40 new york | december 23, 2019–january 5, 2020
Only one site came close to providing
useful, clear, comprehensive guidance, a
site I’d never heard of before becoming a
parent: Common Sense Media. Its ratings
listed TV shows and movies by specific
ages (3-plus, 4-plus, etc.), rather than
wide, meaningless ranges. The content
descriptions warned about scariness,
described specific instances of violence,
and broke down titles by themes and con-
cepts. Where other lists suggested the
usual lineup of Pixar and DreamWorks
that I was sure were better for older kids,
Common Sense Media proposed Winnie-
the-Pooh, Curious George, and The Adven-
tures of Elmo in Grouchland. And there
were ratings and reviews for seemingly
everything—every Netflix original ani-
mated kids’ show I’d never heard of, every
one of the six Tinker Bell movies, every
spinoff LEGO show, every minor-league
Disney property that had come out since
my own childhood ended and I stopped
paying attention.
I started using Common Sense quite a
bit and then I started to see it every-
where. There it was on the “parental
info” tab of Target’s website, telling me
that How to Train Your Dragon was best
for kids ages 7 and older; on the ticket-
sales site Fandango, giving me advice
about the age appropriateness of The
LEGO Batman Movie; on NPR, where
I heard coverage of the movies and TV
shows Common Sense had picked for its
seal-of-approval honorees. Common
Sense’s age ratings are licensed to appearon the program guides for Verizon,
AT&T, Spectrum, Cox, DirecTV, and
Apple TV. When my daughter went to
kindergarten, I found Common Sense in
the emails I got from her school inform-
ing me about a movie that would be
shown in class.
Common Sense Media, I came to under-
stand, is the default decider for almost
every large-scale guideline about what’s
okay for kids to watch. It has 35,000
entries covering TV, movies, books, video
games, and YouTube channels and receivesabout 6 million page views per month. It
is a go-to reference for public schools
across the country and even writes a
digital- citizenship curriculum that is fol-
lowed in thousands of schools.
As Common Sense Media’s total domi-
nance of the “what’s okay for your kids to
watch” space began to fully dawn on me,
it also began to feel, not to put too fine a
point on it, pretty bonkers. The question
wasn’t even what Common Sense was or
what its goals were, although I was defi-
nitely curious about those things. Rather,
its fundamental identity seemed impos-
sible to me: a central deciding hub for
what’s okay for all kids, from all kinds of
families and backgrounds, that reviewed
and rated everything.
While my critic’s brain started whirring
along with objections and questions (seri-
ously, who are these people? How do the
ratings even work?), I could not escape a
simultaneous reality: Common Sense’s
ratings were immensely comforting.JIM STEYER founded Common
Sense Media in 2003. He’s a
Stanford professor and longtime
children’s-welfare advocate. In
1988, Steyer started a lobbying group
called Children Now, which pushed for
child-appropriate programming on TV.
As Steyer tells it, the idea for Common
Sense Media came from Bill Clinton,
whom he met after Chelsea Clinton be-
came one of Steyer’s students and, eventu-
ally, his TA. When writing his first book,an alarmist “how media affects our kids”
text from 2002 called The Other Parent,
Steyer interviewed the former president
about media regulation. “ ‘J i m ,’ ” Steyer re-
calls Clinton saying, “ ‘there’s no other or-
ganization that does anything about this,
other than the Christian right.’ And he
goes, ‘You know, you build big organiza-
tions. Why don’t you just do one?’ I’m like,
‘Fuck it, that’s what I’m going to do!’ ”
Steyer, whose brother is the Demo-
cratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer,
is well connected, loquacious, and proneto telling the kinds of stories that include
figures like Clinton or the CEOs of major
tech companies. For Steyer, Common
Sense’s massive library of ratings and
reviews was always meant as an incentive
rather than a goal. He intended Common
Sense to be mostly an advocacy group, but
he looked at organizations like the NRA
and the AARP and decided that their suc-
cess in building membership bases came
largely because their members, as Steyer
puts it, “get free stuff.” Common Sense’s
ratings, what Steyer calls the “Consumer
Reports guide for media,” would be the free
stuff—something to help the organization
establish a powerful lobbying base.
That base eventually materialized.
Steyer now spends most of his energies
on Common Sense’s lobbying arm, Com-
mon Sense Kids Action, which advocates
around kids’ safety issues (anti-vaping is
its latest crusade), but he’s still respon-
sible for maintaining Common Sense’s
prominence and managing its relation-
ships with Hollywood and industry fig-
ures. He tells me stories about talking
with Reed Hastings, the CEO of Net flix,
after 13 Reasons Why came out and
chiding him for not considering the
show’s damaging subject matter, along
with stories about getting calls from cre-
ators who have disagreed with Common
Sense’s characterizations. Once, he says,
Quentin Tarantino called him up to com-
plain about a rating Common Sense had
given one of his films.
Is it humanly possible to build a cata-
logue of 35,000 reviews on identical, fair,
ideologically neutral editorial standards?
The reviews-and-ratings operation has
more than 130 full-time employees, an
army of freelancers, and offices in San
Francisco, Los Angeles, Phoenix, London,
New York, and Washington, D.C. Because
its review library and pool of freelancers
are so large, and because Common Sense
is so insistent on the idea of neutrality,
much of the process of writing a Common
Sense review is designed to sand away the
distinction of any one reviewer’s individ-
ual taste or gut-level response. In order to
assign any given title an age rating,
reviewers must categorize and quantify
the work within several different content
areas. Does it have any bad language?
How much? How many instances of each
word? What words in particular? Does it
have any nudity? How much? How many
instances? Is there graphic violence? Is it
performed with guns or with other weap-
ons? How many weapons? Are there
onscreen deaths?
Each “intensifier” contributes to a title’s
age rating, and each age rating has its own
classification for allowed material. Com-Is it humanly possible to builda catalogue of 35,000 reviewson identical, fair, ideologicallyneutral editorial standards?PHOTOGRAPH, PREVIOUS SPREAD: MILES ALDRIDGE/TRUNK ARCHIVETRANSMITTED TRANSMITTED________ COPY ___ DD ___ AD ___ PD ___ EIC2619FEA_KidsTV_lay [Print]_36339551.indd 40 12/17/19 10:19 PM40 newyork| december23,2019–january5, 2020
Only one site came close to providing
useful, clear, comprehensive guidance, a
site I’d never heard of before becoming a
parent: Common Sense Media. Its ratings
listed TV shows and movies by specific
ages (3-plus, 4-plus, etc.), rather than
wide, meaningless ranges. The content
descriptions warned about scariness,
described specific instances of violence,
and broke down titles by themes and con-
cepts. Where other lists suggested the
usual lineup of Pixar and DreamWorks
that I was sure were better for older kids,
Common Sense Media proposed Winnie-
the-Pooh, Curious George, and The Adven-
tures of Elmo in Grouchland. And there
were ratings and reviews for seemingly
everything—every Netflix original ani-
mated kids’ show I’d never heard of, every
one of the six Tinker Bell movies, every
spinoff LEGO show, every minor-league
Disney property that had come out since
my own childhood ended and I stopped
paying attention.
I started using Common Sense quite a
bit and then I started to see it every-
where. There it was on the “parental
info” tab of Target’s website, telling me
that How to Train Your Dragon was best
for kids ages 7 and older; on the ticket-
sales site Fandango, giving me advice
about the age appropriateness of The
LEGO Batman Movie; on NPR, where
I heard coverage of the movies and TV
shows Common Sense had picked for its
seal-of-approval honorees. Common
Sense’s age ratings are licensed to appear
on the program guidesfor Verizon,
AT&T,Spectrum,Cox,DirecTV,and
AppleTV.Whenmy daughterwentto
kindergarten,I foundCommonSensein
theemailsI gotfromherschoolinform-
ingmeabouta moviethatwouldbe
showninclass.
CommonSenseMedia,I cametounder-
stand,isthedefaultdeciderforalmost
every large-scaleguidelineaboutwhat’s
okayforkids towatch.It has35,000
entriescoveringTV,movies,books,video
games,andYouTubechannelsandreceives
about 6 million page views per month. It
is a go-to reference for public schools
across the country and even writes a
digital- citizenship curriculum that is fol-
lowed in thousands of schools.
As Common Sense Media’s total domi-
nance of the “what’s okay for your kids to
watch” space began to fully dawn on me,
it also began to feel, not to put too fine a
point on it, pretty bonkers. The question
wasn’t even what Common Sense was or
what its goals were, although I was defi-
nitely curious about those things. Rather,
its fundamental identity seemed impos-
sible to me: a central deciding hub for
what’s okay for all kids, from all kinds of
families and backgrounds, that reviewed
and rated everything.
While my critic’s brain started whirring
along with objections and questions (seri-
ously, who are these people? How do the
ratings even work?), I could not escape a
simultaneous reality: Common Sense’s
ratings were immensely comforting.JIM STEYER founded Common
Sense Media in 2003. He’s a
Stanford professor and longtime
children’s-welfare advocate. In
1988, Steyer started a lobbying group
called Children Now, which pushed for
child-appropriate programming on TV.
As Steyer tells it, the idea for Common
Sense Media came from Bill Clinton,
whom he met after Chelsea Clinton be-
came one of Steyer’s students and, eventu-
ally, his TA. When writing his first book,analarmist“howmediaaffectsourkids”
textfrom 2002 calledTheOtherParent,
Steyerinterviewedtheformerpresident
aboutmediaregulation.“ ‘J i m ,’” Steyerre-
callsClintonsaying,“ ‘there’s nootheror-
ganizationthat doesanythingaboutthis,
otherthantheChristianright.’ Andhe
goes,‘Youknow, youbuildbigorganiza-
tions.Whydon’t youjust doone?’ I’mlike,
‘Fuckit,that’swhat I’mgoingtodo!’”
Steyer, whosebrotheristheDemo-
craticpresidentialcandidateTomSteyer,
is wellconnected,loquacious,and proneto telling the kinds of stories that include
figures like Clinton or the CEOs of major
tech companies. For Steyer, Common
Sense’s massive library of ratings and
reviews was always meant as an incentive
rather than a goal. He intended Common
Sense to be mostly an advocacy group, but
he looked at organizations like the NRA
and the AARP and decided that their suc-
cess in building membership bases came
largely because their members, as Steyer
puts it, “get free stuff.” Common Sense’s
ratings, what Steyer calls the “Consumer
Reports guide for media,” would be the free
stuff—something to help the organization
establish a powerful lobbying base.
That base eventually materialized.
Steyer now spends most of his energies
on Common Sense’s lobbying arm, Com-
mon Sense Kids Action, which advocates
around kids’ safety issues (anti-vaping is
its latest crusade), but he’s still respon-
sible for maintaining Common Sense’s
prominence and managing its relation-
ships with Hollywood and industry fig-
ures. He tells me stories about talking
with Reed Hastings, the CEO of Net flix,
after 13 Reasons Why came out and
chiding him for not considering the
show’s damaging subject matter, along
with stories about getting calls from cre-
ators who have disagreed with Common
Sense’s characterizations. Once, he says,
Quentin Tarantino called him up to com-
plain about a rating Common Sense had
given one of his films.
Is it humanly possible to build a cata-
logue of 35,000 reviews on identical, fair,
ideologically neutral editorial standards?
The reviews-and-ratings operation has
more than 130 full-time employees, an
army of freelancers, and offices in San
Francisco, Los Angeles, Phoenix, London,
New York, and Washington, D.C. Because
its review library and pool of freelancers
are so large, and because Common Sense
is so insistent on the idea of neutrality,
much of the process of writing aCommon
Sense review is designed to sandawaythe
distinction of any one reviewer’sindivid-
ual taste or gut-level response. Inorderto
assign any given title an age rating,
reviewers must categorize andquantify
the work within several differentcontent
areas. Does it have any badlanguage?
How much? How many instancesofeach
word? What words in particular?Doesit
have any nudity? How much? Howmany
instances? Is there graphic violence?Is it
performed with guns or with otherweap-
ons? How many weapons?Arethere
onscreen deaths?
Each “intensifier” contributestoa title’s
age rating, and each age rating hasitsown
classification for allowed material.Com-Is it humanly possible to builda catalogue of 35,000 reviewson identical, fair, ideologicallyneutral editorial standards?PHOTOGRAPH, PREVIOUS SPREAD: MILES ALDRIDGE/TRUNK ARCHIVE