DIM VIEW OF TV RATINGS PLAN : V-CHIP PROPONENT SAYS PARENTS WILL LACK DETAILS.

Byline: Keith Marder Daily News Television Writer

The congressman who wrote the v-chip law mandating television ratings is criticizing the industry proposal expected to be announced in two weeks for failing to give parents the facts they need to decide what's right for their children.

U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said he intended for the new TV ratings provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to give parents a programming guide that is detailed and descriptive as to language, sex and violence, and enables parents to make judgments about blocking shows on an individual basis.

Instead, Markey said, he believes the television industry group is headed toward a ratings system similar to that used for motion pictures that would lump language, sex and violent material together in groups (G, PG and so on), and that would allow parents to block entire categories (say PG-17 for instance) but not individual shows.

``Under the Hollywood proposal being floated, parents would have to block out a particular level, when they might not have a problem with three-quarters of it,'' Markey said in a telephone interview from his Washington, D.C., office Wednesday.

``I don't want them to judge, just to describe,'' Markey said of the industry executives who would rate the programs under the proposal under discussion.

``The v-chip was meant to give parents choices among categories of sex and violence and language. I think violence is the most important,'' he said. ``What happened to the `v' in my v-chip?''

The industry group - headed by Motion Picture Association of America Inc. President and CEO Jack Valenti, who developed the current movie ratings - is required by the law to submit its proposal in February but is expected to present its ratings system as soon as Dec. 19.

Valenti declined to discuss the progress of the industry ratings group, but issued a statement saying it had not reached consensus.

``There is no tentative agreement,'' Valenti said in the statement issued by his Washington, D.C., office.

``There are crucial segments of the industry, including broadcast networks, movie executives, cable networks, syndicators, writers and directors, which have not signed off on the plan,'' the statement said. ``There's a lot of people we need to get on board. Until we have everybody signed off on this, we don't have anything.''

The industry will submit its proposal to the Federal Communications Commission, which will evaluate it and take public and expert testimony. If the industry proposal is rejected, Markey said, the FCC is charged with developing a ratings system.

The Telecommunications Act requires manufacturers in 1997 to install computer chips in television sets enabling shows to be blocked electronically according to content.

The industry group is widely believed to be considering adding categories to the existing motion picture ratings system for television. In addition to G, PG and PG-13, the television proposal may include PG-17 and either PG-7, PG-8 or PG-9, indicating parental guidance is advised for children under the ages cited.

Markey said parents, not programmers, should be able to decide whether they want to shield their children from violence, sex or language or any combination of the three.

``I named it the v-chip as short for the violence chip,'' Markey said.

``The intention was for there to be a violence rating for every television show on the air. The proposal being floated out of Hollywood doesn't give any violence ratings for any show at any time, which undermines the purpose of the v-chip. None of the ratings being talked about tell parents whether the show has any violence,'' he said. That would make ``the v-chip a very blunt instrument.''

Markey's chief concern is that the television industry would deny parents the information necessary to select and filter out shows for their children.

``If somebody had a 6-year-old boy and Charles Dickens' `A Christmas Carol' would make them scared, they should have the information that it's violent or has something in it that would make a child scared,'' he said. ``If the parent doesn't care whether a show has mild profanity, or, at that age, they might not want to block out light sexual activity or mild violence, they would have to block out all of it.''

Markey said he doesn't believe the idea will fly with parents.

``The more parents hear about the Hollywood system, the more loudly they will complain about the lack of information,'' he said.

Diana Dixon-Davis, the legislation director for the Northwest Valley PTA Council, said movie ratings are not that helpful to parents.

Movie ``ratings systems seem to be overly sensitive to nudity and undersensitive to graphic and gratuitous violence, which has been a big concern to me for years,'' Dixon-Davis said. ``You have to almost see movies yourself. You can't rely on the ratings any more. Beyond PG-13, you really have to see them yourself.''