TV Can Be Fun and Worthwhile

Recently the Federal Communications Commission, the agency that has authority over broadcast media, ruled that major commercial networks must begin carrying a minimum of three hours of educational children’s programming per week. Put in perspective, that’s three hours in a typical 168-hour broadcast week.

For the past several months the substance of the FCC’s ruling has been hotly debated by all parties involved: the federal authorities, the commercial networks and their local affiliates, the children’s television advocates, the conservative right, the liberal left and the producers of children’s programs. There’s been a lot of grumbling from all those affected by the FCC ruling--grumbling about this unwanted intrusion by the FCC on the commercial world of big business television. TV executives are concerned that the three-hour ruling will result in a decline of young viewership because they believe that educational shows are less entertaining.

Recent articles, “Networks See Drop in Kids’ Audiences” (Calendar, Oct. 15) and “Networks Get Pep Talk on Kids’ TV” (Calendar, Nov. 20), indicate the defection has already begun but not, ironically, because of the inclusion of educational fare. The first article cites dramatic dips for CBS, Fox, NBC and WB in the numbers of kids tuned into their traditional Saturday morning fare. The speculation is that many of these kids are turning away from commercial TV and tuning into cable to watch reruns of network shows. (Cable isn’t subject to the FCC’s oversight or the new three-hour rule.) What isn’t clear is why kids are tuning out.

The fear and speculation surrounding compliance with the FCC’s three-hour ruling is as old as the hills. Everyone presumes to know how boring educational programming really is. The networks are convinced that even more of their kid audiences will flee screaming from their television sets. Who’ll be left to buy all those cereals and toys?

Public television has been consistently providing many more than three hours a week of fine high-quality educational children’s programming for years--Barney notwithstanding. Year after year, PBS children’s programming consistently receives the seal of approval from parents, educators and, yes, even Congress. They all love it. But, maybe more important, the kids love it. And isn’t that the point here?

The other day I asked my son--now a 17-year-old high school senior--what children’s television programs came to mind when he thought back to his youthful days of TV watching. His answer didn’t surprise me. His immediate responses were “Sesame Street” and “The Electric Company,” followed by a few examples of standard Saturday morning commercial television fare. (We bought our share of cereal and toys, too.)

“Sesame Street” and “The Electric Company” were a part of his daily afternoon routine. I credit both series with teaching my son to read at a fourth-grade level by the age of 3. But, looking back, my son says the only difference between these programs and lighter fare was that he got something more lasting out of the educational programs. Could it be that our children are more discriminating than we think if given good choices to begin with?

It shouldn’t matter whether we’re the parents, the broadcasters who make the programming decisions or the producers who create the programs. Our expectations for what our children should be watching on television must be based on quality and substance. They deserve nothing less. Education and entertainment are not mutually exclusive concepts.

As producers of children’s programs, it’s our responsibility to be guided by some basic tenets when developing new programming for them. And, it shouldn’t take a ruling by the FCC to make us think this way. It is, frankly, a matter of good producing: Tell a good story well; respect your characters; present age-appropriate content; model positive behavior; and integrate education and entertainment. If we build better programs, kids will watch them.

What baffles me in light of the FCC’s ruling is not why it’s necessary to require three hours of programming with educational value but why would anyone want to produce and broadcast programs without educational value? Why would we want to give our children anything less?

The producing and broadcasting communities are now faced with an exciting opportunity. Are we up to the challenge? Considering what’s at stake, how can we not be?