NEWS March 16, 1995 Commissioner Chong Calls for New Approaches in Children's Television Commissioner Rachelle B. Chong, speaking to the World Summit on Television and Children in Melbourne, Australia, urged broadcasters to step forward with new ways to improve children's television -- "ones that they can live with, ones that are good for our children." Reviewing the history of children's television regulation in the United States, Commissioner Chong suggested that new approaches may be necessary. Speaking to delegates from more than sixty-seven countries, Commissioner Chong emphasized that "parents, educators, broadcasters, program producers and government must work together to harness television's ability to influence our children to become better world citizens." Commissioner Chong stated that broadcasters must make a commitment "as public trustees of the air waves to serve the children as well as the adults in their audience." She also expressed the hope that parents would exercise control over their children's viewing and "not be tempted to use the TV as a babysitter." She encouraged parents to watch TV with their children, discuss what they are viewing and teach them to be discerning viewers. Looking to the future, Commissioner Chong predicted that the creation of new video outlets would increase the diversity and availability of children's programming worldwide. "I am confident that one of the many benefits of the information superhighway will be the opening of new global markets for television content. This will be a two way flow, as children everywhere learn to be global citizens as well as citizens of their country, state and locality." - FCC - Remarks of Commissioner Rachelle B. Chong World Summit on Television and Children "Regulation: Alternative National Models" Melbourne, Australia March 14, 1995 Good morning. It is a great honor to be here at this landmark World Summit among so many who share a common concern about children and how they participate in a society's cultural life through television. After listening to yesterday's sessions, I believe this summit is about love, hope, awareness and responsibility. Regardless of our nationality, color or creed, we all share a love of our children. We share the hope that our children reach their full potential as citizens of a world community. We must be aware of how television can influence our children. Finally, we must all take a shared responsibility for what we teach our children through the media. My role on today's panel is to talk about the experience of the United States from the perspective of a government regulator. I serve as one of five Commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission, the independent agency charged with regulating broadcasters. I am also a lawyer, which helps explains the manner in which I attack the issue. The timing of this Summit is fortuitous because the issue of children's television is coming to the forefront of the FCC's agenda. Today, I'd like to share with you how the United States has dealt with the complex issue of children's television over the years, where we are now, and where I hope we will go. Let's start with where we've been. The key U.S. challenge has been to balance our desire to protect children and ensure the availability of children's educational programming on the one hand, with the fundamental right of free speech guaranteed by our Constitution on the other. Achieving a delicate balance between protecting children and free speech is further complicated by the backdrop of our advertiser-supported, commercial television market. As early as 1960, an FCC policy recognized children as one of the groups broadcasters should serve through their programming. But the real action did not begin until 1970, when a group led by an American mother, Peggy Charren, filed a petition with the FCC. Her group requested that the Commission adopt rules banning advertisements from children's television shows and requiring commercial broadcasters to air specific amounts of children's programming. As a result, the Commission began a wide-ranging inquiry into children's programming and advertising practices. After three years of collecting information, the Commission in 1974 adopted a "Report and Policy Statement." This statement specifically recognized that the public interest obligation that Americans place on our television licensees includes "a responsibility to provide diversified programming designed to meet the varied needs and interests of the child audience." To meet this obligation, the Commission asked broadcasters to do four things: first, to make a meaningful effort to increase the amount of children's programming; second, to air a reasonable amount of programming designed to educate and inform children, and not simply to entertain them; third, to air informational programming separately targeted for both preschool and school-age children; and finally, to air children's programming during weekdays as well as on weekends. The Commission also recognized that children are not yet able to distinguish conceptually between programming and advertising, and thus, sought to protect them from commercial exploitation. Broadcasters were ordered to limit the amount of advertising on children's programming, to separate the programs from the commercials, and to stop having program characters sell products. In 1978, the Commission decided to evaluate the broadcasters' response to the 1974 Policy Statement. The report by the FCC's Children's Television Task Force concluded that, by and large, broadcasters had complied with the restrictions on advertising, but not with the programming guidelines. The Commission then started a new proceeding to take another look at its position on children's television issues. It is fair to say that the FCC did not focus much of its attention on children's television in the early 1980's, an era characterized by deference to the marketplace. In 1983, however, the issue took prominence again when the Commission reactivated the proceeding and held a hearing to garner views from all sides. The next year, the Commission found that there was no need to take further action. Although the Commission still recognized that broadcasters have an obligation to serve the special needs of their child audience, it concluded that commercial broadcasters could use their own judgment to determine how to meet that obligation and simply be prepared to justify their decision at the time of license renewal. As to advertising during children's shows, the Commission dropped virtually all its restrictions. Like many of the FCC's controversial actions, these decisions were appealed to our judicial system. By the time the courts resolved the cases, three years had passed. At this point, the children's advocates became frustrated with the regulatory process, and turned to a new forum, our legislative branch of government. Congress responded to their pleas by enacting a landmark piece of legislation, the Children's Television Act of 1990. In the Act, Congress recognized the value of television as a learning tool for children. Congress gave statutory status to the FCC's conclusion that television broadcasters have a public interest obligation to provide programming that serves the special needs of children. Congress found that safeguards were needed to protect children from over commercialization. It directed the FCC to readopt limits on the number of commercial minutes during children's programs. In implementing the Act, the FCC set time limits on the advertising during children's programs: ten and a half minutes an hour on weekends and twelve minutes an hour on weekdays. The good news is that most broadcasters have complied with these limitations. Only a few have failed to heed these limits. Where they have not, the FCC has enforced the Act by assessing forfeitures as high as US $80,000. The more challenging part of the Commission's job in implementing the Act was to create a workable definition of "children's educational and informational programming," while not constraining broadcasters' First Amendment rights nor inhibiting their creativity in designing children's programs. The Commission opted for flexibility and defined it as programming that furthers the positive development of the child in any respect, including the child's cognitive and intellectual or emotional and social needs. The Commission declined to require broadcasters to air specific amounts of children's educational programming. Instead, it made the extent to which a TV station meets the needs of its child audience a factor to be considered when renewing the station's license. The Commission pledged to monitor the good faith efforts of broadcasters to comply. In 1993, after reviewing 320 TV renewal applications, the Commission revisited this once again. More than 40 parties filed comments containing a spectrum of options. They ranged from making no changes to requiring an hour a day of children's educational programming on every commercial channel. There was even a novel idea of requiring commercial broadcasters to pay a portion of their revenues to support the development of children's television on public television stations. Now this is when I entered the picture. President Clinton appointed me to the Commission in May of last year. The current Commission, under the leadership of Chairman Reed Hundt, held a hearing in June on the state of children's television. It was quite a memorable hearing. For one thing, I had never been lobbied by hand puppets before. Shari Lewis' Lamb Chop and Elmo of "Sesame Street" fame made eloquent cases for more children's shows. Oh yes, some humans talked too! I was tremendously impressed by the often passionate arguments made by the advocates that day. Broadcasters argued that the level of children's educational programming had increased, and that more time -- not more regulation -- was needed. They expressed unease with what they saw as the Commission treading in the delicate content regulation area. Children's advocates expressed their frustration about what they considered to be paltry progress since the passage of the Act five years earlier. Many asked the Commission to order commercial broadcasters to air specific amounts of children's educational programming. Some have asked us to clarify the definition, charging that some broadcasters have listed clearly entertainment cartoons as "educational programs" in their renewal applications. Producers explained the economics of how children's shows are made, and the difficulties of getting such programs aired in good time slots that won't be preempted. This is where we are now. The Commission is reviewing the record, and we are all brainstorming. We are weighing many options, such as whether to clarify our definition. Another issue is how to encourage an increase in children's educational programming. Should we specify a particular hourly level per week of children's programming as a processing guideline? Or should we leave the current rules in place and trust that the broadcasters will increase their offerings voluntarily? Still another issue is whether a broadcaster can meet its children's obligation by efforts other than airing shows on its own channel. For example, could a broadcaster contribute a children's show it developed for airing by another station in its market and "count" this effort for renewal purposes? As I wind up my comments, I wanted to express some personal views. Television does have the potential to influence our children, so public awareness is necessary so that we may assume a shared responsibility for managing this impact. Parents, educators, broadcasters, program producers and government must work together to harness television's ability to influence our children to become better citizens. I applaud conferences like this one that draw public attention to these important issues. I hope that parents will exercise control over their children's TV viewing schedule, and not be tempted to use the TV as a babysitter. Parents should watch TV with their children and discuss what they are viewing so that the children will be taught to be discerning viewers. I encourage parents to tell networks, programmers and advertisers that they want children's programs that are educational, nonviolent and that are prosocial for their child's development. I believe that broadcasters must make a commitment -- preferably voluntary -- to air more children's educational programming. They should make this commitment because it is their duty as public trustees of the air waves to serve the children as well as the adults in their audience. Given our existing advertiser-supported market structure, it is not easy for broadcasters to make that commitment. This is why Congress believed government intervention was needed. The Commission's task in implementing the Act is a difficult one. In the past, we have lectured, left the market on its own, and tried many times to fashion incentives that will result in more children's programming. And, after reviewing this history, it strikes me that we have not come very far in the last twenty-some years. New approaches may be necessary. Broadcasters have a chance to step forward with new solutions, ones that they can live with, ones that are good for our children. By working together and thinking creatively, I believe we can make more educational programming available to our children. I am hoping that this Summit will help inspire me. In closing, I want to say a word about program diversity. Let me assure you that diversity of children's programming -- including increased educational programming -- is a goal that many in the U.S. share. We have found that one way to increase program diversity is to create new video outlets. The FCC has done so by authorizing new broadcasting outlets such as low power television, and by encouraging development of the cable industry, direct broadcast satellite systems, and new video dial tone systems being built by telephone companies. By these actions, new niche markets have been created. For example, we have seen the success of many new children's-oriented cable channels featuring family viewing and educational fare. Nickelodeon, the Disney Channel, the Learning Channel, Discovery and WAM! have stimulated a new market for quality programming. This will certainly benefit all producers of children's programming throughout the world as these new channels search for original shows, both domestic and foreign, to fill their broadcast schedules. I am confident that one of the many benefits of the Information Superhighway will be the opening of new global markets for television content. This will be a two way flow, as children everywhere learn to be global citizens as well as citizens of their country, state and locality. Thank you very much.