"Don't touch my hair."
Is the Winx Club educational TV?

The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) may give television high marks for children's educational programming, but a group of public interest advocates say that the industry has yet to make the honor roll.

On September 4th, both the NAB and the Children's Media Policy Coalition (CMPC) filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission, offering dramatically different assessments of the state of children's educational TV.

"Broadcasters are providing an abundance of high quality, diverse programming that amply meets the educational and informational needs of children," the NAB filing concludes in response to an FCC proceeding on the state of kid's television.

But the CMPC doesn't see it that way; the group includes Children Now, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Benton Foundation, the National PTA, and the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ.

The coalition acknowledges that broadcasters generally comply with FCC requirements that they provide three hours a week of educational TV. But they say that beyond that, children's television has a long way to go.

Which three hours?

The Children's Television Act requires TV broadcasters to air at least three hours a week of "core programming," which it defines as material "specifically designed to serve the educational and informational needs of children ages 16 and under." CMPC's filing acknowledges that most TV stations meet that goal, but contends that they don't do much more:

• Most stations schedule their core programming for weekends; very few broadcast such fare during school days. "It is particularly important for children to have educational programming available during after-school hours when parents are likely to be at work and unable to guide viewing," CMPC recommends.
• Core programming often gets preempted. The Coalition reviewed the performance of 30 networks in the first quarter of 2007. Half preempted some of their educational programming at least once. One fourth of the studied group preempted it at least six times and in one instance seventeen times.
• It's hard for parents to find educational programming. In 2004 the FCC required broadcasters to make their core programming more identifiable by including a continuous "E/I" [educational/informational programming] symbol while the show airs. But different networks use very different style E/I logos, and hardly any post the logos on their program schedule Web sites.
  "On the whole, the online programming schedules on many stations’ websites were very difficult to locate," the CMPC filing concludes. "and all but one simply linked to independent online programming guide providers, such as TV Guide, instead of providing their own program information,"
• Educational shows emphasize social messages at the expense of information and academic skills. The group cites a Children Now study of TV in Los Angeles that concluded that while many E/I shows extol values like sharing, hardly any find creative ways to encourage children to develop their reading or math skills.
• Some stations claim dubious shows as E/I programming. These questionable FCC submissions have included "America’s Funniest Home Videos," "Biker Mice from Mars," "Bugs and Friends," "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers," "Woody Woodpecker," "X-Men" and "Yogi Bear."
  Children Now objected to one show in particular being listed as E/I: the Winx Club, which offers the "gender-biased message that girls’ priorities should be their appearance and attractiveness to boys," according to the group. The filing cites the shows' theme song: "We’ve got the style / We’ve got the flair / Look all you want / Don’t touch my hair."

The CMPC filing also urges the commission to rule that stations with common ownership interests broadcasting in the same area cannot fulfill their core programming requirements by running identical programming.

"Vast array of options"

Needless to say, the NAB sees the matter differently. Their September 4th filing urges the Commission to:

• Permit flexibility in determining what constitutes core programming. "After all," the filing argues, "children can clearly benefit from programming that may not fit within the Commission’s definition of Core Programming; for example, programming that is aimed at a broader audience or is not regularly scheduled can obviously educate and inform young viewers."

  The NAB statement offers a list of general programs that the trade association argues meets core programming standards, including NBC Weather Plus, a show that offers segments on earth science. But the other examples may confirm CMPC's concern that too many children's programs emphasize social values rather than academic skills.

  "Among other children’s programs," the NAB filing continues:

  "ABC stations air 'The Replacements,' an original comedy series that features a brother and sister in their 'tweens' with a fantasy-like ability to change adults (despite consequences of those changes). Geared towards kids aged six to eleven, the series features comedic hi-jinx of a brother and sister with fast-paced humor and quick wit to keep youngsters engaged as they watch the show’s characters attempt to change situations that viewers will likely relate to, thereby learning lessons about self-esteem and accepting responsibility for choices."

• Recognize that parents have a variety of alternative educational choices for their children. "These programming options not only provide alternatives to the wide variety of commercial broadcast programs that serve child audiences," NAB writes, "but also place considerable competitive pressure on commercial broadcasters to offer quality children’s programming themselves."

  The statement cites PBS programming and satellite shows like Discovery, Noggin, the Disney Channel, and the Sorpresa! Spanish language children's network as reasons why "without doubt that the needs of child audiences are being met in today’s multimedia marketplace."

  Considering this "vast array of options," NAB's filing concludes, "there is no need for the Commission to intrude further into the judgments made by television broadcasters about the content of children’s programming, and, indeed, the First Amendment strongly counsels otherwise."

•