Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
286411479
label
Column [binder]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
286411479
contentType
document
title
Column [binder]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of Speechwriting (Clinton Administration)
Alison (Lissa) Muscatine's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
286411479
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
7431941-20171164S-039-018-2023
HRC Columns
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
298d9506f4a9b68f
ocrText
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. memo
Judy Kern-Fazio to Melanne Verveer and Katy Button [partial] (1
11/12/1997
Personal Misfile, b(6)
page)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Speechwriting
Lissa Muscatine
OA/Box Number: 12090
FOLDER TITLE:
Column [Binder]
2017-1164-S
rc2701
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
10/23/95 08:32 FAX 12123607423
PENN AND SCHOEN
002
TO:
DON BAER
FROM:
MARK PENN
DATE:
OCTOBER 23, 1995
RE:
CHANGE IN OPTIMISM MEMO
I have added some additional sentences and data on the Reagan point. Please review.
***denotes where the change occurred in the document.
10/23/95 08:32 FAX 12123607423
PENN AND SCHOEN
5.
003
To: Don Baer
From: Mark Penn
Re: Follow-up on Optimism denotes change immemo
Optimism:
What is optimism?
Optimism is the belief that Americans have that their own future will be
better than it is today in the next few years, no matter how difficult the problems
we face. Americans are, by nature, mostly optimistic about their own abilities
and futures: they are pessimistic about the ability of others to help them.
Americans want - and need—a message from their leaders that connects
with their basic belief in their futures. Without doubt, America expects its
leadership to understand the problems average Americans face. But most
Americans also want to hear from those leaders that there is a clear path to
overcoming the problems and need a message which offers hope that America
will overcome them to become a stronger, healthier nation. To be credible, the
picture of the future must be accompanied by a sense that an administration that
has been in office for three years has us already moving in the right direction.
While Americans, as any people, have anxieties today, we are no where
near the level of pessimism and fear that existed in 1992. Americans were very
close at that time to losing faith in themselves. If we permit that to happen again,
then this feeling will dissipate our chances of re-election. The numbers we see
today are in fact very close to the poll findings when Reagan talked about
Morning in America. Money magazine, during the Reagan years, tracked a poll
question which showed that Americans believed they will be better off a year
from now by a margin of 34% better to 15% worse in mid 1984, with half saying
it will be the same. Money dropped even asking this question in the early nineties
during the recession. They just put it back in August, and people were optimistic
by 41 to 6%, a record for the question. *** In fact we are at a 14 year high for the
question, with the low point in 1981 when Reagan took office, (30% worse and
26% better) and other high points when Reagan won reelection (37% better and
13% worse on January 1, 1995) and when Bush won 39% better and 7% worse.
Consumer confidence, another long-tracked measure of optimism, has
surged to over the 1985 level for the first time since then 1990. In 1992. the
10/23/95 08:32 FAX 12123607423
PENN AND SCHOEN
1
004
index stood at 61.6, and has climbed steadily since then to an average of 100.3
for the January to September period of this year (100=1985 sentiment).
At the same time, the economy as an issue has sunk from nearly 60% as
the chief concern of Americans to as low as 13% in New York Times polls. It
now is the most important issue, but with only slightly more than one quarter of
the electorate. Some would say that we missed a major opportunity to declare
optimism over the summer when consumer confidence was at its peak. It still
stands at 97.
Voters do not now believe that America is moving in the right direction.
The results of the actual economic performance based on unemployment.
inflation and interest rates, the traditional measures by which Americans judge
the economy are quite good, but have not been transferred into political success
("Clinton Deserves Better" in USA Today).
We can fault no one but ourselves for this occurrence. While the economy
improved and dropped off of the radar screen as the major issue, and consumer
confidence exceeded 1985, the administration continued to talk in guarded and
pessimistic terms. Our major accomplishment a 59% approval rating on
handling the economy - was never utilized effectively with confidence. *** Failure
to recognize the optimism in the electorate and to correctly revive it and to
instead feed into a self-fulfilling prophecy of pessimism could be the single
biggest mistake we would make that would cost us the election.
CHANGE OCCURRING TODAY
When asked about the changes that are occurring in America, the voters
cited worries about healthcare, retirement funds, the decline in family, taxes,
decay in morals, crime, and the economy. Most of the changes that people
worry about relate to their concerns over the decay of morals/values in
their own community, not to global economic/technological change.
Our polling figures show that although Americans are worried about the
information age and about the global economy, have tremendous faith in
technology and in the information superhighway. Technology touches more
people (49%) than any other major development in society and it is seen
overwhelmingly as a positive. This is a country so technology crazy that the
release of Windows 95 became the number one news story for several days. It is
an electorate that sees an America that is smart, strong and able to adapt to
change and come out on top. They react enthusiastically to themes that put
America first: they worry whenever our leaders position the country as just one
of many nations in a global economy.
OPTIMISM LANGUAGE
10/23/95 08:32 FAX 12123607423
PENN AND SCHOEN
1
005
Keys to expressing optimism:
1.
Explaining how we are moving in the right direction
2.
Faith in what Americans have done and will do for themselves,
given the opportunity.
3.
Use of innovative thinking to master change and see us to the 21ˢᵗ
Century.
Responsibility
4.
Vision for the future based on American values based on family,
opportunity leadership, etc, common ground.
Sample Optimism Language:
America today is coming back strong. Look at what America has done in
the last three years - America created 7 million new jobs. America reduced the
number of people in poverty by 5%, the largest change since 19XX. America
brought back its auto industry while creating new worldwide leadership in
computer software and technology.
Americans today are preparing to enter the 21st Century. We are a strong,
smart and resourceful people. We have a younger generation brighter, better
educated and better prepared to deal with this new world than ever before. They
will succeed if we give them the opportunities they need.
And we are giving Americans those opportunities. Through job training,
through programs that will put a computer in every classroom, through
...
Of course we have problems. But even some of our most difficult ones
have shown progress. A year after we passed the assault weapons ban and
started to place 100,000 new police on the streets, crime started to decline and
is down 5% this year. Murders and violent crimes have declined the most. You
can never give up on America and Americans. Just when things appear to be
the darkest, we turn them around. We are truly a comeback nation.
But with all of the changes occurring today, we cannot lose sight of the
need to preserve our basic American values. And we have been doing just
that
In addition the, the speech in lowa did a good job of talking about both
optimism and values, (better than the sample text) and there is a great deal of
language in that speech that could be put to use in other speeches.
006
Expectation for Personal Finances: 1981-1995
"Looking ahead, do you think that a year from now you personally will be
better off financially, worse off or in about the same state as now?"
60
50
51
51
52
50
51
47
48
49
50
44
45
44
44
42
40
41
40
38
38
39
36
#
PENN AND SCHOEN
34
33
34
34
32
30
30
29
29
20
21
22
22
19
20
15
16
16
14
12
11
10
9
7
6
10/23/95 08:32 FAX 12123607423
0
5/20 12/12 3/8 10/11 5/15 12/18 7/8 7/29 10/28 9/8 10/26 5/25 1/1 8/20
81
82
83
84
85
86 87 88 89 95
-
Better
Worse
About Same
Source: ABC/Money Magazine. With 41% who say "better," we are at a 14 year
high water mark. During the Reagan years, 34% on average said "better" and 17%
said "worse."
005
Page 1 of 2
ABC/Money Magazine Consumer Comfort Index Averages
Scale of +100 to -100
0
&
-10
-10
-9
-11
PENN AND SCHOEN
-14 -13
-16
Date: 10/23/95 Time: 13:06:34
-20
19
-30
-31
10/23/95 01:29 FAX 12123607423
-40
-37
-37
-44
From: To: Mark Penn via Lauren
-50
'86
'87
'88
'89
1-6-/90
7-12-/90
'91
'92
'93
'94
'95*
Oct '95
* As of Oct. 11, 1995
006
1
in 0 a #
Expectation for Personal Finances: 1983 - - 1995
"Looking ahead, de you think that a year from now you personally will be
better off financially, worse off or in about the same state as now?"
60
51
52
50
51
51
50
50
47
48
49
44
41
PENN AND SCHOEN
40
39
40
38
38
36
34
34
34
33
#
30
19
20
16
16
15
14
12
11
9
10
7
6
0
0
10/23/95 01:29 FAX 12123607423
037-22-95 12:35 + NOW 0 0 11) M 0 Z N N 0 0 00 E : I I
0
5/15
12/18
7/8
7/29
10/28
9/8
10/26
5/25
1/1
8/20
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
95
-
Better
Worse
About Same
Source: ABC/Money Magazine
4 007
Page 2 of 2
Annual Average Consumer Confidence Index
140
120
115.2116.8
102.3 100
102.6
100.3
100
94.7
PENN AND SCHOEN
91.5
90.6
85.7
Date: 10/23/95 Time: 13:07:08
80
68.5
65,8
61.6
60
40
10/23/95 01:29 FAX 12123607423
20
From: To: Mark Perin via Lauren
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995*
Note * Jan - Sept 1995 average. All data produced by The Conference Board. N=5,000
households.
008
P.88 1 0 I
Most Important Problem
Gallup Survey Trend on Econony and Unemployment/Jobs
Responses
40
PENN AND SCHOEN
30
20
10
10/23/95 01:29 FAX 12123607423
C 3 OCT-23-95 MON 12:36
0
8
9
4
5
9
7
11/21
8
1
8
7
84
87
89
91
92
93
94
95
Economy -Unemployment/Jobs
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
SPEECHWRITING
TO:
Fax #
Phone #
FROM:
Fax # (202) 456-5709
Phone # (202) 456-2777
NOTES:
UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE MATERIALS
IS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL PROSECUTION.
If there are any problems with the transmission of this facsimile, please call (202) 456-2777.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
SPEECHWRITING
TO:
Fax #
Phone #
FROM:
Fax # (202) 456-5709
Phone # (202) 456-2777
NOTES:
UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE MATERIALS
IS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL PROSECUTION,
If there are any problems with the transmission of this facsimile, please call (202) 456-2777.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
SPEECHWRITING
TO:
Fax #
Phone #
FROM:
Fax # (202) 456-5709
Phone # (202) 456-2777
NOTES:
UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE MATERIALS
IS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL PROSECUTION,
If there are any problems with the transmission of this facsimile, please call (202) 456-2777.
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. memo
Judy Kern-Fazio to Melanne Verveer and Katy Button [partial] (1
11/12/1997
Personal Misfile, b(6)
page)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Speechwriting
Lissa Muscatine
OA/Box Number: 12090
FOLDER TITLE:
Column [Binder]
2017-1164-S
rc2701
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
ARTER & HADDEN
180l for
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
colourn
founded 1843
Cleveland
1801 K Street, N.W. / Suite 400K
Irvine
Columbus
Washington, D.C. 20006-1301
Los Angeles
Dallas
San Francisco
202/775-7100 telephone
202/857-0172 facsimile
MEMORANDUM
michael
TO:
MELANNE VERVEER
KATY BUTTON
FROM:
JUDY KERN FAZIO July
RE:
FOLLOW-UP BACKGROUND FOR PROPOSED COLUMN
DATE:
NOVEMBER 12, 1997
Last week, Hearst Entertainment President Bruce Paisner and "PM for Kids" Producer Jerry
Shevick met with FCC Mass Media Bureau Chief Roy Stewart, CME President Katherine
Montgomery, Representative Ed Markey, and Senators Conrad Burns and Byron Dorgan. In
preparation for those meetings, we uncovered additional programming information that might be
of interest to Mrs. Clinton. Huma kindly suggested that we forward the attached memo to her
attention.
I had hoped that the much discussed "PMK" episode featuring a segment on food safety would
also be available today. Unfortunately, it is in the last stages of editing and will be forwarded to
you shortly. We hope you and the First Lady will be pleased with the final result.
(b)(6)
[001]
Until my return to the
office in mid-December, my colleagues Jennifer Blum and Dennis Eckart will continue to follow
children's programming and other issues of interest to Hearst. Please feel free to contact Jennifer
at 775-7991 or Dennis at 775-4439.
Again, thank you for your courtesy and patience during the past several weeks. It has been a
pleasure to work with you and others on the First Lady's staff.
cc: Jennifer Blum
Dennis Eckart
ARTER & HADDEN
MEMORANDUM
November 12, 1997
TO:
Melanne Verveer
FROM:
Dennis Eckart
Jennifer Blum
RE:
Additional Talking Points for Column on Children's Programming
As Judy mentioned in a phone call with Huma on Monday, we are enclosing some
additional information which we thought that Mrs. Clinton might find useful for her column. We
believe that an article this fall would be particularly timely in light of the upcoming renewal period
for television shows and recent publicity as to the merits/failures of the new FCC rule (see
enclosed New York Times Magazine questioning the necessity of the rule). As a recent report by
the Annenberg Public Policy Center also indicates, many broadcasters are looking for
reinforcement by government officials and public policy groups that they continue to support the
educational programming and the FCC rule.¹
Compliance with FCC Rule:
There is anecdotal evidence indicating that, even though there are quality programs
available, barriers still exist which keep these shows off the air during the hours specified in the
FCC guidelines. For example, market conditions in the New York Metropolitan Area have made
it necessary for some producers to pay network affiliates to air their educational programs. One
company actually paid $200,000 for a 6 am Sunday timeslot (a time not included in the FCC
guidelines). The irony in this is that the same network throughout the country "satisfies" its FCC
obligation by re-running episodes of an outdated show for 2.5 hours a week. Many other
affiliates similarly are satisfying the obligation by showing their traditional teen fare.
* Ratings & "Sweeps": Some of the educational shows are doing well in the ratings.
"PM for Kids", for example, it is doing better than every children's show on CBS. However,
even with solid ratings, it is unclear how many of these quality shows will be picked up for a
second season. Because the economic success of television shows dictates in large measure their
futures, the ratings received during the November "sweeps" period is critical to the future of many
of the new educational programs that were born out of, in part, the FCC rule. This demonstrates
the difficulty of creating and sustaining a successful children's show, particularly if the show is in
syndication. Independently produced shows truly must "earn" their ratings and their timeslot on
1
See enclosed report by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, "Children's Educational Television Regulations and
the Local Broadcaster: Impact and Implementation" (6/9/97), at 17. [hereinafter the Annenburg Report].
ARTER & HADDEN
network affiliate stations. 2 Many network affiliates are contractually required to pick up certain
networks shows. In addition, companies which produce several children's shows are able to
"sell" their "FCC-friendly" educational fare (regardless of quality) with their more commercial,
non-educational traditional fare, in effect forcing the affiliates to take the whole package.
It is alarming that these indicators may lead to the failure of the few new quality
educational shows that have been produced. If these shows are not renewed, it is unlikely that
any producer will take the gamble to make other educational shows to meet the intent of the FCC
rule. On the other hand, if the networks and their affiliates give the nod of approval, they may
create a new trend toward additional FCC-friendly shows.
*
Marketing: Interestingly, quality shows do well in almost any morning timeslot
between 6:00 - 12:00. However, more critical to the success of quality educational programming
than timeslots is marketing of the show. Currently, network affiliates invest little or no money
marketing children's educational programming. Without the investment in the promotion of
quality children's programming by networks or local stations, the FCC guidelines are likely to be
of little value.
*
Smaller Markets: Non-network children's shows often have difficulty getting on the air
in rural areas. In those markets there are typically fewer stations that fill up the desirable
timeslots with network shows that do not necessarily meet the intended definition of educational.
The result is that, ironically, in viewing areas where educational programming is particularly
important, such as poorer rural areas, it is less likely to be shown. Because of these barriers, it is
also unclear how the smaller markets are meeting the FCC three hour rule for educational
programming.
Please let us know if we can provide you any additional information. Thanks for all of
your help.
cc: Judy Fazio
111694.1D
2
See Annenberg Report, at 15. Non-network local broadcasters tend to be more creative in their sources for
educational programming.
3
See Annenberg Report, at 25-6. As one of its recommendations, the report suggests that broadcasters invest
more in the promotion of their quality shows.
- 2 -
The New York Times Magazine
NOVEMBER 9, 1997
Washington wants more educational programming
for children - and it's true that the cartoons
could be better. But what's wrong with just letting a kid
laze about in front of a TV?
Giving
Saturday Morning
Some Slack
R
By Charles McGrath
emember Saturday morning? The
On a good Saturday morning, one when Mom
it's often a ritual. Part of the magic of the old
expectancy, the blissfulness, the sense of utter
wasn't too cranky, you got to stay in your paja-
Saturday-morning drill had almost nothing to
freedom? The most sublime moment was the
mas until noon.
do with content, or with anything that could
first - the instant when, unprodded by either
In those days, of course, television was
be regulated. The magic was in the safeness
alarm clock or parental summons, you emerged
largely unregulated. No one, not even Mom,
and the sameness - the reassuring security -
into consciousness and experienced an almost
was paying much attention to what or how
of the ritual itself.
physical sense of release, a floating up from the
much we watched. In recent years, children's
mattress, as you realized that you didn't have to
programming has been endlessly scrutinized,
WHAT YOU WATCHED, IF YOU GREW UP IN
go to school. And the rest of the day - of the
and thanks in large part to parental lobbying
the 50's or early 60's, was not the parade of
whole weekend - then seemed to spead out
groups, it has come under more vigilant Federal
otherworldly characters that nowadays lurches
limitlessly from the edge of the bedcovers, a
controls. The newest set of regulations was
forth - robots and superheroes mostly, so
blank and beckoning horizon.
supposed to go into effect this fall, requiring
poorly animated that their dialogue and their
You could do absolutely anything you chose.
that stations devote at least three hours a week
expressionless mouths are forever out of sync
You could turn over, tunnel under the pillow
- most of them on Saturday, presumably - to
and that Captain America, for example, walks
and go back to sleep. You could just lie there
educational programming for children under
as stiffly as if he had just had a hip replace-
for a while, woolgathering and listening to
16. So far, compliance has been spotty at best.
ment. In those days, what you watched, most
Dad's snores rumble from down the hall. You
Like those that preceded them, the new regula-
likely, was a Saturday-morning program that
could get up and play with your slot cars or
tions are vague and unenforceable. No one can
originated at your local station. It featured an
your electric train. You could check on the ger-
agree on what constitutes educational televi-
adult figure, either clownish or avuncular, de-
bils, in hopes that they might be mating again.
sion, and the burden of policing falls not on the
pending on local custom, and perhaps a puppet
You could build a model plane, snuffling in
Government but on viewers, who are expected
or two or a dimwitted visitor, whose job it was
deep, head-jolting whiffs of Testor's glue. You
to keep tabs on their local stations. The sta-
to fill with patter the intervals between the
could even read - that was not unheard of
tions claim, not unreasonably, that their hands
showing of vintage cartoons, doled out as spar-
back then.
are tied by the networks, which these days sup-
ingly as if they were some rare elixir - which
But what you chose to do, of course, was
ply almost all the programming. The networks,
indeed they were.
watch TV. You sprang up and, still in your pj's,
meanwhile, have for the most part done little
In Boston, where I grew up, we had "Boom-
went to the kitchen and fixed yourself a bowl of
more than tinker with the existing shows and
town," with Rex Trailer, a handsome singing
Froot Loops or Lucky Charms, which in viola-
declare that they fit the bill. Disney's "101 Dal-
cowboy, and his faithful, if none-too-bright,
tion of the first commandment of the house-
matians," for example, turns out to teach
sidekick, the sombreroed and serape-clad Pab-
hold - no food in the living room! - you car-
friendship and responsibility, and "N.B.A. In-
lo. (I was astonished to discover once, when my
ried boldly over the forbidden threshold and
side Stuff," professional basketball's show for
father took me to one of Rex's "personal ap-
set on top of the Magnavox. You turned on
children, is said to impart "life lessons."
pearances," that Pablo was not really Mexican
your favorite show and then curled up on the
This is actually not as dumb as it sounds. All
and that he also had extremely bad breath.) The
sofa or stretched out on the carpet in front, and
TV imparts life lessons of a sort if only les-
show began with a film clip of Rex galloping to
with any luck you remained there, motionless,
sons in how greedy or manipulative or boring
the studio on his handsome palomino, Gold-
for hours. If, as the critics used to complain, TV
television producers can be. And what we take
rush - galloping from where was never en-
is a drug, then no opium den was ever sweeter.
away from the experience of watching televi-
tirely clear; New Hampshire, perhaps - but
sion is more than what the programmers have
the rest, except for the cartoons, was broadcast
Charles McGrath is the editor of The New York
put there. Watching television, even if you
live. Rex did rope tricks and was occasionally
Times Book Review.
watch it alone, is also a social experience, and
persuaded to take out his guitar, or his "git-fid-
Illustration by Ross Mael Donald
52
dle," as he called it, and sing. (One of his tunes,
into, on the one hand, an airhead rodent with a
disfigurement (popping eyeballs, missing dig-
I seem to recall, had a chorus that consisted of
high-pitched North London accent and, on the
its, smoking ears, anvil-shaped heads) without
the word "hoofbeats," repeated over and over.)
other, a macrocephalic mad-scientist mouse
causing any harm at all.
Once in a while a vistor dropped by to talk
with plans to take over the world. These
In the end, the effect of the new, hyper Sat-
about fire safety or disease prevention.
shows, like the better prime-time cartoons -
urday-morning style, whether deliberate or not,
It was all a little boring and overearnest, and
"The Simpsons" and "King of the Hill" - suc-
is to make time pass faster and to do away with
in retrospect it's amazing that "Boomtown"
cessfully talk to kids and adults both. They
the old sensation of endlessness, of moments
lasted as long as it did, from 1956 to 1976.
sometimes seem to operate on two simulta-
hardly ticking by. As an experiment, on a recent
(Pablo died years ago, but Rex, I was happy to
neous planes of reference, in fact, and they pay
Saturday I watched children's TV for five hours
learn recently while trolling through the In-
children the great compliment of not dumbing
straight, from 7 to noon. (Don't try this at
ternet, has prospered in the new business of
everything down for them. Or maybe they
home, parents, without medical supervision.) I
video résumés.) Yet the very dullness and pre-
merely recognize that children know more
was bored much of the time, yet when I closed
dictability was an essential and soothing part
than we think, or wish, they did.
my eyes and tried to doze, I was invariably jarred
of Saturday morning; it slowed time down, af-
But where the Saturday-morning TV of to-
awake by some new sound effect or other. But I
ter a fashion, and helped stretch out those pre-
day differs enormously from the TV most of us
was astonished by how quickly the hours flew. It
cious hours into a drowsy prelunch eternity -
watched is in the virtual absence (except in
was Saturday afternoon before I knew it.
a kind of Keatsian daze in which the antics of
shows like "Captain Kangaroo," for very young
Popeye and Bluto and Elmer and Woody never
children) of adult figures - of the Rexes and
HE KIDS MAY NOT MIND, HOWEVER,
staled, no matter how many times we'd seen
Pablos, those benign gatekeepers, or emissaries
from the real world, who while seeming to
T
or even notice, for how many of them
them before.
get to enjoy the full five-hour orgy
Had we known it, we never would have
share our delight in cartoons, our near rever-
anymore? We wake them up before
watched, but "Boomtown" was, by today's
ence for them, also reminded us of the impor-
dawn for the long drive to the hockey rink, and
standards at least, highly "educational." And odd-
tance of brushing our teeth and crossing at
then there's band practice, ballet lessons, the
ly enough, this show and others like it were in
crosswalks. Grown-ups turn up on Saturday
math tutor and, if there's time, that play date
part done in through the efforts of Action for
morning now as either idiots, like the crazed
we penciled in a few weeks ago and that we can
Children's Television and other lobbying groups
geek who does comic spots on "Disney's 1 Sat-
confirm now on the car phone on the way to
dedicated to reforming children's progamming
urday Morning," or meanies, like the crotchety,
the orthodontist.
and reducing its dependency on commercials.
incompetent teachers and principals on the car-
Many kids today, if they watch Saturday-
toons "Recess" and "Pepper Ann."
morning TV at all, watch it the way grown-ups
STILL, TODAY'S SATURDAY-MORNING FARE,
Saturday-morning TV, morever, is nothing
watch "Today" or "Good Morning America"
though much maligned, is in a number of es-
like as sweetly languourous as it used to be.
- on the run, in snatches, while hastily swal-
sential ways no worse than what we watched
Where a show like "Boomtown" used to come
lowing a vitamin pill. And on those mornings,
as kids. Some of it, in fact, is little altered: the
on at 6:30 or 7 and stay on the air for several
increasingly rare, when we parents yield to
whole inspired Looney Tunes gang (Bugs,
hours, the new programs come, one after the
temptation - when, in response to that gentle
Porky, Daffy, Sylvester, Tweety et al.) still turn
other, at half-hour intervals, further punctuat-
tugging on our foot or to the tiny hand clamped
over our nose, we say, "Mommy and Daddy are
There is actually something to be said for doing
tired right now, why don't you turn on TV for a
little while?" - we are afterward undone with
nothing, and for learning how to be bored. There is
guilt, certain that we have cost them at least 20
points on the SAT's. For grown-ups as well as
even something to be said for escapism.
children, Saturday morning is quickly becom-
ing a thing of the past, just another slot in the
up; the Lucky Charms leprechaun, ageless and
ed by promos and advertisements for shows
overful datebook of our lives.
ever-twinkly, still boasts about how many
coming up later, and most of these shows leap
In the grand scheme of things, this may not
marshmallows his product contains; Franken
on the screen with MTV-like logo sequences
be the worst fate that has befallen our civiliza-
Berry, Count Chocula, Cocoa Puffs -
and rock-inspired theme songs and then lurch
tion, but it's regrettable nonetheless. We all of
they're still being hawked, too, the latter new-
from commercial to commercial in short, hy-
us need some down time, and children espe-
ly enhanced with an infusion of Hershey's
peractive bursts. Many of the newer shows -
cially. There is actually something to be said for
chocolate. Barbie's still around, of course, and
"The X-Men" and "The New Adventures of
doing nothing and for learning how to be
so are those various creatures - dolls, ponies,
Voltron," for example - are inspired by comic
bored. There is even more to be said for escap-
mermaids, trolls - with long manes in need
books, and with their lantern-jawed, steroidal
ism, for stepping out of time. And this is where
of curling and brushing. Dolls that urinate
heroes, stilted dialogue and creaky plots, they
children's TV has truly let us down: not in its
have not gone out of fashion, and neither have
employ an aggressive, hard-edged freeze-frame
shameless huckstering or in its shying away
weapons-laden space vehicles (batteries not
style in which there is seldom a quiet or reflec-
from "educational content," whatever that is.
included).
tive moment. The violence in these shows, of
The problem is that the sustained quality of the
There are even some cartoons on now that
which there's a fair amount, isn't realistic, ex-
daydreaming it offers is so seldom worth wak-
are better and more sophisticated than any-
actly - the bad guys tend to be rendered un-
ing up for. Children's TV doesn't need fewer
thing we ever watched: the darkly ironic "Ren
conscious rather than outright killed or
cartoons; it needs better cartoons, better drawn
and Stimpy," for example, or "Men in Black"
maimed - but neither is it as surreally goofy
and with better characters. It needs narrative,
(where the cheesiness of the animation actu-
as the violence in a Road Runner or Tweety and
which is not the same as an action plot. It needs
ally contributes to the humor) or, my favorite,
Sylvester episode, say, where bombs and mis-
modulation and variety. And it needs, every
the improbable "Pinky and the Brain," about a
siles and explosives of every kind go off with
now and then, the voice of an adult - if for no
pair of lab mice that, as the result of an acci-
thrilling frequency, blowing cats and coyotes
other reason than to gently remind children
dent at Acme Labs, have been transformed
sky high and wreaking amazing, if temporary,
that they can't stay in their pajamas forever.
54
NO. 13
Children's Educational
Television Regulations and
the Local Broadcaster:
Impact and
Implementation
A study conducted by Amy B. Jordan (Ph.D.,
University of Pennsylvania, 1990) and John L.
Sullivan (Ph.D. candidate, University of
Pennsylvania) for the Annenberg Public Policy
Center of the University of Pennsylvania under the
Direction of Kathleen Hall Jamieson.
9 June 1997
IN
LEGRS
SINE MORIBUS
REPORT SERIES
THE ANNENBERG PUBLIC POLICY CENTER
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
Publications in the
Annenberg Public Policy Center's
Report Series
No.1
Public Space: The Annenberg Scholars' Conference
1 - 4 March 1995
No.2
The State of Children's Television: An Examination of Quantity,
Quality, and Industry Beliefs
17 June 1996
No.3
Positive Effects of Television on Social Behavior: A Meta-Analysis
17 June 1996
No.4
Assessing the Quality of Campaign Discourse - 1960, 1980,
1988, and 1992
22 July 1996
No.5
Call-In Political Talk Radio: Background, Content, Audiences,
Portrayal in Mainstream Media
7 August 1996
No.6
The First Annual Annenberg Public Policy Center's Conference on
Children and Television: A Summary
17 June 1996
No.7
Newspaper Coverage of Children's Television
24 October 1996
No.8
Information Technology and Its Impact on Catastrophic Risks
12-13 June 1996
No.9
Public Policy for a Networked Nation
December 1996
No. 10
Civility in the House of Representatives
March 1997
No.11
Free Television for Presidential Candidates
March 1997
No.12
Newspaper Coverage of Children's Television: A 1997 Update
9 June 1997
No.13
Children's Educational Television Regulations and the Local
Broadcaster: Impact and Implementation
9 June 1997
For information about publications, contact:
The Annenberg Public Policy Center
3620 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6220
Telephone (215) 898-7041
Table of Contents
Summary
3
Introduction
5
Background
5
FCC regulations and the local broadcasters
6
Methodology
8
What is a "local broadcaster"?
9
Other key players in the commercial broadcasting system
10
Results 12
Local broadcasters' knowledge and understanding of the regulations
12
Local broadcasters' implementation of the regulations
13
Children's television liaisons
13
FCC quarterly reporting and the public file
14
Amount of educational programming
14
Air times of educational programs
15
Selecting educational programs
16
Trusting the syndicators
17
Looking for a "seal of approval"
17
Trusting the networks.
18
Using their own judgment
18
Who is ultimately accountable?
19
Scheduling educational programs
19
The issue of preemption
19
The issue of attracting children
20
The issue of competition
21
Implications for public policy
22
Intended consequences
22
Unintended consequences
23
Conclusions and recommendations
25
References
29
Acknowledgments
30
Appendix: Interview protocol and questions
31
Copyright ©1997 Annenberg Public Policy Center
All rights reserved
Foreword
T
he Annenberg Public Policy Center was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter
Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania which
would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels. Consistent with the mission
of the Annenberg School for Communication, the Center has four ongoing foci: Information and
Society; Media and the Developing Mind; Media and the Dialogue of Democracy; and Health
Communication. Each year, as well, a special area of scholarly and social interest is addressed. The
Center supports research and sponsors lectures and conferences in these areas. This series of publications
disseminates the work of the Center.
Kathleen Hall Jamieson
Director
2
Summary
his study was designed to assess the impact of the new Federal Communications Commission
T
regulations involving educational programs for children on the current activities and future inten-
tions of a representative sample of local broadcasters. In open-ended interviews with representatives
from 28 stations around the country we explored local broadcasters' familiarity with the new regulations;
current and planned efforts to provide educational programming; intended and unintended consequences
of the regulations for local broadcasters; and implications of these findings for public policy.
Some of the highlights of this report are:
Local broadcasters are, on the whole, familiar with the FCC's new reporting and program-
ming requirements. The aspects of the regulations that were most understood involve the
"three-hour rule" and on-air identification of educational programming. There were, how-
ever, several misconceptions about restrictions on when such programs can air (some mistak-
enly believed the upper limit to be 5:00 p.m. or midnight) and about restrictions on
commercials during these programs.
Local broadcasters intend to comply with the three-hour rule and have made plans to air the
three hours within the allowable time frame (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.). Several respondents
were concerned about how to deal with preemptions by sports programming (particularly a
concern for West Coast affiliates) and the intense competition to attract and keep a child
audience during the popular Saturday morning hours.
Non-affiliated local broadcasters will get their programs from a variety of sources; network
affiliates will almost exclusively air network-provided educational fare in the 1997/98 season.
This represents a departure from the current practice of using a mix of network and syndi-
cated programming to fulfill children's programming requirements. An Annenberg Public
Policy Center content analysis of networks' 1996 educational offerings indicates that they are
educationally weaker than syndicated programs. Moreover, many of the respondents in this
study said that they would stop producing their local programs, since they needed to make
room for network-provided programs.
Network affiliates will actually decrease the amount of children's programming they offer,
while "weblets" (UPN and WB affiliates) and independents will slightly increase their educa-
tional offerings. Because the major four networks will be providing the suggested minimum
three hours of educational programming to their affiliates, affiliates will be dropping their
syndicated or local programming, resulting in fewer programs for children. In addition, the
very early morning hours (5 a.m. to 7 a.m.) will no longer be filled with children's educational
programming because these hours now fall outside the allowable time frame for children's
programs. However, the amount of educational programming on independent and "weblet"
3
stations will increase slightly beginning in the Fall of 1997, possibly because of the greater
supply of these shows currently on the syndication market.
Local broadcasters intend to comply with the FCC's reporting requirements. All say they
currently identify their educational programs with on-air identifiers (usually an E/I symbol)
and in material they send to TV Guide and the local newspaper. An Annenberg Public Policy
Center survey found, however, that only two percent of parents recognized the meaning of
the E/I symbol. In addition, according to an APPC content analysis of newspaper coverage
of children's television, very few newspapers carry the broadcasters' E/I labels.
Local broadcasters believe that their communities do not care about their children's educa-
tional programming efforts. They cite low ratings and lack of feedback as evidence for this
belief. An APPC survey indicates, however, that parents do care about what their children
watch (nearly three quarters said they were concerned about the content of children's pro-
grams). It is possible that parents are simply confused about the new regulations and unsure
how to provide feedback.
The study therefore points to a number of efforts that can be made to increase the viewership and
profitability of children's educational programming: developing (in collaboration with the networks)
education and outreach programs for the local broadcasters' audiences; cultivating advertisers by high-
lighting the benefits of association with educational programs; soliciting community input rather than
relying on viewer-generated feedback; and involving other media (e.g., newspapers) in providing parents
and children with the information they need to make positive viewing decisions.
4
Introduction
Background
O
n August 8, 1996, the Federal Communications Commission unanimously passed regulations
designed to put "teeth" into the Children's Television Act (CTA) of 1990, which Congress had
passed in order to increase the availability of educational children's television. Beginning January
2, 1997, commercial broadcasters must identify, on the air and in printed listings, their educational
programs for children age 16 and under. Beginning in September, 1997, broadcasters who wish to have
their license renewal applications expedited must begin airing three hours of core educational program-
ming each week. "Core educational" programs are defined as those that have education as a significant
purpose, air between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., are regularly scheduled, and are at least 30 minutes long.
Broadcasters may air somewhat less than three hours of such programming (though they will then be
subject to a more extensive application review) if they demonstrate that they are serving the child audi-
ence in other ways (FCC, 1996).
The new regulations are a significant departure from previous CTA requirements, which offered a
less rigid definition of "educational/informational programming." As a result, some broadcasters used
questionable programs to satisfy those requirements. In one well-known example, "The Jetsons" was cited
as an educational program that teaches children about "what life will be like in the 21st century" (Kunkel
and Canepa, 1994). While the revised definition of educational programming still allows for both
traditional academic and prosocial programs, it now requires that programs be "specifically designed for
children" with "education as a significant purpose"-two definitional components that would disqualify a
program such as "The Jetsons."
The CTA originally contained no guidelines as to the amount of programming broadcasters
needed to air in order satisfy the FCC. Some broadcast markets aired an average of four hours a week of
educational programs, while others aired as few as two (Kunkel and Canepa, 1994). Moreover, programs
were often aired at times that made them vulnerable to preemption by sporting events. One educational
program, "Beakman's World," was preempted so much that its creators feared viewers would give up on
trying to find the program (Keller, 1996). The FCC's new guidelines do not allow frequent preemption of
core programs and require stations to air a preempted program at another time during that week.
Finally, the 1997 requirements require broadcasters to air programs at times when children are
actually awake and potentially in the audience-between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Previous studies
indicate that educational programs have often been aired before sunrise (with a typical start time as early
as 5:00 a.m.) (Jordan, 1996). Programs will not count toward the three required hours unless they begin
after 7:00 a.m.
5
The regulations are designed to increase the amount of educational programming available to
children over the commercial broadcast airwaves and to raise awareness among viewers of the broad-
casters' efforts to provide programs for children. Reporting requirements that went into effect at the
beginning of 1997 are already producing results: educational icons air at the beginning of programs
alongside the ratings,¹ and E/I symbols (for "educational/informational") have begun to appear in news-
papers and TV Guide. Programming requirements have also increased pressure on networks, many of
which have agreed to provide some, if not all, of the three hours of educational programs to their affiliates.
Networks' educational efforts have received intense scrutiny by researchers, the press, and advocates. It
remains to be seen whether the networks' proposed 1997/98 lineups will live up to the spirit and the letter
of the FCC regulations for children's educational programs.
FCC regulations and the local broadcaster
Overshadowed in the debate over the implementation and implications of the FCC's regulations
regarding children's television is the role of the local broadcaster. A commercial broadcaster receives a
license by agreeing to "serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity" (FCC, 1984). It is the local
commercial broadcaster, not the network, that receives the license. In order to renew its license every seven
years, each broadcaster must provide evidence that it has fulfilled its public interest obligations.² Putting
its FCC license at risk could jeopardize the existence of the local station.
Implementation of FCC regulations therefore occurs at the local level. If it is an affiliated
station, the local broadcaster relies on the network to provide the majority of core educational programs
- but takes a leap of faith in doing so, trusting that the provided programs are truly educational. In
addition, the local broadcaster shoulders responsibility for informing the public about its educational fare,
keeping a public file, and pulling together the license renewal application forms. Responsibility for
providing educational children's programs to the public ultimately lies with the local broadcaster.
This study assesses the impact of the new FCC regulations on the current activities and future
intentions of a representative sample of local broadcasters. The study coincides with the initial stages of
the implementation of these regulations. In open-ended interviews with representatives from 28 stations
around the country, we explored the following questions:
How familiar are local broadcasters with the new regulations?
What are broadcasters currently doing to serve the child audience and how, if at all, will these
efforts change as a result of the new regulations?
1
Although the icons exist, they may be less than helpful to viewers. Most air for less than five seconds. Moreover, each network
has its own unique (and sometimes obscure) symbol. NBC, for example, uses a bald head with glasses that opens up to reveal
an E/I. ABC uses a lightbulb with a voice-over that says, "illuminating programming."
2
In cases where the local broadcaster is owned and operated by a network, the network does hold the license and files the renew-
al application.
6
Who will provide the three hours of programming for affiliates and independent stations, and
how are these programs selected?
How will the requirements affect scheduling practices?
What are the overall consequences (intended and unintended) of the regulations for the local
broadcasters?
In answering these questions, we explore local broadcasters' current practices and future efforts.
We conclude by recommending ways in which regulatory efforts might be more effectively implemented
at the local level.
7
Methodology
T
he local television stations were chosen using a purposive sampling technique in order to obtain a
representative sample across market size, geographic area, and station affiliation. First, we used
Nielsen Media Research figures for Designated Market Area (DMA) sizes as reported in the
Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 1996 to estimate the number of television households for each market. To
obtain a representative sample of market sizes, we divided all DMAs in the United States into three size
categories: large (the top ten U.S. markets), medium (from 1.58 million to 500,000 TV households per
market), and small (under 500,000 TV households per market). The final sample consisted of stations
from four different markets: one large, two medium, and one small (see Table 1).
To ensure geographic diversity in the sample, we chose one market each from the Northeast,
South, Midwest, and West. Within each chosen market, we contacted every station listed in the
Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 1996 for an interview. Out of a total possible sample of 32 television
stations, 28 were successfully surveyed for this study (representatives from three stations did not return
phone calls, and one refused an interview), for a response rate of 87.5 percent. These 28 stations were also
representative of all station affiliations, including the networks (NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox), the "weblets" or
fledgling networks (UPN and WB), and independent stations (including religious and Home Shopping
affiliates; see Table 2).
Table 1. Market sizes of sampled stations
Table 2. Network affiliations of stations in sample
Market size
Number of stations
Network affiliation
Number of stations
Large
12
NBC
5
Medium
12
CBS
4
Small
4
ABC
4
Total
28
Fox
3
UPN
2
WB
2
Ind
8
Total
28
To select the respondent at each television station, the interviewer called the main station tele-
phone number and asked for the person in charge of children's programming. While most requests were
directed immediately to the programming director or programming coordinator, sometimes it was diffi-
cult to locate one individual who was responsible for children's programming at the station (or who felt
comfortable responding to questions). In these cases, requests for information were referred as high as the
general manager of the station. So, while most of the interview respondents were involved with program-
ming (see Table 3), general managers and community affairs directors were also surveyed. Finally, of the
8
29 professionals interviewed for this study, 15 identified themselves as the children's television liaison for
their station (see Table 3).³
Table 3: Job titles of respondents
Job title
Number of
Number of children's
respondents
television liaisons
Program director
14
7
Programming (various)
6
4
General manager
5
1
Public/Community affairs
3
3
Other/Unknown
1
0
Total
29*
15
*There were 28 interviews but 29 respondents because one interview was conducted simultane-
ously with two individuals at the same station (the program director and the general manager).
That interview is hereafter considered one response.
The data consisted of responses to a series of open-ended questions about knowledge of the FCC
regulations and the impact of these regulations on the business practices at the respondents' stations (see
Appendix for a list of the interview questions). The interviews were conducted over the telephone over a
seven-week period during February and March of 1997. Each averaged between 20 and 25 minutes in
length. All tape-recorded interviews were transcribed for analysis.
What is a "local broadcaster"?
Understanding the impact of the new FCC regulations on local television broadcasters requires
consideration of three distinct types of business arrangements in the television industry, all of which are
called "local broadcasters": owned and operated (O&O), network-affiliated, and independent stations.
First, "owned and operated" stations are completely owned by their respective networks. The number of
O&Os was limited in 1984 by the FCC, which ruled that networks could own a maximum of 12 stations
and that the potential audience reached by these stations could not exceed 25 percent of U.S. television
households (Reed and Reed, 1992, p. 555). However, the 1996 Telecommunications Act eliminated these
restrictions on station ownership and increased potential audience reach allowance of these stations to 35
3
Although only 15 self-identified children's television liaisons were interviewed, as noted later, this does not mean that these sta-
tions had no identified person in this position.
4
Once the respondent agreed to the interview, a time was set for it. In general, however, most interviews took place immediately
following the introduction of the project by the interviewer. The interviewer asked for permission to tape record the interview;
only two of the respondents refused the request. Detailed notes were taken by the interviewer in these cases.
9
percent of all U.S. television households (Telecommunications Act of 1996). Second, nearly 60 percent of
all broadcast stations (as of 1992) are affiliated stations, which have contracts with major networks to
typically receive more than 70 percent of their total programs from them (Reed and Reed, 1992, p. 15).
Major networks provide the affiliates with programs at little or no cost in exchange for advertising time on
the stations. Lastly, about 20 percent of U.S. television stations are independents. These stations have no
affiliation with networks and instead buy their programming on the open market from syndicators, often
with similar barter agreements for advertising time.
O&Os, affiliates, and independents are distinguished by the degree to which each station type
can make autonomous decisions about its program selection and scheduling. O&Os are located in the
largest television markets and therefore occupy a powerful position vis-à-vis advertisers and syndicators.
The network itself is the primary decision-maker about programming selection and scheduling on these
stations. Affiliates are semi-autonomous in the sense that they can be flexible in their scheduling and
program selection while also honoring their network contractual obligations. The stations with the most
autonomy are independents, which select and schedule programs without having to worry about obliga-
tions to a single programming source or network. In this report, both O&Os and affiliates will be referred
to as "affiliates" because decisions regarding children's educational programming are typically made at the
network level.
Other key players in the commercial broadcasting system
Several other "key players" allow local broadcasters to conduct their business. Each has its own
function and agenda:
Advertisers. Both local and national advertisers play an integral role in all stages of the
commercial broadcasting system. While national advertisers make deals with networks and
syndicators to buy commercial time, local advertisers contract with broadcast independents,
affiliates, and O&Os for access to their audiences.
Syndicators. Syndicators are distributors of programming that (1) is not produced specifically
for a single network (first-run syndication) or (2) is a rerun of existing or past network
programming. Syndicators make the bulk of their profits from selling commercial time to
national advertisers as part of barter agreements with the stations that broadcast their pro-
grams. However, according to one respondent, in order for a program to be interesting to
national advertisers, it must have at least approximately 75 percent "clearance" (that is, must
reach at least 75% of American TV households).
Networks. The activities and decisions of networks are a vital part of the business operations
of 80 percent of local commercial broadcasters. Through affiliation agreements, networks can
have a profound impact on the programs that are broadcast on the local station and on the
scheduling of those programs. Networks are also beneficial for local broadcasters because
10
they provide popular programs at little or no cost. This attracts large audiences, which in turn
attract local advertisers.
Local community. The parents, children, and local citizen groups who view the television
programs broadcast by these stations can have an impact on programming through their
direct (phone calls, letters, protests) and indirect (choosing to view a particular program)
feedback.
Government regulators. Regulations and oversight by government bodies such as Congress
and the FCC can also affect the business operations of local broadcasters. The extent and
type of this influence is investigated here.
As the analysis of the interviews will make clear, the interactions among these key players are
important factors in determining the types of programs available to young viewers as well as when these
programs are offered.
11
Results
Local broadcasters' knowledge and understanding of the regulations
The extent of knowledge about the new regulations and the strategies for their implementation
were the first important issues investigated in this research. Specifically, what are the most salient features
of these FCC policies for the individuals responsible for children's television at these local stations? To
address this question, we asked the respondents whether they were aware of the new FCC regulations
regarding children's educational broadcasting and what they understood those requirements to be. Table 4
charts the percentage of respondents who mentioned each aspect of the regulations in response to these
questions. A "mention" was counted if the respondent volunteereda particular policy element, not in
response to more specific probes (which came later in the interview). Note here that these percentages
reveal only the respondents' understanding of policies, and not compliance (or intent to comply) with
them.
Table 4: Respondents' mentions of specific FCC regulations on children's educational broadcasting
Percentage of total
FCC regulation
respondents (N=28)
Minimum of three hours per week of educational programming
79%
Air time restrictions between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.
57%
Responsibilities for FCC quarterly reports (listing contents
of individual episodes, age-range appropriateness)
57%
On-air designation of educational programs with an "E/I" icon
54%
Distributing educational programming information to newspapers and TV listing services
46%
Limits on commercial time during children's programming*
39%
Keeping a public file at the station with information about educational
programming for children
21%
Confused new FCC regulations with MPAA content ratings
18%
* Part of the 1990 CTA but not of the most recent FCC regulations.
Not surprisingly, the most salient elements of the new regulations were those that were most
straightforward in their implementation: three hours of educational children's programs per week, broad-
cast at specific times, and designated with "E/I" icons. Mentioned only slightly less often was the require-
ment to distribute information about the E/I designation, content listings, and age-appropriateness to
newspapers and television listing services. The relatively low number of respondents who mentioned the
station's public file (21%) suggests that more effort on behalf of station managers or industry groups (such
as the National Association of Broadcasters [NAB]) may be needed to increase the salience of this aspect
12
of the requirements. These respondents may be the first line of contact for parents and other interested
viewers, so they need to be aware of the public file.
As Table 4 reveals, there were several misconceptions about the new regulations. First, while all
of the respondents who mentioned the airtime restrictions for children's educational programs could
identify what time these restrictions start (7 a.m.), they often did not mention or were mistaken about the
10 p.m. upper time limit - responses ranged from 5 p.m. to midnight. This is probably due to the fact
that, when it comes to children's fare, mornings are the time of greatest concern to station programmers.5
In addition, 39 percent of the respondents mentioned limitations on commercial time during children's
programming, which was not an element of the latest FCC regulations but was instead part of the 1990
CTA. Another interesting misconception (among five of the respondents) was that the interview ques-
tions were about the recent Motion Picture Association of America-style content ratings for children's
television (TV-Y, TV-Y7, TV-PG, etc.). This misconception may reflect the degree of media attention
given to the content ratings in recent months.
Local broadcasters' implementation of the regulations
Our second focus was on the strategies with which local broadcasters intend to implement the
new programming and reporting regulations: designating a children's television liaison, compiling quar-
terly reports for the FCC, keeping a public file, and airing the required three hours of educational pro-
gramming during the allowable time periods. Most local broadcasters felt that the impact of the new
regulations on them would be minimal. However, as will become clear in a moment, the extent of the
changes needed to meet the compliance standards varied across different station types and geographical
regions.
Children's television liaisons
One of the FCC regulations that went into effect in January, 1997 calls for each station to identify
a children's television liaison who will coordinate the filing of quarterly FCC reports, ensure that the
station's public file is complete, and answer questions about the station's programming efforts. Of the 28
stations surveyed in this research, 20 reported that they had designated a current employee (or employees)
to serve in the liaison capacity. The remaining eight were unfamiliar with the term and were uncertain
about the purpose served by such a position. Those individuals primarily responsible for the liaison duties
were program managers or program coordinators, although the stations that had public or community
affairs personnel designated these individuals.
5
In addition, the nature of network affiliation contracts are such that preexisting prime-time schedules are generally set by the
networks, with no children-oriented programming available during the 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. time period.
13
FCC quarterly reporting and the public file
Almost all respondents indicated that the new requirements regarding quarterly reporting and
public files would have little impact on them. Most saw these as simply another layer of paperwork that
had to be completed. There were differences, however, in the attention that different types of stations
gave to ensuring their compliance with the new reporting regulations. Several respondents from affiliate
stations noted that their information about compliance procedures came from an NAB booklet outlining
the regulations. At least two other affiliate stations went further. One respondent from an ABC affiliate
boasted that the station's lawyers and an independent investigator had determined that the station was in
full compliance:
Just to get a head start on the whole thing, and then according to the specifics that the
Commission released, copies went through our lawyers. We just wanted everything on
January 2nd. In fact, we just had an in-house person that we hired to come through the
station and check all of our FCC regulations, our technical, our public file, our issues list,
and our children's programming. He gave us a blue ribbon, everything was fine.
A respondent from a network O&O indicated that the network's law department ensured that the sta-
tions it owned were in full compliance with the letter of the law. He remarked, "there are a bunch of
people in Washington, I don't know exactly how many, whose job it is to make sure that we, as a network
and as owned and operated stations, comply in every facet with the FCC's regulations." This legal atten-
tion was not mentioned by the respondents from independent stations, which suggests that they may not
have a comparable level of legal expertise at their disposal.
Amount of educational programming
Although the FCC regulations do not require three hours of educational programming, all
respondents stated that their stations would offer at least three hours by September of this year (and most
said they were already in compliance). For the 20 respondents who were able to identify both the current
and future (Fall) amount of children's educational programming at their stations, an average was taken of
these amounts for the basis of comparison (see Table 5). Although the majority of stations had already
altered their program schedules to include three hours of educational programming (and planned to
continue with three hours), there were subtle differences in the amount of this programming across the
three station types. For instance, weblets offered on average the most educational programming, and the
weblets and independents sampled also planned to slightly increase the amount of their educational
offering beginning in the Fall of 1997.
14
Table 5: Average amount of educational programming by station type
Average number of hours
Station type
February/March, 1997
Fall, 1997
Networks
(N=11)
3.6
3.2
Weblets
(N=3)
4.2
5.0
Independents
(N=6)
3.4
3.5
As Table 5 reveals, network O&Os and affiliated stations will be decreasing the number of hours
they devote on average to children's educational programming. There are two explanations for this trend.
First, each of the major networks will provide its stations with the mandated minimum three hours of
educational programming in the Fall. Respondents at several of these stations stated that they would as a
result cancel their existing syndicated or local programs, which would account for the decrease shown in
Table 5. Second, several respondents stated that because there were no benefits associated with exceeding
the minimum three hours, there was no incentive for them to provide more. For example, one Fox
program manager explained why he had decided to reduce the amount of his station's educational pro-
gramming from 3.5 to 3 hours in the Fall:
We had been overachieving the half hours just because we felt it was part of our responsi-
bility to do so, but we found out in the subsequent rulings that have come down and the
license renewals that have come past since this thing has happened, that stations don't
necessarily get extra credit for doing it. So, you try to be a nice guy and essentially they
say, "So?"
Thus, the effect of the new regulations on the amount of children's programming is mixed: While weblet
and independent stations will increase the amount of educational programming on average, network
O&Os and affiliate stations plan to support somewhat less of this programming beginning in September.
Air times of educational programs
Respondents were asked when they intended to air their educational programs in the Fall. Table
6 provides an example of the air times for Fall programs in a large market. The table indicates that the
majority of network programs will air on Saturday (particularly in the morning). One exception is Fox,
which will air one of its educational programs during its weekday strip. This continues the networks'
tradition of concentrating their children's programming on Saturday morning. Weblets and indepen-
dents, on the other hand, are much more likely to air their educational programs on weekday mornings.
15
Table 6: Percentage of total educational programs across days in a large market for Fall, 1997
Weekdays
Saturday
Sunday
Morning
Afternoon
Morning
Afternoon
Morning
Afternoon
Station type
(7-12)
(12-4)
(7-12)
(12-4)
(7-12)
(12-4)
Total
Networks
0%
7%
14%
8%
0%
0%
29%
Weblets
21%
0%
4%
1%
1%
0%
27%
Independents
14%
7%
10%
0%
11%
0%
42%
Total
35%
14%
28%
9%
12%
0%
98%*
*Total number of hours of educational programming = 35.5.
While one of the goals of this research is to outline the ways in which local broadcasters intend to
comply with the FCC regulations (as discussed earlier), it is also important to understand how, in the
absence of an explicit definition of "educational," local broadcasters select programming that fits the
requirements. This section will outline the factors and constraints that shape the types of programming
available to children. It will also outline how the new regulations fit within the long-established business
structures that guide choices and decision-making at these local television stations.
Local program directors build their broadcast schedule from three types of television programs:
network, syndicated, and locally produced. Network programs are either produced or bartered in syndica-
tion by the network itself (and not the local broadcaster), and are typically transmitted to the local broad-
caster via satellite feed. In contrast, syndicated programs are created by independent producers and are
bought by the local broadcaster directly from syndicators, usually in a 50/50 barter agreement in exchange
for advertising time. Purchasing syndicated programs is a relatively inexpensive way for local stations to
fill their schedules. Finally, locally produced programs are created by employees of a local station for its
own broadcast. Because both pre- and post-production costs are carried by the local broadcaster alone,
this type of programming is the most expensive.
Selecting educational programs
The new requirements regarding educational programming provide a somewhat broad and
nebulous definition of "educational." As a result, acquiring such programming calls for a variety of
strategies. When asked how they selected programming that met the FCC requirements, these local
broadcasters mentioned four things:6 trusting the syndicator, looking for a "seal of approval" from inde-
pendent groups, trusting the networks, and using their own judgment.
6
Strategies were not mutually exclusive; many respondents used more than one at a time.
16
Trusting the syndicator
When asked how they decide whether or not a purchased program meets the FCC requirements,
several respondents noted that they generally trusted the syndicators, who often gave assurances that the
program was "pre-approved." As one program director at a WB affiliate noted, in cases where the pro-
gram has not even been produced yet, local broadcasters rely on descriptions provided by the syndicators of
the shows. Below are two examples from other respondents who mentioned this process of pre-approval:
Well, usually they have been predetermined whether they fit the requirements before they
get to me. It's not something that I put a stamp of approval on. The FCC paperwork has
to be filed proving that it meets these requirements, that there is certification of that. I
mean a lot of times they'll come with a certification paper that will say that this has been,
has gotten the stamp of approval to meet the FCC stipulations. (Program manager,
independent)
We do it in concert with our Law Department at NBC. The stuff is cleared, strictly
through our Legal Standards Department in Washington, D.C. The staff works closely
with the FCC, and with both the network and our owned and operated television sta-
tions, to make sure that every syndicator who provides programming for our air, that's
supposed to qualify, to the best of our ability we make sure that they do qualify. (Program
manager, NBC affiliate)
Producers may believe their programs are pre-approved because in the past they have been listed on FCC
applications that have been successfully renewed. Or producers may be referring to the 1996 FCC
regulations that list examples of acceptable core programs.
Looking for a "seal of approval"
Many respondents said that they look for accreditation from various children's advocacy groups or
from academics as further proof that a program is educational for children. As one general manager of a
Fox station stated, "if a syndicator sells a show as FCC-friendly, they usually provide some type of infor-
mation that will support that claim, whether it's an endorsement from an organization or some other
information to support that it is an FCC-friendly show." Several types of accreditation were laid out in
more detail by a program manager at an ABC affiliate:
We look at the program very carefully, make sure that the syndicator provides us with the
right written credentials and that they get the credentials from somewhere else other than
them just making it up Letters from the NEA, or letters from support groups, children's
support groups that say this is acceptable to the National Educational Association, or
Peggy Charren is the producer [laughs], or whatever. Whatever it takes to get some
credibility that's beyond what the syndicator itself says.
17
The interviews made it clear that the syndicators were generally responsible for obtaining these accredita-
tions in support of educational programs. Especially in larger markets, where syndicators face more
competition for their product, this burden falls to them.
Trusting the networks
Among the respondents from stations affiliated with one of the four major networks (57% of the
sample), none said that they second-guessed the network's decisions. In fact, many of these respondents
said that they accepted the programs they received from their networks on faith as educational and
informational for children. Said one respondent from an affiliate:
The network just labels their program. They don't give us a reason of why they've labeled
it. For example, they haven't told us why they've labeled "Winnie the Pooh" as educa-
tional/ informational for ages 6 to 9. They just do that and we make the decision based
on our watching the program and understanding what the criteria is for educational and
informational. (Program director, ABC affiliate)
As this comment makes clear, it is unlikely that the network in this case has produced specific guidelines
or a definition of educational programming for their affiliates. However, decisions to distribute educa-
tional programming to affiliates are not challenged at the local level.
Using their own judgment
Finally, when there was choice involved at the local level, regardless of the other strategies for
program selection that respondents mentioned, almost all stated that they used their own judgment in
deciding whether or not a particular program is educational. These judgments were made by viewing a
pilot or written descriptions of the program before deciding to purchase it. Here were the responses of
several individuals about their criteria for program selection:
What we usually do is, have them give us a lengthy description of the program, episodes
that they've known in the past, and coming up in the future, what they have scheduled for
the season. Samples, you know, send us a demo tape of a show, or of some of the shows.
That way, we have an understanding of what the content is, and we can determine
whether this would be appropriate and would meet the requirements of the FCC.
(Station manager, independent)
I guess the best way to tell our children's programming is to sit down and look at it. If it's
educational in some way to me, it's going to be educational for children I think I would
not pick up a show unless I saw it. (Programming coordinator, NBC affiliate)
As these and other comments illustrated, there was some concern with relying solely on the syndicator's
assessment of a program's educational value. These concerns were more common at independent stations
18
than affiliates, perhaps because an independent station generally did not have the recommendations of a
network (or a network's law department) to assist it in evaluating the educational value of particular
programs. Several respondents also emphasized that the programs had to be "entertaining" as well as
suitably "educational" in order for them to be viable.
Who is ultimately accountable?
The local broadcaster is ultimately responsible for airing programs that meet the FCC's criteria.
Because these criteria are broad and not clearly defined, these respondents employ the outlined strategies
(which include simply accepting the network's word) to help them decide what is "educational" and what
is not. These interviews revealed the somewhat murky process of valuation and accreditation that accom-
panies the selection of these programs. Indeed, in the case of a bad decision made by a station programmer,
no "failsafe" process will ensure that the inappropriate (that is, educationally weak) program will not find
its way onto the broadcast schedule.
Scheduling educational programs
Beginning in September, 1997, "core" educational programming must be regularly scheduled, not
preemptable, and aired between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. The justification for such regulations lies
in the fact that many of the broadcasters' educational programs have been aired at times when few chil-
dren are in the audience or when the programs were vulnerable to replacement by sports programming.
When asked about current and future scheduling of educational programs, respondents brought up a
number of issues that indicate scheduling may become difficult.
The issue of preemption
For many broadcasters, airing educational programs within the FCC's post 7:00 a.m. time frame
means finding time on Saturday mornings. But weekend airing often presents conflicts between children's
educational programming and sports programming. Since many broadcasters have commitments to
broadcast tennis, auto racing, football, or college basketball, they worry that they may have to preempt
their children's programs. Strictly speaking, core programs cannot be preempted. Some respondents,
however, felt that exceptions should be made. One respondent from an NBC affiliate said:
I know one of the sister stations asked one of the Commissioners: "What about sports?
How many times are we going to be able to preempt a kids' show and have it still consid-
ered a core program?" I think they said something like three times or something like that.
That's going to be very, very difficult. They don't seem to be very flexible in terms of
being able to preempt for something you have no control over.
19
The issue of preemption for sports programming is especially important for broadcasters on Pacific Time.
Time differences between the East and West Coasts mean that many Pacific Time sports contests begin
as early as 9:00 a.m. Such scheduling may put their children's educational programs in jeopardy.
The issue of attracting children
Most commercial broadcasters do not build their identity on their children's programming. One
exception, of course, is Fox, which established its reputation and its revenue base as the "Fox Kids
Network." Independents are also likely to find their strength in children's programs, since they often look
to fill an underserved niche by targeting the child audience. Affiliates of "the big three," however, are
much more likely to define themselves through their local news programs and on the strength of their
network's adult programs, even for weekend programming.
Although most of the network affiliates' children's programs are concentrated on Saturday
morning, the networks and local broadcasters have, in the last several years, cut back on the number of
hours of children's programs. In 1994, NBC began programming exclusively for teens. And in 1997,
CBS announced that it would eliminate all children's programs except those the FCC required. Fox, as
well as Nickelodeon, Disney, and other cable channels, has made such significant inroads into the net-
works' child audience ratings that the networks have nearly abandoned the effort to woo children back.
Instead, networks and their local affiliates have begun to program for adult audiences in what traditionally
had been their children's time period. Cartoons have been replaced primarily with local or network news.
Said one respondent at an NBC affiliate:
For a station like a traditional affiliated station like ours, which is a lot of news and a lot
of sports, [we] haven't historically done a lot of children's programming. How do we get
noticed in that area? How do we make them notice, particularly when every station is
marketing now?
Certainly this trend can present problems for programmers trying to find a home for their educational
children's shows. It is difficult to create an awareness of children's TV offerings when only a few hours are
aired. It is also difficult to create audience "flow" when cartoons are sandwiched between local and
network news and talk shows. As one respondent of an NBC affiliate pointed out:
Well, we don't have a great deal of flexibility. It's not really the best situation to have
children's programming coming out of "Meet the Press" but that's what NBC has on
Sunday morning from 9:00 to 10:00. And, again, 6:00 to 8:00 a.m. we're doing local
news so there's not an opportunity to put it on that early in the morning. The news
department is not terribly thrilled to have kids' programming as a lead-in to their news,
but that's the only way we can get it all in. Luckily, with NBC we have things like "NBA
Inside Stuff" and that's actually what we put till late into our news because, you know,
that seemed to make more sense than "Saved by the Bell."
20
The issue of competition
Broadcasters also worry about competition in an increasingly crowded field. Many respondents
believe that children's programs (particularly children's educational programs) will cluster together. One
respondent from an NBC affiliate said:
Now there's going to be all these other children's programs back-to-back, we're going to
have to all air it in a certain window. The numbers are going to be lower for those
programs. Lower than they ever were...are now. Is it going to bring even more kids to
the table? I don't know. I'd be surprised.
Although educational programs in theory can be aired Monday through Sunday, 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
as a practical matter the majority of local network affiliates schedule such programming on weekend
mornings, typically Saturdays. Because, as noted earlier, the affiliates of the "big three" do not see their
primary audience as consisting of children, they like to keep children's programs separate from the general
and adult ones. Affiliates also take their programming from the network, which schedules them in those
traditional Saturday morning hours. The result is a concern that there will be too much competition for
too few child viewers.
There are, however, broadcasters who counter-program. Fox, for example, airs much of its
educational programming in its weekdaystrip at a time when competition for child viewers is limited and
programming alternatives are mainly adult fare (e.g., "Oprah Winfrey" or news). Some station managers,
particularly at independents and smaller networks that are not tied to a weekend schedule, look for a niche
that is not already filled. One independent broadcaster said:
I'm trying to counter-program and run shows a little later than early morning because it's
really difficult for me to compete against the networks and even the other stations in the
market that have kids behind them. I try to move it later so it won't go up against the
four other stations that are running kids' stuff within that time.
21
Implications for public policy
t is important to obtain an early view of the local broadcasters' efforts and intentions regarding the
FCC's regulations for children's educational television in order to develop recommendations for effec-
tive implementation. Admittedly, assessing the overall impact of the regulations before the 1997/98
season may be a bit premature, since most of the programming requirements do not go into effect until
September, 1997 (and the data for this report were collected in February and March of 1997). Many
respondents, when asked what effect they expected the new programming and reporting requirements to
have on their station, felt that it was "still too early to tell." A few respondents even suggested that we re-
interview them in six months, once they had had a chance to try out their ideas and strategies. However,
it seems as though a number of potential consequences for the local broadcaster-both intended and
unintended-could result from the FCC regulations. Such consequences need to be identified and may
ultimately need to be addressed with either fine-tuning of the regulations or increased attention at the
local level.
Intended consequences
Unsurprisingly, the 28 respondents interviewed for this study indicated that they will adhere to
the FCC guidelines. The majority of the local broadcasters were already fulfilling their reporting require-
ments-rating programs, airing educational icons, and providing newspapers, grid services, and TV Guide
with information about their ratings and educational programs. Many also seemed diligent about keeping
a public file.
More important, al/intend to air the minimum three hours a week of educational programming
in order to receive expedited review of their license renewal applications. As pointed out earlier, a broad-
caster need not air a full three hours of educational programming as long as it is engaged in other activities
(short-form programming, community events) to serve the child audience. Airing less than three hours,
however, means that the broadcaster must submit to a fuller review by the FCC. Most broadcasters seem
reluctant to invite what they perceive as further interference by the government, so they have opted to
comply rather than risk more stringent regulations in the future.
Anticipated universal compliance may also reflect the fact that the networksare increasing their
offerings of educational programs. As of this writing, most have agreed to offer their affiliates the full
three hours' worth. Of course, the local broadcaster must trust that the networks are providing genuinely
educational programs. Said one ABC affiliate: "We rely on the network. We don't second-guess the
network. If they say something's educational, we buy into that." A recent Annenberg Public Policy
Center content analysis of children's educational programs in one sample market indicates that such trust
may be misplaced (see Jordan and Woodard, 1997). This study found that the majority of the networks'
22
educational offerings were only "minimally" or "moderately" educational. Syndicated programming,
however, was much more likely to be rated as "highly educational."
The increased availability of quality syndicated educational programs has also made the regula-
tions less burdensome. In 1996/97, syndicators stepped up the production and marketing of their educa-
tional programs because they believed the three-hour rule would increase demand. As a result, there were
far more acceptable educational programs to choose from for the 1997/98 season-by one respondent's
estimates, 35 to 40 new educational programs. As one respondent from an independent station said:
A benefit due to the legislation is that better-quality programs are being produced that
are desirable for a programmer to acquire. There were a lot of programs out there that
could be considered FCC-friendly or FCC-acceptable which were pretty weak programs.
So there has been a huge launch pad now through syndicators knowing that they can get
shows launched and there is a need and a requirement. It has also improved the quality
and the amount of prospects out there.
Regarding these questions of impact, the majority of respondents seemed to subscribe to the
theory of the "third person effect"-that is, the regulations will have a negative impact on other broad-
casters but not on the respondent's own organization. Most of the broadcasters said that they are already
airing three hours of educational programming and that the only change in their own business practices
would be to step up the reporting of the programs and shift around the air times. But because the parent
networks are providing most, if not all, of the three hours' worth of educational programs, the burden of
actually locating and financing educational programs is not on the local broadcaster's shoulders. In fact,
preliminary data on 1997/98 hours indicate that the local network affiliates will do somewhat less educa-
tional programming next year than they did even this year (the smaller network affiliates and the indepen-
dents will do somewhat more, going beyond the required three hours). Nevertheless, the actual
responsibility for airing truly educational programs and communicating information about these programs
ultimately rests with the local broadcaster.
If the broadcasters do what they say they will be doing next season-both in terms of reporting
and programming requirements-the FCC regulations will have their intended effect. More educational
programming will be aired at more reasonable hours and on a more consistent basis. However, several
repercussions of the regulations may not have been anticipated by the regulators or the broadcasters.
Unintended consequences
Although they received some educational programs from the networks prior to the FCC's three-
hour rule, local broadcasters were chiefly responsible for ensuring that they were meeting the
educational/informational needs of children. The language of the 1990 CTA was vague: there were no
23
time requirements for weekly program hours, and short-form programming, such as public service
announcements and interstitials, was an acceptable way to "serve the child audience." Abuses were
frequent-dubious programs were listed as educational, and public service announcements often took the
place of more serious educational efforts (Center for Media Education, 1992). The 1996 regulations laid
out a quantifiable goal: "three hours of regularly scheduled programs at least 30 minutes in length."
With three hours of programming as a benchmark, there is a perception among local broadcasters
that nothing but core programming efforts will "count" in their application for license renewal. A number
of network affiliate respondents indicated that they would probably drop their short-form programs (for
example, news segments featuring local teens) and would cut back on their community efforts. This,
however, appeared not to be the case with independents, who have a greater interest in maintaining a
child audience.
Locally produced children's educational shows are also likely to suffer. Prior to the new regula-
tions, many stations created their own programs to fulfill their children's television requirements. The
networks provided only minimal amounts of educational programming, and the available syndicated fare
was of marginal quality. Now, with both network and syndicated programs in abundant supply, locally
produced programs are either too expensive or left without an available time slot in the schedule. This
seems unfortunate, as locally produced programs are likely to be one means by which stations can stay in
touch with the needs and interests of the children and parents in the community. Said a representative of
a CBS affiliate:
Unfortunately, we were not able to keep up [the local teen talk show] because of the time
frame. CBS will be providing us with weekend news. We didn't have a program access
slot [for it] which meant that we would go to our network programming. We had to drop
production on the program, to discontinue that, and pick up all children's programming
from the network.
A final, related unintended consequence of the proliferation of externally produced educational
programs is a local broadcaster's seeming inability to shape the content of its educational programs in
response to the concerns of the local community. Local broadcasters receive their licenses by agreeing to
serve the public interest, but the "public" has become a nebulous, often national audience rather than a
community of local parents and children. With little or no educational material produced in-house, many
of the program directors and general managers had only the vaguest notion of what their educational
programs were about or who they were for. Most had to refer to written descriptions in discussing those
programs. Given the tight market constaints on local broadcasters, they may ultimately lack the institu-
tional capacity to directly respond to the concerns and interests of the local community regarding the
content of educational programs.
24
Conclusions and recommendations
The 28 broadcasters interviewed for this study have all begun to comply with the FCC's reporting
requirements that went into effect on January 2, 1997. They keep a public file, identify their educational
programs on the air, and send information on their educational programs to newspapers, grid services, and
TV Guide.
The broadcasters also intend to air a minimum of three hours of educational programming each
week. Much of that programming will be provided by the networks, some will be selected from the
abundant supply of syndicated fare, and very little will be locally produced. The overall tone of the
interviews, however, indicates very little enthusiasm for the regulations. Even though the NAB agreed to
abide by the three-hour rule in the weeks before the regulations were issued, broadcasters are typically
resistant to any form of government regulation. In addition, most of the respondents seem confident in
their belief that broadcasting educational programming will never be profitable.
The prevailing belief among broadcasters, particularly affiliates of the larger networks, is that
children's educational programs do poorly in the ratings, no matter where they come from or when they
are aired. Said one respondent from a Fox affiliate:
The reality of it is this: as a television station and a free, over-the-air broadcast, for-profit
enterprise, I have one thing to keep my television station on the air. That's ratings.
Everybody knows going in these shows don't do ratings. They just don't. Very seldom do
you put a show like this on the air and be able to command a significant part of the
audience.
Coinciding with the belief that educational shows are destined to be poorly rated is the conviction
that the public does not care. Over and over broadcasters said that the three-hour rule was the brainchild
of the advocates and that the public, by and large, would neither notice the change in programming nor
care to watch such programs. Said a representative of an ABC affiliate:
I've been doing the educational/informational as well as the commercial reports on the
Children's Television Act that went into effect, what was that? 1990? And I have not
ever had a parent or an educator come to me to look in the file or to look at these reports.
No one has ever shown any interest in it.
The combination of these two widely held beliefs-that educational programs will never attract viewers
and that the public at large doesn't care about these efforts-may ultimately create a self-fulfilling
prophecy. Only one respondent in 28 mentioned that the station promoted its educational programs
bevond the newspaper listings and occasional on-air announcements. That respondent. from an NBC
affiliate, mentioned that he had received some posters about the program( Saved by the Bell") that he was
asked to distribute to local junior high and high schools. (He did not mention whether he had done so.)
25
It may be that these stations believe that no matter what promotional efforts they make, high ratings for
educational programs cannot be achieved. It may also be the case that stations are already working at
capacity and there are neither the resources nor the personnel to make a significant promotional effort.
Said one overwhelmed respondent from an ABC affiliate: "You know, either there is a promotion director
who is also a program director or else the general manager has taken over the program director
duties It's called downsizing, I guess." In the end, a lack of effort to promote the programs will perpet-
uate a community of uninformed non-viewers.
This finding should be of serious concern to children's advocates and policymakers alike. The
local broadcasters' feeling that parents and other local viewers do not care about educational programming
is not surprising given the lack of local feedback about such programming. However, this lack of feedback
may be evidence not of public apathy about children's educational programming but rather of the disjunc-
ture between national policy and local implementation. From the standpoint of the local citizen, the best
way to improve children's programming has traditionally been to concentrate lobbying efforts at the
federal level (through Congress and regulatory agencies such as the FCC). However, these national
policies must be implemented by broadcast stations that may not perceive either the necessity or urgency
for these changes and are therefore likely to see the regulations as unnecessary government intrusion into
their business.
Recommendation #1: Educate the audience through outreach and promotion
Results from the Annenberg Public Policy Center's 1996 and 1997 studies of parents and children
suggest that the broadcasters may be misreading confusion and lack of information as apathy. The most
recent APPC survey (Stanger, 1997) indicates that the majority of parents (71%) are concerned about what
their children watch on television, and only 16.5 percent said they were "very positive" or "mainly positive"
about the quality of children's programming. In addition, surveyed parents are confused about broadcasters'
labeling of educational programs. Only two percent of the parents could correctly tell the interviewer the
meaning of the "E/I" label on broadcasters' programs (even though more than half of the respondents said
their children would be more likely to watch a program if the children knew it was educational).
Local broadcasters should become more active in promoting educational programs within the
community-raising awareness that these programs exist and how children benefit from them. Clearly,
putting an E/I label on at the beginning of the program (or in the TV Guide) is not accomplishing the
task. Materials related to the program could be distributed to local schools, after-school programs,
camps, and youth organizations. Local tie-ins to national programs could raise awareness and interest in
educational programs. Bill Nye ("the Science Guy"), for example, could host the local science fair; the
local zoo could produce a segment for "Jack Hannah's Animal Adventures."
Recommendation # 2: Develop resources by cultivating advertisers
With many stations already functioning at capacity and pouring their resources into the more
lucrative adult programming, a joint effort between network and local broadcaster, or syndicator and local
26
broadcaster, would seem in order. An increased effort to encourage advertiser support might also be
productive. Advertisers who market to children need to adjust their expectations of the type of audience
educational programs can deliver. By definition, they must target a narrower segment in order to succeed
(otherwise the material will be too advanced for some members of the audience and too simple for
others). The programs therefore are unable to deliver the large numbers that can be expected of entertain-
ment-only programs. Such shows do, however, offer other rewards-an audience that is more "engaged"
in processing the content of the show, an aura of respectability, and the blessing of parents who, according
to APPC surveys, care about what their children watch. One of our respondents from an NBC affiliate
said:
The bottom line here is if there were shows out there that could meet the advertiser
minimums, then we wouldn't have any problem at all. But they don't. What we hear
from buyers is: "I gotta see a 5, I gotta see a 3." And the shows don't do that well. So the
reality of it is that the activist groups are really pointing the gun in the wrong direction.
What they should be saying is to the American public or, actually, to Kellogg's, they
should be saying, "Wait a minute, you need to be in these shows. You need to support
them financially and keep them on the air."
One respondent from a different NBC affiliate pointed out that most of the large network affiliates do
not even know how to sell advertising time on children's programs, since they do it so infrequently:
Well, for our sales department, they probably need to learn how to sell children's pro-
gramming, which they have ignored in the past because it's only been a couple of hours
and now that it's three hours every week they might figure out how to actually sell to
children's programming.
Another respondent from an ABC affiliate, who seems to have given the issue some thought, stated:
I think if there's any success at all, it will be approaching a non-traditional advertiser and
saying, "We're going to have this educational block, would you like to have your name
associated with it?"
Recommendation #3: Involve other media
Newspapers and magazines also need to make a stronger commitment to providing information
about children's educational programs. Aday's analyses of newspaper coverage of children's television
(1996, 1997) indicate that children's television is rarely reviewed, and when it is, the stories do not provide
the detail parents need to direct their children's viewing. Parents, for example, might benefit by knowing
what age a program is intended for, what educational elements are incorporated into a program, and even
whether the critic likes the program.
27
Recommendation #4: Solicit community input
Media outlets, including the television stations themselves, need to let parents know how they can
contact a broadcaster. Many parents may care and may have strong feelings about children's television but
lack an understanding of how or where to direct their comments. Do they write a letter to the FCC? Do
they call the network that provides the programs? Do they call the local station? And while calling a
local station for information about children's programming may seem logical, it may not be easy.
Researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center made calls to each of the Philadelphia-area
commercial broadcasters to find the titles, air times, and target ages of educational programs. Most
stations did not have a designated "children's television liaison" (as required by FCC regulations), and it
often took repeated transfers and multiple phone calls to connect with the right person. That person was
often reluctant to provide us with the information, even though it was supposed to be easily available to
the public. If determined researchers encountered frustrations and obstacles to obtaining what is sup-
posed to be public information, what might parents encounter? How might they react?
Clearly, then, developing a stronger relationship between the local broadcaster and the viewing
community would be in order. Broadcasters who provide more information about their educational
programs may find viewers who are more likely to spend time with the programs. An increase in ratings
would be beneficial to all-the network, the broadcaster, the advertiser, and the child viewer. In addition,
broadcasters who solicit input and feedback from their audience may get a more consistent and reliable
reading of their viewers' needs and interests than the irate phone calls that come in after a particularly
controversial program.
28
References
Aday, S. (1996). "Newspaper Coverage of Children's Television," Annenberg Public Policy Center Report
No. 7, University of Pennsylvania.
Aday, S. (1997). "Newspaper Coverage of Children's Television: A 1997 Update," Annenberg Public
Policy Center Report No. 12, University of Pennsylvania.
Center for Media Education/Institute for Public Representation, Georgetown University Law Center.
(1992). A Report on Station Compliance with the Children's Television Act. Washington, DC.
Federal Communications Commission. (1984). Revision of Programming and Commercialization Policies,
Ascertainment Requirements and Program Logs for Commercial Television Stations, 98 FCC 2d 1076, 1105.
Federal Communications Commission. (1996). Policies and Rules Concerning Children's Television
Programming: Revision of Programming Policies for Television Broadcast Stations. MM Docket No. 93-48.
Jordan, A.B. (1996). "The State of Children's Television: An Examination of Quantity, Quality, and
Industry Beliefs." Annenberg Public Policy Center Report No. 2, University of Pennsylvania.
Jordan, A. B. and Woodard, E. (1997). "The 1997 State of Children's Television Report: Programming
for Children over Broadcast and Cable Television," Annenberg Public Policy Center Report No. 14,
University of Pennsylvania.
Keller, Casey. (1996). Comments at Annenberg Public Policy Center Conference on Children and
Television, Philadelphia, PA, June 17.
Kunkel, D. and J. Canepa. (1994). "Broadcasters" License Renewal Claims Regarding Children's
Educational Programming." Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, Fall, 397-416.
Reed, R. and Reed, M. (1992). The Encyclopedia of Television, Cable, and Video. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
Stanger, J. (1997). "Television in the Home: The 1997 Survey of Parents and Children," Annenberg
Public Policy Center Report Survey Series No. 2, University of Pennsylvania.
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Publ. No. 104-104, 110 STAT. 56, 1996.
29
Acknowledgments
The authors of this report wish to extend their thanks to the 28 local broadcasters who partici-
pated in the interviews. Also, we would like to thank Kathryn Edmundson, who shared her experience
with and interest in local broadcasters.
Thanks are also due to Margaret Crocker, who assisted in the collection of data on the networks'
educational offerings, and Emory Woodard, who helped identify interview respondents at the local
stations.
We extend our thanks to Janice Fisher, who efficiently and effectively copyedited this report.
Finally, we wish to thank Kathleen Hall Jamieson, who provided important guidance and insight
throughout the project.
30
Appendix: Interview protocol and questions
Interview protocol
I appreciate your willingness to speak with me about the impact of FCC regulations on local
broadcasters' decision making around children's television programming. I will be speaking with a couple
dozen broadcasters around the country about this issue and will be including interview data in a larger
report on the children's television industry that will be released in June. Let me assure you that the
Annenberg Public Policy Center is an academic, non-partisan research center within the University. Our
hope is that this study will increase the level of awareness of the rewards and challenges that face local
broadcasters.
Let me also reassure you that anything you tell me will be strictly anonymous. Your name will not
be used in the report; nor will it be connected to quotes that are used in the report. If you want to say
something off the record, just let me know and the quote won't be used in the report. If you don't mind,
I'd like to tape record our interview so that I don't have to scribble furiously while we talk.
Interview questions
1. Are you aware of the new FCC requirements regarding children's educational programming that
went into effect last month?
NO/DON'T KNOW
Ask to speak with someone else who may know more about the regulations or might have more
specific programming knowledge.
YES
Continue to the next question.
2. What is your understanding of these new regulations (what they are, and what they mean for your
station)?
3. Can you tell me how your station intends to meet the requirements?
PROBE ISSUES:
(a). What is your station doing at present to support educational programs for children?
(b). How, if at all, will you have to change your business or programming practices as a result of
these new rules?
(c). Will you use 3 hours of children's programming or less than that?
31
(d). What specific programs will you be using to fulfill the FCC requirement for children's
educational programming?
(e). Where do (or will) you get this programming? Is it be supplied by the network, bought in
syndication, or locally produced?
(f). Do you have a children's television liaison in place (hired)? Who is it and what is her/his job
description?
(g). What actions, if any, will you take to provide information about these educational children's
programs to the public (in program guides, local print media, etc.)?
4. How would you select an "educational" children's program that complies with the FCC requirements?
PROBE ISSUES:
(a). How do you decide which programs fit the FCC's requirements for children's educational
broadcasting?
(b). Do you rely on, for example, information provided by the network, marketing information
about the programming, or your own judgment of the programming?
5. What concerns or hopes, if any, do you have about these new regulations?
PROBE ISSUES:
(a). In what time slots will you air (or are you airing) these educational children's programs?
(b). What are some of the factors you consider when placing children's programs into your
broadcast schedule?
6. What do you think the effect of these new programming and reporting requirements will be (on your
station or on the country as a whole)?
PROBE QUESTIONS:
(a). Do you expect a change in your ratings because of these new educational children's programs?
(b). What do you think the community response will be?
(c). Do you expect a change in the overall revenue of the station as a result of these new regula-
tions?
Conclude Interview
Those were the questions that I had for you. Thank you very much for speaking to me, and if you
have any further comments or questions about your interview or this study, feel free to contact me at the
Annenberg Public Policy Center.
32
THE ANNENBERG PUBLIC POLICY CENTER
or THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
3620 Walnut Street, Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 19104-6220
Telephone: (215) 898-7041
V
Fax: (215) 898-2024
Internet [email protected]
Lissa-
den and I are DESPER ATE
for your wise coursel
on this
perhaps
early next week? Nicon
The Advertising Council inc
Eva Kasten
Executive Vice President
Lisia July
24, 1997
Milan Verveer
Office of the First Lady
The White House
2nd Floor, West Wing
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Milan,
Recently President and Mrs. Clinton launched a series of Advertising Council Public Service
Announcements (PSAs) and declared helping children and their parents a top priority. I am pleased
to send you a copy of the Ad Council's research report, "Kids These Days: What Americans
Really Think About the Next Generation." I hope this research may provide useful
background as you create messages and public policy that will support parents in the struggles
they face in communities all across America.
As the largest provider of Public Service Advertising in the US, the Ad Council is using the power
of media to improve circumstances for America's children. This research -- part of Commitment
2000, our 10-year commitment to children -- measures public attitudes towards teens, children
and parents and has something to say about the impact of these attitudes on our children. The
results are not necessarily encouraging:
Only 37% of Americans believe that today's children, once grown, will make this country a
better place.
The majority of Americans describe teens in negative terms; "rude," "irresponsible" and
"wild."
Only 19% of parents think it's very common for parents to be good role models and teach their
kids right from wrong.
Despite these negative factors, Americans also expressed a willingness to help:
Three in four Americans strongly believe helping others is the right thing to do.
Nearly half say they would be very comfortable volunteering to be a mentor.
85% said that helping others makes them feel good.
This Ad Council report was prepared by Public Agenda and supported by a grant from Ronald
McDonald Charities. It is the first of a series of reports the Ad Council and its partners will
release over the next four years that research public attitudes and behaviors about children's
issues.
I hope you enjoy the report and find it useful.
Sincerely,
Emkaster
Ad
1730 Rhode Island Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
202/331-9153
Fax: 202/331-9790
261 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
212/922-1500
Fax: 212/922-1676
Council
PUBLIC AGENDA
KIDS THESE DAYS:
WHAT AMERICANS REALLY THINK ABOUT
THE NEXT GENERATION
Summary of Findings
FINDING ONE: The Moral Meltdown
Americans are convinced that today's youth face a crisis -- not in their economic or physical well-being but in their
values and morals. Most Americans look at today's teenagers with misgiving and trepidation, viewing them as
undisciplined, disrespectful, and unfriendly.
I*
FINDING TWO: It's Not Just Teens
Public dissatisfaction and disapproval extend beyond the nation's teenagers. Even young children are viewed in a
negative light. Many Americans think children are spoiled and out of control, not friendly, helpful, or engaging. And
people apply these criticisms to children across a broad economic spectrum, to children from disadvantaged
backgrounds as well as children from the middle and affluent classes.
FINDING THREE: Careless Parents
Americans believe that parents are fundamentally responsible for the disappointing state of today's youth. People say
parents fail to teach youngsters right from wrong and pass on the values children need to learn in order to become
productive members of society. Too often, people say, today's parents have children before they're ready; give
them presents instead of guidance and attention; and fail to provide necessary discipline. Even parents themselves
from all income, ethnic, and racial backgrounds agree.
FINDING FOUR: Mitigating Circumstances
Americans acknowledge it is tougher to be a parent or a child in today's world. They recognize that more than ever,
parents -- and especially mothers -- must work hard and sacrifice for their children. Americans also believe today's
youngsters face threats from society that can undermine their parents' best efforts. People are extremely concerned
about ubiquitous threats endangering all kids: drugs and crime; sex and violence in the media; and public schools
that often fail to deliver education in a safe and orderly environment.
FINDING FIVE: Never Give Up
Notwithstanding their extensive criticisms of young people, Americans refuse to give up on kids. They care deeply
about their well-being and believe that tackling the issue is of paramount importance to our society. Most
encouraging, they are stubbornly optimistic about the chances of reclaiming the lives of even the most troubled
teens.
c 1997, Public Agenda
6 East 39th Street, New York, New York 10016-0112 212-686-6610 Fax: 212-889-3461 E-mail: [email protected]
FINDING SIX: Solutions That Miss the Mark
Government programs aimed at improving the health and economic circumstances of young people miss the mark
in three important ways as far as the public is concerned. First, Americans define the children's issue as
predominantly moral in nature, not one of money or health. Second, people believe the crux of the problem is
parents, not a lack of government programs. And third, welfare has left a legacy of skepticism about government
intervention on behalf of the family. Even when it comes to low-income, at-risk kids, Americans doubt that such
programs could help. They suspect that parents who need such programs will fail to take advantage of them.
FINDING SEVEN: Solutions That Show Promise
Because they define the problem as one of values, Americans gravitate toward solutions that help develop young
people's character. People believe the schools should help teach kids discipline, honesty, and respectfulness toward
themselves and others. They believe community centers and volunteer organizations like the Boy Scouts could be
effective because they lend moral structure to youngsters' lives.
FINDING EIGHT: Will Individual Americans Help?
Americans are convinced that young people need adults in their lives who will help guide them to responsible
adulthood. But will Americans -- as individuals help in the task? People say all the right things about helping, but
they also have concerns. Many are not sure that their efforts will be well received. They fear embarrassing those
they are trying to help. They want to make sure that they themselves are not taken advantage of. Finally, many
Americans believe that those who receive help should show their appreciation, return the favor when they can, and
take responsibility for helping themselves. As it is, only about a third of Americans volunteer regularly, although most
say they could find extra time to do so.
SPECIAL FOCUS: The Views of African American, Hispanic, and White
Parents
In order to compare the views of African American and Hispanic parents to those of white parents, supplementary
interviews were conducted with 300 black and 300 Hispanic parents. The results: regardless of race and ethnicity,
all three groups of parents are critical of how teens and children are turning out, of the job parents are doing, and for
the most part, all are concerned about the same social problems threatening youngsters. Where there are
differences, these are usually differences in degree, not in kind. African American and Hispanic parents are
sometimes more critical of today's youth than are white parents, for example, and black parents are more attracted
to government child and health care programs.
SPECIAL FOCUS: What Kids Have to Say
Teenagers surveyed as part of this study generally describe themselves as happy and say they have warm relations
with their parents and other adults in their lives. But large numbers also say they have plenty of time on their hands
and describe an environment filled with hazards and potential trouble. A third say there is no adult in the house
when they come home and about a quarter admit they have engaged in risky behavior such as smoking cigarettes or
drinking alcohol.
c 1997. Public Agenda
Public Agenda is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that seeks to raise the level of public discussion about critical policy choices facing
the nation.
Kids These Days was made possible by a grant from Ronald McDonald House Charities and was conducted in partnership with The
Advertising Council, both organizations are committed to efforts to improve the lives of children.
Copies of Kids These Days are available from Public Agenda, 6 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016. Tel: 212/686-6610; Fax: 212/889-
3461; e-mail: [email protected]. Copies are $10.00 each, or $5.00 for 10 or more copies. (For all orders, please add $2.50 shipping and
handling on one book; $5.00 for 2-5 books; or $10.00 for 6-25 books.)
PUBLIC AGENDA
EMBARGOED UNTIL JUNE 26, 1997
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTAC
AT 11:00AM EST
Margaret Suzor Dunning, Public Agenda
212/686-6610
Paula Veale, The Advertising Council
212/984-1930
Judi Ketcik, RMHC
312/836-7462 or 312/810-2252
AMERICANS DEEPLY TROUBLED ABOUT NATION'S YOUTH
EVEN YOUNG CHILDREN DESCRIBED BY MAJORITY IN NEGATIVE TERMS
CHICAGO, IL -- Only 37% of Americans believe today's children, once grown, will make this
country a better place, according to Kids These Days: What Americans Really Think About The
Next Generation, a new public opinion study released today by Public Agenda. Across all
demographic groups, the public is intensely concerned about the moral and ethical development of
America's youngsters and see these problems as widespread, affecting families of all income
levels. Americans believe parents are fundamentally responsible for ensuring their children grow
up with the right values, yet only one in five say it is very common for parents to be good role
models and teach their children right from wrong.
Kids These Days was conducted for Ronald McDonald House Charities and The Advertising
Council -- both organizations are committed to improving the lives of children. The study also
explores how people feel these problems should be addressed and what solutions they are willing
to support.
"This groundbreaking research is a 'wake-up' call to many in the non-profit arena who want to
make a profound impact on childrens' lives," said Ken Barun, President and CEO of Ronald
McDonald House Charities. "While these findings are sobering, the study will help us understand
and address those roadblocks to getting more people involved in finding solutions," Barun added.
Not only do the majority of Americans describe teens in negative terms, they also are surprisingly
critical of children (defined for this study as being 5 to 12 year olds). When asked what first
comes to mind when they think about today's teenagers, Americans use adjectives such as "rude,"
-more-
6 East 39th Street, New York, New York 10016-0112 212-686-6610 Fax: 212-889-3461 E-mail: [email protected]
"irresponsible," and "wild," while younger children are characterized as "lacking discipline" and
"spoiled." Only 12% of Americans, for example, say it is very common for kids to treat people
with respect, a view shared by white (8%), Hispanic (11%) and African-American (17%) parents.
"Americans are frightened for and in some cases frightened of our children and fault parents for
the problems they see," said Deborah Wadsworth, Executive Director of Public Agenda. "The
public does acknowledge how difficult it is to be a parent in today's world, but is riveted by one
goal -- the necessity of teaching all children the values of integrity, ethical behavior, concern for
others, respect, civility, compassion, and responsibility," added Wadsworth.
Even parents themselves are critical of the job parents are doing. The majority of parents say
couples break up their marriages too easily, instead of trying to stay together for their kids, and
58% of black, 50% of white, and 49% of Hispanic parents say parents who fail to discipline their
children are very common. The public acknowledges the difficulties families face with four in five
saying it is much harder for parents to do their job these days. Seven in ten Americans consider
drug and alcohol abuse, and excessive violence and sex on television and in the movies as very
serious problems. Sixty-two percent feel crime and gangs are serious threats to kids. But
although the public believes these are tough times to be a parent, they ultimately feel parents are
not rising to meet the challenge.
SOLUTIONS WITH PROMISE
Notwithstanding the public's bitter criticism of kids, Americans refuse to write them off as
unsalvageable and are clear on what needs to be done to help them. First and foremost, people
believe children thrive when their parents care for them and teach them right from wrong. Then
they look to schools to supplement and reinforce the values they believe parents should provide;
two-thirds say improving the public schools would be a very effective way to help young people.
Support for after-school programs, volunteer organizations such as the Boy Scouts, and tougher
measures to keep kids off the street, is also strong. Americans rank government funding for child
and health care programs at the bottom of a list of twelve items that would be very effective in
helping kids, in part because such programs do not speak to their primary concerns about
children's moral development.
-more-
"What is key is Americans don't want to give up on kids and believe in programs that will develop
young people's character. Our efforts will focus on mobilizing Americans to volunteer in ways
that will address their concerns and meet the needs of our nation's youth," said Ruth Wooden,
President of The Advertising Council.
Kids These Days also measured the views of 12 to 17 year olds. Most of America's adolescents
report they themselves are doing well, and 66% say "faith in God is an important part of my life."
But 49% also feel most kids their age need more guidance and attention from adults. Only 39%
say parents who are good role models and teach their kids right from wrong are very common.
Seven in ten also say they usually hang out with friends without anything specific to do. Few feel
they are respectful toward each other or toward adults, and only one-third think they will make
the country a better place.
Kids These Days, the initial phase of a multi-year research effort, is based on two telephone
surveys within the continental United States. This first is a survey of 2,000 randomly selected
adults aged 18 years or older, plus oversamples of 300 African-American and 300 Hispanic
parents (margin of error for the 2,000 is plus or minus 2%). The second is a survey of 600
randomly selected young people aged 12 to 17 years old (margin of error is plus or minus 4%).
Both surveys were conducted in December of 1996. In addition, Public Agenda conducted six
focus groups in sites across the country, as well as dozens of in-depth, follow-up telephone
interviews with adults who had completed the survey.
AMERICANS' VIEWS TOWARD KIDS
Sixty-one percent of Americans think youngsters' failure to learn such values as honesty,
respect, and responsibility is a very serious problem.
Nine in ten Americans say the failure to learn values is widespread; only 8% say it mostly
affects kids from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Sixty-five percent of Americans who say they have a lot of contact with teenagers describe
teens disapprovingly.
Sixty-three percent of black, 61% of Hispanic, and 49% of white parents say teens getting
into trouble because they have too much free time is very common.
-more-
Only 12% think it's very common for teens to be friendly or helpful toward neighbors.
AMERICANS' VIEWS TOWARD PARENTS
Sixty-three percent of Americans say it is very common for parents to have children before
they are ready to take responsibility for them.
Fifty percent of the general public, and 51% of parents, say it is very common for parents
to equate buying things for children to caring for them.
Only 19% of parents think it's very common for parents to be good role models and teach
their kids right from wrong.
Four in ten parents, the same as for the general public, say parents who resent advice
about their kids are very common.
But 51% of Americans say parents who sacrifice and work hard for their kids are very
common; and 3 in 4 believe mothers who have to give up time with their kids to work and
make ends meet is very common.
KIDS' VIEWS TOWARD KIDS
Forty-one percent of adolescents say they see people their age using drugs or alcohol
every or almost every day.
Thirty-three percent of adolescents say there is no adult at home when they return from
school.
Six in ten believe most or all people their age pay too much attention to their appearance.
Sixty-five percent say they get a compliment or encouraging word from adults every or
almost every day.
Seven in ten believe people should help others because it's the right thing to do; 69% say
someone who gets help should express their gratitude.
AMERICANS' ATTITUDES TOWARD HELPING
Three in four Americans strongly believe helping others is the right thing to do.
Sixty percent say people who receive help should show appreciation.
Fifty-one percent feel those who benefit from help should return the favor if they can.
Nearly half say they would be very comfortable volunteering to be a mentor.
-more-
The principal researcher and author of Kids These Days was Steve Farkas, Public Agenda Vice
President and Director of Research. For information on how to obtain a copy of Kids These
Days, contact Public Agenda by phone (212/686-6610), fax (212/889-3461) or E-mail
([email protected]).
Public Agenda is a nonpartisan, nonprofit public opinion research and education organization
working to help citizens better understand complex policy issues and to help the nation's leaders
better understand the public's point of view. It was founded in 1975 by Daniel Yankelovich and
Cyrus Vance.
The Advertising Council, founded in 1942 and the largest source of public service advertising in
the nation, has made a 10-year commitment to focus the majority of its resources on developing
campaigns which improve the circumstances of children in this country. As part of Commitment
2000: Raising a Better Tomorrow, the Council will develop hundreds of ads on a variety of
different topics which will benefit children.
Ronald McDonald House Charities (RMHC) has made a $100 million commitment over the next
five years to fund programs that provide comfort and care to children and families. RMHC will
use this important research to help guide its giving, and it will be shared with people and
organizations on the frontlines advocating for at-risk children, including national and grassroots
philanthropic organizations, as well as community and church leaders.
-30-
TABLE I: VIEWS ONTEENAGERS
"Now I'm going to describe different types of teenagers and ask if you think they are common or not.
How about teenagers who [INSERT ITEM]? Are they very common, somewhat common, not too
common, or not common at all?"!
Parents
General
African
% saying "very common"
Parents
American
Hispanic
White
of
public
teens
parents
parents
parents
Face social problems like drugs,
62%
66%
62%
71%
72%
64%
gangs, or crime
Get into trouble because they have
50
too much free time
51
45
63
61
49
Have poor work habits and lack
41
self-discipline
40
43
49
46
38
Lack good role models
36
36
35
43
34
36
Are wild and disorderly in public
30
33
30
49
43
31
Are lively and fun to be around
29
25
24
35
25
25
Are friendly and helpful toward
their neighbors
12
10
12
16
14
10
Treat people with respect
12
9
9
17
11
8
1. "Teenagers" were defined for respondents as 13 to 17 years old.
Sample Sizes:
General public = 2,000; Parents = 763; Parents of Teens = 162; Parents of Children = 293; African American Parents =
367; Hispanic Parents = 348 White Parents = 596; Youth = 600.
TABLE 2: VIEWS ON CHILDREN
"Now I'm going to describe different types of children and ask if you think they are common or not.
How about children who are [INSERT ITEM]? Are they very common, somewhat common, not too
common, or not common at all?"!
Parents
African
General
% saying "very common"
Parents
of
American
Hispanic
White
public
children
parents
parents
parents
Face social problems like drugs,
54%
56%
52%
63%
58%
53%
gangs, or crime
Are spoiled and do not appreciate
48
49
44
54
what they have
51
48
Don't get enough attention and
46
45
42
45
support from adults
47
45
Are bright and eager to learn
32
32
37
40
37
32
Are out of control in public areas
31
30
such as restaurants and movies
28
39
34
29
Are lazy and do not apply
30
30
30
38
themselves
28
28
Are physically or sexually abused
21
23
21
31
29
21
Are friendly and helpful toward
17
17
22
25
19
their neighbors
16
Treat people with respect
12
11
14
20
14
9
1. "Children" were defined for respondents as older than 5 but not yet teenagers.
TABLE 3: VIEWS ON PARENTS
"Now I'm going to describe different types of parents and ask if you think they are common or not. How
about parents who [INSERT ITEM]? Are they very common, somewhat common, not too common, or
not common at all?"
General
African
% saying "very common"
Hispanic
White
public
Parents
American
Youth
parents
parents
parents
(12-17 years old)
Mothers who have to give up time with
their kids to work so their families can
75%
78%
83%
76%
79%
NA
make ends meet
People who have children
before they are ready to take
63
65
72
69
63
41
responsibility for them
Parents who break up too easily
instead of trying to stay together for
55
57
56
57
58
31
the sake of their kids
Parents who sacrifice and work hard so
that their kids can have a better life
51
54
65
58
52
50
Parents who do not know how to
communicate with their kids
51
52
54
56
51
32
Parents who think buying things for
their kids means the same thing as car-
50
51
53
52
51
29
ing for them
Parents who fail to discipline
their children
50
50
58
49
50
33
Parents who spoil their kids
49
50
56
46
50
43
Parents who resent advice about their
kids even when it comes from people
43
42
48
44
40
NA
who mean well
Fathers who act like their careers are
more important than their kids
35
35
47
39
33
NA
Parents who care more about their jobs
than their kids
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11
Parents who abuse welfare and teach
their kids to depend on handouts
32
31
41
43
29
NA
Mothers who give up time with their
kids and go to work to gain personal
27
29
32
33
26
NA
satisfaction
People who are failures as parents and
should never have had kids to begin
22
21
31
29
17
12
with
Fathers who are affectionate and loving
toward their kids¹
22
20
24
20
20
35
Parents who are good role models and
teach their kids right from wrong
22
19
32
25
18
39
1. Wording for Youth: "Fathers who are warm and loving toward their kids"
TABLE 4: PROBLEMS FACING TODAY'S KIDS
"I'm going to describe different problems and ask if you think each is a serious problem facing today's
kids. How about [INSERT ITEM]? Is that problem very serious, somewhat serious, not too serious, or
not serious at all for today's kids?"
[If "very" or "somewhat serious":] "Do you think this problem mostly affects kids from lower income
families, or is it widespread?"
% saying problem is "very serious"
African
General
Hispanic
White
public
Parents
American
% saying problem is "widespread"¹
parents
parents
parents
Kids abusing drugs or alcohol
71%
69%
79%
83%
67%
Kids abusing drugs or alcohol is widespread
95
95
93
93
95
Kids seeing too much violence or sex on television
69
71
76
75
71
and in the movies
Kids seeing too much violence/sex in the
96
97
95
95
98
media is widespread
Kids threatened by crime or gangs
62
64
77
77
60
Kids threatened by crime/gangs is widespread
67
70
75
73
71
Kids failing to learn such values as honesty,
61
63
67
66
62
respect and responsibility
Kids failing to learn values is widespread
91
91
88
90
92
Welfare programs that encourage single-parent
58
57
66
62
55
families and teen pregnancy
Welfare programs encouraging single-parent
46
47
55
50
46
families/teen pregnancies is widespread
Public schools that fail to give kids a good
49
52
60
53
49
education
Public schools failing to give kids a good
76
77
61
71
80
education is widespread
Fewer families teaching their kids religious faith
49
50
58
55
48
and values
Fewer families teaching religion/values is
95
95
91
92
95
widespread
Kids suffering because of economic pressure on
44
44
60
53
42
their parents
Kids suffering from economic pressure on
64
67
64
61
69
parents is widespread
Kids lacking the support of strong communities
40
44
58
45
41
where neighbors care about them
Kids lacking support from communities is
80
82
74
72
84
widespread
Families facing a shortage of government
27
30
47
36
27
programs that support kids
Shortage of government programs that support
50
51
43
54
51
kids is widespread
1. Percentages saying problems are widespread are based on respondents who indentified the problems as either very or
somewhat serious
TABLE 5: WAYSTO HELP YOUNG PEOPLE
Now I'll read different ways to help kids and ask how effective you think each would be. Do you think
that [INSERT ITEM] would be a very effective way to help kids, somewhat effective, not too effective,
or not effective at all?¹
General
African
Hispanic
White
% saying "very effective"
public
Parents
American
Youth
parents
parents
parents
(12-17 years old)
Improving the quality of the public
67%
71%
76%
67%
70%
schools2
51%
More programs and activities for
kids to do after school in places
60
60
75
67
57
46
like community centers
Employers giving parents more flexible
work schedules so they can spend more
55
57
66
59
58
NA
time with their kids
Nighttime curfews after which kids
could not be on the streets without
53
55
63
66
54
30
their parents
More involvement by volunteer organi-
zations dedicated to kids, like the Boy
53
51
61
55
50
NA
Scouts and the YMCA
Pressuring the entertainment industry
to produce movies and music with less
49
50
54
58
49
26
violence and sex
Tougher punishment for kids who
48
51
50
48
52
49
commit crime
Neighbors spending more time with
47
49
59
46
48
kids and watching out for them
33
Increasing the wages and job security
44
46
60
51
44
of parents
NA
Holding parents legally responsible
37
35
32
37
37
15
when their kids get into trouble
More government funding for child
34
37
56
45
36
NA
care and health care programs
Increasing government funding for
such welfare programs as AFDC and
10
8
16
13
8
NA
food stamps
1. Wording for youth: "Now I'll read different ways to help kids and ask how effective you think each would be."
2. Wording for youth: "Making the public schools better"
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a publication.
Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose
of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or
visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.
KIDS THESE DAYS:
WHAT AMERICANS REALLY THINK ABOUT
THE NEXT GENERATION
Ad
A Report from Public Agenda
Council
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
TOPICS
Divider Title:
06/19/97 THU 15:14 FAX
-TRIPS.
+++ SPEECH
0
002
5-Boma
THE WHITE HOUSE
DETERMINED TO BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE
MARKING INITIALS: VB DATE: 9/15/17
June 5, 1997
PERSONAL
Spc. Cesar G. Soriano
3325 N. 20th Road
Arlington, VA 22207
CONFIDENTIAL
Dear Spc. Soriano:
Thank you for your thoughtful and inspiring letter. I am
happy to enclose the photograph from Bosnia and appreciate
greatly your commitment to our nation. Our servicemen and
women are daily in my prayers and especially those who
continue to serve there. Like you, I am grateful for the
opportunity I had to be a part of our efforts to restore peace in
the region.
With best regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Hillary Hillary Rodham Rodban Clinton Clinton
Enclosure
TO: HRC
FROM: Lissa
RE: Column Topics
DATE: June 20, 1997
I wanted to get your feedback on columns for the next few weeks, and particularly
next week.
FOR NEXT WEEK (Due Tuesday, June 24) -- We have several possibilities:
1) Tribute to Rosalynn Carter pegged to your trip to Pikeville. This could talk about her
commitment to mental health education, child immunizations, and affordable housing, with some
anecdotes from the house-building session in Kentucky. If you want to do this, I'll need to talk to
you for a couple of minutes.
2) A column about adoption in anticipation of Congressional action on the bill. No votes are
likely in the next week or two, but it might be worth urging passage and reminding people that
children are out there waiting.
3) You could write about the G-8, but by the time this is published the newspapers will have
been saturated with coverage of the summit.
FOR TUESDAY, June 31
Since this column will run over July 4 weekend, I thought we could do your Bosnia idea here.
The problem is that Alice and Pam have no letters of the kind you described. Could they be
elsewhere in the pipeline? The most we've come up with is a handful (at most) of letters sent
right after your trip to Bosnia.
FOR TUESDAY, July 8 (while you are in Madrid)
I suggest doing a tribute to King Juan Carlos and his efforts to promote and sustain Spanish
democracy. It could have a personal tone, yet be framed in the context of the new NATO and the
emerging democracies of Europe. We can do most of the column before the trip, which would be
helpful since logistics will be difficult.
FOR TUESDAY, July 15 (while you are in Salzburg, Austria)
We have a couple of possibilities:
1) A fun reminiscence about the Sound of Music, how it was Chelsea's favorite, and what it's
like to be in Vienna.
2) A column about the women's conference, who was there, and what the issues are (possibly
tied into the conference of future leaders in Salzburg).
FOR TUESDAY, July 22 (two days after you return from the trip)
I think we should consider doing a whole column on Portugal, especially given the importance of
your visit to the Portugese government and people. We could talk about everything from the
country's political history to its beauty.
REST OF THE SUMMER
Since things will be slow in late July and August, I'm going to try to get several columns in the
can:
1) Food Safety
2) Smoking and the Movies
In August we can also do a column on the ABA Commission on Women and another on the
125th anniversary of Yellowstone. But we need to come up with more topics.
337-0589
TO: HRC
To
FROM: Lissa on
RE: Column
DATE: June 3, 1997
We have a very busy week next week, so I wanted to try to start on the column as
early as possible. I can think of three possibilities and wanted your initial reaction:
1) Father's Day (the column will run over Father's Day weekend).
I don't have anything specific in mind, but maybe there is something you want to
say about fathers and their roles. If not, we lack a good peg. You wrote about your father
last year. The Gore conference is no longer going to focus on fathers. So I'm not sure where
that leaves us. (Unless the President wants to do a guest column about fatherhood, the way
he wrote about his mother for Mother's Day last year).
2) Education standards and expectations as seen through a school like Banneker HS
We could use Banneker as the focal point for a column about what it takes to
educate our children. It would be a nice plug for the school and show your continued
commitment to DC. And it would offer a vehicle to talk about education standards,
expectations, etc. and how they can be applied even in places where the school system is
falling apart.
3) Food Safety
I don't know enough about this subject yet, but if you give a speech on it next week,
there might be a way to turn it into a column. 1 Let's Ny
Some ideas for the following weeks are:
June 17 -- Racial Reconciliation (based on Ohio University)
July June 24 -- Habitat for Humanity or G-8 + tr.bute to Rosalyn Carter
1 Maybe a column about nurses (although we have to be careful because
the budget reduces funding for nursing education)
July 8 -- King Juan Carlos and his role in promoting democracy in Spain, with color from
your visit to Majorca and Madrid. t/a NATU?
July 15 -- Trip column
Bosma
Can we do both in sequence?
Food
Adoption
PHOTOCOPY
Banneter
HRC HANDWRITING
# # #
TO: HRC
FROM: Lissa and June
W
RE: Column topics
DATE: April 4, 1997
Here are some possible column topics for the coming weeks.
1) POTUS Knee Reeovery
What it's been like to take care of your husband with his knee injury. You could
talk about how much itmakes you appreciate the difficulties encountered by people with
permanent disabilities. Column could be partly serious, partly light.
Yes
[]
No ]
2) Brain Conference
this issue, from
Tuesday)
Obviously mum columns on
Yes
No ]
3) Organ Donation Issues
Kelly (and Jeff) are getting me material. She says she has discussed this topic with
you.
Yes
[
I
Let's see what this info. might be
No ]
4) A defense of government as explained through federal efforts at food safety and
consumer protection
The recent outbreak of Hepatitis A might be a good vehicle to talk about the
important role that government plays in keeping us safe from disease, contamination,
pollution, etc. (Along the lines of the chapter in your book).
Yes
[
No I
PHOTOCOPY
HRC HANDWRITING
5) The Mother-Daughter Banquet at Sidwell
It might be fun to write about how you and the other mothers hooked up to prepare
for this occasion.
Yes
]
No
6) The Service Summit
If there is anything left to say
Yes
]
No
[
PHOTOCOPY
HRC HANDWRITING
MEMORANDUM
To: HRC
Fr: June June
Re: Column Ideas
Da: January 22, 1997
Lissa, the editors at Creators, and I came up with the following column ideas for the upcoming
weeks. Please let me know which ones you'd like to pursue.
1. District of Columbia. Why you think it's important that all Americans, through the federal
government, play a bigger role in helping our capital city meet its unique challenges and fulfill
its potential. Why we can't allow the capital of the world's richest and most powerful nation to
struggle alone with so many daunting problems. Why D.C. is more than just a city full of federal
buildings and national museums, but a community of distinct neighborhoods and diverse
citizens, a place where real people live and work. Perhaps discuss your previous involvement
and what you hope to do with the city in the future.
Yes ( ) No ( )
2. Microcredit Summit and Microlending Awards. How microcredit and microlending are
important tools in lifting women and families out of poverty, in building local economies and
strengthening communities. You can write about your own visits to projects in South Asia,
South America, and the U.S, as well as your involvement in the Good Faith Fund in Arkansas.
You can describe the federal government's efforts to promote microlending, as well as any
interesting events that may occur at the Summit.
Yes ( ) No ( )
3. Early Childhood Development Conference. Why the time between ages zero to three is
important in a child's intellectual and emotional development. Include details from the
conference.
Yes ( ) No ( )
4. The "humanization" of politics. Your thoughts on the importance of expanding our national
political agenda to address real-life issues and why they played a prominent role in the last
election.
Yes ( ) No ( )
5. Working Mother Magazine. In its February issue, this magazine will name you one of the
country's 25 most influential working mothers. Why it's important to value all mothers, whether
they work in or out of the home.
Yes ( ) No ( )
6. Your Grammy Nomination. If you go to the ceremony, a tongue-in-cheek account of your
experience. What is it like to be nominated for an award that only entertainment superstars are
supposed to get.
Yes ( ) No ( )
7. Children's Letters. I am enclosing the memo I sent to you earlier on this topic, as well as a
copy of Alice Pushkar's memo about how children's letters are answered.
Yes ( ) No ( )
###
Creators
The Citadel
Projections for the 21st E.
TO: HRC
FROM: Lissa you
RE: Column
DATE: October 10, 1996
I had a few more ideas for possible columns. Just want
your reaction:
1. The Bosnia Hospital Partnership that we will be announcing at
the White House on the 21st. The column could start with the
Bosnian comic strip that warns kids about land mines and then it
could go into what these hospitals are trying to do.
Yes
[]
[]
No [ ]
2. Women in Afghanistan -- We could talk about this in terms of
what is going on with women around the world (genital mutilation,
bride burning, etc.)
Yes [ -aftaclection
No ]
3. Our first column for November will be due election day. Since
we can't say much at that point, I thought maybe you could do a
a thank-you to Americans for their hospitality during the
campaign, followed by a catalogue of campaign highs and lows. The
highs could include great people you met, innovative programs you
saw, or funny things kids said to you. The lows could be
logistical problems (plane breaking down in Texas; not having
enough time to stay in any place very long; etc.)
Yes [
]
No [ ]
These columns could be added to our current list, which includes:
Socks
Domestic Violence
Answering Letters
You
Any specific column you would like to do for next week? We have a
Socks column in the works, but we could also do Afghan women,
which certainly is a topic in the news.
Tanner painting
Overweight study
PHOTOCOPY
HRC HANDWRITING
TO: HRC
FROM: Lissa
RE: The Column
DATE: November 8, 1996
-
I had a conversation with Creators today that requires a
longer discussion on our part. But in brief, they are eager to
"re-launch" the column to attract new and lapsed subscribers.
Obviously we don't want a relaunch until we have thought through
how we are going to use the column in a second term. In the
meantime, we need to think carefully about our topics in the
coming weeks.
My suggestions are as follows (please check if you
agree/disagree) :
For next week (due Tuesday) :
Option #1: What you did on election day and how it felt to be
part of history on election night (This is Creators' idea and
they are pushing it very hard. I think it could work).
Option #2: Domestic violence
Option #3: Letters from readers
For November 19 (when we will be en route to Australia)
Option #1: A scene-setter for the Asia trip
Option #2: Domestic violence if we didn't do it for the 12th
For November 26: (when we will be in Thailand)
I think this provides a perfect opportunity for a powerful column
on child prostitution in Asia -- why it happens and what is (or
isn't) being done about it (and the complicity of foreigners who
create demand for it by visiting these countries for sex
vacations etc) -
For December 3: (when we will be en route to Bolivia)
You could do a column on the meeting of the First Ladies of the
Hemisphere and what you and they are trying to accomplish (we've
never written about this before).
When you have the time and inclination, we do need to
discuss the column at greater length.
TO: HRC
To
FROM: Lissa pm
RE: Column Ideas
DATE: Sept. 20, 1996
Here is a suggested schedule of column topics that I have
worked out with Creators. Please check if you want me/June to
pursue these.
Next week (due Tuesday) : Fashion Targets Breast Cancer
The Fashion Industry's efforts on behalf of breast cancer
research and awareness, pegged to the event at the White House
with Princess Di on Tuesday. We could talk about Nina Hyde, the
motivation for the industry's involvement, and what has been
accomplished thus far.
t breakfast w/ Danama
Yes
No
]
The following week (due Oct. 1) : Beijing a year later
We have terrific examples of progress that has been made
here and overseas. Also could talk about what happens at the
event on the 28th.
Yes
No
]
Other topics with no fixed date:
1. Socks -- we've never written about him, and it could be a
nice, fun column.
Yes
]
No
]
2. Domestic Violence -- we could talk about the extraordinary
efforts around the world to prevent domestic violence and
strengthen laws against it.
Yes
[ ]
No
- Up wally our 4/wh here
Purs dest own PU person
PHOTOCOPY
HRC HANDWRITING
3. Shannon Lucid as an example of the strides women have made
If she comes to the White House, there might be a good column
about her (it could begin with your writing to NASA as a
teenager,
Yes
]
No
]
We're also pulling together a column responding to letters
you've received. We might want to consider doing one that deals
exclusively with questions children ask you.
on
Any other ideas?
PHOTOCOPY
HRC HANDWRITING
FIRST LADY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
CREATORS SYNDICATE "TALKING IT OVER"
PLANNING SCHEDULE
JULY 22, 1996
IDEAS/ TOPICS
DATE OF EVENT
RELEASE DATE
Olympic experience
July 19
July 25
National Parks
Summer
August 1
Paralympics
Early August
August 8
POTUS Birthday
August 19
August 15
Love letter to
August
August 22
Chicago
Democratic Nat'l
August 26-30
August 29
Convention
Beijing
September 5-6
September 5
Anniversary
School vouchers
N/A
September 12
USDA regulations
N/A
September 19
Computers/web site
N/A
Any time
Favorite books
N/A
Any time
gene Lyons book
FIRST LADY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
CREATORS SYNDICATE "TALKING IT OVER"
PLANNING SCHEDULE
JUNE 12, 1996
IDEAS/ TOPICS
DATE OF EVENT
RELEASE DATE
Olympic experience
July 19
July 25
Paralympics
Early August
August 1
Kids and college
August
August 8
Vacation/
Nat'l Packs
POTUS Birthday
August 19
August 15
Summer books
< response to letters)
Yosemite
August 22
have letter to
Convention
August 26-30
August 29
Chi Chicago cago
Topy of
Campaign
September 2
September 5
kickoff/memories
Beijn Annie
Tower>
from '92
sheat
sprts
Back to school
September 12
thans
Computers
Any time
- Why appese edue. vouchers > for
1 Annir - 6 Beijing - set transcipt 6 Iran question
on VOA
In Europe - big deal how b
hep disabled citizes -
had been stude in insting
under Community rule
/ Same Lypus book
big issue
9/12 - Medal theeton
Nat 1 Palks.
9/19 -?
Being Anain.
9/26 - Beigi train
FIRST LADY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
CREATORS SYNDICATE "TALKING IT OVER"
PLANNING SCHEDULE
MAY 30, 1996
IDEAS/ TOPICS
DATE OF EVENT
RELEASE DATE
Ireland State
June 13
June 6?
visit/Robinson
Father's Day
June 16
June 13
FMLA /work+ family
current
June 20
smoking?
current
June 27 your videre
Overseas trip
Early July
July 4 or 11 Radio Free
agrees, thip Smoking
your
11
Europe
Work and family
N/A
July 18
July2
Olympic experience
late July
July 25
Highest ranking
N/A
Any time Anj.2 -
woman general
Computer literacy/
N/A
Any time Aug. 8
hair web page
Youth violence
N/A
Any time Any. 15
Domestic violence
N/A
Any time Aug.22.
one /emotionalance
Tipper
N/A
Any time
Baby boomers
N/A
Any time
Influential books
N/A
Any time
An ordinary night
N/A
N/A
at the White House
Rosalyn Carter/
N/A
N/A
immunizations
- ball can
decident last
/
Single sexeduin
runnel
7/25
Olympics
- fours n a few pple-
Rown/electrounted? Rown
Sort regulation on
811
missim
Unsafe frod meat etc.
8/8 Chelsea Ug at co Uyes? Singlesex educe.
8/15- The PONS 500 minday
Computer
8/22
8/29 Democratic
May 30, 1996
JUNE SPEECH/COLUMN SCHEDULE
JUNE
June 5 (Wednesday)
Literacy event -- t.p. needed
[TENT] Miss America award -- t.p. probable
June 7 (Friday)
Travel to Pittsburgh:
Economy event tbd
Travel to Dallas:
State Party Convention -- speech needed
June 8 (Saturday)
Travel to Orlando:
Women/crime event -- tbd
Bipartisan Women's lunch -- tbd
St. Petersburg:
JJ Dinner -- t.p. probable
June 10 (Monday)
Travel to NY:
Ribbon Cutting at Cassidy's Place -- speech probable
DSCC Fundraiser -- t.p. possible
Travel to Detroit, MI:
Communication Workers of America Convention -- speech needed
WLF Fundraiser -- t.p. probable
June 11 (Tuesday)
Column due
June 12 (Wednesday)
Travel to Cincinnati:
WLF lunch -- t.p. probable
Travel to Chicago:
Educational Event tbd
National Association of Hispanic Journalists -- Carolyn to do
June 14 (Friday)
Travel to Kansas City, MO:
Children's Conference -- speech needed
June 17 (Monday)
***June's Birthday***
June 18 (Tuesday)
Congressional Picnic -- t.p. possible
Column due
June 20 (Thursday)
Travel to Boston:
WLF Fundraiser -- t.p. probable
In D.C.: Olympic torch arrival -- HRC role tbd
June 21 (Friday)
Senate Spouses lunch at White House -- t.p. probable
June 22 (Saturday)
DNC Reception -- t.p. at most
June 24 (Monday)
Travel to Nashville:
Gore Family Conference -- HRC role tbd
Travel to Seattle:
Mothers Against Violence in America lunch -- speech needed
Media event [TENT]
WLF Fundraiser
June 25 (Tuesday)
Travel to Eugene, Oregon:
Message Event tbd
column due
June 27 (Thursday)
Travel to G7 in Lyon, France
FIRST LADY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
CREATORS SYNDICATE "TALKING IT OVER"
PLANNING SCHEDULE
MAY 13, 1996
IDEAS/ TOPICS
DATE OF EVENT
RELEASE DATE
Highest ranking
N/A
Any time
Junel
woman general
June 13.
Computer literacy/
N/A
Any time
hair web page
Youth violence
N/A
Any time
Teen smoking
N/A
Any time
Land mines
currently in news
May-June
Updated arts
April 26
May-June
column
Father's Day
June 16
June 13
Olympic experience
Summer
Summer
Domestic violence
N/A
Any time
Tipper
N/A
Any time
Baby boomers
N/A
Any time
Influential books
N/A
Any time
An ordinary night
N/A
Any time
at the White House
Rosalyn Carter/
N/A
Any time
immunizations
/ Mas Robnin /
Ireland State Dinner
June 6
FMLA It May 31
3
Smoth
free 20
Jue 27 ?
Soe Family Lafer
FIRST LADY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
CREATORS SYNDICATE "TALKING IT OVER"
PLANNING SCHEDULE
MAY 13, 1996
IDEAS/ TOPICS
DATE OF EVENT
RELEASE DATE
Highest ranking
N/A
Any time
woman general
Computer literacy/
N/A
Any time
hair web page
Youth violence
N/A
Any time
Teen smoking
N/A
Any time
Land mines
currently in news
May-June
Updated arts
April 26
May-June
column
Father's Day
June 16
June
Olympic experience
Summer
Summer
Domestic violence
N/A
Any time
Tipper
N/A
Any time
Baby boomers
N/A
Any time
Influential books
N/A
Any time
An ordinary night
N/A
Any time
at the White House
Rosalyn Carter/
N/A
Any time
immunizations
FIRST LADY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
"TALKING IT OVER" LONG-TERM PLANNING
APRIL 9, 1996
DATE
EVENT/MILESTONE
April 16
"Day of Remembrance" for
victims of the Holocaust
April 18
Trial begins for Japanese cult
leader Shoko Asahara
April 19
Oklahoma City bombing
anniversary; Nuclear Safety
Summit, Moscow
April 20
International Anti-Nuclear
Conference on "Lessons of
Chornobyl" in Ukraine
April 21
Big Brother/Big Sister
appreciation week
April 22
Earth Day
April 23
12th anniversary of the
discovery of AIDS
April 25
4th annual Take Our Daughters
to Work Day
April 26
10th anniversary of Chornobyl
April 27
25th anniversary of Kennedy
Center; Olympic Torch Relay
begins
April 29
3rd anniversary of LA riots
May 2
National Day of Prayer
May 4
WH Correspondents Dinner
May 5
Cinco de Mayo
May 6
Public School Recognition week
May 9
Greek State Visit
May 12
Mother's Day
May 17
42nd anniversary of Brown vs.
Board of Education
May 18
Opening of Olympic Stadium
May 23
12th anniversary of Surgeon
General's report linking
smoking to lung disease
May 27
Memorial Day
May 31
World No-Tobacco Day
June 1
National Family Day
FIRST LADY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
CREATORS SYNDICATE "TALKING IT OVER"
PLANNING SCHEDULE
APRIL 4, 1996
IDEAS/ TOPICS
DATE OF EVENT
RELEASE DATE
Ron Brown/Oklahoma
April 3
April 11
City
Start of Baseball
March 23-April 1
April 18
season/Cubs fan
Highest ranking
March 26
April 25?
woman general
Domestic/child
April
May 2?
abuse
Mother's Day/POTUS
May 5
May 2 or 10
guest column
Children's
TBD
Spring
Conference
Hair/web site
N/A
Any time
Teen smoking
N/A
Any time
Tipper
N/A
Any time
Baby boomers
N/A
Any time
Olympic experience
Summer
Summer
Influential books
N/A
Any time
An ordinary night
N/A
Any time
at the White House
FIRST LADY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
CREATORS SYNDICATE "TALKING IT OVER"
PLANNING SCHEDULE
MARCH 14, 1996
IDEAS/ TOPICS
DATE OF EVENT
RELEASE DATE
Lady Bird/
March 20
March 21
Beautification
Overseas/Bosnia
March 23-April 1
March 28
Overseas/Greece
March 23-April 1
April 4
Start of Baseball
April 1
April 11
season/Cubs fan
Domestic/child
April
April 18
abuse
Mother's Day/POTUS
May 5
May 2
guest column
Children's
tbd
tbd
Conference
Hair/web site
N/A
Any time
Teen smoking
N/A
Any time
Tipper
N/A
Any time
Baby boomers
N/A
Any time
Olympic experience
summer
summer
3-star general
FIRST LADY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
CREATORS SYNDICATE "TALKING IT OVER"
PLANNING SCHEDULE
MARCH 8, 1996
IDEAS/ TOPICS
DATE OF EVENT
RELEASE DATE
International
March 8
March 14
Women's Day
Lady Bird/
March 20
March 21
Beautification
Overseas/Bosnia
March 23-April 1
March 28
Overseas/Greece
April 4
Start of Baseball
April 1
April 4 or 11
season/Cubs fan
Italian State
April 2
April 4
Dinner
Mother's Day/POTUS
May 5
May 2
guest column
Teen smoking
N/A
Any time
Domestic violence
N/A
Any time
Tipper
N/A
Any time
Children's
tbd
tbd
Conference
FIRST LADY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
CREATORS SYNDICATE "TALKING IT OVER"
PLANNING SCHEDULE
FEBRUARY 23, 1996
IDEAS/ TOPICS
DATE OF EVENT
RELEASE DATE
Chelsea's 16th
February 27
February 27?
Meeting w/ network
February 29
Bonus column/
executives
March 3
International
March 8
March 7 14
Women's Day
1
3\
? 3/11
March 14 7
?
Lady Bird/
March 20
March 21
Beautification
or Cosalyna carar>
Start of Baseball
April 1
March 28
> Overseas
season/Cubs fan
Anil 4- Overseas
Italian State
Apri
1
2
April
4
Name.
Dinner
Anil 9 B Baseball
St.
Mother's Day/POTUS
May 5
May 2
Dine
guest column
Teen smoking
N/A
Any time
Alzhe imer Nancy
Any
time
Reagan
Domestic violence
N/A
Any time >>
Tipper
N/A
Any time
Children's
tbd
tbd
Conference
Svidinon > Eves r This happens...
Assisted Death
< Chelsea back to school Suest column >
FIRST LADY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
CREATORS SYNDICATE "TALKING IT OVER"
PLANNING SCHEDULE
FEBRUARY 23, 1996
IDEAS/ TOPICS
DATE OF EVENT
RELEASE DATE
Chelsea's 16th
February 27
February 27
Meeting w/ network
February 29
Bonus column/ Suy Sim
executives
March 3
International
March 8
March 7
Women's Day
Whitewater/RTC
?
March 14
report?
Lady Bird/
March 20
March 21
Beautification
Start of Baseball
April 1
March 28
season/Cubs fan
Italian State
April 2
April 4
Dinner
Mother's Day/POTUS
May 5
May 2
guest column
Teen smoking
N/A
Any time
Alzheimer's/Nancy
N/A
Any time
Reagan
Domestic violence
N/A
Any time
Tipper
N/A
Any time
Note: May is Older Americans Month
November is National Alzheimers Disease month
Sept. 8 1996 is National Grandparents Day
MEMORANDUM
To: Lissa
Fr: Sabrina
Re: column ideas, timeline
Da: February 16, 1996
IDEAS/ TOPICS
DATE OF EVENT
RELEASE DATE
UNICEF/Jim Grant
February 24
February 22 or 29
Chelsea's 16th
February 27
Feb. 29/ early 2/22
spring
Staff/Whitewater
N/A
February or March
Meeting w/ network
February 29
Feb. 29 or March 7 3/5
executives Tippergre
Lady Bird/
March 20
March 21
Beautification
Gridiron dinner
March 30
March 28/April 4
Italian State
April 2
April 4
Dinner
March 26
Start of Baseball
Early April
April 4 4, 11 18
season/Cubs fan
Mother's Day/POTUS
May 5
May 2,9
guest column
Teen smoking
N/A
Any time
Alzheimer's/Nancy
N/A
Any time
Reagan
Primary Colors
N/A
Any time
spoof
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
SICED REQUESTS
Divider Title:
04/03/97 17:12
CREATOR SYND.
d
001
CREATORS SYNDICATE
KATHERINE A. SEARCY
Vice President and Editorial Director
April 3, 1997
Ms. Lissa Muscatine
Office of Speech Writing
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C.. 20500
Dear Lissa:
Chi magazine, which has been faithfully publishing Mrs. Clinton's column since its
inception, will be available to interview the first lady anytime after May 9. The interviewer
would be Mrs. Silvana Giacobini, the publication's editor. She has asked to receive the
standard White House photographs before going for the interview. Our understanding is
that Mrs. Giacobini will not be bringing a photographer with her.
Thank you so much for your help in arranging this, Lissa.
Best regards,
Katherine
Katherine A. Searcy
5777 W. CENTURY BLVD., SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90045 Tel.(310) 337-7003 FAX (310) 337-7625
CREATORS SYNDICATE
KATHERINE A. SEARCY
Vice President and Editorial Director
February 7, 1997
Ms. Lissa Muscatine
Office of Speech Writing
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Lissa:
A while back, we discussed a request from the Press and Journal in Aberdeen, Scotland, for
Mrs. Clinton to respond to a brief questionnaire for a regular feature in the paper. The circulation
of the paper is 107,965, and it is the larger of two papers in Aberdeen. It has just started running
Mrs. Clinton's column.
Enclosed is a copy of the Press and Journal for your perusal. I have flagged the feature, called
"How the Other Half Lives." Also included is the original letter from Kay Drummond, the
assistant editor who wrote with the request, and the list of questions.
I hope this helps. It would be terrific if this worked out.
Thanks for all your help, Lissa. I look forward to hearing from you.
Best regards,
Katterine
Katherine A. Searcy
5777 W. CENTURY BLVD., SUITE 700
LOS ANGELES, CA 90045
Tel. (310) 337-7003
FAX (310) 337-7625
JAN-15-97 WED 05:04 PM
P.02
15-JAN-1997 16:04 FROM P & J SPORTS
TO
0018472470042 P.02
Dress and Jonrnal
ABERDEEN JOURNALS LTD,PO BOX 43. LANG STRACHT. MASTRICK, ABERDEEN AB15 6DF [REGISTERED OFFICE]
TELEPHONE: (01224) 690222. TELE ADS 691212. FAX NO: [01224] 691613. EDITORIAL FAX NO: (01224) 683575.
TELEX NO: 73133. REGISTERED NUMBER 15256 SCOTLAND
KD/IG
15th January, 1997
Margo Sugrue,
Regional Sales Director,
Creators Syndicate.
fax: 001-847-247-0042
Dear Margo,
An odd request, but one I hope you can help me with, given our new arrangement with the
Hillary Clinton column.
We run a light-hearted feature every Saturday, entitled How the Other Half Lives. It's a
straight-forward set of questions which we put to the wives/husbands/partners of well-
known celebrities.
We'd like to feature Hillary Clinton in this slot in her role as husband of the President. Would
you be prepared to find out for us if she'd be interested in taking part?
As you can see from the questions, it's a bit of fun, and I'm sure it would help boost
readership of her new column
I'd be very grateful if you could help us out. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
Kay Drummond
Assistant Editor
P.03
JAN-15-97 WED 05:05 PM
15-JAN-1997 16:05 FROM P & J SPORTS
TO
0018472470042
P.03
How the street fialt lives
FULL NAME
1. Where exactly were you bom?
X
2. What is your earliest memory of childhood or schooldays?
3. Describe your typical day.
*
P.04
JAN-15-97 WED 05:05 PM
15-JAN-1997 16:05 FROM P & J SPORTS
TO
0018472470042
P.04
How the
Thalf lives
4. What do you do to relax?
X
5. What is your favourite meal?
6. What do you like to watch on TV?
7. How and where did you meet your husband?
X
P.05
JAN-15-97 WED 05:06 PM
15-JAN-1997 16:06 FROM P & J SPORTS
TO
0018472470042
P.05
How their half 10es
8. What do you admire most about him?
*
9. What annoys you most about him?
10. If you could swap places with anyone in the world, who would it be and why?
*
J
11.What is the first thing you would do if all your numbers came up in the Lottery?
12. What is the most embarrassing situation you have ever found yourself in?
?
P.06
JAN-15-97 WED 05:06 PM
15-JAN-1997 16:06 FROM P & J SPORTS
TO
0018472470042 P.06
How the
Half lives
13. What has been the happiest moment so far in your life?
*
14. Who would you most like to invite to dinner and why?
*
15.What is your greatest ambition?
*
16. How would you best like to be remembered?
Pm
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
BACKGROUND INFO
Divider Title:
19/97 THU 15:14 FAX
->->-> SPEECH
003
Spe. SORIANO
3325 N. 20th Road
Arlington, VA 22207
May 6, 1997
First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mrs. Clinton,
On December 10, 1995, your husband ordered me and 20,000 other American soldiers to
Bosnia-Herzegovina in support of Operation Joint Endeavor.
I was frightened, maybe even a bit resentful, but my service in Bosnia - from December,
1995 until August, 1996 - - became the most rewarding experience of my life. Purting my
family and journalism career on hold for 9 months was inconsequential to helping restore
the war-tom lives of Bosnia's people.
American soldiers shared in Bosnia's smiles, tears, sweat and blood. The atrocities and
horrors of war we witnessed in Bosnia have opened our eyes to the suffering of people
that occurs daily around the world. It was an experience that perhaps all Americans
should see first-hand as an incentive to help the less fortunate — abroad and in our own
backyard. Whether its through the Marine Corps or AmeriCorps, all that matters is for
all Americans to helpmake a difference.
I am currently writing a book of our experiences in Bosnia, which I hope to someday
publish. Many of my photographs and diary entries are also posted on my webpage
(http://members.aol.com/apstyle/index.html). The fact that you, Chelsea, Sheryl Crow
and Sinbad took the time to share in the soldiers' experience made me proud to be serving
my country. Lest we forget, nearly 8,000 servicemen and women are still serving in
Bosnia. I hope you will keep them in your prayers.
God bless you and your family, and God bless the United States of America.
Yours truly,
Cen
Spc. Cesar G. Soriano
29th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment
Maryland Army National Guard