From: To: A16.A16(kidstv) Date: 10/14/95 7:25pm Subject: Proposed Rulings To Whom It May Concern, It has recently come to my attention that the FCC has proposed a new series of rulings designed to address the issue of children's televsion programming. As a student of Ithaca College, I feel compelled to respond to this issue and your proposed rulings. The first proposal that would inform watchers of children's televison of a "contact person" is a good idea, yet I feel that it would be necessary for the name to be aired after every children's program so that parents or supervisors of children would be able to get in touch with the person responsible for every individual station's broadcasting. This would enable parents to have input into what their children are exposed to and the content of that material rather than have them resort to some other method such as the proposed v-chip. Ginia Bellafante, in her July 1995 article in "Time" asserts that "...forcing all T.V. to conform to a safe for kids standard seems a bit unfair to adults." With the implementation of the v-chip, the issue of censorship arises. However, allowing parents a means for input on what their children are watching and combining it with the ideas of other parents, the programming would not only improve in quality, parents would appreciate being able to address concerns. The October 1994 article "Media Violence" cites the statistics of the American Psychological Association: "...if children watch two to four hours of TV a day, they will have witnessed 8,000 murders and more than 100,000 other acts of violence by the time they finish elementary school." The author of this "Parents" article, Anita Diament contests that "There is no way to insulate children from violent media images"; what of tthe research done by "TV Guide's" Center for Media and Public Affairs, also cited in this article, that "an act of violence occurs every six minutes on television".I do not feel as though it is necesaary to limit acts of violence but it is necessary to provide more informational and educational programming that is entertaining to children. Perhaps conferring with teachers and psychologists, as well as the entertainment industry would make this possible. This kind of programming would draw attention away from the lure of violence because programming specifically aimed at children with an educational and entertainment slant would please both children and their parents. However, as for your second proposal, identifying that the show is educational and informative at airing time wold most likely turn kids off to that program.As an eight year old, I would have turned any program off that advertised it would be "informative". Perhaps, specific phrasing would prevent potential viewers from switching channels, or just listing the program as educational and informing in programming guides would be effective. Letting the audience know where to acquire a listing of staion programmig for children would be effective if broadcast over the air at such times it would be likely that adults would be watching. Having this listing "easily acessible" also seems positive. As for the Commission's other proposals involving thew monitoring of stations, I feel as though this is a necessary evil because the Children's Television Act of 1990 incorperated some of the things in this proposal, yet there was not a significant increase in the educational quality of children's programming and actually instead of the three requisite hours per week of quality shows (Wulf, Steve "Televison:From Power Rangers to powerless regulators:the medium is mistreating children". "Time", June 26, 1995) such shows as the controversial "Power Rangers" appeared. According to Leslie Prawd, author of "The Negative Effects of Television on Children", a "...graduate from High School will have spent 11,000 hours in the classroom and 15,000 watching television"("International Journal of Instructional Media, Volume 22, Number 3, 1995). With television moving toward the basis of education of children, albeit indirectly, stations have a responsibilty to provide for and meet the needs of these viewers who will learn more from the extra 4,000 hours watching television then in school. Due to this figure, the FCC has its own obligation to watch and monitor the stations to make sure they are meeting this obligation. Perhaps a sunset would be beneficial on this issue, but only with the understanding that if after the monitoring has ceased, the quality children's programming would not. Logically, a programming standard would be the best choice in this situation, however, I think that allowing the 'sponsership' of the allotment of programming hours onto another station would not be acceptable. Certain stations have specific reputations and children, ever open to the winds of tend, would perhaps protest to watching a station that traditionally has a reputation of 'uncool' programming. By sponsering educational programming on another station, the stations that kids consider cool could continue with the same programming they have now, forcing the educational programming to compete with current cartoons and such and therefore condemm the FCC attempt to upgrade childrens TV to oblivion. In closing I would like to ask, what ever happened to the great shows i grew up on? Shows like "3-2-1 Contact", "Square One", and as I got older "Degrassi Jr. High". These shows proved that good television programming is possible. However, imagine the intrest if EVERY station had fun, 'educational and informative' programs...thrilled parents, and if the content was as good as the aforementioned shows, ecstatic children. Thank you for your time, Elyse Springer Eastman 208 Ithaca College 953 Danby Road Ithaca NY 14850 CC: FCCMAIL.SMTP("massmedia@liber.edu")