Despite Congress, Children’s TV Still Lacking

Howard Rosenberg’s column “Kids Lose as ‘Saturday Today’ Caters to Adults” (Calendar, Aug. 10) adds another grain of sand to the mountain of complaints that have collected over the years about the general lack of worthwhile children’s programming on broadcast television.

His observation that NBC missed an excellent opportunity to target the child audience with a “Today”-style news and information show on Saturday mornings is right on target. What he fails to note, however, is the irony of NBC’s recent move to pull back on its children’s programming so soon after the recent approval by Congress of the Children’s Television Act of 1990.

The act established a new requirement that each broadcast station must provide educational and informational programming for children in order to qualify for its license renewal. The renewal process occurs only once every five years for television stations and is the licensee’s opportunity to demonstrate that the station has fulfilled its “public interest” obligation under the 1934 Communications Act.

That obligation is the most basic element of the bargain struck between broadcasters and the government. A license to broadcast on the publicly owned airwaves is given away for free by the Federal Communications Commission.

In return, the licensee must comply with regulations that are meant to ensure some balance between a station’s concern for profits and its service in the public interest.

In many content areas, such as with the delivery of news and information for adults, there is little if any gap between serving the public interest and maintaining a station’s profitability. Few would claim that stations fail to provide an adequate amount of news coverage, although the nature of that coverage is often the subject of healthy debate.

Such programming is aired because it draws sizable audiences of people that advertisers are trying to reach--adults with spending power.

In contrast, audiences of children are of less value to advertisers and hence also to broadcasters. In addition, targeting the child audience runs contrary to the dictates of seeking the largest possible number of viewers. Children between 2-12 years make up only about 16% of the U.S. population.

These factors explain why children’s programming has traditionally received short shrift from the broadcast industry. But all of that was supposed to change once Congress enacted the Children’s Television Act.

After a year of advance warning, each station was expected to comply with the new children’s educational programming requirements as of October, 1991. Have you noticed the significant improvement since then in programs for children? Neither have I.

The fact that NBC has now reduced its commitment to program for children is symptomatic of the problem with this new law--the standards are vague and the FCC has evidenced little interest in enforcing the new requirement.

What sort of program can qualify as “educational” under the act? That’s up to the broadcaster to decide.

I am currently conducting a study of recent licensee renewal applications at the FCC to assess what content stations are citing as fulfilling the educational requirement. While this research is not yet complete, a clear pattern is already apparent. One might call it the “shotgun” approach--shoot widely at the target and hope something sticks.

According to renewal applications currently on file at the FCC, almost every children’s program on the air is claimed as educational content for purposes of fulfilling the Children’s Television Act. These include “Alvin & the Chipmunks,” “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes,” “Beetlejuice,” “Bullwinkle,” “Casper the Friendly Ghost,” “Darkwing Duck,” “G.I. Joe,” “James Bond Jr.,” “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles,” “Toxic Crusaders” and many more.

Not much new here, and certainly not much with the educational value I expect Congress intended to promote with the new law. The list almost sounds like the target of complaints I remember hearing at the congressional hearings that examined the need for the act.

Can stations get away with this flouting of the spirit if not the letter of the new law regarding children’s television? So long as no one complains, absolutely.

In implementing the act, the FCC decided to assume compliance with the educational programming requirement unless a formal complaint is filed with the agency challenging a station’s performance. According to the FCC, it would be too burdensome for it to monitor compliance on its own.

Stations that cut back on their service to children, as NBC has done, as well as those that claim the “mind-candy” programs listed above as educational contributions, are banking on the likelihood that no one will call their bluff. The FCC has certainly tilted the playing field in their favor.

Not many parents, regardless of how disgruntled, opt to prepare legal briefs for the FCC in their spare time. Of course, those who might want to try would have plenty of time to handle the task, since the license-renewal process occurs only once every five years for each station.

It clearly is too soon to label the Children’s Television Act a failure. A serious license challenge could come along and wake up the industry.

But the biggest problem right now is that no one seems to know about the act and its requirements, which renders it rather meaningless.

When Rosenberg or others have complaints that TV should do more for kids, it’s important to remember that the law is now on their side.