No one could deny that the television landscape has changed since 1996, when the last rules were issued on how much children’s programming broadcasters are required to show as part of their regular fare. But those changes do not mean over-the-air broadcasters, already on a slippery slope into filth, should be allowed to ignore their most innocent and impressionable viewers even more.
The FCC last week ruled that broadcasters could be looser with those requirements, airing such shows as early as 6 a.m., an hour earlier than before, and that they could push some of it onto secondary multicast streaming channels, away from the primary audience.
That was a bad decision.
Many are viewing it as a partisan decision, with all Republicans voting for it and all Democrats voting against. But to focus on party affiliation is to miss the larger issues at stake.
The three FCC commissioners who voted for this change — which was widely sought by big broadcasting companies — cited recent changes in viewing habits. Today, many people stream children’s content through on-demand services, including YouTube. Children are used to finding Daniel Tiger and other popular shows on a parent’s iPad or through an internet service on a television set.
But, as the two dissenting commissioners noted, many of the nation’s low-income families cannot afford such services or devices. Many of the nation’s rural residents live in places where internet service is limited and over-the-air channels still dominate.
Low-income children already face a number of risks. Quality programming, especially educational fare, could be important to their development.
In addition, as commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel noted, some online streaming services collect information on children and other viewers, then recommend videos that may not be in the best interests of young minds.
The so-called family hour, once a safe place for parents and their children, has disappeared.
“I know, as a mother, I am not at ease when my kids sit down before the computer and rely on algorithms to deliver their next video,” Rosenworcel said in her dissenting statement. We imagine many parents nodding in agreement.
But the biggest reason the ruling was bad has less to do with the options available to parents and more to do with the steadily coarsening tone of broadcast television itself. The so-called family hour, once a safe place for parents and their children, has disappeared. Much of the content today is filled with profanity, adult situations and the sexualization of young people.
A report on the sexualization of girls by the American Psychological Association drew a connection between such content, in a variety of media platforms, and depression, eating disorders, self-esteem issues and other mental health problems among young women, in particular.
We realize viewers today have a nearly endless array of choices when deciding what to watch. The broadcasts over which the FCC has control represent a small portion of this. And yet loosening requirements to provide safe programming for children will not benefit society nor stem the gradual slide away from uplifting entertainment.
What it certainly will do is make the FCC even less the guardian of decency it once was.