Are Kids’ Programming Rules Made to Be Broken?
By Jen Jones

The kids are alright for now, but behind the scenes, television brass are broiling over the prospect of stricter children’s programming rules slated to go into effect come January. What’s at stake? According to Viacom and others contesting the new regulations, valuable advertising and promotion space, as well as First Amendment freedoms.

In place since 1990, the existing Children’s Television Act mandates broadcasters utilize three hours per week for educational programming with limited time allotted for commercials, to which networks and entertainment entities have always complied relatively peacefully. However, the new rules (approved by the FCC last September) take the advent of digital television into account, regulating Web links, program promos, and educational programming on free multicast channels. In response, Viacom has implored the federal court to overturn these new rules on the grounds that they are unconstitutional, while companies like Disney and NBC have asked the FCC to at least postpone their implementation by 90 days.

So what do the companies lobbying against the new rules have to lose? For one, the symbiotic possibilities of web links to advertisers and online initiatives; the new rules limit the amount of time commercial web addresses can be shown onscreen. Increasing the ouch factor on that front is the stipulation that program promos and web links also count as ads, decreasing the amount of traditional ad space that can be sold during kids’ programming.

Also potentially irksome about the new rules is the requirement that free multicast channels also devote a specific number of hours to educational programming; entertainment companies maintain that these channels might be better suited to adult-oriented fare such as news or weather. Couple that with tighter policies on pre-empting educational shows for sports and special event programming, and it becomes evident why Viacom and others have taken issue. It all boils down to the question of whether these new regulations actually encourage more quality programming for children, and, depending on the court’s decision, that answer may not come to light.