roundtable: FCC Chair Hundt on Kids' TV: CME Forum Transcript
roundtable: FCC Chair Hundt on Kids' TV: CME Forum Transcript
FCC Chair Hundt on Kids' TV: CME Forum Transcript
Anthony E. Wright (aewright@cme.org)
Wed, 18 Oct 1995 19:52:00 -0400
Message-Id: <v02120d00acab37cb6900@[205.197.91.5]>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 19:52:00 -0400
To: roundtable@cni.org
From: aewright@cme.org (Anthony E. Wright)
Subject: FCC Chair Hundt on Kids' TV: CME Forum Transcript
October 18, 1995: Please repost where appropriate
Reed Hundt, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, delivered a
stirring speech (transcript below) today at an Issues Forum on Children and
the Information Superhighway, sponsored by the Center for Media Education
(CME).
Hundt spoke at length on the current FCC proceeding on the Children's
Television Act. For more information on this issue, and to help CME's
campaign to improve educational television for children, contact CME at
kidstv@cme.org, or visit our Kids' TV Web site
(http://www.access.digex.net/~cme/kidstv.html).
Other forum panelists included Former FCC Chair Newton Minow and Assistant
Secretary of Commerce Larry Irving, who both spoke about key issues dealing
with children and information and telecommunications technologies. The
panel was moderated by CME President Kathryn Montgomery.
--
SPEECH BY REED HUNDT
CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
AT THE CENTER FOR MEDIA EDUCATION
ISSUES FORUM ON CHILDREN AND THE INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
(AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY)
OCTOBER 18, 1995
*******************
A GOOD DAY FOR KIDS
*******************
It is a pleasure to be here today with former FCC Chairman Newton
Minow. Newt is a good friend and mentor, and it is always a pleasure to
share a podium with him. And, of course, Dr. Kathryn Montgomery's work as
CME's president is vital to the efforts we are all engaged in here. I also
want to acknowledge my friend and ally on many causes, Assistant Secretary
of Commerce Larry Irving. Larry has been waging a valiant fight for the
public interest over at NTIA and he's going to succeed.
The Federal Communications Commission is devoted to promoting
private competition and to staking the claim of the public interest in the
communications revolution. The public interest includes, especially, the
interest we should all take in the impact of the communications revolution
on our children.
Let's talk about the way the communications revolution can make
every day a good day for kids.
When everyone in the house gets roused up at around 7 am, wouldn't
it be a good day if there were a selection of interesting, educational TV
shows for kids like my six-year-old Sara to watch?
When our children go off to school, wouldn't it be a good day if in
their classrooms they could enter the world of wonder that communications
technology can bring them? We'd like our children in our neighborhood
public school to be in classrooms that have computers on networks with
Internet access, distance learning, electronic mail, and cd-roms.
When our children come home in the afternoon, it would be a good
day if there were choices on broadcast TV that are safe and enriching.
With George Lucas and Steven Spielberg and Steve Bochco in this
country, there is no doubt that if TV stations commit to carrying
educational TV, the creative community will make terrific, fascinating,
profitable shows that really teach children.
Then in the evenings, when the parents get home, wouldn't it be a
good day if mother and father could call up on the TV screen or the PC the
kids' homework? Or could get and send e-mails to the teacher? Or could
chat on the PC with other parents about the soccer games, or the PTA
auction, or who is going to be the room parent on Friday? These couldd be
key ways to participate in a child's education.
And last but not least, when you turn on the TV in the evenings,
you should be able to know in advance what shows are inappropriate for
kids. By written notice in the TV guide, by software coding from networks,
by means of the v-chip, you should be able tod choose shows that you think
are appropriate to watch, and you should be able to protect your kids from
the inappropriate.
That's the way a good day for kids could be.
In fact, it's up to the FCC to craft sensible, concrete, simple
rules to make this good day an everyday event in America.
With respect to the networking of classrooms, I was pleased to
participate in that debate from the day I arrived at the Commission, almost
two years ago.
I was borrowing from a man I have long been privileged to call a
friend: Vice President Al Gore.
When he first coined the term "information highway," he talked
about the vision of the schoolgirl in Carthage, Tennessee, who could go to
the Library of Congress to get the learning not available in her small town
in rural America.
In last year's State of the Union address, President Clinton
challenged the telecommunications industry to connect every classroom and
every library in America to the national information highway by the year
2000. In his words, "instant access to information will increase
productivity, will help to educate our children...(and) will create jobs."
And just a month ago, in San Francisco, the President reiterated
his challenge to America to see that every classroom in our country is
connected to the information highway by the year 2000.
With the catalyst of public action through government, communities
can comed together to put communications technology in every classroom. As
the President said,d "Preparing our children for a lifetime of computer use
is now just as essential as teachingd them to read and write and do math .
.. . We must make technological literacy a standard."
Shouldn't schools be eligible for assistance from our universal
service programs? Both S. 652, the Senate version of the Telecommunications
Reform bill, and H.R. 1555, the House version, include provisions to make
that possible.
In the Senate bill, that provision is called Snowe-Rockefeller,
named after the great Senators who sponsored it. This provision would
order the FCC to create special tariffs for schools. These discounted
rates would be reimbursed, in part, from the funds we have used in the past
to ensure universal access to the telephone network.
Senator Mosley-Braun has sponsored another excellent initiative,
the Educational Technology Corporation. And she's supporting
Snowe-Rockefeller. I want to say how much I appreciate her work.
And Larry Irving's Telecommunications and Information
Infrastructure Assistance Program (TIIAP) program continues to help local
communities adopt advanced technology. It is another catalytic force that
is inspiring us to fulfill the President's challenge.
Business is also responding. TCI is developing an innovative
commercial product that networks classrooms with state-of-the-art
technology. Time-Warner, in its social contract with the FCC, agreed to
provide a free modem to all the schools in its service areas, to provide
them inside wiring at cost, and to provide them free access to the Internet
using their new on-line service as soon as it is on the market.
Time-Warner's commitments apply to 1/8 of all the classrooms in the
country.
Our words are getting out to the whole world. Recently, British
Labour Party leader Tony Blair picked up the President's networking theme
when he called for a Britain in which every school, hospital, and library
is wired into the information superhighway, and every child has a laptop
computer.
It's a compliment to be copied. We need to do more so we can be
copied and complimented more.
With respect to the children's educational TV initiative, I started
drilling down into this issue when preparing for my post in 1993. I
jumpstarted our moldering Notice of Inquiry in a speech at the Harvard
School of Education in 1993, soon after I got my job
Later in 1994, at the FCC, we had an en banc hearing to bring our
Notice of Inquiry to a close. Thereafter the full Commission voted to put
out a notice of proposed rulemaking.
In that proceeding and related matters we have already received
some 1,500 comments.
Overwhelmingly, the commenters representing the public have
supported rules that place minimum duties on all broadcasters to deliver
educational TV free over the air. In our comments so far, the public has
expressed its wishes through groups such as the Parents and Teachers
Association, the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Consumer Federation of
America, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Education
Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and many others.
The membership of the groups formally lodging support for minimum
quantitative requirements is nearly 59,000,000.
A comparative handful of commenters disagreed.
I'd like to talk about three who disagree -- the historic Big Three
Networks, NBC, ABC, and CBS. These networks recommended in their filings
that instead of requiring broadcasters to air a set number of hours per
week of educational programs, we should continue to study, as ABC put it,
"the children's programming marketplace."
We asked the networks to do their studies three years ago. The
comment filing date of October 16 was the time to stand and deliver. It
was the date of a test of conscience. And on that date the networks said
they needed more time to study. Three more years to study. At least they
didn't say the dog ate their homework.
But it's past time to postpone decisions while waiting for the
networks to study their own business. Now it's time to review the data we
have and to make good decisions about how to fix our failed rules.
The networks are welcome to continue to study their own business.
Meanwhile they should be helping teach our children with a minimum amount
of educational TV right now.
In the comments we have received, broadcasters tell us they're
already providing plenty of educational TV. They don't say this
proposition needs study. But others dispute the assertion. We should
examine the record for data that resolve the factual disputes.
Everyone should participate in a fair-minded, public, hard-nosed
effort to state the true facts on this issue.
We will be trying to find out if broadcasters' assertions about how
much educational TV they show depend on a broad, vague, meaningless
definition of what is educational.
This definition is all the FCC has given broadcasters, and maybe we
shouldn't blame them for trying to drive through it a truckload of claims
about educational programming. (I'm borrowing my friend Commissioner
Chong's metaphor.)
The current FCC definition apparently encourages broadcasters,
according to a study by Dale Kunkel, a researcher at the University of
California at Santa Barbara, to file public records saying that educational
programming includes "Biker Mice from Mars", "America's Funniest Home
Videos," and "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers."
And NBC claimed in its filing with the FCC this past Monday that in
January 1995 its network added another half hour of
educational/informational programming to its schedule with "NBA Inside
Stuff."
In fact, NBC has the National Basketball Association produce the
show, but it assures us that each episode "is specifically designed to
serve the educational and informational needs of teens."
I know the NBA is fantastic, but saying that it provides education
is like saying a playground is a classroom, the best school is the school
of hard knocks, and ketchup is a vegetable. I will be very interested to
read reply comments on this particular assertion.
I suppose it's true that anyone can learn something from anything.
But shouldn't we all agree that a meaningful definition of educational
programming should count only shows that have the primary intent and
substantial effect of educating kids?
In addition, wouldn't it be a good idea to have an institute or a
university with academic freedom report on networks' educational shows?
Let networks state what those shows are, and then let social
scientists evaluate in a rational, empirical manner just how well those
educational shows do in teaching kids. Such a report card could grade each
show and each network on teaching effectiveness, ratings and share (showing
that it is engaging enough to attract kids), and so on.
Responsible broadcasters -- and this is at heart a very responsible
industry -- would benefit from this sort of public, informed, scientific
guidance. And so would the FCC. And so would the networks.
As we evaluate the comments and reply comments, everyone should
look very closely at Dale Kunkel's study. He tells us he examined a
representative, randomly selected sample of stations that applied for
renewal with the FCC in 1994. He found that stations' own claims to the
FCC as to their educational programming amounted on average to the same
number of hours showed in 1992, right after the Children's Television Act
was effective..
And even this number, according to Kunkel, was compiled by counting
the shows I mentioned earlier -- shows that do not necessarily pass the
red face test.
The NAB has given us a different set of assertions based on an
anonymous survey of those stations that wished to participate. In reply
comments I will be interested in knowing if such a survey is scientifically
valid. And what is the data that supports the survey? What should we think
about the definition used to count shows as educational? And why did some
stations not submit data? What time of day were the shows displayed?
I'd like to see NAB's back-up data. I'd like to see Kunkel's.
I'd like to have us debate based on real facts, not rhetoric.
These are some of the issues we must examine carefully before we
make any decisions.
The broadcast TV networks have the wealth of Midas and the
creativity of Michelangelo. They have lawyers and lobbyists as numerous as
leaves on trees.
With these resources they do not need three more years to study
their own business while our children continue to grow up less educated
than they should be.
Instead, now, for the sake of the 60 million kids in this country,
these fabulously profitable and ingenious businesses can give us a bare
minimum of the public good of truly educational TV. After all, they rely
on the public property of the airwaves to reach us all with entertainment.
Isn't it only fair to ask them to use our property also to help us with the
public duty and honor of teaching our kids.
And that is, after all, the law of the land.
And, after all, that should be at the core of the meaning of
broadcasters' status as public trustees. That should be at the core of why
broadcaters currently have a right to use without charge the public
property of the analog airwaves, public property valued at tens of
millions of dollars.
Networks and broadcast stations can tell us how to craft rules that
will guarantee educational TV from all broadcasters, even in a competitive
market. These rules can and should be based on solid data, good economics,
creative thoughts, and a willingness to be part of a solution instead of
part of the problem.
Finding ways to apply the Children's TV Act so that all
broadcasters deliver at least a minimum amount of educational TV shows
should not become a partisan issue.
It should not be characterized as a test of whether a particular
commissioner is for or against kids, for or against broadcasters.
All Commissioners should be for just one thing: the public interest.
All Commissioners and all commenters have a responsibility to
address with creativity, care, and practicality our rewrite of the
children's educational rules. We have a duty to read the law, apply
economics, and do the right thing with objectivity and fairness.
All Commissioners have a duty to listen to tens of millions of
Americans, paying unbiased and full attention to public interest groups and
to private sector advocacy. I'm positive all Commissioners will do their
duty, each according to his or her best judgment. Meanwhile, all Americans
have a right to keep communicating with us.
I'm looking forward to the continuing participation of many
millions in this proceeding. Read the comments and file replies. Write us
at 1919 M St., NW. Send us e-mail at kidstv@fcc.gov. Come visit us in
person. Let's keep the debate going, and keep the good days of our kids
uppermost in our mind.
Thank you.
--
Anthony E. Wright aewright@cme.org
Coordinator, Future of Media Project Center for Media Education
![[CNI Home Page]](/Images/home.gif)