ED. NOTE: In this article, here reprinted from the New York Times October 13th, it is encouraging to see Paul Coates correctly labeled for a change.

Apparently it takes the practiced eye of a New Yorker, like Mr. Gould, to recognize the phony in Mr. Coates. Unfortunately, here in Los Angeles, reporter Coates continues to impress with his so-called "helpful education."

TV: 'For Adults Only'

Sensationalism Under Guise of Education Deplored in Program on Sex Deviates.

By JACK GOULD

PERHAPS the first television

program to be labeled "For Adults Only," with viewers told to send their youngsters into another room, was presented last night at 9 o'clock over WPIX Sensationalism under the guise of helpful education now has gone about as far as it can on TV.

The program was an installment in the Paul Coates film series entitled "Confidential File." The subject matter was sex deviates who molest children. It probably didn't satisfy the morbid curiosity seeker nor did it provide useful information for a thoughtful parent.

Mr. Coates, a West Coast reporter, announced at the outset his admonition concern-

ing any young children who might be in his audience. This, of course, was the surest come-on, making the program something of a bootleg item for adolescents.

The program's initial approach to sex deviation was wholly theatrical. In the accepted technical style of "Medic" there were close-ups of a little boy being trailed by a grinning stranger. This went on and on until a fade-out showing both of them disappearing into the woods. TV seldom has stooped so low and so needlessly so.

Then there was a personal interview with a masked sex deviate followed by some comments from a past president of a parent-teacher's group and a psychiatrist for the Veterans Administration.

In the discussion neither Mr. Coates nor his guests were able to spell out on the air what they were talking about, with the result that the program raised more questions than it answered.

Such television is futile. Mr. Coates knows as well as anyone else that television, no matter how many warnings, plays to a mixed audience of all ages. It is not for a journalist to presume to have the knowledge to present a study in abnormal psychology to a general TV public which can only listen and not ask questions.

TV must recognize that it suffers from the basic limitation of not knowing the audience to which it speaks. This imposes a special responsibility not to dabble superficially in a matter such as sex deviation. Until TV can give evidence of handling such subjects well, it should be mature enough not to try to sneak by under the label of "For Adults Only."

9