Greedy broadcasters, who had for too long been wallowing in TV sleaze, are beginning to feel mounting public pressure to reform. The first important step in many years took place in December, when all six national TV networks, prodded by the government's Public Relations Department and the Broadcasting Control Board, introduced a voluntary rating system. The move was seen as the first attempt by the major television networks to police themselves.

Concerned parents and social workers have long bemoaned the lack of mechanisms to rein in vulgarity and sleaze on television, which is the most powerful and far-reaching medium for viewers of all age groups, including innocent children. Especially worrying is the lack of choice in quality entertainment and the fact that broadcasters gravitate toward the kind of programming that appeals to the lowest common denominator because it is good for their ratings and rakes in tonnes of money. That means evening prime-time entertainment is dominated by soap operas featuring excessive profanity, violence and sex. As a result many children, particularly those belonging to poor households or families with non-existent parental supervision, are exposed to this poor quality and potentially harmful content. Many social workers and educators believe prolonged exposure to such unhealthy programming could have adverse effects on impressionable youths.

The correlation between exposure to on-screen violence and real-life violence in young people has been well documented in numerous studies. The same is true for the influence of TV on reckless sexual behaviour by young people and on their use of offensive language. Such concerns are real and deserve serious discussion among all those who genuinely care about the welfare of young people

Under the new voluntary rating system, each television network analyses its own programmes, including dramas, game shows and celebrity chat shows, and rates them into categories based on their suitability for different groups of viewers: pre-school children, young children, early teens, late teens and general viewers. Programmes will be labelled accordingly and accompanied by specific and helpful parental advice that will make it easier for parents to decide whether to allow their children to watch them. Parents will know at a glance whether they should offer some guidance or whether it is safe to let their children watch without supervision. There will also be programmes meant for a mature audience only, which are to be clearly labelled as unsuitable for children and young people.

There is much to commend in broadcasters taking the initiative in self-regulation so that television networks and producers conduct their business in a socially responsible manner. The system has the added benefit of making redundant state censorship, which can impinge on artistic freedom, freedom of expression or the public's right to information. But this is not enough. The problem is that quality TV programming for children will not materialise just because some well-meaning people tell broadcasters what they should do and how to do it.

It takes everyone who genuinely cares about children's welfare and quality television to make sure this powerful medium is put to good use for the benefit of young people. To make it happen, state authorities and civil society should continue to advocate the need to improve TV programming. One of the ideas being pushed by media-freedom campaigners is the establishment of a public broadcasting system similar to the British Broadcasting Corporation - which is free from political interference and greedy, low-brow commercial media executives.

One thing is clear, the public must be made aware of the fact that broadcasters owe it to children to make available a choice of quality TV programming, including both entertainment and educational content. It is their duty to devote part of their air time to good programmes that children can enjoy and learn from.