Ladies and Gentleman,
I bring you, a proper research paper. Written by yours truly.
[Excerpt from my 20pg undergraduate theisis]
Saturday Morning Spin
Mass Communication Seminar, fall 2004
“Your job is to capture the largest possible audience. You think you know what the audience wants to watch and when they’re watching. You create or schedule or distribute or sponsor programs for that audience that tend to follow a formula. The audience is children. And you think you have no choice.” – Media Now, Report on Children’s Television.
This quote from Internet media watchdog group Media Now gets to the heart of what I found in my research of children’s programming. The reason that I chose the topic of problems with educational programming and the Children’s Television Act of 1990 is that I feel there is no emphasis placed on this quickly growing field of television programming and the ethical implications it presents. With the growing number of television stations and entire networks that cater to children it is a vastly expanding job market and will be a lucrative field for anyone interested in writing, production, and especially advertising.
When I began I knew there were specific rules in place to safeguard children, but I was dismayed to learn that the rules which are in place are so lax. My main goal in researching this topic is to educate myself on the specific problems, weaknesses and regulations facing educational programming in the hopes that the communications department could be prompted through research such as this to develop more relevant courses to educate SUNY Oneonta students regarding the ethics involved in writing and advertising for children. The question I will strive to answer with my research is whether the Children’s Television Act of 1990 ensures quality educational programs for children from ages two to sixteen with little commercial input and no manipulative advertising techniques. Through my research I have analyzed what the legislation does correctly, and what problems should be addressed.
In the Children’s Television Act of 1990, The Federal Communications Commission defines programming that complies with the Act “programming that furthers the positive development of children 16 years of age and under in any respect, including the child’s intellectual/cognitive or social/emotional needs. (FCC Fact Sheet on Children’s Television Programming, April 1995) As you can see this definition is very vague; it leaves much open to interpretation and does not specify how many hours of programming are needed, how many commercials are allowed, and what type of programming would be suitable for specific times of day. In 1996 the FCC added a few new rules to the Children’s Television Act, hoping to enforce the regulations that inspire television stations and affiliates to provide quality children’s programming. These regulations made some strides in improvement for children’s programming, but fell short. One goal of “Adopting several public information initiatives designed to give parents greater information about the core educational programs being aired by TV stations” (FCC Children’s Educational Television Report Card) has been almost totally ignored by most television stations. There is seemingly very little quality educational programming on broadcast television and it can be argued that what is out there is hardly ever properly advertised to parents of children seeking such programs. This sends a signal to television producers that since these programs are not properly endorsed, they must not be worth making. With small changes in advertising at television networks they could easily better advertise their educational programming and may be pleasantly surprised with new viewer turnout.
Another problem with the 1996 additions to the Children’s Television Act is the definition that the FCC gives to educational programming. “They generally must have serving the educational and informational needs of children as a significant purpose; be aired between the hours of 7am and 10pm; be a regularly scheduled weekly program; and be at least 30 minutes in length. (FCC Children’s Educational Television Report Card) While this definition of what fills the FCC requirements of educational programming may seem satisfactory, historically it’s been proven to cause more harm than good. Many local stations aired cable access teen talk shows and other community programs that were educational, but had to cancel them because they did not fill the obligation that station had to the FCC and funding would not allow for the stations to produce seemingly “extra” programming. Many stations cancelled their special programming because it ran irregularly and did not meet FCC regulations. The biggest impact this definition had on broadcast television was the cancellation of the “after-school special” series. Because these programs aired once a week and were not regularly scheduled into the daily programming of the stations, they did not meet the expectations of the FCC. So, with this one definition the FCC had unknowingly gotten rid of local programming, after-school specials, and any other special programs which were aired sporadically. One of the positive aspects of the 1996 change was a definition of the amount of time needed to fulfill the daily quota of children’s educational broadcasting. The FCC drew the line at three mandatory hours a day of educational programming; which, combined with the vague definition of what that would entail, left many children’s television activists unhappy.
Before the Children’s Television Act of 1990 there were several protest groups that sought to better the conditions of educational programming for children. The largest of these groups was Action for Children’s Television. Peggy Charren, the co-founder of ACT has this to say about their organization: “People criticize ACT for the lack of creativity today. We never asked for that. They don’t remember what it was like before we were around. There was no Sesame Street or Electric Company. It was never our idea to sanitize superheroes and reduce the art of animation to its present standards. The broadcasters are responsible for what’s on the air today, not Action for Children’s Television. We’re trying to see that the product is improved, not worsened.” (Peggy Charren, Saturday Morning Censors, PG 61) ACT was founded in 1968 and was widely back by politicians as a “safe” outlet to support the women’s movement going on at the time. Using their lobbying skills and “mommy” image, ACT fought for better quality children’s programming as well as an end to exploitative advertising techniques used on children in television commercials as well as programming. It is important to point out that the 1960s were not the first decade to see parental protest of the media. According to Heather Henderson- “A variety of parent’s groups protested children’s radio throughout the thirties accusing it of ‘over stimulating’ children and causing delinquent behavior. Anti-TV sentiment existed in the earliest days of television’s proliferation. In the fifties, many Americans saw television as a potentially dangerous medium: citizens undertook letter-writing campaigns and boycotts to keep alleged Communist actors off the television; and women’s magazines asked if TV would bring families together or tear them apart.” (Saturday Morning Censors, PG 65) Obviously we are still facing these same exact problems today.
ACT was gaining ground in the fight for children’s programming, but the television industry had one more card up their sleeve. Their new strategy put in place in the 1970s and 80s to which ACT fought adamantly against was the product based cartoon. In the 1980s Hallmark came out with a new line of toys, the “care bears”. They were cute, cuddly and had their own TV show. This cartoon was featured as children’s programming, even though the network it was featured on, and everyone involved in its creation knew that the show’s sole purpose was to endorse, promote and advertise Hallmark’s new line of plush Care Bear toys. Hallmark even coined their ad campaign “operation C”, shrouding it in secrecy until the television debut of the product. More blatant of an example was the attempt of the Frito Lay Corporation’s “Yo! It’s the Chester Cheetah Show”. This show took the well-known marketing logo of Chester Cheetah and placed him in his own half hour animated program. ACT protested the cartoon, calling it a “program length commercial”. The FCC ruled that they couldn’t do anything about the show unless it was deemed “indecent” but the project fell through because of pressure felt by Frito Lays from organizations such as ACT. Peggy Charren was quoted as saying “we feel we have zapped, for the time being, the problem of logos turning into half-hour programs”. (Saturday Morning Censors, PG 91) While Chester Cheetah would have to fade back from the full-length cartoon spotlight, he is a perfect example of the problems we still face in the world of broadcasting. Chester, along with the Care Bears, Strawberry Shortcake and the Transformers do not break any laws in place by the FCC, but they are considered unethical. “In 1996, the Children & the Media Program’s annual media conference explored the role of advertisers in improving the quality of TV for children. During this gathering, advertisers told us (Media Now) they were largely unfamiliar with the research that has been conducted on the impact of the media on children.” (A Report on Children’s Television, Children Now, 1997) Assuming that their advertising executives were not just lying to cover up their own breach of ethics in their advertising to children, there is obviously a problem with the state of broadcasting in America if advertisers are not made aware of the separate ethical issues that come along with advertising to children. While at this point in time there is no example as laughably blatant as Chester Cheetah, it is not hard to find programs similar to the “full-length commercial” that ACT used to work so hard to stop. In a study I conducted on Spongebob Squarepants as well as other programs featured on Nickelodeon’s after school programming “Nick You Pick Live” I noticed some similarities to the programs Hallmark created in the 1980s. While watching Nickelodeon I noticed that during the hours of 3-6PM when “U Pick Live” was shown there were several commercials during every commercial break for a Spongebob related product; at times the advertising for Spongebob taking up as much as 40% of the commercial in one three minute break. They also took it one step farther in their daytime advertising, using every commercial break to advertising not only for products related to the show being watched, but to advertise for Nickelodeon Magazine, Nickelodeon theme park, other networks owned by Nickelodeon’s parent company, and other programs shown on Nickelodeon. While this may not seem like a huge deal to the average adult, the impact that this barrage of advertising has on the average child sitting down to enjoy Spongebob is phenomenal. Child psychologists and media analysts agree that children simply do not have the cognitive ability to differentiate between television shows and commercials. The Children’s Television Act of 1990 does not regulate manipulation of child audiences in this form but such practices are surely unethical.
The saddest part about the folding of Action for Children’s Television is that there has been a sense of complacency looking over this entire issue since their 1992 decision to fold due to FCC compliance to the CTA. The Children’s Television Act has done more harm than good for the industry of educational programming. It has created a false sense of security for parents, making them believe that anything on during the hours of 7am and 10pm will be quality family programming. It has created a sense of accomplishment for protest groups such as ACT to the extent that no major groups are in existence today. It has created low-budget, lackluster programming for children because of its low standards and vague guidelines; and what I’m most afraid of is that it has created a generation of under-stimulated, non-creative, consumer obsessed television viewers who will someday grow to make the same mistakes in children’s programming that we have been allowing ourselves to make- all in the name of the Children’s Television Act of 1990. There have been many studies done about the success of quality educational children’s programming, such as Sesame Street, on children from all walks of life in America and internationally. It has been proven that children who watch these programs have an easier time in the early grades of school, and show more advancement in social and psychological development when compared to children who watch low-quality, advertising-based children’s programming or adult-focused programming. Quality educational programs for children do not generally cost more money to produce or more manpower to create, just innovative ideas and a little effort from networks. They do note get lesser ratings or less advertising money. According to the Children’s Television Workshop “Children do not distinguish between educational programming and non-educational programming, and they don’t find educational programming less appealing.” (Communication in Public Interest, pg 5) In short, the answer to my own question is no, the Children’s Television Act of 1990 does not provide quality educational programming for all children. While I am not a supporter of the censorship of media, I believe that the students of advertising, marketing and media broadcasting should be made aware of the special circumstances related to children’s programming and be better motivated to create a quality product. While the CTA is a good beginning to safeguard our children and their television viewing, it should not be the end of regulations or incentives for children’s programming. The question is now can media educators will pick up the torch and create a new dawn for children’s programming; I fear the answer can be found from my own personal favorite Saturday morning commercial- “the world may never know.”
No comments:
Post a Comment