Kidvid Bill Seen as Start of a ‘New Era’

When the moment finally came, Congress’ first step toward the re-regulation of television wasn’t nearly as dramatic as the most fervent among children’s television advocates had allowed themselves to dream.

After four years of deregulation, in which the Reagan-era Federal Communications Commission let the open marketplace decide what was best for children, reformers had hoped for something spectacular--such as a law forcing broadcasters to air an hour of educational programming every night of the week.

What they got last week when the House of Representatives passed the Children’s Television Act of 1988 was a political compromise, a bill that would limit the amount of commercials aired during children’s programs.

The measure was sufficiently watered down to win the tacit approval of the broadcast lobby--setting advertising limits that are actually less stringent than the FCC guidelines that were in effect prior to deregulation in 1984, and taking no position on so-called “program-length commercials”--children’s programs that are based on toys.

But for those who have been fighting to win back a special protected status for children’s television, it was enough to represent a new start.

“This could be the beginning of a new era of paying attention to children in American television,” said Peggy Charren, who, as president of the consumer group Action for Children’s Television, has been the leading proponent of re-regulation.

Just a year ago, Charren and her supporters were bemoaning their cause as nearly lost, charging that deregulation had allowed children’s television to become little more than a video version of a toy manufacturer’s catalogue.

Of particular satisfaction to Charren and her supporters is another aspect of the House measure, a vaguely drawn provision instructing the FCC to judge whether a broadcaster has “served the educational and informational needs of children in its overall programming” before granting renewal of a station’s broadcast license.

Bluntly put, the provision threatens television stations with possible license revocation if they fail to serve children, although the measure leaves it to the FCC to decide the standards that will apply and then to enforce them.

But Charren and others contend that the provision sends a signal to broadcasters of a fundamental turn from the recent laissez-faire environment in which they have been operating. After a period in which license renewal literally became a routine matter of mailing in a post card, even the faintest hint of license revocation is being counted on to produce results.

With that threat in the air, predicted Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), co-sponsor of the House bill, broadcasters will soon consider quality children’s programming as part of their daily business routine, if for no other reasons than defensive ones.

“Now they’ll have to start each day thinking about what they are doing for children,” Markey said. “This says there is an ongoing, inescapable duty to children that has now been made law.”

Not quite. The Senate also must approve the measure and President Reagan must sign it before it becomes law. No hearings on the issue have been scheduled yet, but Senate aides predicted the matter should come up soon.

Two bills dealing with children’s television already have been introduced in the Senate, but the aides said the Senate could adopt the House measure given its overwhelming approval, 328-78, and the fact that the broadcast lobby agreed not to oppose it.

That position is a far cry from the one taken earlier this year when broadcasters vowed to fight any step toward re-regulation. The children’s television bills, as introduced in the House and the Senate in February, contained some controversial provisions dealing with program content that broadcasters found objectionable. Besides requiring an hour of educational or informational programming for children each day, the bills would have banned toy-based programs.

In the House, a compromise was struck. Those provisions were dropped in exchange from assurance from the broadcasters that they would not fight the advertising limits--in part, some lobbyists suggested, because the broadcast industry is courting Congress for help on a number of other issues, including the fairness doctrine and the introduction of a new technology known as high-definition television.

In addition to requiring stations to demonstrate how they have served children as a condition of license renewal, the House bill would limit broadcasters to 10 1/2 minutes of commercials per hour of children’s shows on weekends and 12 minutes on weekdays. These guidelines give stations one more commercial minute per hour on weekends than the old FCC guidelines allowed.

Markey bristled at the suggestion that the bite had been taken out of the bill. “Here we have a major step forward that would have been called revolutionary just six months ago,” he said. He called the House vote “quite a feat, considering it’s not even the end of the Reagan era yet.”

“I think we have established here--and the broadcasters have accepted it--that a public interest coexists with the private interest,” Markey added. “It really sends a signal that children are more important than toy manufacturers.”

The actual effects of the bill, should it become law, are difficult to judge. Bob Hallahan, news bureau director for the National Assn. of Broadcasters, said stations will have no problem staying within the commercial time limits; a recent survey of 469 stations showed they air an average of 8 1/2 minutes of commercials per hour of children’s programming.

As for the provision dealing with license renewal, Hallahan called it a “hazy area” and said it therefore will be up to individual stations to determine if they are programming sufficiently for children.

Rick Feldman, vice president and station manager for KCOP Channel 13 in Los Angeles, which airs five to six hours of children’s programming daily, foresees some difficulty in determining what is “educational and informational.”

“I think the problem is going to be how do we define what all of that means,” he said. “And what do you do if you don’t run children’s programming and you don’t really have the opportunity to get or be offered any children’s programming?”

The provision will, however, be on the minds of broadcasters, Feldman said. “I definitely think when you have the commission looking over your shoulder, you tend to think more about what you’re doing,” he said.