Remarks of Commissioner Rachelle Chong to Women in Cable and Telecommunications Washington, D.C. October 30, 1995 "Women Being Heard and in Command: Making it Happen" Introduction Good afternoon. It's a great pleasure to be here with Women in Cable and Telecommunications. When I say it's a pleasure, I really mean it, because if I wasn't here, I'd be in the D.C. courthouse. No, I'm not fighting a traffic ticket. I'm serving time on jury duty. Two to three weeks worth, to be exact. Of course, jury duty is an important civic duty of every citizen, so I am trying not to mind the inconvenience to my real job, which is now my night job. Due to jury duty, I'm afraid that I won't be able to stay for lunch or to answer any questions. I answer to a higher authority now -- no, not Congress -- but a superior court judge. I made a special point to be here so that I can speak to you on a couple of issues: First, I wanted to challenge women in the cable industry to continue to support each other as women continue to break the glass ceiling in the communications industry. I also challenge women to continue to ensure that cable programming speaks to issues of concern to women, and that women are portrayed in positive ways. Second, I wanted to address a hot topic at the Commission -- children's television. Programming for children is an important issue that all media interests should be concerned about, including cable. Being Heard and Making a Difference In learning about Women in Cable and Telecommunications, I was pleased to see that your goals and activities make your group a catalyst for change. You are working to increase the presence and influence of women in your industries. In particular, I am impressed by your programs to help women develop corporate management and leadership skills, such as your Executive Development Seminar and your annual leadership conference. I also wanted to recognize your group's Child Care Initiative, a pioneering effort to collect information about childcare programs in the communications industry. You encourage companies to take steps to ease their employees' child care burdens, and honor companies that have done so. Available child care at reasonable cost is an important issue for all parents. I applaud groups like yours who are provoking employers to address this important issue. Your group is also working to ensure that the cable industry is responsive to women as viewers and consumers. Your group can and does make a difference, since you can work from within the industry to effect change in ways that help women. As one example, I believe that the women in this room can make a difference in how women are portrayed in television programming. Women these days have broken out of the old stereotypes: We are now mothers, executives, politicians, doctors, scientists, and astronauts. But do television programs depict this rich diversity of women's lives? Does programming speaks to all issues of concern to women and girls? Does it portray women in positive and not stereotyped manners? I am concerned that much of current television programming is slanted towards male viewers, because of the pervasive notion that women will watch shows with main characters that are men, but men won't watch shows with main characters that are women. I especially worry what kind of signal that sends to young girls. To this end, I asked a group of third graders if they would watch a program featuring girls as main characters. One little boy looked at me with honest confusion and responded, "Who would watch a show like that?!" Needless to say, the girls in that classroom told me emphatically that they thought that there were not enough programs featuring girls. And if there were, they would watch them. And upon reflection, the boys told me they would watch these shows too. It is my view that the entertainment industry has historically underserved the female audience. While broadcast television programming is perhaps the most obvious culprit in this regard, the problem extends to some cable programming as well. Case in point: About a year ago, someone came to my office to describe an idea for a women's sports channel on cable. It would feature women competing in all types of athletics, run features on them and their coaches, and give girls positive role models in the sports world. I thought this was a great idea. But when my office recently checked up on the channel's progress, I was dismayed to learn that the idea was dead. Now I don't know why it failed, but I hope that failure was not because someone decided women's sports would not sell. Such an assumption would perpetuate outdated stereotypes about what women and men are interested in. Overall, I recognize that cable has done a pretty good job of bringing new types of programming to women. Many cable channels target women and have brought us shows on issues women care about. Let me say too, that I have observed that the portrayal of women has significantly improved since the early years of television. How do I know? Through my favorite barometer of social trends: "Star Trek" -- the classic TV series. You see, when I was growing up in the Sixties, I loved "Star Trek." It presented a thrilling future where we are exploring space, the final frontier. But how were women portrayed in the original Trek series? The only woman on the bridge of the starship was Lieutenant Uhura, the communications officer. Sure, it was progressive just to show a woman on the bridge, but the lieutenant was in a secondary role to the men in command. In fact, one could describe her as a high tech secretary who relayed messages to and from the captain. And worst of all, she had to wear that ultra-short miniskirt and fight off the attentions of lecherous crewmen -- including her supervisor, Captain Kirk! Whatever happened to sexual harassment suits in the future, I ask?! Let's face it, Lt. Uhura deserved a lot better! Now we fast-forward to 1994, and the latest Star Trek spin-off, "Voyager." What I like about the "Voyager" series is that women have broken the glass ceiling on the Enterprise. Instead of Captain Kirk, hardly a sensitive male of the Nineties, we have Captain Kathryn Janeway -- a strong, capable female captain whose authority and ability are never questioned on the basis of her gender. Because of this, she can command her crew with humor, nurturing and strength. The character of Captain Janeway definitely breaks all the old stereotypes. While she's allowed to have a feminine side, she's tough. Unlike her predecessor, Captain Picard of "Star Trek: The Next Generation," she doesn't quote Shakespeare, dress in tights in the Holodeck, or drink Earl Grey tea. But, since she's the first female captain, I daresay she'll make Star Fleet history -- by not being afraid to ask directions when they are lost! The "Voyager" series also features Torres, a hot-headed but brilliant female chief engineer. Torres is a great role model for girls interested in math and science. So, the women of "Voyager" present a positive vision of the future, where women are judged on their abilities and not their gender. It's a far cry from the old stereotypes. I think the changes are a reflection of the work of women's groups like yours that are trying to ensure that women get a fair shake in the media and in the industry. So, I ask you, keep up the good work. Keep fighting to make a difference! One last kudo. Last June, in a speech to the American Women in Radio and Television, I talked about the need for more input at the Commission from women on key communications issues. I urged women's groups to form an alliance for the purpose of lobbying Washington policymakers on communications issues relating to women. I am delighted that WICT saw fit to take up the challenge. I am thrilled that your group -- along with AWRT, Women in Communications and Women in Wireless -- have agreed to form a lobbying alliance in Washington. I understand the group is already hard at work, urging the Commission to gather data on historical discrimination against women and its effect on communications ownership. This is very important work, and you have my admiration, my encouragement and my thanks for taking on these issues. Children's Television Issues My final topic is an issue that's been in the news -- children's television. The recent debate on children's television has become very public and quite heated. I wanted to take this opportunity to register some dismay with the debate so far. I believe the debate has been too one dimensional -- it has focused too much on the issue of whether we ought to adopt quantitative guidelines or not. By "quantitative guidelines," I mean the suggestion that the Commission adopt a certain number of hours of children's educational and informational programming that each broadcaster must show. At this point, Chairman Hundt has voiced strong support for this approach and he's suggested a three hour per week minimum. I am frustrated because I believe there are many issues besides quantitative standards that warrant thoughtful input in our proceeding. For example, as I'll discuss in a moment, I believe that it would be helpful for commenters to provide feedback on our definition, and on ways to improve the dialogue between broadcasters and their communities. It seems to me that these issues are not getting enough attention. Instead, Commissioners have gotten comments and sacks of mail saying things like, "If you don't vote for 3 hours of children's TV, you must be against children." Or, "If you don't vote for three hours of children's television, you must be either stupid or not have kids." May I suggest that this is not effective lobbying?! I can say with confidence that every FCC Commissioner favors increased children's educational programming. Every one of us would like to see more, but it does a grave injustice to suggest that if a Commissioner opposes a quantitative approach, that they are somehow "against kids" or uncaring about this issue. I suggest today that we turn away from the rhetoric and get back to the real issues at hand. Before I discuss these neglected issues, I want to be clear about what's not part of this debate. Occasionally, I get a letter telling me it's my job to take a particular children's show off the air. The FCC is not a censor and we don't order shows off the air. In addition, I will admit some dismay when I see things like Ann Landers' response to Chairman Hundt's letter in which he advocated educational programming and the V- chip. While the response called for greater parental involvement -- a concept that I agree with wholeheartedly -- Ann Landers went on to state that "no other country in the world has permitted such unmitigated trash to be aired during hours children are accustomed to watching." This response illustrates a trend that I have seen many times --the children's educational issue gets mixed up with the issue of sex and violence on television. Let's keep them separate. What the Commission is trying to do is to better implement the Children's Television Act of 1990. Let's look for a minute at the backdrop of the Act. In the late Eighties, the average amount of children's educational programming shown on broadcast television was extremely low, about an hour a week. Congress and the public were unhappy about this, and demanded improvement. In 1990, Congress enacted the Children's Television Act. I will note that broadcasters worked cooperatively with Congress on this legislation. The purpose of the Act is "to increase the amount of educational and informational broadcast television programming available to children." The Act does not mandate how to accomplish this goal. Congress left that "detail" to the FCC. In 1992, the Commission opted for flexibility and defined children's educational programming broadly -- as programming that furthers the positive development of the child in any respect, including the child's cognitive and intellectual or emotional and social needs. The Commission decided not to take a quantitative approach at that time. Instead, it pledged to monitor the good faith efforts of broadcasters to comply. In 1993, after reviewing 320 TV renewal applications, the Commission concluded that there was a need for change. It seemed our definition was so flexible, that some broadcasters were claiming shows as "educational" that clearly were not. As a result, last Spring, the Commission voted on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking designed to strengthen our rules. In the Notice, we expressed disappointment with the broadcasters' performance. To meet the long term goals of the Act, we believe that broadcasters must accept more responsibility for airing children's educational programming. As I mentioned earlier, most of the current debate has centered on whether the Commission should adopt a quantitative standard. On this issue, I will make two points. First, I note that the legislative history clearly indicates that Congress considered and declined to adopt a quantitative approach and instead, left it up to the broadcasters to voluntarily meet their children's educational television commitment. Second, studies in our children's proceeding show an increase has indeed occurred from the time the Act passed. How much of an increase is being debated in our record as various parties proffer studies, but roughly, the studies show that such programs increased from one hour a week to about three hours a week on average. Given this increase in children's educational programming, and given Congress' express rejection of a quantitative method when drafting the Act, and absent current Congressional action to amend the Children's Television Act, I have questions in my mind about why a quantitative approach is necessary at this time. I could understand such an approach if there had been no improvement or worse yet, broadcasters were showing less children's educational shows than when the Act passed. But that is not the case. Further, there are First Amendment concerns at play here. While I differ with broadcasters in that I do not believe that the First Amendment is a complete shield to government intrusion on programming decisions -- for example, I believe government is within its rights to impose restrictions on obscene and indecent material shown on the public airwaves during hours when children are apt to be watching, I am troubled by the notion that public interest obligations of our broadcasters should be quantified. Does this start us down a slippery slope toward government intrusion in programming content? For example, if we are to accept the argument that children's educational television is so compelling a government interest that broadcasters should be ordered to air three hours a week, could not the Commission decide in the future that election information is such a compelling government interest that broadcasters must be required to air two hours a week? And should there be a health epidemic, should the Commission impose a quantitative requirement that every broadcaster in the land be required to air one hour a week on, say, sexually transmitted diseases? And, by the way, if quantitative public interest obligations are imposed on broadcasters, would a future Commission impose similar obligations on cable programmers? I think you get my drift of where this could lead us. My other beef is that by too much focus on the issue of quantitative standards, we are unfortunately not hearing enough about other important issues in the proceeding. Let's get to some issues that I would like to see discussed. For example, the FCC has proposed to dramatically improve the definition of children's educational television so that broadcasters cannot claim shows of dubious educational value as qualifying for credit under the Act. Yes, some did. Our current definition of what is "children's educational and informational television" was so broad, you could drive a truck through it. The Commission has proposed to fix this definition by setting out an improved definition that ensures that our licensees know that entertainment cartoons and the nightly news do not qualify for credit. The Notice makes clear that programming qualifying for credit under the Act must be specifically designed to meet the educational needs of children ages 16 and under. The educational objective of the program and the target child audience must be specified in writing in the licensee's children's programming report. I would like to hear some input on the issue of timing. Many parents and children's advocates had reported to me that broadcasters were showing educational television programs during very early time slots when not many children were awake. Our proposed new definition sought to fix this problem by requiring children's educational programs to be aired between the hours of 6 a.m. and 11 p.m. Some tell me that 11 p.m. is too late for small children, but I think 11 p.m. might be fine for teens. Other aspects of our rules are intended to address the problem that parents face in finding children's educational shows. We proposed rules that require shows to be regularly scheduled, of substantial length, and identified as educational at the time aired. We also required broadcasters to give instructions for listing educational programming to program guides. I like this simple idea because it helps empower parents. In general, I believe parents ultimately must be responsible for what their children watch on television. Just as a parent wouldn't let their child see an inappropriate movie, a parent ought to monitor the television programs the child watches to ensure appropriateness and suitability for the child's age. I think that our proposal that the broadcaster must publish what it believes is its educational programming will discourage them from trying to claim shows as educational which in fact have little educational value. The key notion here is accountability. It makes broadcasters accountable to their local community and should encourage dialogue. With this information, I believe parents, educators and child advocacy groups can more effectively use community-based efforts to seek changes in children's programming, without resorting to government intervention. As opposed to more government action, I think the answers lie in greater network responsibility, greater broadcaster responsibility, greater advertiser responsibility, and greater parental responsibility. More government action ought to be our last resort. Now, the record in our children's proceeding is still incomplete. And, as a result, I have not made up my mind on these issues until I have had a chance to review all the comments and reply comments. As between the options we are considering, I am keeping an open mind as to what path we should take next, but it is my hope that broadcasters will take some voluntary and long term steps that would obviate the need for further regulatory action. I believe a judge in Superior Court requires my presence, so I thank you for your attention and I hope to see you lobbying me effectively soon. Thank you very much for your attention.