SUMMER 1997 infoActive TM A Field Guide to the Children’s Television Act CME’s Campaign for Kids’ TV major change in how broadcast television This issue of InfoActive Kids is designed to serves young viewers is about to take place. tell you about what to expect on your TV This fall — on September 1 — every commercial broadcast screens starting in the fall, as a result of the A television station will be required to air several hours of educa- new three-hour rule on the Children’s tional and informational programming “specifically designed” for Television Act. It will help you learn about children between the ages of two and sixteen. Most stations, many of the “educational and informational” programs available for your child that are including those owned by the big four networks — ABC, CBS, Fox, about to debut, when they are likely to be and NBC — will air at least three hours a week. This new public aired, and what each network is doing to interest requirement for broadcasters is part of the new rules meet its new obligation. strengthening the implementation of the Children’s Television Act of 1990. It also provides information about how you For years, parents, teachers and media experts have criticized the can get involved, along with the Center for lack of quality fare for children on commercial television. This Media Education and other groups, to make concern has been fueled by a growing awareness that television sure this important new policy works. plays a major role in helping shape a child’s world. TV viewing Whether these shows succeed depends in constitutes an average of three to four hours of children’s daily part on the public. Parents and child advo- routine. For the first time, all those concerned with ensuring bet- cates need to watch these programs, encour- ter television for children have a new opportunity and a responsi- age their children to watch the best ones, bility. The three-hour programming requirement is part of a set of and praise the sponsors and stations. You Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules passed last also need to make sure that stations are doing what they promised by getting involved year to make the Children’s Television Act a more effective law for in helping make the law work. child viewers. However, it will take the concerted effort of all those who care for children and the media environment in which they are developing to make the new rules work. INSIDE Some of these new rules on children’s television are designed to give more public information to parents, teachers, and health pro- Why A CTA? . .2 fessionals so they can learn more about the new educational pro- The Fall Line-Up . .8 grams airing on local stations. The FCC hopes parents will moni- Grading Station Compliance . .10 “E/I” Logo Logistics . .14 -continued on page 2 The Center for Media Education Information Link Why a CTA? A Field Guide -continued from page 1 It was clear to child advocates, edu- tor the new programs and inform the Agency how local stations are cators and most parents that the meeting their new requirements. commercial broadcast marketplace did not work when it came to educa- The new Children’s Television Act rules provide the public with an tional programming. Networks and unusual opportunity to improve the state of programming for chil- station executives would not support dren. The rules include tools to enable parents to monitor their the creation of such shows, prefer- child’s viewing, evaluate the quality of educational programs, pro- ring to televise fare capable only of vide feedback to the TV industry, and file their comments, concerns attracting larger audiences from a and suggestions with the FCC. wider range of ages. Educational pro- grams would likely attract only an audience intended for its educational Fighting to Improve Children’s TV message (such as a program clearly targeted at elementary school age The Children’s Television Act (CTA) was passed by Congress in 1990 children or pre-school), giving them in response to the failure of the broadcast television industry to a lower rating. Only when the public serve the educational and informational needs of children. Saturday applied pressure, through policymak- morning, when most networks program for children, had come to ers for example, were there periods epitomize the phrase “junk food for the mind,” and featured many when stations would air a greater shows that were thinly disguised commercials for action toys and diversity of children’s programming. other prod- But educational and informational ucts. The lack programming had become an extinct “FCC-friendly” programs, as the of better pro- species on commercial broadcast TV TV industry called them, were often gramming for by the end of the 1980s. Congress scheduled in pre-dawn time slots children had to intervene, child advocates when few people were likely to be resulted from argued, to help make a place on the watching. schedule for such shows. “Activists the erosion of hoped that having a law requiring public inter- educational programming would est policies at the Reagan-era FCC, which tended to regard televi- force the networks to give these pro- sion as just another “appliance,” “a toaster with pictures.” grams a chance to work in the mar- Peggy Charren, head of Action for Children’s Television, the coun- ketplace,” says Kathryn Montgomery, try’s leading media advocacy group at that time, asked Congress to president of CME. intervene. Assembling a huge coalition of groups — including the Children’s programming is big busi- National PTA, the National Education Association (NEA), and the ness and getting bigger everyday. American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) — Charren eventually saw Networks and advertisers vie to the passage of the 1990 law, which required stations to demonstrate attract children and teens to their how they were serving the educational and informational needs of programs — which usually have children. Under the CTA, some of this programming had to be lucrative tie-ins to toys, games, fast- “specifically designed” to educate. Stations were obliged to inform food, theme parks, and video games. According to Business Week, chil- the FCC, as part of their license renewal process, how they were ful- dren under 14 now spend $20 billion filling this new mandate. (Another part of the CTA placed some lim- of their own money and influence the its on the amount of commercials that could air on children’s televi- spending of another $200 billion. The sion.) Every eight years, stations are required to report to the FCC huge clout child consumers have is how well they have served the public in order to have their free one reason why Rupert Murdoch licensed use of the airwaves renewed. recently purchased The Family Charren and the other activists hoped that the broadcast industry would take this new obligation seriously, and that there would be an 2 explosion of creative and highly imaginative children’s programming Why CTA? on commercial television. Unfortunately, for the most part, these -continued from page 2 hopes were not fully realized. In 1991, the television industry con- vinced the FCC to craft rules for the CTA that significantly weak- Channel for almost $2 billion. He ened its effectiveness. In the absence of a specified number of edu- intends to transform the service into cational programs that were required, broadcasters were allowed to a showcase for Fox’s children’s pro- air as little as 30 minutes of such programming. grams. Determined to help make the new law work, the Center for Media A more recent trend is to encourage Education (CME), in partnership with Georgetown University School child viewers to become loyal at a of Law’s Institute for Public Representation, conducted a study in young age to a particular brand — 1992 examining how TV stations were responding to the law. In “A such as a Nickelodeon or a Report on Station Compliance with the Children’s Television Act,” McDonalds. TV and advertising exec- CME documented that stations were re-labeling old reruns such as utives now work to encourage the The Jetsons, The Flintstones, and Leave it to Beaver as “educa- development of brand loyalty that can tional.” (The Jetsons was described by one station as an education- be continued throughout a person’s al program that “teaches children what life will be like in the 21st lifetime and even passed on to future Century.”) Other stations claimed that raunchy afternoon talk shows generations. were serving educational needs. “FCC-friendly” programs, as the TV industry called them, were often scheduled in pre-dawn time slots when few people were likely to be watching. CME called on the FCC to revise and strengthen the Agency’s rules on the CTA. Harvard’s Project Zero Prompted by the report, the FCC conducted its own examination, Meets Jumbo Pictures which confirmed CME’s findings. While the Clinton Administration FCC was more sympathetic to this issue, the TV industry’s powerful It was “the TV people” vs. “the Washington lobby continued to resist any changes to the CTA rules. eggheads” last November when pro- Thus the new FCC Chair, Reed Hundt, began his own campaign to duction company Jumbo Pictures and make the CTA more effective. the Harvard Graduate School of Education’s Project Zero Cognitive In 1994, CME released a second report, “The Impact of the Skills Group began to work together Children’s Television Act on the Broadcast Market,” which indicated on 101 Dalmatians. that programming created in response to the CTA was being inade- “The big fear,” executive producer Jim quately funded and promoted.