But last month Charren received a cruel jolt. A study of the legislation’s impact by a coalition of consumer groups found a shocking lack of compliance. Instead of cleaning up their kidvid acts, the bulk of the 58 stations surveyed are just cranking out the same old sludge–only now they’re claiming that the sludge is educational and informational. Ironically, in their applications for license renewal, some of the stations showed exactly the sort of creativity missing from their kidvid programs. A few of the more imaginative entries:
“Good-doer Bucky fights off the evil toads from aboard his ship. Issues of social consciousness and responsibility are central themes of the program.” _B_Chip ’n Dale Rescue Rangers:b “The Rescue Rangers stop Chedderhead Charlie from an evil plot. The rewards of team efforts are the focus in this episode.” _B_Yo, Yogi!:b “Snag learns that he can capture the bank-robbing cockroach more successfully by using his head, rather than his muscles.” One station even trotted out 10 installments of “Leave It to Beaver” as testament to its pro-social beneficence. “Eddie,” read one of the plot summaries, “misunderstands Wally’s help to girlfriend, Cindy, and confronts Wally with his fist. Communication and trust are shown in this episode.”
Such shameless flimflam, the study concluded, suggests that the TV industry “has devised a conscious strategy of redefining virtually all entertainment programs for children as ’educational and informational’.” Charren puts it more emotionally. “I don’t know whether to laugh or cry,” she says of the stations’ claims. “It’s like arguing that ‘Attack of the Killer Tomatoes’ teaches the value of eating vegetables … Instead of complying with a law that finally protects TV’s most vulnerable constituency, the broadcasters are telling Congress ’the hell with you.’ They’ve always said that to parents. This time they’re saying it to lawmakers–and in a democracy, that’s horrifying.”
The TV industry argues that kids don’t want more nutritious stuff, that educational programs get low ratings and lose money. “If broccoli is the only thing on a kid’s plate, that doesn’t mean he’s going to eat it,” says Judy Price, the head of children’s programming at CBS. Beyond that, Price–like many in her business–feels that quality kidvid simply cant be legislated: “Who’s to say what’s appropriate for our young? How can you have rules about something that subjective? And with all respect to Peggy Charren, who elected her to represent the values of this nation’s parents?”
For the clearest view of what all the fuss is about, it helps to look at what’s passing for children’s fare on the four commercial networks. True, none of them falls under the new law’s strictures, which apply only to local stations. Yet the networks play an enormous role in children’s programming. It is they who supply their affiliates with most of the stations’ kidvid line, along with setting the entire industry’s tone. Add to that the networks’ awesome reach–more than 10 million small fry plug into the Big Four’s Saturday-morning action-and the responsibilities of their power seem obvious. So how well have the networks embraced the spirit of reform? In the first season covered by the new law, here’s a taste of the new network series:
To begin at the bottom, Fox Broadcasting’s “Eek The Cat” is a “Ren & Stimpy” knockoff that displays gobs ofthe Nickelodeon cartoon’s grossness but absolutely none of its irresistibly deranged style. Fox’s “X-Men,” the zap-pow adventures of a team of superheroic “mutants,” suggests nothing more than a program-length commercial for a line of action dolls just waiting to descend on us. (On the other hand, it’s hard to dislike any show that tries to put a straight face on a line like “We don’t want you lousy mutants around here!”)
ABC’s contribution to domestic role modeling, a cartoon version of “The Addams Family,” amounts to a course in sadomasochism for preschoolers. One episode featured bondage, decapitation, flea-eating, a boy torturing his sister (and vice versa) and a demented inventor who cleans his teeth with a large broom. As for CBS, Judy Price deserves thanks for “Disney’s The Little Mermaid,” a charming “pre-quel” to the hit film, but no thanks for “The Amazing Live Sea Monkeys.” Imagine an aquatic version of the Three Stooges with another demented inventor who cleans his nose with a large toothbrush (uh-oh, this seems to be spreading). Finally, there’s NBC’s “Double Up,” which comes on like a “Studs” for pubescents. Real-life brothers and sisters try to pick an ideal date for one another by grilling candidates of their own sex. “Cindy,” one sister asked a sweet little blonde, “my brother has a bad habit of leaving his fly open. What would you do?” As Cindy cringed, the show’s leering host jumped in: “Yeah, his fly is just catchin’ the breeze. Whaddya gonna do, hah?”
When called to account for such dreck, network executives say, in effect, “Look elsewhere.” Many point to cable TV, with all its specialized channels, as far better suited to provide educational children’s fare. As a justification for serving up pap, that argument is, at best, disingenuous. Yes, cable services like Nickelodeon, Disney and the Learning Channel deliver some terrific lessons (along with their share of junk, as any parent exposed to Nick’s game shows will attest). The problem here is one of home economics. Not only is nearly half the country unwired for cable, but the households whose children most need informative TV are precisely those who can’t afford to subscribe. For millions of poor kids attending bad schools, the networks’ “let ’em eat cable” attitude constitutes an invitation to remain educationally malnourished.
As most of the activists see it, the best remedy would be for the FCC to enforce the law they battled so long to get passed. While the agency has taken a largely hands-off stance under the deregulatory policies of the Reagan and Bush administrations, that’s likely to change under President Clinton, who’s expected to inject a tough new FCC chairman into the fray–not to mention a First Lady who’s made children’s rights a personal crusade. Some hard-liners are pushing for a “spectrum fee”: government would tax broadcasters for using the public airwaves and pass on the money to public television, which really knows how to serve the young. In the meantime, the congressional sub-committee that oversees the TV industry has promised to open hearings soon on the compliance shenanigans–a prospect that delights the grandmother who started it all. “I cant wait to testify,” she says. “This whole fiasco has re-energized me.”
In other words, the merchants of kidvid face something worse than the rules they have now, worse than a hostile administration, maybe even worse than a nationwide power outage: Peggy Charren back on the attack.
