Producers of Kids’ TV Face Tough Assignment

The Federal Communications Commission, whose former chairman once labeled television a “vast wasteland,” is now hoping to augment the medium’s role as a classroom.

After months of wrangling, FCC Chairman Reed Hundt now has enough votes to pass a guideline that would effectively require broadcasters to program a minimum of three hours a week of educational programming aimed at children.

In the eyes of many veteran children’s TV executives, however, this campaign for educational programming--whether well intentioned or politically motivated--doesn’t address the major challenges such an initiative presents.

Foremost are questions about what qualifies as educational programming, how to get children to tune into programs fitting that description and whether it does any real good to offer such shows if they’re not watched.

“This is a lovely, altruistic concept to do this,” said Jean MacCurdy, president of Warner Bros. TV Animation, who also oversees children’s programming for the WB Network. “The practical matters are something else. . . . You cannot present a pure curriculum-based program and expect that kids are going to sit down and watch it.”

Nevertheless, passage of the guidelines is seemingly a foregone conclusion. Last week, President Clinton invited industry leaders to Washington for a children’s television summit next month. More than 30 U.S. senators also wrote the FCC urging the commission to enact the requirement. A vote on the issue is possible this week but may wait till the commission’s next open meeting, on June 27.

As a result, the industry’s focus must shift from trying to forestall such regulation to finding an effective means of achieving its goals.

Producers and executives generally agree that children resist programs labeled “educational,” preferring escapist fare, just as adults do.

“When a child is in a classroom, he or she is a captive audience, and they’re there with an agenda,” said Margaret Loesch, president of the top-rated Fox Children’s Network. “I do not believe that, in a home setting, children turn on the TV to learn a curriculum.”

For that reason, Loesch said, educational content “has to be integrated in such a way so as not to stop the story and disengage the child.”

Rather than teaching a specific curriculum, the Fox executive contends that television is more effective at imparting values and motivating, a standard she thinks many shows that aren’t considered educational already achieve.

“If you try and hit the kids over the head with the educational stuff, forget it, they tune out,” said DIC Entertainment President Andy Heyward, whose company produces Fox’s “Where on Earth Is Carmen Sandiego?”--based on a popular game that teaches children geography--and the syndicated “Captain Planet,” which cloaks environmental themes in superheroic adventures.

Foremost, then, such shows “have got to be entertaining,” Heyward said, adding that conventional wisdom has been that educational fare won’t attract an audience. “If it’s not commercial, what good does it do to make educational programming if kids don’t watch?”

Mark Waxman, executive producer of the science-teaching children’s program “Beakman’s World” on CBS, said that with that show, “I felt that the entry port was through the funny bone.” Even so, the show has undergone changes since its 1993 premiere, becoming faster-paced and less linear.

Producers must “in some way disguise the message deftly, [using] lots of humor, lots of MTV styling,” Waxman said. That’s especially true in Saturday morning, he added, when kids crave a break from their weekday obligations, not “a sixth day of school.”

*

In that vein, Waxman said his new show for CBS, “My POV,” “will qualify as FCC-friendly, but you’ll be hard-pressed to say why after seeing an episode until you’ve analyzed it a bit.”

Whether that will be enough to satisfy critics remains to be seen. In an interview, Hundt downplayed industry doubts about the efficacy of the proposal, saying he’s “absolutely convinced our creative community can easily respond to this opportunity.”

As for the contention that children will avoid educational fare, Hundt said such labels need only run in TV listings, which children aren’t likely to read. “What we’re talking about is trying to give parents the ability to promote a certain show,” he said.

Programmers nevertheless say educational programs are competitively handicapped against action fare or movie adaptations. They also cite a need to differentiate commercial broadcasting from public television, which doesn’t face the same economic pressures in terms of attracting an audience.

While successful for PBS, shows such as “Barney & Friends” and “Sesame Street” appeal principally to preschool children and would find it difficult competing in a commercial environment, programmers say.

Fox learned that lesson when it introduced a weekday morning program, “Fox Cubhouse,” aimed at preschool kids. Most of the shows were canceled because of low ratings, with Fox now trying to salvage one component of that effort, “Rimba’s Island.”

Older children, in the age bracket of 6 to 12, are harder to reach with educational programs, and questions arise about what grade level or age to target. Warner Bros.’ MacCurdy said her company has been discussing a project with veteran producer Norman Lear but acknowledges that producers are still “groping in the dark” both as to what works with kids and what will satisfy the FCC.

Children’s Television Workshop, which produces “Sesame Street,” has moved into the commercial realm, producing an ABC series titled “Cro” that was canceled after two seasons.

*

Still, CTW Chief Operating Officer Emily B. Swenson maintains that producers can meet broadcasters’ commercial needs and also serve children educationally. “My own sense is that it’s not that much to ask to set the bar a little higher,” she said.

Those pressing for the three-hour rule also maintain that educational programs can’t be held to the same ratings standard as other children’s fare.

“Children’s television is going to be less profitable than other areas,” said a spokesman for U.S. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), one of the legislators pushing for the three-hour requirement. But stations must serve that market “if [broadcasting in] the public interest has any meaning.”

The larger issue remains getting viewers to support educational programs. A list of the top-rated children’s series still features a litany of action-oriented shows such as “Power Rangers Zeo,” “X-Men” and “The Mask”--many of which have drawn fire for their level of violent content.

Broadcasters also fear that curriculum-based educational fare will drive viewers to competitors--specifically cable, which would not be bound by the guidelines. (Cable is not licensed by the FCC, while broadcasters are, so meeting the three-hour requirement would be tied to their license renewals.)

Nickelodeon’s audience has grown sharply, building that loyalty in part by offering irreverent shows like “Ren & Stimpy” that thumb their noses at more traditional programs.

By contrast, network ratings have already declined in Saturday morning because of increased broadcast competition as well as videos, Nickelodeon and other cable channels. Broadcasters are consequently sensitive about the possibility of further compromising the strength of their schedules.

Many executives and producers say they welcome this interest in improving the quality of children’s programming but want critics to understands their competitive dilemma. Past efforts at providing educational programs, they note, have seldom been rewarded in the marketplace.

“They do have choices in the supermarket we call television,” said “Beakman’s” Waxman, referring to viewers both young and old. Presented with options, he added, the question becomes, “Do they run to the sugar aisle or go to the fruits and vegetables?”