FCC Rebuffs Critics of Broadcasters’ Educational Programming for Children

The Federal Communications Commission denies petitions to deny the renewal of a number of broadcast television stations because the outlets failed to meet the three-hour core informational and educational children’s programming guideline because the content of several of the programs relied on as core do not have education as a significant purpose of the program. The petitions were filed by The Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ and the Center for Digital Democracy.

Specifically, petitioners argue that the programs are not distinguishable from purely entertainment programs; do not clearly present educational content; and that a single moral message does not transform an episode into a core program specifically designed for children. In response to the petitions, all of the licensees rely on various affidavits from educators and programmers who maintain that the programming qualifies as informational or educational. In addition, DIC Entertainment Corp. filed a separate opposition, explaining the comprehensive process for the development of its informational and educational programs. The licensees and the program producers state that the programs were developed with the assistance of educational professionals, that education is a significant purpose of the programs; that although they present an action/adventure format that contains scenes of conflict, resolution of this conflict provides important pro-social educational and informational elements.

Despite the licensees’ defense of their programming lineups, all of the station’s Children’s Programming Reports (Form 398) disclose that each core programming lineup was promptly modified to replace the programs that were the subject of the petitions. Barbara Kreisman, the Chief of the FCC’s Video Division, writes, “In view of the deliberate processes engaged in by the licensees here in establishing their programming line-ups we are reluctant to substitute our views on the programs for that of the stations. In this content-sensitive area where each side has relied on panels of experts who have differing views, our focus will continue to be on the reasonableness of the broadcaster’s actions in making their own determinations, and with respect to the programming at issue here, relying upon the advice received as to the qualifications of the core programs as informational or educational.”