Programmers Ponder Kids’ TV Under New Law : Broadcasting: Statute requires shows to serve ‘the educational and informational needs of children.’ But the definition is vague and open to debate.

The morning after the Children’s Television Act of 1990 became law, TV programmer Matt Cooperstein did not yank any cartoon shows or add any educational fare or otherwise alter the program mix that his station beams out to children every day.

In fact, Cooperstein, the program director at KCAL Channel 9 in Los Angeles, took no action that in any way reflected that the new law--meant to transform children’s television--was aimed at him and his broadcasting colleagues at stations across the country. But he was thinking about it.

And that, for now, is the most significant aspect of the Children’s Television Act of 1990. Cooperstein and programmers across the country have just been regulated, and for the first time in more than five years, they are having to apply the vague ideal of public-interest standards as well as bottom-line considerations to their children’s programming.

The irony of the long-delayed, much-debated Children’s Television Act is that its most spotlighted aspect is its limitation on the amount of commercial time that broadcasters can sell in children’s programming. But that is the portion of the legislation that will probably have the least practical effect: Most broadcasters in this country already follow practices that fall well within the restrictions established by the new law.

It is another, subtler portion of the bill that may have the more lasting effect. The provision requires stations to serve “the educational and informational needs of children” in their programming. That is the sort of vague, highly subjective language (very much like the “public interest, convenience and necessity” mandate in the Communications Act of 1934) that once put caution in the hearts of broadcasters, prompting them to overcompensate with news and public affairs and other less profitable programming in order to protect their lucrative licenses against regulatory challenge.

In the past decade, when broadcasters operated virtually free of regulatory scrutiny in this area, programmers could easily maintain that a daily slate of of “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles,” “Ghostbusters” and “Duck Tales” served children’s interests. But would it qualify today?

“I don’t think ‘Duck Tales’ provides an educational service,” said Cooperstein, whose station carries the syndicated cartoon series from Disney. “It certainly provides an entertainment service, and it is wholesome entertainment.”

That is the sort of dilemma television programmers now have to consider routinely: Is wholesome enough? In the children’s TV program mix, how many parts education are required for how many parts entertainment?

The Federal Communications Commission, the regulatory agency with which the television stations must deal, will be the final arbiter in that debate, and much of how the bill plays out depends on how aggressively the commission pursues its mandate.

Bill Johnson, deputy chief of the FCC’s mass media bureau, predicts that the renewed threat of regulatory challenge will stimulate changes in children’s television, just as the vaguely worded guidelines of past years did.

“This changes the environment,” Johnson said. “The broadcast stations have a huge amount at risk. As long as there was something (in the way of regulatory rules), even if the public was unsure of what it was, they could go down to the station and complain and the station couldn’t say, ‘Get out of here.’ This creates an area for discussions.”

That was precisely the intent of one of the principal champions of the new law, children’s television advocate Peggy Charren, president of Action for Children’s Television. She noted that broadcast lobbyists worked on the bill, and signed off on it before its passage, but added, “I don’t know if they knew what they were opening themselves up to. . . . (Before the law), there was no hook to hang the discussion on.”

Charren said that she is counting on other proponents of the bill, such as the National Education Assn. and the National PTA, to follow through by pressing local stations on the matter of “quality” children’s programming.

What Charren and other supporters of change in children’s television want from the act is new diversity in children’s fare, as well as a reining in of the commercialization of kids’ TV. No one knows what shows will be born because of the new law--if any--but given the climate, it can be safely guessed that there will be no new outbreak of rampant commercialization in children’s television, such as that of the early- and mid-1980s, when so-called “program-length commercials” were the kidvid rage. It was a time when, unfettered by regulatory caution, toy manufacturers invented television shows designed to help sell a new line of toy, sometimes even sharing profits with the stations.

Under the Children’s Television Act, the FCC is ordered to conclude an inquiry into “program-length commercials” mandated by the courts three years ago, but delayed pending the legislative battle over the act.

That trend, however, seemed to be dying on its own anyway, with toy-driven shows foundering in the marketplace against competition from such traditional character-driven shows as “Duck Tales,” a program that exists first and foremost as an entertainment vehicle.

It happens that passage of the act dovetails with a move already afoot in the industry toward greater emphasis on children’s programming, partly reflecting the profits that good ratings in children’s time periods can bring. Most program executives interviewed said that they had active plans for children’s programming, independent from the mandate from Washington.

Margaret Loesch, who is head of the children’s programming division of the Fox network, said that her department is producing a series of one-minute information spots for children to be broadcast on the Fox network. That is an idea similar to the old “In the News” segments once broadcast by CBS News for its affiliates, partly to satisfy the public service mandate of the FCC.

Cooperstein, of KCAL, foresees the creation of more shows “that speak to family and children’s issues and that offer solutions,” he said. “I see programs out there that do have messages and positive role models for children.” His own station has run a series of specials produced by Group W, called “For Kids Sake,” that deal with such issues as literacy and home safety, which are supported by a community outreach program administered by the station.

One possible source of new programming may be the National Endowment for Children’s Educational Television, an enterprise mandated by the new law, to be administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

The law authorizes that up to $6 million be spent over the next two years to foster educational television programs that will be run on public television for two years and then made available to schools or, for that matter, commercial broadcasters--the only hitch being that the programs cannot be interrupted by commercials. Specific appropriations still must be approved by Congress.

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), chief sponsor of the endowment portion of the law, hoped that such an endowment might spark new interest in children’s programming in the production community.

“We felt we needed to provide some incentive so there would be more educational programming,” said an aide to the senator. The endowment differs from other federal sources of programming funds because it pertains only to children’s television, and its guidelines strictly require an educational focus in the programs it funds.