|
CHILDREN'S PROGRAMMING |
Copyright, 2002
Dr. Janet McMullen
Last Updated: Friday, May 03, 2002
As I revisee this lecture in April, 2001, the focus of the public and the policy makers was once again on television and its effects on children and adolescents. The two year anniversary of the fifteen lost lives in Littleton, Colorado had the nation once again examining the content of its culture and the primary medium within that culture. However, we've done that before, and you're going to have to decide whether or not you think we've done any good.
As early as 1960, the FCC recognized the significance of the issue of Children's Television, and established a policy that the needs of children must be addressed for the broadcaster to meet public interest requirements.
In 1971, Peggy Charren of Action for Children's Television petitioned the FCC to evaluate existing children's television and limit the number of commercials in it.
SPECIAL NOTE: Remember the name, Peggy Charren. She founded ACT out of a mother's concern that there were not educational and informational programs for children and that kids were being used by advertisers to get mom to buy cereal, candy and toys. She did more to impact this issue and bring about change than anyone else. She is a testament to the idea that one person CAN make a difference. She stayed working on this issue until the FCC established the three-hour rule a few years ago. Remember her and her contribution.
In 1974, the FCC issued its Policy Statement on Children and Television. In this statement, the FCC said that broadcasters had an affirmative responsibility to air educational and informational television for children during the week as well as on weekends.. It also limited the number of commercial minutes within a children's program and mandated separation between the program and the commercials within and around it. It prohibited "host selling" within a program. (In other word, Fred Flintstone couldn't sell Flintstone Vitamins in The Flintstones.; Fred could sell the product, but not in or adjacent to his own show.)
When the FCC evaluated broadcaster performance on this issue in 1978, it found broadcasters had followed the commercial policy, but not the programming policy. It then issued an NOI to evaluate the situation. However, this was a the beginning of the deregulatory era, and the commission concluded no further action on kid's television was necessary. The decision was appealed and years passed.
By the late 1980s, children's advocated had become more than irritated with the commission and approached Congress for action. They got it: The Children's Television Act of 1990.
1990: The Children's Television Act
Congress recognized the importance of television as a learning tool for kids, and held that broadcasters had the obligation to provide appropriate and positive programming for them. That programming had to informational and educational. They also listed some other stipulations:
1992: AUDIT television stations
The FCC audited stations in 1992 to see if they were complying with the act. Most stations were okay, but some had egregious violations. Some stations claimed programs like "Coach" and "Roseanne" and "Who's the Boss" were children's programs. For example, WTTA(TV) St. Petersburg fined $10,000 for repeatedly running more than 12 minutes of spots (up to 14.5 in some hours) An article in Broadcasting and Cable on October 25th, 1993, "FCC hands out $80,000 in fines", provided additional examples of what the FCC found and how it reacted:
In March 1993, the FCC found 98 % of stations were under the commercial limits and launched an inquiry to determine the broadcasters' obligation to serve "educational and informational needs of children." At the same time Congress was getting tough -- stressing that cartoons didn't do the job: Reruns of the Flintsones and The Jetsons did NOT meet the informational and educational needs...By 1994, stations had been fined.
At the 1995 National Association of Broadcasters' Convention on April 11, it attended a session with FCC Legal Counsel Roy Steward and other com lawyers stressed:
The only thing that could really jeopardize a license at that time were:
Chairman Reed Hundt had proposed a plan whereby rules for children's television would include:
Hundt also suggested that stations might be able to farm out their programming for kids to another station. This question is not particularly popular with the rest of the commission.
Commissioner Quello was particularly concerned about content regulations and over-specification in this matter. Andrew Barrett was equally against formal content regulations.
The FCC found only 1 of the top 30 programs and only 6 programs out of the next 30 (these are children's network and syndicated shows) which were "FCC Friendly."
In 1995, Hundt proposed Community Kid's Contracts: In each market all broadcasters would state concretely and specifically how they intend to give parents a choice of high-quality, decent, nonviolent and educational programming and how they would give parents the power to choose,....Then we at the FCC would base their license renewal on their success or failure in performing as they promised.
He said, "We wonder if television is hindering rather than helping our efforts to teach values to kids," He added some figure: 80% of Americans think TV is harmful to society; more than 90% of programs during children's prime viewing hours are violent, and the average child in the U.S. watches more than 1,000 rapes, murders , armed robberies and assaults each year.(Broadcasting and Cable, 10/2/95 ) Issue became very heated. House Telecommunications and Finance Subcommittee Chairman Jack Fields declared informal war on what he called social engineering at the FCC. He was concerned that FCC was forcing Westinghouse and Disney to make agreements about kids TV before approving their merger proposals. He called it legalized extortion. There was also concern that broadcasters were selling out the first Amendment. The folks at the FCC got mad. Things were politically touchy for a while as a compromise was sought.
In September, 1995, the FCC conducted an audit to determine how broadcasters were doing, and found no "large pattern" of violation.
In October, 1995, the National Association of Broadcasters claimed stations have increased their efforts at children's programming, but there's some question about the programs they selected.--Yogi Bear, America's Funniest Home videos, Power Rangers and G.I. Joe were listed as children's educational/informational programs. The FCC had to answer questions about what was and was not children's television.
Broadcasters supported their claims in this way:
Life Goes On -series about young man with downs syndrome "exposes young viewer to characters with a variety of mental and physical disabilities, building empathy and understanding."
Saved by the Bell - "delivers pro-social messages to adolescents."
One broadcaster commented at the panel, "I don't think my role as a broadcaster is to educate children,"...."They're getting that damn stuff in school." She also stressed that educational shows have to be really compelling if they're to succeed at 6 a.m. Other broadcasters said THE JETSONS wasn't particularly educational, but it was still a good kid's show.
In early August of 1996, after months of wrangling and negotiating, an agreement was reached. (See Broadcasting, 8/5/96p5-12;7/8/96;7/15/96p8;7/22/96p12;8/5/96p102 (editorial)
Beginning with the fall of 1996 TV Season, broadcasters had to air three hours of children's education and information programming per week, or present sufficient reasons to the FCC why they have not done so. Programming could be part of the stations "core" programming or could be special programming.
Additionally, children' s informational and educational programming had to be identified.
Children are defined for the purposes of this rule as those aged 16 and younger. The needs of children met by the programming should be either intellectual/cognitive or social/emotional needs.
Each quarter, stations must place in the public file, those efforts they have made to meet the "e&i" needs of kids. Through 2000, stations must file an annual report concerning their children's programming and at the end of three years, the FCC will conduct an audit to determine how well the rule worked. They may conduct spot-checks prior to that period.
The next issue to be settled concerning Children's programming was in response to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which mandated v-chip technology in all television sets. In order for the technology to work, a ratings system had to be developed. Major controversy surrounded its development and two opposing camps were formed:
1. Parents groups, educators and members of Congress who wanted the adoption of a content-based systems similar to the HBO system which had been in effect for several years. In that system designations were made for various types of content in a program: s=sex; v=violence; L=language, etc. Broadcasters, NAB and others, including Jack Valenti (head of the Motion Picture Association of America and developer of the MPAA movie ratings system) found such a method objectionable because it DID involve content. They saw it as content regulation and an infringement of the First Amendment.
2. Broadcasters, NAB, led by Jack Valenti and the MPAA. While Valenti, who was charged with developing a ratings system, held hearings during which the HBO system was praised as providing more information to parents, he held fast the MPAA model which was his creation. He believe the HBO system would be "too confusing" for parents. (Boy are we in trouble if THAT is too confusing for parents! How will they ever deal with homework and adolescence?)
Congress had made it clear that if the industry did not adopt a voluntary ratings system in time for the V-Chip law to be implemented, Congress would see the government would establish one. The current rating system with TV-14, TV-M and others was adopted in time to be implemented on Jan. 1, 1997. The deal was worked out among the Clinton administration, the NAB and children's television advocates.
Currently, there is still serious concern that this system is not providing enough information to parents. Congress has indicated hearings may be held in the near future to examine the success of the current system. Watch this summer to see what happens.
In 1998, a new system was adopted which indicated content-specific information concerning violence, language or sexual situations. NBC has chosen not to adopt it.
By April, 1999, the nation was becoming disturbed again about violence and sexuality in media. The shootings at Columbine High School raised the old questions again, and hearings were held in Washington. The media representatives didn't even show up at first, and had few answers when they did. Congress, then in a more of trusteeship mode demanded social responsibility. Congress made it pretty clear that it expected some changes or it would find a way...There was talk of amending the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to allow self-regulation similar to that which was done through the NAB and its code, but nothing definitive happened.
In 2000, the movie industry came under fire as did the television networks for advertising R-Rated films. A government report demonstrated that the industry actively marketed adult films to pre-seventeen audiences. Again, media leaders were called to Washington, and they pledge to do some things differently. In the last few months, there have been some changes. R-rated films are advertised later in the evening and not on some children's cable channels. In the Spring of 2001, Billy Tauzin of the House Commerce Committee will hold hearings again on the issue, and progress will be documented. The problem is that the new congress and administration operates from a decidedly marketplace position. However, it may make an exception on this issue. When it comes to protecting children, when faced with irresponsible action by media leaders, it just may be that all bets are off. It's hard to get re-elected if your constituency doesn't think you care about their kids.....
In January, 2001, the FCC released a report on Children and Television which reviewed its policy and how well that policy has been working in the last three years. The review does a good job summarizing current status. Read that report at: http://www.fcc.gov/mmb/prd/cetv/
You can also look at the Children's Television Rules at http://www.fcc.gov/mmb/prd/kidstv.html This site tracks the progress and implementation of the rules and has valuable links to additional information. You are not expected to go too deeply into all of those details. Just be sure you understand what is expected of broadcasters and how they are reacting to it.
Required Reading: The FCC also has another beneficial site called "Parents, Kids and Communications: Helping Children Benefit from Positive Communication Tools" This site summarizes the history and background and current status of Children's television issues. It is very good. Pay particular attention to
You will find this site at: http://www.fcc.gov/mmb/prd/kidstv.html
Another concern when it comes to protecting children has to do with protecting them from indecency. As we discuss that lecture, be sure to consider the interests of protecting children.
Resources
For complete history of children's television regulation, see The Report and Order on Revision of Television Programming Polices, August 8, 1996 at http://fcc.gov/fcc96335.txt
A shorter summary of this issue can be found in an address by former commissioner Rachel Chong, at http://fcc.gov/sprbc503.txt
Additional resources in Broadcasting and Cable are indicated throughout the lecture.
Copyright,
2002
Dr. Janet McMullen