Action for Children's Television. INSTITUTICN Freedom of Information Center, Columtia, Mo

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 135 035 CS 501 620 AUTHOR Eanly, ronaLl P. TITLE Action for Children's Television. INSTITUTICN Freedom of information Center, Columtia, Mo. REPORT NO EIC-364" PUBDATE Dec 76 NCTE, 13p.

EDES PEICE MF-$0.83 HC-$1.67 Plus Postage. 9 DESCRIPTORS *Broadcast Industry; *Change Strategies; *Childrens Television; Elementary Secondary Education; Government Role; Organizational Change; *Programing (Broadcast); Publicize; *Social Action IDENTIFIERS *Action for Childrens Television ABSTRACT The origins, development, and effectiveness of Action fcr Children's Television (ACT) are examined in this pamphlet. The strategies used by ACT to obtain change at the congressional level and within television stations and networks include the followinv a "tuneout" day when people are urged to turn off'their television sets, a boycott of certain advertised goods, the "Bent Antenna" award for the poorest taste in children's television programing, and lobbying and the consolidation of'public pressure. Special attention is given to ACT's successful attempt to alter government agency 'standards for the advertising of certain food items and toys during children's prime television-watching times. (KS)

1 ********************4************************************************** * Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished -* -.* materials nct avai able from other sources. ERIC m4kes every.effort * * tc obtain.tbe best copy.available. Nevertheless, items of marginal * * reproducibility are often: encountered and this affects the quality *

. * ol the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available . *

* via the ERIC Docufent Reproduction_Service (EDRS). EDRS is not )0'. * .responsible fcr tie qualityof.the original document. Reproductions *.. * supplied by ELRS re the best that can be made from the original.r * ******************* ******4*********************1,**4******************4 SCHOOL OF JOURNMISM, UNIVERSITY r-rN OF MISSOURI AT COLUMBIA U S OEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DECEMBER, 1976 EDUCAIIOP I WELFARE C.) NATIONL INSTITUTE OF L.C.1 EDUCATION 00CuMENT...AS BEEN REPRO- OuCED E AC TLY AS 4ECEvE0 PROM T.E PERSON OP ORC;AN,ZAT.ON ORtG,N- ATING T F.O.NTS OF 24%, O OPIN,ONS STATED 00 NOT NECESSARq PEPRE-- CI SENT 01..F .c:AL NAT.ONAL ,NST.TuTE OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REPORT NO. 364 EDUCATION POSITiON DP POLICY ACTION FOR CHILDREN'S TELEVISION This report was written by Donald P. Raaly, Associate who lived in Newton. Massachusetts. a suhurh Of Boston Professor at the University of Missouri School of Journal- with her hushand. plasti_k manufacturer. and their two ism, as part of his doctorai dissertation, The Challengers: daughters. Mrs. Charren had worked in conunercial tele- Social Pressures on the Press 1965-1975. vision in Nev. York. She had also owned and operateda introduction print gallery inProvidence. Rhode Island. started company that orcanized children's hook fairs in Boston and Some of th many pressure groups concerned with the served as chairman of the Newton Creative Arts Council. media that arose out of the sixties died quietly in the early One day while Mrs. Charren was watching her 3-year- seventiessome even hefore the seventies. But some of Iihsorhed in from ot a TV set, she deci Jed televkion them have been unusually successful in what they set Out programing for Children could he improved. More specific:- to do. Ant if they- have not heen successful. they have at ally. she came to helieve that in the eight years since her flast heen persktent. older daughter had watched the same kinds of programs. ActionforChildren'sTelevisiondeservesdetailed the incidence of violence had significantlyincreased. treatment hecause itis an example of middle-class activism One day when she noticed that "very violent movie" working within the system, using many of the techniques had heen aired during C'hrisImas Viication, %he called a and approaches employed hy what some would call more local station to ask why it had been scheduled ata time "radical" croups. Mmost from the heginning. ACT knew when children were very likely to he at home watching. A how to use the news media to puhlicize what it was dointz.,, station official replied that the movie had ,heen selected Second.it came' to know the law and the governmental precisely hecause children would he at home watching at agencies and how to "get to" them. Third. it used tactics that time. "That they didn't even think to question itin- designed to gain anention: "tuneout." a day when people dicated that not enough people were paynig attention." were urged to turn off their television sets:, a hoycott of Mrs. Charren said, ( Wall Sfrrei Journal. 8-5-74 L 'certain advertised goods: annual "rallies": the "Bent An- Mrs. Charren spoke to some of her friend% about her tenna" awards for the poorest taste in children's television: concerns. and finally cot a group of them together to dk- a game called "Switch," °Which was to teach children and cuss the suhject. "We asked ourselves 'the kinds of ques- their parents now to enjoy turning off their television sets. tions a group of citizens shout(' ask when they decide to Most of all. ACT`deserves attention heeause the group change something in the system that isn't working right.: is larger, better organized kind financed, and prohably more Fifteen friends, neighhors. teachers and pediatricianswere determined than ever to add to the improvements it thinks t that first meeting. all concerned, hut with little knowl- it has made in programing for the young viewing audience. edge of how w proceed. All we had were gut :reactions," Mrs. Charren said.( Wall Journal. 8-5-74).."And there\ Origik no better way to make people pay .no atteinion to you than Like Many groups. ACT began unpretentiously. and to speak from no knowledge." . for various reasons, broadcasters first experienced sonic But four people whom .Mrs. Charren contacted :Ow difficultyin taking the group 'seriously. wanted to change something in the system badly enough A% Leonard Gross!wrOte in TV Guide, the origins of to hegin .doing something ahout it. They had at least one ACT "are likea demoeratic- dream.") After all. Gross thine in commonthey were allmothers.. said. in a democracy, when someone disturhed by some- Mrs. Evelyn Sarson, a native of England. formerly thing in soeicty he or she should he ,ible to do sOmething employed hy the Reuters News Agency in Paris and the

about . Guardian in Manchester, England, wife Of a producer. In this caw, the perturhed person was Peggy Charren, -also British. for puhlic TV's WGBH in Boston, moiher of "a nonworking-working housewife" inher-. middle 30's, tv.6, served as the first president of the grOup.

Summary: Flw author proviqesdetaikd information on tin.. originsand developinvnt 11111111111111111 of AUFone of th,e nmst successful citizen pressnre groops toeinerge from dic:sixties. This isl the second Paper published bv the Freedom of 1nfoilna- tion Conter.on tins group. The earlier report, -Action for Children's vision (ACT):' $,Io. 265. by Melinda Elledge. waS published in Alust, 1971.

Additional copies: 2Se oath. FOI REPORT O. 364 P. 2 mendousk m two de2ade.." CTION FOR C1111.1-Yft EN'S TELEVISION he --uheoninuttee heai mg, concerned 1/4,coarelIltS 211114 . which would amend the Communications Act to Mrs Judith ( flatten.!,zradriate of P.iiti( oll egc. pre- establish orderl procedure, tor the consimkration of appli- emplosedinboth ,nd edue.monai ,:ornmercial i-ation tor renewal ot broadcast licenses. 'Mrs. Sarson op- .telesiskal. !minder ot E.,ers man's, Ihe.:tre. the first posed S2iHu4. explainin, that the F( C "doe, not have perarental theater croup in ihe Boston arca. se ot ant definitive cratena hy which to Judge a station. other buddaig ,,:ontractOr. mother of three. :erved as treasu-, than thc nebulous 'serving the public interet. convemenc.: N1rsJoann Spiro. graduate ot tine arts trom Boston and neeessity: adding: "Jlie EC( ,has raftly !found any iii,.ersit%. tree lance kicI'2:1e1 11! a 111Flpher ot areln- broadc ister gtihi it not meeting this requirement What :ee!ural and ...raphie marenal,. mo.her ot two. ;raised a, .the FCC needed weie "standards and utidelines- hy whieh a research assistant n could e\ aluat,-istation', performance She then offered MrsI !Han -'onbros WO.L.; .1d16.1te of CO' rid)I 'no er a, example, NC Is proposed guidlines for ehildren-, tehe- fit A. rand ot Ifarald Ed.I. former ',don programing. producer oteducationalradio programs, newspaperre- porter. teacher and commumeations rescarehe-. wife of an Where:I,: I11..: interests of the pubtic be.t served ernployee t Boston', pubh.- television siatior. mother of when children are considered a, a special audience

three. served m an executo.e committee menther. and not as potential consumer,. 1 he women did receive help.\Irs. Sarson wrote in 't herefore: The foilowing ruks should govern

earb 1971 that tour uncut ss cre sers M.! :11 iser; to .AC I : all programing for children! 4 Dr.'stiltonF.Akecs, executive director.Fducat;on oh -there shall he no sponsorship -and no com- Young ( hildren. W.istungton. D.C.: Dr. Richard Galdston. meretals on children'. program,. chief. tri-pati.mt psschiatric consultant service. Children-, 2. No performer shall he perniitted to use or Hospital Medical Center. Boston: Dr. I-1 Marl H. Goldin, mention product,. s-rv ices or store, hw. hrandname ;issociate ptofessor itt coninutrucations. Roston Universit% during children's programs. nor shall such name, School of Public Communication,: Richard Lewis, po:t he included in any may during 'children-, programs: and editor. director of "Fouchstone (-enter for Children. 3. Each station shall provide a minimum Of New York:: 14 hours of programinf per week for children as

The grot-pfirstbe;:ameinvolvedina ,localissue, part of its public service, requirement . . . Provi- WHDH-1 V inBoston had expandedits (-BS mOrnimg sions shallhe made for programing ineach of news ;ind reduced "Captain Kangaroo- from an hour to the followirfg areas within the-limes specified:' a one-hal:. hOur nro:uleast. The group demanded, through A. Preschool: Ages 2 fti 5: 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. lettcr-writing campaign and pickets, thatthe Captain daily: 7 a.m..to 6 p.m. weekends. regain his full hour. Their first battle ended in victory. and B. Primary: Ages 0 to 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. daily the group had received the encouragement to continue it, 8 a.m. toli p.m. weekends. crusade for ehldren's television. C. Elementary: Ages lit to 12; 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. 1-or at least a year, beginning in -1968, they -4,./adtheir daily: a.m. to 9' p.m. weekends. homework- -reading the magazine, Of the-l/roadcastingui- .rhese rules.shall he enforced by the Federal iltisirs.monitoring televsionprograms. talkingto -local Communications Commission. Infraction shall he hroadcasters. After they thought they-knew what they were grounds fur reVocation of license. talking about, they traveled to NCIA York to speak with dr.r The'next step for ACTwas a logical and simple one. network! execut ices. Recalling that visit to New York, !Mrs. Charren said Evelyn Sarson sent the guideline, to-the FCC. In her letter in IV to the FCC on February 13. 1970. she wrote: We all know that television We /were looking for the answer to why television isimportantinthe formulation of a pattern of values, attitudes and wasi likeitwas.It was the hroadcasters -who',in ! social philosophy that, once learned.can he difficult answering that question. established ACTs goals. to change. Whi.at the broadcasters said was children's television The purpose of Action for Children's Television is like itis because it exists.only to meet the needs Inc.is to transform this powerful medium into a of ithe 2 -to-11-year-old mart et. When yon geta creative force prOgram format that's 'ssftil. you keep employ- ingit because you want tWlargest part of the 2- !Ors. Sarson also roted in the letter that ACT's guide- toil lyear-old market to see the commercial.' nes for children's television were now a "part of the I ongressional Record,- thus making itdifficultfor 'the That he New York executives were telling the "Boston ICC to ignore. they soon came to he known, was that chil- nu1I4rs," Although the FCC had rarely ventured into the sensi- dren linthat age group had been identified as a separate. tive areas of content and program categorie,:-. speciIlic market and therefore,as an independent profit itgave public notice -thatit had accepted ACT's guidelines -as a cenft-J---trat could be appealedto. petition for issuance of a notice' of Proposed ride making ,ACT ,nes to Washington and that'll had assigned it file. No, 1569:This Meant _that under the provisions of Section 1.405 of the Commission's 71,1ot long after the New York visit, Nits, Sarson was rules "interestedpartics" couldfilestatements through. icstiVing before_the subcommittee on i:ommunications JulyI. 1971, in support of or in opposition to the-Com- Nenite Commerce Committee, saying ,hat the FCC is mission's action,.. ther unable to cope "with'an industry that has expanded tre- The-FCC's Joe Ryan, w ho_ wrote the notice of -inquiry And proposed rule makmg. recalled in an interiew: "We F'OI REPORT NO. 364 P.3 thought they %vele a pour 01 hole women 110111 Mas,a- ACTION FOR CHILDREN'S TELEVISION chusetk pet:tionin2 for their rights. Hell, they'Se ,zot best legal talent in this-part of the country." By that time os erlookedorignored.ChilOrenaccept these the group's attorney was Earl K. Moore. the communica- people not onlyas friends of the family. butin tions lawyer whohadlong been activen helping.groups sonic eases. as second parents." deal..siththe FCC." Some p7arents were worried about the etfecrs ot tele- The "little women trom Massachusetts" received a lot vision commercials in general. Some were opposed to the of support. The FCC received 100.01M replies. a response sheer number ot commercials on children'stelevision. without precedent: 90 percent of which tavored ACT's pointing out that the National Association of BroadeaSter's proposals."' Code of Good Practice; peTmus minutes of commer- Suddenly the group had to he taken scriouslY. As Hoh cials per program hour on children's programs, compared MacKenzie of the Oakland Tribune wrote(1-31-70): to eight during prime-time adult shows. When fit-sproposed, that idea sounded excessively The Stations and the Networks React ideahstie.itnot downright un-American. No one had even suggested.that television networks and sta- Obviously, not everyone agreed w ith Acr, proposals., tions. profit-making corporationsthattheyare.. !east of all:-the networks and individu'd station managers. ought to operat.: ata dead loss: even the puhlic The biggest concern, right from tLe beginning and up to service programs required by the FCC guidelines the present has been, who is going to pay for the program', are allowed to have sponsors. if they can find any. ing? CBS._said that ACT and other ot:Linizations had de- cided that commercial television should assome a role in AcL.ording, to The WO Street JournalHo-22.70). education made necessary by the alleged failings ot' the Aurs-prorosal for no ads on children's TV would have multibillion-dollar educational system in the United States, cost the three major networks some S26.4 millionannually The National Association of Broadcasters' filing with products and in ads for games. 'toys and hobby craft the FCC was devoted principally to what it said was the another S57.1. million in revenues from breakfast cereal value of self-regulation through the .NAB code and to .ads. "significant improvements in programing and advertising The FCC had split 4 to 3 in its decision to adopt the contenC that had occurred atboth network and local notice. of Inquiry and proposed rule making,' but FCC leyels.It' The NAB Warned that the criticism stimulated by Chairman Dean Burch began making his views known ACT's proposals might obscure the improvements -that concerning prOgraming for children. and he sounded sym- have taken place. he was quoted pathetic to ACT's views. In March of1970 A press release from the NAB dated OctoberI. 1971. in 'The New York Times as saying (4-9-70). "It is,ihe- discusst.1.1 an official comment it had filed with the FCC. lieve. fair to ask whether broadcasters operating onpublic stating that the NAB channels as publ,c trustees have fully met their responsibility to children." firmly believed that the young public is best served by a system of television which is unafraid to inno- liiSepteMber, 1070,speakingtotheInternational Radio and Television Society in New 'York, Chairman vate and experiment. Which proceeds to improve its Bur,sh mentioned ACT's proPosals and said: "Problems hroadcaster matter through regulation which is vol: must he considered, cs eig.hed and solved,and the solution untartly carried out. not government enforced as must often -be implemented regardlessof whether tereal ACT. NCCB, and others arc urging. These parties or toy sale.c reach new heightsor not," have paintediipicture of American Television which is hoth unfair and inaccurate and cannot go Support for ACT's Proposals unchallenged if any useful or honest resolution of the issues in the docket is to emerge. Chairman Burch had good reason Co be concerned. Fos t.:ouldi have predicted so nuteit discontentwith chil- he NA listedv, hatit considered to he inaccuiafe dren', television lhe I'CC quickly accumulated15 vol- statement, and untenable conclusions -in the petitions of umes of public >enttment, .andinsisted. that: in- l'erh:tp, the biggest complaint voiced by' parents -Requiring stations to .iifler 14 hours of children's children to buy espensivc s olved the appeal, made to their programing and, to eliminate associated commercial I \ to% hiehhe pa enrs cimld not afford. Another matter would not produce unitorinly..lexcellent chit- involved advertisements mayor concerti 01 those .A ho ss rule dr,in's tare. -theiiili- tor children's vitamin,. or vitamin supplement,. and. attacks,s.a. I aken to its logical conclusion %owl AC I duti prolttam that perhop. receised the most others :if e seeking is a government owned, liiianctcI -Romper Room,- on which, said the a series called the and managed broadcast operation like thi)se finuni paren:s. thete;...:her reminded her voting audience that Room toys- can fully in many othecountries. ',illy children w oh "real Romper I elcvisionhasnot beeninsensitivetopublic participate in the "cl::ss7 activities. preference when it conies to changing its program- 's props ,si iforhid performer, frinn doing the ing offerings. advertising themselves was met with wideapproval. Jeff Flimination of commercial broadcasting ,v:eould R. Spalsburg. director of audio-visual services.Instruction- seriously diminish quality caliber programing. al Systems. Inc., wrote to Chairman Burch: ---FverY other country which presents children": I do not believe that the strong impactthese per- television on a non-commercial basis 'has come up with a suhstitute means of finanAial supportyet formers 'haveon .child'reocan he understated. FOI REPORT NO, 364 P. 4 nes. doctrine. "a ing -thatitisaiitin the public interest AcTION FOR CHILDREN'S TELEVISION tor broadcasting stations to continue to prescrit commercial thepetitioners espect American hroadcasting to announcements which haw been identified-by' responsible present such programing at its own espense. "Such pubEe authorities as deceptive. ..."" proposal is unworkable. inequitable and without The FCC refused (Christian Science Monitor. 11-10- precedent." 71) to rule on ACT's complaint. But on December 22. 1970. the FTC issued a joint statement with the FCC that One of the most .ignifIcantoins to he stiessed about the two groups had met to discuss possible joint hearings American television. NAB said. was that itis "totally self- on television advertisine.''. sustaining and genuinely free to its 'public." The FCC Issues Then -the NAB predicted that elimination of adver- Its "Notice" tising trom children's programs in the United States "would Tnen on January 20:-) 971: the, I-CC issued its notice sound the death knell for quality children\ program fare.- of inquiry and proposed rule making. The Commission An editorial entitled. "Child's play," in Broudcuktinv cited objections that had been raised to ACT's proposal. magazine on January 25. 1971. said that the year before, bur said there were "high public interest considerations in- five house% i%es from Boston were given an audience by volved in the use of television, perhaps the most powerful the FCC "to advoCate nothing less than total federal con- communications medium ever devised..in relation toa trol over television programing aimed at children." The large and important 'segment of the audience. the nation's editorial then reviewed a couple of ACTs proposals "and. children."'" The FCC also said it did not have information oh. half a dozen other propositions too outlandish to he on children's programing to decide whether it was good tak-enseriously.",Thc Writer said he could not believe that as it was or whether ii needz.d improvement. the commissioners -had F a t through the pitchwitha FCC Commissioner Nicholas Johnson said he appraed straight face." and called the proposed rulemaking "the of the FCC request for additional information. but he.was deepest federal incut;ion yet into broadcast programing."" disturbed that so little had been done about the ACT ACT Attacks TO, Commercials petition: After filing their proposals with the FCC. ACT direc- In reality, this ( the Notice of Inquiry and Proposed tors mailed letter% on February 23. 1970, to all members Rule Making)issimply another caseof '"Due of Congress aSking for support. Processing them to death." It Kafkaesque that In_October of 1970, ACT joined the Boston University after 10 months, after15 volumes of Comments. School of Public Communication and the Kennedy Mem- this commission has to tell concerned parents that ". . . we . orial Hospital ,for Children in sponsofing a national sym- have reached no conclusion, tentative pOsium on children and television in 'lemon for "hundred% or final, on the desirability of a rule.. .." 1 believe of professionA, from medicine, social work, education. that we should at the very least be ready by now toadopt TV. broadcasting and advertising." specificproposals:-those proposed by After the s,ymposium. ACT announced it would zero ACT or whatever our own ingenuity could devise in on "toy marketers for their hard-sell yuletide cam- --as a proposed rule making." paigns."" ACT said it would distribute a four-page news- To gain the information itsaiditneeded. the FCC letter ("Christmas Survival Kit") and collect signatures asked that stations submit a sample of programs for a on petitions to be sent tO Toy Manufacturers of America. "composite week": Sunday: September 13, 1970; Monday, The petitioners would ask that toy makers improve the February 16, 1970; Tuesday, June 23, 1970; Wednesday, quality of their products and cease aiming their com- April 8. 1970; Thursday, October 2, 1969. The Commis- merdals solely 'at .children. The Christmas drive was to sion asked for the names, dates, time and lengths of such focus on schools, community groups and shopping center% programs, along with descriptive summaries of them. It inBoston, New, Vork, Washingtbn. San Francisco .and also asked whether the programs were entertainment or Chicago. educational, original showings or reruns., who the sources ACT also a'sked(Christian Science Monitor,12-1:1- and sponsors tvere, the products, stores.or services ad- 70) most of the Country's leading television stations to run vertised .and the commercial time involved. spot ads advising viewers of deceptive advertising of toys. The president of ACT, Mrs. Sarson, said the Corn: The Federal Trade Commission had prepared charges mission could get the material it wanted from reading the against three well known toy manufacturers. Only a dozen network program schedules and from Watching television: or so stations had replied' and most indicated' that they "We could give the Commission a subscriptionto TV would await the ;FTC's formal complaint -against the toy Guide., At least 'half of the questions they're asking are manufacturers before making a decision. But, said the answereU in it."" editorial, the sta0ons were beginning to look closely, at In February, 1970, ACT moved again, this time with those ads becausethey could foresee a battle similar to the three other groupsthe Council on Children. Media and one waged over cigarette ads. Merchandising;theNationalCitizensCommitteefor Actually, the igroup had done .rpore than ask "most Broadcasting: and the Office of Communication of the of the major stations",to run spot ads advising viewers of United Church of Christasking the'FCC to requirenet- deceptive 'advertising of toys. ACT had reqlested the FCC works to make available at least one film or video'tape of in a letter dated !Dec mber 10. 1970. to issue a public allprograming and advertiSing during the "composite notice advising all .te evision licensees broadcasting toy week.... The Commission said ACT should go directly to Commercials "that khey would make substantial time avail- the netWorks with.its request.-adding that it would recon- able for presentation)f the view that these commercials sider the -requests if the networks' turned them down. are 'misleading.. ." ACT baSed its request on the fair- In March. KT and the same three groups sent a let- tert,)1:70 telex:Sion stations requesting that- the!, .broad. FOI REPORT NO.364 P. 5 -c0.0 lo-second spot which said. in part ACTION FOR CHILDREN'S TELEVISION 1 he Federal Communications Commission would Seek to place a tlx in a framework of play en- like to know what vou would hke to see on TV performirm in a way which accurately tor children,wth::vou led about commercials represent; the tov. aimed at childrenIn Januar, the Commission pub- Employ action and encourage habit; thatare :ished a notice Of inquiry asking questions about generally tecognized standard, of safety. kid's TV. Until Ma% (the original closing date -7-Avoid dramatization of a toy ina realistic war the t:me was extcvitted ver.il times. finally toOc- ;itmosphere. tober I.1.97; the ssIi a:cept replies from broad- Noid dramatizatioo that could frighten or ;care adverikeis and the public.'" children. -Avoid appeal; contending that. if a child has a Also, to attention to the original Nlay deadline. toy. he betters his peers or, lacking it.Will invite r initiated a --tuncout :.,mpaign" for May I.asking. their contempt or ridicule. that the natiOn's 'TV set, he turned off for the day..-" Avoid presumption thata tovrequiring a ma- ACT's Influence Spreods terial investment can he-had fo l. the asking. .Two studies commissioned by AC1. -Programing and Inaddition.the NAR code 'saidaboutchildren's Advertising Prar:tices in T:levision Directed to Children,- broadcasting: by- Ralph M. Jennings. and -Mother's Attitudes Toward The education of children involves giving them a Children's Telex isionPro!,ranisand Commercials." hy sense of the world at large.Itis not' enough that Daniel Yankelosich. Inc.. appeared in1970. The latter only those programs s.,hich ar4: intended for, viewing said that_ toys and games seen to he large and exciting on by children shall he Svitable to the young and im- TV, often turn out to he "inferior." The misrepresenta- mature. In addition, those programs which might tions. it said, lead to frustration disappointment and tear:. he reasonably expected to hold the attention of .Often the child's anger is vented upon the Parent, not the chilJren . . should bepresented with due regard sponsor. thus making for a constant duel between children for their effect on chitdren. askMg for things and mothers having to say yes or no. Although they denied that ACT was the reason,:ill Of course, this code, like others, is not strictly bind- three 'networks designated special exectr.ives for children' ing. and stations could always resign from the NAB code programing.,'NBC promotedpuhli:affairsdirector las Group W. Westinghouse Broadcasting did).Mrs. George. Heinemann to vice pre.,identin charge of "chi!, Charren said in an interviewin May, 1971, that ACT ti-en's program'', CBS hired Peallody Award winner Allen would welcoMe yolunt.ry codes if they worked: "Theoreti- (Duke) Ducoyny to oversee Saturday morning schedules, cally. this could have happened any lime in the last a5 -Captain Kangaroo" and the "CBS Children's Hour": ABC years. But it hasn't. appointed Hollwoodfilm director-producerCharhei ACT Goes to the FTC Martm JOnesis fir,t executive directc r of children's pro:

giarmne . In November of 1971. ACT made it; first attempt at Acr :1;not,ropressed1,\ thefirst"new season'' dealing with the Federal Trade'Commission. asking for a tinder new management. han of all drug and vitamin commercials directed at chil- . dren on televisiOn. Mrs. Sarson appeared hefore the FTC's flair ;hree seem to have made ;Inv:effort to hearings onthematter. carrying a i:iatementby Dr. olit of the eternal chase-and-fight i-Cutine: Frederick H. Lovejoy, executive secretary of tht:Bosion Alm !)uC'4 NBC ); "Tomfoolety" (NBC) and a Poison Information Center. which -sad that vitamin pills Irom Britain, "The Double-deckers" (ABC). ;ire the second most commonly ingested poison by children 1 he much publicized CBS "In 1 tic Know" seg- under five. meni; which weie described as four-minute ne-ws -Too many vitamins. said Dr. Lovejoy (C./Irk/jun Sri- item, turned oot to he mainly commercials with a reue Mortirot, 11-10,71 ) , can he dangerous. and children brie(film _insertlastingles:than tWo Minutes, older than one year don't really need them ,inYway sin:e coXerci have inchaled felling a tree. giant properlY seleetedfood; provide enough 'of them. !!.!as, blow!n!,.. lur,fthat fish. . . . hey Sarson also included a statement from the direc- lo,;ked like old tr,o,elogatc excerpts ,2 tor of Duke UniversitN's Poison Control Center. Dr:, lay 1 !re ;rerwork!...,,,,,,I the were doing morc'than -heL:ting .Arena, v,ho WarnedChris-thin SuictuT Monitor, II-10-711 up" their ,-hildren's....xt-hodules.'1 hey had begun hiring in- that "vitamin ptlo and other medicines should never he dependent rese,JRhers to look into the whole concept ot .:ulvertised to stnall children." The two poison ':enters in- children and Idles sriuriCRS committed more than $600.- dicated that about 4M00 cases of vitamin poison were re- 0141 to xiolence research studies, and NBC beg,to a five-. ported each year, with symptoms'from diarrhea to shock. V,-7' silldn the same subiect.,.._ABC started two similar AcT's petition asked the FTC to file charges of false pri..ets and sponsored a workshop on children and tele- andmisleading `.advertisingagainstMilesLaboratories .9 on lime ;Ind 1971, in New Yotk City. (maker of Bugs Bunny, Flintstones and Chocks.vitamins The networks and their advertisers (at least those who -Bristol-Myers (maker of Pals vitamins.) and Sauter Lab- ,ilt,-.eribedi could always point to the code of the-National oratories maker of Zestabs vitamins), ACT also asked 'xssociatIonofBroadcasters.For tixample.inthi:To!, thatthethreeo networks- and their BostonafTiliaes 1,e

Vdvertising Guidelines, issued in19f,,i,the NAB stated (I indicted, as guidelines: The petition noied thatthese three drug companies FOI REPORT NO. 364 I'. 6 bark h.ircu. piotessor of communication. research ACTION FOR CHILDREN'S TELEVISION atBoston Inoierstry.Bar coshaulmonitoredi.:fuldrcii-s tele%ision .prouranis durme the lasi halt of 1971 and found nianutacture cho,:olate-coated Itarnms with ironinthe that conunercial. on Saturday morning had increased dor- form in chocolate chlp cookie, and that children associat,: ingthat period. On the ascrage. commercial. Interrupted the medrcine with eand i. and eookies. 1 he companies also the programing esery2.1minutes atthe end ot 197L were cited tor advertising the pill., a, a mean. tor making s:onipared N ithes ery 2.S nunotes sus month. persiously. friends tv.heconung a menthe- ot -club" ofchildren who take itanuns -4 . ACT Gets Some Results

Miles I,1 ho r t Me of the eompames said In spite ot the 111.AL:1100 01 or the . (Washington .-ior iiitamin,produ(..-ts are nun the I.( ( At Ibei.:an to see some Fislails ofits campaign that N ere- stroni,..; medicine. or drugs. hut inerch.nutritional toods. more than iusi word.. On July12.l'.+72, l'arrert reported Vans Addrcii's diets.- a saidlack enough iiitanuns and :ha: the .Association ot Nitional .Adsertisers nutritionist. supported ihe use..of the compam's %itamm I .A N A had issued a new set eit fordehnes tor children's adsertising on -Uppioncru,. "lhe impheatioil lv.\C Ithat the vrtamins I V. doe to mounting public pressure. "mosth trom -.Action .irep4 ison. and constitute a bcalth hazard to children is On (sic 1 and doe. a disserx ice to the nutritional ( hildren's Felesision,- and from the FR arid grossly misleadin the F( C. At a .press conference on July h. General Food. otthe Americanpublic.-\lilesLaboratory marketine sice presidentF. Kent Mitchel. tiead otthe sa.id ANA. said the new euidelines are not "rigid arid inllesil?lc In an editorial entitled. '1. Op-out.- Brouthimmt; mag- rules." but "principles.- .1he tour principk., listed in -the. azine saki: guide are that axEcrtisers Initspetition A(I accuses felesision of cans* sh_ould he iiwilre 01 the limited abibp. of ,hir childrenfotake unsup,ir%:sed doses ot vitanuns drentoferretout the troth 'L/1 ads cr1 isin:4 the principal object of its complaint. The connec- and to take that responsibility on themseli.c.. tion is never nrovcditis merely asserted. Nor is 2) should recoenize children's .he!let-infantasy there any'. show ing that an elimination of drug ad- and not to use that kv get them to expect "un- vertising would reduce the incidence of drug in- reasonable- performance.- gestion by the very young. The most conspicuous 3 / should take special care that.troth and taste omission in the complaint is any reference to parer- he used in commu:rcials and. tal ohligation.to leep drues out of childreu's 4)should create advertising which would help reach."" -develop social standards which are .eeneratly Transcripts of the (..0mthererals were submitted to the regarded as positive and beneficial.--'s FTC. Although mosv ot them were broadcast nationally. F was carefullinits complaints to specify only the -I he ANA' alsospelled outrules which advertisers Boston stations thatit had monitored. should never violate: Mrs. Sartori's group did not wait tor the FTC to ban not leading a child to think that owning a prod- drug and vitamin 'commercials hefo:e making new de- uct ss ill make him better than his fellows, mands. This time ACT tiled(St.Louis Pmi-Dispalch. not undermining Inc child's belie! in his parents. 12-16-71) a p..tition with the FTC urging a ban on toy oc of others in a position to euide him. ads in children\ programing. saying the ads were mis- avoiding ads Which take advantage of the child's leading and took advantage of chtildren. inability to separate reality from fantasy, Children do not have the maturity or the experience barring program personaliticx or eharacteis from to analyze what is called the -normal pofTery" claims of selling products in or adjacent to his appearance, commercials. ACT said.Moreover, children have little ---not asking kids 10 pressure parents to buy, money and cannot buy most of the toys which arc adver- staying within the bounds of literal truth in ad tised. This means they pressure their parents into buying claims.2" or refusing to buy. and this often creates a strain on the parent-child relationship. ACT said:2'1 The two members most responsible for drawing up the At the time of the petition to ban toy advertising. ACT ANA ,guidelines weie Jerry Denko of General Mills and also announced it would submit a request to the FTC in Jerry 7Souers of Mattel. Inc. The latter company is a toy Jimuary Of 1972 that food Advertisements he banned dur- manufacturer and responsibletor "Romper Room.- No ing children'. programs As reported in Broadcaming mag- ionger would the hostess on -Romper Room- advertise azine. ACT said: products, and the company ageeed to "cut down on- plugs that were not clearly marked as ads. In the past few %ears the anloynt of TV advertising AC-1 was not impressed with ANA\ action. A group ads directedtochildrenhasincreased.Earlier, statement called the guidelines -filled with rhetoric which for children were for child-oriented products such does nutprotect our children, hutrather protects the is toys and cereal. -Foday vitamin pills, frozen din- advertisers and broadcasters.""" ners, bread, gasoline. shoLs and snack foodS are But within the month. ACT -receised some letters that all being advertised directly to children with the pleased the group very much. The New York run,.is an- they should pressure their clear implication that nounced that three major drug cpinpanies---Miles Lab- parents into buying the adult oriented products."21 oratories. Bristol-Myers and HofTmann-LaRoche (Sadler As AC F had promised, in January itfiled its formal re- Labs)--had separately informed ACT thatthey would quest with the ric to ban food ads on children'sTV. discontinue vitaminadvertising on children's television Die request contained a summary report of a study done programs.

A Walla,c,H,e president tor ,.onsiink.r p7oducts FOI REPORT NO. 364 P.7 t I hor,,!,,Les. sAidNew Yori. ALMON FOR CHILDREN'S TELEVISION in aetler to A( T stretchd :tiI() 'Years '1 \Ve ha-ve hecome sonsinccd that con- A spokesman for NBC saidI Ness York Timei. ) tinued adsertising of 4itirchildren., vitannii sup- -Dr. Melody's view is simply a surmise on hi; par'; .Ind plement products in the presentIs pe of environ- ss,:hs1/4 hich we disal,ree." A-CBS Tokesrtron said, "We ment of II:Wren': t..:1-vision ;-!;ocrinis has become dis,:gree ss ith Dr. Melody's general concept. but prefer to n.r toncerii our tritcrest: thi. relates especially to defer turther comment un;i! we ha e es.nn;ned hisfull thefughlsutiestionable programingas studs." well as the numf-er and nature of commer:Lik AdvertIseis also reacted to the Melodyplan. lames aired ia the Saturday morning time Nea liars ev. president ot James Neal Harvey. Inc.. ;-erod st..tising,S1 role1 \: Ov. York/Imes..1-14-731thatin"-aLl,.. ACT annour.:.:d 7 -'1-7 ' ?ILI! the sears of controverssoVer advertising on childr.m's ;t\wt,1,1 !ol:ots p :s 1,:tor with an appeal to the telesision. "there ha; not been one shred of- eidence pio- -regulatorv agences "To ;et rules anniediately to eliminate duced that sit2gect,, cynosure to telesision commercials is all advertising on children's 'IV programs." Mrs. Charrea in any way harmful to chddren." said that the drug companies withdrv. the vitamin adver- On the contrary. wrote Hano. studies conducted by tising solumarily and that "certainl. there \Sas no question -"highly respectable companies" like Milton Bradley. Gen- of coercion." eralMills and fdeal Toy, have indicated that "children There was no immediate indication how dropping the are a hit smarter \about tele% ision,advertking than many. ads would affect the sale of the ehddren's vitamins. "No- peopleapparently think." Children. evenatpreschool body seems worried." -said Rohert Kaufman. a spokesman ages, know that a commercial isa commercial and that for Bristol-Myers. its purpose is to try to sell a product. Harvey said. Chil- On January 4.1973. an ACT study was released dren, by and Firge, like_TV commercials and they are not (New York 1-S-71 rthat said all commercials from, fooled by them. Harvey quoted a Roper survey taken in children's progiaming could be eliminated -over a five-16- 1972thatsaidthat78 percent of theparents polled seven-year period without "cataclysmic" financial results. thought it was all right to have commercials on children's The study that was undertaken for ACT by Dr. William television. fi\ Melody, of the University of Pennsylvania's Armen- Harvey wrote that ACT's motives go a lot deeper than berh School of COmmunications, said the networks could "the ambition to replace Bugs Bunny with Beethoven": repl:;\commercial sponsorship of children'sprograms w ithg( kernmentfunding.institutionaladvertising and I believe itis that a lot of people in this country privateunderwriting. think that there is something fundamentally wrong The study, which was to become a part of ACT's with trying to offer a product for sale to a child, petitionto the FCC to banall commercials from TV and that functions of our free enterprise system of programing for children: contradicted the Commission's producing, promoting and selling goods ;Ita profit own reportreleasedtheprevious spring byDr. Alan are rather immoral facts of life from Ss hich chil- Pearce, an official of the agency. The Pearce tudy. Melody dren should be shielded. said. reached .its conclusion without 'Considering possible changes in the existing broadcast structure for children's Harvey's article brought a ntiniti;:r of pr.)testing letters programing: to The New York limes. including alettersignedhi: Peggy Charren and Evelyn Sarsou. A doctor from Scars- When itis recognized that institutional change does dale. New York, BernardL.Albert. wrote (New York not have to take place instantaneously with cata- imer. clysmic econoniic conSequences,it becomes clear that policy makdrs can phase in the new policy at Because of their personal experience in discovering whatever rate they find most compatible with the that advertising on TV does infact. exaggerate. public interest. misrepresent and overglamorize the products, my / children do not trust TV advertising and are wars' The Melody plan would have the FCC supervise the 1 of anv product '.;o advertised. The efforts of :River, restru,:turingof children's programing practices, which tisers to "hard-sell" to ehildren is producing'a gen- would hogin by requiring cach network to carry one hour eration that will mistrust all advertising, a week of enddren's programing without commercials. as wouldalllocalstations.Melody saidhe thoughtthis Another Writer. Sam Lanfranco. assistant professor of would cost the networks and stations "about $2 million economics at McMaster University in Hamilton. Ontario, the first year." Fventuallv, money would be. obtained for took objection to Harvey's intimation that opponents of children's programing from industry, the government .and children's advertising were against the free-enterprise sys- institutions and 'would he channeled to production units tem. The letter concluded: free of network control. The rietworks.would distribute :it'd transmit the:programs. while individual stations would Adam Smith wns never a defender of institutions contribute the free air:time. The.five-to-seven year plan which pitted child against parent and one need not' would avert the sudden serious Joss of income .broadcasters he engaged in a dark plot to overthrow American met when .cigarette advertising was'hanned. Depending on free enterprisetosuggestthatthe existence of the availability of outside. financing. Melody said, the ob- children's advertising on television raises a legiti- jectivecould beobtainedinfour years or could be mate ethical issue. FOI REPORT No. 164 P. S aterln the year. AC U initiktedy Nev. York Timov. ACTION FOR CHILDREN'S TELEVISION :ts firs: annual ACT Bent Antonna Awards. Most tt.the Another letter-writer. ( Barrett. ot Concord. Ma.- made the-same points as listed above: for saehusett,. noted that time desored to'advertisinr during cooing-Ie. a Mickey Mouse Watch to the networks.forrun- ehildren's programing V..11 greater than during adult view- ning children's spccia!, in the evenings :old adultprograms ing hoursWrot.....Nlis:Barrett. -Either children are ex- m the afternoons. But there 'Were a few new ones: tor ploited by adscrtising. or they are indeed as sophisticated example, a carton of throat lozengestoallthose noble 0, Mr flarses sas and the industryis wasting its.mon- indoiduals who sat and laughed so that animatedcar- es. Mr. Harves can't hase it both ways.- :mons on Satuidas coidd have hysterical laughoraeks during exolosions ard contliet, But :Moot .cf-c sonic ogro; that the industry was not In early Octobeo 1973. .AC F enjoyed the (ast wastmg its money and sw., heginning to -adsertise" iii success of Cat: K Ti's :too:einem in 1-os Angeles that hahricd thrtercnt ways. ACT. usuall, the critic of the adsertisers: a number of children-, programs that ACT and seserolother began gis(ng praiseIn Vehruary.I ACT gave "spei:aal orgarn/ations had considered -violent.- -That., going ,o,rnmend,;:ion- to Sears. ROL:41.114J. Foundation. Nerox Cor- a rtaration. Mobil Oil Cofptiration. General Foods. Quaker hit too far.-cGene P. Mater. sit.e president of CBS'broad- Oat, Company and cast group, said. "What Peggy and her friends are trying IBY.ffor underwriting the costof to do is restructure the whole bloody industry.- .::.(lalren's tare on pubhe TV without commerciais.'11, As the years went on. ACT's annual symposiumon ACT also praised Mile, Lahoratories. Sauter Labs.; children-s television: became moro andmore prestigious. doision titiffmann-I aRochc anti Bristol-Myer, for pulhog Broth/coo/tie maga-zine (which began itsreport hy remind- :heir vitamin adsertising out of children's programing and ing it, readers that -in sonio circles- Mrs. Chaitren has !nosing it to grown-up Tv period,. Pon,e .ilso wont to the the nickname. "Wicked Witch of the Fast-I reported thatal companies that were underwriting new ehildren-s program; the March ll. 1974, meetinr in Washington. D.C. ACT such as "Sesame Street.- :-Eleetric Company- and --Ws- .ittraetcd :some 1.200 broadcaster,. Kiiducers. educatois lei:roger, Neighhorhood.- ACT cited 43 commercial sta- iind parents. as well :is -government watchdogs-. including tionsthat were broadcasting "Sesame Street-reytdarly FCC Chairmtin Richard E. ACT came with a without any commercial,. and mentioned specificpro- eollage of children's television prorrams, from aroundthe grams that each of the networks were now producing for world,hopingtoprove"there issome TV wortb children. Also praise went to -lho Wabons." the National wirtching.- Geographic Society specials and Jacque; Cousteau', un- Butas usual .critics of children's television m.erein dersea explorations, with ACT, accompanying note that attendance. Jona Gussow, a nutrition educator at Colony. all of these show, had high ratings, a fact that negated hiaUniversity Teachers College demanded thatconsumer claims previously made hroadcaster; that the top qual- advertising messages must do nothing less than te.(eh "how ity family programs %Acre ditlicult to ;ell to audiences. rot to consumer anything unless ahsokitelynecessary.... Iftn ACT's comments were not !mined lo words of Consumer education will necess:mly ()fiend %time: she said. pr,osc"Blot:kb:it,- went .to :he networks for scheduhrtg ;ncluding -Most sponstirs.- some ellitdren's special, when young Ones are ready for Ralph Nader was also theretie coogratulated -ACT bat .and tor ;:,:ult soap operas when mans tor its efforts in chldren's television and said ACFsers ch st(e(lesters are horne trom school. A spi it"disservice -prototipc:*illustfatise of how people .tn totat:oi.- went toNi.lt;,61fk htt.Sh e:Irradultreminders r4,Acr- f-hoe created a rtloemeni thatis ditroit Saturdas th000rig ctoldreo., hoor. AC! said .the cretest force behind government ispeople. \ader that t Muiiiis:! .tersice spots saiu and then he advised ACT to sup the I-CC -for "non- told :_lo:thcn the!socialtictoirityoffice ai.:tion- on its petition sohnuttod in IVO helore theore.,in:- eoult! roy pr000.00nthat the Arms meded young .,:dion ;s renamed --ActionforCaantlehildren', TcicN men. thatr-ie Valoral ofBusinto,srpen wanted !her( .,;;,1 that kiogs cats should he Broadcasting concluded it, report: so.c.cd-

What hegan six Yearsago as a group ot mothers - .\(Ihad Alier _concerned iihoutchadronR viewing, packedthe Kcnnedv Center lastoveekfor its panel. and pro... marshinallta., tne NAII (ide Aothorits "tor griming. offerings. What's next? -Mayhe the mo(anf- he:tig tt4( soie,fo.iinlorce 115 ot the he:Hint till\ Mrs. Charten ;; pis;n:::. :1 ;hels:.dion.11 Charren had some rco,on to he optimistic. SoiCe hit (tom,: Ot pole atm triter 00%,. Januaryto Ci. and other prouo, (noloPly etriir cro,., ICsii.!ned110111 thk."grOulp cotimil on Children.l'slediaand Merchandising, rcore- hice the Associatn ot Vi- seined lisfounder and 'chairman Kohert B. ('hoate) had ttotl,d erok,:tr,tor-carefullydesign. e, some helm ble to presentthetr. ca,c :t,d1CCC5,-Ion 0:Co!,_ ;_!llidchnt's on .ift',:rt.$11.2 that won't affect a :mole hearinpin Wil0111159tin. Also. ACT noted (!sew cini.imerelal iou ,flact,or.' York Iimck. 5-12-741 that \Vest (iermans hadrnose ga, tank to ,Arco and Shell lor advertis- (eurh hard-sell advertisingon children's television ;(nd the ing to chddren by moans ot tov premiums. -ploxing- ( nathan Government wOultl begin banning all'IV ad- conelusivels that you can sell gasollw to someone sertising :o ehildien on the state-ownedCanadian Iiroz.d- without a car.- tasting Corporation heg,intiiho in January of 1975.. one Year', dental hills toall makers of candy Choate testified heforc the Si-nate( ommerce, Com- and snacks adverle.cd to, children on television, mitteethatinnintivationalresearch houses across the

9 cot:c.trv. c!uldren :ere being used in laboratory situations F'OI REPORT NO. 364 P.9 to formulate. analyze. tv-lish, compare and act in adver- ACTIOr'T FOR CHILDREN TELEVISION tisements that '..-cre designcT1 to make other children sales- tor the pre-blerns it saw in children's programing and ad. men in the home Bot government agencies were still reluctant to make vertising unless the broadcasters acted voluntarily to deal :my rulings. FTC Chairman I.ewis Engman said before the with those problems.1" ornmet-ce Committee that -our agency does have the A month later the National Association of Broad- act.Itratified recommendations of its prime t-esponsibility m move with respect to the content. ewers began to dec:pr.veness and witairness of children's advertising." code review board restricting both advertising time and Ne-:erthele,s, Frigman.said:' content of chddrzn's proeraming. Advertisine was to he reduced to10 minutes per hour in 1975 and to min- 1 ha..c some concern .1, to whethei or not v.e in fact utes :n!976. On ue,k,.by plograming, nonprogram time ,lohave theuri,dictionalau:horityto do such hmted to 14 minutes Nr hour in1975 and to 12 thing, .1,. regulate the numbers of commercials mtrutes 1976.'7 The hoard also approved proskions Ahich rn;tv ap-pcar 0:1 izisen prol,ram. That his- requiring that pret.:rarn and advertising content be sepa- taricallv heen the function of the FCC. rated by an "applopriate device," Three weeks later,the Association' of Independem -1nd in related testimony. Richard Wiley. then newly Televkion Stations tINTV1 adopted similar guidelines. app,ioted chairman of the FCC. said (New York Timec. And. finally. on October 24,1974, after mote than 5-12-74): four years of testimony and debate, the FCC adOpted a policy statement regarding children's television programs I et me Iconsider this a very important issue. These people, children, are not just little con- that would set levels of idvertising in,:ccordance with sumers. they are one of (the nation's) greatest re- the limits establishek. by the NAB and the INTV. s)urces. ButIthink we have to he very careful Other points made in the policy ,taternent called on about the areas in which the FCC can and should broadcasters to: move. provide a -reasonable anwont" of programine Mrs..Charren responded to the testimony of the two for children---a "significant portion ofiteduca- ch'rman hy saying that "action and responsibifit, for the tional in nature." .;espo.e.c.I. by children's television will be relegated to meet ihe "special needs- of pre-school children. an- unfathomable abyss somew here between the two regu- air children-Ociented programing throughout the latory aeencies." week, and not only on weekends, The agencies and thc industry again seemed to think avoid "host selling" and "other techniques that that the real ansv.er was in self-regulation. But Choate. confuse the dktinction between programing and ad- who expressed concern that his four children were cynical, vertising content." disenchanted with privals. enterprise perhaps due to being provide for "clear separation- between proeram- tricked or lied to by TV..cornmercials. said that pinning ing and advertising." i.opes for significant reform on the industry's, willingness The Commission did not define either "reasonable.' regubte itselfis"like sending the goat out to mind or "significant." Mrs. Charren found, the Commission's the garbaee. statement "disappbintine and disturbing."3" Meanwhile. the FCC's Alan Pearze continued to look But ACT did not quit. Later in November.itan- into the feasibility of non-commercial children's television nounced (Los Angeles Times. 11-18-74) the marketing and in June, 1974, released a study that confirmed many of the findings of Dr. William H. Melody. Pearce said the of a new game called "Switch." to be sold for $1.50. "to let families know there's something else to life than tele-. networks would lose little advertising revenue from chil- vision." drenshows if. it simply cut back the number of advertising minutes per show and raised the cost of the ti,ne The game startS .witlr an irm_iginau JV_seLswitehed %lots. After all, there were so few advertisers competing "on." but after a player makes 56 moves, fewer if luck fortheadvertisingslots during chldren's show times prevails, victory is won and the set is switched "off." The Kellozg. Mattel and General Mills alone accounted for game has 10 draw cards that let the players Make one to 30 percent of the revenues). 30 commercials.,one technical difficulty, one station break Pearce said a 25 per centt cduetion Jn cbriiinercial and 19 show, with names like "The Braided Bunch" and content would reduce CBS's revenue by $63 million, but "Tarred Wreks." En route, players get five "switch" al- CBS would still net a SW million profit from children's ternativer, such as one switch to public TV or a switch television programs. The same 25 per cent cut woult, re- "from buying a toy to making on.eThe players pick their duce NBC..'s profits from $3.7 million to $1 million. and commercials from a stack of commercial cards for such ARC's from $72 to 3.5 million. Pearce conclvded that inn.ginary goodies as "Glop Top," a soft drink. or "Capri- commercials could be reduced to7l4 minutes from the Cavity Granules." They .have to get rid of the -cards to current average of 9 to 10 minutes per hour on Saturday/ move to new positions. mornings. and 12 to 16 minutes per hour on weekdays."5 The game was US be sold only by ACT. not in stores, The FCC had debatcd for a long time whether broad- anti first-round printing was for 20.000 "Switch" sheets. casters could afford to improve children's progiaming Mrs. Charren said ACT would not make any money on the while simultaneously reducing the number of con*nercial game. and would lose even ifit would sell them all. "But minutes per program. Pearce had provided some answers. we Mt the important thing about the game was its educa- In May, 1974, in a speech in Atlanta., Chairman Wiley had tional aspect. We're not using this as a fund-raiser." warned that the Commission would adOpt its own remedies ACT did not merely accept the FCC policy statemen:.

1 0 FOI REPGRT NO. 364 P. 10 A,11.11 Acr: three-year-old petitionto ACTION FOR CHILDREN'S TELEVISION elmunat:: the selling of highly sugared foodson chldren's television. Accordtrig' to the December 2.1974. edition OfBroad- cavni.i: magazine, "the-little band ot Boston- mothers who --The Waterpik- award to M.01 Mars tor push- ing eaods to kids and creating service announce- first arou;ed the FCC's interest in the subject.has filed notiCe of its intention to appeal the FCC's policystate- ment, tor children "blaming cavities on plagu,e,- menf.- selt-serving citation of the year to the NAB The editorial entitled *"Sot Again" wanted that the Code Aothority for deciding kidsare 'es, vulner- able (twin,: the week than on weekends, and "courts could agree with ACT and remand thecase for cut- the harsher actions that ACT ortinally petitionedthe FCC ting hazL commercial lime on the 1attee but not to !aka." The editorial again urged "the healths answet- the former of -indisidual responsibitAs-..." ; t;re extinguisher to WON-TV, Chicago. tor showing a mos ie promo .oitha man being burned AC7 IR 1975 atthe stake during the kiddie program, -flozo's In 1975. ACT anmiunced it had receiveda grant ot 5165,000 from the Cai-negie Corporation of New York. A couple of weeks ifter the awards. the FTCan- The grant was_to he Used for the development of local nounced( LouisvilleConner-Journal.4-12:75 )itwould chapte,and for a national fund-raising campaign. ACT not loin advertising for food from children's television. had come a long way from its firs:year when. operating Instead, the FTC said it ivould continue to issue ruleson out of Mrs. Charren's home, the officers collectively con- ad techniques that are unfair or daceptiveregardless ot the tributed $3,000 toward .xpenses. In 1970, ACT received product and would continue to police &captiveads on A a $6,000 grant. and in l71 received $161.000, which en- case-by-case basis. FTC Chairman LewisEngman anal abled it to rent office space and become self-supporting. Commission member Elizabeth Hanford partlydissented, -In May, 1974, ACT received (Wull Street Journal, 8-5- saying they wOuld :it-ive openeda rui!-making proceed- 74) two grants, one from the Ford Foundation totaling ing about the fairness of advertising sugar-laden foods nn . $300000 ovor two years, which enabled Mrs.Charren to children's television. begin alraw;ng a $12,^DO salary. Grants hadcome from But in June, 1975, the NABmet (Washington Star, the John and Mary R. Markle Foundation, the Consumers 6-3-75) at the.Washington Hiltonto examine "the emerg- Union. the Center for Understanding Media, and the Na- ing FTC and FCC regulations concerningchildren's tele- tional Citizens Committee for Broadcasting. vision, and to find out what kind of showslocal commun- Butthe Carnegie grant was intended (New York ities are doing." ACT was not invited,but it was "gen- Tirrze, 1-5-750 to hdp the group become self-sufficient erally conceded" that ACT,consumer advocate Robert through the development of "an active national member- Choate and oiher consumergroups concerned with chil- ship."N1rs.Charren said the money would be used to in- dren's televisiorY.and advertisingwcre the compelling rea- volve thousands of others in media reformat the local son for the conference. Director of consumer protection level. for the FTC, J. Thomas Rosa., notedthat the National Mrs. Charren saidi Cizrictian Science Monitor, 3-7-75) Science Foundation had receiveda $100,000 grantto local chapter; were already at work. An organizationat conduct the first of a three-part research ,projecion the the I ni%ersity of Mississippi had succeeded in placinpan impact of commercials on enildren'stelevision.,Genei educati,1nalproL,ram,"FonShon.-on wpxv-Tyii FCC and FEC officials praised the industryfor its volun- Tupelo, Mississippi. on::e a monlh, without commericak. tary self-regulation. The pr.i:;rarn, designed for children from threeto eight At one panel, Mrs. Charren asked Jeromelahner. ye.c., old. was deemed important by the local group be- assistant director of NAB's Code Authority, whetherhe cause M.,:si.;sippi has no kin&rgarten progrdm. was intluding sugarinproduct., dangeroustohealth. An lther ACT ass:teiat.', Julie Quincy Jones. ot Buf- "'No.' answered Rosch succincthy,to it round of laughtar.- falo. New York. pres:dtmt at COrsomer Forum. Inc., and A toy representative. speaking with 1.asnerafter the panel. her co-workers stopp.ed nutritionallydeficientceraal said (Washington Star. (-3-75) said,"Those ACT gals. from being marketed in western New Y,.yrk by General Ihate them with,a purple passion." Milk Mollie Miller of Paishurrh, with he; 10 active 'ACE. In November, ACT was in Atlanta for its fifthannual members, saw to it that put.oe servee nutritionannounce- conteK-nce. According to reports by Judy Flander (Wash- ments heC,11,7a i-i':!IlL1;" part of ioeal programing, as well ington Smr. 11-5-751, little was accomplishede cep! ihre= a; ,.pots ads isine on the in!I V by t hild viewers dos tit griping. (het-11\6v,-,Arhanda Walluer of Lansing, Michigan, and . Senator loank Moss told the convention: her aroup thnatened a;It-titian to deny Wlist'slicense A(' I. represents the most significant n- the CB`; dfhli.ve mel and corisulleil regularly grass ro:its et- fortat consumer protection thatesists 4)&0, with parents. . . . wie, born out of the dawning 61 the insight in additiont..) eoThlishina loedl chapters. AC Icon- that the great prowise or television tinued its other act;s toes. On April Foors Day. 1975, AC I has beep Fer verted into mind-rotting commercial e\ptoitation again issued its -Bent Antenna" awards, this timeto nine of our nation's children. "prolessionak in the broadcasting field who have assigned a higher priority to their own interests than to children's Another speaker w;As Dr. Stephen P.Strickland. co- needs."" A few evaniple..:: author with Douglass Cater. of "TelevisionViolence and the Child," Strickland said some inipi.rtantpeople in the A sugar 'lobby-pop' tjt the FTC for pretending industry ill thought, of ACT 'mere y as "the ladies front itdoesn't know whether sugar causes cavities. to Boston,-.. 'and one network presidentnot long ago refer-

1 1 11.1 At anii.1s as leaders t.'ol REPORT NO, 384 . -P.11 ..ontinuet ACTION FOR CHILDREN'S TELL VISION sug:r.cstingthat Ai isaciths:r that mem, wert, tore'71-cak.- earldics Atlij SNCCts...'- itis more than a izroup of ladies and less than the Mrs_ Charreal said !he studies "negate the argument. enerriv. I pred;ct that ACT will he 'around at inthe FC(. 's?oll,:sStatement on Children's Telesision ;cast as long as thc current hierarchy of the tele- that self-re.i'olation-is an adcquate solution to the problem sision mdustrs" and longer than present members TA' of the Federal Communications Commission. Dr. 1..!arhu5 also stressed that 14 Me network children's As1.1-7c went into ;is final month. ACTwas Mdeed :,rograny. had reduced -obvious portrasak ofsaolens.e.- aroz:nd On December 15,\frs. Charren announced his s:nds ctndependent stations found that -nearly two- ,:ess y or k Cos press conference thattwo studies ol thirds ot independent pro:...9-ams eontained some Corm ot ictren's programing. whi,:h had heen commissionedhy siolen,.e and three in10 Were judited to be 'saturated ACI kdbeen ,:ompleted hy Dr. F. Earle Harcus ot the stotenLe.-1, wain.; magazine reported that some ot BostonUniversir. .1/4;:hoolorPublicCommunications: the stations' logs differed trom the findings of Dr. Barcus. -Weekend conrnercial Children-.Ieleskion.- As the year ended, ACT had noi won all .pf its battles sistoninthe .Nfter...:hool Hours.- The studies showed by any means hut it had made its work felt. W;th that commercial a staff mes.ages interrupt prottrams directed to of sis full-time and eight part-time employees andmore the under-1-;:a:Alience "onan avera.v of tra;:c every 2.1 than 5.000 d-nes-paying memhers. Acr was not about to iainutes.- 'arid'almost h:,lf of Al eommerci.dannounce- told up its t,:nt and disappear.

FOOTNOTES l..Ona.d Gaoss, Tetc.slun Under PresW,e Are Hor;dfulof Ac poet. Freedom of Information Center, April12,1975. tvisti Wees.k.n4 the Medium' TY Guide, February 22, 1975. 25. Cop out," P 5. Editorial, Scoadrosfing. November 15,1971. p. 74 2. 26. ACT Goes Bock to the FTC, 'flibadcosting, December 20.1971, p. Ibid, it 3 45. Melinda Elledge, "Ar!ion for Children sTelevision,11CT, Freedom 27..Ibid. of Information Center Report No. 205, August, 1971,p.2. 28. 4.Gross, "Television11nder Pressure,"p. -ANA Issues Guidelines For Kidvid Blurbs, But ACT s Noi Impressed." 5 %/oriety.July12, 1972, 5. Robert Lewis Shavo.s, "The Kidir;d Gletto,Soturdor Review, Jon 29. Ibid, Leary., 20.1970.P. 21. 6. 30. Ibid. Elledge. "Action for Children's Televison,"p.1. 31. "ACT StudyOffers 7 Gross, "Television Under Pressure." p. PlantoDelete Cdr4TerniaisfromChildren's 6 Shows," Broadcasting, January 8,1973,p.22. 8: FCC Report No. 9621, Joneary 21. 1971, 32. 9.'Lerter to the FCC. March11, 1970 "ACT limns, Boos Kids' TV Advertisers.-.4 lverlisirtg Age. February 10, 26, 1973. p.135, "Th Broodcasters' Soy on ACT.. Proposals,- Broadcastng. July5. 33. 1971.p.8. "ACT Takes Its Show to Washington,- Broadcasting, April8.1974, 11, P. 22. "Child's Ploy." Editorial, Broadcasting, January 25,1971, a. 66. 3.4. Ibid..p. 24. 17. ACT Nwsletter. Fall.1970. U. 35 Alan Pearce. "The Economics of Children'sTtiev4;ion,' FCC, June, "Parents Group Sets Attack Against Toy Makers' Yule Or'ces;Ad- 1774. vertising Ag.. November 23. 1970. to.50. 36."Wiley Says FCC's ,:onsi..g Close to Action on :Lhildren's Advertising, 14. FCC Report No. 9554. December17.1970. 15 Prog,onting H. Lavs Blome on BroadcastersforInertia,"Brood. Federal Trade Commission P4.w. December 22,1970 railing, May 27,1774. 16. FCC Dockist 19142, January 26.1971. 37. 17. Concurring Opinion of Commissioner Nicholas Johnson, FCC Notice "ACT Won't Get What it Asked from FCC on Television for Childr..4." of Inquiry and Propsed Rule Making. January 20, broadcasting, October 71974. 15. ;8 1971 38. Ibid. "FCC Moves Against Children's TV," troadcosting, January 25. 1971, 39 p.21. "The Doan Report," TV Guide, Ncvernber 9,1974,, p. A3. 19. "ACT Sets Off on Different Tock," Broadcasting, Mo-ch 1,1971, p. AO 'Not Again." Editorial. &oar/costing, Decembe7 2. 1974, p. 59. 41. "ACT Bent Antecno Awards Rap TV Ads. Aelion, Advertising Ago. 20."ACT's Moy Day Kitivid Tuneout.- Vosiety, April 14, 1971 April 7, 1975. p. 56. 21. Elledge. "Action for Children's Television," p.5. 42. ACT Press release. December15.1975. 22.ACT Nes...104r,Foll,1970. ha.-ACT Says Stations Aren't Living Up to Rules on Ads in Children's 23. Elledgir."ActionforCni1dren'sTelevision,"p.6. TV, Stations Soy Group is Way Off Bose." Broadcasting, December 2C Thomas Neale, "Action For Children'sTelevision,"Unpublished Re. 22, 1975, p. 29. 1

1 9 Additionalcopies of ths FriNdorn of Information Center report may be obtained by writing theCenter at Box 852i. Columbia, Misouri 65201. "[here is a 50 cent charge for each additionalcopy. 45 cents each for 25 a more copies. $30 per hundred copie,s. and $25per hundred on orders of 300.or more copies.

4, 4INIANIN4

13 DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 135 035 CS 501 620 AUTHOR Eanly, ronaLl P. TITLE Action for Children's Television. INSTITUTICN Freedom of information Center, Columtia, Mo. REPORT NO EIC-364" PUBDATE Dec 76 NCTE, 13p.

********************4************************************************** * Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished -* * materials nct avai able from other sources. ERIC m4kes every.effort * * tc obtain.tbe best copy.available. Nevertheless, items of marginal * * reproducibility are often: encountered and this affects the quality *

. * ol the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available . *

* via the ERIC Docufent Reproduction_Sezvice (EDRS). EDRS is not )0'. * .responsible fcr tie quality.of.the original document. Reproductions *.. * supplied by ELRS re the best that can be made from the original.r * ******************* ******4*********************4!**4******************4 SCHOOL OF JOURNMISM, UNIVERSITY r-rN OF MISSOURI AT COLUMBIA U S OEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DECEMBER, 1976 EDUCAIIOP I WELFARE C.) NATIONL INSTITUTE OF L.C.1 EDUCATION 00CuMENT...AS BEEN REPRO- OuCED E AC TLY AS 4ECEvE0 PROM T.E PERSON OP ORC;AN,ZAT.ON ORtG,N- ATING T F.O.NTS OF 24%, O OPIN,ONS STATED 00 NOT NECESSARq PEPRE-- CI SENT 01..F .c:AL NAT.ONAL ,NST.TuTE OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REPORT NO. 364 EDUCATION POSITiON DP POLICY ACTION FOR CHILDREN'S TELEVISION This report was written by Donald P. Raaly, Associate who lived in Newton. Massachusetts. a suhurh Of Boston Professor at the University of Missouri School of Journal- with her hushand. plasti_k manufacturer. and their two ism, as part of his doctorai dissertation, The Challengers: daughters. Mrs. Charren had worked in conunercial tele- Social Pressures on the Press 1965-1975. vision in Nev. York. She had also owned and operateda introduction print gallery inProvidence. Rhode Island. started company that orcanized children's hook fairs in Boston and Some of th many pressure groups concerned with the served as chairman of the Newton Creative Arts Council. media that arose out of the sixties died quietly in the early One day while Mrs. Charren was watching her 3-year- seventiessome even hefore the seventies. But some of Iihsorhed in from ot a TV set, she deci Jed televkion them have been unusually successful in what they set Out programing for Children could he improved. More specific:- to do. Ant if they- have not heen successful. they have at ally. she came to helieve that in the eight years since her flast heen persktent. older daughter had watched the same kinds of programs. ActionforChildren'sTelevisiondeservesdetailed the incidence of violence had significantlyincreased. treatment hecause itis an example of middle-class activism One day when she noticed that "very violent movie" working within the system, using many of the techniques had heen aired during C'hrisImas Viication, %he called a and approaches employed hy what some would call more local station to ask why it had been scheduled ata time "radical" croups. Mmost from the heginning. ACT knew when children were very likely to he at home watching. A how to use the news media to puhlicize what it was dointz.,, station official replied that the movie had ,heen selected Second.it came' to know the law and the governmental precisely hecause children would he at home watching at agencies and how to "get to" them. Third. it used tactics that time. "That they didn't even think to question itin- designed to gain anention: "tuneout." a day when people dicated that not enough people were paynig attention." were urged to turn off their television sets:, a hoycott of Mrs. Charren said, ( Wall Sfrrei Journal. 8-5-74 L 'certain advertised goods: annual "rallies": the "Bent An- Mrs. Charren spoke to some of her friend% about her tenna" awards for the poorest taste in children's television: concerns. and finally cot a group of them together to dk- a game called "Switch," °Which was to teach children and cuss the suhject. "We asked ourselves 'the kinds of ques- their parents now to enjoy turning off their television sets. tions a group of citizens shout(' ask when they decide to Most of all. ACT`deserves attention heeause the group change something in the system that isn't working right.: is larger, better organized kind financed, and prohably more Fifteen friends, neighhors. teachers and pediatricianswere determined than ever to add to the improvements it thinks t that first meeting. all concerned, hut with little knowl- it has made in programing for the young viewing audience. edge of how w proceed. All we had were gut :reactions," Mrs. Charren said.( Wall Journal. 8-5-74).."And there\ Origik no better way to make people pay .no atteinion to you than Like Many groups. ACT began unpretentiously. and to speak from no knowledge." . for various reasons, broadcasters first experienced sonic But four people whom .Mrs. Charren contacted :Ow difficultyin taking the group 'seriously. wanted to change something in the system badly enough A% Leonard Gross!wrOte in TV Guide, the origins of to hegin .doing something ahout it. They had at least one ACT "are likea demoeratic- dream.") After all. Gross thine in commonthey were allmothers.. said. in a democracy, when someone disturhed by some- Mrs. Evelyn Sarson, a native of England. formerly thing in soeicty he or she should he ,ible to do sOmething employed hy the Reuters News Agency in Paris and the

three. served m an executo.e committee menther. and not as potential consumer,. 1 he women did receive help.\Irs. Sarson wrote in 't herefore: The foilowing ruks should govern

1 9