Would Broadcast TV be better off without the FCC breathing down their neck?

[mbaker]

I was wondering if broadcast TV would have better shows if they didn't buy into the FCC's "three hours of edgimicational" programs quota? I got to thinking this when I stumbled onto this artical. (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65641) What do you think?

[RZetlin]

Yes, we would be better off without the FCC's "three hours of edutainment" quota.

First reason, the "educational shows" takes away air time from other cool shows. Instead of showing Batman TAS, networks would be forced to show bland stuff like Magic School Bus.

Second reason, the "educational shows" are usually horrible in content. Kids most likely will switch to another channel.

Third reason, these edutainment cartoons are barely educational at all. I watched Stargate Infinity which is FCC approved and the amount of violence in this FCC show is off the scale. The only thing I learn is that we should get ray guns to shoot off our enemies. Other than that there is no educational value.

This FCC quota is nothing but hogwash! :mad:

[lostrune]

Ya gotta thank Peggy Fleming (hope I got the name right) and her group ACT. They've been the ones pushing for educational children's shows since early 70s, which by itself isn't bad but with the exclusion of everything else as they're doing, it's counterproductive. Back around 1993 when the FCC loosened up the regulations some more, I think they included that 3-hr quota requirement as a token to mollify the ACT. The ACT isn't very active nowadays though.

(Hopefully I got my facts straight. It's been a while, but I really don't feel like re-reading about the history of animated TV regulation right now.)

And oh, remember that end part of DiC's broadcast of Sailor Moon, the "Sailor Says?" That superficial add-on is just so DiC can syndicate it as an edutainment show and thus make it more attractive for any network looking to fill its quota. May or may not have helped it getting picked up (evidenced by the networks shafting it to ungodly early timeslots just to satisfy the quota and nothing more - the 1998 revision of the quota limited the qualified timeslots however), who knows?

[Antiyonder]

I almost think educationa shows are just to help the neglecting parents be lazy.

[Anthonynotes]

Recall that "Archie's Weird Mysteries" is supposed to be an E/I show...though recall from watching one episode that all I learned was not to mess around with the timestream or you'll wipe yourself out of existence/the timeline entirely (which actually happened to some made-up-for-the-show character...to my surprise, since an Archie cartoon's the least likely place I expected such a thing to occur). Oh, and something-or-other about not hitting on Moose's girlfriend, Midge...

-B.

[Tobias]

Just curious, does anyone get weekday morning cartoons outside of cable? Cause in Indiana we sure as hell don't. WB and UPN air infomercials and live action teen crap and FOX airs a three hour news block. Anyone else have this problem?

[mbaker]

We don't get any morning sybdicated cartoons our area. Just Court Shows, and Infomercials. Pretty sad, huh?

[Tobias]

Yeah. I remember when I was kid I used to watch G.I. Joe, Gobots, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in the morning before heading off to school. Now what do kids have when they don't have cable?

City Guys, informercials, and some dork who thinks he's funny talking about the weather.

[Auggie Doggie]

Watch the monitor... (pops in a tape from the archives)


I don't know why the FCC even passed that law. It's horribly unconstiutional (against the First Amendment of Free Speech), as they are basically telling the networks and production companies what to air and say. Its like they don't want that stuff to air...period, and just restrict the rights of the nets so it is the equivalent of taking them off the air entirely. I suppose their next steps are cable until every kid in America goes crazy because they are bored to death by the overdose of education.

OPEN YOUR EYES, FCC AND PARENTS OF AMERICA!!!!!!

What do you think school is, and PBS? Chopped liver? Ever heard of a little show called Sesame Street? What do you think kids do all day from 9 AM to 3 PM? Eat Junk Food? Play Games? Well, I got news for you, THEY DON'T!!!!!! All during that time they learn and that should be good enough for you.

So, if I were you, I'd repeal the E/I law and leave the education to public television and teachers.

To the editors: If this just so happens to be inappropriate, then, by all means, edit it and also take out everything past "to the editors".

-A little memo I wrote on the topic a few months back. Click here (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54420) to see the topic.

Seriously, though the editors didn't make this sound more appropriate. I still have that opinion on the silly law.

In other words, yeah. Peggy Charren wouldn't be acting any differently if she was popping a bomb into NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox's corporate headquarters, as the concept of getting at least the broadcast networks to air edutainment programs that make test patterns look like HBO material is like a plot against their children's divisions, as well as families who don't have cable (even though their kind is, like, extinct, and they have one option left, Kids' WB!).

[Jeff Harris]

The FCC is a bunch of backwards-thinking individuals still lusting for an era with only AM radio and broadcast television.

They're a relic of a by-gone era and they want to pull their clout by pushing idiotic rules on the mass media, for example, the three-hour edutainment requirements.

Okay, apparently these people do not acknowledge the existance of PBS, nor seen the various Discovery channels, including TLC, The Science Channel, and Animal Planet, Nick Jr., Playhouse Disney, and Noggin. Also, kids aren't exactly stupid, slow-minded individuals the FCC and television execs would make you believe. In fact, there are a lot more stupid adults than there are stupid kids, and they're in no rush to push educational programming to those viewers. Because of those laws, we now have limited choices.

Fox Kids is gone, and Fox turned over their programming to 4Kids Entertainment.

UPN Kids is gone by the fall.

NBC turned over their programming to Discovery Kids.

CBS turned over their programming to Nickelodeon/Nick Jr.

ABC turned over their programming to The Disney Channel.

PAX is a family-friendly network, thus finding a way to avoid the law.

The only other broadcast network, The WB, is taking risks. Like it or not, they're the only one even trying to present entertaining products without conforming to that stupid law. They get around it by letting the affiliates program "edutainment" on their networks.

The FCC doesn't dictate what cable networks nor digital radio networks broadcast, and because of that, the FCC is a bully. They push these unfair, cro-magnon rules that were written by fearful execs who want to push whatever agenda pays them the most this week. More and more viewers are watching cable television than broadcast, and the majority of those are kids.

Why?

Because they don't want to endure more education on Saturday mornings and weekday afternoons.

The networks basically gave up in the mid-90s, allowing (guess who?) cable networks to program their lineups, thus giving up a little bit of their individuality as a result.

Nick on CBS.

Discovery Kids on NBC.

ABC Kids (okay, that's the exception, but one look shows you it's The Disney Channel on ABC, with three TDC shows on the Saturday morning lineup [Lizzie McGuire, The Proud Family, and Kim Possible]).

The FCC is just an outdated relic of a bully that needs to be dissolved. Screw the quota, let's just get rid of the FCC. :D

[Mynd Hed]

If I stand out in the street I can talk about whatever I want, and its free speech. But if I stand out in the street and talk about whatever I want on a radio transmitter, I'm on "public" airwaves and therefore the FCC can regulate what I'm allowed to say.

Huh?

So if I speak through normal vibrations in the air that can be heard unaided by the human ear, it's free speech. But if I say the EXACT SAME THING on a higher frequency electromagnetic vibration that humans need electronic aid to hear instead, the FCC is allowed to censor me.

Where's the logic?

'Nuff said.

[Pepperidge]

Nothing even remotely resembling the FCC exists in Canada. Everyone up here seems to be happy and not shooting eachother. And stations aren't exactly bombarded with complaints when they show "entertaining" children's programming or a pair of naked breasts...

[zimbach]

Originally posted by Pepperidge
Nothing even remotely resembling the FCC exists in Canada. Everyone up here seems to be happy and not shooting eachother. And stations aren't exactly bombarded with complaints when they show "entertaining" children's programming or a pair of naked breasts... But you've got all those French people along the border just itching to steal our cheese! :eek:

[zimbach]

The original intent of the FCC was based on the premise that the electromagnetic spectrum should be maintained in the public interest. They still act as a registry so that no two brodcasters use the same frequency in the same area. A long time ago, they limited how many stations a single entity could own, particularly in overlapping market areas. Unfortuantely, that rule no longer applies, and the broadcast media is reaching ever higher levels of homogeniety.

[Elven Moon]

Originally posted by Mynd Hed
If I stand out in the street I can talk about whatever I want, and its free speech. But if I stand out in the street and talk about whatever I want on a radio transmitter, I'm on "public" airwaves and therefore the FCC can regulate what I'm allowed to say.

Huh?

So if I speak through normal vibrations in the air that can be heard unaided by the human ear, it's free speech. But if I say the EXACT SAME THING on a higher frequency electromagnetic vibration that humans need electronic aid to hear instead, the FCC is allowed to censor me.

Where's the logic?

'Nuff said.

LOL. That is so true! :D Down with FCC!

[Mynd Hed]

The original intent of the FCC was based on the premise that the electromagnetic spectrum should be maintained in the public interest. They still act as a registry so that no two brodcasters use the same frequency in the same area. A long time ago, they limited how many stations a single entity could own, particularly in overlapping market areas. Unfortuantely, that rule no longer applies, and the broadcast media is reaching ever higher levels of homogeniety.

An excellent point, the FCC used to serve a useful function by preventing corporate conglomerates like Clearchannel from monopolizing the airwaves, and they did such a good job that it was almost worth putting up with the censorship. Now that they've quit serving the public and confined themselves to dictating what the public can and cannot watch, on the other hand....

[Sard]

Originally posted by Mynd Hed
... Where's the logic?

The logic lies in the fact that radio spectrum is a rather limited resource which is technology dependent. Its [the technology] integration into mainstream use can often take decades, which gives the FCC the image of "hobbling along" (stop at a township police office sometime and ask to look at the radios...they'll most likely be old, bandwidth hoggin' beasts).

A favorable comparison to your question would be that there are laws for noise restrictions. Make enough noise with your lungs on that street corner or turn on a radio transmitter...either way the boys in blue will be paying you a visit...the claim of free speech not withstanding.

Oh, and yea...The 1996 Telecommunications Act that gave us the wonderful blah-sae filled airwaves of ClearChannel is coming under fire lately, on several fronts (cable, broadcast, cellular, land-line, broadband, etc.). Basically, de-regulation ain't working like they predicted (because no-one wants to give it up...imagine that).