Let’s Hope Children’s TV Act Will Vanquish Ninja Turtles

Imagine what a different experience television would be for adults if the only programs offered were situation comedies and action-adventure shows. No evening news, no “60 Minutes,” no music, culture, or drama--only endless episodes built around laugh

tracks and good-versus-evil fantasy themes. In such a world, television would no doubt be criticized for a lack of diversity and an overall failure to realize its potential.

Now adjust the focus of this picture to programming for children. You can forget about the need for imagination. The range of children’s programs provided by commercial television over the years has been little more than sitcoms and action-adventure formats, albeit mostly packaged in a genre better known as cartoons.

With the exception of occasional specials to aid their conscience, most stations offer no serious dramatic programs for children, no news or information shows, no series to stimulate children’s curiosity about nature, science or the arts--in short, no diversity, just “mind candy.”

The Children’s Television Act just approved by Congress is meant to remedy this situation, as well as reverse the increasing commercialization of children’s TV. But will it work? Can this regulation really accomplish meaningful change?

A principal element of the bill is a requirement that stations serve the educational and informational needs of children through their overall programming, including content specifically designed for children.

These last few words, specifically designed for childre n, are the key to the legislation’s value. Simply requiring stations to serve children’s needs through their “overall programming” would accomplish nothing new. Every broadcaster airing reruns of “The Cosby Show” or “Family Ties” could claim these shows have educational value for children, teaching them important social and moral lessons, and thus fulfill their obligation under the law.

While such family-oriented programs indeed have merit, they don’t address children’s special needs and interests. Neither are they tailored to be readily comprehensible to young viewers, who may miss subtle elements in adult-oriented plots. Relying on them to serve the needs of our youth would be like constructing a building for a children’s library, then filling it with books intended for adults.

What new content are we likely to see under the new law, assuming President Bush doesn’t veto it? I anticipate more reality-based programs, including some children’s news shows.

Educational game shows are a possibility. Any program premise to facilitate visits to distant lands and cultures would be attractive. Perhaps it’s wishful thinking, but wouldn’t it be terrific to see an important historical documentary like “The Civil War” translated into a form youngsters could understand?

Commercial television’s Achilles heel is that it treats all viewers the same, while children have special needs and limits in their comprehension abilities. Children’s Television Workshop, which produces “Sesame Street,” carefully researches each episode to ensure its appeal and comprehensibility to particular age ranges. This technique is expensive but effective and provides an excellent model for commercial TV to emulate.

The act leaves the choice of content up to the good-faith judgment of each broadcaster. That leaves lots of room for creativity and diversity, as well as abuse. Not much will be accomplished if stations claim that “He-Man” or “G.I. Joe” are educational.

The act also limits the amount of commercials during children’s programs. Basic fairness requires that a consumer be able to weigh the fact that advertising claims and appeals may be biased and exaggerated. Young children inherently lack the reasoning abilities to make these judgments and thus are particularly vulnerable to commercial persuasion.

The major oversight of the legislation is that the new limits on advertising during children’s programming (12 minutes per hour on weekdays, 10.5 on weekends) apply solely to traditional forms of advertising: the 15-, 30- or 60-second spot.

The thorny problem that won’t go away is advertising that masquerades as programming, or the so-called program-length commercial.

By avoiding the topic of program-length commercials, the Children’s Television Act creates a strange paradox. The breaks between programs may contain no more than 10.5 to 12 minutes of commercials per hour. In contrast, the programs themselves are virtually unlimited advertisements.

This concern is hardly an idle one. “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” was taken from an existing comic-book series and packaged as part of a mass-merchandising campaign from its earliest stages of development. “Super Mario Brothers 3” on Saturday morning is obviously a video-game promotion, even including the product’s most recent version number in the program title to ensure that young consumers aren’t confused about what to buy.

By most accounts, about half of all children’s programs currently have direct product tie-ins. You can almost hear the toy manufacturers laughing behind Congress’ back. Why worry about limits on 30-second ads when 30-minute versions work just fine?

Except for this omission, the Children’s Television Act is a very sound approach to improving kids’ TV. History teaches us that broadcasters simply will not air educational programs when they can avoid it. That decision is based on simple economics. But even today, broadcasting remains more than a business. It is a trusteeship, licensed to serve the public interest. This bill should help to better tap TV’s potential to benefit the nation’s children.

See letters to Counterpunch, F4.