Children's Programming and Advertising

Subscribe to Children's Programming and Advertising via RSS

This article is no longer available. For more information on this topic, see FCC Deadlines in January – Quarterly Issues Programs Lists, Children’s Program Reports, Comments on TV Online Public File and Public Interest Obligation Proposals, FM Window and More

Three of the FCC Commissioners have responded to the Congressional inquiry about the Commission’s rules regarding junk food advertising about which we wrote here.  This inquiry was initiated by Congressman Ed Markey, Chairman of the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. The Congressman’s letter had urged the FCC to move quickly to implement rules limiting the advertising of unhealthy food aired during broadcasting directed to children.  The Commissioners’ responses uniformly indicate the potential for regulation, depending in part on the outcome of the activities of the industry Task Force formed at the initiation of, and with the participation by, the FCC and Congress. See our reports on the formation of the Task Force, here.  The Commissioners all note that should the Task Force fail to conclude that the industry has achieved satisfactory results through self-regulation, FCC proceedings might be required to insure that children are not unduly exposed to junk food advertisements. 

Two commissioners, Chairman Martin and Commissioner Tate, responded jointly, and indicated that the FCC could explore regulation of unhealthy food, perhaps looking at guidelines adopted in other countries as a model for US regulation.  These Commissioners’ statement even address the issue of regulating children’s programming on cable television networks, where they claim that there is much exposure to ads for junk food.  These statements make clear that this is not just an issue for the broadcast industry.Continue Reading Commission Responds to Congressional Inquiry on Children’s Junk Food Ads

In a letter to FCC Chairman Martin and Commissioners Copps and Tate, Congressman Edward Markey, head of the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, has asked that the FCC take strong steps to restrict the advertising of unhealthy food in children’s television programs.  While applauding voluntary efforts promised by some broadcasters to include in their children’s programing more Public Service Announcements (PSAs) for healthy eating, Congressman Markey urged the FCC to do more by cutting in half to 6 minutes per hour the amount of permissible advertising in children’s programming , and by finding that a station had not met its obligations to broadcast educational and informational programming directed to children if the station aired ads for unhealthy foods during a program which would otherwise qualify as a toward meeting the station’s obligations.

The letter from Congressman Markey, while citing efforts in other countries to enforce similar regulations, does not address basic issues with each of his proposals.  First, if sponsorship of children’s programming is cut in half, won’t that also cut the incentive of broadcasters to air such programs?  Cutting sponsorship to the bone would seem to guarantee that broadcasters will do the absolute minimum amount of children’s programming required, so that they can air programs where there are no advertising restrictions.

These requirements would also seem to make broadcasters into the food police.  Broadcasters will have to educate themselves as to the nutritional qualities of various food products to make sure that nothing impermissible gets on the air.  And where will lines be drawn?  Could a station safely advertise a fast food store if the ads featured only the salads sold by the store – even where that store might also sell not so healthy alternatives?  If definitions are drawn by numerical limits on contents such as sugar, salt and fat (as suggested by the letter), will these limits necessarily lead to advertising the most healthy foods?  Will broadcasters be forced to substitute for parents in making decisions about what their children will eat?

Continue Reading Congress Urges New Children’s Television Regulation

On Thursday, the FCC issued its Report on violent programming on television, finding that such programming has a negative impact on the well being of children, and suggesting that Congressional action to restrict and regulate such programming would be appropriate.  A summary of the findings of the Commission can be found in our firm’s bulletin on the Report, here.  As we point out in our bulletin, the Commission did not adopt this report with a united voice, as both Commissioner Adelstein and McDowell expressed concerns about the thoroughness of the report, the practicality and constitutionality of drawing lines between permitted and prohibited violence in programming, and even whether the government is the proper forum for restricting access to such programming or whether this isn’t fundamentally an issue of family and parental control. 

The Report suggests that legislative action to restrict violent programming  or to channel it to certain time periods might be appropriate as parents are often not home when children watch television, and technological controls, like the V-Chip, are ineffective as parents don’t know that they exist or, if they are aware of the existence of the controls, they don’t know how to activate them.  The Commission also suggests that the ratings given to programs are not always accurate.  An interesting alternate take can be found in an article in Slate, here, citing a study not mentioned by the FCC finding that parents, even when carefully educated about the V-Chip and its uses, do not use it.  This seems to indicate that parents are not as concerned about the issue as is the FCC, and suggests that the real motivation is not restricting what is presented to children, but instead what is available to adults.

Continue Reading Violence on Television – FCC Issues Report Suggesting That Congressional Action Is Appropriate

Last week, the FCC issued a Public Notice asking for information as to the compliance of television broadcasters with their obligations to provide programming that addresses the educational and informational needs of children.  While the Notice indicates that it is a follow-up to the 2004 Order addressing the children’s broadcasting obligations of digital television broadcasters, the…

The FCC yesterday approved the sale of the stock of Univision Communications to a consortium of private equity companies.  In order to approve the deal, the FCC agreed to a $24 million dollar payment to the US Treasury by Univision as part of a consent decree for alleged violations of the children’s television rules.  The consent decree, attached to the FCC decision on the sale, while providing for one of the largest fines ever paid to the FCC, provides little guidance to broadcasters on what constitutes educational and informational programming directed to children, the source of the violation found by the FCC. But the separate Statement of Commissioner Copps raises a new issue – one he looks for the FCC to study and report on – the effect of private equity and debt on the ability of broadcasters to operate in the public interest. 

The Copps opinion suggests that the debt incurred in connection with acquisitions by private equity companies may impair the ability of broadcast stations to operate in the public interest, as money needed for operations is instead funneled into debt repayment.  Of course, private equity firms are not the first owners of broadcast companies to incur debt, nor is there any evidence that I have seen that private equity companies which own broadcast companies have proportionally more debt than other broadcast owners.  What would the FCC hope to accomplish through such an investigation?  I can’t see the FCC evaluating each transaction that comes before it to determine if the proposed debt structure would be too much of a burden on the operations of a station.  Nor could I foresee the FCC putting broadcast ownership restrictions on certain classes of otherwise qualified potential broadcast owners.Continue Reading Follow the Money and Find the Public Interest?