NEWS                                                         August 8, 1996
                                    
             Press Statement of Commissioner Rachelle Chong
                  on Children's Television Programming 
                                     
 Reaching agreement on children's television has been a lot like making sausage.  It
was not a pleasant or pretty process, but the end result is palatable.  I am very pleased to
support most of this order, and I am glad we can finally put this issue behind us.  

 Public Information Initiatives.  Our strengthened information requirements will
"empower parents" by bringing them more information about "core" programming through
program guides and on-air announcements.  Parents can then encourage their children to
watch these shows.  I also support our increased reporting requirements that will increase
broadcaster accountability to their communities and to the Commission.  These initiatives are
designed to encourage a dialogue between broadcasters and their communities.

 While much of our decision is right on target, I do fear that some portions miss the
mark.

 Definition of "Core" Programming.  I generally support most of our strengthened
definition of "core" programming, but I have concurred as to two aspects of the six-factor
definition:  (1) I would not have limited the "regularly scheduled" factor to only weekly
programs, but would have allowed biweekly or monthly programs to be credited as "core;"
and (2) I would not have limited "core" programming to only 30 minute shows.  I would have
preferred that our rule include more flexibility so that short form programming could be
credited.

 Because broadcasters will have strong incentives under the new 3 hour processing
guideline to air only "core" programming, I worry that by regulatory fiat, our narrow
definition of "core" programming may discourage the broadcasting industry from producing
and airing anything but "core" programs.  My fear is that broadcasters won't fund creative
educational and informational programming that capture children's imaginations but do not fit
into our "core" definition.

 Quantitative Processing Guideline.  I voice serious reservations about today's decision
to establish a quantitative processing guideline, but have reluctantly concurred in this portion
of the decision as well.  I have not favored a quantitative processing guideline for the
following reasons:
Press Statement of Commissioner Rachelle Chong
Page Two

 (1)  Congress did not direct us to adopt this "one size fits all" approach.  The plain 
language of the Act does not compel us to use a quantitative approach.  The legislative
history makes it clear that Congress was not mandating a quantitative approach.  

 (2)  Although a processing guideline creates an easy-to-administer regulatory method
of checking CTA compliance, I am doubtful that quantification of any aspect of a
broadcaster's public interest obligation is wise as a matter of public policy.  I have concerns
about where this path may take us in the future if we are not vigilant.  I fear that a
quantitative approach as to particular categories of programming content may start us down a
slippery slope of undue government intrusion in a broadcaster's programming discretion.  I
give notice that I remain skeptical that quantification of any other aspect of a broadcaster's
public interest obligation is wise as a matter of public policy.