MAKING TELEVISION SAFE FOR KIDS

(3 of 3)
This recommendation will work only if two conditions are met. The first is that Congress grant broadcasters an antitrust exemption so that they may cooperate in the production and scheduling of quality children's programming. Requiring broadcasters to meet such a minimal public service is reasonable, but asking them to take financial lumps in the name of public service is counterproductive-and, more important, competition in this area will not benefit children. Far better that a network such as Fox, which has already had success with its preschool series Cubhouse, continue to program for younger viewers, while cbs serves six-to-10-year-olds and nbc, perhaps, young teens. Broadcasters might also differentiate their programs by subject matter. cbs, for example, airs the wonderfully wacky science show Beakman's World for older children and young teens; abc might offer a science show for younger viewers, or perhaps a reading or news program. If broadcasters could discuss scheduling and avoid concurrent airtimes, children would be able to watch all the quality programs made just for them, providing children with a brighter palette of weekly programming and giving broadcasters a realistic opportunity to build a loyal viewership for their programs.

No such initiative will work without a critical second step: that the required programming be clearly labeled as the broadcaster's compliance with the law. The label should work just as the signs do that millions of Americans post prominently in the windows of their homes and businesses, letting children know these places are safe refuges. The programming label would indicate that the program's primary purpose is to educate, not to sell toys or junk food, and that it is safe; that there is a friend in the house instead of a stranger.

If broadcasters choose the second alternative, they will effectively be relieved of their public-interest obligations, but in return they will have to pay a percentage of their annual revenues-between 1% and 3%-for spectrum leases. The money from those leases should, in turn, be required by statute to go to the production of children's programming on public broadcasting.

The money generated by a spectrum fee on broadcasters could go a long way. Today annual gross television-broadcasting revenues in the U.S. are conservatively estimated at about $25 billion; by itself, a bare minimum of 1% of broadcast-television revenues would pay annually for $250 million of children's programming; 3% would provide $750 million, a sum with which Americans could transform not only children's television but childhood itself.

Though the information superhighway may eventually dispense with many of the public-interest obligations that marked the age of broadcasting, our responsibility to protect and educate our children will never be among them. Even skeptics who believe the public interest is beyond definition know it lies in the hearts and minds of children. If as a nation we cannot figure out what the public interest means with respect to those who are too young to vote, who are barely literate, who are financially, emotionally and even physically dependent on adults, then we will never figure out what it means anywhere else. Our children are the public interest, living and breathing, flesh and blood.

Or will we, once again, abandon our children to the wasteland?