washington Post Writers Group appears every Saturday under the bold-faced title “The Family Filmgoer.” In smaller, lighter type appears the explanation: “WHAT PARENTS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT MOVIES KIDS WANT TO SEE.”
A subscriber, a grandfather, has vowed to return the section to the newspaper each time the movie reviews appear. He finds the content so objectionable he wants the page removed from his newspaper.
The content? The weekly articles tell parents if movies contain violence, profanity, ethnic slurs, adultery, smoking, crude humor, teen pregnancy, drinking and, as a Nov. 3 review put it, “understated sexual innuendo.”
The San Diego Union-Tribune began carrying the reviews last year as a service to parents who want information about films their kids want to see. When it first began, the explanation that the articles were intended for parents was not included. When the grandfather and a few other readers complained, a decision was made to label the reviews more clearly. That’s how the explanatory “WHAT PARENTS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT MOVIES KIDS WANT TO SEE” came about. It was the right thing to do. Now, there is no question about the purpose and the intended audience of the feature.
But the grandfather still objects to the reviews. He doesn’t like the idea that children may read them. Hence, his push to do away with the feature that other parents find of value. “The Family Filmgoer” usually appears below “Rated ‘G’,” which includes kids’ reviews of films, plays and concerts that would be of interest to other kids.
As long as the syndicated reviews are not unnecessarily explicit (and they are not) I see this as a service to give parents information about movies their children may want to see. It’s up to the parents to determine whether the movies are appropriate for their kids.
“The Family Filmgoer” works precisely that way for a number of parents, including a La Costa mother who called it “my Bible for choosing films to take my 12-year-old to. I never take her to a PG-13 without first consulting with your reviews,” wrote Deborah Sundmacher. “You are always right on.”
* * *
Front-page stories are more closely scrutinized than ever these days, so I was intrigued when I got some calls complaining about a three-paragraph story that appeared Nov. 3 on page two of the local section. Those who complained said there was too much information.
Too much information in three paragraphs? If there are going to be any complaints about so brief an article it is usually because there is not enough information.
Those who complained objected because the article, about a robbery of a credit union, said the teller slipped a tracking device in with the loot handed over to the crook. The device later was found on a freeway off-ramp.
“You might as well write a book,” complained Michael Renihan. “Don’t tell me this is news. This isn’t the first time you’ve done it. You guys need to be more careful.”
In fact, Renihan was right. This is not the first time the information has been in the Union-Tribune.
Six years ago, a story about two bank robbers from Orange County who were stopped and arrested near Oceanside said an electronic device had been used to find them. Authorities halted traffic in both directions after they picked up the signal from the tracking device that had been hidden in the money handed over by the teller. The information came from an Orange County deputy sheriff who was quoted in the story.
Shortly after that, it came to light that the device was being used in San Diego. An article — there was no photograph — described it as a tiny computer chip that is part of an electronic tracking system that had been used in Orange County and Los Angeles “for some time.”
In fact, it has been used in those areas nearly 12 years, according to 1990 articles in both the Los Angeles Times and The Orange County Register. Those stories said questions about the reliability of the device were raised by the Santa Ana federal public defender’s office, which was involved in four bank robbery cases in which the device led to arrests.
While information about the device has been public for more than 10 years, Renihan still maintains reporters should not write about it. “Why refresh memories?” He also sees it as a means of tipping off novice robbers who may not know about the device.
Because the information has been available for so many years and because law enforcement has been the source, I don’t think the newspaper is betraying any secrets.
