CHILDREN AND TELEVISION

HEARING

BEFORE THE "^ SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS,

CONSUMER PROTECTION, AND FINANCE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NINETY-EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 16, 1983

Serial No. 98-3

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

20-006 WASHINGTON : 1983

CHILDREN AND TELEVISION

HEARING

BEFORE THE X

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOIVIMUNICATIONS,

CONSUMER PROTECTION, AND FINANCE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NINETY-EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 16, 1983

Serial No. 98-3

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

20-006 O WASHINGTON : 1983
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman JAMES T. BROYHILL, North Carolina NORMAN F. LENT, New York EDWARD R. MADIGAN, Illinois CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California MATTHEW J. RINALDO, New Jersey TOM CORCORAN, Illinois WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER, California BOB WHITTAKER, Kansas THOMAS J. TAUKE, Iowa DON RITTER, Pennsylvania

DAN COATS, Indiana THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia

JACK FIELDS, Texas MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio HOWARD C. NIELSON, Utah

JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York RICHARD L. OTTINGER, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana JAMES J. FLORIO, New Jersey EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts THOMAS A. LUKEN, Ohio DOUG WALGREN, Pennsylvania

ALBERT GORE, Jr., Tennessee BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland AL SWIFT, Washington

MICKEY LELAND, Texas RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois MIKE SYNAR, Oklahoma

W. J. "BILLY" TAUZIN, Louisiana RON WYDEN, Oregon

RALPH M. HALL, Texas DENNIS E. ECKART, Ohio WAYNE DOWDY, Mississippi BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico JIM SLATTERY, Kansas GERRY SIKORSKI, Minnesota JOHN BRYANT, Texas JIM BATES, California Frank M. Potter, Jr., Chief Counsel and Staff Director Sharon E. Davis, Chief Clerk/Administrative Assistant Donald A. Watt, Printing Editor Arnold I. Havens, Minority Counsel

Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Consumer Protection, and Finance

TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado, Chairman MATTHEW J. RINALDO, New Jersey CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California THOMAS J. TAUKE, Iowa MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio JAMES T. BROYHILL, North Carolina

(Ex Officio)

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts AL SWIFT, Washington CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois ALBERT GORE, Jr., Tennessee MICKEY LELAND, Texas JOHN BRYANT, Texas JIM BATES, California JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan

(Ex Officio) David K. Aylward, Chief Counsel/Staff Director Patti Shwayder, Policy Analyst

Cecile Srodes, Associate Minority Counsel

(ID
CONTENTS

Page Statement of: Blessington, John, vice president, personnel, CBS/Broadcast Group 147 Burton, LeVar, host, Reading Rainbow 24 ,^ Charren, Peggy, president. Action for Children's Television 49 Christensen, Bruce, president, National Association of Public Television Stations 35

Fritts, Edward O., president, National Association of Broadcasters 113 Heinz, Hon. John A., a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania 139 Keeshan, Robert, New York 11 Mielke, Keith W., associate vice president for research, Children's Televi- sion Workshop 143

Rivera, Henry M., Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission.... 4 Robinson, Sharon, director. Instruction and Professional Development,

National Education Association 168

Rushnell, Squire D., vice president. Long Range Planning and Children's

Television, American Broadcasting Cos., Inc Ill Schneider, John A., president, Warner Amex Satellite Entertainment Co.. 48 Tucker-Vinson, Phyllis, vice president. Children's Programing, NBC Television Network 186 Washington Association for Television and Children 197 Material received for the record by: American Broadcasting Cos. , Inc. , letter, dated April 22, 1983, from Squire Rushnell to Chairman Wirth re additional material on ABC programing of

special interest to children during Children's Television Week 137 Fellows, James A., Bethesda, Md 214 National Coalition on Television Violence, Brian Malloy, Washington

director 210

(III)
BOSTOl^

PUBLIC

UBl^RY
CHILDREN AND TELEVISION

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 1983

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Subcommittee on Telecommunications,

Consumer Protection, and Finance,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m., in room

2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Timothy E. Wirth

(chairman) presiding.

Mr. Wirth. Good morning. If the subcommittee could come to order.

As I believe everybody knows, this is National Children and Television Week. This morning's hearing is a further approach on this

issue by this subcommittee, which has long been concerned about

the issues of children and television, and the impact of television on the socialization of the young.

As we all know, historically there have been three main influ- ences on children. One, the family; second, the school; and third,

the church. A fourth has emerged in the last 30 years and that is the impact of television on the development of children, and the

education, and socialization of our young.

We, historically in this country, have always put an enormous premium on the education of our young, and the investment in our young people, from the little red school house to the American

high school today. We are very aware and have long been con- cerned about television and its impact on young people.

This becomes particularly important as we see a number of

emerging technologies in the 1980's. Alternative ways of developing

programing for children, beyond commercial television to the

advent and success of Public Broadcasting may change the outlook

of the video marketplace.

Today we hope to take further steps in understanding what is the relationship between what we ought to be doing, and where we

ought to be going in this area of public and commercial television,

and its impact on our children.

Before going to our witnesses, let me ask my colleagues if they

have any statements that they would like to make. I would like to start on my left with the ranking minority member, Mr. Rinaldo.

[Mr. Wirth's prepared statement follows:]

Statement of Hon. Timothy E. Wirth

Today we begin hearings on the critical issue of children and television. Last year, when I introduced the House resolution which created National Children and Tele- ID
vision Week I had intended that we dedicate this week to a thoughtful and probing

examination of the programming needs of younger Americans.

There is no question that television has become an integral part of everyday life with profound effects on people of every age. Television has the potential to provide

unique educational and entertainment opportunities for children, yet often falls short of its promise. As part of this national look at children's programming, I am

hopeful that this Subcommittee can begin to make some real progress in sorting out much of the debate and controversy surrounding the programming needs of chil- dren. In calling this hearing, I hope that we can put the disagreements of the past behind us and look toward solutions of the future. Children are this country's most precious resource, yet their needs are often not adequately served. During their most formative years—the time of their lives when

they develop a system of values, and outlook of the world around them and the tools that will prepare them for their adult lives—television plays a crucial role in our

children's development. Now, because of an explosion of new technologies there is even greater potential to expand the programming choices for children. Cable televi- sion, satellite services, and video cassettes are among the mediums that promise

greater diversity for all Americans. However in the near term, these technologies

will not be available to the majority of the nation's children. Public television has made substantial and extremely meaningful contributions to quality children's programming, but its viability is again being threatened by the Reagan Administration's catastrophic proposals to rescind 40 percent of its fund- ing—proposals I find extremely short-sighted and disturbing given the history of the Subcommittee and the Congress's commitment to funding public broadcasting.

So, where do we go from here to make the technological challenges of the 1980's work to the advantage of our children? I believe we must end the feuding and re- criminations of the past and work together toward feasible and meaningful solu- tions in providing children's programming. While we must be ever sensitive to the

First Amendment rights of broadcasters, Congress does have a responsibility to ensure that the needs of our children are well-served. I would hope that govern- ment, industry, educational and grass roots groups can work together toward this goal and that is why I am endorsing the legislative proposal of the National Education Association and Commissioner Riviera to create a temporary task force to expeditiously devise a workable blueprint to maximize the potential of the video marketplace for children.

I am most grateful to all of you who have joined us today and I am looking for- ward to hearing your views on these important issues of children and television. Mr. RiNALDO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to make a couple of very brief comments. First of all

I want to state that I am pleased that we are having this hearing

because I feel it is important to emphasize how vital it is to have

good television programing aimed specifically at the child viewer.

The subcommittee has assembled a distinguished group of wit- nesses who have made significant contributions to improving chil- dren's television programing over the years. While some progress has been made in identifying the programing needs and interests of children, the networks and broadcasters

must be more responsive and increase the hours of programing

aimed at children, as well as the quality of such programing.

I look forward to hearing about some of the projects which have

been undertaken specifically for National Children and Television

week. I hope that they will prove successful enough to be continued

past this week and to make lasting contributions to improved

television for children, because, as pointed out in the previous

statement, television has become a medium that has a significant

influence on our young people.

Mr. WiRTH. Thank you, Mr. Rinaldo.

Mr. Gore.

Mr. Gore. Mr. Chairman, I don't have a lengthy or formal opening statement. I would just note, for the record, that in contrast to my colleague from New Jersey, I am not impressed with the record
on children's television. I think it is a missed opportunity amounting to a national tragedy that we are failing to take advantage of

the opportunity that children's television provides, and the quality

of the programing that is produced I think is very poor. The level of commitment on the part of the networks particularly to children's television is very weak, and I think it constitutes a

failure on the part of the networks to meet the responsibility they

have to the public, or that large portion of the public.

Mr. WiRTH. Thank you, Mr. Gore.

Mr. Tauke.

Mr. Tauke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I believe that it is appropriate that we recognize the great importance of the children's programing on television and the importance of the week that we are celebrating by holding this hearing,

and I commend you for doing so.

I guess I find myself somewhat in-between the points of the two

members that preceded me. I don't really believe we have achieved

all we can in the television programing area, but I think that it has been improved.

I look at the schedule of programing here on Washington televi- sion stations today, and I find however that most young people are not going to have much available to them. Many of them are going

to be, if they watch television, subjected to programs that probably

are not going to do very much to educate them or to acquaint them

with the kinds of values that this society would like them to have.

So while we have seen some progress in some areas of television

programing for children, certainly there is a way to go.

I think we have to look not only at the question of what we do in

the way of children's programing, but I think there is also a seri- ous question about who is responsible for providing programing. I am not at all certain that we can, as Members of Congress, honestly sit up here and point fingers at people for not providing the chil- dren's programing, maybe it is not their really their responsibility

to do so.

I think we have an obligation to look today not only at what is being provided and what can be provided, but also what responsibility various segments of the broadcasting community have to make certain that there is the kind of programing for children's

television which will enhance the well-being of our society.

Mr. WiRTH. Thank you, Mr. Tauke.

Mr. Leland.

Mr. Leland. Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to com- memorate National Children and Television Week, and to discuss

issues concerning children and television. Television is increasingly

becoming one of the primary educators of America.

Studies indicate that many children spend more hours watching

television at home than they do studying in the classroom. The

images that children receive from television broadcasting shape

their perceptions, attitudes, and values. Although there has been

improvement in the quality of children's programing over the past

few years, many questions and concerns have gone unanswered.

I am appreciative that we will have an opportunity to discuss the

roles of commercial and public broadcasting in providing programing for children, the impact of the changing marketplace on chil-
dren's TV, and the development of pay and cable systems and their

impact on children's programing.

I fully agree with the Federal Communications Commission's

statement that broadcasters have a special obligation to children. I hope that this hearing will provide the impetus for further improvement of programing designed for and geared to children. I ap- preciate your foresight in this matter.

Mr. WiRTH. Thank you very much, Mr. Leland.

One of the themes that will run through all of our discussion in

this area is the first amendment and whether or not the Congress can and should be dictating the content of programing. I don't

think anybody on this panel would suggest for 1 minute that that

is our obligation or our responsibility, or something that we can do

under contraints of the Constitution and the first amendment.

However, it is very clear that there are a number of issues relat- ed to the education and socialization of our young have been registered here. There is a careful balance which I think we are very aware of. I would like to just say that at the start, given the con- cerns that many justifiably suggest when we get into this very deli- cate area of programing.

Second, just procedurally, I should note that we in the Congress, are at the height of the budget season. As a member of the Budget

Committee, I am going to have to leave shortly to go over to the

markup of the famous first budget resolution about which I know

all of you are passionately concerned.

We would like to get going as quickly as we can with our first panel which includes two very good friends of this subcommittee,

Commissioner Henry Rivera from the Federal Communications

Commission—Commissioner, we are delighted to have you here

and Mr. Robert Keeshan, otherwise known as Captain Kangaroo

Captain, delighted to have you here this morning. Thank you both

very much.

Commissioner Rivera, perhaps we could start with you. I just

want to commend you on the legislative proposal that you and National Education Association have put together to create a temporary task force of all groups to look at this issue. I, for one, think

that this is a very good idea, and one that we ought to pursue. We

look forward to hearing from you about that and other issues in

greater detail. So welcome, and we look forward to hearing from you. Thank

you for being with us. STATEMENT OF HENRY M. RIVERA, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL

COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Mr. Rivera. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity to present my views on the subject of

children's television, an issue of genuine concern to me.

I am frankly delighted that the subcommittee has decided to con- duct hearings on the state of children's television. In terms of the

development of the voters, workers, and leaders of tomorrow's

America, this could not be a more important issue or a more timely

airing of that issue.
The statistics on the high incidence of television viewing by

America's young are well known. During the impressionable ages

of 2 through 5, our children watch an average of 27 hours of televi- sion a week. Children between the ages of 6 through 11 watch 25

hours of television weekly, on the average. A growing number of

studies, including one recently issued by the National Institute of

Mental Health, have suggested a correlation between television

viewing and child development.

The magnitude of television viewing and the impact of that viewing on children are great. And yet one need only scan a TV schedule to confirm that the choice of programs designed for the child

audience on commercial television is limited, to put it most charitably. A sprinkling of randomly aired "specials" and the well-known

Saturday morning cartoon ghetto are all that remain on the commercial networks. One by one, we have watched the best and the

brightest programs disappear—Captain Kangaroo, Animals, Animals, Animals, 30 Minutes, and even the long popular Wonderful

World of Disney.

There have been some replacements, it is true. But more often

than not, they have been inexpensive animated shows or reruns. Since the gradual euthanasia of the Captain Kangaroo Show, none

of the commercial networks, to my knowledge, airs a regularly

scheduled weekday program created specifically for children. Is this the best our great country can offer its young?

I do not mean to criticize the television industry alone. We are

all responsible for the current condition of the medium: parents,

broadcasters and policymakers.

As parents, many of us have too easily succumbed to the temptation to use television as a surrogate, or an electronic babysitter. We

have also failed effectively to express our approval of, or displeas- ure with, the programs watched by our children.

Many broadcasters have also failed to live up to their responsibilities under the public interest standard of the Communications

Act: to air a reasonable amount of programing specially designed

for children on a regular basis, at a time when children are likely

to be watching. Apart from any legal duty, broadcasters quite

simply have breached their social compact with their constituency—the viewing audience—to enrich, entertain and educate.

At a time when broadcasters are claiming sufficient "maturity"

to warrant full and unconditional deregulation, I find this perform- ance—or lack of performance—disappointing and disturbing. For

broadcasters to be persuasive in their campaign for full regulatory

relief, they must show themselves to be responsible to the public.

Their record in meeting needs of children undermines the sense of

confidence that policymakers must have before they can make a judgment that our broadcast system has come of age.

I am also disheartened by the inaction of my agency, the Federal

Communications Commission. Over a decade ago, the FCC began an inquiry into the condition of children's television. That effort re- sulted in the promulgation in 1974, of a policy statement outlining

broadcaster obligations to the child audience. In 1979, a special

task force concluded that the industry, as a whole, was not living

up to its programing responsibilities under the policy statement. In response the FCC launched a rulemaking which outlined five alter-
6

native approaches for remedying the deficiencies perceived by the

task force. In October 1980, during 2 days of hearings, the Commission heard some of the many people who commented on these rulemaking proposals. Presumably, those hearings were a prelude to

final action in the docket. As it turned out, though, the issue was

put on the back burner at the agency. National Children and Television Week has not even evoked a commemorative gesture from

the FCC.

Many broadcasters have shrewdly appraised the situation in

Washington and, seeing that the FCC's attention is on other matters, have adjusted their program schedules accordingly. As I have

said in other forums, from a purely financial standpoint I cannot

blame them. But, I cannot believe that we have become so cynical as a society that we will allow the laws of economics to govern in

every instance.

I particularly cannot accept the view that broadcasters are merely business people—nothing more and nothing less. A televi- sion is not, as some have suggested, just a toaster with pictures.

NAB president Eddie Fritts recently said in a slightly different context: "Broadcasting as a guest in the home is unlike any other

business in the nation." I agree. Also, no matter how warmly we

may embrace deregulation as a general principle, the fact remains

that to this day, broadcasters are by law public trustees. As such,

they are subject to reasonable public interest regulation by the

FCC. And no matter what the alleged shortcomings of the FCC's

1974 policy statement, that statement is still on the books. It is a good law and the FCC should make good its promise to enforce it, not allow its pronouncements on broadcasters' obligation to chil- dren to become hollow fictions.

It is simply unacceptable to say that broadcasting is a business

and must be guided by what is most profitable. As entities with an

exclusive license to use the spectrum, broadcasters have benefitted

substantially from the use of a public resource. In return, the

public is entitled to a dividend. At a minimum, that dividend

should include regular, diverse and enriching programing for chil- dren.

Children's needs simply cannot be met in the present marketplace. They cannot speak the language that is best understood by

commercial entities. There is much hope for genuinely abundant

video programing in the future, but today the video marketplace is not so robust that sustained, quality children's programs are likely

to be offered through the natural interplay of market forces. No one expects—or would want—television licensees to become

national nannies. What we should reasonably expect is for broadcasters to offer children a choice. One that we as a nation can be

proud of. One that reflects the best potential of the medium. And,

yes, one that is not be dictated exclusively by economics.

How can we make this longstanding hope and collection of public

promises a reality?

Public television is certainly one vehicle for helping fulfill the

children's programing mission. The public television network has

been nothing less than the standard bearer in developing programs

for youthful viewers. We must take all reasonable steps to insure

that public broadcasting is soundly and generously financed. Given
suggestions that public television single-handedly meet our chil- drens' viewing needs, I view with more than a little trepidation the

administration's proposals to slash Federal funding of public broadcasting.

Although I firmly support a strong public broadcasting system, I have several reservations about making it shoulder the entire re- sponsibility for children's television. Our children's access to di- verse and enriching programs should not be dependent on the va- garies of the appropriations process. The funding hazards under

which public broadcasting has recently operated dramatically illus- trate the perils of that approach.

I am also concerned that a large part of the public cannot receive an over-the-air public television signal—at least 5 percent and per- haps much higher. Universal service is a fundamental communications policy goal. We have recently reemphasized this conviction in

the common carrier area. I can think of no reason that commitment should not apply with equal vigor in the children's programing arena.

Finally, there is a curious double standard, from a first amendment standpoint in sparing commercial broadcasters from all behavioral regulation in the interest of free speech, while specifying

desired categories of programing as a condition of Federal funding

for public broadcasters. Others have raised this issue and it deeply concerns me, as well.

I firmly believe commercial broadcasters should be held to their

existing duty to air a reasonable amount of programing specially

designed for children. They have the financial resources, the cre- ative talent, and an unmatched ability to reach the entire viewing

public, free of direct charge. Toward this end, my preference would

be for the FCC to act on its outstanding rulemaking on children's

television. The options proposed, which range from imposing mandatory programing guidelines to relying entirely on the developing

new technologies, are sufficiently broad to allow the FCC to address the children's programing issue responsibly. Let me make

plain that I have no love for mandatory program performance

guidelines. I would advocate them only as a last resort. However, I do believe the FCC has the legal authority to promulgate narrowly

tailored regulations or processing guidelines to meet the needs of

this specially protected class. And, if commercial broadcasters

cannot see their way clear to meeting their obligation to children

independently, I would be prepared to consider the guideline concept, at least as an interim measure. While I would prefer for the FCC, on its own, to finish what it has started, I realize that many of the Commissioners responsible

for the rulemaking proposals issued 3 years ago have since left the

Agency. Some of us are unfamiliar with the issues involved. Others

may feel that the FCC should update the record before acting. Still others may want additional analysis of alternatives not expressly

highlighted before, such as placing responsibility in this area on

the public television alone.

We need a vehicle for such supplemental activity, which will

break the existing regulatory stalemate. I urge this subcommittee

to consider legislation to form a temporary commission on children

and television to evaluate strategies for meeting the television
8

viewing needs of our young people. The temporary commission

could consist of high level representatives of government, industry,

and members of the general public active in this area. What I have in mind is something along the lines that the National Education Association proposed to the FCC during a public

participation en banc meeting in January 1982. If the subcommittee decided to pursue this suggestion, it should give the temporary

commission a limited life span, say 6 months, during which the

group could freshen the record of the FCC's pending rulemaking,

educate the current FCC on the issues involved, and ultimately

present final recommendations for positive action. The temporary

commission should be specifically accountable to the Congress—as well as the FCC—so that Congress will be in a position to act promptly on any legislative recommendations that are made.

Although groups of this sort carry the potential for delay, they

also can, if properly structured, provide the catalyst for creative

new initiatives. I am especially optimistic about the prospects for a temporary commission on children and television because of the

apparent success of your Temporary Commission on Alternative Fi- nancing for Public Television, which is being ably chaired by FCC

Commissioner James Quello. I can also attest to the creative potential of special high-level, task-oriented committees based on my

own experience chairing the FCC's Advisory Committee on Alternative Financing Opportunities for Minorities in Telecommunications. In conclusion, I am grateful for this chance to present my views on children's television. National Children and Television week has

real promise for raising public awareness about the present condition of television for our nation's young. I hope that those in a position to make a difference continue beyond March 19 the enthusiasm generated during this commemorative week.

This concludes my prepared testimony, Mr. Chairman. However,

before I finish, I would like to report to you a late breaking development from the Commission. I have with me a letter from FCC

Chairman Mark Fowler to you. Congressman Wirth, which he has

asked me to deliver. I am told that your staff was made aware of

this letter last night, right after I received it. The letter states that

Chairman Fowler has just decided to hold an en banc hearing

sometime in late April on children's television and to conclude the

1979 children's television rulemaking proceeding in late summer or early fall of 1983. I suppose there may be some truth to the adage

that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. I am pleased that Chairman Fowler has decided to move ahead with the FCC's duties in

this area. As I stated before, I believe the FCC should finish what

it has started. While I believe this is a positive development, I also

continue to believe that congressional action in the area of chil- dren's programing would be an appropriate and desirable supplement to the FCC action. My impression is that when Congress

speaks, the broadcast industry and the FCC listen. Tangible evi- dence of congressional concern cannot harm the cause of children's

television. It could also help. As I said earlier, a temporary commission could fertilize everyone's thinking on this age-old issue. I would not want the creation of a temporary commission to delay

the decision on the children's television issue. But dates often slip
at the FCC despite the chairman's best intentions, so it is quite

conceivable that a temporary commission could finish its work

before the FCC completes its outstanding rulemaking. Its recom- mendations could be filtered into any final report and order that

the FCC would issue. Even if the temporary commission did not

finish its work before final FCC action, the temporary commission

recommendations could be used in petitions for reconsideration, or considered by Congress, as appropriate.

These are matters that the subcommittee will obviously have to evaluate. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. WiRTH. Thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner.

Without objection, Mr. Fowler's letter of last night will be included in full in the record. We appreciate your good work at the commission and the efforts of the commission to work together and, as you suggest, respond to the very deep concerns of this subcommittee.Thank you very much, and I hope you won't mind if a number of us plagiarize from your excellent testimony.

Mr. Rivera. Not at all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WiRTH. Thank you. Commissioner.

[The letter referred to follows:]
10

Federal Communications Commission

washington, d. c. 20554 March 16, 1983

oFTicc or

The Chairm A.N

Honorable Timothy Wirth

Chairman, Subcommittee on Telecommunications,

Consumer Protection, and Finance

Committee on Energy and Finance

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, D. C. 20515

Dear Chairman Wirth:

I am writing in reference to the Subcommittee Hearing on children and television scheduled today as part of National

Children and Television Week. My fellow Commissioner Henry

Rivera is scheduled to participate in this Hearing, and I have asked him to present this letter to you.

As you know, in 1979 a special FCC Task Force released a study of children's television, reviewing the five year period

since the 1974 FCC Children's Television Policy Statement. In response to that report, the Commission began an Inquiry, Docket

No. 19142, to consider alternative approaches to the subject of children's television. Two days of hearings were conducted in October, 1980 on the study and recommended alternatives.

I would anticipate that the Commission will issue a final report in Docket No. 19142 by late summer/early fall, 1983. Pursuant to that timetable, and in order to havfe an up-to-date

record with which to proceed in this important matter, I would request, with your permission, that a transcript of today's

Hearing be included in the record x>f Docket No. 19142.

In addition, I have scheduled an en banc oral hearing at the Commission on Docket No. 19142 for late April. This hearing will give interested parties an opportunity to update comments already

filed in the proceeding. It will also give members of the Commission an opportunity, sitting as a panel, to have a question

and answer exchange with the commenting parties.

I would respectfully request that this letter be made a part

of the record of today's Hearing.

Sincerely,

Mark S. Fowler Chairman
11 Mr. WiRTH. With Commissioner Rivera is, as I suggested, an old

friend of this subcommittee and a long-time family friend of Senator Heinz who was, on the Senate side, the Senate sponsor of the

legislation creating National Children and Television Week, Mr.

Robert Keeshan, perhaps better known outside of the families in- volved as Captain Kangaroo.

Captain, again, thank you very much for being with us once

again. We look forward to hearing from you.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT KEESHAN, NEW YORK

Mr. Keeshan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I must say that you are the first chairman of a congressional

committee who did not introduce me by saying. Good Morning,

Captain. I appreciate that. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today about perhaps my favorite subject, children and televi- sion.

Perhaps the most basic undertaking of any society is the nurturing of its young. This, of course, springs from the instinct, survival

of the individual and survival of the society. A society which intel- ligently attends to the nurturing of its young has a promising

future. The society which fails in this basic task will spend its re- sources restraining its misfits, building detention centers to ware- house its failures.

To be successful in the nurturing process, society must be con- cerned about the many influences affecting the development of its young. The family, our primary unit for nurturing, must have the

total support needed to support its task. We must provide for the

education of the young. Every child must have access to the splendid facilities of modern American medicine. All of us in society

must weigh how our private actions and our public and corporate

policies affect the youth of the Nation, its future.

Television is an influence on our young people. It provides a

wider range of experiences. It provides more information than the

public library, for many more information than the schools. Television influences our young in developing attitudes and in the imparting of values to young people from toddler to teen and beyond.

The questions asked by this committee today are not simply an- swered because the question of children and television is a question

with many parts.

How do parents use television?

What can we do to inform parents of the values imparted

to a 4-year-old watching a game show or soap opera with mature

themes and to make them understand that television is not a babysitter but that programing should be as carefully selected as

friends and other influences upon the child?

We shall continue to work through the National Council for Children and Television to sensitize members of the creative community to the effects that their writing, production, and performing may

have upon the Nation's young and, therefore, its future. We shall

continue to impress upon them that a child is watching.

That brings us to the basic question, the question of broadcaster

responsibility to children. I believe that broadcasters, commercial

and public, network and independent, must appreciate the impact
12

of their programing on the Nation's young and, therefore, on the

future of the Republic. This is not a responsibility which we assign

to broadcasters and not to others.

I believe that every segment of our society—government, industry, business, including broadcasters—must be accountable for the

effects of their actions on the Nation's young. The question is not

whether broadcasters should be treated as trustees of the airwaves,

or as private enterprise in a public business. Every one of us, indi- vidual or corporation, public or private, is subject to the principle

of accountability.

How to achieve this accountability is indeed a difficult question.

I have spent most of the last decade across this Nation calling for

industry self-regulation, and speaking against government intrusion. However, I don't believe anyone is naive enough to believe

that the marketplace will provide the impetus for meeting the

needs of children or any other minority audience.

It is not a question of marketplace or deregulation or first amendment rights. Children are special, vulnerable, our most criti- cal asset, and must be treated as such. Our law recognizes this in

protecting them in contracts, alcohol abuse, and such rulings as that of the Supreme Court last year in the New York "kiddie

porn" case, a case incidentally which was fraught with first amendment questions.

No, children are special and if we are to nurture our young and

provide for our future, we must recognize the special conditions

which obtain.

I am a broadcaster, a producer of programing. I am not unfettered. I am responsible for my actions and the effects of my pro- graming on young people. I accept that responsibility and ask that

I be held accountable. I ask that each and every one of my fellow

broadcasters accept the same accountability. If we do so, as an in- dustry, then this committee will not find it necessary to ask the

questions it is asking this morning.

Mr. Swift [presiding]. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for

your testimony.

We will follow the tradition of the committee, recognizing rnembers in order of their appearance. We will try to follow within reason the 5-minute rule. The Chair recognizes Mr. Gore.

Mr. Gore. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First of all. Commissioner Rivera, I would like to compliment

you on your statement, which I found to be truly excellent. I would

also like to express my appreciation and that of other members of

the committee, I am sure, for the FCC's responsiveness to the con- cerns we have expressed as evidenced by the letter from Chairman

Fowler, which you read into the record.

I find your analysis of the problem and your push for action and

your suggestions all really excellent. I appreciate that very rnuch.

How long have you been on the Commission, Commissioner

Rivera?

Mr. Rivera. Since August of 1981.

Mr. Gore. I would also like to compliment President Reagan for

having the wisdom to appoint you to the Commission, because I find your perspective quite refreshing. I look forward to working
13

with you. This is just an enormous missed opportunity for our soci- ety and an enormous tragedy in the way that programing is now

being presented.

I must admit, Mr. Chairman, I have a conflict of interest of sorts.

I have four young children, all under the age of 9, and I get to watch a lot of children's programing during meals, and whatnot,

when it is on. I am quite concerned as a parent and as a member of

this subcommittee.

Mr. Keeshan, tell me when are you on? When is Captain Kangaroo on television now. I don't see you any more. Mr. Keeshan. You are obviously not an early riser. We are broadcast on weekends, Saturday and Sunday, in most

places at 7 a.m., although in many places at 6 a.m. Mr. Gore. That is really an impressive commitment on the part

of the network to get your children's programing out. You used to be the only network that produced weekday television programing

specifically made for children; is that correct? Mr. Keeshan. That is correct. For 27 years, we were on Monday

through Friday on CBS.

Mr. Gore. Now you have been taken off? Mr. Keeshan. Now we are on weekends.

Mr. Gore. You have been taken off during the week, and now

you are on weekends.

Mr. Keeshan. Yes. Mr. Gore. Here in Washington you are on on Sunday mornings

at 6?

Mr. Keeshan. I am not familiar with the schedule in Washington, but it would be 6 or 7 a.m., on both Saturday and Sunday.

Mr. Gore. Why have they done this to you. Captain Kangaroo?

Mr. Keeshan. I think the marketplace has really come into play

here. There had been for many years tremendous pressure to serve an adult audience during the week in the time period that I occupied, 8 to 9 a.m. is a very important time period. It became an op- pressive pressure. There was pressure from affiliates, and pressure

from other quarters, pressures from the News Division to recapture

that time.

Everyone was unhappy with the performance of the CBS News

against their competition from NBC and ABC. The News Department felt very clearly that if they had the full 2 hours to work,

they could recapture that hour, and they would be more successful

in competing.

Mr. Gore. You mean that they would make more money?

Mr. Keeshan. I don't know if I want to ascribe the most base motives to the network, but it certainly is no accident that part of the

whole picture is that they would always make more money from

adult programing. Any network will always make more money

from adult programing. There is no question about that. Mr. Gore. It really isn't complicated, it is? Mr. Keeshan. No; it is not. You can't serve a child audience, a

juvenile audience if the only standard is an economic standard.

You have to have other reasons to do quality children's programing.

Mr. Gore. Little children don't buy automobiles. They don't buy

beer. They don't buy perfume.

20-006 0-83
14

Mr. Keeshan. They don't vote. Mr. Gore. They don't vote, and they are not that successful in

nagging their parents to buy the things that are advertised to them. So there is only a minimal commitment.

Mr. Keeshan. They are the silent minority, there is no question

about that. They are not able to express their needs. They are not

articulate.

Mr. Gore. I think, as I said before, in conclusion, this is a tragedy that this single largest source of information for young people

in America is handled, or mishandled, in the way it is. What has

happened to you. Captain Kangaroo, is the best example I know of. The other two networks, of course, didn't have a Captain Kangaroo

to shuffle off on to the dawn slots on the weekend, so it is not iust

CBS.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Swift. The Chair recognizes Mr. Rinaldo.

Mr. Rinaldo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rivera, I want to thank you for your testimony. Twice in

your testimony you stated that the networks should air a reason- able amount of programing specifically designed for children, but

nowhere did you define what a reasonable amount is. Would you

please define that for the benefit of the members of this committee,

and for the record?

Mr. Rivera. Yes, Congressman, I think that is a real problem,

what is a reasonable amount. I think that would have to be defined

and would have to be fleshed out, perhaps, as a result of the en banc meeting that the Commission is going to have, or perhaps as a

result of the work of the temporary commission if Congress saw fit to authorize the temporary commission. It is very soft, I agree with

you.

Mr. Rinaldo. The problem is that you stated that there wasn't

enough. How much is there now?

Mr. Rivera. I suggest that that question would be better put to the networks. Congressman.

Mr. Rinaldo. Let me ask you another way. How much more do

you think there be? Should they double the amount they have now,

or triple it? Mr. Rivera. I would just say that in 1979, when we issued the

rulemaking, we had a lot more programing for children than we

have now. So there is considerably less. Whether or not they

should double it, triple it, or quadruple it, is again something that I would like to await saying until I get the information that will

result from the en banc meeting that we are going to have.

Mr. Rinaldo. There is less. So you are saying that the situation

is getting worse rather than better. Mr. Rivera. Absolutely.

Mr. Rinaldo. I have to admit that I don't know very much about

this, and that is one of the reasons why I am intrigued by the fact

that twice in your testimony you said "a reasonable amount," and

I think that the Commission concept is probably a good one. But

why don't you give me some idea, for the record, as to what your

opinion of reasonable would be. You must have some idea of what

it is.
15

Mr. Rivera. I utilized that word, Congressman, because that is what the 1974 policy statement indicates and utilizes. In other

areas that we have asked broadcasters to concentrate in, for example, public affairs, we have always left the amount in the discretion

of the licensee. They have broad discretion. That is what the Commission was trying to do in 1974 when it issued that particular

policy statement.

Mr. RiNALDO. I remember the policy statement, but I am still trying to get some idea. I know the difficulty with defining reasonable, but can you give me some idea?

How much has been lost? You said that from 1979 to date, 1983,

there has been a decrease.

Mr. Rivera. Yes,

Mr. RiNALDO. How much of a decrease has there been?

Mr. Rivera. I can't tell you specifically. I can tell you that Animals, Animals, Animals is no longer on, and 30 Minutes is no

longer on, or the Wonderful World of Disney is no longer on. Mr. RiNALDO. Has there been a great decrease, a moderate decrease, or small decrease?

Mr. Rivera. There has been a great decrease.

Mr. RiNALDO. A great decrease?

Mr. Rivera. Yes; I think I can quantify it that way, yes. Mr. RiNALDO. Suppose we ran the spectrum from zero to 100 per- cent of broadcast time, how much broadcast time, just give me an

arbitrary number, do you think should be devoted to children's

television?

Mr. Rivera. I really am, as you can tell, very reluctant to answer

that question. Congressman.

Mr. RiNALDO. I know that, but I would like an answer because I would like to ask the networks, when they testify, how much they

are providing now. I would like to get some idea of exactly what is going on in this area because I can't make any intelligent judgments without knowing exactly what is happening.

Mr. Rivera. I understand that, and neither can I, that is why I am very concerned that the Commission flesh out and refresh its record in the children's television proceeding so that I could give

you an intelligent answer to that question.

I can tell you that we have less than we had in 1979. There has

been a great decrease, but I certainly can't sit here and tell you

that 7V2 hours a week is reasonable. I simply do not have the information to give you that kind of answer. Mr. RiNALDO. In other words, what you are saying is that you

really don't know how much is reasonable and you prefer to wait

until the Commission examines that question and comes up with some parameters as to what constitutes a reasonable amount.

Mr. Rivera. That is precisely what I am saying.

Mr. RiNALDO. What has caused this decrease, lack of listenership, or economics, the need to put on more news? I looked in the paper

and I noticed that Captain Kangaroo was replaced by the early

morning news. To what do you attribute this?

Mr. Rivera. I attribute it to a perception by the broadcasters

that the Commission is no longer interested in this particular crite- ria as a condition for renewing their licenses, and that they can make more money airing other types of programs.
16

Mr. RiNALDO. When your program was aired on weekday mornings, did listenership increase over the years, or decrease, or remain about the same?

Mr. Keeshan. It decreased over the years because there was a

fragmentation of the juvenile audience. The juvenile audience in

total was a very small audience, an unattractive audience to begin

with by network broadcast standards. When we first went on the

air in 1955, in most cities there were only two, maybe three sta- tions on the air at that hour of the morning.

As television matured, many more stations, particularly independent stations, came on the air and engaged in counterprograming. We have a situation today where in large cities like New York,

Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago, where we had at that time of

the morning two, three or four programs designed for juvenile audience. Therefore, the audience was greatly fragmented.

So we begin with a small audience, and fragment it even further

through competitive process, and we end up with a very small audience, and an unattractive audience. There is no question that

from a business point of view, it is a very unattractive audience.

There has to be more than a business reason for doing quality chil- dren's programing.

Mr. RiNALDO. Thank you very much. I have no further questions.

Mr. Swift. Mr. Leland.

Mr. Leland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rivera, I think that your statement was most profound and I am happy to see you on the Commission. I hope that you are able

to get some of your ideas through to your colleagues.

Mr. Rivera, in your opinion, can Public Television, pay-services,

such as Nickelodeon, and ACSN, the learning channel, compensate

for the lack of quality children's programing on commercial televi- sion?

Mr. Rivera. Congressman, first of all, Nickelodeon is a pay service, and there is only 35 percent of the Nation, approximately, that

is wired for cable. So you first have to assume that everyone can

afford cable, and that the total Nation is wired in order to have a compensation effect with regard to services like Nickelodeon.

Public television, again as I mentioned in my testimony, about 5 percent of the Nation cannot receive a public television signal, I am informed. In addition, there is some undefined percentage,

maybe as high as another 5 percent, that can only acquire public

television signals via some sort of a pay service like cable. Again, if you put all the burden on public television, it would not

be an exact balancing. Also if you said that public television has to shoulder the entire burden, it is going to be at the expense of other

types of programing.

Mr. Leland. With the advent of such high technology as televi- sion and other means by which we communicate, it seems to me

that given the fact that historically we have not had the foresight,

the Founding Fathers of this Nation and the drafters of the Constitution did not determine that certain rights should be bestowed

upon certain citizens of this country. Children have not been written in the Constitution very much even though, they arrive at some point in their life when they are protected in a much greater
17

sense because they become adults and their rights are then realized.

It seems to me that had they realized that we were going to have

television, that they would have written in the Constitution some

rights for children, such as a Captain Kangaroo would have to con- tinue on television, and at the same time, in the same slot there

would be maybe a Captain Rabbit on ABC, and a Captain something else on NBC. So that the pressures, the nuances of the commercialism of television would not be placed on a Captain Kangaroo, but rather they would compete for quality as opposed to the

dollar. Do you agree with that?

Mr. Rivera. I think that the Supreme Court has stated in the

Red Lion case, and in other cases, that it is the first amendment

rights of the viewing audience and not the broadcaster's that is paramount. So to some extent the Supreme Court has done, per- haps in not as many words as you would have the Constitution

read, something similar to, conceptually, what you are talking

about.

Mr. Leland. I have some obvious concerns also. I am very con- cerned with the portrayal of minorities and stereotyping on chil- dren's television, particularly in the programing area. In your opinion, is there still a problem with the stereotyping of minorities and

women, and their role in society, in programing geared toward chil- dren?

Mr. Rivera. Congressman, I have not looked into that specifically. I have had one of the networks, ABC as a matter of fact, came

to my office and gave me a presentation in which they indicated

and demonstrated, and perhaps they will do that for the subcommittee today, that they are sensitive to these issues and have made

a conscious effort to do something about that sort of thing in the

programing that they are running for children now. Mr. Leland. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

Mr. Keeshan, I am glad to realize finally that your name is something other than Captain Kangaroo. In your opinion are the

commercial networks really abrogating their responsibilities to children?

Mr. Keeshan. That is a question that begs a simple answer, and

I don't think I can answer it simply. I think it is a very complex

question. I think there are many influences, as Commissioner

Rivera has pointed out, that affect decisionmaking at the network

level. I think there is absolutely no question that there have been

many pressures, most of them commercial pressures and economic

pressures, that have taken on a greater importance since the cli- mate of regulation of the broadcast industry has changed.

It is much more difficult now for a network. A network is nothing more than a collection of stations, and the pressure from indi- vidual stations, as Mr. Swift well knows from his past experience,

those pressures can be enormously great in network executive

suites. I think that the difference in the climate of regulation of

the broadcast industry has made those pressures on affiliates much

more effective. Certainly in my case they came into play. There is no question

that for years affiliates wanted to remove the Captain because not
18

only could they not make as much money on the Captain, but also

he interfered with what they call the flow of the audience.

There was adult programing before, and there was adult pro- graming after, and here was an island of programing that served

young people. They felt that a lot of adults were switching to other

stations and were lost for the entire morning or lost for the entire

day.

Those are commercial considerations and I think in that sense the difference in regulatory climate has been a tremendous influ- ence on children's television, not just Captain Kangaroo but many

programs.

Mr. Leland. Going back to the question that I asked the Commissioner, do you think that if there had been counterprograming on the opposite networks that you would still be on television be- cause you would be competing for quality of programing as opposed

to the commercial aspects that the networks seem to look for now?

Mr. Keeshan. It is an adversarial business, there is no question

about that. I think that if there were reasons for doing quality pro- graming for television, other than economic reasons, we would still be there. But it is very, very difficult.

I think that CBS feels very strongly that it does serve a larger

public with "CBS Morning News," with the expanded morning

news, and I cannot argue with that. I think they do serve that audience. But the question is, where in the world do we serve this

critical audience, as I pointed out in my remarks, the future of our

Nation.

Chairman Fowler in some remarks on children's television very

recently quoted the psychologist Robert Siegel who says that we

have 20 years in which to save civilization. Every 20 years a new

generation matures, and so while we sit here and talk, we influence

millions of children who will never recapture today, who will never

recapture this week or last week. They will have been influenced

or not influenced by what they see on television.

Those children will perhaps be negatively influenced, and I think

we ought to address ourselves to those questions, because we can

talk forever, but while we are talking children are growing up, children are maturing, and children are being influenced by what

they see on television. I think that it is about time that we did

indeed address what is happening to this critical national asset, the

most critical of our assets, the future.

Mr. Leland. This is my last question, Mr. Chairman.

Do you think that what we ought to do is advocate that mothers

and fathers of children today ought to boycott the networks until

they put adequate programing?

You don't have to answer that. Mr. Keeshan. It might be a nice idea, but unfortunately it is a complex question, this question of children and television. One of

the parts of that question, which has been a great disappointment

to me and to many of us producing quality programing, is the atti- tude of parents.

Ninety-five percent of American parents—this is not a firm

figure—use television as a babysitter, and are not concerned about

the effect of television on their young people, not because they

don't care, but because in this modern age parents are busy. Most
19

of them are working and television offers a great opportunity to get the child out from underfoot.

So hour after hour they sit, not watching children's television,

watching television never designed for them, but watching soap

operas and game shows, all of which have their place on the broadcast schedule, but not for viewing by children most of the time.

When you watch some of these shows where greed is rewarded

and you wonder what values were imparted to young people. I can watch that because I have broader experience, and I understand

what is being done there, but a 4-year old or a 5-year old doesn't

really understand that. This is the parental responsibility which

cannot be passed on to the broadcaster at any time.

Mr. Leland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Swift. Mr. Oxley.

Mr. Oxley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Keeshan, first of all, welcome.

I must also admit to a conflict of interest because I have a 10- year old son. I am not as prolific as my friend from Tennessee.

Mr. Swift. But there is still time.

Mr. Oxley. My son is very interested in television in general. I have tried to watch his viewing habits over the last couple of

weeks, knowing that this hearing would come up. You mentioned in your original comments several times your

concern about accountability. To whom are you accountable ulti- mately, not only as a performer, but even more importantly as a

producer, and one who has a great deal of input as to what is shown on television?

Mr. Keeshan. I am accountable directly to the network, and ulti- mately I am held accountable by the commission, and ultimately

by the Congress really. There is a chain there almost as a State has

a chain in education institutions. The institution is accountable to trustees, and they are to the region, and so on. I think there is an

ultimate accountability, if you carry it to the nth degree, to the

people of the United States as represented here in the Congress.

Mr. Oxley. If that is in fact the case, how does that compare or contrast with the first amendment and the ability for networks,

and anybody for that matter, to say what they want to say at the

time that they want to say it? Isn't there an inherent conflict with the first amendment if we

talk literally about a step-by-step accountability?

Mr. Keeshan. I go back to my civics courses, and I find that

every right is accompanied by a responsibility. So if we have rights

under the first amendment, we also are held accountable. We have

to be responsible. It is not carte blanche. It is not complete freedom

to do anything or to say anything. As the famous fire in a crowded

theatre, we have to be responsible. We have to be held accountable

for how we exercise our first amendment rights. That is all I have

ever asked for in regulation of broadcasters.

I was interested in Mr. Rinaldo's question of how much is reasonable. It has always been the difficult question. We have for three

decades, through the Federal Communications Commission, regulated, as Chairman Fowler likes to say, with a blink and with a

nod, and that is anathema to him. He doesn't think that we ought

to be doing that any more.
20

But it did work pretty well, because networks, and stations particularly, knew that there was a principle of accountability, and someone would ask them questions that they might not be able to answer too easily.

As I learned from Mother Goose a long time ago, a wink and a nod can be a blinking good thing on occasion. So that may be exactly the sort of thing that we are asking for because broadcasters

have in the past displayed the capability to program very responsibly for young people and for other audiences. As long as they have

that knowledge of responsibility, the principle of accountability, we

think they are quite capable of doing it. Mr. OxLEY. Has that eroded during the last few years?

Mr. Keeshan. There is no question that it has eroded because it doesn't really exist anymore. I believe in deregulation, I really do,

but I don't believe in no regulation. We always look to government

for the creation of order out of the chaos that would exist if we

didn't have govenment.

We are not singling out broadcasters. If we tell the automobile

industry to put in seat restraints, we are not singling them out. We

are telling them to put in seat restraints because they manufacture

automobiles. We are not going to tell a toothbrush manufacturer to put in seatbelts, that would be silly.

So when we talk about broadcasters and their responsibility to program appropriately for young people, we are not singling them

out. We are simply saying, you have the same responsibilities that

the rest of corporate America, the rest of the academy in America

has, the responsibility that the Government has, or members of the

Government have.

Mr. OxLEY. Are the "Captain Kangaroo" programs that were re- ferred to in some questions from Mr. Gore reruns that are shown

now in the early morning hours?

Mr. Keeshan. No. Last year we created 52 new programs and

broadcast 104, so the 52 are then repeated. This year we will create 26 new ones. We have had a budget cut, so we will create 26 new

ones, and still air 104, some of them coming from this current

season. Mr. Gore. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. OxLEY. I sure will. Mr. Gore. Who cut your budget?

Mr. Keeshan. The man who pays me. Mr. Gore. The network.

Mr. Keeshan. Yes. Mr. Gore. From what to what?

Mr. Keeshan. Do you mean dollars?

Mr. Gore. Yes. Mr. Keeshan. I have no idea.

Mr. Gore. Give me a percentage then.

Mr. Keeshan. It is a very expensive program. It is about a 40

percent cut. Mr. Gore. It is almost half. Mr. Keeshan. Yes. Mr. Gore. Thank you.

Mr. OxLEY. Mr. Keeshan, some of the programs on prime time,

while not necessarily children's shows, appear to me at least to be
21

leaning a little bit toward children. I don't mean necessarily to single out one program, but "Diff rent Strokes," for example, ap- pears to be an attractive program for young people. Is that considered in the business a children's program?

Mr. Keeshan. It is what we call a family program, a program

that has appeal to a large audience. You are absolutely correct in

saying that most programming viewed by most children is not chil- dren's programing at all. Probably less than 10 percent of the viewing of American children is children's programing, programing pro- duced specifically for them.

The rest of it is family programing, daytime programing that I referred to before, and an enormous amount of prime time pro- graming that the producers wish they would not watch. They don't

want them to watch it, but they do watch it. Here again is the question of parental responsibility and parental yielding of this responsibility to broadcasters. From the rating

books we know that the juvenile audience doesn't fall below 1 million until midnight, and that is hardly the broadcaster's responsibility. I think questions of parental responsibility are raised there.

Mr. OxLEY. Mr. Rivera, one of the things that has concerned me

about television in general, and particularly what I have seen in

passing, has been that many of the independent stations run

movies in many cases very early in the afternoon and very early in

the evening. Many of the movies are questionable at best as far as a young audience is concerned.

What responsibility do the independents have, and what can

really be done about providing some degree of notice or some

degree of ability for the parents to understand exactly what their

children may be seeing during that particular time?

Mr. Rivera. The independents bear the same responsibility that

other network affiliates bear in terms of serving the community.

I think that if the viewers believe that they are not serving

them, they should first indicate to the independent in question that

they are having a problem with the programing. Then they should

indicate that to us as well at the Commission, especially at license

renewal time, with the specifics of why the license is not serving

the public interest, the viewing audience.

With regard to what can be done to let parents know what is available, if the television digest that appears in the newspaper is not sufficient, then I would suggest a telephone call to the station

in question to ask what the movie is about and that sort of thing,

to get the particulars if they are worried about a young audience

viewing the movie.

Mr. OxLEY. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Swift. Thank you.

Mr. Rivera, you made the comment that you thought that per- haps one of the reasons that the amount of children's programing

is going down is that the Commission, or at least there is a perception that the Commission is no longer interested in kids'

programing.

We hear a great deal these days about how the regulation is no

longer necessary because the marketplace is going to take care of

everj^hing that is necessary. How does your feeling that there is
22

lack of response for children's programing because the Commission

is no longer interested square with the total deregulatory approach

that is the philosophy of the Commission as a whole, not necessarily yourself?

Mr. Rivera. The cause of the lack of response by the networks, I think, is a perception that the Commission is not going to take

away licenses as a result of a diminution in this type of

programing.

Mr. Swift. Even more that they are trying to get rid of the authority by which they can even raise an eyebrow. Is it not true that

Chairman Fowler would just as soon, by statute, have any authority to do anything with regard to children's programing or anything

else for that matter?

Mr. Rivera. I think he certainly has indicated on the record that

that is his position.

Mr. Swift. What I am suggesting is, am I correct in hearing you,

contrary to that point of view, say that you feel that at least in

part the feeling in the broadcast community that the Commission

doesn't care, in fact has resulted in a change in behavior on their

part with regard to children's programing?

Mr. Rivera. That is my perception. Congressman.

Mr. Swift. Thank you.

I am no apologist for CBS, but it seems to me that there are two

ways of looking at that particular half-glass of water. One is that

CBS is terribly bad network who cut "Captain Kangaroo" back.

One might also argue that it was the network that kept "Captain

Kangaroo" on years after it was clear none of the CBS competitors were going to put on similar kinds of programings, and in fact were

beginning to build solid leads in early morning programing doing

something else. I raise that primarily to examine the marketplace

issues involved.

It seems to me, and I would appreciate if both of you would com- ment on this, that if a broadcaster in a market—We happen to be

talking about a network and national market, but I think that it holds true in the local market as well—if one broadcaster is willing

to make a commitment to some kind of programing that may be

expensive and may not be rewarding in terms of profit it can make,

if its competition doesn't respond in kind, what it probably can do

is exploit the station to the point at which that broadcaster who is trying to do something in the public interest ultimately is going to have to respond to the competitive forces and join the competition,

if they won't join him, in competing for public service, if you will.

I would be interested in your comments on how the marketplace

works in that regard.

Mr. Rivera. I agree with you and that is why I think it is imperative that the Commission enforce its regulations on a uniform

basis. To the extent that the Commission indicates that, yes, quality children's quality programing is a criteria for license renewal,

then it ought to enforce that across the board, and I don't think

that you would have the problem, or you shouldn't have the problem that you indicated would exist in the market that you posited.

Mr. Swift. Mr. Keeshan.

Mr. Keeshan. I appreciate your remarks and you are absolutely

right. For 27 years CBS did keep "Captain Kangaroo" on the air

\
23

when it was not economically feasible for them to do so. As I mentioned to Mr. Gore, it is an enormously expensive program. I cannot tell you how many millions and millions of dollars CBS lost over that 27 year period.

Incidentally, particularly in the early period, they were keeping

it on for the right reason. People say to me, "They kept it on be- cause of the Commission, and they were fearful of regulation." Of

course, until Newton Ninnow and his vast wasteland comments,

the Commission cared not at all about the content of programing. I was already on the air 8 years before that. Incidentally, I also

think that almost anywhere else, when the decision was made to remove me from Monday through Friday, that would have been the

end of the "Captain Kangaroo." I would not even have been given

weekend time.

So, I don't want to give any impression but that I am very grateful to CBS for what they have done and what they continue to do

with that commitment, as reduced as it may be. But there is no

question, as I indicated before, decisions made by networks are the

results of many influences. One of the greatest influences is the in- fluence of stations. The change in regulatory climate certainly has

caused the stations to say:

We don't have to program children's programing anymore. Therefore, we are in- sisting that you make this decision. Make us more competitive. We are hurting in the morning, and you have to do something to help us. Mr. Swift. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. Gore. I thank my colleague for yielding for two brief comments.

First of all, I am so glad that in that interchange you made the

point that you effectively made. It is illustrative to me, Mr. Chairman, because there are really two points. The first one is that the

dynamics of this particular marketplace do not work to meet the

needs of the child viewing audience.

The second point, above and beyond that one, which you have al- luded to in your question, is that not only does the market fail to meet the needs of child viewing audience, the dynamics of the marketplace actively penalize those networks and stations that do try

to meet the needs of child viewing audience.

You know that is something that we have really got to take note

of, because we come up here intermittently and talk about this

problem, and some of us have sort of had the idea that if the net- works just cared enough, if they just realized what a heavy obligation to the public they have, then they would meet that obligation,

but you know that it is not going to work that way. They are looking at the bottom line. Their station affiliates are looking at the

bottom line. Those like CBS that have tried get kicked in the teeth

in the ratings because the competition won't go along with it. So it really argues very strongly in favor of the direction that

you are pointing in. Commissioner Rivera, and I would just hope

that the Commission would move quickly along the lines that you

are recommending. I would hope that the Congress would respond

to your suggestion for a study commission to advise us and you on

the best course of action.

Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
24

Mr. Swift. I am happy to yield. The gentleman summarized very

well the point that I was trying to bring out.

It seems to me that if we are not going to simply be satisfied

with a witch-hunt, trying to find the bad guys, and then walk away

from this issues as we have in the past, we have to ask, "What are you going to do about it?" It seems that what we have elicited so

far, and we will explore this further as the hearing continues, but

that the marketplace is not going to provide the answer to chil- dren's programing.

Certainly there is no one beyond the broadcaster currently that

has in law any responsibility to meet this need in any fashion.

Then we really begin to ask the question, what kind of regulation

or what alternatives can we come up with that will pursue this. It

is not an easy question particularly in a climate in which deregulation is running rampant as the current "in" theory in Washington,

D.C.

Let me thank you both and make one last comment to Commissioner Rivera.

I am enormously pleased, and I know I speak for the chairman of

this subcommittee, with the response that the Commission is now

indicating it will take, or that Chairman Fowler is indicating he

will make, to your long-held concerns and this committee's longheld concerns that we need to do more in children's television.

We really appreciate the Chairman of the Commission doing

that, and we welcome him aboard the effort that we have long

been trying to pursue.

We thank you both. Your testimony has been superb.

The committee will adjourn for a vote on the floor and reconvene

in 10 minutes.

[Brief recess.]

Mr. Swift. The subcommittee will please come to order.

Our next witness is Mr. LeVar Burton. As a west coaster who

has unfortunately taken the redeye many more times than I would

like to admit, I know what you have just been through.

We very much appreciate the special effort that you made to join

the committee and we will be happy to submit for the record any

prepared statement you have in toto. You go ahead and make

whatever statement you choose.

STATEMENT OF LeVAR BURTON, HOST, "READING RAINBOW"

Mr. Burton. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.

I am delighted to be here this morning representing Public

Broadcasting. I would first like to commend you and your col- leagues for your conscienciousness in holding these hearings on the

importance of quality programing for children.

I have throughout my career maintained a strong commitment

to children's programing in both commercial and public TV, and I am pleased to announce that I am now hosting a new children's

series for PBS called "Reading Rainbow."

I believe strongly that we have an incredible opportunity to use

this unique telecommunications resource to promote the growth
25

and development of our Nation's most important resource, our chil- dren.

"Reading Rainbow" will be shown on public television throughout the country during July and August, and it is possible only be- cause of the help and cooperation of a long list of concerned citi- zens. The production of "Reading Rainbow" is being financed by

underwriting from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, CPB,

and the Kellogg Co. The coproducers are Great Plains National of

the University of Nebraska Educational Television Network, and

public television station WNED in Buffalo, and they have donated

their facilities and staff. Educational experts and their organizations from the ALA, the

American Library Association, to the NEA, the National Education

Association, to the National Congress of Parents and Teachers,

have contributed their time, energy, and expertise to both the development and the promotion of the series. Narrators of the featured books include Bill Cosby, Maya Angelou, Lily Tomlin, James Earl Jones, Madeline Kahn, and others,

who have given their time, not for money but for a belief in the

importance of this type of television programing.

"Reading Rainbow" is designed to sustain reading skills during

the summer months when children don't get the same encouragement to read. We are geared demographically toward entry level reading, children ages 6 to 9, and it is our intent, through a fast paced half hour of television to give kids the idea that reading is fun, that it can open up a limitless world for you. By picking up a

book you can travel anywhere in the universe.

Each half-hour program might focus on a single book. The theme

of the book is expanded in a number of ways from dramatizations,

animation, and music, to visits to the theme related settings such

as Dinosaur National Park in Utah, the New England Aquarium,

and the San Diego Zoo. Just as important is that our viewers see other kids just like

themselves enjoy reading and talking about the books they read.

So, children play a big role in this series, helping to narrate the

text, participating in the action scenes. One of my favorite seg- ments, book reviews of children's books by children.

Each segment encourages our young people to use their local li- braries. Based on research showing that musical presentations help

kids remember the concepts presented, music is a part of each pro- gram as well. To show you what I mean, we have a clip of the show

called "Tight Times," which is a terrific book about a family dealing with the economic situation in the country today.

Our emphasis in the show is on the fact that even in tight times

there are a lot of things that you can do that don't cost very much

money.

[Film clip was shown.]

Mr. Burton. Doing the work to produce a good series like "Reading Rainbow" is just a part of the effort, because the kids are never

going to watch it if they don't even know that it is on. We have

had a lot of help on this front, too, from the CPB, the local public

television stations, as well as the ALA, NEA, PTA, Kellogg, and

book distributors and sellers.
26

To accompany the series, an activity magazine, called "Reading

Rainbow Gazette," is being produced which contains games, puzzles, and photographs from each program, as well as a complete list of the books we discuss, and ideas for parents to discuss with their

children. In conclusion, I want to emphasize how important each of these

steps I have described is for the production and promotion of good

programing, and here is the key, good programing that the kids

will be interested in watching. But it all takes a lot of time and a

lot of work, and actually a lot of money.

The real cost of "Reading Rainbow" is about twice the actual fi- nancial contribution of CPB and Kellogg because so many people

have donated their time and resources to the project. But this isn't anything new for the public television that is how their programing has always been done.

As proud as I am to be a part of this effort, I am worried, too. I want to be sure that it is not the last program I will be able to do

for public television, but I know that CPB's budget is being cut by

25 percent, and there have been even larger cuts in the media

budgets in other agencies like the Department of Education, the

National Science Foundation, which have funded this kind of pro- graming in the past.

I also know that we wanted to do a longer series, more than just

15 programs, but we just didn't have enough money. We couldn't

reduce the quality or we would not be able to attract the audience.

The same thing is true for promotion, so we had to cut 25 percent

of the programing.

I know there are some people who think that maybe we can't afford this kind of programing when budget pressures are tight.

For me and the other people involved in "Reading Rainbow" that

isn't the issue. In fact, it is just the reverse. How can we possibly

afford not to fund this kind of program, because the whole future

of our country depends upon the education of our children.

[Mr. Burton's prepared statement follows:]
27

Testimony of LeVar Burton, Host READING RAINBOW

Before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Consumer Protection and Finance Committee on Energy and Commerce

U.S. House of Representatives

March 16, 1983

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am delighted to be able

to participate in Congressional hearings emphasizing the importance of quality television programming for our children. I'm here not just because I'm the host

of an exciting new program, READING RAINBOW, on public television. I'm here because being part of this series is important to me. An* that's because I want

to help promote the idea that we can use this unique telecommunications resource

to promote the growth and development of our nation's most important resource, our

children.READING RAINBOW, which will be shown on public television stations through- out the country during July and August, is possible because of the help and cooperation of a long list of concerned citizens. The production of READING

RAINBOW is being financed by underwriting from the Corporation for Public Broad- casting (CPB) and the Kellogg Company. The co-producers--Great Plains National

(of the University of Nebraska Educational Television Network) and public television

station WNED in Buffalo—have donated their facilities and staff. Educational experts and their organizations, from the American Library Association (ALA), and

the National Educational Association (NEA) to the National Congress of Parents and Teachers (PTA)~have contributed their time, energy and expertise to both the development and promotion of the series. Narrators of the featured books—which Include Bill Cosby, Maya Angelou, Lily Tomlin, James Earl Jones, Madeline Kahn and others —have given their time not for money but for a belief in the importance

of this type of television programming.
28

'READING RAINBOW is designed to sustain reading skills— so carefully

nurtured by our teachers during the school months—during the summer months, when

children don't get the same encouragement to enjoy reading. The Idea for the

program came from a problem Identified by educators, as Is often the case with

public television's educational programming. Working with them, CPB and the staff

of the producing stations, we began to develop a program based on what had proven

successful In previous educational programming—high quality production, good role

models, and a strong promotional effort. The purpose of all this, of course. Is

to encourage reading by showing how interesting and how much fun it can be.

We began by adapting carefully selected quality books to televislon—67

titles in all. We looked for books that are not only available in the market, at

a reading level appropriate for first and second graders, and adaptable to television and with rights available from the publisher, but more importantly, books

which have been noted for their literary excellence and demonstrated popularity

with children as well. We turned to our advisors—representatives from the

American Library Association, the National Education Association, the American

Booksellers Association, and the Parent-Teachers Association—to select the

titles.

In each of the half-hour programs, I focus on a single book. The theme of

the book is expanded in a number of ways, from dramatizations, animation and music

to visits to theme-related settings such as Dinosaur National Park and the New

England Aquarium. Just as Important is that our viewers see other kids just like themselves who enjoy reading and talking about the books they've read. So children

play a big role in the series, helping narrate the text, participating in the

action scenes and writing and giving book reviews. ,
29

Each segment encourages our young people to use their local libraries.

Based on research showing that musical presentations help kids remember the concepts presented music Is a part of each program as well. To show you what I

mean, I have a short clip from the program, called "Checking It Out." — CLIP —

But doing the work to produce a good series Hke READING RAINBOW Is

just part of the effort. Because the kids are never going to watch It 1f they

don't even know It's on. And we've had a lot of help on this front, too—from CPB and the local

public television stations as well as the ALA, NEA, PTA, Kellogg, and book dis- tributors and sellers. The NEA is printing a generic teachers guide In their newspaper. The

ALA has Included Information about READING RAINBOW In its National Library

Week kit. 6. Dal ton and Walden Books are working with us to make sure that the books we promote are readily available. Local public television stations, who

have found that use of a parent mailer, delivered through children from school. Is

a very cost-effective way of reaching an audience, will purchase the brochure and work with community groups to promote the program. In addition, the series will

be featured in PTA TODAY, Kellogg will devote side panels of their cereal boxes to drawings of featured books (which can be cut out for use as bookmarks), press

kits, posters and public service spots are being developed, and I will personally

promote the series with interviews and on-air appearances.

To accompany the series, an activity magazine called "Reading Rainbow

Gazette" is being produced which contains games, puzzles and photographs from

each program as well as a complete list of the books we discuss and ideas for

parents to discuss with their children.

20-006 O - 83 - 3
30

In conclusion, I want to emphasize how important each of these steps

I've described is for the production and promotion of good programming—that kids win be Interested In watching. But it all takes a lot of time and a lot of work

and especially a lot of money. The real cost of READING RAINBOW is about twice

the actual financial contribution of the CPB and Kellogg because so many people

devoted their time and resources to the project. But this isn't anything new for

public television; that's how their programming has always been done.

As proud as I am to be a part of this effort, I'm worried, too. I want

to be sure that it's not the last program I'll be able to do for public television.

But I know that the CPB's budget has been cut by 25S and that there have been even

larger cuts in the media budgets in other agencies like the Department of Education

and the National Science Foundation who've funded this kind of programming in the

past. And I also know that we wanted to do a longer series, more than just fifteen

programs but we didn't have enough money. We couldn't reduce the quality or

we wouldn't be able to attract the audience. The same thing is true for the

promotion. So we had to cut 251 of the programming.

I know there are some people who think that maybe we can't afford this

kind of programming when budget pressures are tight. For me, and for the other

people involved in READING RAINBOW, that isn't the issue. In fact, it's just

the reverse. How can we possibly afford not to? Because the whole future of our

country depends on the education of our children.
31

Mr. Swift. Thank you very much, Mr. Burton.

There are other members of the committee who would Hke very

much to talk with you and have an opportunity to ask you some

questions. We have just had a vote and some of them are a little late in coming back. Would your schedule permit you to stay with

the other panel, so that you could be included in the question ses- sion?

Mr. Burton. Absolutely.

Mr. Swift. I would like to ask a question or two while we have

this shot. As long as I have you all to myself, I might as well take

advantage of it. I would just like to get on the record from an artist the answer

to this question and that is: "These are only kids; why can't you

reduce the production value, since they are not going to know the

difference anyway?"

Mr. Burton. In my opinion, not just as an artist but as a producer, I have always found it to be my experience that when you begin

to cut costs, you begin immediately to lose quality. In terms of the

importance of this programing, the quality is of the utmost importance. Mr. Swift. How is a kid going to know whether he is watching

good quality or poor quality? He doesn't even know what production value is if you asked him.

Mr. Burton. Children are very discerning human beings. They

know when they are being scammed. They know when they are being cheated and lied to. They know when they are being given a

second rate deal. They are very intelligent human beings.

Mr. Swift. Is it not also true that we have inadvertently spent a

great deal of time educating them in terms of what production

values are—even though they might not know what that phrase

means? The special effects that were being used there, the speed,

the tempo that was being used there, all of which costs a lot of

money.

If you can use a piece of film and run it 8 seconds, instead of

running it a second-and-a-half, that is a lot cheaper. But the kids are trained, educated, if you will, to television language. They

know what to expect. As a result, they, in fact, do know, they liter- ally know when they are getting a second rate product, although

they might not be able to explain it to you. Do you agree with that

statement?

Mr. Burton. I would be inclined to agree with that, yes. Their

indoctrination into the world of television and mass media starts at a very early age, and they are very sophisticated television viewers

I have found.

Mr. Swift. You indicate that you had to choose between reducing

the number of episodes or reducing the quality and stretching it further. And you made the choice you did. About how much did the program cost per episode, do you know?

Mr. Burton. That is a question that I can't answer. You might

be able to get a more definitive statement in terms of production

budget from either the CPB or the National Association of Public

Television Stations.

Mr. Swift. So far as you are aware, is it roughly the same as to the cost of putting on a commercial half-hour?
32

Mr. Burton. As I indicated in my statement, most of my services

and the services of colleagues of mine have been donated.

Mr. Swift. So the way that you have been cutting cost without

reducing the quality is for very talented people to contribute time,

effort, energy, and talent. Mr. Burton. As well as from the entire support group of the

public television station.

Mr. Swift. It is also true that labor unions tend to give kind of a

special deal to public broadcasting, that copyright holders help out a little bit by not demanding as much, and on down the line there

is a tremendous amount of volunteerism that goes into it. Mr. Burton. Absolutely.

Mr. Swift. But in terms of what you have to pay out, you have

to buy the film, you have to buy the cameras, you have to create the sets, and it is no cheaper to do that for children's programing

on public television than it is for commercial television.

Mr. Burton. Those real costs are always substantial, yes. Mr. Swift. Mickey, I asked Mr. Burton if he could stay around so that other members might be able to talk with him after our next

panel. As long as you are here, why don't you ask your questions.

Mr. Leland. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Burton

happens to be a very good friend of mine, and I am very proud that

he would come and participate in this hearing.

I have a lot of different interests in the area of children's pro- graming. On your new series, I am very proud to say that I think

that you are going to be a smashing success if, in fact, your past

performances are any indication or projection for the future.

One of the problems that I have been struggling with is programing for minorities for obvious reasons. We know that in the future

people's opinions and attitudes toward minorities are shaped by the

medium that has been most seen in the country and that happens

to be television over the network, and now, of course, cable, and

pay-television, et cetera. What is your opinion about the absence or the presence, for that

matter, of minority programing and how it is that the audience or the public would view minorities in the production of programing.

Do you think that there is a lack of minority programing?

Mr. Burton. This is an issue that I deal with every day in my

life and career in Los Angeles, an issue that I am very concerned

about.

Let me speak first in terms of "Reading Rainbow" because I am

very proud to say that we make a supreme and conscious effort to be very aware of the images that we portray and role models as well in terms of not only minorities, but in terms of women and

the whole spectrum.

It is easier, let me say, to achieve these kinds of goals in public

television rather than in the commercial marketplace. If I had the answer to why there are not more minorities represented in the

medium, I wouldn't be doing this for a living.

It is very puzzling to me. I have always said, as an actor, I want

to not only recreate life specifically through the black experience, I want to be a human being in the roles that I play, and a black man

could be a doctor or a lawyer in any given situation, and not

always have to have come specifically from the ghetto.
33

The networks don't seem to think that way. They always rely on

this code, we give the public what they want. I am more of the

opinion that they give the public what they want to give them. It is

I think ultimately a matter of time. The old guard is beginning to move out in the industry, and there are new younger people with more progressive ideas beginning to come up.

I am hoping that in the next 5 to 10 years, it is a slow process, it is a long and drawn out one, through the efforts of a lot of people

who are conscious individuals, hopefully we will get the rest of the

world presented in our living rooms through the tube.

Mr. Leland. There is some misconception about what children

programing as indicated by one of my colleagues earlier, who asked

whether "Different Strokes" would be considered children's progi'am

ing. The response was that it was family orientation. I am not one

to qualify, except from a black perspective, it is probably, at best, a comedy, a circumstance of television that is still projecting that in

order for us to be seen on television, we have to be funny.

Mr. Burton. Right.

Mr. Leland. Can you just comment on that. I am very concerned

when all we see on television is black comedy. Young children,

white, black, brown, or otherwise, who are impressed by these ver- sions of our lifestyle, and very excellent artistry, I might add, are impressed that indeed all black people can do is to be funny. Do

you agree with that?

Mr. Burton. I am very distressed by the fact that in today's commercial marketplace, in times when we have the Harrison Ford

character, and the "Star Wars" saga, there are no hero images for minority children. Again it goes back to that dollars and cents

issue. The producers, the people who are in a position to put out that

kind of positive minority model product, don't believe that it is fi- nancially feasible. It is not going to make them any money, where

statistics show that the direct opposite exists. In the minority community, millions and millions of dollars a year are spent on entertainment. As I said, it drives me crazy that

we don't find ourselves well-represented in the media. It is just baffling to me. Mr. Leland. Earlier Commissioner Rivera and Captain Kangaroo, if you will have it, I still can't remember his name

Mr. Burton. Bob Keeshan.

Mr. Leland. [continuing]. We're talking about responsibility of

the networks. Would you comment, for the record, on how you feel about the networks being responsible for children and what they

see on television?

Mr. Burton. We are talking about commercial television, based on the programing they have for children, I don't believe that the

networks are exercising very much responsibility at all in terms of

Saturday morning programing, which is really geared toward that

demographic group.

I think that for the most part, with a few exceptions, the pro- grarning available for children on commercial television is sorely

lacking, it truly is. The cartoons are not even as good as they used

to be. Mr. Leland. We know that.
34

One last question. You were commissioned to do "Reading Rainbow." How long is that scheduled to run?

Mr. Burton. We start, I believe, on July 11 and we run throughout the summer, every day, three times a day.

Mr. Leland. How many weeks of programing is that?

Mr. Burton. We have 15 shows and we will repeat the cycle for

the duration of the summer. Our initial air date I believe is in July

through August.

Mr. Leland. After the summer, what happens then?

Mr. Burton. We will have to see whether or not we can put to- gether some more funds for additional shows and continue the

show. We would look to have the show air on a year-round basis,

but of course that is all dependent upon the money.

Mr. Leland. I wish you success. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Burton. Thank you, Congressman.

Mr. Swift. I know I speak for Chairman Wirth and ranking minority member Rinaldo who unfortunately could not be here when

I thank you particularly for the extra special effort you made to come and share with us your particular perspective on the problem

of how we go about, as a society, developing good, high quality and

amply supplied children's programming for the children of America.Thank you very much. If you can stay, that would be wonderful.

If at some point this drags on so long that your schedule requires

you to leave, please feel free to do that as well. Mr. Burton. Thank you very much.

Mr. Swift. Thank you.

Our second panel will include Squire Rushnell, Peggy Charren,

Eddie Fritts, Jack Schneider, and Bruce Christensen. If they will come to the witness table. Welcome to you all. The Chair would like to announce that this room is scheduled for other purposes at 1:30, and because it is the chairman of the full committee who has scheduled the room, I can guarantee you we

will be out of here at 1:30. With that in mind, we will exercise some restraint at this end of the table on the questions. We want

you to be able to express yourselves fully, but if you could keep the

time constraints in mind as well that would be helpful.

I would like to begin, if I could, with Mr. Christensen, and have

each of you identify yourself formally for the record. Then we will

begin the testimony.

The prepared statements of all the members of the panel will be

included in the record in full without objection, and you can proceed.
35

STATEMENTS OF BRUCE CHRISTENSEN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC TELEVISION STATIONS; JOHN A. SCHNEIDER, PRESIDENT, WARNER AMEX SATELLITE ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY; PEGGY CHARREN, PRESIDENT, ACTION

FOR CHILDREN'S TELEVISION; SQUIRE D. RUSHNELL, VICE

PRESIDENT, LONG RANGE PLANNING AND CHILDREN'S TELEVISION, AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC.; EDWARD

O. FRITTS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS

Mr. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Educational, entertaining television programs that meet special

needs of young people are the cornerstone of public television service to American families. Fred Roger's 30-year association with

public television goes back to the sign-on dates of the first educational television stations in the Nation. It is no exaggeration to say

that "Sesame Street" and "Mister Rogers Neighborhood," which

began 14 and 15 years ago, put public television on the map and, more important, into the hearts of millions of American children

and their families.

During the 1970's, public television added the "Electric Company" and "3-2-1 Contact" to its weekday schedule. Today, despite

budgetary pressures, leading to a 33-percent reduction in the

number of hours in the national PBS program service, the amount

of children's programing has remained largely intact. Six hours of

children's programing are still being distributed by PBS every

weekday. Added to the weekend schedule, the combined total is 34

hours a week and represents over 50 percent of PBS's basic package of program services nationwide.

Just recently, public broadcasting has committed resources to produce and distribute two new series, "Powerhouse" and the show

you have just seen, "Reading Rainbow." Our stations have joined

the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in pledging funds to pro- duce and broadcast a new 26-part drama series designed to attract the post-"Sesame Street" and "Mister Rogers" audience and their

parents.

Programing for viewers at home is only part of our story. Over

80 percent of our licensees offer instructional programing for local elementary and secondary students, 15 million schoolchildren in

one-third of our Nation's classrooms are regular users of this service. Over 100 of these programs, developed in direct response to the

needs teachers have expressed in areas from science and math to music, are distributed nationwide.

Two of our stations are also experimenting with the educational

uses of teletext. Teachers report that the medium has a strong motivational effect on their students, particularly when used intensively. They witnessed dramatic turnarounds in both achievement

and attitude among kids who previously had little interest in learning or who had not adapted well to traditional teaching methods.

Our successes have been based on adequate funding, growing

levels from Federal, State, and local governmental entities, as well

as viewers and business underwriters, and upon public television's

mission that requires quality service to our children.
36

While children's programing is the last area public television sta- tions are likely to cut, budget reductions have severely weakened

our capacity for future service. The Department of Education's fi- nancial commitment to "Sesame Street" and the "Electric Company" alone was nearly $50 million over the period of its initial development and production. Together with the National Science

Foundation, the Education Department provided millions more to develop "3-2-1 Contact." These sources of funding have been largely eliminated.

Funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has been

cut by 25 percent. State governments, faced with reduced education

funds from the Federal Government and their own adverse eco- nomic conditions, have cut budgets across the board, further eroding public television's State and local government support. Thus,

nationwide, no new children's series on the scale of "Sesame

Street" are being developed.

At the local level, many stations have been forced to eliminate

their weekend morning schedules and most hard-pressed stations, some of those who are really in dire financial straits, have no morning schedules for children at all. We have sought help from the private sector, not just recently

but for a long time. Community licensees began seeking private

support in the 1950's as soon as they came on the air. By the late

1970's, donations from the private sector were already an essential

part of the mix of revenue sources that sustain public television

stations.

We already have generated dramatic growth in private support

for public television, thus we did what Mr. Reagan asked us to do,

but we did it before he asked. However, there are limits to the

growth in voluntary support and we may be running up against

them.

The growth of corporate donations and business underwriting

brought the support to only about 12 percent of public television's

total income. These efforts have failed to keep pace with the dramatic increases in the cost of television program production.

This year, ABC spent $40 million to produce 18 hours of pro- graming entitled "Winds of War," and another $20 million to pro- mote it. That is as much money as public television got in all of

1981 from all of its corporate and underwriting sources to support

the national program schedule.

While the combination of PBS's children schedule and the hours

of televised instruction for schools account for nearly two-thirds of

public television's weekday broadcast hours, this is the least eco- nomically attractive programing for underwriters.

The investment of Sears & Roebuck in "Mr. Rogers" and General

Motors Corp. in "Why in the World," and the Kellogg Corp. in

"Reading Rainbow" are as commendable as they are unusual. Even

a tested successful program like "3-2-1 Contact" could not find a

single business underwriter for the second series. Production was

delayed and finally limited to less than two-thirds of the original

number of programs planned. Lack of sufficient funds for "Reading

Rainbow" resulted in a reduction of 25 percent of its proposed

schedule as well.
37

The simple fact is that children don't buy cars or soap and thus

have little commercial appeal to commercial advertisers. They

don't own stock, vote in elections, or take a leading role in their

communities to be attractive to underwriters of noncommercial

programing.

Money for quality children's programing like "Sesame Street"

and "3-2-1 Contact" can't be expected to come from the private

sector or from the marketplace. To place that burden on the marketplace is to ignore reality.

Last year, the total number of viewer pledges during the spring

festival fund raising drive on public television began to drop. This

year the records from the first 4 days in the spring festival pledging show an even bleaker picture. The total dollars pledged are down 10 percent and the total number of pledges is off about 14

percent.

Part of the problem we have is the lack of new, attractive, and

thus well-publicized programing such as "Brightshead Revisited"

and "Life on Earth." Another part of our problem is that after going to our viewers 3 times a year for over 2 years asking them to help

make up the Federal budget cuts, they have largely responded to our plea and have already given the extra help they could afford. Money for future children's quality programing on the scale of

"Sesame Street" is not likely to come from the public which has given

repeatedly to simply preserve the program services we already

have.

It is crucial for Congress and the FCC to focus attention on how

to encourage more and better program services for children from a

variety of telecommunication sources. Urgent attention must also

be given to building on what you have already provided, and that means recognizing public television's value as a national communications resource for children.

Without substantial and immediate help from Congress, public

television cannot provide future programing children will need to prepare them for their role as citizens in this great land. The

future of children's programing on public television rests with you

and your congressional colleagues.

Thank you. [Mr. Christensen's prepared statement follows:]
58

Testimony of Bruce Christensen, President

National Association of Public Television Stations

Before the

Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Consumer Protection and Finance

Committee on Energy and Commerce

U.S. House of Representatives

March 16, 1983

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, it is a special privilege

for me to testify today concerning the importance of quality television service to

children. Our nation's children are not just important to our future, they are

our future. Television—used in nearly every American home, for an average of

more than six hours a day— is an especially powerful factor in their lives.

Congress's establishment of National Children and Te1evisix)n Week has reconfirmed

the importance of television to children, and we commend the Congress and the

National Council for Children and Television for focusing the nation's attention

on the critical issue of how to better harness the television medium in service to

our young people. Educational, entertaining television programs that meet the special

needs of young people are the cornerstone of public television's service to

American families. Fred Rogers' thirty-year association with us dates back to the

sign-on dates of the first educational television stations in the nation. And,

it's no exaggeration to say that SESAME STREET and MISTER ROGERS NEIGHBORHOOD,

which began fourteen and fifteen years ago, put public television on the map and,

more important, into the hearts of millions of grateful American mothers and their

families.These series started just after the first major federal commitment to

fund public broadcasting operations and programming, embodied in the Public

Broadcasting Act of 1967. The expanded service to children they represented was

one of the first realizations of the mandate spelled out in that landmark federal

legislation.
39

The Good News—The Funding Crisis has not undercut our coirom'tment to children's programming : Faced with the need to curtail programming and services

in response to federal budget cuts, public television stations have responded by reejnphasizing our children as a unique programming responsibility. Although

public television stations approved a plan to reduce PBS program distribution

hours in the national program service by 33%, the amount of children's programming

remained largely Intact. Six hours of children's programming are still distributed

every weekday; with week-end programming the combined total is 34 hours a week, over 50% of all PBS programming distributed as part of PBS's basic package of program services nationwide. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, In assessing

priorities for a diminished television program fund, put children's programming at

the top of the list. The Children's Television Workshop, which produces SESAME

STREET, THE ELECTRIC COMPANY and 3-2-1 CONTACT, decreased the amount of the total station cost for SESAME STREET, which as a dally program throughout the year, is one of our most expensive series, in order that virtually all stations would continue to be able to afford to buy it. Children in over ten million homes watch SESAME STREET every week, over 90% of the target audience for the series. Its face pace is designed to attract and keep the attention of young children while, at the same time, teaching

everything from counting and letters to why children should give matches to parents, how blind people "see" and how deaf people "hear." Six million children

are regular viewers of THE ELECTRIC COMPANY. With over 40% of them watching at school, it is the most frequently used educational program in the instructional television schedule. Designed to make reading fun for 7-10 year-olds, it is especially targeted to reach second graders in the bottom half of their reading

class—the level experts consider crucial in heading off early reading problems. Before this program was used in the Lincoln Heights, Ohio, School District, 75% of

the pupils in grades 1-3 were reading well below national reading achievement
40

levels. By the third year of intensive use of the program, first, second and

third graders were reading at or above national norms.

3-2-1 CONTACT Is a first critical step 1n addressing America's need

for more science, mathematics and engineering education. According to the

National Assessment of Educational Programs, over 25% of our young people have

already decided against science as a career by the age of 9, considering 1t too

dull, lonely and rigorous. This has been particularly true for girls and

minorities. 3-2-1 Is designed to reach to the roots of this problem by helping

all children experience the joy of scientific exploration through animation of

difficult concepts, use of positive role models and dealing with questions young

children themselves Identified. Over 23 million young people watched the program

at home during Its first year and the companion teacher guide was requested by

over 250,000 teachers Interested In using the program 1n school.

Educational programming Is not, of course, limited to Increasing the

appeal of academic skills. It can also teach children to cope with the world

around them. In an understanding and compassionate manner. And this Is exactly what MR. ROGERS does for young people In over 5 million homes every week.

Three of these four programs were specifically designed to reach minority

audiences. Recent Nielsen viewing statistics Indicate that the percentage of the non-white audience for each one is as high or higher than the percentage of non-white children in the nation as a whole.

And while expensive to produce, these investments are extremely cost- effective. Because of repeated airings of these programs, the cost per viewer

is about a penny per program.

Not only are we continuing this basic service but we are allocating

limited resources to new series as well. POWERHOUSE, which premiered last December,

is a sixteen part series which uses the adventures of members of an inner-city
41

youth center to show preteens and teenagers how to deal with physical and mental health problems. Previewing this summer Is READING RAINBOW, fifteen half-hour

programs where ROOTS star LeVar Burton serves as a role model for first and second graders—sharing his sense of fun and excitement In reading good books—to encourage our young people to do likewise—thus helping them to retain newly acquired critical reading skills over the summer months. And scheduled to debut

In 1984 Is a new 26-part drama series designed to attract the post-SESAME STREET

and MISTER ROGERS audience and their families as well. Public television programming designed primarily for young people at home

is only part of our story; the real point is that virtually the entire schedule 1s designed to meet their growing need for knowledge.

Over 80% of our licensees provide Instructional programming for their

local elementary and secondary schools; fifteen million school children in one third of our nation's classrooms are regular users of this service. Developed

by teachers, in direct response to their concerns, 1t helps them compensate for the shortage of specialists in fields ranging from health and nutrition to science,

math, art and music. Over 1,000 of these programs are distributed nationwide

In response to teacher needs identified at the local level. The subject matter

ranges from THE ARTS EXPRESS, for first through third graders, and THINKABOUT, designed to strengthen the reasoning and study skills of fifth-and sixth-graders

in the fields of mathematics and communications to THE COMMUNITY OF LIVING THINGS, which together with THE HUMAN COMMUNITY will provide a year-long sequence ranging

from energy origin, use and distribution to the biological history of lakes, forests and deserts for 6th through 9th graders. Two of our public television

stations are experimenting with the educational use of teletext in the schools. Results from the Los Angeles experiment indicate that initial teacher skepticism

about classroom use of the medium was reversed because of its strong motivational
42

Influence for learning. Teachers found that the exercises sparked classroom

discussion and encouraged students to read more about issues addressed 1n the teletext program on their own. In Boston, where the experiment is still in

progress, teachers are reporting similar reactions. In both cases, the most

Impressive result may well be the learning motivation for youngsters who have not adapted well to traditional teaching methods or have evidenced little interest In learning. Here dramatic reversals In attitude and achievement have been reported.

Finally, most of our prime time schedule— from NOVA, NATURE and LIFE ON EARTH to MacNEIL/LEHRER, AMERICAN PUYHOUSE and GREAT PERFORMANCES is quality

educational programming for the entire family. Those who appreciate this service mirror our society as a whole. Fifty-four percent of the viewers are families

with incomes between $10,000 and $30,000. The remainder of the viewing homes are evenly divided between those who earn less than $10,000 a year and those who earn more than $30,000. Twenty-five percent of these families are headed by Individuals without high school degrees; nearly the same percentage are headed by persons with college degrees. The racial balance of the viewing audience reflects that of the nation. With over 50% of all American homes using our service weekly, public television has become the most cost-effective public trust institution in America.

And as the only telecommunications service with a specific educational mandate, it

is the only such service offering an equal opportunity for enlightenment to all Americans.

The Bad News—Funding Cuts have seriously eroded our ability to continue to produce and distribute all programming, especially that for children : Public television programming for children is specifically designed to make educational

skills entertaining and thus appealing by presenting basic spelling and counting

skills in a fast-paced manner, using positive role models, from firefighters
43

to scientists, and demonstrating the Joy and excitement of reading. But to make

sure these concepts are presented effect1ve1y--so that the young audience Is retained and receives the Intended message—requires a substantial investment in research and testing. For the first 3-2-1 CONTACT series research and testing

took two years. Numerous educators were consulted about the learning capabilities

of the target 8-12 year-old age group; perhaps more Importantly, 8,000 children

were consulted to find out what questions and issues would actually interest

them. Because THE ELECTRIC COMPANY is a five-year series, this kind of research continued throughout production. Evaluation after the first year caused the producers to slow the pace, to teach more by teaching less', treating a word first

as a group of letters, then as a syllable in a larger word and finally as a part

of a phrase or sentence. Continuing research allowed the producers to constantly

refine their techniques, to make humor more reenforcing and less distracting, to understand what formats were most effective with the lowest achievers and to extend the interest sparked by television into a desire to read books. This commitment to testing and evaluation is in no way limited to these two series;

on the contrary, it is a basic part of the budget for virtually all of the instructional programming produced by our stations for use in our schools. Equally critical is promoting the most effective use of this material by our teachers, with teacher guides and seminars, ancillary classroom material and companion books and magazines.

This kind of research and promotion adds not just to the excellence but also to the expense of the programming; to do otherwise, however, would fail to achieve the very purpose of the programming. Without significant contributions from the National Science Foundation,

the Department of Education, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB),
44

the development of 3-2-1 CONTACT would not have been possible. For SESAME STREET

and THE ELECTRIC COMPANY, the story is even more dramatic. The Department of

Education invested nearly $50 minion over the years to develop and provide for

the production of these programs; additional financial assistance was provided by

CPB. For programs like GREAT PERFORMANCES and AMERICAN PLAYHOUSE, it was substantial

early investments from the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities,

in addition to the Corporation, which made development possible. But all of these program funding sources have been substantially reduced. In

addition to the 25S cut In the Corporation's budget, the media allotments for both

Endowments have been reduced, support from the Department of Education cut

by about 75% and the National Science Foundation's Public llnderstanding of Science media budget eliminated completely. Thus the loss from all federal funding

sources is about $60 million annually.

Even before these cuts, the amount of programming was severely limited by available resources. Only 30S of the yearly schedule of SESAME STREET and MR.

ROGERS represent new programming hours. No new program of THE ELECTRIC COMPANY

has been produced in the last five years, and the first season 65 program series

of 3-2-1 CONTACT will go into its fifth year of repeated programming next year

following its new forty lesson second season. Of the 34 hours of this programming

distributed weekly by PBS, two thirds of the distribution hours are simply repeats

of programs provided aired earlier in the week.

The Administration has suggested we look to the private sector to help finance our services.

There are only a couple of things wrong with the Administration's proposal —

it's not a new idea and it's not their idea. On the contrary, it was our idea and

it dates back to the 1950' s. The concept began with our community licensees

who had no direct relationship with state or local educational entities which
45

provided the critical early Investments to our state, school board and university

licensees. THE WORLD OF MEDICINE was underwritten by a German Pharmaceutical firm

In 1957, a nutrition program entitled THE BALANCE by Neutrallte In 1958 and

Exxon began supporting the airing of Shakespeare plays shortly thereafter. WQED

In Pittsburgh began fundralsing door to door 1n 1954 and KQED In San Francisco

aired the first auction In 1954. As the number of public television stations

grew In the 1960's, these other licensees Increasingly looked to private sources

of support. And by the m1d-1970's, the vast majority of public television stations

joined together In a national effort to fund special fundralsing drives on the air.

By the late 1970's, this pattern was so well established that the preservation and growth of our public television system was more' heavily financed by

Increases from the private sector than through rising federal appropriations.

In fact, it was essential to public television's survival during the high-inflation

period of the late 1970' s and early 1980' s. From 1978 to 1981, when Inflation

Increased the Consumer Price Index by 39.4%, our total nonfederal support Increased

by a slightly larger amount—42*. By comparison, the federal appropriations for

public television rose only 11%, because more than half of the Increases for public

broadcasting were allocated to radio. Comparing our $15 million Increase in

federal appropriations to the $93 million jump 1n support from businesses and

subscribers we see that these two private sources together contributed $6 for

every $1 from federal appropriations during this period. Yet because our total

income lagged behind the increase in consumer prices, we actually had less purchasing power in 1981 than in 1978.

Because of this significant growth In private support for public television, the real question is to what extent we can hold onto it rather than how much

more we can rely on it.
46

During FY1982, for example, more than 330 corporations, foundations,

associations and government agencies provided underwriting dollars, up from 277 in

FY! 981. The total contributed was a record $63 million, up S5 million from the

previous year. But because the overall cost of the schedule increased by 15S, the

percentage share of underwriting of the PBS schedule actually dropped from 49.55

in FY! 981 to 46.5? in FY1982.

Last year, the total number of voluntary viewer contributions received

during the Spring fundraising drive, which had been rising steadily since the

early 70' s, dropped off for the first time. Although total dollars contributed

increased, the increase was less than the amount necessary just to account for

inflation.

And this year, records from the first four days of pledging in the Spring

Festival show a still bleaker picture. Total dollars pledged are down ^0% and the

total number of pledges are off 14%. Part of the problem is the lack of new,

attractive and thus well publicized programming such as BRIDESHEAD REVISITED and

LIFE ON EARTH. Another part of the problem is that after going to our viewers

three times a year for over two years asking them to help make up the federal

reductions, they have largely responded to our plea, already given the extra

assistance they were able to provide.

With improved economic conditions, we can still hope for business and

viewer support more in line with cost increase resulting from inflation. But

the period of sustained dramatic increases may well have peaked. Only the largest

markets, with their high concentrations of people and businesses, can be counted

on for the bulk of this support and it is here where our financial base has been

well established for nearly a decade. Having a nationwide service means reaching

people in middle and small sized cities as well as rural areas. And growth possibilities beyond those of recent years are limited by the substantially smaller

size of the populations and business concerns.
47

While we can, and have, tightened our belts —reducing the number of

hours stations broadcast, cutting back on salaries and number of employees,

postponing the replacement of outdated equipment--the bulk of the cuts must be

borne by the programming itself, because that, after all, is what our equipment

and employees collectively provide. Under the greatest pressure is the programming

for our children—both at home and in school—because it has traditionally been

financed by governmental and educational institutions and because the production

and distribution costs cannot be sustained by corporate and viewer support. While the combination of the PBS children's schedule and the instructional

hours for schools account for up to two-thirds of our weekday broadcast hours,

this is the least economically attractive programming for underwriters. The

investment of Sears-Roebuck in MR. ROGERS, of The General Motors Corporation

in WHY IN THE WORLD and the Kellogg Corporation in READING RAINBOW are as commendable as they are unusual. Even a tested and successful program like

3-2-1 CONTACT could not find a single business underwriter for the second series; production was delayed and finally limited to less than two-thirds of the original number of programs planned. Lack of sufficient funds for READING RAINBOW resulted

in a reduction of 25% of its proposed schedule as well.

The simple fact is that children don't buy cars or soap and thus have

limited appeal to commercial advertisers; they don't own stock, vote in elections

or take a leading role in their communities to be attractive to underwriters of

noncommercial programming.

What we are really saying is that the focus of attention should not

be limited to how to encourage more and better programming for children from

a variety of telecommunications services. At least some of the attention must be

given to how to preserve what we already have. And for public television, this

means a firm commitment to ensuring the survivability of the system itself.
48

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. SCHNEIDER

Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Warne Amex Satellite Entertainment Company is the cable pro- graming joint venture of Warner Communications and American

Express. One of our programing services is Nickelodeon, a 13-hour a day basic cable channel exclusively for young people. It currently

reaches over 11 million homes on over 2,400 cable systems.

Commissioner Rivera earlier this morning, I believe, inadvertently identified Nickelodeon as a pay-cable service. It is not a paycable service. It is offered free to the cable subscriber once that

cable subscriber has paid for basic cable in his home. Nickelodeon

is paid for by the cable system and that cable operator pays us, Warner-Amex, for the Nickelodeon service that we provide him via

satellite. Because children's television is a concern of mine, it is especially

gratifying that the week of March 13th has been declared "National Children and Television Week." I congratulate you, the rest of

the U.S. Congress and President Reagan for focusing on an issue of

vital importance to our Nation. It will heighten the consciousness

of people everywhere to the needs of our kids.

Children watch 28 hours of television a week, averaging 4 hours

a day. In households with cable viewing levels are even higher.

Television viewing is the No. 1 major activity among American

children. Cable recognizes the young people as an audience worth

cultivating by providing over 158 hours per week of children's pro- graming. With the debut of the Disney Channel on April 8, this

total number of hours jumps to 170 hours per week. Nickelodeon's

91 hours per week represents more than half of that total. Nickelodeon is constantly experimenting with new formats

which break with traditional television. There is nothing on Nickelodeon that could be defined as violent, or which contains stereo- typical representations.

Stimulated by a recent ACT study which decried the lack of positive role models on television, we commissioned our own research.

Following the ACT research format, our analysis revealed that

Nickelodeon to have the highest number of positive characterizations of women, blacks, and other minority and ethnic groups.

Nickelodeon's program is age specific, falling into five main

groups—preschool, elementary, subteen, and programs that kids can enjoy along with their parents.

Pinwheel for preschool children emphasizes youngsters's delight

in discovery and fantasy.

Against the Odds, a biography series hosted by Bill Bixby, profiles the lives of men and women who have had a profound effect on society.

Reggie Jackson's World of Sports takes viewers around the world

where they can see young athletes just like themselves striving for

excellence.

Standby . . . Lights! Camera! Action!, hosted by Leonard Nimoy,

provides a rare opportunity for young and old to sample the

method behind the magic of how movies are made.
49

The highly acclaimed You Can't Do That on Television uses fast- moving, sometimes outrageous humor to make a point about drugs,

junk food and other issues of importance to kids and parents alike.

Livewire, hosted by noted humorist and author Fred Newman, is a variety talk show for teenagers, featuring guest performances

and appearances by celebrities who answer questions about the

problems and concerns of young people.

Kids' Writes is a critically acclaimed show based on the actual

writings of young viewer-poems, letters, stories and songs acted out

by an improv group.

This fall. Nickelodeon is bringing Mr. Wizard and his famous lab- oratory back to television. In a brandnew series, Mr. Wizard will

explain the magic and mystery of everyday living for a whole new

generation.

In 1981, Nickelodeon was endorsed by the National Education

Association. In 1982, the NEA once again honored the entire channel with a special award for the "advancement of learning through

broadcasting." The National PTA Board of Directors gave Nickelodeon a special recommendation, the first time that organization

had ever recognized TV for its service to young people. In addition.

Action For Children's Television has recognized the channel for its encouragement of program diversity.

Nickelodeon is doing what cable was designed to do by offering more options, more participation and more programing suited to individual needs. We are showing people that they are both competent and respected.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF PEGGY CHARREN

Ms. Charren. For 15 years, ACT's strategy to improve children's

television has been to advocate: (1) an increase in the amount of

programing for children; (2) scheduling of children's programs

throughout the week; and (3) increased diversity in progi-aming

geared to young audiences.

While we present annual awards to particularly innovative chil- dren's series, ACT has never labeled any programs as the best, the

worst, the most objectionable, or the most violent. ACT has disagreed again and again with this approach to TV reform. We do not

want to become television's inspector general. Because of our

strong belief in the importance of program choice, ACT has vigorously opposed the New Right's efforts to control television

through program hit lists and other forms of censorship.

ACT commends Congress for designating this week as National

Children and Television Week. Still we recognize only too well that

this week is no time to celebrate the state of children's television.

Why has program choice for young people grown steadily worse

during the past 2 years?

Why, with the removal of Captain Kangaroo is there no longer a

single daily or even weekly children's program on commercial net- work TV Monday through Friday?

Because TV self-regulation by the dictates of the marketplace

can never result in adequate broadcast service to young audiences.

The Nation's young people simply don't represent a strong enough
50

buying power to inspire the commercial TV industry to design and

air, purely out of economic self-interest, sufficient programing for young people.

I would like to point out that that 2- to 11-year-old market that

commercial television talks about is filled with discrete smaller au- diences of children, a fact that Nickelodeon recognizes so nicely.

Why am I here today? I am here because I believe, like niost

people, that television programing is a vitally important socializer

of young children and that young people can and will be engaged,

challenged, and educated by television programs geared to their

special needs and interests.

Programs that teach them about a diversity of places, faces, and

ideas which their own lives do not expose them to. I believe that

broadcasters know how to get such programing on the air. They

don't only because programing for children does not maximize profits.I am here today because I believe that Congress has a responsibility to improve children's experience with television, not by regulating program content, but by exercising its role as overseer and

legislating in the public interest.

I, therefore, offer Congress the following recommendations for

National Children and Television Week:

First, Congress should reaffirm the statutory requirement that

broadcasters operate in the public interest.

Cable and the other new video technologies are by no means suf- ficiently widespread in this country to put an end to the concept of

the broadcast spectrum as a limited public resource. Nickelodeon comes only to homes who pay for basic cable service.

Second, Congress should, as part of its oversight responsibility in

the telecommunications area, recommend to the Federal Communications Commission that it adopt stronger guidelines for children's

television programing and advertising.

With the recent disappearance of the NAB TV Code, children are

at the mercy of the marketplace as they have not been in years. FCC guidelines should address the amount of programing and advertising designed for children, not its content. There is a prece- dent for this with the processing guidelines relating to news and

public affairs at the TV stations which do indeed recommend minimum percentages. It is a hard number to come by, but it is not an

impossible problem.

Third, Congress should retain the existing statutory language in

section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits

unfair and deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. ACT believes that the vigorous authority and jurisdiction of the

FTC, as guaranteed by section 5, are essential to the widely supported principle of consumer protection, to the promotion of fair market competition, which is the problem we were addressing

before about programing, and specifically to the protection of chil- dren from unfair and deceptive commercial practices targeted to them on television.

Fourth, Congress should encourage the enforcement of the Equal

Employment Opportunity Act to bring more minorities and women

into decisionmaking positions in the television industry, which in

turn will help increase program diversity.
51

As part of National Children and Television Week, ACT has re- leased yesterday a new handbook entitled Fighting TV Stereotypes.

I would like to submit that for the record.

Mr. Swift. Without objection, it will be made part of the record.

Ms. Charren. As one step toward trying to remedy this problem,

ACT yesterday filed at the FCC specific recommendations about

amending form 395, an employment report filed annually at the

Commission by broadcasters.

Fifth, Congress should insure that any national cable legislation

guarantees sufficient public access channels and prohibits censor- ship by any government agency.

Only about one-third of all American TV households have cable

television. Far fewer have cable systems that provide access channels. Public access, community access, and leased access channels

are in the public interest, and it is up to Congress to see that they

are guaranteed. It is also up to Congress to insure that cable televi- sion is protected from local or national censorship. ACT recom- mends that all cable companies be required by law to provide lock- boxes free of charge to those subscribers who want them. That is to preclude local censorship.

Sixth, Congress should support increased funding for public

broadcasting which provides an important noncommercial pro- graming alternative for children. We saw a nifty example of that

with an earlier comment.

ACT does not share FCC Chairman Fowler's opinion that public

broadcasting should shoulder the full responsibility for children's

television programing, but because public broadcasting needs more

Federal support, ACT recommends that Congress vote the Corporation for Public Broadcasting an additional $40 million for programs

geared to young audiences. Short of that, I notice that Representative Dingell has a really nifty solution for increasing PBS's budget.

I would like to thank this subcommittee for providing me with an opportunity to offer these six recommendations for congressional action. I was delighted to hear this morning about the en banc

meeting that the FCC is going to schedule.

We are pleased that they are finally going to take action on act's petition from 1970, and we assume that our lawsuit had

nothing to do with that. We are pleased by the temporary commission that is proposed by Commissioner Rivera and support that

idea.

And we are delighted with these hearings, not only because of

the opportunity to address these significant issues, but because we

have here a room full of the players in the children's television

public policy game. I have not seen most of these people since the

new administration came into power, and we think that it is a good

sign that we are all here together again.

[Testimony resumes on p. 111.]

[Ms. Charren's prepared statement and attachments follow:]
52

Prepared Statement of Peggy Charren, President, Action for Children's

Television

I am Peggy Charren, president of Action for Children's Television.

ACT is a national grassroots organization, headquartered in Newtonville, Massachusetts, that works to encourage diversity in children's television and to

eliminate commercial abuses targeted to children. ACT was begun in 1968 by a

group of parents, teachers, physicians, and media professionals who were brought

together by a common concern for children and how they are affected by what they

see on TV. Today, ACT has 20,000 dues-paying members throughout the United

States and is supported in its goals by the ACT Contacts, 100 volunteers who

speak out for ACT in every state, and by the ACT Coalition, a network of 150

organizations including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the NAACP, and the

United Steel Workers of America, representing a total membership of 60 million.

For fifteen years, ACT's strategy to improve children's television has been

to advocate: 1) increased age-specific programming; 2) scheduling of children's

programs throughout the week; and 3) increased diversity in programming geared

to young audiences. While we present annual awards to particularly innovative

children's series, ACT has never labeled any programs as the "best," the "worst,"
53

the "most objectionable," or even the "most violent." ACT has disagreed again

and again with this approach to TV reform; we do not want to become television's

Inspector General. Because of our strong belief in the importance of program

choice, ACT has vigorously opposed the New Right's efforts to control television

through program "hit lists" and other forms of censorship.

ACT commends Congress for designating this week as National Children and

Television Week. Still, we recognize only too well that this week is no time

to celebrate the state of children's television. It is a time to bring to the

nation's attention, and to the attention of Congress, the ever-worsening service

that children have been receiving from broadcasters during the past two years.

A close look during this special week at the problems surrounding children's

television can only highlight the TV industry's shameful neglect of the child

audience during the other 51 weeks of the year.

Why has program choice for young people grown steadily worse during the past

two years? Why, with the removal of "Captain Kangaroo," is there no longer a single

daily or even weekly children's program on commercial network TV Monday through

Friday? Why have nationally acclaimed series such as CBS's "30 Minutes,"

ABC's "Animals Animals Animals," and NBC's "Special Treat" been cancelled?

Why is nearly half of the Saturday morning cartoon lineup on all three commercial

networks produced by one animation house, Hanna-Barbera? Why do most commercial

broadcasters feed children a starvation diet of televised comic books for a

few hours each weekend. . .and then brag about their service to young audiences?

Why? Because TV industry self-regulation by the dictates of the marketplace

and the bottom line can never, never result in adequate broadcaster service to young audiences. The nation's young people simply don't represent a strong

enough buying power to inspire the commercial TV industry to design and air,

purely out of economic self-interest, sufficient programming for young people.
54

And economic self-interest is the name of the game in commercial television,

just as it is in every business. Former FCC Chairman Charles Ferris, although

a great believer in deregulation of the telecommunications industry, said it

best when he commented in 1980 that "the marketplace forces of the television

industry as it is presently structured fail when you apply them to children."

What does this mean? That we must all sit back and watch while television,

the most creative and informational entertainment medium we have, ignores

children's needs and dulls their intelligence and curiosity with endless cartoons?

That we who care about improving children's experiences with television must

content ourselves with research on TV's effects and speeches about parental

responsibility for children's viewing habits?

That is not why I am here today. I am here because I believe, like most

people, that television programming is a vitally important social izer of young

children and that young people can and will be engaged, challenged, and educated

by television programs geared to their special needs and interests — programs

that teach them about a diversity of places, faces, and ideas to which their

own lives cannot expose them. I believe that broadcasters know how to get such programming on the air; they don't only because programming for children does

not maximize profits.

I am here today because I believe that Congress has a responsibility to improve children's experiences with television -- not by regulating program content, but by exercising its role as overseer and legislating in the public

interest.

ACT therefore offers Congress the following recommendations for National Children and Television Week:

1 . Congress should reaffirm the statutory requirement that broadcasters

operate "in the public interest .
55

Cable and the other new video technologies are by no means sufficiently

widespread in this country to put an end to the concept of the broadcast spectrum

as a limited public resource. Broadcasters are obligated to operate "in the

public interest, convenience, and necessity," and children are an important segment of the public.

2. Congress should, as part of its oversight responsibility in the tele -

communications area, recommend to the Federal Communications Commission

that it adopt stronger guidelines for children's television programming

and advertising . With the recent disappearance of the National Association of Broadcasters

Television Code , one of the few instruments of industry self-regulation that did

make a difference, children are at the mercy of the marketplace as they have not

been in years. FCC guidelines should address the amount of programming and

advertising designed for children, not its content.

3. Congress should retain the existing statutory language in Section 5 of

the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits "unfair and deceptive

acts or practices in or affecting commerce ."

ACT believes that the vigorous authority and jurisdiction of the FTC, as

guaranteed by Section 5, are essential to the widely supported principle of

consumer protection, to the promotion of fair market competition, and, specifically, to the protection of children from unfair and deceptive commercial

practices targeted to them on television.

4. Congress should encourage the enforcement of the Equal Employment

Opportunity Act to bring more minorities and women into decisionmaking positions in the television industry, which in turn will help

increase program diversity .
56

As part of National Children and Television Week, ACT has released a new

handbook entitled Fighting TV Stereotypes . One of the important points made in

this publication is that television stereotypes and underrepresents women and

minorities in part because so few females and people of color are involved in

making television programming decisions. As one step toward trying to remedy

this problem, ACT yesterday filed at the FCC specific recommendations about

amending Form 395, an employment report filed annually at the Commission by

broadcasters.

5. Congress should ensure that any national cable legislation guarantees sufficient public access channels and prohibits censorship by any government agency .

Only about one third of all American TV households have cable television; far

fewer have cable systems that provide access channels. Public access programming

is the most exciting aspect of cable television, and the one that promises to distinguish cable from traditional broadcast TV, because it offers members of the community a chance to make their own programming. Public access, community access,

and leased access channels are in the public interest, and it is up to Congress to

see that they are guaranteed. It is also up to Congress to ensure that cable

television is protected from local or national censorship. ACT recommends that

all cable companies be required by law to provide lock-boxes free of charge to

those subscribers who want them. Let each family do its own censoring with a

lock-box; cable television is too important a vehicle of free speech to be sub- jected to the risk of censorship on any level.

6. Congress should support increased funding for public broadcasting, which

provides an important noncommercial programming alternative for children .

ACT does not share FCC Chairman Mark Fowler's opinion that public broadcasting

should shoulder the full responsibility for children's television programming.
57

Public television fills one or at most two channels in most communities, and it

has too many responsibilities to too many different constituencies to become

primarily a children's service, in order to let commercial broadcasters "off the

hook." But public television and radio have provided young children and adolescents

with some of the most thoughtful, exciting, sensitive, and racially balanced

programming of the past decade and can continue to offer these media alternatives,

assuming public broadcasting is given more funding. The Corporation for Public

Broadcasting has recently allocated six million dollars for new children's TV

programming; this money, however, will support only 26 one-hour episodes of a

weekly series. Because public broadcasting needs more federal support, ACT

recommends that Congress vote the Corporation for Public Broadcasting an additional

40 million dollars for programs geared to young audiences.

I would like to thank this Subcommittee for providing me with an opportunity

to offer these six recommendations for Congressional action. I cannot emphasize

enough the importance of your involvement in the issue of children and television.

You would not have called these hearings today if you did not recognize that

television could be doing much more to enrich the lives of children and young

adolescents. I hope you will agree that Congress has a vital role to play in

improving children's experiences with television. ACT needs your support; children

need your help.
58
59
60

Fighting

TV Stereotypes

An ACT Handboolc

The "scalp-hunting Indian". . .the "Mexican bandit". . .the

"crotchety old man" ... the "buxom black mama" ... the "inscrutable

Oriental" ... the "helpless female" ... all images that are now part of a more prejudiced past, right? Wrong. Minorities and women have been protesting these tired stereotypes for years. Yet they're all still there in living color on the TV screen, teaching children lessons about

the world that countless speeches about racial harmony and sexual

equality couSd scarcely correct.

If television is a window on the world, it is the only window through which many children can see people who are different from themselves: people of other races, religions, or ethnic heritages, people

with different accents. Yet most television, especially commercial TV, closes the window on diversity. What kind of message is TV sending by leaving those who are "dif- ferent" out of the picture? What does it teach the young Chicano If the Hispanic characters on television are most often criminals?

Equally important, what does it teach the young white child about Hispanics— especially if he has no personal contact with them to help him form his own opinions?

Working to erase stereotypes and encourage positive role models on children's TV has long been a goal at Action for Children's

Television (ACT). Three years after its inception in 1968, ACT commissioned the first of an ongoing series of studies of sex roles and racial and ethnic portrayals in children's programs and commercials. ACT

has organized a number of workshops and symposia on TV role models, inviting producers, researchers, broadcasters, educators, advertisers, and public policy makers to examine the kinds of examples

set on children's TV. And several ACT publications— Promise and Per- formance: Children with Special Needs and TV & Teens among them— have zeroed in on the problem of stereotyping. Many of the quotes in this handbook come from ACTs conferences and publications. Television can provide more positive role models and fewer

negative stereotypes. This handbook outlines how it could, and why it must. ACT is grateful for the support of the Foundation for Character Education in making Fighting TV Stereotypes possible.
61

"Visions," a KCET-TV (Los Angeles) production, PBS

Vn PERSONS Of

JAPANESE

. fN '-

photo by Ronr.

70-006 O - 83 - 5
62

Why ACT Is Concerned

When I was growing up watching television, there were only two black children on the screen —Buckwheat and Farina on

"The Little Rascals." We didn't have the reinforcement of "Leave It to Beaver" or any of the other programs that showed warm family

lives for young white kids. —Robert L Johnson, Black Entertainment Television

Television has come a long way since the days when "Amos and Andy"

gave us some of the only black faces on the screen, when we dreamed of Jeannie and father knew best. Children today can watch shows like "Sesame Street," where little Cuban boys join hands with little Viet- namese girls to sing about numbers and ABCs. But there are more than enough programs —and commercials —on TV that counteract the effec- tiveness of such shows. Racial minorities, women, handicapped people, and the elderly are all underrepresented on children's television. If they are shown at all, they are too often portrayed in a stereotyped manner. What's more, a whole new generation is getting a skewed picture of the world from syndicated reruns and recycled movies that condone bigotry And young people are spending 26 hours a week, on the average, in front of the TV, absorbing this cockeyed view. How distorted is the TV picture? The children speak for themselves. • "I think they are killers to Americans. Indians wear war paint." "Indians would be like us if they weren't dark, and they talk

different. Sometimes they're like savages." —3rd and 4th graders • "They're usually dopers, punks, and bums. I mean, they never show

the ordinary average everyday Mexican teenager." — 16-year-old • "I like to watch 'The V\/altons' because I like to watch John Boy who

is smart in school, he writes poetry he tries hard to get his ideas across and he's going to college. I like to watch J.J. He's hip, he

raps, he's funny he gets bad grades in school." —teenage girl At some point, the child is going to say, "Where do I fit into

this society? The only time I see myself is when I make people

laugh, or if there's a documentary about crime in the streets. But as far as seeing myself as a dress designer or a city

official, it's just not there." —Collette Wood. NAACP, Beverly Hills/Hollywood brancti Of course, television is not the only medium influencing children's per- ceptions of reality and much of what young people watch is intended as

fantasy But children watch TV early and often, and from their viewing they

take away a sense of the social order that colors their outlook on life. Parents and teachers can help offset TV's twisted images, but opinions

that are formed in early viewing years stay with children. As National Indian Youth Council Director Gerald Wilkinson observes, "Indian young people

will act out not what their parents and grandparents say is Indian, but what

the subtleties of TV dictate to be Indian." By rarely treating girls and minorities with respect, television teaches them that they really don't matter. And it teaches children in the white main- stream that people who are "different" just don't count. Worse still, by ex- porting American programming abroad, we are shaping the way billions of people around the world see us —and the way they see themselves.
63

"Feeling Free," a Workshop on Children's Awareness production, PBS

TAtK TO )*e'.fl

^.

^A

'^ Alan Brigniman
64

What the

Research Says

Television, to be blunt about it, is basically a medium with a mind closed to the swiftly moving currents of tomorrow. The

networks have erected an electronic wall around the status quo. —Jack Gould, former columnist, The New York Times

All television is educational TV to young viewers, giving them an understanding of the way people should be treated. Young people are watching

television at all hours of the day and night, not just during the Saturday morning cartoon blitz. Nielsen statistics reveal that children aged six to 11 do fully 30% of their TV viewing during so-called prime-time hours. How does TV portray the elderly, racial minorities, and women?

According to Michigan State University Professor Bradley S. Greenberg's

Life on Television, the elderly are scarce on the small screen: • Only 3% of all characters are in the 65-and-over group: a disproportionate number of these are male. The 1982 National Institute of Mental Health report. Television and

Behavior, reviewed a decade of research on television, finding: • Men outnumber women 3 to 1. TV women are more passive and

less achievement-oriented than men: some 70% of the women on TV do not hold jobs outside the home (this at a time when 53.1 % of

all American women have joined the labor force). • Blacks and Hispanics are cast mainly in situation comedies, and

even then only in a very few shows. Both groups are more likely to be portrayed as unemployed, or in unskilled jobs. A 1981 study by Brigham Young University researchers showed that the

proportional representation of minorities in TV comedies and dramas has

actually declined over the last decade. Yet minorities are the fastest growing segment of the U.S. population. Why are so many of them all but

invisible on TV? Came the revolution. And went the revolution. And Saturday

morning children's programming on the three commercial networks

is pretty much back at ground zero, improved only by a few

hard-won cosmetic changes. —Tom Shales, TV critic, The Washington Post

If prime-time TV slights women and minorities, children's television offers an even more slanted view of society. In Representations of Life on

Children's Television. Boston University Professor F. Earle Barcus

concluded that in commercial programming specifically designed for chil- dren there are fewer minorities and females, and more stereotypes about

them, than in adult television. The Barcus study, conducted for ACT in 1981

,

found that: • Out of a total of 1145 characters in the programs studied, only 22%

were female. They were portrayed as younger, more dependent, and

less active than males. • Only 3.7% of all characters were black, 3.1% were Hispanic, and 0.8% were Asian: one American Indian appeared. (By contrast, the

latest census counted 11.7% blacks, 6.4% Hispanics, 1.5% Asians, and 0.6% Native Americans among 226.5 million Americans.) • Of all characters with speaking parts, 57.5% were white, and 33.8%

were animals, robots, or other non-humans. When an animal is more likely than a black to have a speaking role, it's time to take a closer look at the television our children are watching.
65

"Hot Fudge," a WXYZ-TV (Detroit) production, syndicated by Lexington Broadcast Services

i* ) : ini
66

WhaVs Wrong with

these Pictures?

In parts of the country where there are few Chicanos, people see "Chico and the Man" and think this is what we are really like. In one of the first episodes, the man

says to Chico, "Why don't you go back to Mexico and

take your flies with you?" I know they are trying to show

prejudice, but at the same time there are people sitting at home thinking, "Yeah, they ought to go back to Mexico and

take their flies with them." —Dan Chavez, Chicano Coalition of Los Angeles

National Urban League Director Whitney Young once cited a scene on

network television that epitomizes TV's exclusion of blacks. "I don't know how many of you know 125th Street in Harlem," Young said, "but it takes

real genius to shoot a scene from 125th Street in Harlem and have nothing

but white people in it." An isolated case of TV's failure to bring minorities into the picture? It hardly seems so. For unless they are specifically written into a script, minorities are unlikely to appear onscreen. But fair representation on TV

isn't just a matter of counting black vs. white characters. It's also a question

of how minorities and women are portrayed —as the butt of jokes or as

useful human beings, in segregated groups or as an integral part of society,

in lead roles or as subservient sidekicks. Producers of films and TV that blatantly parade stereotypes have defended their creations by saying that white people are depicted in degrading situations also. That's true, but for every bad white image, there are ten good ones to shift the balance. Whereas a single caricature of a white person is accepted as an exaggerated truth, a stereotype is accepted

as the whole and complete truth about all Asians. —Filmmaker Irvin Paik To show all minorities or women as perfect, saintly characters would be

as much a disservice to children as to paint them as all bad. But when the same characteristics are attributed over and over again to any group

gays, the elderly the handicapped —TV is reinforcing stereotypes: • The black players on a cartoon basketball team get lost in the jungle and can't figure out an escape route until they are saved by their white manager. A crucial match begins, and the white rivals are

slaughtering the black team. It's clear the white team is cheating,

but it takes a dog to set things straight for a black team victory • Her body bionically reconstructed, the pretty heroine returns to her home town and decides to give up tennis and become a teacher.

Still, she puts her superhuman skills to good use around the house: scrubbing floors, vacuuming, and washing windows. • Six Arab assassins are the quarry of the three beautiful detectives. As the evil Arabs plot to kill scores of innocent people, they leer at a

belly dancer and shovel food into their mouths with their hands. When the scheme fails and the Arabs are apprehended, one of their captors sneers, "You ain't so tough you camel eaters!" Weeding out stereotypes can be tough, especially since there's a danger that even images meant as positive can, with overuse, themselves become stereotypes. The granny on a motorcycle, the supermom/brainy

executive, the Asian computer whiz —these generalizations are also misleading. Replacing old stereotypes with new cliches is no remedy
67

"The Steeler and the Pittsburgh Kid," a Jenner-Wailach production in association with Comworld Productions, NBC Project Peacock

M
68

What about the Ads?

Whether we like it or not, television influences the thinking of children. We know we cannot initiate a national karate

attack on the tube. We therefore n)ust wage an intensive effort to improve significantly television's portrayal of minority- group experiences in this country. —Professor Charles W. Cheng. UCLA Graduate School of Education &

Marsha Hirano-Nakanishi, Institute for Responsive Education

Ideally, there should be no advertising on children's television. Young

people simply are not sophisticated enough viewers to be able to separate

fact from advertising fiction. But as long as ads do appear on commercial

children's television, an effort should at least be made to avoid perpetuating stereotypes. Children see nine and a half minutes of commercials for each Saturday morning cartoon hour, and more than 25,000 30-second messages a year, the impact of v^/hich can hardly be dismissed. Marketing surveys have at last begun to convince advertisers of the wisdom of appealing to minority audiences. As a result, children are likely

to' see more minorities between the programs than on them. Money talks; advertisers have listened. Still, the commercials have a long way to go. The stereotypes are very much with us ... . Old people

are still constipated, can't sleep, their dentures don't

stick, and they're experts on remedies for aches and pains. —Eva Sl<inner, National Media Watch Committee, Gray Panthers

In the world of commercials, boys play with toy trucks and racing cars.

Girls play with makeup, dolls, and miniature household appliances. Moms

offer snacks to the gang; dads get out and toss the football around. If women have careers at all, they're mere diversions from their kitchens and their men; "I can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, and never

let you forget you're a man 'cause I'm a woman." How constructive are these advertising stereotypes? • Demonstrating the ease of operating the family's new dishwasher,

the little girl says to her male friend, "Seehownard I work for you!" • The modern-day stereotypical Chinese launderer no longer says, "No tickee, no washee." Instead he tries to convince his customers

that an "ancient Chinese secret" is the reason for their clothes' brightness, . as his wife stands knowingly in the background,

holding a box of water softener. Sexism, racism, and ageism emerge in more subtle ways, as well. Women may be on camera, displaying the product, but the voice of authority convincing consumers to buy it is usually male —90.6% of the time, according to one Screen Actors Guild study Blacks are given fewer speaking roles than whites, and they are usually the ones being instructed

more often than not by a white man—in the right product to buy Moreover, a 1981 Amherst College study points out that most "integrated" ads are

simply spliced-together scenes of separate black groups and white groups. Even public service announcements can have underlying messages.

Harvard University's Dr. Chester Pierce cites a PSA that subtly underscores

the image of blacks as immature, less serious. A group of schoolchildren

recite the virtues of eye examinations: they help you read more, they can

help you Improve your grades. When it's the black girl's turn, she announces that eye tests are "fun." On its own, a harmless statement; combined with other TV stereotypes, not so innocuous.
69

"The Year of the Dragon," a Young People's Special, produced and

syndicated by Multimedia Program Productions
70

Who Runs the Show?

The world of telecommunications continues to be predominantly

white, as reflected by ownership and control of the media as well as in the programming content .... The failure of television to

reflect the racial, cultural, and ethnic pluralism and diversity that characterizes this country today is a tragic loss. —Merble Harrington-Reagon, National Council of Negro Women

The TV industry points to its liiring record with pride: FCC statistics re- leased in 1982 show that women made up 34.7% of all employees In broadcast TV and 34.4% in cable. Minorities held 16.9% of all jobs in broadcast TV and 13.9% in cable. Yet a closer look at the makeup of the TV labor force reveals that women and minorities are rarely seen where it counts: in the boardroom. They are, to use the U.S. Civil Rights Commission's term, mere window

dressing on the set. Office and clerical duties are still considered women's

work, with women holding 85.8% of all such jobs in commercial and

public television, and 91.6% in cable. And while the FCC puts the number

of broadcast "officials and managers" at 9.1% minority and 26.8%

female, these figures mask the true picture about who makes the

decisions in the television industry For included in this top category are

not just general managers and program directors—who tend to be white males—but also many of those with no real say in station policy, such as promotion directors and research directors (who are often minorities or

females). This employment imbalance is perhaps a natural consequence of the

pattern of ownership of TV stations across the country: • Of the 1042 broadcast stations operating in the U.S., only 18 are mi- nority-owned. • A 1982 survey of 288 broadcast stations found that women were

principal owners of only eight. • Only 20 cable companies, representing 45 to 50 of the country's 4,700 cable franchises, are minority-owned.

Television . . . has a responsibility—and a need— to find those potential Lonne Elders and Alex Haleys, to discover tomorrow's Lorraine Hansberrys. —TV writer Len Riley

Minorities and women are even more scarce at the creative end of the TV structure. Research by the Black Anti-Defamation Coalition reveals

that the average black TV viewer assumes that any show with a largely black cast is written, directed, and produced by blacks, and that blacks

are reaping the profits. That is hardly ever the case. In 1980, the Writers

Guild of America, West reported 1,540 members working on a weekly

basis in TV. How many were black? Four. For the most part, the TV business runs on the buddy system, making it difficult for those without contacts in the "old boy network" to get a foot in the door. Some who have broken through the formidable barriers complain

that they aren't given creative control, that established white writers are

called in after minorities submit story ideas. That is not to say that no one but a Native American can write about the

Indian experience, or that only the elderly should produce programs

focusing on aging. But the more input minorities and women have, the more accurate TV's view of the world will become—not just in entertain- ment, but in the news, where what gets reported, and how, is often deter- mined by people who lack sensitivity to minority issues.
71

'Freestyle," a KCET-TV (Los Angeles) production, PBS
72

The PBS Alternative

You can't turn the world around in a half-hour TV

series. But you can make it more difficult for children

to maintain stereotypic notions. Once you've been exposed

to a variety of people within a group, it's hard to continue

saying, "They're all alike." —Yanna Kroyt Brandt, executive producer, "Vegetable Soup"

When television is good, it can be very, very good, encouraging racial equality presenting women in leadership roles, showing gays, the elderly, and handicapped people as valuable members ot society The Public Broadcasting Service has consistently led the way in foster- ing positive role models for children. While programming on public TV has

its faults, and minorities and women are still underrepresented both onscreen and behind the scenes, PBS has come closest to television's most noble goal: serving the public interest. Few who compare programs

like those noted below with those on the commercial networks could

quibble with the conclusion of the Carnegie Commission on the Future of Public Broadcasting; "Public television is capable of becoming the clear- est expression of American diversity and of excellence within diversity." • Children with handicaps and those without have both profited from

positive images of the disabled in shows like "Feeling Free" and

Mister Rogers's "I Am, I Can, I Will" series. PBS's "Rainbow's End" was a pioneering effort to teach basic reading and language skills to hearing-impaired youth. • "The Righteous Apples," a "sitcom with a message," takes on

sensitive topics like racial violence without suggesting that such

issues can be resolved in the space of a half hour. • "Freestyle," focusing on changing roles of women and men, emphasized nontraditional careers for both sexes and explored the consequences of stereotypical thinking. PBS also deserves praise as a major showcase for the many series pro- duced under the Emergency School Assistance Act (ESAA) TV project, a

federally financed program to combat racism. Although the ESAA project

is no longer in effect, the series are still being aired, and the National Captioning Institute is adding closed captions for the hearing-impaired, making them even more valuable. Some examples: • "Bean Sprouts" illustrates the unique challenges of growing up in San Francisco's Chinatown through the eyes of an immigrant boy • Teenagers in a strong and supportive middle-class black family

learn difficult lessons about responsibility and independence in "Up

and Coming." • "Carrascolendas" and "Villa Allegre" entertain in two languages

through music, comedy and dance. • School desegregation is discussed by those it most affects in "As We See It," a series researched and written by high schoolers.

Girls and boys of all backgrounds have benefited from PBS's commit- ment to cultural diversity Unfortunately federal funds, crucial in keeping

public television alive, have been slashed. And the administration threat- ens to cut government support even further. So the outlook for continued

excellence in public television programming for children is cloudy indeed.
73
74

More Bright Spots

When programming— along with employment— at least achieves

the same parity in diversity as is reflected in the total population, we will have reached the best of all possible worlds: a situation which argues for no special attention to minority programming.

That time, unfortunately, is somewhere in the future. —Janet Dewart, former director of Specialized Audience Programs,

National Public Radio

Public television isn't the only place where positive minority images may be found, nor should PBS be solely responsible for all socially rele- vant programming. From time to time programs appear on commercial

television that do more than just line corporate coffers. When they appear, they stand out: • "The New Fat Albert Show" on CBS gets out important messages

about issues like anti-Semitism. • NBC's "Fame" shows teens of varied ethnic backgrounds

performing and studying together and working out their differences. • A nutrition spot called "Beans and Rice" and a series of brief les- sons in urban self-reliance called "Willie Survive" are two com- mendable public service efforts that appear in ABC's Saturday morning lineup. • A number of national children's specials have confronted minority issues sensitively ABC's Afterschool Specials, which are closed

captioned, have focused on racial strife ("The Color of Friendship"), blindness ("Blind Sunday"), and other serious themes. Notable syn- dicated specials include "Joshua's Confusion," from Multimedia,

contrasting old ways with new through the eyes of an Amish boy, and "Loser Take All," from Capital Cities, about competition between two youths, one white, one Chicano. • In the mid-'70s "Yut, Yee, Sahm, Here We Come" became the first locally produced bilingual series. Produced by San Francisco's Chinese community and aired on KPIX-TV, it introduced children to the positive aspects of bicultural community life. You shouldn't put diversity on television because it's right. .

.

you should put it on because it's good business. People want

to see themselves, to see the people around them on

television. They want television to broaden their world. —Actor LeVar Burton Commercial broadcasters defend their programming decisions by

maintaining that they must serve too broad an audience to cater to special

.

interest groups. But good programming cuts across all boundaries

"

color, sex, and ethnicity After all, it's not only doctors who watch programs

with a hospital theme. TV viewers of all backgrounds will tune in to well- made shows that focus on minorities or that showcase minority talent. Occasional specials about race relations or feminism or elderly rights are fine, but they're simply not enough. Children need to watch news that better represents minority concerns, cartoons that reflect all the colors of the human rainbow, and live-action programs that enhance their lives. What's needed is a commitment to diversity in TV programming on a

regular basis— locally as well as nationally —and to the time it takes for such programming to build an audience.
75

"My Father Sun-Sun Johnson," a Learning Corporation of America/British Broadcasting Corporation co- production, Calliope
76

Other Technologies

There are a lot of opportunities for minorities to tal(e part in cable, low-power television .

. ., and other tech- nologies, if people know and work hard for them. The powers that be are not going to give them away. —Will Norton, Minorities in Cable and New Technologies

With cable TV getting off the ground, there is reason to hope that chil- dren's television of the future will do a better job of putting diversity into programming. That won't happen if cable sticks to the same old formulas

that dictate programming to the lowest common denominator. But there are signs of progress, like these cable initiatives: • SIN National Spanish Television Network and Spanish Universal Tel- evision (SUN) are two national services directed to the Spanish-

' speaking audience, both with special children's programming. • A number of other national cable services either existing or in the works are directed to specific minority audiences. The Silent Network, for the hearing-impaired, will carry original programming

for children and teens. Black Entertainment Television offers a weekly family hour, interviews with leading black personalities, and

a live telephone call-in show for teens. • Programs produced locally either by cable stations or by citizens taking advantage of public access provisions, make for TV that truly reflects community interests and needs. College students in East

Lansing, Michigan, produce "Black Notes," while nine- to 12-yearold students in Hackensack, New Jersey discuss Black History Month and other topics on the "8:40 Report." Although they can provide disenfranchised groups with more access to the medium, it's unlikely that alternative technologies will solve TV's ills. For one thing, cable can be costly Video discs and video cassettes, while increasing viewing options by allowing families and schools to program

their own TV fare, involve expensive equipment. If much of the audience

for minority programs cannot afford to bring the new technologies into the home, their potential for alleviating TV's distortion of life will be limited. Since that is so, low-power television may eventually prove to be one

service through which minorities can have considerable impact. As many

as 4,000 new TV stations are expected to be set up, with the ability to transmit signals within a 15-mile radius instead of the 50 miles or more

covered by full-power stations. Low-power stations can be built for a fraction of the cost of acquiring conventional TV stations, and the Federal Communications Commission plans to give preference to minority appli- cants for ownership, paving the way for neighborhood programming.

Although low-power TV is still in its infancy there is another alternative

to commercial children's television, and it's one already found in nearly every home: radio. Recently a number of significant radio series have been aired nationally: • Black music is put in historical perspective in "From Jumpstreet," and the concerns of Latino youths are discussed in the bilingual "Checking It Out," two public TV shows now on radio. • The contributions of minority figures in history who "changed adversity to achievement" are examined in "Turnaround," produced for teens by the New York State Education Department. • "Listen Here," a series of 60-second public service announce- ments targeted to the secondary school level, profiles successful "famous and not-so-famous people of color."
77

"The Color of Friendship," a Highgate Pictures production, ABC Afterschcol Special

iiA
78

Affirmative Action

Why is black ownership so tremendously important?

... We need to control airwaves in order to control the images of black people in the media.

—Pluria Marshall, National Black Media Coalition

In 1978 the Federal Communications Commission adopted policies aimed at encouraging minority ownership of TV stations by extending tax benefits to minority entrepreneurs and making it easier for them to buy

into television. Still, the number one obstacle for minority groups seeking

to purchase TV stations remains financing. Several funds have been set up to ease the way, such as the National Association of Broadcasters' Broadcast Capital Fund and Syndicated Communications, a minority-run venture capital company

With more ethnics and women in ownership positions, there's a better chance for diversity to be reflected in TV programming. Detroit's WGPR- TV which became the nation's first black-owned station in 1975, allocates

large amounts of time to ethnic programming. And a new Bridgeport, Connecticut, station "organized, controlled, and managed by women" plans

to air children's programs that will "demand active responses from viewers— children, parents, grandparents."

/( is important to move ahead with our commitment to equal employment opportunities— not simply to create more jobs for minorities, but to create more sensitivity

in broadcasting to the diversity of peoples and

lifestyles that defines the American idiom. —Charles Ferris, ex-chairman. Federal Communications Commission

Filling the ranks of the television industry from owners down, with a . multitude of perspectives can only broaden TV's view of the world 'for children, for everyone. WNYC-TV is a good example of the increased sensitivity to community

needs that can result from hiring minorities to decision-making positions.

In 1981 the New York station appointed a black manager; since then, the percentage of black-oriented programming has risen to 30%—more

black TV fare than any other station in the country Slow though it may be, progress has been made throughout the industry Much of that progress is a result of Equal Employment Opportunity requirements set out by the FCC for all licensees. Any station with five or more employees is required to file annual reports of hiring practices with the FCC, and to establish policies that will ensure "equal opportunity in every aspect of station employment." These provisions have served as an opening for groups like the Latino Committee on the Media and the National Organization for Women to challenge the renewal of broadcast licenses, one means of reminding

local broadcasters of their obligation to serve the public interest. From time to time there have been signs that the FCC wants to pull back on its commitment to EEC. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Clay Smith, Jr., emphasizes that such a move would be a giant step backwards. "To refuse to enforce FCC policies in connection with EEC would reverse 15 years of gains made by minorities and women in telecommunications," he says. Without regulations that promote the

hiring and advancement of women and minorities, the chance for their voices to be heard in making programming decisions would be slighter than ever.
79

"Oh, Boy! Babies!," a Laughing Willow Company production, NBC Special Treat
80

Changing the System

We are an unfinished item on America's agenda. It is our

task to involve and engage ourselves in the struggle

to force our country to recognize its best potential. —Actor Ossie Davis

Minorities and women who have made it into television l<now how hard

it can be to scale the walls that insulate the industry. To help others make

their way. they have banded together to set up new "old boy networks": • The National Black Media Coalition runs a media clearinghouse and

an EEO resource center, and counsels minority media investors. • Minorities in Cable and New Technologies holds workshops to increase minority participation in alternative technologies. Impetus for change has come from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as well: • The National Black Programming Consortium sponsors an annual

competition —with a Children's/Teen category—for notable TV pro- grams and films reflecting black concerns. • The National Asian American Telecommunications Association pro- duces radio and TV series and serves as a clearinghouse for information about Asian media professionals. • Public TV and radio stations controlled by women and minorities are

eligible for CPB grants, as are female and minority public TV

employees wishing to upgrade their skills.

It's not only national organizations that can effect change: a lot can be done on the local level. WETA-TV in Washington. D.C.. for example, has

provided solid training through its minority internship and minority film lab- oratory projects. Broadcasters can watch out for stereotypes on networkfed programs and choose to air alternative material. Local broadcasters and cablecasters can promote positive images by turning to unexplored sources for programming ideas: African poetry Italian folk tales, local ethnic festivals. And media employees can let the community and the

press, know of obstacles they meet in getting balance and accuracy into local programming.

If we want our children to grow up without the prejudice

that has stained so many of our generation, and we want

the educational achievement of our children to be as

great as possible, then why have we ignored the inexpensive chance to reach children over television? —Former Vice President Walter Mondale

There are many ways we all can work toward more and better portrayals of minorities and women on children's television. Getting involved in the cable franchising process is one step —making sure that cable systems provide programming for, and by young people and minority and women's groups. Businesses can underwrite programming for local broadcast or cablecast that aims at erasing stereotypes, and companies

can pool their resources to set up job training or scholarship programs. Viewers can talk back to the TV industry Protests can be effective: praise is equally important. Parents, educators, religious groups, and

youth groups can encourage children to question TV's view of the world. The TV industry can't know how viewers feel if the lines of communication are closed. Opening them up, and speaking out about television's portrayal of women and minorities, is not only our right. It's our responsibility

to our children, and to their future.
81

Fighting

TV Stereotypes

An Action Guide

For children, seeing is believing. How can we improve TV's messages?

The TV industry can: • Increase diversity in programming of all kinds. Children need to see characters who just happen to be black or Hispanic, as well as dramas and documentaries that focus on racial issues. • Hire and promote minorities and women, especially to decision- making positions. • Establish recruitment and training programs and scholarships to open the doors in all branches of the field: writing, production, news reporting, management. • Actively solicit programming ideas, scripts, and onscreen talent

that reflect America's multiethnic, multicultural nature. • Provide access to community groups to ensure a minority voice on cable, low-power, and local broadcast TV.

The business community can: • Underwrite children's programs that reflect the interests and showcase the talents of minorities and women. • Support public television as a valuable TV alternative. • Fund education and promotion campaigns to develop new

audiences and encourage community involvement. • Pool resources to sponsor scholarships and recruitment and

training programs to give the handicapped, women, and minorities a start in television. • Help finance minority ownership of broadcast, cable, and low- power stations and other TV technologies.

All of us can: • Watch TV with our children and talk about the role models and

stereotypes television provides. • React to what children see on the screen. Call, visit, or write to station managers, producers, writers, and advertisers to applaud,

criticize, or suggest new ideas. Encourage children to speak out as well. • Become involved with cable in the community Get in on the

negotiations to make sure that children are served and that pro- gramming reflects local ethnic flavor and minority-group concerns. Urge young people to take advantage of the chance to make their own programming for public access channels. • Support policies at the local, state, and national levels that ensure

fair representation for women, handicapped, the elderly and racial and ethnic groups —in television and in society at large.

Action for Children's Television 46 Austin Street, Newtonville, Massachusetts 02160

(617)527-7870
82

ACT COALITION Organizations Supporting the Goals, Projects and

Legal Actions of Action for Children's Television

Action for Children's Television

45 Austin Street

Newtonville, MA 02150

(517) 527-7870

N ATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

Ambulatory Pediatric Association

American Academy of Child Psychiatry American Academy of Pediatrics American Association of Colleges for Teachers' Education American Association of Public Health Dentists American Dental Hygienists Association

American Humane Association, Children's

Division American Jewish Committee American Montessori Society American Nurses' Association American Personnel and Guidance Association

American Public Health Association American School Food Service Association Americans for Democratic Action

Americans for Indian Opportunity Association for Childhood Education International Automobile Owners Action Council Black Citizens for A Fair Media Center for Law and Education, Inc. Center for Science in the Public Interest Children's Defense Fund Children's Foundation Children's Rights, Inc. Children's Rights Group

The Children's Theater Association of America

Citizens Communications Center

Coalition of Black Trade Unionists Community Nutrition Institute Concerned Consumers League Congressional Wives Task Force Consumer Federation of America Consumers Union Cooperative League of the USA Council on Interracial Books for Children

Day Care Council of America, Inc. Family Institute, Academy of Educational Development

Family Service Association of America

Food Research and Action Center

Franciscan Communications

Future Homemakers of America

General Conference Mennonite Church

Girls Clubs of America

Holt International Children's Services, Inc. Home and School Institute Inc. Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility,

Project on Children, Nutrition and Television Advertising

Inter-faith Communications Commission

International Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers

International Ladies Garment Workers Union International Reading Association

Mass Media Ministries

Media Access Project

Media Center for Children

HAACP

National Academy of Sciences, Food and Nutrition Board, Consumer Liaison Panel National Association for Better Broadcasting

National Association for the Education of Young Children

National Association of Elementary School Principals

National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates and Practitioners

National Association of Social Workers

National Black Child Development Institute

National Black Media Coalition

National Black United Fund, Inc. National Catholic Educational Association

National Center for the Study of Corporal Punishment and Alternatives in the Schools

National Child Nutrition Project

National Committee for Citizens in Education

National Committee for Prevention of Child Abuse

National Conference of Black Lawyers
83

National Consumers League

National Council of Catholic Women

National Council of the Churches of Christ

National Council of Community Mental Health Centers

National Council of Jewish Women

National Council on Crime and Delinquency

National Extension Homemakers Council Inc. National Gray Panther Media Watch

National Ladies Auxiliary, Jewish War Veterans

of the U.S. National Latino Media Coalition

National Office for Social Responsibility

National Organization for Women

National PTA National Urban League

National Women's Political Caucus

National Youth Work Alliance

Parent Cooperative Preschools International

Planned Parenthood Federation of America

Public Action Coalition on Toys

l^ural American Women Telecommunications Research and Action

Center (formerly NCCB) Union of American Hebrew Congregations

United Auto Woi'kers International Union

United Church Board for Homeland Ministries

United Church of Christ

United Food and Commercial Workers

United Methodist Church, Women's Division of

the General Board of Global Ministries

United States Catholic Conference, Department

of Communication

""i<'ed Steelworkers of America

""or Racial and Economic Equality

Institute for Freedom of the Press Women's League for Conservative Judaism

STATE AI'ID LOC^L ORGATIIZATIONS Advocates for Children of New York American Association of University Women, Rochester, NY Arkansas Consumer Research

Aspira Inc. of New Jersey Atlanta Council for Children's Television

Baltimore Media Alliance, Inc. Behavior Development Center, Eureka, CA Boston Association for the Education of Young Children

Broadcast Commission of the Hawaii Council

of Churches

Cable Television Access Coalition, Inc., Boston, MA

Camp Fire, Inc. .Rochester-Monroe County

Council, NY Center for Public Representation, Madison, WI Central Oklahoma Multi-Media Association

"Check-Up" for Emotional Health, NY

Chicano Federation of San Diego

Child Care Resource Center, Cambridge, MA Citizens Committee on Media, Chicago Colorado Committee on Children's TV Committee for Community Access, Boston, MA Community Coalition for Media Change,

Oakland, CA Community Involvement Communications, Inc., Venice, CA Conference of Consumer Organizations,

Inc., MA Detroit Committee for Children's Television

Institute of Nutrition, University of

North Carolina Junior Women's Club of Rialto, CA Livingston County Children's Welfare and Protective Association, NY Long Island Coalition for Fair Broadcastino.

Inc. Massachusetts Advocacy Center Massachusetts Children's Policy Institute Massachusetts Teachers' Association

Minnesota Public Interest Research Group Montgomery County Hispanic Coalition, Inc. Multicultural Television Council, Chicago

New England Board of Higher Education

New York Council on Children's TV Public Advocates, San Francisco

Public Media Center, San Francisco

Puerto Rico Congress of New Jersey Rochester Coalition for Children's TV, NY San Antonio Black Coalition on Mass Media

Santa Clara County Dental Unit, CA Somerville Media Action Project, MA Statewide Youth Advocacy, Inc., MY Student Advocacy Center, Ann Arbor, HI WATCH (Washington Association for Televisic: and Children), Washington, D.C. Women's Action Alliance, Inc., Non-Sexist

Child Development Project, NY YMCA of Greater Washington

Vh'. Action £tr

45 Au2"uin £trc3t

liawtcjn'Lae, lia. Q21C0

a7-S27-7S?0

Winter 1983
84

18 THi; BtisTON GI.OUK TiiF.srjAY. FEBRUARY 15. 19K3 Reprinted wIth permi SSIOfl

5Ihe ^ojsiton (5lobe

Founded 1872

WILLIAM O TAYLOK Ihairman imhr hiKinl unil I'ublishfr THOMAS WINSHIl' f.V/iior JOHN V CIUGCK). ITcstdcnl MAKTIN K NOI.AN, Kclilnr Krhlurml Huge

uiz-tijuiir (uK(.-t!iil (lf)ll)l hxvrulii- V r JOHNS UKISCOLL. Kxi-iilMw Etillor "av n STANOKK im^V ,^ ^Vj;n"« Ma MATnlKW V S.OR.N. M„na„n„ f.V1„.„ /V,.-„ ARTHUH KINGSHimV. V f Tr^surrr MirHAKI. C JANKWA^ Manam.m >M,lo,. iyunday

MILI AKDC OWKN V f MarJcrMn., /* .S<.(,-.s KOriKHT I llt.M \ . Assoc,a,c FMito. KOUKKI II HIU;l IS A>-'H iiilc hililiir

(.MARIKSII lAVLOK. ISTJ1922

Pubh.slxi'ts WILLIAM O lAYl.OK ] 922 1955

Prtsident JOHN I TAYl-OK. iaa'tW75

WM DAVIS TAVIXJR. 1955 1977 Goodby to Disney and all that

Most children of the past three decades re- member a much-loved television show that was

once the nation's most popular. It featured ad- ventures, cartoons and other staples of Walt

Disncv. * The magic is ending after 29 seasons for the networks' longest running prime-time enter- lainment. The ending highlights a commit- ment articulated years ago by Walt Disney: We are always keenly aware that things seen nn the screen can exercise enormous influence on the Ideals and conduct of youngsters Those who use the movie or TV screen as a business also have a great responsibility to- ward their customers." Most who currently use TV as a business

Ignore that responsibl'lity. Despite strong criti-

( isms of children's programming, the Federal Communications Commission chairman. Mark

Fowler, has unwisely refused to require broadcasters to show more

Market forces, not the government, should

prevail, he said recently at Arizona State University, applying the Reagan Administration

philosophy that business left to its own devices

will cure all Ills. So far. those market forces have determined

that preschool children will see no morning

weekday program on any network such as the

(lassie Captain Kangaroo; that school-age chil- dren will see few after-school specials; and that much of the selection of children's fare will be

limited to Saturday morning cartoons.

— That is why Action for Children s Television, a national citizens lobby based In Newton, sought the requirement to make broadcasters offer seven-and-a-half hours of chil- dren's programming, some of It educational. between Monday and Friday. During the Carter Administration, the FCC

was moving toward enacting a requirement for more children's programming. ACT President Peggy Charren and others believe^ Moreover,. In 1974. the FCC issued a policy statement that urged television stations to provide more educational and informational children's shows with

less advertising and some provisions for pre- schoolers. Children under five average 30 hours weekly, according to ACT. What are they watching? What Is It doing to them, "at a time when they

are developing and learning about the world and the people around them." asks a 10-year study on television and behavior by the National Institute of Mental Health. Except for a few reruns In late spring and

summer, the Disney show famllar to families

for generations will be off the air. save those with access to Disney's new pay-televlslon station. The commitment to prime-time entertain- ment for children and families will be missed

unless the FCC reverses field and decides to make a difference In the quality and quantity

of children's programming.
85

THE BOSTON GI,OBE SATURDAY. FEBRUARY 12. 1983 35 FCC won't force child programs

By Kenneth Barry

Reuter WASHINGTON - Federal Communications

Commission (FCC) Chairman Mark Fowler yes- terday said he will not try to force broadcasters

to show more children's television despite charges that Juvenile programming is Inadequate. Market forces and not the government

should determine the programs children see. Fowler said In remarks prepared for delivery at Arizona State University In Tempw. A long-standing petition tefore the FCC crltl- ctzes the record of broadcasters on Juvenile pro- gramming and asks that the agency require them to screen a minimum number of hours of

children's shows. The Boston-biased public In- terest group Action for Children's Television (ACT) has sued the commissioners for falling to make a decision on Its 12-year-old petition. In Boston yesterday, commenting on Fowler's speech, Peggy Charren. president of Action

for Children's Television, said she still hopes a requirement that broadcasters run a minimum

number of 7'/i hours of children's programming

a week will be Imposed by the FCC. She cited figures that children aged 2 to 1

1

watch 26 hours of television a week and those under 5 years 30 hours a week.

"It's Interesting that a Reagan Administration appointee to the FCC Is urging public televi- sion to carry the ball for kids, and at the same

time the Reagan budget people are proposing a

reduction of the public TV budget from SI 30

million down to $85 million," Charren said. "Mr. Fowler might better have begun his re- marks by calling for a $40 million addition to the Corporation for Public Broacasting budget, which would be earmarked for children's pro- gramming."

Fowler, a former lawyer for broadcasters, said he has applied free-market principles whenever fxjsslble to areas where government

has traditionally regulated. "This means letting viewer Judgment, not government, determine which programs appear," Fowler said.

In 1974 the FCC said in a policy statement

that commercial broadcasters licensed by the FCC have a special obligation to serve the needs

of children. In 1979 the FCC staff said the

broadcasters had failed to meet the obligation and recommended remedies, but the commission took no action. Fowler said the staff had failed to consider

the contribution of public broadcasting In chil- dren's programming. He said the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has Increased funding for programs for chil- dren and should be given an adequate budget to continue that effort. "Nickelodeon" and other cable television channels also Increase the programs for younger audiences, he added.
86

TV VIEW

JOHN J. O'CONNOR

• Leaving

Children to the

Mercy of the

Marketplace

THE NEW YORK TIMES, SUNDAY, OCTOBER 17, 19S2

nnter, in 1981. the Reagan Administratzon with its" proclaimed du^^taste for "Federal bureaucracy" and its confidence in the "marketplace approach" as a general

solution to the nation's ills. Mark Fowler, the Reagan appointee to head the F.C.C.. has stated: "The Government

shoLild get out of the business of declaring what programs

broadcasters 'should' carry." Not surprisingly, what is now happening to children's programming is precisely what the F.C.C., under Mr. Ferris, predicted would hap- pen without the pressure of Government intervention.

'The state of children's

programming is becoming a

national disgrace.'

Sn

the past couple of weeks, each of the three commercial networks happened to offer an afternoon special

that might leave the passing observer with the impression that children's programming is finally reaching

the quality levels demanded by assorted pressure groups over the past decade. In fact, the state of chil- dren s programming on ABC, CBS and NBC is rapidly becoming a national disgrace, and a good many dis- tressed watchdog groups are placing the blame on the

laissez-faire doorstep of the Reagan Administration. There is no need at this point to rehash arguments to the effect that television can be a powerful educational

t(X)l and Ihat children are a special audience deserving of special treatment. These points were made persuasively

in the early 1970's by such groups as Action for Children's

Tefevision. a grassroots coalition of concerned parents and educators. Politicians and regtilators were impressed. The Federal Communications Commission's Dean burch. closely associated with Senator Barry Goldwater's conservative wing, began making tough public speeches on the need for more and better programs for young audiences. The networks inevitably took note, and

one of the first results was a supplementation of the "kid- vid" schedule on Saturday morning, traditional ghetto for children's programming, with penodic drama presentations during the week. That's where those afternoon specials come in. And they often are impressive. The most recent batch

included "Sometimes 1 Don't Love My Mother." an "ABC

Aftcrschool Special," the first and usually the most ambitious of these series. In this instance, the story involved a teen-ager coping with the death of her father and subse- quent emotional collapse of her mother, putting the girl in

ijie painful position of choosing between going to college or staging home to protect Mom. On the "CBS Afternoon

Playhouse," "Help Wanted" showed a high-school stu- dent grappling with himself and his family after his father became unemployed and embittered. And "Oh. Boy!

Babies!." on NBC's "Special Treat," used an infant-care

class designed for grade-school youngsters to e.xplore the

strained relationships between one lx)y and his new step- father and infant stepbrother. The point is that each of these presentations was

produced with care and a concern for quality. There was

an underlying assumption that younger viewers can be taken seriously and treated with respect. These were precisely the kinds of programs that should be offered on a

regular, perhaps weekly basis. That possibility once seemed feasible, but no more. In 1974. the F.C.C. sternly declared that it expected to see. without specific regulations, considerable improvement in scheduling practices, ba^ed on the clear evidence that children do not confine

their viewing to Saturday mornings. By 1979, the commlsssion, headed by Charles Ferns, a Carter appointee, was concluding that considerable improvement had not been made, that industry self-regulaiion had failed. Mandatory scheduling figures were proposed.

Item: With the expansion of the "CBS Morning News" to two hours, "Captain Kangarob," the only net- work weekday series aimed specifically at children, was

shunted to the weekends.

Item; CBS's "30 Minutes," the award-wiiming magar

zine for young people that was patterned on "60 Minutes,"

has been canceled. Item: NBC's "Special Treat," mentioned above, will be staying on, very sporadically, until next April, but from now on the presentations will be rebroadcasts. Item: ABC has dropped "Animals, Animals, Ani- mals" to make room for David Brinkley's "This Week"

on Sunday mornings. The network has also stopped pro- duction on "Kids Are People Too," deciding to go with

reruns this season for its major noncartoon effort on

weekends. Meanwhile, with pitifully few exceotions, the Satur- day-morning schedule has become the Land of Recycling,

courtesy for the most part of the Hanna-Barbera cartoon

studios. The producers are increasingly turning for inspi- ration to situation comedies, which have often been little more- than dramatized comic books. On this season's new

schedule are animated versions of "Tlie Incredible Hulk." "Lavemeand Shirley," "Gilligan's Island," "The

Dukes of Hazzard" and, straight from "Diff'rent

Strokes." the diminutive phenomenon named "Gary

Coleman."

With considerable justification. Peggy Charren,

president of Action for Childien's Television, is fond of comparing children's television to a public library. If any

library were found to have its shelves stuffed only with comic books, she says, the community would rise up and

howl. But that is exactly what is happening in television and with seeming impunity. As a matter of fact, she adds, even the Saturday lineup, sad though it may be. is often preempted these days for football. "Broadcast executives now know," Mrs. Charren charges, "they're hot going to get in trouble in Washington." Defenders of the "marketplace approach" do have

their own arguments. Most notable is the theory that the new presence of cable television will alter past patterns of scheduling. But for the moment, cable is available to less

that 30 percent of the country, which means discrimination in access. Then there is the possibility that broadcasters mi Jht be convinced to pay a "spectrum fee,

' ' which in turn could be used to get public television to assume most

of the commercial sector's responsibilities in children's

television. The public-TV role can certainly be enhanced,

but tne single system is not likely to be able to replace the

pre,senceof the three <;i.int networks. As broadcasters go about setting their priorities for maximizing profits, younger viewers are not likely to be

one of their major concerns. Children do not control a sig- nificant amount of disposable dollars. Perhaps, going be- yond balance sheets, iMr. Fowler and the F.C.C. may one day realize that what's good for CBS, NBC and ABC is not

necessarily good for the rest of the country.
87

REPRESENTATIONS OF LIFE ON CHILDREN'S TELEVISION:

1. Sex Roles and Behaviors

by

F. Earle Barcus, Ph.D. with

Judith L. Schaefer

Prepared for ACTION FOR CHILDREN'S TELEVISION

46 Austin Street Newtonville, MA 02160

(617) 527-7870

June 1982
88

CHAPTER IX

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Perhaps the most significant finding of this study of sex role portrayals on children's television lies in the overwhelming proportion of male

chsuracters. This lack of recognition of females is clearly evident in the

svunmary data below i

243 females represent 2Zfo of 110? characters identified by sex.

203 females represent 27% of 758 human characters. 23 females represent 9% of 244 animal characters. There were also interesting demographic differences between female and

male characters. Although greatly outnumbered in almost all demographic

groups, females were cast as younger than malesi hj^ of teenage characters were female.

31^ of young adults were female. 1^ of middle age characters were female. Females were also more apt to be cast as married and identified in family roles; 40% of single adults were female.

45% of married adults were female.

38% of all characters in family roles were female. 17% of all characters not identified in family roles were female. They were more likely to appear in non-animated comedy and drama than

in cartoon comedy or action/adventure drama:

31% of non-animated comedy and other drama characters were female. 20% of animated cartoon comedy characters were female.

19% of action/adventure drama characters were female.
89

Females were not well represented In important dramatic roles

i

1296 of dramatic heroes were female.

7fi of dramatic villains were female.

1695 of all major dramatic characters were female.

27^ of all minor dramatic characters were female. They were less often shown as employed, and when employed, were shown

as professional entertainers, clerical or household woricersi

29% of females were employed.

^2?o of males were employed. Z^ of professional and technical workers were female.

5056 of clerical workers were femal.e. 35^ of household workers were female.

125? of managerial and sales workers were female. Females were almost con^iletely unrepresented in other occupations, such

as craftsmen, operatives, transportation workers, laborers, farmers, and service workers. In spite of their small numbers, female characters tended to uphold traditional values. They more often sought altruistic goals such as respect for

others, devotion to group, home, and family. When seeking "self" goals, they

more often were concerned with safety and self-preservation or power. Males,

on the other hand, were more apt to engage in self-indulgences, seek wealth,

fame, thrill, and act out of hatred. They also valued work and patriotism

more than females.

In attempting to achieve their goals, females relied on personal charm

and dependence on others to a much greater extent than did males who used

violence, trickery or deceit, and persuasion.
90

Females are also portrayed in traditional sex-role patterns. They

were found to be significantly less aggressive and active than males, had

lower self-concepts and less achievement-related behaviors. They demonstrated much greater concern for social relationships and exhibited slightly

greater anxiety. Traditional personality characteristics were also demonstrated by feinale

and male diaracters. Males were seen as having stronger, more violent, cruel,

active, and independent personalities; vrtiereas, females were unselfish, kinder,

and warmer—personalities rated as higher on the good-bad continuum than males.

They were, however, more dependent and passive.

There is. In the several measures used in this study, strong and consistent evidence not only of a lack of recognition of female characters—throu^

their sheer lack of numbers, but also a lack of respect illustrated by the

small proportions of females in roles of status and prestige in society. However, they do uphold many values of society which have been traditionally considered the province of the female—home and family. And they demonstrate

greater concern for social relationships and human qualities of unselfishness,

kindness and warmth. At the same time, traditional streotypes of women as

weaker and dependent were abundant. Perhaps we should not be surprised at these findings, for they tend to

confirm a number of previous studies of sex-role streotyplng on television

(see Chapter II). What is difficult to understand is why television specifically designed for the child audience continues to be more extreme in its portrayals than that for adults. Whereas the research has indicated that there

has been a levelling off of male to female ratio in prime-tijne TV of about 2tl,

this analysis shows children's TV at about itil—and in some important roles an

even wider disparity. Although one can find some examples of female "superiiero" models in the

TV programming for children, we have found the overaU representations of

males and females to be quite traditional and streotyped. Moreover, in spite

of the efforts by many groups to improve the status of women in society and

the efforts to influence the portrayals of the sexes on television, the research over the past decade has shown that they are not changing in children's

programming

.

As a representation of some of the real changes taking place in the

status of women in society, chUdren's television provides a distorted mirror,

with outdated models for young diildren. At this time, commercial children's

television programs represent part of a pattern of persistent barriers to

social change.
91

REPRESENTATIONS OF LIFE ON CHILDREN'S TELEVISION:

2. Portrayals of Minorities

by

F. Earle Barcus, Ph.D. with

Judith L. Schaefer

Prepared for ACTION FOR CHILDREN'S TELEVISION

46 Austin Street Newtonville, MA 02160

(617) 527-7870 June 1982
92

CHAPTER IX

SUMIlAIff AND CONCLUSIONS

Perhaps the most significant finding of this study of the portrayal of

racial and ethnic minorities on commercial children's television lies in the

small numbers of minority characters. This lack of recognition of all ethnic minorities is clearly evident in the summary data below; 184 ethnic characters represent l6.1% of 1145 total characters.

42 black ethnics represent 3- 7^ of 1145 total characters.

41 black humans represent 5-4% of 758 human characters.

35 Hispanics represent 3-^% of 1145 total characters. 9 Asians represent 0.8/2 of 1145 total characters.

77 Europeans represent 6.7% of 1145 total characters. Ethnic minorities also are less often found in major roles t

58 ethnic characters represent 11.8% of 490 major dramatic characters. 10 black characters represent 2.0% of ^^90 major dramatic characters. 18 non -black minorities " 3- 7% of 490 major dramatic characters.

In hero and villain roles, black ethnics are more often cast as heroes

than as villains, but their proportions in both roles are low. Other ethnics are more Often cast as villains:

5 black heroes represent 4.5% of 111 total heroes.

1 black villain represents 1.1% of 95 total villains.

3 other ethnics represent 2.7% of 111 total heroes. 12 other ethnics represent 12.6% of 95 total villains. Black and other minorities are also less frequently portrayed as employed

than are white characters; 344 out of 659 white characters (52.2%) were shown as employed. 15 out of 41 black characters (36.6%) were shown as employed. 16 out of 47 other minorities (34.0%) were shown as employed.
93

When shown as employed, both black and white characters are most often shown in professional and managerial jobs, whereas other minorities are more likely to be portrayed as craftsmen, laborers, or service workers. In value orientations, black ethnics seem more likely to pursue altruistic

goals than other ethnic groups (reflecting the tendency for blacks to be cast as heroes rather than villains). Minority characters, in general, are less likely to use violence to accomplish goals, but are more apt to depend on others, use personal charm, or accomplish goals through luck or circumstance. Few major differences were found between ethnic and non-ethnic heroes in terms of their personality traits. However, ethnic villains were seen as some- what stronger, more selfish, cruel, and dishonest than non-ethnic villains. Also, althou^ the differences were not large, black ethnics tended to he portrayed as somewhat more serious, peaceful, intelligent, and more "good" than non-ethnics. European ethnics, on the other hand, were seen as more "bad," selfish, cruel, and dishonest; as well as more serious, cool, passive, and ugly

than non-ethnics. Hispanic characters were rated as more peaceful, kinder, and warmer than non-ethnic characters. Although blacks have reached some level of respect when portrayed (i.e., as hero characters, in occupational roles, value orientations, and personality

traits) they are so outniHubered overall by others in these roles that their

absence may offset this respect afforded them. The same holds true for

Hispanics. As for other ethnic groups, they have neither achieved adequate

recognition nor treatment which one might expect all minorities would be accorded. Except for those programs which have been specifically designed to provide

Information and more realistic portrayals of minorities (Garrascolendas, Que

Pasa, USA? Villa Allegre and possibly The Fat Albert Show), or the newer genre

20-006 0-83
94

of short information "drop-in" programs (e.g., Ask ABC News, Time Out,

Snipets), commercial children's television tends more to avoid racial or

ethnic messages than to deal with them adequately or realistically. Race

and nationality themes, for example, represented only three percent of 352 major

and minor suhject classifications. Cartoon comedy programs contain the most blatant ethnic stereotypes.

These programs also avoid the portrayal of black characters, and frequently

provide cruel stereotypes of other ethnic minorities. And cartoon comedy

alone amounts to nearly one -half of all program time on children's TV. In

addition, almost two-thirds of all characters appear either in cartoon comedy

or animated action or adventure drama.

In terms of both the recognition and treatment of racial and ethnic

minorities, it is fair to say that those programs originally produced for

Public Broadcasting (some of which are now being carried by commercial stations)

have led the way in providing more reasonable and balanced images of black

and other ethnic groups. But even including these programs, commercial

children's TV does not even approach the level of recognition of these groups

that has been reported in programming for adxilts—according to prior research

over the past decade. Commercial children's television can only be seen as a major barrier

in the battle for recognition of and respect for ethnic groups in this country.
95

REPRESENTATIONS OF LIFE ON CHILDREN'S TELEVISION:

3. Family and Kinship Portrayals

by

F. Earle Barcus, Ph.D. with

Judith L. Schaefer

Prepared for ACTION FOR CHILDREN'S TELEVISION

46 Austin Street Newtonville, MA 02160

(617) 527-7870 June 1982
96

CHAPTER IX SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The major rationale for the study of family and kinship relations on children's television was to discover and describe patterns and tendencies

in the portrayals. It is done with the assumption that such content provides

the child viewer with information about family roles and structures which he

or she may learn and model.

In this analysis, several aspects of family relationships were dealt with providing both positive and negative messages for young children. Some of these messages are conveyed implicitly through the frequencies and types of family

units portrayed. Some are conveyed directly through informational and pro- social dramatic programs. Others are conveyed indirectly through parental and

other family roles in cartoons and animated adventure programs.

About four out of ten program segments were relevant in any way to family or kinship relations. Two out of 10 dealt in some significant way with family

relationships, and about one in 10 dealt with the nuclear family.

Single-parent families are considerably over-represented in children's television as compared to estimates in the real population. This is especially

true for single male parent family units which outnumber single female parent

units by two to one--unlike the proportions in the U.S. population, where single

female parents vastly outnumber single male parent families.

The child seldom has an opportunity to see the extended family unit; uncles

are considerably more numerous than aunts; and grandparents and older people in general are seldom portrayed.

The child viewer may also see more males than females in both family and

non- family relationships, although females are more apt to appear in the family context than not.
97

What the child does see are traditional family roles In which the father

is rather stern, dominant, and often engaged in work and adventure activities.

He is also the one most responsible for discipline in the family. In addition,

he is often portrayed as somewhat incompetent and less nurturing than the mother.

The mother, on the other hand is more competent in her role, engages in household

and daily living activities, and is more nurturing. Available for the child viewer are frequent examples of close relationships between father and son, especially in adventure and action settings--much more frequently than mother-daughter or father-daughter relationships.

The child viewer is also exposed to a variety of family and marital conflicts. Parent-child conflicts deal with disobedience and discipline problems. Informational programs dealing with child abuse and runaway children offer examples

of pro-social messages of hope for those involved. Frequently, the child Is introduced to the marital problems of parents

or married couples without children. Seldom do these conflicts involve the child,

however, as is frequently the case in the life of the child viewer. Husbandvife conflicts occur over definition of sex roles, extra-marital affairs, inlaw problems, and childish husband behaviors.

In sibling conflict, the older brother is usually the one who is responsible

for resolution of the conflict.

The child viewer may also witness a good deal of family support and cooperation in addition to the conflicts noted above. Family relations are most often

shown as close and cooperative, confirming previous research on family interaction patterns. , A number of examples of positive child development messages were found in the

stories dealing with sibling relations and parental guidance and teaching of

responsibility. These lessons come both from parents and from kindly uncles.
98

Sometimes falling in his responsibilities is the father.

Overall, the family on children's television is portrayed in a traditional

and stereotyped manner, with parental roles clearly defined and children with

little say or power in family decision-making. Although some of the changing

family structures seem to be reflected In the programming —e.g. the singleparent family —it is not a very accurate reflection. In addition, many problem areas of financial problems, divorce, aging members of the family, problems in school, for example--are absent.

In terms of family development patterns, most nuclear families consist of

school-age or teenage children and parents, whereas young child-bearing families

and those with pre-school children, those which provide launching centers, or

those with aging family members are much underrepresented.

It is somewhat difficult to make definitive judgments about the adequacy

or the frequency of portrayals of the family on children's television. Is,

for example, the lazy or ' irresponsible father who has difficulty driving a nail

without hitting his thumb more "real" than the perfect father who, after asking

his son to mow the lawn, gets the quick and eager response, "Right away, Dadl"?

Overall, the family portrayals represented in this study provide a mixed

picture. Although serious treatment of a number of family-related problems

are provided in the context of informational and pro-social drama, many simplistic cartoon comedy and adventure programs provide stereotyped and hegative

messages for the child viewer.
99

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of: Docket No. 21474

Amendment of Broadcast Equal

Employment Opportunity Rules

and FCC Form 395

PETITION OF ACTION FOR CHILDREN'S TELEVISION

FOR AUTHORIZATION TO FILE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Pursuant to the provisions of section 1.415(d), Title

47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (47 CFR 1.415-d),

Action for Children's Television (ACT) hereby petitions the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for authorization to file additional comments in the matter of Amendment of Broadcast Equal Employment Opportunity Rules and FCC Form

395. In support thereof, the following are shown:

1. New facts regarding the extension of broadcast

license terms (47 USC s.307(d), P.L. 97-35) strongly compel

consideration of ACT's comments at this time.

2. Congress had not enacted the extended license term

at the time the Commission was last seeking comments on this

Docket. This constitutes a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant the granting of petitioner's

request to submit its comments at this time.

3. Further, consideration of the comments and data

petitioner seeks to file is required in the public interest.
100

They are clearly relevant to the Commission's deliberations

concerning the Amendment of Broadcast Equal Employment

Opportunity Rules and FCC Form 395. The filing of these comments would in no way delay the Commission's

deliberations or divert attention to unnecessary or immaterial facts. To the contrary, the information sought

to be filed would further aid considerably the decision-making process and further serve the public

interest.

Wherefore, for the reasons stated above and more fully

set forth in Petitioner's Memorandum in support of this

petition. Action for Children's Television requests

authorization to file additional comments in the subject

proceed ing

.

Respectfully submitted,

ACTION FOR CHILDREN'S TELEVISION

By its Attorneys

GITLIN, EMMER, KAPLAN BOHN

160 Milk Street

Boston, Massachusetts 02109

(617) 451-1380

Honora Kaplan, Esq.

Dated: March 15, 1983
101

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION OF

ACTION FOR
102

promote the employment of females and minorities in

broadcasting, thus stimulating heterogeneity and diversity

within the industry. Indeed, in a recent Policy Statement,

the Commission stated:

"The Commission has traditionally considered the

under-representation of minority points of view

over the airwaves as detrimental to minorities and

the general public. Accordingly, we have taken

steps to enhance the ownership and participation

of minorities in the media, with the intent of

thereby increasing diversity .... To ensure

the programming reflects and is responsive to minorities' tastes and viewpoints, the Commission

has promulgated equal employment opportunity

regulations . . . ." Action for Children's Television is a national advocacy

organization working to encourage diversity in children's

programming and to eliminate commercial abuses in children's

television. ACT joins the Commission in strongly supporting

diversity in ownership, control and employment practices of

broadcast stations. ACT acknowledges that there is no guarantee that diversity in these areas will result in diversity in television programming or in the images of

minorities and women televised to children. However,

without diversity and heterogeneity among television

station employees and decision makers, we contend that the

potential for diversity in programming is significantly less

likely.

^"Commission Policy Regarding the Announcement of

Minority Ownership in Broadcasting," effec. date December

13, 1982, -48 Fed. Reg. 5943 (Feb. 9, 1983).
103

ACT is now seeking to file additional comments in this

proceeding under 47 CFR 1.415(d) in order to place before

the Commission new facts which demonstrate the need for

further modifications in the Commission's EEO reporting

rules, and specifically in the FCC ' s Annual Employment Report

Form 395, and which are thus important and relevant to the

Commission's deliberations and decision.

II . Argumen t A. The Petition for Authorization to File Additional Comments.

This petition for authorization to file additional

comments, pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415(d), in the Matter of

Amendment of Broadcast Equal Employment Opportunity Rules

and FCC Form 395, Docket No. 21474, is based on new facts

essential to the deliberations of the FCC in this

proceeding. The standard by which this petition should be

judged is analogous to that for a petition for

reconsideration under 47 CFR 1.429. Among other things, 47 CFR 1.429(b) provides that a petition for reconsideration

which relies on facts not previously presented to the

Commission will be granted only when:

"(1) The facts relied on relate to events which

have occurred or circumstances which have changed

since the last opportunity to present them to the

Commission;

(2) The facts relied on were unknown to petitioner until after his last opportunity to present them to the Commission, and he could not through the exercise of ordinary diligence have

learned of the facts in question prior to such
104

opportunity; or

(3) The Commission determines that

consideration of the facts relied on is required

in the public interest." (47 CFR 1.429(b) ) The last period for public comment in the instant

rulemaking as well as actions of the Commission and judicial

decisions relating to equal employment opportunities all

occurred at various times when broadcast licensees with 50 or more employees submitted detailed employment data every

three years when seeking renewal of their broadcast

licenses. In August, 1981, Congress extended the television

licensure period to five years by amending the

Communications Act of 1934. Therefore, the FCC now receives

detailed employment data from television broadcast licensees

only at five year intervals.

The new law relating to the broadcast license renewal

term was passed well after the date on which comments in the

instant rulemaking could be submitted. Petitioner could

therefore not have known about or commented on the impact of

the five year television license term on EEO reporting

requirements during the previous period for comment and

reply.

B. Rationale for Amending Broadcast EEO Rules and

FCC Form 395 In Light of Changed Circumstances.

'47 use s. 307(d), P.L. 97-35,
105

The FCC has for many years supported the reporting of equal employment opportunity data and information. Thus,

broadcast licensees with more than five employees must

submit annual employment reports to the Commission (FCC Form

395). These data are aggregated and published by the

Commission. In addition, at the time of license renewal,

renewal applicants with 50 or more employees must submit

detailed employment data regarding sex and race or ethnic

Q group, broken down by job titles.

There are, however, three problems associated with the

FCC's current equal employment opportunities reporting

schema which are exacerbated by the recent extension of the

television license renewal term:

1. data related to job functions submitted

on FCC Form 395 are not described in a meaningful v/ay;

2. detailed employment data are submitted at

the time of license renewal only by those

stations with 50 or more employees; and

3. detailed data submitted by some license renewal

applicants (see above) are not available from

the FCC in an aggregated and usable format.

"^Mondiscrimina t ion/Program , 60 FCC 2d 226, supra ; First

Report and Order , Vo FCC 2d 1466, supra ; 47 CFR 73.2080 and

47 CFR 73.3500.

^First Report and Order, supra at 1467.
106

In light of the newly extended license term for

television broadcasters, this reporting schema clearly

requires modification and ameridment. Broadcast stations

submitting annual "395" data now group job titles into nine

9 more general categories. These data would be much more

useful to the Commission and the public if they were simply

submitted as job titles. Such a modification in FCC Form

395 would not require any additional data collection by the

1 icensees

.

Moreover, the utility of submitting detailed

employment data only every five years is highly

questionable. In a high job mobility industry such as broadcasting, the timeliness of the information submitted to the Commission becomes especially critical. Petitioner

maintains that the extension of the television license

period from three years to five years has had an adverse and

deleterious impact on the availability, comparability,

timeliness and utility of the detailed employment data

submitted with broadcast renewal applications. Such data

should be submitted annually.

9 "Officials and managers; professionals; technicians;

sales; office and clerical; craftsmen; operatives; laborers;

and service workers," FCC Form 395, as amended.
107

The articulated purpose and public policy behind the

submission of employment data by broadcast licensees is that

discriminatory employment practices are incompatible with

the operation of broadcast stations in the public

interest. This policy has been supported by Commission

action and judicial decision, and remains valid after

fifteen years. Detailed employment data are thus required

to be submitted to the Commission as evidence of a licensee's commitment to equal employment opportunities and

to the public interest. The public interest cannot be

served, however, by outdated information. Nor is this

situation remediated by the annual submission of information

on FFC Form 395, since the Form 395 data are significantly

less detailed and informative than those submitted at the

time of license renewal.

Commission policy, judicial decisions, and the public

interest demand that broadcast licensees promote and provide

equal opportunity in employment practices. Reporting on such practices should not be viewed as an additional or onerous burden, but rather as a mechanism to provide

necessary accountability.

•'•^ Nondiscrimination in Employment Practices , 13 FCC 2d 766, supra . 5(1969)

.
108

The Commission's policies relating to equal employment

opportunities in broadcasting are not open to challenge. It

is anomalous, therefore, for broadcast licensees to object

to or oppose being held accountable for their compliance

with these policies. Broadcasting frequencies constitute a "scarce resource," and accordingly, broadcast licensees are required to operate in the public interest. Reporting

requirements that inform the Commission, the industry and

the public about the ways in which broadcast licensees are meeting their public interest obligations must be maintained

1 and extended when necessary.

'

At the same time, the Commission has a responsibility

to collect, aggregate and make accessible to the public the

detailed employment information submitted by the broadcast

licensees. The public interest cannot be adequately served

if important public information is buried in the

Commission's files.

Ill . Recommendations

In order to carry out the Commission's longstanding

commitment to equal employment opportunities for women and

minorities in the television broadcasting industry, and in light of the recent amendment extending the duration of the

broadcast license, ACT believes it is essential to modify

the FCC's employment reporting requirements. ACT's proposed

^•'• Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc., v. FCC , 395 U.S. 367, 376, fn. 5(1969).
109

modifications, set forth below, would provide current and

detailed information on licensees' employment practices to the Commission and the public, thereby promoting Commission

policy and serving the public interest. At the same time,

the proposed changes would not impose a significant burden

on broadcast licensees or renev/al applicants. ACT therefore

recommends

:

1. that FCC Form 395 be modified to require data

regarding sex and race or ethnic group on all job

titles, identical to that now required of license

renewal applicants with 50 or more employees;

2. that all television licensees be required to submit such specific information annually on FCC

Form 35 5;

3. that the Commission aggregate and publish such

data annually and in a timely manner. Only with current and detailed data, submitted to the

Commission and accessible to the public and to the

industry, can licensees fulfill their obligation to operate

in the public interest, and can the Commission, the industry

and the public have available the necessary information to assess broadcasters' employment practices and compliance

with law, regulation and public policy.

IV. Conclusion

The recent changes in broadcast license terms

significantly affect the timeliness and utility of
no

employment data submitted by broadcast licensees both on FCC

Form 395 and as part of their license renev;al applications.

The impact of these changes: (1) has not been presented to the Commission in this proceeding; (2) warrants

consideration by the Commission in its deliberations in this

proceeding; and (3) is legally sufficient to support

authorization to file additional comments under 47 CFR

1.415(d)

.

ACT strongly urges the acceptance of its

recommendations as a further expression of the Commission's

commitment to equal employment opportunity, to diversity in

broadcasting, to public accountability, and to the public

interest •

Respectfully submitted

ACTION FOR CHILDREN'S

TELEVISION

46 Austin Street

Newtonville, Massachusetts

(617) 527-7370

By its attorneys,

GITLIN, EMMER, KAPLAN

& BOHN

l(fJ^i4'\^-i^

Honora Kaplan, Esq.

160 Milk Street

Boston, Massachusetts 02109

(617) 451-1380

Date: March 15, 1983
HI

Mr. Swift. Peggy, thank you very much. You always come with

proposed solutions to your criticisms, which makes you virtually

unique before this committee.

Mr. Rushnell.

STATEMENT OF SQUIRE D. RUSHNELL

Mr. Rushnell. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee.

Good morning.

Once again, my name is Squire D. Rushnell. I am vice president

of long range planning and children's television for ABC entertainment.

After some brief introductory remarks I intend, with your per- mission, to illustrate a number of important developments in chil- dren's television programing by showing a short videotape pre- pared especially for this hearing.

As a broadcaster, ABC believes it has a special responsibility to provide programing for children. This responsibility, which ABC

willingly accepts and constantly strives to meet, is part of ABC's

overall commitment to serve all important elements of the viewing

public.

At the same time, we do not believe that this responsibility can

nor should be defined by governmental standards that attempt to mandate either the amount or the type of children's programing.

Rather, this responsibility should be exercised by individual broadcasters based on their own editorial and creative judgments. Only

in this manner can children's programing be said to be truly re- sponsive to audience and marketplace needs.

ABC's on-going commitment to children is reflected in our effort to present a balanced schedule of entertaining, enriching, and in- structional programing for young people. Beginning more than a decade ago with our sponsorship of national children's television

conference for teachers, parents, and broadcasters, ABC has fos- tered what we call a positive evolution in children's television.

By this I mean that with the guidance of educators and child development specialists, we have brought about positive changes in

the content of children's programing.

Such highly-acclaimed series of ABC Schoolhouse Rock and the

ABC Afterschool Specials, both on the air for 10 seasons now, have

been developed out of this special commitment. So, too, have a number of short informational features which are interspersed

throughout ABC's Saturday morning children's program schedule.

To many adults, these aspects of the positive evolution in chil- dren's programing on ABC may have gone unnoticed, simply be- cause they have not had or taken the time to view weekend morning programs with their children.

Just in case that includes anyone here today, I have prepared

the following videotape which highlights the positive evolution m

children's programing at ABC and describes the ABC Afterschool

Specials and the ABC Weekend Specials.

[Videotape presentation.] In so brief a period as we have today, it is difficult to describe

the full range of ABC's commitment to children's programing

which would include among several others such prime time spe-
112

cials as this season's 2-hour adaptation of Kenneth Grahame's class

book, "The Wind in the Willows."

I thank you for affording me this opportunity to share with you some of the ways ABC exercises its responsibility to children.

Mr. Swift. Thank you very much, Mr. Rushnell.

If Mr. Fritts would be good enough, we would like to accommodate the schedule of one of our members and permit him to take 2 or 3 minutes to ask a couple of quetions now before he has to rush

to another meeting.

Mr. Gore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the courtesy of my colleagues in letting me go out of order in this fashion.

We have the nuclear arms control debate on the floor now, and I have another engagement that I am going to have to go to. I just

wanted to make a couple of brief comments.

First of all, I wanted to express my appreciation to Peggy Charren, and the appreciation that I think is felt by millions of Americans, particularly American parents, for your single-minded dedication to this important cause. I don't know what we would do without you. Really it is terrific work that you do, and I am honored to be able to work with you from time to time. We really appreciate it a great deal.

I would like to thank Mr. LeVar Burton for his comments and

apologize to him and the others for not being able to be here and

hear all of what you said. I would like to note that Kellogg is the

sponsor of your "Reading Rainbow" and compliment them. They

are important corporate citizens of Tennessee, and we appreciate

their commitment to this kind of programing and we hope that

others will follow.

I would just like to note briefly for the record that I am impressed by this presentation, but I wonder how many of those spots are on Saturday morning, and how many of them are on other

days.

Mr. Rushnell. The majority of children's programing on ABC is on Saturday morning, weekend mornings, and the ABC "Afterschool Specials" are, of course, in the afternoons, approximately

twice monthly throughout the school season. Mr. Gore. Have they declined, the number of "Afterschool Specials"?

Mr. Rushnell. No.

Mr. Gore. They have not. Mr. Rushnell. They have been on the air for a decade, and they

have remained constant over the last eight seasons. Mr. Gore. With the exception of the "Afterschool Specials," and

the little clip from "Good Morning America," did any of the other

programs air on any time other than Saturday morning?

Mr. Rushnell. No. The ABC "Weekend Specials," quality drama

for children, is every Saturday.

Mr. Gore. All of the little spots and so forth, which were very

well done, all of those are on Saturday morning, and only 9 percent

of the children's watching time is on Saturday morning. What

about the other 91 percent?

Mr. Rushnell. As I mentioned in my closing remarks, I ran out

of time. I didn't get to prime time, which is an area where we have

expanded our commitment to children's television. The Wind in the
113

Willows is a major undertaking, a very expensive, two-hour dramatization of the children's classic Wind in the Willows.

This year we have an adaptation of a two-hour film in prime

time called Rock Odyssey, which is a modern day fantasia, if you

will. We have a film based on a Peter Dickinson book, The Flight

of the Dragons. I don't need to tell you that a two-hour presentation like Wind in the Willows can reach vastly greater numbers of

children than a month of sunday.

Mr. Gore. Again, I appreciate my colleagues' forbearance for let- ting me speak out of order. I apologize to those witnesses with

whom I will not have an opportunity to have an interchange.

I would just like to close by underscoring my concern about this. Most of what children watch are reruns of adult series, that is mostly what they watch.

I was talking with the NAB and expressing some concern that one of the local stations here in Washington ran this film—Did you

check on that?

Mr. Fritts. I did indeed.

Mr. Gore. Did it run?

Mr. Fritts. The film was "Born Innocent" that you and I talked

about last week. We did check on it and it ran January 27 at 4 o'clock on channel 7 here in Washington. It was an edited version.

The scene that was in question had been edited out of that movie.

It apparently was a substitute movie because the program schedule

which shows January 27 says that there was a different movie

scheduled for 4 o'clock that afternoon.

Mr. Gore. This, Mr. Chairman, was "Born Innocent," a movie

with the broomstick rape that figured prominently in the trial in

Florida, and it was shown at 4 o'clock in the afternoon as sort of an

afterschool special. I really think that kind of lapse in judgment is all too common. Maybe that is an extreme example, but we have

just got to do better.

I think the chairman has pointed out some structural problems

that are going to have to be addressed, rather than us just saying.

Please, care more, because I know you all care. We have got to deal

with these structural problems, too. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Swift. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Fritts. STATEMENT OF EDWARD O. FRITTS

Mr. Fritts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon.

The membership of the National Association of Broadcasters in- cludes 693 local television stations and the 3 television networks.

Certainly we appreciate the opportunity to represent those televi- sion broadcasters here today.

I share with you a concern for the youth of our country. My wife

and I are fortunate enough to have three young children who

themselves are products of this electronic age with all of its gadgetry and electronic wizardry, including cable television subscriptions

for over 20 years. Our oldest daughter, now home from college on

spring break, is here with us today.
114

I will be the first to admit that being a parent today is not easy, but it probably never has been. Like myself, most broadcasters

today are also parents who share the same concern about their

children and youth that you and I share.

These are the people who own, operate, and program local televi- sion stations across this great land, and they have a genuine con- cern for our youth and the roles that they play in the future in

their respective communities. It is from that perspective that the

local television stations approach their task of serving not only the

needs and interests of the children, but of the general populace as

well. Just as these broadcasters set aside time periods for worthwhile

endeavors such as Black History Month, the American Heart

Month, Red Cross Month, Children's Book Week, we are extremely

pleased to participate in the National Children and Television

Week and to use this opportunity to impress upon you that broadcasters have not forgotten the needs and interests of today's youth.

Broadcasters have a long-standing commitment to children and

television. Broadcasters historically have recognized that children

constitute a special segment of their viewing audience and individually pursue special paths to help assure the appropriateness of

programs and activities directed to our children.

We at NAB have tried to provide opportunities for local broadcasters to exchange ideas, to meet the issues head-on through our

children's programing conference, the first of which was held here

in Washington back in 1975. Our children's programing resource book serves as a guide to products availability, public service projects, an idea bank of community outreach projects, awards pro- grams, reading programs, a list of concerned activist groups, as well as FCC guidelines.

We also have a blue ribbon children's committee, which I will

mention in more detail later. We continue to work with groups

such as the National Association of States Boards of Education,

local State boards, the National Council for Children & Television,

and the American Council for Better Broadcasts.

The Television Information Office, an arm of NAB, provides a variety of services, including a teacher's guide for television which

has been distributed since 1967. Today, tens of thousands of teachers and educators are using this publication to encourage the chil- dren to watch such specifically selected programs of educational

value as "Fame," "The Changing Family," "The Wrong Way Kid,"

"The Edison Adventure," "The Secret World of Og," and the "National Student/ Parent Mock Election for 1984," which in 1982

nearly a quarter of a million people participated in. In January, we advised our member stations of the joint resolution signed by the President regarding National Children and Television Week, Many of those stations have responded to share some

of their current projects that they have underway for this special

week. I would like to mention for you just a few.

The station we just mentioned a few moments ago, WJLA Channel 7 here in Washington, aired a 1-hour prime time special this

past Monday night entitled "Kids Talk Back." I might mention

that they bumped an hour of prime time from ABC just prior to the Monday night football game to do that. Today, this afternoon.
115

they will air an ABC Afterschool Special, "Have You Ever Been

Ashamed of Your Parents?" Tomorrow, Peggy Charren will be the

guest on their "A.M. Washington" program.

From Seattle, Wash., Station KOMO, starting this week,

launched an ongoing series of special reports in morning and eve- ning news called "Superkids." The reports profile kids who are making a positive impact on their community. A special "Kidsworld Northwest," reported and anchored by children, will air

March 16 in the afternoon with a Sunday repeat. Also, daily topics

for discussion during the week on their live morning talk show and

a new series of PSA's which will give ideas on how young people can earn extra dollars during the summer months.

From WPCQ in Charlotte, N.C., producing a series called

"Minute Mores," 1 minute vignettes that cover such areas as: safety tips for students coming home from school to an empty

house; juvenile court and how it works; and the new restitution

program where a juvenile offender does lawn work and house

maintenance with the money going to repay property damage.

From Little Rock, Ark., KATV will feature the general manager

and four school editors discussing children's programing, what

those kids would like to see on television. On their "Good Morning,

Arkansas" program, producing special promos using their news

personalities, inviting parents to watch with their children and

become discriminating viewers.

These are but a few examples of programs which are being of- fered this week as a special salute to National Children and Television Week.

I might mention that on a continuing basis, just to give you one sample of what goes on not only this week but year around, what

station WSOC in Charlotte, N.C., is doing. On a regular daily basis,

they have a program called "Kidsworld." The program is a syndicated magazine show, with local hosts in segments. They have a youth advisory council which advises the station on children's in- terest. They are producing a program, which I think is particularly important called "Carolina's Child." It is a weekly news feature showing the children who are available for adoption. With that pro- gram, they have succeeded in placing 75 percent of the children of- fered for adoption on that program.

They have a TV news game, and a teacher's guide available to

all schools in the area produced weekly by the station. They have

Explorer Scouts, a troop of 40 to 50 youngsters trained by station

volunteers on the business of broadcast business management and

programing.

Then they have television for teachers. Instructional sessions for area teachers on how to best use television in their classrooms.

That is one station out of 693. That is the weekly program fare on WSOC in Charlotte. I dare say that it is not an atypical station

in today's climate. Children's television programing is much more

than the number of children's program hours.

The real picture of children's television is far richer, substantially more creative and more diverse than any quantitative study can

point to. Many stations devote substantial resources to the production of entertaining programs which also reinforce educational
116

skills. Other stations feature children on special children's editorial

shows.

Numerous local stations have established community and professional advisory panels consisting of child development specialists,

educators, social scientists to work with the stations to incorporate

the children's needs and interests into the entertaining programs

for children. In some cases, children themselves are producing

these programs.

In short, stations provide a wide variety of services specifically

designed for our children. Broadcaster response to the needs of

children has been quite simply far more thoughtful and imaginative than many give them credit for. In discussing age specific programs, former FCC Commissioner

Abbott Washburn notes, and I quote:

The series the Waltons and the Little House on the Prairie are basically enter- tainment programs for the whole family. Nevertheless, they teach millions of chil- dren each week fundamental truths about human relations and the essential character of the American people who are portrayed in those programs. My own experi- ence with TV and children, based on watching and discussing thousands of hours

with our daughter and her friends from 1967 to the present, is that there is a vast amount of programing now available from which children can learn. It is a question

of selection rather than scarcity.

What of government involvement? It seems that apparently neither stations nor government controls the viewing habits of the

child or adult television audiences. Broadcasters cannot be expected to assume the role of surrogate parents, or as the Washington

Post so aptly described it, a "National Nanny," and ignore the in- terests of the majority of viewers who are not children.

There are some things government neither can nor should at- tempt in a free society. However well-intentioned government regulation and intervention may be, there is a danger that it may

create more problems than it solves by taking over individual re- sponsibilities, and limiting freedom that citizens normally control

for themselves.

I mentioned earlier our blue ribbon children's television committee, currently chaired by Crawford Rice, executive vice president,

Gaylord Broadcasting Co., Dallas, Tex., and which includes repre- sentatives of all three networks, as well as stations from markets

large and small across the country. In addition, Dr. Karen Hatenberger, who was the first director of the FCC's Children's Task

Force is acting as a special advisor to that committee.

Meeting just 2 days ago here in Washington, the committee dis- cussed the various aspects of children's children and is going to gather additional information from licensees concerning individual

program offerings for children in the various markets, and is serv- ing as a clearinghouse of ideas and programs which better serve the needs and interests of our children.

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, where children and television are con- cerned, the involvement of parents and other significant adults is absolutely essential. The problem must be shared by all broadcasters, regulatory authorities, schools and parents who together guide

and help children to use television responsibly.

Again we appreciate the opportunity to participate in National

Children and Television Week, and certainly we point with pride to
117

the service of America's broadcasters which are they are rendering

to the youth of our Nation.

[Testimony resumes on p. 129.]

[Mr. Fritts' prepared statement follows:]
118

Prepared Statement of Edward O. Fritts, President, National Association of Broadcasters

I am Edward 0. Fritts, president of the National Association of Broadcasters.

NAB is the major national trade association of the broadcasting industry. Its membership includes 693 television stations and the three television networks, and

I welcome the opportunity to represent those television broadcasters before your

commi ttee

.

Mr. Chairman, as you know from a visit with us at our 1980 Children's Pro- graiming Conference here in Washington, broadcasters have a long standing commitment

to children and television; indeed, broadcasters historically have recognized

that children constitute a special segment of their viewing audience and individually

pursue special paths to help assure the appropriateness of programs and activities

directed to children.

We at NAB have tried to provide opportunities for local broadcasters to exchange ideas and meet the issues head-on through our Children's Programming

conferences, the first of which was held here in Washington in 1975. Our "Children's Programming Resource Book" serves as a guide to product availability.
119

public service projects, an idea bank of community outreach projects, awards

programs, reading programs, a listing of concerned activist groups as well as

FCC guidelines.

We also have a Children's Committee which I'll mention in more detail

later. We have also continued to work with groups such as the National

Association of the State Boards of Education, local state boards, the National

Council for Children and Television and the American Council for Better Broadcasts.

The Television Information Office provides public service announcements

for stations, up-to-date fact sheet material on everything from reviews of books

on children's issues to analysis of various relevant research currently in the

field.

The "Teacher's Guide to Television" distributed by TIO has been in

existence since 1967. Today, tens of thousands of teachers and educators are

using this publication to encourage children to watch such specially selected

programs of educational value as "Fame", "The Changing Family", "The Wrong Way

Kid", "The Edison Adventure", "The Secret World of Og" and the "National

Student/Parent Mock Election for '84" (in '82, nearly a quarter million

participated).

I mentioned earlier broadcasters' historic commitment to its young

viewers. Somehow when projects such as Teacher's Guides, various reading programs,

parent participation workshops and the like are provided by broadcasters, they

are seen by some to be self-serving, to get children to watch more, when in fact

we have been encouraging selective viewing.
120

Just three years ago, the NAB conducted a comprehensive survey designed

to (a) gather information on children's television programming from commercial

and public television stations, and (b) describe the quantity and quality of

that programming.

The study attempted to survey all commercial and public television

stations in the United States. Both commercial and public television stations

were included in the NAB survey because they share the responsibility for

providing children's television programs and, in reality, compliment each

other's efforts in a fashion which has enhanced children's television programming

service. To do otherwise would deny the reality of children's programming

service as it exists in the marketplace today.

I'd like to share just a portion of this material with you since I believe

it to be quite relevant to our discussion today.

The 727 stations which responded to our survey broadcast an average of

15.09 hours of children's television programming during the week.

In terms of program type, 41 percent of the children's programming

broadcast was either educational or instructional. (Educational programming,

including information and instructional, by commercial stations represented

37.2 percent of overall commercial children's programming.) Similarly, 45 percent

of the children's programming was classified as entertainment. Informational

programming accounted for nearly 13 percent of the total. Less than one percent

fell into what we call "other" classification.
121

Programming designed for pre-schooT children accounted for 40 percent

of the children's programming broadcast by the responding stations. On an

overall basis, 62 percent of all children's programs are broadcast on weekdays.

NAB also prepared charts indicating when children's programming is available in each television market. The charts were a particularly useful

method of analysis because they indicated the real choices available to

children as well as the true marketplace supply of programs during the composite

week.

The charts revealed that in many markets, children's programs are aired

throughout the day with heavier concentrations before and after weekday school

periods and on the weekends. They also demonstrated that stations in many

markets, particularly those in the top 50 which serve a large majority of

American children, provide children's programs throughout the broadcast day.

We did not have the opportunity because of the time constraints to

redo this particular type of research, but what we did do -- (early last year) --

as a spot check, was to revisit by phone with a random sample of 20 of the

above-mentioned stations and ask them to compare their current schedule with

that of the earlier data. What we found was that overall the 20 stations showed

a gain of 18>2 hours of children's programming.

Earlier this year, we sent a letter to our member stations, alerting

them to the Joint Resolution signed by the President regarding National Children

and Television Week. Many have responded to us to share some of their current

projects for this week and I will just mention a few.
122

1. WJLA - Washington, DC

Aired a one-hour prime time special this past Monday (March 14)

"Kids Talk Back". Today, they will air an ABC Afterschool Special, "Have You

Ever Been Ashamed of Your Parents?" and tomorrow (March 17), Peggy Charren will

be the guest on their "A.M. Washington" program.

2. KOMO - Seattle, Washington

Starting this week, launched an on-going series of special reports

in morning and evening news called "Superkids". The reports profile kids who

are making a positive impact on their community.

A special "Kidsworld Northwest", reported and anchored by children,

will air March 16 in the afternoon with a Sunday repeat.

Also, daily topics for discussion during the week on their live morning talk show and a new series of PSA's which will give ideas on how young

people can earn extra dollars during the summer months.

3. WPCQ - Charlotte, North Carolina

Producing new "Minute Mores" - one minute vignettes that cover such ,

areas as: safety tips for students coming home from school to an empty house; ] Juvenile Court and how it works; and the new Restitution Program where a juvenile offender does lawn work and house maintenance with the money going to

repay property damage.
123

4. WSPA - Spartanburg, South Carolina

Planning special segments of "Carolina Noon" with parents and

children, special emphasis on their regular award-winning "Kidsizzle" programs

and a new Saturday morning program, "Horizons".

5. KATV - Little Rock, Arkansas

Will feature the General Manager and four school editors discussing

children's programming (what those kids would like to see on TV, etc.) on their

"Good Morning, Arkansas" program. Producing special promos using their news

personalities, inviting parents to watch with their children and become discriminating viewers.

6. WTVG - Toledo, Ohio

Featuring special segments on how to watch TV and on other activities

families can do together on the weekly program "Uncle Ben" (now in its 20th year).

7. WLYH-TV - Lancaster/Lebanon, Pennsylvania

Planning five special one-half hours for the week airing 9:30 -

10:00 a.m. (They will produce two, and their three sister stations, all a part

of Gateway Corrmunications, will each provide a half hour -- a prime example,

incidentally, of group programming dynamics.)

Furthermore, children's television programming is much more than the

nunter of children's program hours. The real picture of children's TV is far
124

richer, substantially more creative and much more diverse than any quantitative

study can paint. Admittedly, this more accurate picture necessarily invites

reference to qualitative measures. Yet, we cannot ignore the fact that the quality of children's programming has improved dramatically in recent years.

Many stations devote substantial resources to the production of entertaining programs which also teach children usable skills. And other stations

feature children on special children's editorial shows. Numerous local stations

have established cortmunity and professional advisory panels consisting of child development specialists, educators and other social scientists to work with the stations on translating children's issues and concerns into entertaining programs

for children. In some cases, children themselves produce the programs.

In short, stations provide a wide array of services specifically

designed for children. Broadcaster response to the needs of children has been,

quite simply, far more thoughtful and imaginative than some have given them credit for.

"Why aren't there more programs for children?" This classic question dramatizes the unfortunate lack of critic's awareness of the true content of broadcast schedules and of children's viewing patterns. There are, of course,

many programs appropriate for children but not all of them are intended for

children exclusively or even principally.

The question of what constitutes "good" inevitably must bog down in a host of individual criteria and judgments. Very little of television's output
125

may please one family while another will have difficulty in choosing among so many available programs -- and both will be right.

Historian Henry Adams' wry observation is appropriate. "Each of us carries with him his own inch-rule of taste which he applies triumphantly wherever he goes."

I've purposely kept clear of the enormous contributions made by the

netvi'orks to children's programs as I am certain they either will, or have made, their own case.

Through all of this, I cannot help but somehow apply Mr. Justice Potter Stewart's well-known criterion for defining obscenity. "Our critics may not know how much enough is but they certainly do not hesitate to state that they know what not enough is when they see it."

Viewed in total, there is a considerable and growing body of program

material from which youngsters and concerned parents can choose. The critic who castigates television for not having more good programs may actually be asking why more television programs don't conform to his particular idea of what

is suitable for children and to the demands of his or her schedule.

To this, broadcasters respond that for the viewer who takes the trouble

to keep himself informed and to plan viewing, there are most certainly many worthwhile programs available for the choosing. Moreover, the evident range of

public tastes cannot be served by conforming to any one standard.
126

And what of the question of age-specific programs? Former FCC Conmissioner Abbott Washburn notes that distinguishing a program as instructional and

categorizing it as an age-specific program designed for children does not insure

that such a program is better than an entertainment program designed for family

viewing.

He says, and I quote, "The series. The Mai tons and Little House on the

Prairie are basically entertainment programs for the whole family. Nevertheless,

they teach millions of children each week fundamental truths about human

relations and the essential character of the American people. My own experience

with TV and children, based on watching and discussing thousands of hours with

our daughter and her friends from 1967 to the present, is that there is a vast

amount of programming now available from which children can learn. It is a

question of selection rather than scarcity. "

And what of government involvement? It seems apparent to all that neither

stations nor government controls the viewing habits of child or adult television

audiences. Broadcasters cannot be expected to assume the role of surrogate

parents (or, as "The Washington Post" so aptly described it, a "National Nanny")

and ignore the interests of the majority of viewers who are not children.

There are some things government neither can nor should attempt in a

free society. However well-intentioned government regulation and intervention

may be, there is a danger that it may create more problems than it solves by

taking over individual responsibilities ... and limiting freedom ... that citizens

normally control for themselves.
127

I mentioned earlier our Children's Television Conmittee, currently

chaired by Crawford Rice, Executive Vice President, Gaylord Broadcasting Co.,

Dallas, Texas, and which also includes representatives of all three networks

as well as stations from markets large and small across the country. In addition.

Dr. Karen Hartenberger, who was the first director of the FCC's Children's Task

Force is acting as a special advisor to that committee.

Meeting just two days ago here in Washington, the committee discussed

the various aspects of children's television and is going to gather additional

information from licensees concerning individual program offerings for children

in the various markets.

As mentioned earlier, in addition to programming, licensees provide a

variety of services for the child viewer in their individual markets through

community action groups. We plan to obtain this information as well and share

both the program offerings and the outreach projects with our members through

the establishment of a clearinghouse.

Many people are unaware of the variety of programs available throughout

the country that meet the needs and interests of children. We plan, therefore,

to develop a nationwide outreach program, working with licensees, producers,

educators, child psychologists and other experts to facilitate the on-going

learning process in which we all share.

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, where children and television are concerned,

the involvement of parents and other significant adults is absolutely essential.
128

'

The problem must be shared by all broadcasters, regulatory authorities, schools

and parents who together guide and help children to use television responsibly.

Walt Kelly, regrettably gone from the comic scene, took a Mery practical

"How- To" perspective of the subject of children and television in his Pogo Primer

for Parents , TV Division . He said:

"There are a few things to practice not doing.

"Do not be afraid of your TV set. These things are probably here to stay.

"Do not wind your child up and set him to watch TV unguided.

"Do not wind the TV set up and set it to watch your child.

"A machine is a bad sole companion. It needs help.

"You can help it. Love your child."

This seems like a positive note on which to pause in talking about this

subject that really has no end.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

###
129

Mr. Swift. Thank you very much to all of the panel members.

I will recognize Mr. Rinaldo.

Mr. Rinaldo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would also like to thank all of the members of the panel for their very enlightening and interesting testimony.

I would like to ask LeVar Burton. There has been a lot of talk

about things that the networks can do in this area. How do we get

other members of the creative and artistic community to devote

themselves, like you have so superbly done, to putting more energy

into quality programing for children.

Mr. Burton. Most of my friends are involved in Reading Rainbow in one way or another. It seems as though when you approach

professionals in the entertainment community with something of

quality, as you are more likely to be able to achieve in public tele- vision, they are either willing to donate their services or take a tre- mendous cut in salary just in order to be a part of something that

we all consider important work.

The only way to entice that same kind of commitment to take

place in the commercial marketplace is to, I believe, encourage net- work programers to produce more quality programing for children

in the hopes of drawing in again that kind of name talent. Mr. Rinaldo. Thank you very much.

I also want to take this opportunity to commend Mr. Schneider.

His testimony was very interested and I am referring particularly

to Nickelodeon and the work that you have done in cable. I am in- terested in the possibility of increased choices in children's pro- graming through the growth of cable television.

Cable, as you know, serves a large part of my own State of New

Jersey. I am curious as to whether or not you have any statistics that would indicate how large a child audience is presently served

by cable and how much this has increased over the past years?

Mr. Schneider. In your State, the State of New Jersey, to be specific, as of the turn of the year there were 498,000 cable homes re- ceiving Nickelodeon. Within that half-million homes, obvious at dif- ferent day parts and different age groups, and so on, the audiences

vary. By and large, the preschool children for whom we broadcast from

the period of 8 in the morning until 3 in the afternoon, they seem

to be the largest consumers of our services.

At this point, the cable industry and the research establishment

have not found an effective, efficient, and accurate way to measure

the audience because it is so diversified, and the cable industry has

not stabilized itself into a sufficiently common format.

For example, there are many 12-channel systems, 22-channel sys- tems, 32-channel systems, and 54-channel, and indeed 108-channel

systems. The research methodology is now being worked out be- cause there is a critical demand for measurement in order to get

economic support for cable programing.

At best I can say that the audience levels that we talk about in

cable are primarily estimates. We think we are sufficiently sophisticated to have pretty good estimates. I would say that on average

about 2 percent of the homes in which Nickelodeon is in, during

certain day parts, look at Nickelodeon.
130

Let me put this in perspective and I will do so briefly. A pre- school child has an attention span that is quite small. If we are of- fering 6 hours of preschool programing, obviously a preschool child

does not sit, nor would we want him to, nor do we encourage him

to, nor do we program in order to get him to sit for long periods of

time in front of the television set. Aside from whether we think that is a responsible course of

action, his attention span is simply not sufficient. He is in and out

of the 6 hour. The preschool child will be drifting in and out of the

preschool program over the 6-hour period.

I have taken such pain to explain that because in terms of commercial broadcasting, a one or two rating seems almost ludicrous

that it wouldn't be worth the trouble to only have 1 percent of your

homes or 2 percent of your homes bothering to consumer your service. Over a 6-hour period, with the attention span being something

like 12 or 18 minutes, that is not bad.

I hope that answers your question.

Mr. RiNALDO. Partially. Let me just ask an additional question.

Has the amount of programing on cable devoted to children in- creased substantially from, say, 1979, or has it remained the same?

Mr. Schneider. The Nickelodeon service that I am here and can speak about was in its very formative stages in 1979. The company

that I am here representing did not exist in 1979. It came into

being in 1980. This is 91 hours of children's programing on cable

television that didn't exist in this form in 1979.

Since that period, again, the frame of reference being 1979, the

U.S.A. Network, another cable service, I believe has expanded and

has added 2 hours a day of children's programing. The Disney

Channel will launch April 11, and it will contain 10 hours a week

of children's programing. So I would say that in the broader sense, there is more children's programing over cable than there was 3

years ago. Mr. RiNALDO. That takes me to my final question. Would you say

that generally speaking the increase in children's programing in

certain areas of the country where cable is readily available has

offset the decrease that was alluded to in earlier testimony in net- work programing.

Mr. Schneider. Mr. Rinaldo, the arena for the attention of young

minds is the face of the television tube. So that if you will agree

with that definition, then we equate programing offered to the face

of that television via cable versus over-the-air, there might well be,

I am not taking an adversarial position here, some who would say

that over-the-air is available to everyone and cable may not be

available to everyone. It may be readily available, but I think to put them in exact equilibrium, you would get arguments with.

I am not here to make those value judgments, I just want to point them out. There would be perhaps opinions on either side of

that definition.

Mr. RiNALDO. Thank you.

Mr. Swift. Thank you, Mr. Rinaldo.

Mr. Leland.

Mr. Leland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am concerned about the whole question of imagery on the

media as it appeals to the different audiences, whether we are talk-
131

ing about children or minority. I am concerned about cable today

because I know that particularly my district in Houston, we have

relatively free cable access. I am sure that you are familiar with

that. Mr. Schneider. Yes. Our company, I believe, has better than half

of Houston as its franchising responsibility.

Mr. Leland. Most homes in the minority communities don't have

cable for one reason or another. Cable, of course, is a new arrival

to Houston in particular. So then the question that Mr. Rinaldo

asked is of particular concern to me because I know that while the

networks have an abysmal record from what I have heard and

what I have seen, or what I have been advised on, cable does not

provide the kind of programing to them because cable is just not

there.

Can you comment on when it is that you are going to arrive in our community? That probably holds true for the rest of the country.

Mr. Schneider. Cable is currently somewhere in round numbers,

35 percent of U.S. homes. That means that at the end of 1983, it is the industry estimate that there will be 30 million cable homes. I believe that the number of television homes in America is approximately 83 to 84 million. So that in 30 million out of 84 million

homes, a cable connection will exist at the end of 1983. By the end

of 1985, it is the industry estimates that between 40 and 41 million

homes will have a cable running into that house. At that point,

just to round this off and make it easy, that will be approximately

50 percent.

There will be a percentage of homes where cable will not get

maybe ever, the equivalent of the rural electrification problem that

this Nation faced in the 1920's and 1930's, which caused the Government to have the Rural Electrification Act passed, it is simply

ineffficient and outrageously costly to string wires down the highway to reach very sparsely populated areas. Direct broadcast satellites are probably going to be the better

way to serve some 20 to 25 percent of U.S. homes where it is just

not economically sound to run a cable into that home. It is, I believe, our government policy now to embrace the laissez faire atti- tude in direct broadcast satellite restrictions, so that that area may

be opening up. They have already granted, as you know, COMSAT

the authority and given them what little space to place those satellites. Mr. Leland. Mr. Rushnell, you end up being the whipping boy

because you are the only real network representative on this panel.

Let me whip on you, if I can.

I am concerned about what I saw on television just now in some

of your programing, and you are saying that you are breaking

down the stereotypes because now the ethnic minorities are the

heroes, and of course women are out in the forefront. But is there a

real commitment to live presentations or the production of young

black and Hispanic and women heroes for our children as you

make your creative productions available to the network?

Mr. Rushnell. Congressman Leland, we do have a concern and

share your concern for minorities and minority stereotypes on ABC

children's programing. It was such a brief presentation that it was
132

impossible for me to show the full range of how we have addressed

those issues. I would be happy to be very detailed at some point.

Let me say this. I have not only a concern now about addressing

minority issues. I have concern for the future. May I digress here,

and say like, many of the subcommittee and this panel, I am also a

parent. I have two daughters in college and my wife is in the

second trimester of her pregnancy. So I am very concerned about

children's television into the 1980's.

I would like to illustrate my point by just telling you about one

project we have in development that I am very excited about. We

were concerned, my staff and I coming out of a conference this past

summer with various leaders in the educational community, social

scientists, about crime in America and the plight of today's youngsters and the barrios, and a sense of hopelessness.

We were really struck by a description of the youngster who

lives in the ghetto. The description was block-locked. I had never heard that before. The kid who grows up in one block, and he is afraid to go to the next block because there is a gang, or he can't go to the other block because there is another gang. He is isolated

and the only thing that he can see in his neighborhood that is a

sign of success is the guy who is peddling dope, or doing something

else that is illegal, or his window on the world is television.

So we began developing, and I don't know where this is going to come out, but we are earnestly developing ways in which we could

communicate to 11- and 12-year old kids, and 8- and 9-year old kids, to give maybe some sense of hope about the future, of where they can fit in. We are trying to bring together our creative energies to create programs, maybe Schoolhouse Rock length programs, or short-form programs, where we could say to a kid:

Hey, if you are terrific at playing video games, maybe you have an aptitude for computer science. If you like pets, maybe you ought to be a veterinarian. If you are one of those people who love to climb a tree and see how far you can see, maybe if you study math and science, you can be an astronaut.

It seems to me, if we direct our energies, and again we are specifically gearing our approach to those youngsters in the ghettos

and the barrios who maybe don't have any sense of hope. We are concerned about those same issues.

Mr. Leland. Why don't you have a Captain Rabbit every day on

your morning programing?

Mr. RusHNELL. I do have a conflict of interest there.

Mr. Leland. Why would you guys force Captain Kangaroo off the

air is what I want to know.

Mr. RusHNELL. You see, I have been vice president of children's

programs for the last 7 years, and out of the last 4 I was also vice

president of Good Morning, America. In my resume, I would like to take full credit for that success. My mother gives me all the credit. Obviously, as a television network, I don't mean to be light on

that, we have a responsibility to serve all of the audience and various factions of the audience. As a specific children's broadcaster, it is my responsibility to expand those barriers as much as I possibly can and to lobby for more and more children's programing. I can

tell you with great pride that in my 7 years that expansion has

continued.
133

Mr. Leland. One last question, Mr. Chairman, if I might. I would

like to ask Ms. Charren to comment on what she saw on television

and the remarks that we have heard.

Ms. Charren. I welcome the opportunity to comment on Squire

Rushnell's testimony, just for a couple of seconds, because I think

we are fortunate to have on this panel possibly the best network

representative in the whole industry. He is sort of unique in his

peer group because I think he really cares.

I think that that answer to your question coming from Squire

could only have come from Squire. I think that most of the other

people who get involved in children's television either don't care or they don't manage to get the commitment from the network. If they care, then they must be very frustrated in their jobs.

Squire has continually provided a model for the industry, I think, with those afterschool specials. They do do what our Fighting TV Stereotypes book was all about. In fact, we had a hard

time—that book is very nicely illustrated with pictures from pro- graming that does do its job—not filling it full of ABC Afterschool

Specials. We wanted to give other people credit, too.

I would rather leave his testimony sit and just pat him on the

back for continuing to provide the only live children on Saturday

morning who are not in the commercials.

Every year, come September, ACT sits down with the network of- ferings for children, and since diversity is ACT's middle name, we

look for programing of different formats, programing of different

kinds, programing that would reflect the diversity in the children's

library.

What we get is programing that generally reflects the diversity

in comic books, and there is some diversity, there are classic comics

and there are some different kinds. That shelf in the drug store is fine, and a lot of kids learn to read from comic books. But we are

continually looking for one of these wealthy institutions in broadcasting to do something, and the last time I looked there was a

greater return on invested capital in broadcasting than in the oil industry, and you know what we say about them.

The fact is that it is still all animated, except for the Weekend

Special on ABC, except for that program now on CBS, the Film

Festival, which is on so late in the schedule that it is canceled by

sports in too many markets in the country, and CBS knows that

but puts it there an3^way. They have traditionally done that with

their prize-winning programs.

We look for children. After all, it is children's programing and it makes sense to look for them through all those hours of programing. When you get over the fact that 8y2 hours of it is provided by

one animation house, you look for children. There are lots of chil- dren, children of all different racial and ethnic groups, males and

females, but the children are all in the commercials.

Nifty looking commercials, carefully researched to reach children

where they really are. They tie them up to all sorts of electronic

devices to see that they are getting the message, to lobby for

sugary goods and expensive toys. We don't see any real children in

the programing. Maybe some day, if we have enough hearings like

this, we will find more programing on Saturday morning—I say

Saturday morning; I wish we could be talking about the week.
134

That is the most outrageous part of the idea about serving chil- dren on television, I think. They know that their affiliates depend

on them for programing. Networks don't have a responsibility, but

they know their stations do. When there were other Government

hearings like this, in the late 1970's, when the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission were focusing on issues relating to children

and television, we found the O and O's (network-owned-and-operated stations) were leaders in providing local programing. I think the

networks felt up against it, and they managed to get their ownedand-operated stations providing the kind of diversity that everyone was looking for on Saturday morning.

The last time I checked, no one, not one of the 15 O and O's had

a single regularly scheduled program Monday through Friday. I think that that is an indication of what has happened to local pro- graming in this country.

I don t know if you expected that much, but you asked.

Mr. Leland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Charren. One other thing. I would like to, if I am complimenting one side, I should compliment the other. Certainly Nickelodeon is the kind of nifty service that people had hoped for from

cable, and I wouldn't want John to feel left out. Mr. Leland. I just wish that the children of my community could

watch Nickelodeon.

Ms. Charren. That is the problem with depending on cable. That

is why we think that Mark Fowler's idea of depending on the new

technologies to take over now for that public interest standard, is the wrong time for that kind of deregulation. If cable were in more homes and more children had access to Nickelodeon kind of pro- graming, I think we could begin to think about deregulating.

Mr. Swift. Let's pick up right there and proceed a bit further.

We have a very interesting array on this particular panel. It is very well balanced, and if the staff is to be responsible for that, my

compliments. They are also very articulate coming from their re- spective positions.

I am not surprised or disappointed that you reach 1 to 2 percent

of your audience. The economics of the cable technology makes

that a commercially viable number for you, because you make your

money by persuading local cable systems that they are going to make money and win subscribers, and keep subscribers by having

that service there for the small percentage of the time that a child

wants to avail himself or herself of that program.

Mr. Schneider. That is true. Mr. Swift. You can do something that a broadcaster can never

do, which is virtually continuous children's programing of a high

quality and it will be there when the child or the parent or the

family wants it. Is that correct? Mr. Schneider. Yes, sometimes we are referred to £is an electronic sandbox. It is handy.

Mr. Swift. What occurs to me is that that is an enormously en- riching thing you bring to the Nation in terms of children's pro- graming. It is one thing that could not have been provided in the

past, prior to your technology being available, no matter what com- mitment the broadcaster made, because his economics are differ- ent.
135

Mr. Schneider. That is correct. Mr. Swift. I have for many years been concerned with those ad- vocates of children's programing that seem to have the idea that

the broadcaster was capable of doing it all. I am now concerned

that others will believe that you can do it all with your type of

service, because there are limitations you have as well. You have

to be wired to the home and you have to be available on a local system that chooses to buy you in syndication in order to get it. So you have advantages and you have disadvantages as a technology and given the nature of the economics of your technology in

distributing children's programing.

Mr. Schneider. That is correct. Mr. Swift. Broadcasting has a different set of advantages and

disadvantages. My point is, I doubt if either of the technologies, or

direct broadcast satellite, or anything else that comes along is ever going to be the single way in which we are going to be able to meet

the needs of children's programing. Does anybody disagree with

that?

Mr. Schneider. Mr. Chairman, for many, many years, over-theair television was the only game in town. In fact, there was a

period when VHF television was the only game in town. I was

struck last night dialing around in my hotel room here in Washington by the number of UHF that seemed to be on the air now. So

UHF expanded substantially the old VHF dominance. But now we

have cable. We have multi-channel distribution systems. We have

subscription television, direct broadcast satellites, an explosion in

video discs and video-tape technologies that will continue to expand. Then there is the video game which also uses that televi- sion set.

I made a point before that I would like this committee to consider. The arena in which we are playing, all of us, is the face of that

television tube. That television tube is used increasingly for home

computers, as a display device of which, I might add, children avail

themselves.

I was pleasantly surprised the other day to find that the Atari

Co. has a new computer coming out called "My First Computer,"

and it is designed for the preschool child. So we have a brave new

world out there for young people, and the competition for their

young minds. I am hopeful that all of us will continue to work in

the most responsible manner in that regard.

Mr. Swift. And that should be seen as an enormous opportunity

for this society.

What I am trying to get at is that it seems to me that as these

new technologies come on line, we should view them as additive,

being able to do different things to augment what we have had

before. The commercial adviser has some confines in which he can

function, but the public broadcaster has some different audience

needs. He is freed up in some ways but he has terrible problems

financially. So he is constrained. You have constraints. All the

others will have some constraints.

As public policy people we need to devise a policy that is going to get the best out of all of these, and create the best possible mix for the children of America.
136

Mr. Schneider. You must be wise and you must be sophisticated.

I think that it is a very difficult problem for this committee, with

all of its other responsibilities, to keep up with the exploding technology. I know that you will try. |

Mr. Swift. It seems to me you start by not assuming that just

because you have arrived with your technology, and your particular economic base, that you are automatically going to replace

something that we have previously relied on—because that is not

the case. Ms. Charren. I can't tell you how happy I am to hear you say

that, because I was fortunate enough to get CBS cable, when CBS

cable was available to people who could afford cable. I could see somebody sitting at a hearing like this and making a case that you

don't need public broadcasting anymore, at least for the arts and

culture, because here was CBS cable doing all kinds of programing

like that extraordinarily well. What if we had done away with the whole funding apparatus for

public broadcasting during the height of that service, and had

taken it out of the public policy arena and in effect done away with

it, and then CBS cable went bankrupt. What if we depend on Nickelodeon, which is really a nifty service now, although it is only one

spot on the dial. You need more diversity than that, I guess. What if we depended on Nickelodeon and a few other programs

like that for program services, and then they took advertising. Be- cause of the pressures of advertising and the advertiser saying,

"Look if we are going to put our message in, we want a bigger

share of that audience," the television on Nickelodeon would start

to look like the television on the networks on Saturday morning,

with that lack of diversity. That is what caused television to lack

diversity, the advertising. It is not that anybody wants to program

for any other reason. Then we end up with no diversity of service

because we are depending on everything but that public interest

standard.

I think we have to remember that television has become the

most important medium. We have to have the public interest con- siderations that make it work for us. Mr. Swift. It seems to me that the public policy issue is not

"who killed Captain Kangaroo." It is rather to understand the various economic, technological, and social forces that are at work on

all of the means of providing children's television and to try to develop a policy that may take more wisdom than we have. The goal

should be to try to develop a policy that will draw the maximum

reasonable effort out of all of those technologies in the service of

children, given the fact that they have other aspects of the American audience that they must serve as well.

I think that you have all contributed immeasurably in helping us

to try to find a little wisdom in our pursuit of that policy.

Thank you all very, very much.

[The following letter was received for the record:]
137

ABC Entertainment

1330 Avenue of the Americas New York. New York 10019 Telephone 212 887-6691

Squire D, Rushneil. Vice President Long Range Planning and Children's Television

^^^22\m

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I would like to submit for the record of the March 16 House Telecommunications Subcommittee hearing on children and television the following additional

information on ABC programming of special interest to children during Children's Television Week: Wednesday, March 16 . ABC Afterschool Special,

Have You Ever Been Ashamed of Your Parents ? A teenage girl learns an Important lesson about pride when her mother takes a job as a cook for

a wealthy family.

Thursday, March 17 . The Magic Planet , a prime-time fantasy adventure ice ballet starring

Olympic medalist Toller Cranston, with music by the National Philharmonic Orchestra in London. Saturday, March 19 . ABC Weekend Special, All the Money in the World ; when a young boy rescues a leprechaun from a well and is granted three wishes, what he gets seems to be all the trouble in the world. Scooter Computer and Mr. Chips , a new segment in the Computer Rock series, designed to introduce

children to computer education.

Additionally, ABC distributed to 6,000 school libraries,

the attached poster entitled "ABC Treats Kids TV with

TLC." Therein we salute National Children and Television Week. Thank you for this opportunity to supplement my remarks

.

Sincer*,ly ^VourfsT) , f\

Squire D. Rushneil

Honorable Timothy E. Wirth

Cha irraan Subcommittee on Telecommunications,

Consumer Protection & Finance

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515 April 21, 1983
138

Mr. Swift. Senator Heinz, who is cochairman of the resolution

that created this week had hoped to be here, and was unfortunately detained in business in the other body, wanted to submit a state- ment for the record, and asked if the Chair would read the following very brief statement into the record.

Senator Heinz says:

I congratulate Chairman Wirth and the committee for holding these important

hearings today, and I would like to announce my intention to introduce legislation soon to provide greater tax incentives to corporate underwriting of children's TV

programing. I am particularly interested in seeing the Federal Government add mo- mentum to the efforts of the Five-Station Public TV Consortium on Children and

Families, which with the help of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting will pro- duce 26 1-hour dramas for prime-time showing in 1984. I salute all of those involved and pledge my support for this initiative and others discussed in today's hearing.

Without objection, his entire statement will be made a part of

the record.

[Statement of Senator Heinz follows:]
139

Prepared Statement of Senator John Heinz

Last year. Chairman Wirth and I introduced legislation to designate a "National Children and Television Week." I hope to add to the promotional events being conducted around the country

this week by soon introducing legislation to increase the incentives

for private sector support of children's T.V. As a nation, we are recognizing that the private sector must play a greater role in support of important "public" services. Both the President and the Congress have encouraged increased

charitable giving, corporate social responsibility, and public/

private partnerships through administrative action, as well as tax legislation. ' The sad fact is that adequate support for high quality television

(and radio) programming for our children is gradually diminishing. The commercial networks have demonstrated time and again that they have been increasingly forced by economic realities to refrain

from developing new programs for children. Some such as television

I critics like John 0' Conner of the New York Times, have argued, "The state of children's programs on ABC, CBS, and NBC is rapidly

becoming a national disgrace." Although I am aware that the networks have produced some quality children's T.V., it is true

that as broadcasters go about maximizing profits, younger viewers

are not of major concern. Children do not control a significant

amount of disposable dollars

.

Unfortunately, television is big business with big fiscal

responsibilities. Fortunes are made or lost on the turn of a rating point. Can we leave the fate of children's programming

to the operation of the marketplace? I think the question

answers itself.
140

We are becoming more aware that the marketplace approach will not be effective, even those of us who once advocated this approach

have begun to revise their thinking. Most recently, Mark Fowler,

Chairman of the FCC, speaking about children's T.V., said last month, "Let's end government by a wink and regulation by a nod

when it comes to certain categories of programs . Let us be

advocates of public broadcasting's mission in this area, to fill gaps left by the broadcast and non-broadcast marketplace."

So it seems that public television is the only answer. And

certainly the government should maintain or increase its level

of support for this essential part of our national culture. But

as we all know, the federal budget is in some difficulty; the federal government cannot do it alone. Chairman Fowler also said in his speech, "I believe it is incumbent on those who care about children's programming, and I include myself among those, to advocate a sufficient budget for public broadcasting to help meet the needs of , the child audience."

It is ironic that at the same time the Reagan Administration is proposing to cut the funding for the corporation for Public Broad- casting from $140 million in FY83 to just $75 million by FY86

.

That's nearly a 50% cut. The Congress's designation of "National Children and Television

Week" encourages an increased investment in children's programming

by all segments of American society. Many individuals and many groups have searched for ways to accomplish this . I have been working

since January 8, 1983 when the President signed the legislation

sponsored by Mr. Wirth and myself to develop a partial solution

to the problem.
141

The clearest solution is to find a way to give the public-spirited

members of the private sector a proper incentive that encourages

them to do more of what they have often demonstrated they want to do. For these reasons, I am proposing a tax credit incentive for the corporation of the United States. This credit would be available

to the commercial networks, the traditional sponsors of children's

programming, and all the corporations in the land which are interested in the welfare of our nation's most valued resource.

The inspiration for my proposal comes from the recent announcement

that five public television stations have joined forces to form a consortium to produce programmina for children and families. Headed

by WQED in my hometown of Pittsburgh, the consortium members include

KCET/Los Angeles, KTCA/Minneapolis-St . Paul, SC ETV/South Carolina

and WETA/Washington, D.C. The series will premiere on PBS in the fall of 1984. The mandate for the series from the Corporation for Public

Broadcasting (CPB) is simple and direct: each program should invigorate

and replenish the strong American storytelling tradition. Dramas --

well-crafted stories told well -- will give the series its distinctive

character. Narratives with broad audience appeal will be developed

into dramas and imaginatively produced to captivate the family

audience week after week. Only public television has not forgotten the children, which

may explain why it is watched and loved by so many young people.

The regular service has included Mister Rogers' Neighborhood , Sesame Street , Electric Company , Zoom, Once Upon a Classic and others.

Now, thanks in large part to CPB, public television is much

better equipped to address the problem of inadequate programming
142

for children. CPB has announced a $5 million challenge to establish a new consortium for family and children's programming.

The public T.V. stations have added $1,000,000. This grant will

combine resources of KCET, KTCA, South Carolina, and WETA , led by

WQED, with its award-winning track record of programs for children

and their families, in designing a modeD\, impactful series of

26 hour-long dramas. Most of them will be contemporary in concept

and setting. Designed to be aired in prime time, the series will

reveal the rich diversity of our past, our present, and a hopeful

future. The consortium will also seek $2,000,000 in additional

underwriting to assure a budget which will permit the highest

> quality programs to be produced. I think the federal government

should act to provide at least a matching amount. My plan is not complicated: We propose a three year experiment

which will explore the possibility of private philanthropy helping

to solve the critical problem with the aid of a tax credit.

In the same way an individual can claim a tax' credit for child

care, corporations would be allowed a children's programming tax credit.The tax credit would be for a portion of every contribution

made to any FCC-licensed charitable public television or radio

station to produce, acquire, advertise, or broadcast high quality,

innovative programming for the children of America. On the balance

of these contributions not available for computing the tax credit,

corporations would be allowed the normal deduction provided for charitable contributions by the Internal Revenue Service. This tax credit for charitable contributions will be a powerful incentive

to do the job that needs to be done.
143

For the purposes of this legislation, children's programming

is defined as programming directed toward children and teenagers

(under age 17) in content areas such as health, science, literature,

and other cultural fields . This programming would take the form

of dramatic, informational, and educational presentations.

The basic intent of this plan is to generate major gifts from

corporations capable of making them by providing an appropriate

incentive. At a time when American corporations are seeking to reduce their own tax burdens , is there a more effective way to also benefit American society?

The advantage of this plan is that it calls on and rewards

> the public spirited efforts of this nation's private sector to help accomplish a good for a precious , improtected portion of our

entire society.

Mr. Swift. I thank you all for waiting so long. There is a finite end to your wait, however, because we have just about 30 minutes

in which to do our business. I would like to begin by having each of

you identify yourself for the record, and then we will come back to each of you and take the testimony.

STATEMENTS OF KEITH W. MIELKE, ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH, CHILDREN'S TELEVISION WORKSHOP;

JOHN BLESSINGTON, VICE PRESIDENT, PERSONNEL, CBS/

BROADCAST GROUP; SHARON ROBINSON, DIRECTOR, INSTRUCTION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; PHYLLIS TUCKERVINSON, VICE PRESIDENT, CHILDREN'S PROGRAMING, NBC TELEVISION NETWORK

Mr. MiELKE. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.

Children's Television Workshop produces Sesame Street, The

Electric Company, and 3-2-1 Contact. Of those, the best known

product is Sesame Street, which has now been on the air for 14

years.
144

In the production of that, a unique model, an approach to the

ways of producing television has been developed and that continues

to evolve through our most recent children's program, which is a

science program for children 8 to 12 years of age called 3-2-1 Contact.

If we have ever had anything approaching national consensus on an educational need, it is in the area of science education for a citi- zenry that can cope with technological issues, the employability of our graduates, the national economy, the national security, to protect our lead in the high technology industries, to bring women and

minorities fully into the science and technological field. These are continuing problems, and it is going to require the best

of our formal and our informal efforts to try and address them, and

television has an important terrific role it can play for those significant national needs. 3-2-1 Contact is a program that meets

Its first season is quite successful. 3-2-1 Contact is designed to be

used both in the home and the school. The home audience, for ex- ample, in its premiere run, attracted over 23 million home viewers. In the schools, 500,000 teacher guides were requested and sent out. So we have substantial audience in the home and substantial audi- ence in the school.

Through the use of repeats, this continuing popularity leads to an attractive cost-effectiveness as well. We think it is reasonable to estimate that it would cost no more than one penny to expose one program to one audience member.

This program has also been endorsed by the National Education

Association, the National Science Teachers Association, and has

won numerous awards.

We are very pleased to report that the second season of programs

of 3-2-1 Contact is now being produced. With the support of the

Congress, and the support of the Public Understanding of Science

program within the National Science Foundation, the Department

of Education, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, we are now producing 40 new programs.

Beyond that, our future funding is uncertain, but we are hopeful

and optimistic that with leadership from the Federal agencies, we

can use our most powerful national medium in a long-term com- mitment to children, education, and science.

I have a very brief excerpt, some snippets of the second season of

3-2-1 Contact, which will premiere next October. We are in pro- duction and this was pulled out of the studio very late last night, so

I am very hopeful that this is OK. This is our first look at season two of 3-2-1 Contact.

[A film clip was shown.]

Mr. MiELKE. This completes my testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mielke follows:]
145

Prepared Statement of Keith W. Mielke, Associate Vice President for Research, Children's Television Workshop

Mr. Cnairman and memoers of tne Subcommittee:

I am Keith Mielke, Associate Vice President for Research at tne Children's Television Workshop. We produce SESAME STREET, THE ELECTRIC

COMPANY, and 3-2-1 CONTACT.

In the spirit of National Children and Television Week, I am here to testify

about constructive and positive uses of televison, and how this medium can serve tne best interests of children as well as some of our most pressing

national neeos.

CTW's best known product is SESAME STREET, which is now in its 14tn broadcast year in the U.S. The intent of all our educational series is to educate using entertainment techniques, such as animation, snort documentaries, humor and music. Educational advisors recommend curriculum

content, and CTW researchers monitor program elements and test reactions

with target audiences.

While SESAME STREET once depended heavily upon federal support, the good

news is that now direct federal support is no longer required. Two-thirds

of the cost of producing SESAME STREET is now paid through self-generated

income, and the other third is paid by the public broadcasting stations. Millions upon millions of pre-schoolers have now benefitted from this investment.

Our most recent children's program, and the one with which I am most closely involved, is 3-2-1 CONTACT. This is a science and technology

series for children eight-to-twelve years of age.
146

If ever there was an emerging national consensus on an educational need, it

is for science education. For an enligntened citizenry aole to cope intelligently with technological issues, for reasons of employabi lity and national economy, for reasons of national security and protecting our lead

in critical nigh technology areas, tne conclusion is that we are dangerously oehind in science education ana tnat it is a high national priority to address the proDlem. The proolem is so severe and so entrenched that it will take the oest efforts of our formal and informal educational resources to be responsive. Television has a Dig role to play

in that mission.

3-2-1 CONTACT is a fine example of educational programming at the national

level, programming designed to complement the formal curriculum in schools,

but also to be freely available in homes where science instruction in schools may be inadequate or even non-existent. In the homes, this series attracted over 23 million viewers in tne very first airing of its 65 programs. 3-2-1 CONTACT is also viewed widely in elementary schools througnout the country. About 500,000 teacher's guides which help teachers incorporate the series into their curriculum have been requested and sent

out. With large audiences for science education in the homes and the schools, ana with continuing popularity through multiple repeats, we estimate tnat the cost of one person viewing one program reduces to about a penny or less.

CTW nas aemonstrated that children in very large numbers can be reached in nomes and schools with programs that are appealing and educationally

effective, and that national impact can be achieved at very attractive

levels of cost effectiveness.

We are very pleased to report that, with the strong support of the Congress, the National Science Foundation, through its Public Understanding

of Science Program, the Department of Education, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting have provided funding for a second season of 3-2-1 CONTACT programs, to consist of 40 programs. Funding beyond this point is uncertain; nevertheless, we are optimistic tnat we can, with

strong federal leadership, use our most powerful national medium in the service of children ana science education, not as a one-shot band-aid, but

as a long-term commitment.

With your permission, I will now play for you a few snippets from some of the scenes in the new 3-2-1 CONTACT series which will premiere next October.
147

Mr. Swift. I loved that opening sequence. I could sit and watch

that all day long.

Mr. Blessington.

STATEMENT OF JOHN BLESSINGTON

Mr. Blessington. Thank you, Mr. Chairrpan.

I appreciate the opportunity to present the views of CBS on the

important subject of children and television.

What qualifies me to appear before you today is not my recent

personnel appointment, but rather the preceding 4 years as CBS'

vice president, educational and community services, and the 20 pre- ceding years as a teacher and a schoolhead.

We have submitted our remarks, and I have cut them down. In view of your comment and the interest of time, I will cut them as I go. So if I stumble a little bit, you will know I am trying to edit a

little bit as we go along in the interest of time.

CBS is especially responsive to young people as a part of our commitment to the total audience. I think that is our overall position. We feel secure in saying that in innovative areas, we have

made some very strong commitments having produced some of the

first formulas, such as trying to give children an understanding of

current events in our series "In The News," which was Emmy and

Peabody awarded. In the fields of cultural programing, we tried to bring an array of things, including currently the "Children's Film

Festival." In other innovative areas, we introduced the concept of value-oriented themes through the award-winning "Fat Albert and the

Cosby Kids," which has been a Saturday morning staple since 1972. These are just a few of that type.

We don't stop with what is on the screen, we go past that. So

that we have in our broadcast group the department of educational

and community services, which I headed for 4 years. In that we develop programs and projects with educational community groups

trying to find ways to have television be more beneficial to chil- dren.

For example, the department directs the CBS television reading

program. This project involves the distribution of scripts around

the country. Since 1977, we have distributed over 20 million scripts.

The National Education Association said that they thought this was a notable exception of television and teachers working togeth- er to help children. So we are pleased about that.

Another example of our efforts to use television to encourage

reading is our "Read More About It" project, which we do at the

Library of Congress. In a variety of specials, an actor comes at the

end of the special, and steps out of character and announces a list of books which have been selected by the Library of Congress

which might be of interest to the television viewer. Dr. Daniel J. Boorstin of the Library of Congress says that this project links the

pleasure, power, and excitement of books and television. In short, we believe that our young viewers have been thoughtfully served by our efforts on screen and off. We recognize the

hearing has not been called so that we can congratulate ourselves

or because everyone is terribly pleased. We know that some people
148

are displeased with both the quality and the quantity of children's

programing. In the past, they have called for legislation for the irn- position of quotas mandating the amount of and types of children's

programs which some individuals would fmd appropriate.

In our view, the establishment of quotas for children's programing, or for any other program category, would do no less than

accept the principle that the Government may determine how

much of what kind of programing would be seen and when. This

concept we find at odds with basic first amendment values and the

role of broadcasting in a free society.

Equally important is the fact that to mandate one type of pro- graming is to exclude others regardless of the interest of the audi- ence or the judgment of the broadcaster. Therefore, CBS strongly

opposes the adoption of such type of rules. However, I do not want to dwell on this, I am not a lawyer.

The fact is that we think the children are rather well served by

commercial and public broadcast and increasingly through the

emergence of new technology such as cable and video-cassettes.

Therefore, the question to us is really one of selection rather than

scarcity.

Also part of the problem, however, is definitional. The FCC now

limits its definition of children's programs to those originally pro- duced and broadcast for 12 years old and under. However, we all know that children watch a far wider range of programs, and to

cite a few, "The Blue and the Gray," "Oliver Twist," and "A Tale

of Two Cities," these types of programs which are designed with

children in mind, in part provide information and stimulate inter- est about history, literature, culture, and social issues.

These are not children's programs by FCC standards, yet even

our critics call these "must viewing" for young people. This apparent anomaly has led one former FCC Commissioner to suggest that

programs which serve the young audience be redefined to include

those "contributing to the learning experience of young people 17 years old and below."

When viewed in that perspective a far greater picture of the

viewing choices available to a young audience emerges. Indeed, the

letter of invitation to this hearing refers to programing for younger

Americans. ^ There are, of course, many programs available which are more

specifically directed toward the younger audience, in addition to our regularly-scheduled children's programs. We offer the after- noon specials, the specials on weekends, on Sundays. We know that

other broadcasters can point with justifiable pride to their efforts as well. We think that it does not negate our attempts if we point to the

role of public television, because a portion of the public spectrum

has been reserved to the public stations precisely in order to allow

them to serve needs which may not be fully met by the commercial

systems. So no matter how we evaluate what is available for chil- dren, we could certainly not ignore "Sesame Street," "Mr. Rogers

Neighborhood," and the "Electric Company."

Another emerging source is cable, as has been indicated before. In addition to the "Nickelodeon," the Disney channel, and then the
149

HBO "Fraggle Rock" and "Brain Games" and USA Cable's "Calliope."

So, in summary, we don't think that there is any great absence

of programing at all, whether it be educational or informational. It

is inevitable, however, that opportunities for viewing being what

they are that some people will be dissatisfied. Each of us would like

television to offer more of the kinds of programing which he or she

thinks is important. But broadcaster time is finite. If one kind of

program is put on, then another has to be excluded. Clearly the

first amendment means that such value judgments will not be imposed by Government.

It is important to emphasize, as I close, that television can never

take the place of the school, the church, the home, or any of the

other social institutions that rely on interpersonal contact to help

children grow emotionally and intellectually.

On the other hand, I would observe that television in general,

and not just what we call children's television is a wonderful re- source which parents and educators can, and very often do, use in a very constructive manner to enrich the lives of our children.

Thank you.

[Testimony resumes on p. 168.]

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blessington follows:]
150

CBS BROVDCAST GR( HP CBS Television NetworiL CBS Entertainmenl.CBS Sports CBS News.CBS Tetevisior Slalions.CBS Radio CBS Inc 51 West 52 Slreel. NewYbt*, Newlfortc 10019 (212) 975-4321

BEFORE THE SUBC0MI4ITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS,

CONSUMER PROTECTION, AND FINANCE

of the HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

Statement by JOHN BLESSINGTON

Vice President, Personnel

CBS/Broadcast Group

March 16, 1983

I appreciate the opportunity to present the views of CBS on

the important subject of children and television. At the outset, I would like to note that what qualifies me to appear

before you today is not my recent personnel appointment, but

rather the preceding four years spent at CBS as Vice President,

Educational and Community Services and 20 years before that as

an educator.

CBS is responsive to young people as part of a commitment

to our total audience, and our record is one of achievement.

For example, we have pioneered several innovative program

formats for young viewers. CBS was responsible for network

television's first regularly-scheduled effort to provide young people with information about current events -- the series of
151

capsule news segments entitled IN THE NEWS, which has been

honored with Emmy and Peabody awards. And in the field of cultural programming, we offer such series as the CBS CHILDREN'S FILM FESTIVAL. In still another innovation, we introduced the concept of value-oriented themes in Saturday

morning children's programming through the award-winning FAT ALBERT AND THE COSBY KIDS, a staple since 1972. These are but

a few of many interesting and imaginative programs which CBS offers to young viewers.

Our commitment to young people, however, does not end with

what appears on the screen. CBS has a separate Department of Educational and Community Services, which I headed for four

years. The department works with educational institutions and community groups across the country in developing ways in which

CBS programs and projects may be used to benefit young viewers.

For example, the department directs the CBS Television

Reading Program. This project involves the distribution of scripts of selected CBS Television Network programs for

classroom use to enhance student interest in reading and other

subjects. Since its inception in 1977, CBS has distributed

more than 20 million scripts nationwide. The National

Education Association has called the Reading Program "a notable

example of television and teachers working together to help

children.
152

Another example of our efforts to use television to encourage reading is our "Read More About It" project. Here, a

list of books, prepared by the Library of Congress and relating

to the subject matter of selected CBS specials, is recommended

to viewers at the conclusion of these broadcasts. This is done

by a member of the program's cast, stepping out of character

and addressing the audience directly. In the words of Dr. Daniel J. Boorstin, Librarian of Congress, this project "links

the pleasure, power and excitement of books and television."

In short, we believe that young viewers have been

thoughtfully served by our efforts both on screen and off. We recognize, however, that this hearing has not been called

because there is universal approval of the performance of broadcasters in this area. There are some who are dissatisfied

with the quality and the quantity of children's programs on television today. And, as in the past, that dissatisfaction

has led some to call for government involvement in children's

programming, including the imposition of quotas mandating the amounts and types of children's programs which these

individuals would find appropriateIn our view, the establishment of quotas for children's

programming -- or for any other program category -- would do no less than accept the principle that the government may determine how much of what kinds of programming will be seen by
153

the public and when. That is a concept which we at CBS find

fundamentally at odds with basic First Amendment values, and with the role of broadcasting in a free society. Equally

important is the fact that to mandate one type of programming

is to exclude all others, regardless of the interests of the audience or the judgment of the broadcaster. Therefore, CBS strongly opposes the adoption of any such rules.

However, I do not want to dwell on this subject, both

because I am not a lawyer and because, it seems to us, the recurring calls for government involvement in this area are based on a false premise. Contrary to the belief of some, the fact is that children are well served in today's television

marketplace by commercial and public broadcasters and,

increasingly, through emerging technologies such as cable

television and video cassette. Therefore, the question is not

one of scarcity, for the programs are there; rather, it is one

of selection.

Part of the problem in discussing children and television

has been definitional. The FCC has narrowly limited its definition of "children's programs" to those which are "originally produced and broadcast for [children] twelve years

old and under." We all know, however, that children watch a far wider range of programming. To cite only a few CBS examples, such highly-acclaimed dramatic specials as THE BLUE
154

AND THE GRAY, OLIVER TWIST and A TALE OF TWO CITIES provide

information and stimulate interest about history, literature,

culture and social issues. Although these presentations for

the entire family are not considered "children's programs" by

FCC standards, they are frequently singled out by critics,

parents and educators as "must" viewing for young people.

This apparent anomaly has led one former FCC Commissioner

to suggest that programs which serve the young audience be redefined to include those "contributing to the learning

experience of young people 17 years old and below." When

viewed in this broader perspective, a more complete picture of the viewing choices available to the young audience emerges.

Indeed, the letter of invitation to this hearing refers to "programming for younger Americans."

There are, of course, many CBS programs available which are more specifically directed toward the younger audience. And,

in addition to our regularly-scheduled children's programs, the CBS Television Network offers after-school children's specials

on weekday afternoons, while continuing the presentation of children's specials on Sundays. Our efforts in this area are detailed in a report entitled "Children and Television -- A

Closer Look," which we are submitting for the record.
155

Other commercial broadcasters have their own achievements,

to which they can point with justifiable pride. However, it is

in no sense an abdication of the responsibilities of commercial

broadcasters to point out the role of public television in this

area. A portion of the broadcast spectrum has been reserved to public stations precisely in order to allow them to serve needs

which may not be fully met by the commercial system. No attempt to evaluate the viewing opportunities available to children should ignore such programs as SESAME STREET, MISTER

ROGERS' NEIGHBORHOOD and THE ELECTRIC COMPANY.

Another emerging source of children's programming is cable

television. Warner Amex's "Nickelodeon" provides a cable

channel devoted to. children' s programs, and a new children's

service, the Disney Channel, will begin operation this year.

In addition, other cable services offer regularly scheduled

children's programming, such as HBO ' s FRAGGLE ROCK and BRAIN

GAMES and USA Cable's CALLIOPE.

Moreover, the free market continues to search for still

other opportunities to meet the entertainment and information

needs of the young through television. In recent years, for

example, that market has spawned more than 2000 video cassette

titles for young audiences.
156

In sum, there is no absence of programming for youag viewers -- including informational programs -- on American

television today. Indeed, CBS recently conducted a new survey

of weekday children's offerings in the same 52 sample markets

analyzed in an FCC study issued in advance of the Commission's

1980 children's television hearings. Our survey, which we are submitting today for the record, shows that most children are served during the overwhelming majority of non-school,

non-prime time half-hours.

It is inevitable, of course, that the opportunities for

viewing which in fact exist will not satisfy everyone. Each of us would like television to offer more of the kinds of programming which he or she personally thinks is important.

But broadcast time is finite; if more of one kind of program is presented, something else will have to be sacrificed. Clearly,

if the First Amendment means anything, it means that such value

judgments cannot be imposed by the government.

It is important to emphasize that television can never take

the place of the school, the church, the home, or any of the other social institutions that rely on interpersonal contact to help children grow emotionally and intellectually. On the other hand, I would observe that television in general -- and

not just what some call "children's television" -- is a resource which parents and educators can and do use in a constructive manner to enrich children's lives.
157

The Availability of Children's Television A 52-Market Analysis of Weekday Programming

November, 1982

The report presents the results of a study conceived and executed

by CBS to determine the availability of children's television programming

during the typical Monday-Friday period in November, 1982. The data were derived from an analysis of daytime half-hours C6:30am to

6:30pm) throughout the week when all children two-to 11 years of age are

at least potentially in the television audience. The objective was to determine the proportion of these half -hours in which at least one children's program \ras available on over-the-air television channels in each of 52 markets.

In addition, from those half -hours in which there was no children's programming from broadcast sources, the study sought to establish

whether such programming was being provided by cable systems serving

the market. Since, for all but the youngest children, the weekday hours between 9:00am and 3:00pm are normally spent in school, the Monday-Friday portion of the analysis was necessarily confined to the 12 half -hours between 6:30 and 9:00 in the morning and between 3:00 and 6:30 in the afternoon. Thus, the MondayFriday data reported below are based upon a total of 60 daytime half-hours. Sample Markets

The 52 sample markets are the same ones included in a similar analysis

carried out in 1980 for CBS's filing in the FCC children's television

proceeding (and, prior to that, in an FCC- sponsored study comparing the amounts of children's programming available in the years 1973 and 1977). As in the earlier research, the markets have been grouped according to size

into four separate strata, each comprised of 13 markets. With only two exceptions, the stratum distribution of the 52 markets is identical to wliat it was in the earlier CBS and FCC research. These are Fort Smith, which has moved to Stratum 3 from Stratum 4, and Utica, formerly Stratum 3, dropping down to Stratum 4.

API Rank- Interval* Stratum 1 Markets 1 - 53 Stratum 2 Markets 54 - 101 Stratum 3 Markets 102 - 156 Stratum 4 J'larkets 157 - 210

^Obviously, 210 markets cannot be divided into four equal strata; beyond

that, however, population shifts over the past several years have affected

the relative size-rankings of the original 52 sample markets, requiring

that the end-points of the four ADI rank- intervals be slightly redefined.
158

Tabulation of Programs

The raw data on which the findings reported below are based are the

number of half-hoxirs in which at least one children's program was available in each market during the typical Monday-Friday period. This was determined from two sources:

1. The Monday-Friday section of the November I982 Nielsen Station Index

for each market. (Nielsen was chosen over Arbitron for this purpose

because the latter does not include the titles of public stations' programs). We included in our count only those programs intended expressly for children; those having demonstrably strong appeal to the child audience but not originally produced for that audience

(e.g.. The Brady Bunch , Buck Rogers , Chips Patrol ) were not tabulated. Where there was confusion over whether a given title was in fact a children's program, this was resolved by contacting the programming

department of the station involved.

2. Unlike our I98O study, which was limited to programming available only from over-the-air sources in each market, we have this time integrated the children's fare offered during non-school half-hours Monday-Friday by five nationwide basic-cable services : Nickelodeon

(Warner Amex) , USA Cable Network, and the three superstations —

WTBS, WOR and WON. This of course provided only a minimum estimate

of cable-delivered children's programming, since it does not include other distant broadcast stations which may be imported into an individual market

.

The number of weekday half-hours in which children's programming is available in a given market was computed as the sum of:

• The number of half-hours provided by over-the-air soiirces, plus...

• The number of half-hours in which only cable-delivered programming

was available, downweighted by the local-market penetration of the

cable service offering it.*

Results

1. Stratum 1 Markets : Out of the 60 non-school half-hours (6:30-9:00am

and 3:00-6 :30pm) comprising the Monday-Friday period examined. Stratum 1 markets averaged U7.I half-hours {19%) in which was available at least one program intended specifically for the two-to-11 age group (or some segment

thereof). Of these kf .1 half-hoxirs, U5.8 were provided by over-the-air

stations and an additional 1.3 by the five cable sources.

*For example: in Green Bay, there is no over-the-air children's programming at 8:30am, but 2k% of the homes in that market are able to receive USA Cable Network, which offers the program Calliope at that time. The 8: 30-9 :00am time period therefore contributes 0.2U half-hours toward Green Bay's daily total.
159

As shown in the following table, there has been a very slight decline since 1979 in the niomber of weekday half-hours in which over-the-air children's programming is available. To some extent, this has been offset by the increasing availability of cable-delivered children's fare over the past three years — an increase we have no way of quantifying precisely, however,

since cable was not included in our earlier study. Percent of

# Non-School Half-Hours Total Non-School Half-Hours

Average Market Average Market

1982 1979 1982 1979 Over Over the Cable the Total Air Only Air _% _%

Stratum 1 1+7-1 '+5-8 1.3 U7.S 78.5 79.2

In view of the relative concentration of children in the nation's larger television markets, the data for Stratum 1 are particularly significant.

For, in the top 53 markets from which these 13 were selected, there reside

21.5 million children — some two-thirds (66. h%] of all two-to-11 year-olds

in the U.S. population. For these children, television (predominantly over-the-air television) is providing programming during an average of over three-quarters of non-school weekday time. And, for the approximately 30^ of Stratum 1 homes now subscribing to basic cable, children's programming

is of course available during an even larger proportion of the day.

2. Stratxim 2 Markets : The 13 markets drawn from Stratum 2 averaged U0.6 half-hours of weekday children's programming, or 68% of the morning and afternoon half-hoiirs when children aren't in school. Again, the bulk of

this total (36.2 haJ-f-hours) was accounted for by over-the-air stations —

a fig:ure higher than 1979 's 32.5 — with the remaining U.U half-hours coming from cable services.

3. Stratum 3 Markets : The average Stratum 3 market offered 31.1 half-hours Monday-Friday in which at least one children ' s program was available ( 52^ of total non-school time). Relative to 1979, the number of half hours provided

to the average market by over-the-air stations was somewhat less (26.2 versus

28.7). With the inclusion of the nearly five additional half-hours supplied

by cable, however — an amount almost certainly well above that of three

years ago — the availability of children's programming in these markets is in all likelihood more than what it was in 1979.
160

k. stratum h Markets : In Stratim k, as in Stratum 2, the number of halfhours in which children's programming was offered by broadcast stations

was actually higher in 1982 than three years before (l8.1 versus 13.1).

Together with the nearly eight weekly half-hours delivered via cable (a figure arrived at through weighting in accordance with the five services' respective penetrations in each market), the availability of children's programming in the average Stratum k market stood at just under 26 half-hours

(or k2% of weekday non-school time).

Non-School Half-Hours

Average Market

Percent of Total Non-School Half-Hours

Average Market

Stratum 1

1982 Over

the Cable Total Air Only

Ut.1 ,U5.8 1.3

12I£

Over

the Air

1982

78.5

1979

79.2 Stratum 2 1+0.6 36.2 U.U 32.5 67.7 5U.2

Stratum 3 31.1 26.2 k.g 28.7 Stratum k 25-9 I8.I 7.8 13.1

51.8

1+3.2

U7.8 21.8

— Philip A. Harding

Director, Special Projects

CBS/Broadcast Group Research
161

®CBS

CHILDRENAND TELEVISION

-ACLOSER LOOK

^ hildren's television. Much has been said about it; 'much has been ignored.

For too long, the focus has been simply on "children's

television," yet it is more important to examine the subject of children and television, because young people do not just watch programs designed specifically for them. There is no

such thing as a "chOdren's hour." In fact, Saturday morning

represents only 9 percent of the 2 to 1

1 -year-old child's weekly viewing.

Programs such as CHARLIE BROWN, DR. Seuss, GARFIELD and

other special fare are enjoyed by audiences both young and

old. Acclaimed dramatic specials such as THE BLUE AND THE

Gray, Oliver Twist, and All Quiet On The Western Front, to

cite only a few CBS titles, provide information and stimulate

interest about history, literature, culture and social issues. While these presentations are not called "children's pro- grams" by Federal Communications Commission standards, they are h'equently singled out by critics, parents and

educators as "must" viewing for young people. The FCC

narrowly defines children's programming as "programs

primarily designed for children aged 2 through 12." It seems

clear that a more flexible approach to assessing service to the young audience is needed. Indeed, former FCC Commissioner

Abbott Washburn suggested a broader definition: "Programs

contributing to the learning experience of young people 17 years old and below." This approach would encompass many

of the above-mentioned programs—and more. TELEVISIOrrS ROLE

Even as with adults, children are informed and entertained by

television. However, children do not either live or grow up in a vacuum. Television may play a role in the developmental

process, but the home, the church, the school and peer groups play vastly larger roles. While television—by designshould not be an instrument of teaching, it can serve as the

catalyst to stimulate interest in a wide range of subjects and

ideas. Television is not and should not be either an extension

of the classroom or a third parent in any household.

American historjr was the backdrop for The Blue And

The Gray, the sweeping saga

ofthe Civil War.

I niledfealiifeSvnilnsIf ln< The Charlie Brown specials provide entertainment for children and adults alike.
162 I

PARENTAL GUTOANCE

Parents properly devote time either to selecting or approving a child's clothing, books, food, friends and schools, and they should be equally involved in selecting what a child watches on television. Yet the question of parental guidance and

responsibility is too often ignored in discussions ab)OUt children and television. Do children spend too much time watching television? In many cases, yes—but not because there is cinything inherently wrong with television viewing. The answer would still be "yes" even if children devoted all of their viewing time to watching Beethoven concerts and Shakespearean plays. There should he diverse activities for cfiildren (and for adults), such as

athletics, reading and hobbies, to name a few. But that is where the parent must assume a role in guiding the child's leisure time activities. BEYOND THE SCREEN

The interest of CBS in young people goes beyond what

appears on the screen. CBS is unique among broadcasters in having a separate Department of Educational and Community

Services, headed by a professional educator and serving as a

valuable resource to the public in the areas of education and

family life as they relate to television. Working with educational institutions and community groups across the country, the department has representatives traveling almost constantly, meeting and tcdking with parents, educators, religious leaders and others interested in children and television. This

allows us to develop opportunities for CBS progreims and

projects to be used to provide a greater service for young

viewers and their families. CBS TELEVISION

READING PROGRAM

Several major projects have been developed by CBS to enrich young people's viewing experiences by encouraging the

application of that viewing to a learning experience at school and at home. The CBS Television Reading Program is a nationwide television script-reading project designed to utilize students' enthusiasm

for television to help improve their reading skills and increase

Television viewing is often a

family activity in many

homes where the parent

guides a child's viewing.

In the classroom, many

educators are using

television to stimulate

Interest and ideas In a wide

range of subjects.
163

their motivation for further reading, learning and creative

thinking.

Working through CBS affiliated stations and local schools, the Network offers matched-to-broadcast scripts of specially selected CBS presentations to elementary and secondary

school students around the country. The scripts contain the dialogue as well as camera and stage directions. In the classroom before the actual broadcast, students often take

turns reading the various roles aloud or acting out the parts. Participating teachers receive comprehensive guides which

are used to initiate classroom discussion and involve the students in a variety of reading, writing and creative projects

that include history, geography, social studies and other

subjects. In addition to reacUng the scripts, students are urged

to read some of the many books, articles or periodicals listed

in the teachers guides' extensive bibliography. Since its inception

in 1977, more than 20 million such scripts have been

distributed nationwide. In addition, scripts and guides are also being used in schools tor the hearing-impaired, senior citizen centers and a number of correctional facilties. CBS/LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

"READ MORE ABOUT IT"

In another effort of significance to young viewers, CBS is teamed in a unique partnership with the Library of Congress in a project called "Read More About It." In the words of Dr. Daniel J. Boorstin, Librarijin of Congress, the effort "links the

pleasure, power and excitement of books and television.

From a variety of selected CBS specials, the Library of Congress prepares a list of recommended books which relate to the particular subject matter of each broadcast. In a special televised message immediately follovmg the broadcast, a well- knovm personality—usually a featured performer from the broadcast itself—alerts viewers to several titles from the list and urges them to visit their local library or bookstore to read more about the subject. The full list of recommended titles is also distributed to schools cind libraries around the country by

the Library of Congress and American Library Association.

Since the project began in 1979, "Read More About It" messages have varied in scope from Richard Thomas' announcement following his performance in All QUIET ON THE Western Front to an animated message delivered by Charlie

As part of the CBS Television Reading Progrtun, television

scripts are being used as

tools for reading, learning and thinking.

The "Read More About It" project stresses the complementary relationship of books and television.
164

Brown and Snoopy following a CHARLIE BROWN special. In all, some 50 CBS Television Network broadcasts have been

included in the project. VIEWERS' GUroES

CBS has published and funded several viewers' guides

designed to help teachers, parents, students—viewers in general^become comfortable and creative in the uses they

make of television.

In addition to the guides for the CBS Reading Program, other

guides are generic and have value beyond use with a particulcir program. One such guide, "Take a Lesson from TV," demonstrates how teachers, students and families can use

television to enrich learning and enhance creativity. Organized

by subject area, "Take a Lesson" suggests reading, writing,

listening, drama cind library activities that use television as a

springboard to further learning. Although directed primarily at teachers, each section contains suggestions for family

activities as well as classroom experiences.

Another guide, "The Television Picture," explains clearly and

graphically how television developed, how it works, how

stations and networks are organized. This guide has tjeen especially useful in career education. A third guide, "Television: A Plus for Librarians," was developed

in conjunction with the American Library Association and assists school and public librarians as they direct children toward making constructive use of the various electronic media. EDUCATIONAL ADVISERS

To help shape informative and entertaining progrcimming for children, an educational advisory panel was established in 1972, with Dr. Gordon Berry of the Graduate School of Education at UCLA serving as chief adviser to CBS on

children's programs. Dr. Berry works closely with program

producers and writers and with the CBS programming and program practices personnel. He examines story outlines, reviews scripts, discusses issues and ideas. He also draws on a panel of experts from different fields, including child psychiatrists, psychologists, educators and others who provide their advice and guidance about some of the learning activities, values and concepts that are to be part of CBS programming.

Richard Thomas alerted viewers to books about World War I following ALL Quiet On

The western Front.

CBS furnishes many

materials for teachers, parents and students to help them use and understand

television.
165

INNOVATIVE PROGRAMMING

CBS has pioneered several innovative program formats for young viewers: broadcasts that entertain, enlighten and

inform.

Fat Albert And The Cosby Kids has been a Saturday morning

favorite on CBS since 1972. This highly successful, awardwinning series deals with real problems that affect all children

at one time or another, such as keeping a promise, obeying

parents, not poking fun at younger children, maintaining a proper diet, even not watching too much television.

The situations and characters are drawn from comedian Bill Cosby's own chOdhood in Philadelphia, with Cosby himself appearing to add a personal touch to the theme of each

episode.

NEWS & INFORMATION Young people are growing up in an

exciting, changing world, and to help them understand it better, CBS News developed iN THE NEWS, network television's

first regularly scheduled effort to provide young viewers with

information about current events. And, according to a special Gallup Youth Survey, these capsule news broadcasts have made an importcint contribution to children.

in a survey of a national sample of teenagers, Gallup found

that two-thirds had seen In THE NEWS while growing up and, of

this group, nearly 90 percent said they had learned from the

series. Nearly half considered iN THE NEWS a major source of information about the world. Conceived in 1971, this pioneering Emmy and Peabody Award-winning series of capsule news

segments is broadcast at least once an hour during the CBS

Saturday morning programming.

In addition, short, informational messages relating to health, safety and nutrition are also interspersed throughout the weekend children's schedule.

FILMS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE The CBS CHIUJREN-S FlLM

Festival provides a brilliant panorama of customs and

attitudes of different lands by presenting the best available

children's films from here and abroad. This award-winning

series offers the rare combination of pure entertainment and

cultural values wrapped into one pleasurable package.

y^^KM
166

AN AMERICAN INSTITUTION A commitment to children that began on CBS more than a quarter of a century ago continues. Since his first broadcast on the Networic in 1955, CAPTAIN Kangaroo has been sharing the joy of discovery with an

ever-renewing audience of preschool children cind their parents. And to keep up with that changing world, Bob

Keeshan and his stciff are continually developing new pro- gramming concepts to encourage a child's interest in reading, nature, the arts, science and health. Recognized with four Emmy Awards and two George Foster Peabody Awards, the Captain offers a format of limitless variety and boundless

enthusiasm. In all, almost 8,000 hours of CAPTAIN KANGAROO

programs have been broadcast on the CBS Television Network.

PROGRAM DIVERSITY The Network's Saturday morning program schedule reflects a broad range of fare from the pure

entertainment of BUGS BUN>fY to the informational IN THE NEWS

segments and the value-oriented FAT ALBERT. And in devel- opment for the fall of 1983 is THE CHARLIE BROWN AND SNOOPY

Show, cin cill-new weekly series based on the popular Charles

Schulz characters.

SPECIAL BROADCASTS

FORYOUNG PEOPLE

Expanding its creative efforts, CBS developed an ever-growing

commitment to special broadcasts for young people, featuring well-known personalities and exciting production values, opening doors to new worlds, focusing on important issues, and sparking curiosity in the arts, music, dance, books, reading and reasoning.

At the top of the list is THE CBS FESTIVAL OF LIVELY ARTS FOR Young People. For more than two decades, this premiere

series of children's specials has explored the arts in a lively, entertaining way. Special hosts—from Leonard Bernstein to Beverly Sills, from Joe Namath to Rudolf Nureyev, Danny Kaye,

Julie Andrews and Henry Winkler—have employed ingenious, enjoyable forms to do just that. Often unconventional but always entertaining, the acclaimed "Festival" repertoire is as

diverse as the expression of art is limitless. A special "Festival" presentation for 1983 will feature Olympic gold medalists Dorothy Hamill and Robin Cousins in an ice-show adaptation

of Shakespeare's classic "Romeo and Juliet."

Captain Kangaroo has been

sharing the joy of discovery

Gpith millions of young

viewers since 1955.

Many CBS specials for young

people spark curiosity in the

lively arts, such as Julie ANDREWS' Invitation To The

Dance with Rudolf

Nureyev.
167

The CBS Afternoon Playhouse presents sensitive dramatic

treatments of tlie conflicts and dilemmas often faced by young

people. Examining topics such as friendship, family values, the

life of foster children, shoplifting, teenage pregnancy, drug abuse cind adjusting to stepparents, PLAYHOUSE dramas

center on young people maJdng choices which will affect their

lives. Famous Classic Tales features animated presentations of

classic works of literature, such as "The Last of the Mohicans," "The Count of Monte Cristo," "A Christmas Carol," "The Three

Musketeers," "Beauty and the Beast" and "Hiawatha."

The CBS CHILDREN'S Mystery Theatre brings together an

inquisitive youngster, a puzzling occurrence and a maze of clues to decipher. These mind-twisting adventures offer more

than the ability to keep kids on the edge of their chairs. Each is written to emphasize to young viewers that the key to solving a mystery is deductive reasoning.

The CBS Library piques a child's interest in books with an

ingenious formula: Take three books that share a similar theme. Dramatize only a selection from each book, and almost never finish telling the tale. Then add a wraparound story that encourages children to read the stories to their conclusions.

All titles come from the Library of Congress annual list of recommended children's books. AND STILL MORE

CBS provides young people with a variety of efforts, both on

and off the television screen. But CBS is not alone. Other

networks cind other stations, both commercial and noncommercial, network-affiliated and independent, are also providing programming for young people. In addition, some

cable services also offer programs for the younger audience.

Indeed, there is hardly a community in the United States today

that does not offer a Vciried daily menu of television program- ming for young people.

CBS/BROADCAST GROUP

EDUCATIONAL & COMMUNITY SERVICES

51 WEST 52 STREET, NEWYORK.'NY 10019

Classic literature comes alive in presentations like The

COUNT Of Monte Cristo.

Children today have a great

variety of television programming tO draw upon

for pure entertainment as

well as to enrich their social, cultural and learning experiences.

(3/83)
168

STATEMENT OF SHARON ROBINSON

Ms. Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Much can be said about the quality and quantity of currently

available programing for children. I think you already have some

evidence I have given you in previous testimony. The NEA is ac- tively involved in this area on behalf of advocacy for children, and

on behalf of use of the medium in helping us to provide proper education and socialization facilitation for our young.

The committee, I understand, is particularly interested in questions regarding the responsibility of broadcasters to provide pro- graming for children. In the written testimony, we have spoken to that at length, however, to summarize I would reference a quote by

Walt Disney that "We are always keenly aware that things seen on

the screen can exercise enormous influence on the ideals and con- duct of youngsters. Those who use the movie or TV screen as a

business also have a great responsibility toward their customers."

Recently, a program manager for one of the UHF stations,

WDCA here in the Washington metropolitan area, commented, "If you take a close look at your community, your budget, and commitments, you will be surprised at how affordable children's programing can be and the many rewards you will earn from it." I would

comment that this particular independent station offers more chil- dren programing than many of the other network affiliates in the

area. Further, the responsibility to provide programing for children is spoken to in the Communications Act as well as in the 1974 FCC

policy statement. Whether public broadcasting can assume a large

part of this responsibility, I think is already answered, and the answer is yes. But should the public broadcasting system assume

all of this responsibility, I would have to respectfully submit that

the answer is no. Funding is a major factor that intervenes, which

we could always answer with more money, and I would not want to discourage more funding for public broadcasting.

The advent of cable is a partial answer indeed to the question of

programing for children and young people, but we have the reality

of the evolution of that technology and access to that technology.

Therefore, we are discouraged to depend heavily on cable or upon

public broadcasting to provide all that must be provided for chil- dren.

Government responsibility in this area is, I will admit, a very

thorny issue and I am not a lawyer either. We are proposing that

since we have new problems to solve, perhaps we ought to provide

or apply a new technology. The NEA has proposed, and Mr. Wirth

has mentioned this morning some support for the concept of a temporary commission on children's television programing. Commissioner Rivera has also endorsed this idea.

What might this commission do, you would say. Questions re- garding the definition of children's programing will have to be re- solved if we are ever to conclude whether we are or whether we

are not addressing that need. A standard for the amount of pro- graming needs to be developed. We must provide dissemination

mechanisms for informing one another of the availability of pro-
169

graming, commercial programing, and programing which has been

developed at the expense of Federal dollars. Mr. Chairman, we should not forget the ESAA program resulted

in the development of over 50 series of programs for children that

programing rarely finds its way into the schedules of local or net- work broadcasters.

We also need to design a structure for appropriate support for television programing development. Incentive programs that we

may not have thought of before.

Further, and I think most important, we need a forum for discussion, for the developing of consensus, and a mutual commitment

among all the interest groups that have something to say on this

issue. In support of this idea, I would refer to a comment made re- cently by Chairman Mark Fowler in an address in Arizona, "I believe," and I quote: "the purpose behind TV regulation is not to come up with rules, but to provide a way for those in the industry

with quality on their minds to be heard."

I suggest that vehicle proposed by the NEA is a vehicle through

which those who have quality on their mind relative to children's

television programing can indeed be heard. I think it is a vehicle

that suggests that perhaps out of the light of the cameras and the

posturing before congressional committees, we can let our imagination run a bit in finding a new way to address some of our very

new, but very difficult questions.

[Testimony resumes on p. 186.]

[The prepared statement of Ms. Robinson follows:]
170

Prepared Statement of Dr. Sharon Robinson, Director, Instruction and

Professional Development, National Education Association

The NEA is pleased to participate in these hearings as part

of National Children and T'elevision Week and to take this

opportunity to consider the impact of television on the children

of this country. While television has a vast potential to support the education and socialization of young people, that

potential is not yet realized.

The National Education Association represents over 1.7 million teachers and other school employees. With the help of our 12,000 state and local affiliates, we have been an active

participant in FCC proceedings on this issue. We are here today because we believe that there is an essential difference in what we believe is the responsibility of

the FCC under the law to protect the public interest and what we understand to be its current view. We don't believe that a dialogue is even possible when there is no ability to meet and

discuss the premises on which the issues are based. Therefore,

we are grateful to be able to come before Congress, whose

legislative mandate the FCC is charged with upholding, to present

our recommendation for a Temporary Commission on Children's

Television Programming.

Let us take a moment to review what has happened to this

issue before the FCC. Ever since 1960 "programs for children"

has been included by the FCC as a category that every broadcaster

is expected to air. In 1974 the FCC adopted a Policy Statement

requiring commercial television broadcasters to provide a more
171

substantial commitment to the child audience, including regular

weekday scheduling of children's programs.

Three years ago the Commission issued a rulemaking with

several regulatory options to address the sad fact that

programming designed for children had not significantly increased

since 1974. There was still only one daily network program for

children, the same one as in 1974, "Captain Kangaroo" on CBS. NEA filed comments in the FCC rulemaking proceeding, first

suggesting to the FCC that a voluntary children's television

advisory board be created, with representatives from industry,

education, and other groups to arrive at a common definition of

children's television.

Last January, at an en banc session of the FCC, we again

expressed our concern about the state of children's television

programming. By that time "Captain Kangaroo" had been cut back

from one hour to one-half hour and moved to an earlier time slot,

resulting in many CBS affiliates dropping it. There were still

no regularly scheduled network children's programs on weekday

afternoons, so "General Hospital" became the most popular

television series for young people. Saturdays and Sundays were

not much better. NBC had eliminated weekend health and sports

features for children, and ABC had replaced an award-winning

Sunday morning children's program.

We again expressed our frustration to the Commission. Since

1971, there had been FCC inquiries, petitions, reports, task

forces, policy statements and an incomplete rulemaking. We
172

again placed NEA's specific suggestion for a non-regulatory

solution before the FCC: an ad hoc group of broadcasters,

producers, education professionals, and others that would discuss

this issue in a non-adversary context, with meetings to be

chaired by a designated FCC commissioner.

It is now March 1983. There has been no response from the

FCC to our suggestion in over a year. Despite the support we have received for our suggestion through a letter from Chairman

Wirth of this Subcommittee to Chairman Fowler, in February, 1982, we have heard nothing. This subcommittee, in its recent FCC

budget oversight hearings also directly requested from the

Commission an explanation as to how it plans to implement the

1974 Policy Statement on Children's Programming, and asked for a response to the NEA recommendation regarding establishment of a temporary commission on this issue. The Commission said it would

address the Policy Statement "as priorities permit," and that NEA's suggestion had been "placed in the outstanding docket in the children's TV proceeding."

Mr. Chairman, we believe that by so dealing with our suggestion the FCC has, in effect, consigned it to oblivion. At

a time when organizations all over the country are taking this

week to address the issue of children's programming when the

White House has issued a proclamation, when Congress is holding

hearings, when broadcasters are airing public affairs programs on

the issue everyone is thinking about children's television

except the one federal agency that is mandated by law to protect
173

the public interest, and, specifically, to protect special and

unique members of this public the child audience. This busy

committee, which has many important issues on its agenda, is today spending more time on the issue of children's television

than the FCC has spent during the past two years. This FCC has seemed to forget its own statement in 1974 that

"broadcasters have a special obligation to develop and present

programming that serves the unique needs of the child

audience." The FCC did not say only public broadcasters had this

statutory duty under the public interest standard of the

Communications Act. In fact, this FCC Policy Statement was specifically directed to the networks and other commercial

television broadcasters.

Regardless of the personal convictions of the current Commissioners, the Commission has responsibilities set forth in

law, in the public interest standard of the Communications Act. Since the FCC children's rulemaking began in 1979, one new Chairman and three new Commissioners a majority of the current Commission have joined the FCC. They have not had a formal opportunity to examine the Children's Task Force Report or the comments filed and testimony presented on the Report in 1980. We simply do not know the views of most of the

Commissioners on this issue. We offered last year to meet with all members of the

Commission, to discuss NEA's proposal. Only one Commissioner,

Henry Rivera, has met to discuss this subject with us. We were
174

highly encouraged by this meeting. He has even spoken out on the

subject. At a meeting of the Albuquerque, New Mexico Bar Association last November, Commissioner Rivera said that

"Broadcasters haven't been paying enough attention to the needs

of children. .. .the sad shape children's television is in today

serves to remind me that although reliance on market forces is normally preferable to regulation, blind, unthinking or rhetorical reliance on the marketplace is an abdication of our duty to the public under the Communications Act." This is the

kind of interest and enthusiasm that would help the deliberations

of a Temporary Commission.

As the members of this subcommittee well know, there are solid precedents for this kind of temporary commission. The

Temporary Commission on Alternative Financing for Public

Telecommunications (TCAF) was initiated by this Committee and

authorized by the Public Broadcasting Amendments Act of 1981.

The TCAF members included representatives from public radio and

television, Congress and NTIA, and was chaired by FCC

Commissioner James Quelle, This joint industry-government group

has held numerous meetings, most of which have been open to the

public. It is conducting an eighteen-month demonstration project

on advertising on public television. Most importantly, TCAF has

completed a report to Congress that includes a variety of

recommendations on such options as tax credits and expenditures

and special trust funds to assist public broadcasting, as well as lifting FCC and other federal restrictions to assist public

broadcasters in generating new income.
175

Another recent example of voluntary private-governmental

cooperative participation under the aegis of the FCC is the FCC Advisory Committee on Alternative Financing for Minority

Opportunities in Telecommunications. This committee, chaired by

FCC Commissioner Rivera, held meetings over a two-day period with

representatives from industry, financial institutions, the public

interest community, the FCC, and the Department of Commerce. As

a result of the report of this FCC advisory committee, the

Commission submitted proposed legislation to Congress and signed

a memorandum of agreement with the Minority Business Development

Agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Several creative

private-sector incentives including tax certificates issued

by the FCC for sales of cable TV properties to minority

purchasers were recommended by this advisory committee and

adopted by the Commission.

We believe that there is much we can learn from these two examples where the public, industry, and government have

successfully worked together on a sensitive communications issue

and offered nonregulatory, private sector incentive solutions to

a thorny problem. For a Temporary Commission on Children's

Programming, a first step might be to simply define the dialogue

to find a way to define children's programming. In their comments on the 1979 FCC children's rulemaking, our members

stressed the importance of not only developing age-specific

programming but also of providing a way to identify information

about its availability and content to broadcasters and to the
176

audience. The NEA, as a member of this temporary commission,

could provide suggestions as to how this could be accomplishied.

We have already had formal FCC hearings on the children's

issue, and a slightly less formal en banc meeting before the full

FCC last year. What we are seeking is a far different way, as these examples point out, where the private and public sectors,

but with a vested interest and stake in this issue, can really

exchange ideas on how to generate such programming. This

roundtable dialogue, free from fanfare and formal posturing

before the FCC or Congress, in a non-adversarial setting, can

result, we believe, in creative solutions short of new

regulations.

Private sector initiatives, not necessarily mandated by

government, but encouraged through an interchange of ideas

between the broadcast industry and the community served by this

industry, is indeed what the public interest standard is all

about. Even FCC Chairman Mark Fowler, in a recent address, noted

that the "purpose behind TV regulation is not to come up with

rules but to provide a way for those in the industry with quality

on their minds to be heard."

We know that there are some very fine examples of

broadcasters serving the needs of children in exceptional ways. Finding a means to identify these examples and to create an information system so that other broadcasters and other

communities can benefit from these opportunities would be a valuable result of this chidren's commission. Here in
177

Washington, D.C. , WDCA-TV, a UHF station, broadcasts more children's programs than any of the four commercial VHF

stations. It airs two 30 minute, locally produced, children's

programs a day, runs special children's PSAs, and produces at least three children's specials a year with printed study guides

for school and home use. The station depends on a volunteer

Children's Advisory Committee, representing education, parent,

and civic organizations in the metropolitican Washington area, to help them determine the needs and interests of the children in

their community.

WDCA Program Manager Farrell Meisel said at the 1982 NATPE

convention last March, "If you take a close look at your

community, your budget, and commitments, you'll be surprised at how affordable children's programming can be and the many rewards

you'll earn from it." This kind of responsive broadcaster is the

kind of person who could contribute substantially as a member of

the Temporary Commission we propose.

Another task the Commission might undertake would be to try

to figure out how to generate wider knowledge about and use of

the vast storehouse of free children's programming already funded

with federal dollars. More than 50 children's television series

have been produced with federal funds since 1968. Many were a collaborative effort between the Department of Education,

business, and industry. Supplemental materials written for

classroom or home use have been developed for these programs.

With some restrictions as to the placement of advertisements,
178

these programs have been available to commercial broadcasters for

the price of postage and handling. Many are award-winning shows,

yet they rarely find a place on a local TV schedule. The

Temporary Commission could look at how to stimulate better

mechanisms for bringing the availability of such programs to the

attention of broadcasters, and cable systems as well. Congress

should be concerned to be sure the millions it has already spent

for ESAA children's programs was well spent. We know also that the networks and cable have provided us with exceptions. All three commercial broadcast networks have

worked with the NEA to develop children's educational materials

for outstanding historical series this year we had the "Blue

and the Gray" on CBS, "Winds of War" on ABC, and a new, expanded

version of "Shogun" on NBC. On the Warner Amex NICKELODEON cable

channel, over thirteen hours of very fine age-specific

programming is broadcast for children. We know the opportunity

is there to make our children's television viewing an enriching

experience, but for the most part, these opportunities are too

few and far between.

Mr. Chairman, in case you are wondering what has actually

happened to children's regular TV fare in the year and a half

since we've last been to the FCC, let me give you an update. The

situation is at an all time low. "Captain Kangaroo" left the

weekday lineup this summer and has been moved to the weekend.

There is no daily weekday series for children on a commercial

broadcast network left on the air. Several other network
179

programs for children noted for their outstanding quality have

been dropped. Local stations are not replacing these programs

and indeed many have stopped buying children's syndicated

programs as well. In addition, all three commercial networks

have added more time to their early morning lineups devoted to news programming, which usurps the time formerly used for

syndicated and local children's programs such as "Romper Room." Public television, suffering from lack of sufficient

funding, cannot take up the slack. The oldest children's program

on PBS, "Sesame Street" will produce only 130 new segments this

year. The "Electric Company" is airing reruns. In a February

issue of Broadcasting Magazine , Sue Weil, chief of programming

for PBS, said: "Children's programming is a forum where we are thin even though we are head and shoulders above everybody

else." Yet FCC Chairman Fowler has indicated that he believes,

despite the FCC 1974 Policy Statement to the contrary, that

public broadcasting is the only broadcaster that has any

responsibility for children's programming. Even if an economic

solution could be found to bail out the financially starved

public television network, it is doubtful that PBS alone wants,

or should have, this total mandate and responsibility.

We cannot expect the new communications media alone to provide these programs. Only 30 percent of American households

are wired for cable TV, and 70 percent of these cable systems

have only 12-channel capacity. The "must carry" rules for local

broadcast signals virtually eliminate the opportunity for these
180

low capacity systems to carry specialized networks with

children's programming options. Other new technologies, like

DBS, STV and MDS are primarily seen as sources of pay movie

channels for those who cannot receive cable. A recent editorial in the Boston Globe mourned the passing

of the Disney prime time family series. I have attached a copy

to my testimony. The editorial, "Goodbye to Disney and All That"

lamented that the "magic is ending after 29 seasons for the

networks' longest running prime-time entertainment" program. The

end of the Disney series recalled for the editorial writer the

following words of Walt Disney: "We are always keenly aware that

things seen on the screen can exercise enormous influence on the

ideals and conduct of youngsters .... those who use the movie or TV screen as a business also have a great responsibility toward

their customers." The Globe ' s editorial concludes that "Most who

currently use TV as a business ignore that responsibility."

Over the past year we have seen numerous studies that have

reinforced the notion that TV has an enormous impact on children. Most research places the child in front of the

television set for approximately 10,000 - 15,000 hours during his

or her public school years, while the classroom takes up only

11,000 hours. Research by Action for Children's Television has

indicated that the average pre-schooler spends more time with

television than any other activity except sleeping.

Dr. Edward L. Palmer, vice president for research at Children's Television Workshop, has been researching what he
181

calls the "alarming decline in support for quality children's

television in the U,S," By studying television in Great Britain,

Sweden, and Japan to determine the factors that shape the

standards for children's programs in these countries, he hopes to provide some constructive suggestions for American programming

for children. One factor to come out of this research relates to the economics of broadcasting and the need for some kind of

incentives for the industry. Palmer notes: "Unlike other nations

with more government involvement in broadcasting, the U.S. has no economic incentive for commercial television to put on more or better shows for children." These are precisely the kinds of

economic incentives the Temporary Commission should be examining. We bring to this hearing the expertise of educators

throughout this country who know their profession and are dedicated to helping children grow, learn, and be useful to society. For over fourteen years the NEA has encouraged a supportive relationship between educators, parents, and

broadcasters. We are eager to make our resources available so that the needs of this significant audience of children will be

served. We certainly owe our children and young people a little

of our time in this matter so that their "prime time" for

learning and growth is not wasted.
182

^"^.

^^NEWS N*«n (TMdIi Inlomullon 302 / ]S4-7«74 R«cord*4 llXIng ol r*<u«M and t*<U

202 / 632-0002

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

1919 M STREET. N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20S54 4968

Th„ ,s an uno.l.c.ai .noouncem.nl ol Comm.ss.on icl.oo Bj.eaje oMhe lull le.l ol a Con.m,s5.00 0-0.-

CO. s,„,„e» oii.ciai aci.o-' See MCI . FCC SiS F 20 385 lO C C.-c 19751 ~"^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ July 1, 1982

TEMPORARY COMMISSION ISSUES REPORT TO CONGRESS ON ALTERNATIVE FINANCING OPTIONS FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING

t The Congressionally created Temporary Commission on Alternative Financing

for Public Telecommunications has issued its First Report to Congress with its analysis and recommendations concerning alternative financing options for public broadcasting.

After considering numerous options, the Temporary Commission concluded

that in the short term there is no reasonable alternative to continued Federal

funding and that precipitous reductions below currently anticipated levels of Federal support would lead to reductions in service. The Temporary Commission

also concluded that over the longer term none of the other funding options it explored would be preferable to continued Federal funding as the means to maintain the existing public broadcasting system.

The Temporary Commission did determine that legislative and regulatory

changes could assist in the development of important supplemental sources of income for public broadcasting, and it made the following specific recommendations for action:

For Congress — Ensure that sustaining or bridging Federal funds are appropriated

through the current authorization period and are continued until

or unless adequate alternative financing is found; — Study repeal of the unrelated business income refund provisions of the Public Broadcasting Amendments Act of 1981; and — Review the effects of the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act and take steps necessary to increase tax incentives that reinforce individual

and corporate incentives to contribute.

For the FCC

-- Authorize commercial and nonbroadcast, nonaural use of SCA sub- channels by public radio stations and enlarge the baseband; — Examine restrictions governing commercial use of satellite facilities

by public radio and television licensees, and foster noninterf ering

use of excess capacity; — Moye expeditiously to resolve UHF comparability problems;
183

" Ensure that public TV stations are authorized to offer teletext

services without restrictions on payment mechanisms; — Maintain an adequate number of Instructional television fixed service channels available to public broadcasting and broaden

the use of those channels; — Initiate an expeditious rulemaking to develop policies for authorizing subscription television operations by public

broadcasters; and " Review FCC rules and policies governing on-air fundralslng

activities and promotional identification to reduce restrictions

on the generation of revenues while maintaining the noncommercial

character of public telecommunications services.

For NTIA — Afford stations greater flexibility in the use of equipment

funded In part by the government.

The Temporary Commission also proposed to take the following actions

itself:" Study the feasibility of financing public broadcasting through a special trust fund; " Study tax credits and expenditures; and

-- Analyze and report on the Advertising Demonstration Program

being conducted by 10 public television stations. Congress created the Temporary Commission in 1981 (PL 97-35) to identify

funding options which would ensure that public telecommunications as a source

of alternative and diverse programing will be maintained and enhanced. In the same legislation, Congress extended the authorization for appropriations

to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Public Telecommunications

Facilities Program administered by the National Telecommunications and Infor- mation Administration, but at reduced levels. The members of the Temporary Commission are;

FCC Commissioner James H. Quello, Chairman; The Honorable Howard W. Cannon, United States Senate; Bruce L. Christensen, National Association

for Public Television Stations; Hartford N. Gunn, KCET-TV(ED), Los Angeles; William H. Kling, Minnesota Public Radio; Frank Mankiewlcz, National Public

Radio; The Honorable Robert W. Packwood, United States Senate; Edward J. Pfister, Corporation for Public Broadcasting; Kenneth Robinson, National Telecommunications and Information Administration; The Honorable Al Swift,

U.S. House of Representatives, and The Honorable Thomas J. Tauke, U.S. House

of Representatives.
184

5k ^o6m (3\obc

TUESDAY. FEBRUARY 15. 1983

Goodby to Disney and all that

Most children of the past three decades re- member a much-loved television show that was

once the nation s most popular. It featured adventures, cartoons and other staples of Walt

DisncN • The magic is ending after 29 seasons for the networks longest running prime-time enterlaininent. The ending highlights a commit- ment articulated years ago by Walt Disney: "We are always keenly aware that things seen nn the screen can exercise enormous influence on the ideals and conduct of youngsters. . .

.

Those who use the movie or TV screen as a business also have a great responsibility to- ward their customers." Most who currently use TV as a business

Ignore that responsibility. Despite strong criti- cisms of children s programming, the Federal Communications Commission chairman. Mark

Fowler, has unwisely refused to require broadcasters to show more. Market forces, not the government, snould

prevail, he said recently at Arizona State University, applying the Reagan Administration

philosophy that business left to Its own devices

will cure all ills. So far. those market forces have determined

that preschool children will see no morning

weekday program on any network such a& the

classic Captain Kangaroo: that school-age chil- dren will see few after-school specials: and that much of the selection of children's fare will be

limited to Saturday morning cartoons.

— That is why Action for Children s Television. a-Tiatlonal citizens lobby based in Newton, sought the requirement to make broadcasters offer seven-and-a-half hours of chil- dren's programming, some of It educational, between Monday and Friday. Dunng the Carter Administration, the FCC

was moving toward enacting a requirement for more children's programming. ACT President Peggy Charren and others believe^ Moreover,, m

1974. the FCC issued a policy statement that urged television stations to provide more educational and informational children's shows with

less advertising and some provisions for pre- schoolers. Children under five average 30 hours weekly, according to ACT. What are they watching What is it doing to them, "at a time when thev

are developing and learning about the world and the people around them." asks a 10-year study on television and behavior bv the .\ational Institute of Mental Health. Except for a few reruns in late spnng and

summer, the Disney show famllar to families

for generations will be off the air. save those with access to Disney s new pay-television station. The commitment to pnme^tlme entertain- ment for children and families will be missed

unless the FCC re\-erses field and decides to make a difference in the quality and quanuty

of children's programming.
185

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ALTERNATIVE FINANCING

FOR MINORITY OPPORTUNITIES IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS

FCC Conmlssloner Henry M. Rivera, Chairman

Edmund H. Cardona, Special Assistant

Executive Committee

Anne P. Jones

FCC Commissioner

Joe L. Allbrltton Allbritton Communications, Inc. Virginia A. Dwyer American Telephone & Telegraph Co. Coy Eklund

The Equitable Life Assurance Society

of the United States Joseph Laitln Private Consultant

Charls E. Walker

Charls E. Walker Associates, Inc.

Policy Panel Michael R. Gardner Bracewell and Patterson

Plurla Marshall

National Black Media Coalition

L.E. Guzman

Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. Margita White

Taft Broadcasting Co. William A. Russell Jr. FCC Public Affairs Office Erwln Krasnow

National Association of Broadcasters

Robert L. Johnson

Black Entertainment Television

Financial Panel Tenney I . Deane

First Energy Associates

Chris Flor Heller-Oak Communications Corp. Lee M. Hague Hague and Company

Ragan A. Henry Broadcast Enterprises National, Inc. Eugene D. Jackson

National Black Network

Joseph La Bonte Twentieth Century Fox Corp. Thomas A. Marlnkovlch

Daniels and Associates

Raul Masvidal

Biscayne Bank

C. Douglas Mercer II First National Bank of Boston Fernando Oaxaca

Coronado Communications Corp. Marianne Camllle Spragglns Salomon Brothers, Inc. Howard Stason Blackburn and Associates

Donald A. Thurston

Berkshire Broadcasting Company

Zelble Trogden

Security Pacific National Bank Herbert P. Wilkens

Syndicated Communications, Inc.

Management and Technical Assistance Panel

Victor M. Rivera Department of Commerce

Bazil O'Hagan

. The WNDU Stations Fernando Oaxaca Coronado Coomtunlcatlons Corp. Alex P. Mercure Mercure Telecomnninlcatlons, Inc.

Associate Members Eddie Pena National Cable Television Association

John Oxendlne

Broadcast Capital Fund, Inc.
186

STATEMENT OF PHYLLIS TUCKER-VINSON

Ms. TucKER-ViNSON. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on children's programing from my own experience, not only as a

children's television programer, but also as a parent and an educator with a bachelor's degree in child development.

I will condense my statement for your convenience.

Mr. Swift. Thank you.

Ms. Tucker-Vinson. NBC has evolved a programing philosophy

which appreciates that our programs must entertain if we are to attract viewers, including youngsters. At the same time, while we

have no desire to usurp the right and responsibility to educate that

belongs primarily to parents and teachers, our philosophy includes a sensitivity to the informational, educational, and prosocial values our programing provides in response to children's needs. In 1975, NBC established a social science advisory panel of independent, top-ranking social scientists to assist in the development

and evaluation of our Saturday morning programs. This panel

works with NBC from the inception of program concepts and pro- posals through the completion of program development, advising

NBC on potential problems, and suggesting themes and role models

for programs.

In addition, we recently held two symposiums designed to improve the depiction of minority groups in children's programing.

Experts in the areas of stereotyping, development of minority chil- dren, and race relations informed us and the producers and writers

of our Saturday morning programs about recent research in these

important areas. This year, NBC philosophy and programing for children and all family viewing is reflected in a schedule which includes diversity of

programing types and provides animation and live action, comedy

and adventure, fantasy and reality, entertainment and information. As in the past we have tried to avoid stereotyping, gratuitous vio- lence, and negative-role models, while making every effort to incorporate wherever possible wholesome messages, positive-role models,

and ethnic diversity among characters.

In prime-time, the NBC Television network offers a number of

programs designed to provide a viewing experience that children

and their parents can enjoy together. Some of these are described

in my prepared statement. They offer information and enlightenment and include such programs as Little House—A New Beginning", "Voyagers", a series produced in association with Scholastic

Productions; the award-winning "Frame", "Facts of Life", "Different

Strokes", and "Silver Spoons."

NBC has also carried a number of special prime time programs,

such as "Skeezer", the "Electric Grandmother", and "Big Bird in China", which will be referred to in my upcoming visual presentation.

NBC's Saturday morning programing for children consists of animated series and informational features. We believe NBC's Saturday morning schedule provides young viewers with a blend of en-
187

tertainment and information, like the Smurfs and Ask NBC News,

that interest youngsters and is of value to them.

NBC television network also continues to offer its highly ac- claimed series of monthly afternoon specials for young people

called "NBC Special Treat." This series, while designed for chil- dren ages 8 to 14, is consciously structured for parent/child viewing. This year, NBC will expand the scope of the program by pro- viding opportunities for their production by the NBC-owned and

NBC-affiliated stations, and to take young viewers on adventures

all through the United States.

I have brought with me a tape which is representative of some of our efforts for young people.

[A film clip was shown.]

Ms. TucKER-ViNSON. NBC's network programing is only a part of

the total and varied mix of children's programs on television. The

NBC-owned television stations also carry a substantial amount of

locally produced or syndicated children's programs. Some of these

include: "Stuff, "Teen Exchange", "The Beth and Bower Half-Hour",

and "It's Academic", all of which are produced by WRC-TV, our

station here in Washington.

Beyond our on-air efforts, two NBC projects reflect our commitment to work with children, adults, parents, and teachers to make

television an even more positive part of our lives. NBC publishes

and distributes a series of viewers' guides which are designed to aid

the entire audience and in particular young viewers to understand

and take advantage of the many excellent programs on television.

The guides contain descriptive materials about selected programs

and among other things suggest questions implicit in them which

would serve as the basis for class and home discussion. Last year, thousands of copies of over a dozen guides were distributed by NBC

nationwide.

NBC also cosponsors the Dramatic Script Category of Scholastic

Inc.'s National Writing Awards program and has been doing so for several years. This project is designed to encourage excellence in

writing and creative achievement for students in the 7th through

the 12th grade. Students submit original radio, television, or film

scripts, or a one-act play, to a panel of judges. Winners receive

scholarships or cash prizes.

As I have mentioned before, NBC recognizes its special responsibility to young people. Our program department and the NBC

Broadcast Standards Department require that producers be sensitive to the special needs of young people. In addition to an obligation to present positive and prosocial material, there also is an obligation to avoid material that would have an adverse effect on a child's behavior and intellectual and emotional development. Our Broadcast Standards Department directs

and administers a well-established series of standards both for pro- graming and commercial practices which reflect the special sensitivities of the young audience.

Over the years children's programing has changed and evolved

as we have learned from our experiences and listened to our critics,

colleagues, and our audiences. NBC intends to continue, as we have

in the past, to find new and different ways to serve children, to
188

blend into a total schedule which serves them as well as their famiiS. That concludes my presentation.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tucker-Vinson follows:]

lies.
189

Prepared Statement of Phylus Tucker-Vinson, Vice President, Children's

Programming, NBC Television Network

I am grateful to the Conunittee for this opportunity to speak on children's programming from my own experience,

not only as a children's television programmer, but also as

a parent and an educator with a Bachelor's Degree in child

development.

NBC has evolved a programming philosophy which

appreciates that our programs must entertain if we are to attract viewers, including youngsters. At the same time —

while we have no desire to usurp the right and responsibility

to educate that belongs primarily to parents and teachers —

our philosophy includes a sensitivity to the informational,

educational, and pro-social values our programming provides

in response to children's needs.

NBC's programming philosophy has evolved as we have

listened and learned from children, their parents and their

teachers. We have also listened and learned from our critics,

from producers, and from other broadcasters. And in 1975 NBC established a Social Science Advisory Panel of independent

top ranking social scientists to assist in the development and

evaluation of our Saturday morning programs. This panel

works with NBC from the inception of program concepts and

proposals through the completion of program development,

advising NBC on potential problems and suggesting themes

20-006 O - 83 - 13
190

and role models for programs. In addition, we recently held

two symposiums designed to improve the depictions of

minority groups in children's programs. Experts in the areas

of stereotyping, development of minority children, and race relations informed us, and the producers and writers of our Saturday morning programs about recent research in these important

areas.

This year NBC's philosophy on programming for children

and all-family viewing is reflected in a schedule which

includes a diversity of program types and provides animation

and live action, comedy and adventure, fantasy and reality,

entertainment and information. And, as in the past, we have

tried to avoid stereotyping, gratuitous violence and negative

role models, while making every effort to incorporate,

wherever possible, pro-social messages, positive role models,

and ethnic diversity among the characters.

Thus, in prime time the NBC Television Network offers

a number of programs designed to provide a viewing experience

that children and their parents can enjoy together. Some of

these are:

Little House - A New Beginning — The heartwarming

dramatic series which centers around the pioneer

Ingalls family in the late 1870 's and the events

that take place in their lives as they work and play

in the infant communities of the U.S. The weekly

episodes recount the love and warmth exhibited by
191

the Ingalls family, the hard work and sacrifice

involved in starting a new life, preparation for

prairie schools, natural disasters, meeting

neighbors, and making new friends.

Voyagers

— An adventure series about two "time

travelers" who take incredible journeys back in time

and witness various events in history. This series was produced in association with Scholastic

Productions, and at the conclusion of each program

young viewers are urged to visit their local library

and find out more about the subject of the night's

program. Fame — A musical/dramatic series centering on the

talented and high-spirited students of New York's

High School for the Performing Arts. The energetic

teenagers aspire to various show business careers, but all share the problems and the exhilarations

of the special life they have chosen. The

youngsters learn more than technical ability at

the school; they learn how to deal with competition

and rejection, and they learn how to support and

respect each other.

The Facts of Life — A situation comedy in which

a housekeeper accepts a temporary position as housemother to five teenage girls at the Eastland

private school, a college preparatory school for

young women. As housemother, she is mother,

confidante, and all-around advisor and problem

solver. Problems of concern to children and young

teens are generally the subject of each episode

which are looked at with common sense, warmth, and

good humor.

Diff'rent Strokes — A situation comedy which seeks

to promote racial understanding about a millionaire

widower with a 13-year-old daughter who lives in a swank New York City penthouse and who adopts two small Black boys, sons of his late housekeeper.

Silver Spoons — A situation comedy about an immature father whose 12-year-old son comes to live

with him and tries to help his dad grow up while the

dad tries to help his serious little boy get more

fun out of life.

NBC has also carried a number of special prime time
192

programs, such as Skeezer , The Electric Grandmother , and

Big Bird in China , which will be referred to in my upcoming

visual presentation.

NBC's Saturday morning programming for children

consists of animated series and informational features. The current season includes a new ninety (90) minute edition of

the popularly acclaimed SMURFS series, which has seized the

imagination of the American public. Each of the programs, which features the adventures of tiny, blue elf -like Smurfs,

the lessons they learn in living with each other and their

battles against the Wizard Gargamel and his cat Azrael,

consists of three separate stories and light classical music

in its background score. The Emmy-Award winning series

Ask NBC News , in which NBC News correspondents answer questions on current events and news-related subjects posed

by young people from across the nation, is broadcast five

times each Saturday morning. We believe NBC's Saturday

morning schedule provides young viewers with a blend of

entertainment and information that interests youngsters

and is of value to them.

The NBC Network also continues to offer its highlyacclaimed series of monthly, afternoon specials for young

people, called NBC's Special Treat . The series, while

designed for children ages 8 to 14, is consciously structured

for parent/child viewing. One of the goals of the series
193

is to provide an opportunity for this co-viewing and a springboard for discussion. The Special Treat series has

received numerous awards, including seven awards from ACT. This year NBC will expand the scope of the programs by

providing opportunities for their production by the NBC

owned and NBC affiliated stations and to take young viewers

on adventures all around the United States.

[Play tape of programs for children]

NBC's Network programming is only a part of the

total and varied mix of children's programs on television.

The NBC owned television stations also carry a substantial amount of locally produced or syndicated children's

programs. Some of these programs include:

Stuff — This 30-minute program hosted by two 15-year-olds, Beth Arnold and Oteil Burbridge,

is designed for children 12 and under. Each

week these co-hosts present information about

careers, television advertising, safety, good

nutrition, sports, and the world around them.

The program is produced by WRC-TV in Washington. Teen Exchange — A weekly half hour teen talk

show by teens for teens. The format involves

the teenage audience into the topics discussed

and provides a forum for them to voice their

opinions on issues affecting their lives today

and in the future. Teen Exchange topics run the

gamut from the impact of video games on them

to music, sports careers, nuclear power, divorce,

and shoplifting, as well as numerous other ideas.

The Beth and Bower Half-Hour —A series for young

viewers between the ages of 7 and 10, features

Beth, a secondary school student and her life-
194

size puppet "Bower". Each week's program helps

develop the self-esteem of young viewers by

emphasizing the individual's basic goodness and

intellectual and creative potential. The programalso features original, basic cooking, crafts

and art and poetry contributed by local elementary

.school students.

It's Academic — A half-hour weekly question and answer show designed to display scholastic

achievements of Washington-area youth in a quick

recall of facts and abstract thinking on each

program, features three carefully selected teams

of students from local high schools as competing

participants. The show is designed in three rounds

as the moderator directs questions to the teams playing against the clock.

Beyond our on-air efforts, two NBC projects reflect our commitment to work with children, adults, parents and

teachers to make television an even more positive part of our lives. NBC publishes and distributes a series of

Viewers' Guides which are designed to aid the entire audience

and, in particular, younger viewers, to understand and take

advantage of the many excellent programs on television. The

Guides contain descriptive material about selected programs

and, among other things, suggest questions implicit in them

which could serve as the basis for class and home discussion. Last year, thousands of copies of over a dozen guides were distributed by NBC nationwide.

NBC also co-sponsors the Dramatic Script Category of Scholastic Inc.'s National Writing Awards program and has

been doing so for several years. This project is designed

to encourage excellence in writing and creative achievement
195

for students in the seventh through twelfth grades. Students

submit original radio, television or film scripts, or a one-act play, to a panel of judges. Winners receive

scholarships or cash prizes.

As I have mentioned before, NBC recognizes its

special responsibility to young people. Our program

department and the NBC Broadcast Standards Department

require that producers be sensitive to the special needs

of young people. In addition to an obligation to present

positive and pro-social material, there also is an obligation

to avoid material that would have an adverse effect on a child's behavior and intellectual and emotional development.

Our Broadcast Standards Department directs and administers

a well-established series of standards both for programming

and commercial practices which reflect the special

sensitivities of the child audience.

Over the years children's programming has changed and

evolved as we have learned from our experiences and listened

to our critics, colleagues, and our audiences. NBC intends

to continue, as we have in the past, to find new and

different ways to serve children, to blend into a total

schedule which serves them as well as their families.

That concludes my presentation.
196

Mr. Swift. Thank you very much.

As we indicated, time is running out, and I will not ask any questions. I would give the panel this one opportunity of 2 minutes, if there are any of the things in the previous discussion that any of

you would like to comment on at this point, I would be happy to hear your comments.

Mr. Blessington. I would just comment that in listening to the

previous presenters and the questions from the committee, I was

struck, as I have been, by the fact that it is very difficult for the

industry to come off on the right of the argument if it talks about

decreased presentation of specific programing to children, and that seems to be a track that we run around a fair amount in this.

I would just like to comment that having recently left teaching,

there is much that has been said that I don't recognize. That is to

say, there are points at issue about things about children and tele- vision, and what they need, that it is an awful and terrible deprivation, which I guess I haven't shared as a teacher, parent, or schoolhead.

I don't say that to be at all in terms of not joining in m the care

of children, I have had that for years. I sought to work in this in- dustry because I wanted to build bridges to it. But there are some

things about the current state of children and their learning which

makes television so wonderful as it is, and as the industry attempts

to make it. I hear a rather depressing display of opinion with regard to the

downside of it, and I haven't heard enough celebration of the

upside for me, anyway.

Mr. MiELKE. I tried to show some of the upside. It is with very

great pleasure that we acknowledge the Federal support that we

have received in the past for funding for programing by the Children's Television Workshop.

In a previous incarnation, when I was on the faculty of Indiana

University, I did some policy research studying the question of the

Federal role in funding children's television programing, and we

examined in some detail the various options that there are to answer various funding questions.

My bottom line on that, and it is reinforced by what I hear

today, is that the Federal Government is the funder of last resort

for those special categories of people, children, who cannot be

served through the marketplace mechanisms, who cannot receive

continuing support through philanthropic organizations and corpo- rate underwriting. So we really place ourselves at the hands of the

Federal Government for the long term.

Mr. Swift. Dr. Robinson, you may have the last word.

Ms. Robinson. I think that the NBA has been involved with and

has endorsed programs that appear on every commercial networks

as well as on public broadcasting, and with cable, and this would

suggest that there is something of value out there. We have a problem of getting information and letting our students, parents, and

our colleagues know more about what is out there, and working

with the industry so that we can provide a standard of programing

which is consistent, predictable, and easily accessible by all the

viewers who need this programing.
197

Mr. Swift. I thank you all.T think that this has been a particularly useful set of hearings due to the quality of presentation that

has been provided by all of the witnesses. We would especially like to thank ABC Television for the provision of the video equipment

here today.

The committee stands adjourned.

[The following statement and letters were received for the

record:]
198

The Washington Association for Television and Children

The Washington Association for Television and Children (WATCH) is pleased

the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Consumer Protection and Finance

is addressing the issue of children's television and we thank you for the

opportunity to present our views.

Recently FCC Commissioner Mark Fowler posed the question: "What do they

want?" -- they being the media reform community. We offer our answer to that

question in hopes that what we say will stimulate discussion and action and

not merely be part of a procedure which transfers information from our typewriters to a shelf, with only the fact of the transfer acknowledged.

"What we want" can be covered under five headings:

1. Appropriate service to that portion of the audience considered to be children;

2. Scheduling of this service at appropriate times throughout the week;

3. Restraint of commercialization;

4. Wide dissemination of information about how to use television, particularly critical viewing skills; and

5. Federal government assumption of its unique role -- that of acting for the good of the whole society and balancing the intended and unintended effects of the parts against each other.

We would like to expand upon each of these items and offer some specific

recommendations.
199

APPROPRIATE SERVICE TO CHILDREN

WATCH defines children's programming as including (1) those programs

expressly designed for a child audience (the definition adopted by the FCC),

(2) those programs watched by a large number of children, (3) those programs

which have been made into cartoons such as Mork and Mindy or Gilligan's

Island , and (4) those programs which generate lines of toys for marketing to

children such as the Dukes of Hazzard . WATCH also believes it is appropriate

to define children as a wider group than the "two- to eleven-year-old market."

We would include adolescents in the wider group due to the fact their needs

only partially overlap with those of an adult audience. WATCH sees childhood

as a developmental continuum and we stress that arbitrary divisions into preschool, school age, and adolescent are convenient groupings rather than

actual categories.

Bearing this in mind, we are disappointed to report that even the

limited definitions and limited service standards contained in The Federal

Communications Report and Policy Statement of 1974 are not reflected in the

current offerings for children on television. At this writing there is not

one regularly scheduled children's program on network television on a weekday.

Furthermore, the amount of age-specific programming offered on the weekends

has actually declined either through elimination ( CBS News for Children ) or

restructuring ( Captain Kangaroo ). The marketplace is the most inexorable of

regulators — dismissing all the complexity of a standard like the "public interest, convenience and necessity" in favor of the deceptively simple quantitative
200

measure called the "bottom line." The present state of children's TV is the

best argument for regulation. Without government regulation what we have is

just about what we should expect -- almost nothing.

What we would like is another matter. Look at the shelves of a children's

library. You will find thousands of books divided by subject matter and reading

level. This is a good beginning when we look for a standard of diversity.

Television has an even wider range of capabilities than the public library when

it comes to children who do not yet read or who do not read well. This latter

group includes both those in the early grades and those older children who read

far below grade level. For these children, television is a primary if not the primary source of information about the world.

Unfortunately, television is likely to provide children, under the guise

of entertainment, with misinformation about the world. Who pays the costs when young boys grow up with the model of the car chase or the motorcycle daredevil

antics of our popular programs? Who pays the cost of alienation of a poor or disadvantaged child who grows up thinking that most families are like the

Brady Bunch, with the lifestyle of a six-figure income and parents who are

never too hassled to listen? Who pays the cost of the little girl who sees

women on television through the filter of today's prime time sex stereotypes

or yesterday's stereotypes on the syndicated reruns? Who pays the cost for

the primacy of fists and guns as means of resolving conflict? Who pays the

costs of a child's perceptual dissonance when sound effects and camera angles stimulate the attention for the upcoming commercial but there is no corresponding
201

stimulation in the story line? Who pays the costs of creating expectations

that problems are solvable in thirty or sixty minutes, with time for commercials?

Not the boradcaster or the advertiser. These are not costs reflected in

their bottom lines. WATCH is not asking for censorship but rather for a set of

positive standards to be applied to the broadcast services provided for children

and young people.

SCHEDULING

Many times parents have called WATCH with these questions: "I'd like to

be a responsible parent with regard to what my child sees but most of the time

there's nothing on that I think is appropriate. Is my only choice to say 'NO

TV?" Or, "Why do they schedule children's specials in the evening at 8:00?

It's much too late to let them stay up." Or, "My kids lose out on children's

programs because they have activities on Saturday morning. They're home after

school but there's usually nothing on for them then." The Federal Communications

Commission Children's Television Task Force Report , issued in 1979, stated

that independent stations and public stations were bearing most of the responsibility for programming for children during the week. In addition to the

obvious disparity of services between these and the network stations, it must

be noted that not everyone can receive these stations. Many independent and

public stations are UHF and do not come in clearly. Communities in smaller

markets may not be served at all by either an independent or a public station.
202

A number of years ago, Action for Children's Television suggested that a

minimum of two hours a day be devoted to children's television on each station.

WATCH concurs in this recommendation and notes that many millions of children

have passed through the stages of pre-school , school age and adolescence since

these recommendations were made. It is too late to provide appropriate programming and scheduling for them. How much longer must today's children wait?

Recommendations for scheduling are simple: there should be enough programming

for children scheduled and it should be scheduled for the convenience of the

audience rather than the advertiser.

RESTRAINT OF COMMERCIALIZATION

Ideally children's programming would be offered on a sustaining basis,

free of commercials. Several years ago the Federal Trade Commission took up

the question of whether or not it was "fair" to advertise to young children at

all and the Commission was very nearly put out of business in the ensuing storm.

WATCH hopes the discussion is not shelved. It is a serious question which

deserves a fair hearing.

A small anecdote is in order here. WATCH' s president Mary Ann Banta

showed the film "Seeing Through Commercials" to her class of pre-schoolers.

The children asked to see the film again and indicated that they had understood

its message. Then, in the next breath, they wanted to buy the nonexistent

advertised products! On one hand the children understood the manipulation of

the product but they were unable to sense the media's manipulation of their

wants and desires.
203

WATCH recommends that, under a system where commercials provide for the

sponsorship of children's programs, the following constraints be observed:

Commercials should be clustered at the beginning and end of programs with clear signals that this is a commercial break. This provides some buffer between program and commercial and avoids the problem of special effects hype preceeding the commercial

.

Commercials on children's programs are predominantly for

toys, snack foods and cereals (usually sugared). WATCH rec- commends the addition of a wider range of edibles and that public service announcements on nutrition balance these

messages.

Commercials on television often put the child in the role of

salesperson. Advertisements aimed toward parents, or emphasizing parents' roles in determining purchases are preferable.

When the FCC considered guidelines for children, it declined to intervene

in the area of commercials because the National Association of Broadcasters

Code already provided the guidance necessary. Since then the NAB Code has

been found unconstitutional, and it is recommended that other ways be found to

compensate for the relaxation of the rules for advertisements of products intended for children.

Special problems arise when products and programs are closely associated.

Although host selling restrictions provide some constraint, other situations

are not addressed. The Smerfs and The Dukes of Hazzard , to name two examples,

are lines of toys as well as television programs. It may be said that the

whole program in these cases serves a commercial function. Cross-ownership of

broadcasting companies and toy manufacturers complicates the issue. Serious

study needs to be given to the best means of protecting the interests of the

child consumer in these areas.
204

WATCH would also like to draw attention to the background messages and

settings of commercials. Products often are shown in highly idealized or wery

wealthy settings to indicate that it is a good product. The elusive promise

of belonging, of friends and even romance if you just have the right snacks,

toys or what-have-you is questionable in any advertisement. It is a cruel joke

on children. Also, advertisements featuring groups of children should include

both sexes and a mix of races. Few jobs or activities are segregated and it

is a disservice to create expectations that they are segregated in a pluralistic

society.

Some of these problems are appropriate for government regulation; others

for self-regulation. WATCH recommends that rules and policies be generated to

strengthen rather than weaken the self-regulatory capacity of the advertisers.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE

WATCH highly recommends the promotion of critical viewing skills and other

means to provide children and adults with the information they need to evaluate

television and its effects on their lives and on their communities. One should

not have to attend a course in communications theory to hear questions posed about

the form as well as the content of information. Because television is such a

major part of children's lives, it is essential that some instruction be devoted

to its use and abuse. WATCH applauds the efforts undertaken to develop critical

viewing skills curricula and encourages its expansion. This topic needs to be

included in the preparatory coursework of teachers.
205

WATCH has itself prepared critical viewing skills materials (samples of

which are included in the appended issue of WATCHWORKS) for pre-school through

sixth grade. The examples are designed to be included in English classes or

social studies classes without requiring the teacher to make major changes in

the syllabus.

The United States has a good record of informing citizens about public

health questions, proper nutrition and other aspects of a healthy physical

environment. Providing information about the attainment of a healthy social

environment is also a necessary function. Before anyone remembers that it is

almost 1984, it is appropriate to mention that Orwell's Appendix on Newspeak

showed a constriction rather than an expansion of the vocabulary for speaking

and thinking. Television's form is geared to creating a favorable tool for

the commercial message. If television itself does not provide the tools for

critical viewing, they must come from other sources — primarily those of

formal and informal education. If these tools are to be widely disseminated

they will require financial support from the government. It is taken for

granted it is not feasible to provide this education on television so other

sectors of society must participate.

THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

WATCH requests that the Congress take the broad view of its responsibilities

regarding children and television. Only the federal government has the requisite scope to act on behalf of the whole of society. Other constituencies have

more influence than children; they can make their needs appear more dramatic or

20-006 0-83-14
206

more pressing. But, we cannot ignore the welfare of children just because it

tends to come behind "unemployment" or "the national defense" on surveys of

public opinion. Television has a major effect on our society and particularly

on the children of our society because they are more impressionable, because

they watch more than all other age groups except the elderly and because they

represent the future of our society. It is not reasonable to ask the producer

of a particular program or the management of a network or a station to look for

and counteract the less desirable effects of the medium. They respond in terms

of their own self-interest, e.g., television does not cause violent human

behavior, but television does influence buying behavior. It is therefore up

to a larger vision to consider these issues.

For example, if we look at the Grand Canyon, we see a result that has

taken many years of interaction of rain, wind and heat. Someone who observed

that area for a day or a week or a year would not see much effect. The time

period is too short. In similar fashion, we can't look at the cumulative

effects of television on a child's development in terms of a program or a

season. Even less can we see cumulative effects from a program or a season on

society. Long-term research is needed, and on a large scale or we simply won't

know the effects. If we don't know, we cannot take steps to correct imbalances,

offset destructive tendencies or predict future behavior. We are symied by the

lack of evidence meeting the rigorous standards of physics, especially in monitoring an appropriate range of variables. It might help to approach the

question by asking how can we compensate for unintended or undesirable effects
207

rather than how can we fix blame on the misbehaving individual or corporation.

If a set of positive standards is reached, then the individual or corporation

can be held to them. If everyone must meet the same standards, there will be

objections but then companies will adapt with minimal effect on their profits.

Society has larger concerns than maintaining an industry's conventions or

its profits. How far can poorly informed citizens be pushed before the

democratic process collapses? How robust can a society be if its habitual

thought patterns reflect the simple world of television drama instead of life's

complex actual situations? Is it possible to grow up on a news format which

talks of a celebrity divorce and a coup d'etat in a foreign country with equal

emphasis on Monday night and mentions neither Tuesday? With this background

can one notice trends or classify the importance of events? If television's

format remains sacrosanct, what other media must be developed to fill the gap?

To what extent is government itself bending to the criteria of entertaining to

the detriment of informing the people -- witness the State of the Union message

and the Democrats' reply. How will our children learn to understand the

processes of government, the place of the United States in world affairs or the

means of adapting to an accelerating rate of social and technological change to

fulfill their responsibilities as citizens when they are adults? How does

television help or hinder that process? These are questions that must be addressed on a scale broad enough to take into account the whole of society.

Let's face the issue that the marketplace does not meet the needs of

children. Without pressure of regulation, Saturday morning would be the only
208

time network affiliates find it profitable to air chilren's programs.

Commissioner Fowler has said that a flaw in The Task Force Report of 1979 was

that it did not take public broadcasting services into account. We ask, how

could the Task Force Report have done so and retain any semblance of compatabil ity

with the provisions in the Communications Act, or, for that matter, any legal

precedents of licensure. To do so would violate the spirit and letter of the

responsibility of an individual licensee by placing the locus of control of

its actions outside its agreements. And, how can Commissioner Fowler justify

placing a public service burden only on those commercial stations operating in

communities where there is no public or independent stations?

Commissioner Fowler in his speech talked about the "myth" of trusteeship.

We disagree. Portions of a law which are enforced loosely, or hardly at all, do

not disappear. They wait for caretakers of government with either the responsibility to enforce the law or the gumption to try to repeal it. Previous

Commissions have operated by a wink and a nod. Some made no bones about their

reluctance to place any burdens on the broadcasting industry they expected to

join. Others took their responsibilities to the public more seriously but

preferred persuasion rather than invoking the penalties attendent on strict

enforcement with the limited number of sanctions available. We would like to

remind Commissioner Fowler that broadcasting is not like other businesses.

Trusteeship is not a quaint do-gooder idea but was a trade-off. Trusteeship

is the price the broadcaster is to pay for exclusive use of one of the very

limited spaces on the spectrum and for the government's protection of that

right.
209

It would be tempting, but a mistake, to say that cable, video disk and

other advances make this a moot point. When the majority of the public has

access to these alternatives there will be plenty of time to make their capabilities the base for telecommunications policy. (Look at the networks' own

projections of their market shares over the next ten, twenty, thirty years.)

The job of protecting the public interest in telecommunications can only

be done by the federal government. No other government has jurisdiction and

no other component in society has the mandate. It certainly cannot be done

by the media reform community. None of us have the resources. This testimony

was drafted on the weekend on volunteer time. We were not informed about

these hearings in time to request the opportunity to present oral testimony.

WATCH has no staff at all and has a budget small enough to be an embarrassment.

Other groups who testify may have a small staff and a larger budget than ours

but they are still small potatoes indeed in comparison to the resources of the

industry or the government. No group, it must be stressed, is in the position

even to undertake the research needed or even the coordination of research

findings needed to assemble a composite picture of the effects of television on

the children of our society. Most of the research that we cite as documentation

of our concern was undertaken on a piecemeal basis and most of it was concerned

with analyzing specific results of monitoring projects. A wider view is needed.

Parents and teachers have come under fire for a number of things they

haven't done. On the one hand, they are criticized for not taking more responsibility for children's television. But, both parents and teachers have many
210

responsibilities. As a rule, it requires several years to become familiar

enough with communications issues to be creditable. Involved teachers and

parents have been blamed for saying that television is the only major influence

on children and that it is responsible for all of their problems. Must such a

claim be proven for action to be taken? We do claim that of all the major

influences on the majority of children -- home, school, church and community --

that television is perhaps the only one whose interests are so in contradiction

to the welfare of children.

We thank the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Consumer Protection and

Finance for holding this hearing. We respectfully submit that Congress must

ACT! The Federal Communications Commission's position is on record. We have

done what we can to say what it is that we want for children. We have raised

questions and concerns and have been honest about our own limitations for

achieving change or redressing an imbalance. We now ask Congress to act on

behalf of the children who have never heard of WATCH but who have heard of and

do watch television.

To summarize, WATCH believes it is important that program services for

children be provided and that they be scheduled at times appropriate for

children to watch. We also ask for restraints on commercialization of messages

to children and for help in teaching children to apply critical viewing skills.

Finally, we ask for the federal government to assume the role of acting for

society as a whole, and particularly for those members who are most vulnerable

and have the least influence on the lawmaking process -- our children.
211

NATIONAL COALITION ON TELEVISION VIOLENCE

Board ol Olneton Thomas RadecM, M.D., NCTV Chairperson Southern Illinois Unlv School of Medicine Grace C. Balslnger

National PTA Past President John fl. Lion. M.D . Founder. Violence Clinic Depl. ot Psychiatry. Unlv, ot Maryland Townes Osborn. President Washington Assoc, tor Television and Children Nelson Price. Public Media Director United Methodist Communications Sam Simon, Executive Director Telecommunications Research and Action Center

Sally Steenland. Women's Issues Consultant

Nawslatler & Monltortng Office:

Dr. Thomas Radecki. M D. National Coalition on TV Violence 600 E ParK Ave

P O. Box 2157 Champaign. IL 61820 (217) 359-8235 Washington Office: National Coalition on TV Violence

1530 P. Street N W,

P.O. Box 12038 Washington, DC. 20005 (202) 462-0515

Chairman Timothy Wlrth

Subconmiittee on Telecommunications,

Consumer Protection, & Finance

B-331 RHOB Washington DC 20515

March 16, 1983

Dear Chairman Wlrth,

As part of the record for this hearing on Children and Television, The National Coalition on Television Violence would like to submit our most

recent monitoring results on violence portrayed during prime time and Saturday morning viewing hours. The statistics present the average of violent acts per program during our monitoring period.

I feel these statistics, and accompanying program descriptions, present

an accurate picture of what is being daily broadcast into our homes - violence as entertainment. What is most alarming about these findings

is that the most violent programing of all is presented on Saturday morning and intended for the child viewer.

The Coalition is greatly concerned about the high amounts of violence

employed by networks to entertain the children of this country. Recently

The National Institute of Mental Health released a ten year study on the affects of televlRrion on viewers. The study found that "the consensus among most of the research community is that violence on television does

lead to aggressive behaviour by children and teenagers who watch the

(violent) programs."

It is my hope that the results that have been submitted will encourage

this subcommittee to further investigation into this situation.
212

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely, '^^^:^ TfuJt^— Brian Malloy Washington Director

High Violence Programs (Sept. 27-Dec. 26 1982)

1. Fall Guy (ABC) 34 acts/hour

2. Tales of the Gold Monkey (ABC) 31 acts/hour

3. Voyagers (NBC) 30 acts/hour

4. Gavilan (NBC) 27 acts/hour

5. Dukes of Hazzard (CBS) 23 acts/hour

6. Greatest American Hero (ABC) 22 acts/hour

7. T.J. Hooker (ABC) 20 acts/hour

8. Simon and Simon (CBS) 20 acts/hour

9. Magnum P.I. (CBS) 19 acts/hour

lO.Knightriders (NBC) 18 acts/hour
213

WhBther'ifs^eaA ,'' or a6esteiUftbn*.-.-.i- ^v -•:

someone's s/tvBjSafterGBvmn] He's Stwaysrahot spot . MChcSencs..^ All Your Time Is Prime Time

. .Think About It. \ Recipe for Murder:

Combine-. 1 poisonous food critic 4 diefe who TOnl his head on a [iate mend m an cicplceion of Mactoail and reven«<

Yield; 1 bizarre murderer who puts heat on Matt Houaoa

GIL GERARD MIEAR

March 13-19, 1983

y^
214

Remaining High Violence Programs:

11. ABC Monday Night Movie 19 12. The Quest(ABC) 1'

13. Matt Houston(ABC) i^ Hart to HartCABC;

NBC Sunday Night Movie

Fancar;- Tsland(ASC) ABC Sunday Night Movie

CBS Saturday Night Movie

CBS Sunday Night Movie

ABC Friday Night Movie Tucker's Witch (CBS) Walt Disney(CBS) Powers of Matthew Star-NBC U

Hill Street Blues(NBC)

25.i,Cagney & Lacey(CBS)

26. The Devlin Connection(NBC)

CBS Tuesday Nifeht Movie

CBS Wednesday Night Movie

Violent Movies on Prime-time Included:

14.

1 s. 16.

17.

18. 19. 20. 21.

22. 23.

24.

27.

28.

17

17

16

15Ij

15

141312

Battle Beyond the Stars The Big Red One

The Shadow Riders

Moonraker

The Outlaw Josie Wales

Every Which Way But Loose

The Blue and the Gray, Pt The Blues Brothers

Dr. No Blazing Saddles

The Gauntlet

The Blue & the Gray, Pt 2 Honeyboy Deadly Encounter My Bodyguard

The Final Countdown

Love at Fist Bite

An ima l HoUSe

Smokey and the Bandit II

56

534743

40

38

36

3634

3434

2927

24

1918

17

1616
215

James A. Fellows

5807 Massachusetts Avenue

Bethesda, Maryland 20816

March 14, 1983

The Honorable Timothy Wirth, Chairman

Subcommittee on Telecomunications.

Consumer Protection and Finetnce

The Rayburn Building B333

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This week, as you convene hearings on the occasion of

National Children and Television Week, we are writing

to tell you about an important initiative for children

and television - The Americcui Children's Television

Festival.

The idea grows from three sources: first, the focus

you are providing through endorsement of this special

%reek for children's television; second, from our many

years of professional work associated with children's

television; auid, third, from our role for several

years as the United States Board members of the Prix

Jeunesse International.

The Prix Jeunesse is a serious, ongoing effort to bring together fr<»B around the world, producers,

broadcasters, researchers and educators, who are making sustained efforts to advance the use of

televison for children and young people.

Prix Jeunesse is not just another television awards

progreuB. it involves research, elaborate screening

and evaluation, euid a conscientious effort to examine

critical issues associated with children's television.

It is a major international activity, housed in

Munich, zmd spcnisored by civic and broadcasting

organizations in West Germany. (Background

information is attached.)
216

We believe that this concept can be usefully adapted

to the United States and might easily be broadened to

include Canada. The Prix Jeunesse officials have

expressed their willingness to assist in such a development

.

To this end, we have initiated discussions with

several major educational groups, broadcasters and

university leaders to seek their initial response and

interest. The reactions have all been highly

favorable

.

What we see emerging might look like this:

- An American (possibly North American)

Children's Television Festival, organized under

the aegis of one of our leading universities.

- Every second year, a screening and competition

of programs submitted by public broadcasters,

independent producers, commercial broadcasters,

and cable programmers. Unlike many other awards

competitions, the screening would be done by

producers and specialists in children's

television, educators, and parents, with full

discussion and evaluation of programs. People

and orgeuiizations whose programs receive high

commendation would be given appropriate awards.

- On an ongoing basis, the Festival would

organize seminars and workshops for various

professional interests associated with children's

television programs: producers, researchers,

writers, critics, legislators, teachers, parents,

and psychologists. Some of these activities

could result in publications.

In short, we see the Festival serving as a focal point

for the growing community of interest in advancing and

exploiting all forms of television for the benefit of

children and young people.
217

We want it to include commercial emd non-coimnercial

broadcasters as well as the cable industry. We think

there is a great deal to be learned from each other

and we think that a Festival framework, that centers

attention and deliberation on the specifics of

particular programs and series, is the most useful way

to facilitate these exchanges.

We are mindful of the effective work that other

organizations are doing to focus public attention on children's televison and we are confident that an American Children's Television Festival will

complement and enhance these important efforts.

We shall keep you posted on the progress of these

initiatives. We hope that you will find them a strong

complement to your own personal interests in the

steady improvement of efforts to use television wisely

on behalf of children and young people.

We are actively pursuing this idea. We would like to

see it succeed. And, of course, we would very much

appreciate any attention and support that you feel

could be appropriately incorporated in the

Sub-Committee's hearings this week.

With personal regards.

Sincerely,

James A. Fellows Paul K. Taff

Members of the International Advisory Board

The Prix Jeunesse Foundation

Attachments

:

Copies for Members of the Sub-Committee

Prix Jeunesse Information Sheet

Background information about Mr. Taff and Mr. Fellows

[Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]

O
5„sion ro«uc tij;"'

3 9999 00281 647 6

i'

Boston Public Library

COPLEY SQUARE

GENFT? 1 T lAiBariUilY

i

The DateT5ue Card in the pocket indi- cates the date on or before which this

book should be returned to the Library.

Please do not remove cards from this

i