I appreciate your desire to get citizen input before you set policy which will manage the upcoming media blitz made possible by new telecommunications technologies. My wife and I have some pretty strong feelings about the social damage being done by unresponsible media and advertising entities who proliferate violence and immorality across our airwaves. I understand the impossibility of Government stepping in and cutting off this type of programming. Our first ammendment rights are too precious to leave up to the Government to control. But I believe that the public can pressure advertisers and television moguls to clean up their programming. The problem is that there are no tools, forums, or resources to help me unite my puny little voice, with that of the other millions of outraged citizens. I believe that the Government can and should help create means and resources to help unite the public against those who seek to proliferate this damaging content. Here are 3 things that would help me in my personal fight against irresponsible programming... 1. Make advertisers responsible for the programming they sponser. At the beginning and ending of each questionable program (maybe all programs) a list of the sponsers of the show, and how you can reach them should be listed. This will allow the viewing public to contact the people who really are the 'owners' of that hour of program time. I can't do that now without doing so much research that it becomes impossible to do. Maybe a site on the WWW which shows not only television programming, but who the sponsers are for each program, and a hot link to each sponsers response page would do the job. That seems to be an appropriate task for Government...to set up and promote such a service. 2. Make local television stations more responsible for the programming they air. Right now if my local CBS affiliate airs an objectionable program, and I call to complain, their only response is - 'We have no control over the programming. That comes from the CBS corporate programming. We can't change it.' So I go to write a complaint to the corporate Giant, and I find that I don't have a name or number to write to. I quickly lose faith that my little letter will do any good anyway, so I stop. If local affiliates were free to pick and choose from a menu of programming they could air then our community could demand more decent programming from our local affiliates. As it is, we have no control of national programming, and are doomed to have our kids (and our neighbors kids) watching whatever garbage media moguls (and advertisers) believe will get the biggest audience. 3. Require movie trailers and TV show promos which are aired on television to be shown in appropriate time slots...Right now my children (and myself) can be watching a perfectly wonderful program, when suddenly during advertising time, lewd, sensual, violent, macabre, and powerful movie trailers blast onto the screen. It takes another fifteen minutess of getting back into the program to get the graphic nature of the ads out of my mind, and I don't know if the images ever fully leave my children's minds. I can control what our kids watch on television. But I can't control the advertisements which are shown. There needs to be some control placed there. Why should we bother? Because I believe that much of the television and other media programming that air are tearing apart the trust structure of our nation. By constantly depicting people solving problems with guns, normal people who go mad, normal mothers and families that are broken apart with greed, lust, and ambition, I learn in the media that I can barely trust myself, let alone trust you. I learn that you shouldn't trust your spouse, your children, your elected leaders, your police force, your legal system, your health system, etc. I learn that the people I don't know intimately are instantly suspect. I learn that I have to keep my own interests uppermost in my mind and to heck with everyone else's interest. This is a terrible way to learn to live, for it tears apart our nation. It is worth fixing the media, so that we can begin to learn to trust each other again. ------------------------------------------------------------ Broadcasters who are profiting from the public resource of spectrum, should be obliged to provide public service. Children's TV and other community service obligations are an important part of broadcasters responsibilities. Organizations such as the Media Access Project, and the Center for Media Education are important voices in the public interest. Thanks for your vision and leadership in this area. ------------------------------------------------------------ The suggestions presented in your column are exciting.. especially if educational programming could be a reciprocated (mandatory?) requirement for the broadcasters to obtain the additional bandwidth . ------------------------------------------------------------ I am in agreement to the proposal to auction commercial broadcast frequencies. No longer should the airwaves be free to commercial entities. I support you in demanding that children's interests are addressed by television broadcasters. We, as a nation, have been desensitized to violence by a deluge of violent tv shows, movies, and the daily news reports/shows. As a parent, I would like to see a standard used to guage whether a particular tv program is suitable for veiwing by my ten year old. I am in support of computers/internet access in the classroom. This can help to balance the disparities in informational sources that exist in the educational system at the same time that it removes a major obstruction to learning - accessibility to current and relevant information. ------------------------------------------------------------ As a parent of an eight and eleven-year-old I want to thank you for opening public policy discussion on childrens' television programming. While I am well aware that businesses need to make a profit to continue provideing services, I feel that our country's children are too important a resource to be left soley to market forces. It seems to me that requiring a minimum amount of programming specifically developed for the child audience would create a very small hardship for providers to overcome; one that requires only a fraction of the total value of broadcast licenses granted to provide service in the public interest. While I strongly support the First Amendment, and would not is to see rulemaking infringe upon it, too often the First Amendment is thrown up as a roadblock to stop public discussion of important issues which need to be fully deliberated for effective puublic policy to be developed. In particular, I support the idea of the entertainment industry developing a rating system which would give parents or other caregivers additional information on the level of violence in programming so that we can make informed choices on which programs our children will be allowed to watch. We certainly use the current movie rating system in deciding what movies our children will be allowed to view. A similar system for broadcast or cable-delivered programs would provide an additional tool for parents. I also would support the idea of v-chip technology being required in television receivers sold after a specific date. Technological developments are coming at such a rapid pace that there may be better yways for parents to control their childrens' viewing developed over the next half-decade, but televised violence and its impact on children is too important not to begin taking advantage of available means of assisting parents. We have lived with television for almost a half century. It is time US public policy begins reflecting some of what we've learned from our experence. ------------------------------------------------------------ I want to urge the Federal Communications Commissioners to get tough on the Children's Act and require stations to devote time and money to programs for children. If stations would devote even one percent of the time and money they did to the O.J. Simpson trial, the benefit to children would be enormous. Just as pressing an issue for children and television is the nature of the commercials being aired. Some of these border on the obscene (I refer particularly to those aired by Calvin Klein). Our children are affected by the programs they watch, but they are also affected greatly by the commercials aired during these shows. -------------------------------------------------- I definately feel that there is not enough children's programming being aired today! I also feel that stations should be required to provide at least two full hours of educational shows per day...ten hours per week! I also feel that broadcasters should identify which shows are educational so TV guides can alert parents to those programs. Children are impressionable and if we do not give them a healhty and educational environment in which to learn, they will not learn. There is so much violence and ignorance in our society. These behaviors can be changed if we reach out to our kids NOW!!! ------------------------------------------------------------ A few weeks ago, c-span aired your discussion with school principals and/or superintendents. Please continue to meet and discuss telecommunications issues with community groups. There is a shocking (perhaps not surprising) lack of coverage of the pending telecom bills, the children's tv rm., and advanced tv rm. The coverage that does occur in print and the bits shown on tv focus not on how these matters will change each citizen's life (and how and whether he/she will know about issues), but rather on an insider-big industry hook. Your discussions on the net and in person can help end the silence. ----------------------------------------------------------- I heartily concur in everything yur column said. All I want to know is why is it taking so long and what can be done about it. Commercial TV really is a "wasteland". Maybe a tradeoff of partial license fees against educational hours would attract some attention? ------------------------------------------------------------ It is up to the parents to have 'their' children watch educational TV, NOT government. When government gets involved in deciding what programs children should watch, we are falling down the 'slippery slope' of communism and socialism which have been proven not to work. ------------------------------------------------------------ I agree wholeheartedly with your "top ten myths..."; the bandwidth allocated to television is much too valuable to let advertising revenues determine the content, especially when our children are a part of the population which doesn't have significant influence on product purchases. Access to children's television must be mandated, as a percentage of total programming time and provided in a time-frame realistic for the anticipated viewing population. If one measures the available violence, hatred, and negative influences shown on television against the positive influences, the result is an unfortunate comment on broadcaster's (if not viewers) values. Children need a more than equal amount of access to positive programming, and I hope you will initiate and support the very strongest regulations to bring about that opportunity. My only regret is that there are so few "Jim Hensons" with the creativity to truly stimulate the very young viewer. ------------------------------------------------------------ I just finished reading your letter in the LA Times. I support the four points you make in your column 100%. I also firmly agree with your comments on the 10 Myths that you debunked in the Email. As a father and grandfather, I take an intense interest in the kind of information that is offered to our children and grandchildren on TV. I have an abiding faith in the ability of our younger generations to hit the ground running if we give them the opportunity and the tools to reach their goals. ------------------------------------------------------------ From where I stand, your "Ten Myths" hit the nail on the head. Although my family has access to several types of media, I feel that ALL commercial users of the public airways should provide some amount of "educational" programming. These "educational" programs should be scheduled in prime times for the age of interest. Programs for 5-7 year olds at 4:00AM don't qualify. Also have concise limitations on amount and content of advertising. Only allow one minute of advertising for fifteen minutes of program, with NO tobacco or alcohol ads OR SUPPORT. There are too many subtle ways to promote a product if you control the purse strings. I support MINIMUM necessary controls by government. Keep policies simple and apply them fairly (uniformly). Thank you. ------------------------------------------------------------ I think there is not enough educational programs in the TV. The broadcasters have to share the responsibility to provide such programs. If the kids have a chance to learn from television, the television will have served its purpose to a great extent. A small step in the right direction is a giant leap forward. ------------------------------------------------------------ Several times in the comments, the statement was made that the airwaves were public property. In the past, the use of the airwaves has been judged as for the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Now, in other notes in the same web pages, we find discussions of auctioning these public airwaves to the highest bidders. This seems to be somewhat of a conflict. We now auction the airwaves off to the deepest pockets, not the greatest public benefit. As for programming, we have our government looking at mandating that all television receivers will have a chip included that will allow the set to block programming that might be inappropriate, but we have no real input from the viewers of what is offensive. Presently (and for the past quarter century), we have had a feature on the television that allows the blocking of undesired programming. A collection of controls, one of which turns the set off. I don't want one. I didn't want to pay for a closed caption decoder just because the appropriate lobby for the deaf felt that they should not have to pay for decoders -- now the total cost to the country is much higher -- just spread out to a smaller amount per set. I have sets with tuning knobs and off controls. I don't need a chip to look at someone else's rating of the program and decide if I want it seen in my house. As for mandating educational programming for children -- have past requirements shown any benefit here? Not really. Even with the ability to question if a station is serving the public interest, convenience, or necessity, we still have cheaply done animation, with a fair amount of violence in it, on most of the Saturday morning programs. Commentary was made of the large number of hours of television that children will watch over their lifetimes, but nowhere was it mentioned that this television was not all in the 'saturday morning' timeslots. Much of it is watched in prime time. Better programming can push out worse in many cases, however, mandated educational programming will simply be filled with whatever is the lowest cost means of filling that requirement -- and it will be filled in the least prime time that is allowed. Broadcasters will notice most strongly if comments in their files at license renewal time get more serious attention -- if not satisfying the parents of their community will put their licenses at risk, they will be looking more at providing a service. However, license renewal seems to be a pretty automatic issue -- pay the fees, hire the right lawyers to fill out the right forms and add the right words, and that is about it in most cases. In summary: 1. They ARE public airwaves. As such, selling them off to the highest bidder is inappropriate. 2. Don't mandate what extra functions my television must have. There is no reason for me to have closed caption decoders built in, and there is no value in a chip to enforce someone else's standards. Parent's should set and enforce their own standards. 3. Requiring educational programming would simply provide a market for the cheapest that would fill the requirements, and not really produce any of the good creative material like Sesame Street. You really cannot legislate creativity. ------------------------------------------------------------ I FULLY agree with everything you have said regarding childrens educational programming. I think it should be obvious to most everyone that decent, and uplifting television can, and should be a major contributor to an improved society. Whether it's good, or not, we all spend vast amounts of time watching television, and surely positive reinforcements are more 'positive' than negative ones. I'm concerned by what seems to be a downward spiral, in television broadcasting. Some of the daytime talk shows deal with issues that are quite perverse, and very unrealistic. The scary thing is, that after being exposed to bizarre lifestyles too much, one tends to get used to them, which means that they are no longer considered bizzar. If children grow up watching these things (hopefully they're in school during these shows) they're not going to realize just how strange and unusual the things they observe on T.V. are, and rather will consider them to be NORMAL. I know this happense, because I've observed it in myself. I think that broadcasters have lost sight of the fact that spectrum has been allocated to them for free, and that it's their responsibility to treat public property in such a way that it doesn't undermine the basis upon which they are allowed to use it. I'd like to commend you in your efforts, and regulatory actions regarding improved educational programming. I hope that efforts continue to be made to improve the educational experience of everyone in every medium. ------------------------------------------------------------ The FCC should establish an Educational TV Home Page that acts as both an Educational TV GUIDE and as a master link to the Educational TV home pages established by each and every "broadcaster". By accessing the Educational TV Guide Home Page, a person can learn which educational programs are being offered and when ... and a synopis of the program and its learning objectives upcoming during the week. Also the Educational TV Home Page can contain web links to each "broadcaster's" Educational TV Home Page. Here the boardcaster can advertise each of the Educational TV programs that it offers and invites people to evaluate the program in general and each show in particular. In addition, a general idea page could be offered to allow people to submit ideas for new programs/shows and/or suggest improvements to existing programs and shows offered by that broadcaster. Once it gets going, the FCC could advertise the existance of the Educational TV Home Page ... and the public would have a place for one stop shopping concerning everything they would ever want to know about the existance and general health of Educational TV in America. ------------------------------------------------------------ If the airwaves are "public property", and if broadcasters should "serve the public interest as a public trustee" by devoting time to educational programming, rather than "slash and shoot" lowest common denominator programming which attracts an audience in the same manner a multi-car fatality on the highway draws a crowd, then the government shouldn't think of actually charging a spectrum usage fee, should it? I mean, if they've got to sacrifice revenues to air boring stuff like Mr Rogers, they shouldn't have to pay twice!! ------------------------------------------------------------ I have read the Top Ten myths section in the Web page. It stresses several times that broadcasting companies are driven to put programming on T.V. according to what will make them the most money in advertizing. Since the purchasing audience is 18-49, programs which cater to this audience can make the broadcasing companies the most money by selling their advertizing time. PBS stations have always been able to be a non-profit setup with federal funding to subsidize their supperior programming (both for children and adults). With the drop in funding to the PBS stations, how can it be guaranteed that they will continue to find good funds for educational T.V.? It would seem to me that the FCC needs to get the government to put "their money where there mouth is" and support the PBS stations in order to guarantee that at least these stations will continue supperior programming, even if the other profit run stations will never follow suit. ------------------------------------------------------------ The 10 myths you address could certainly be expanded to include many other areas. Commercial broadcasters don't want to spend the time,energy, effort and funds to make educational proramming a viable aspect of their programming efforts. First of all, they don't have the staff to really understand what it is they are dealing with in the first place.! I think there should be very stringent and specific criteria in order to judge commercial stations efforts in this area. Compared to educational broadcasting stations (public), commerical broadcasters have unlimited opportunities to make money. Look what the educational stations do with very limted funds in terms of childrens/educational programming. Keep pressuring commercial broadcasters to meet their responsibilities in this area and in some other areas. ------------------------------------------------------------ I don't watch a lot of TV because of the poor quality of programming which is available. Our Public Station has some *excellent* educational programming but I haven't read about anything close to educational on the commercial stations. In fact, on the few times when I have observed what type of programming is on during the day, I am appalled. Even the advertising is often demeaning - to women, to minorities, to the entire human race. I don't understand the uproar about what *can* be found on the Internet when I see so much questionable material presented at all hours of the day on widely available commercial television. ------------------------------------------------------------ As a father of four children, I am in total agreement with your postition regarding educational programs over broadcast TV. I "expect" you and the commission to ensure that broadcast television does their part. I am apalled at the lack of educational TV available today and with the low quality of regular broadcast TV programs. Please help to communicate my thoughts to the broadcast TV industry. ------------------------------------------------------------ As an educator at (a state) University, I clear see the results of hours upon hours of television watching by students from all walks of life. Mores, attitudes, behavior, knowledge of current events, and much more is shaped by television programming. I have seen students entering into the University who can recite who the lead singer is for some rock group and they haven't the foggest idea who either their Senator or Congressperson may be. If you ask them anything about the enterainment environment, they have that down in spades. Ask them current events and you can "forget it". As you comments clear state, "Educational Television" can be a very strong and positive influence on today's youth. We clear see the influence both the film and the commerical television industry has by the continual increase in crime. It's sad when a movie star can make + 40 million dollars for film glorifying violence and "big bird" has to walk around with a begging bowl. You ten myths clearly hit the nail right on "ye ole head". Keep it up. ------------------------------------------------------------ I agree wholeheartedly with the myths described above and wish there were more programs such as "Wishbone" and "Carmen Sandiego." Of course, "Sesame Street" has been a favorite for years. There is so much garbage on television, and it seems to continually proliferate. I don't find sassy children to be amusing (such as on "The Simpsons"), nor do I wish to watch the voyeuristic shows such as "COPS" and "Hard Copy." We usually just rent movies that we want to watch. Other than that, we tune into "Jeopardy," and my husband and son are "Star Trek" fans. I certainly support your efforts for more QUALITY educational programming for children and teens. In addition, I would love to see these quality shows aired after school hours and in the early evenings. ------------------------------------------------------------ Broadcasters do not understand the fact that educational programming creates a positive externality in society. In other words, investment in educational television benefits society. It is a fact that educational programming does not hold the selling potential that entertainment programming enjoys. It is also a fact that the societal benefit gained from a small investment in educational programming is much greater than the benfit gained from the same investment in entertainment programming. This benefit is shared by all of society--including those broadcasters. For a small price to themselves, they can be proud of the service they provide to American families. ------------------------------------------------------------ I certainly agreed with all your above reasoning. I have a 13 year old niece who would benefit immeasurably from good quality educational television. Our commencial broadcast bands around the St. Louis, MO are alomost totally devoid of any redeeming content. I certainly support more control of the broadcasters by the FCC. Further, I encourage the FCC to exercise a degree of sensorship over the broadcasters and cable suppliers in the areas of sex and violence. Since I have subscribed to cable, I've noticed that late evening (after 8:00 pm CST) the movie channels are devoted to soft porn programs. ------------------------------------------------------------ While most people would never consider the option, I have chosen to live without a TV for 6 years. Garbage in - Garbage out. So why even let the garbage in the house. Your efforts to enact minimum standards for educational TV are applauded. ------------------------------------------------------------ I think your ten myths about educational tv hit the nail on the head... the dearth of regulation of public resources...whether for the broadcast frequencies of tv and radio or the public telephone and long distance networks...is leaving the development only to what will make corporations rich...it's disgusting. Rural electrification would not have come about if it was left up to profit-minded corporations...nor would a public oriented telephone network ever have been developed...look at the change in attitude from public servant to entertainment conglomerate by Bell Atlantic... In my opinion, any organization that provides a public service must be regulated once it reaches a size such that it impacts the public... ...otherwise there is no organized way for the public to respond to its actions. Please consider this for o TV, both public and private/cable o Telecommunications, local, long distance, and cellular o State and National real estate land use planning commissions o Electric and Gas These characters ought to stop spending money on radio and TV adds and start serving the public... ------------------------------------------------------------ I agree wholeheartedly with your responses to the myth list. There can be nothing more important to do with the e/m spectrum than to help assure our young people aquire the best possible education. In addition, it is very hard to find the places the commercial license holders- radio and television, fulfill their public service responsibilities. Three a.m. is not a resonable time to carry out that provision. I would like to see a license requirement to broad- cast at least two half-hour news sessions per day without any adver- tising... and not at three a.m.! ------------------------------------------------------------ Even though I don't have kids, if I did I would let them watch all the tele- vision that they wanted to within certain guidelines. I watch alot of tele- vision, but I do this after extensively researching the schedules, etc so that I can find the most information for my time available. There is no tool available that can inform someone more than tv if it is properly utilized. People that claim they never watch tv and won't let their children watch tv don't impress me at all. In fact, most of these people don't have a very high degree of general knowledge and are usually very uninformed as to what is happening in the country as a whole. I commend your efforts to get more educational programming on the air for kids. Please continue your efforts and I will back you as much as I can in your quest for more mandatory hours of quality programming on the commercial stations. ------------------------------------------------------------ I agree that television is a very powerful medium and I also agree that we need real educational television shows for children. I work in instructional television and we broadcast over 1000 hours each school year of good educational television programs that teachers in our area use with their students. Parents teaching their children at home are among our most supportive customers. Schools pay a modest fee that provides funding for the broadcast licenses for our programs. Keep the requirement for educational programming, but hold the commercial television folks feet to the fire to prove that what they do is truly educational! Some of the justification that has appeared in the news for their children's shows is ridiculous! ------------------------------------------------------------ Children's programming is an important asset to children in their developmental years. I believe that though they spend much time in front of television, it shouldn't just be a waste of their bandwidth (learning power). Children absorb a lot. While television may not be the most effective method of educating them, it should not be overlooked. ------------------------------------------------------------ Television is an extention of human consciousness. It provides a visual, auditory experience which imprints itself on the mind and thus effects the development of character. Just as a child picks up values, principles, language and attitude through his or her direct experience in a particular physical environment, so too, are they conditioned by the tele-experiences brought to them on screen. Mr. Hundt is absolutely right when he speaks about the consumer driven influence of the sponsor on the tele-experience fed to America's children. Each television show is a small piece of art and like any art it contains the values and vision of its creator. If a television show is contructed to promote specific lifestyles and their coresponding products, not only will the art form be debased but children, given a commercially promoted world, may learn to reject the world they live in at present and their identities within it. Constant images of murder and crime, numb a child's natural sense of horror and outrage at what should be considered highly abnormal aspects of a healthy society and constant injections of an advertiser's perfect world can create self-hatred on a national level. At it's best, television can offer, vision. A world vision, a vision of nature, a vision of civilization, a vision of history and possibility. No matter how it's labeled all television is education. In the interest of the American public and thus the nation, the FCC has a duty to oversee the mass education of America's children. Freedom is nothing without responsibilty, and this is definitely one area of American society where someone needs to be held responsible. ------------------------------------------------------------ I agree. I'm 14 and remember getting up 5:50 AM to watch Sesame Street. Now, I'm in 8th grade and in the top classes at school. In response to #1, I took the SAT's last January and received an 1190. To all those that think educational TV doesn't work: Look at me, or any of my classmates! ------------------------------------------------------------ I agree with all your statements in this weeks column. But in particular applaud the degree of importance you attached to the fact that broadcasters are using the public airwaves. I believe the FCC should encourage broadcasters to air educational programming during pre-prime time hours (Ie. prior to 8PM in most areas) as what's on now is complete garbage and caters to the lowest common denominator. ------------------------------------------------------------ My observations of the impact of TV programming on kids for the past 30 years are very consistent with the above conclusions. This is one of the very few areas where I believe federal government (and specifically FCC) standards and enforcement can have a very beneficial effect on social behavior. I encourage you to strengthen both the requirements for, and enforcement of educational brodcasts for kids wherever possible. ------------------------------------------------------------ No kids in this house, but lets keep public TV supported and allow some quality programming to reach the kids. ------------------------------------------------------------ As a single man with no children, I am sick of having my rights trampled by others in the name of "saving the children." People don't need to watch TV, and their children don't need to watch TV. If they don't like what they see, turn off the TV, unplug it and sell it!!!! But let me watch what I want to watch! I find it scary that the government might begin telling TV stations what to program. I am also tired of the twisted standards the FCC imposes on stations. Why is it that you can't say the "s-word" or the "f-word" on TV, but you can blow somone's brains out?? Why is nudity forbidden but murder and terrorism acceptable?? I'm more offended at tastelessly graphic depictions of rape and brutality than I am at someone uttering a four-letter word! I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you ignore the voices of totalitarianism and let broadcasters air what they wish. I also hope you will rectify the double standards I have just delineated. ------------------------------------------------------------