![[Briefing Room header]](.gifs/head_briefing.gif)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release July 29, 1996
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT,
THE FIRST LADY,
THE VICE PRESIDENT AND MRS GORE
IN OPENING AND CLOSING STATEMENTS AT
THE CHILDREN'S TELEVISION CONFERENCE
East
Room
10:00 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Thank you. Good morning.
We're delighted to see all of you here for this historic meeting. A
lot of you have come a long way, some of you on the red-eye, and I
appreciate the efforts you've made to be here.
We're here for a clear purpose: to improve and expand
educational television for our children. The ability of the United
States to make the 21st century the age of greatest possibility in
our nation's history depends in no small measure on our ability to
build strong families today; to help our parents to succeed not only
in the workplace, but in their most important job, raising good,
well-educated, well-balanced, successful children.
That is why we have worked so hard to give our families
more control over one of the most influential forces in our nation,
television. As all of you know better than I, it is now a major part
of our national landscape. A typical child watches 25,000 hours of
television before his or her 18th birthday. Preschoolers watch 28
hours of television a week, and at least during the Olympics, so do
Presidents.
We have dedicated ourselves to giving parents the power
to screen out television they believe their children should not see.
That's what the V-chip was all about. I was proud to sign the
telecommunications law with the V-chip requirement to give parents
the ability to stop programming that they think is inappropriate for
their young children to see.
You in the entertainment industry have certainly been
doing your part. Meeting here in the White House five months ago,
you volunteered to rate shows for content. You came together as
responsible, corporate citizens to give America's families an
early-warning system. Parents who use the V-chip will now be able to
block objectionable shows before it's too late.
Together these initiatives constitute an invaluable
arsenal for America's parents. And I'd also like to point out that
this is a challenge being met in the appropriate way by people
working together and coming together, not fighting and drifting
apart.
But that is only half the battle. As Americans we have
to define ourselves not simply by what we stand against, but more
importantly by what we stand for. Now, we have the opportunity to
use the airwaves for something positive -- educational programming as
great as our kids. Television can be a strong and positive force.
It can help children to learn. It can reinforce rather than
undermine the values we work so hard to teach our children, showing
children every day what it means to share, to respect themselves and
others, to take responsibility for their actions, to have sympathy
with others who have difficulties, even to recognize that "it's not
easy being green."
This morning I would like to hear from you about what we
can do to broaden the range of quality educational programming for
children. I hope we can focus on three specific issues. First, I'd
like to talk about the new research that shows how kids can learn
valuable lessons from TV over the course of their young lifetimes.
Second, I'd like to find out more about what good shows look like.
Third, I'd like us to talk about how we can break down the barriers
to the development and production of quality educational programming
for children.
Before we begin, I would like to make an announcement.
For the past year I've been calling upon the Federal Communications
Commission to require broadcasters to air a minimum of three hours of
genuine educational programming a week -- three hours a week, 180
minutes a week, about 2.5 percent of the entire schedule. Such a
requirement would halt a steep and troubling decline.
As recently as the early '80s, the three major networks
aired several hours more than that of children's educational and
informational shows. But by 1990, they were down to two hours a week
or less than two hours a week. The number is inching up now, but we
must do more. The airwaves that broadcasters use, after all, belong
to all of us. And in exchange for their use, broadcasters are
required to serve the public interest. I cannot imagine anything
that serves the public interest more than seeing to it that we give
our children at least three hours of educational television a week.
That's why it gives me great pleasure to announce that
the four major networks, the National Association of Broadcasters,
and some of the leading advocates for educational television have
come together to join me in supporting a new proposal to require
broadcasters to air three hours of quality educational programming a
week.
This proposal fulfills the promise of the Children's
Television Act -- that television should serve the educational and
informational needs of our young people. It gives broadcasters
flexibility in how to meet those needs. And it says to America's
parents, you are not alone; we are all committed to working with you
to see that educational programming for your children makes the
grade.
I urge the FCC to adopt this proposal, to make the
three-hour rule the law of the land. Television can build up young
lives rather than tear them down.
I'd like to say a particular word of thanks to
Congressman Ed Markey for his work on this issue, and a very special
word of appreciation to the Vice President for his tireless efforts,
along with Greg Simon, to bring about this agreement. I thank them
very, very much. Today we can work to imagine television as a force
for good, to imagine what television for children would look like if
it resembled what we imagined it was when we were children or when
you first got started in this business.
In recent days, as families have gathered to watch the
Olympics, we have all been reminded about the good that television
can bring into our homes, how it can bring us together, how it can
inspire and educate us. This should be our standard. I'm anxious
now to get to work.
And I'd like to invite three people to come up here for
some comments of their own about the agreement that has been reached:
Eddie Fritts, the president of the National Association of
Broadcasters; Les Moonves, the president of CBS Entertainment; Peggy
Charren, the founder of Action for Children's Television.
* * * * *
THE PRESIDENT: The first subject we're going to talk
about is the influence of television on children. We have some good
presentations here. I would like to call on the First Lady to begin.
MRS. CLINTON: Thank you. What a great way to begin
this meeting with that announcement. And now we turn to talking
about what we mean by quality television.
As the President has pointed out, the technology of
television is not intrinsically good or bad. But it does have the
potential to do both, particularly to be a powerful force for good in
our children's lives. But it depends so much on the decisions made
by people in control of that technology, and what their values are
and whether or not they know how to produce and then enlist audiences
for quality television.
Thanks to a growing body of research, we know what
quality television can do for children and what a compelling impact
it can have on the educational and intellectual development of
children.
I would like to turn to someone who has spent quite a
bit of time studying this issue. Along with her husband, Professor
John Wright, Professor Aletha Huston are co-directors for the Center
for Research on the Influence on Television on Children at the
University of Kansas. They've been to the White House before to talk
with us about their important work. They're among the researchers
who understand the positive effects that television can have on
children.
Dr. Huston, you have been studying television and
children for years and your early studies confirmed what many of us
experience in our own homes, that educational programs help prepare
preschool children for school. Could you share with us the findings
from your most recent study that you think would be of the greatest
interest to parents?
* * * * *
MRS. CLINTON: Many of the advertisers, such as your
company and the others who are here today, do your own research. And
you're targeting a certain audience and you're targeting the parents
of children as well as children themselves, so you would bring to the
table, to this kind of advisory role, some very good information.
And so getting the advertisers involved at an early stage, as you're
suggesting, might be very helpful in terms of the quality of
programming and then eliciting the sort of support from advertisers
that is needed.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. I think, to stay
on schedule, we need to move to the next topic. It's clear that
there's a consensus here and that the evidence
supports the fact that television can be, has been, and is in many
cases a positive force in children's lives. So I think we ought to
discuss a little bit about what makes a successful children's
television program. And I'd like to ask Mrs. Gore to lead the
discussion, and I'll turn it over to her now.
MRS. GORE: Well, thank you, Mr. President. And again,
thank you so much for your extraordinary leadership on this issue, or
we would not be where we are.
As I listened to Dr. Huston and Dr. Jamieson speak
earlier, as well as the other experts, I began thinking about what Al
and I did with our children when they were younger. And one thing we
did was we recognized that our guidance was an opportunity to
establish critical viewing at an early age. And the children -- I
asked them, I said, do you remember the shows that you really enjoyed
that were on educational television. And they said, of course, "Mr.
Rogers' Neighborhood," "Sesame Street," at that time "3-2-1 Contact,"
and "Picture Page," that Bill Cosby did, and "Bill Nye, The Science
Guy." Basically, other than these programs, the TV set was "supposed
to be" -- and we all know what that means -- off-limits to them.
Given the study results that were mentioned earlier, Al,
I guess you and I are going to have to share some of the credit with
Big Bird for our children's later educational talents and the grades
that they got in school.
Of course, as children get older and as our children got
older, the dynamics changed dramatically. And while their viewing
remained limited, the shows they watched were determined more by
negotiations between the children and the parents than by parental
edict. I think probably most people would relate to that. And I
don't have to tell all of you that are parents that the television
battles were only one of the many battles that are fought in the
home.
Now when our children began to be at that age where they
were engaged in critical viewing, I became more aware, as did Al, of
what was really on television, what was out there and available to
them, whether it was programming or whether it was frightening
previews for movies, or no matter what. I mean, they brought that to
my attention.
I began working with other people -- many of whom are
here today -- years ago to raise awareness about the potential
harmful influence of increasingly explicit sexual violence and
violence in the media. And I guess because people identify me with
this issue somewhat, I hear from parents all across the country and I
can tell you just anecdotically, they are still very, very concerned.
And they see for the first time a real glimmer of hope that the
industry itself is listening to them, is hearing their concerns. And
they are agonizing over their children's quality of life and the
popular culture in which we all must navigate and which we must guide
our children.
I can relate as a parent to the feelings of
powerlessness that so many people feel. And everybody in this room
is in a position to make them feel more powerful in their own home,
given the tools that are going to be given to them.
We are here to talk about a real gift to the American
parent, and that is the V-chip. The V-chip, in my view, and I think
in most people's view, will help protect children. But they also
should -- we also should think of the V-chip as a way to direct
children to programs that reflect their values and their desires for
entertainment, their priorities and their definition of what is good
entertainment.
And I know that there are parents all around this
country that are just as excited as I am about this extraordinary
group of people gathered today with the goal of making television
more positive, a richer medium, one that can help bring our children
out of the crisis that we all know is gripping America in terms of
their relation to the popular culture and their relation to their
education.
So I want to congratulate each and every one of you for
making this a priority in America. I think it's extremely important.
I would now like to turn to a person who is well-known
for making television programming entertaining as well as, as Dr.
Poussant said, value-laden, and a show that taught kids about life
experiences. And that, of course, is Bill Cosby. And I'd like to
ask you what are the ingredients, how did you succeed. We want more
of what made us love you so much.
* * * * *
MRS. GORE: Now, Mr. President, we've finished with this
particular part of the program, and would like your comments.
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I love this. I wish we
had all day to listen to you all talk about this.
We want to talk now about whether there are barriers to
more and better children's programs, and if so, what they are. And I
guess I would like to begin by welcoming the advertisers that are
here and thanking them for their commitment to this announcement
we've made today and to this cause generally. I thought what Ms.
Laybourne said about being a worrier -- a lot of the things she said
I thought were quite on point. And I think that the role of
advertisers in sort of changing the whole look of how we approach
this issue could be quite critical. So I'm delighted that you're
here.
And we're now going on to a section about how we should
define and recognize and then deliver quality on these programs, and
what barriers there are and how we would go about taking them down.
And so I'm going to call on the Vice President to take over the last
section.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you very much, Mr.
President.
Let's spend a little time in this segment talking about
the barriers to more and better children's programming. In many
ways, today's session is a counterpart to the White House summit on
television that the President hosted several months back. With the
V-chip, as others have pointed out, families will have an opportunity
to block programming they feel is inappropriate for their young
children. And as Tipper pointed out, they will also have the
opportunity to select good programming, quality programming that they
believe is beneficial for their children.
How will the industry respond to this new reality --
advertisers, programmers, broadcasters, network executives, the cable
industry, et cetera? In order to answer that question, we have to
understand or take a little time to better understand why it didn't
happen before, what the barriers are and how we can overcome them.
If with the V-chip some programmers and advertisers for the first
time have to worry that inappropriate programming is going to lead
them to lose some of the audience that would otherwise be
hypnotically transfixed by the programming, but because parents will
have more tools at their disposal, now they're going to have to look
at the possibility of the certain percentage of the audience being
lost, that will begin to change some of the dynamics.
But there are other aspects to this, and it's critically
important to focus on the positive as well as just the negative. We
know from the research that the First Lady and her panel discussed
earlier that not only is negative imagery bad for children, but more
importantly, in keeping with today's summit, positive programming,
educational programming can really help children learn. It has many
positive benefits.
And we know from the panel that Tipper has just
conducted here that there are a lot of successes, and we know good
children's programming when we see it. LeVar Burton brought up the
concern about what is the definition. It may well be that when the
FCC acts they will be able to make reference to good, private sector
efforts like that of the Annenberg School, and say, well, this
program or that program is cited as good quality children's
programming. But according to a lot of these private sector groups
that spend full-time looking at this, it doesn't really pass muster.
So it may be that a uniquely American solution for that problem can
be found.
Gerri Laybourne expressed concern about regulation, and,
indeed, that's why the agreement that the President announced at the
beginning of this session is so important -- because the industry is
now on board. And Peggy Charren and these network executives and
programmers and the others are all together saying, yes, this is now
a national goal and we're all going to play our part. So it's got to
go far beyond regulation.
But with the industry on board and with everybody moving
in the same direction it's good to talk about why this hasn't
happened before, without the President's leadership, without
everybody getting together. The fact is, there are a lot of barriers
and people in the industry know -- producers who have made great
programming and for economic and structural reasons it hasn't gotten
on.
Linda Ellerbee has built a career taking on hard issues,
sort of like this one. Her show, Nick News, provides youth with a
different view of the world. And I'm sure if it were easy to do, she
wouldn't be doing it. But I'd like to ask Linda Ellerbee to start
off the discussion of what these barriers are and why it hasn't
happened before and what direction do we need to move in now.
* * * * *
THE VICE PRESIDENT: We've run out of time. There are
others who would want to speak, but, Mr. President, I think it's
obvious from the three panels that we've just heard that this is the
beginning of a new era for children's television in America. And
coupled with the V-chip and the ratings announcement several months
ago, I think this is really revolutionizing children's television.
So that's the end of this panel, and we'll turn it back
to you.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me thank all of you, first of all,
for coming. And those of you who participated in this historic
agreement, I'm very grateful to you. You have done a good thing for
your country today.
I do not want to leave us on a down note, but I want to
put this in the context of what I think the real stakes are of what
we're discussing here. And I leave you with this thought, a
challenge to think about another barrier that has nothing to do with
the production of the programs or even getting advertising, which is:
How are you going to get these programs to the kids that need to see
them the most, the kids that are most at risk in our society, and how
are you going to reach their parents?
And I want to just ask you to think about these two
facts. One is, while we are, at least inside our administration we
are very happy that the crime rate has gone down for four years in a
row in America -- it's a wonderful thing, four years in a row of a
drop in crime rate -- the rate of random violence among people
between the ages of 12 and 17 is going up. Cocaine use has dropped
by a third, but the rate of random drug use among people between the
ages of 12 and 17 has been going up since 1991. Fact one.
Second thing. When school starts this fall, 51.7
million children will enroll in schools. And it's the first time
since I, the oldest of the baby boomers, since the baby boomers will
fully in school that there has been a class of schoolchildren bigger
than the baby boom generation, which means we have a few years to
turn these trends around or reap a whirlwind from it.
Basically, if you look at all the aggregate statistics
in our country, it seems that most things are moving in the right
direction after years of being troubled. But there are just so many
of these kids out here that are either virtually raising themselves
or their parents -- almost all of whom, I believe, would like to do a
good job -- they want to do a good job, but they're not sure how they
should do it. So one huge barrier here that we have not discussed
beyond it's sort of beyond our purview, but that a lot you who are
brilliant at marketing things to people and reaching people is how do
you reach the parents?
You know, I had a pretty good education, but I learned a
lot because Chelsea was into Sesame Street and Where in the World is
Carmen San Diego? When I met the co-leaders of San Marino at the
Olympics, I knew where it was because Chelsea got me into Where in
the World is -- (laughter) -- not because I had a degree from the
Foreign Service School at Georgetown. (Laughter.) I'm just saying,
how do we reach the parents? This is a serious issue.
And secondly, if you cannot reach the parents, is there
some way to reach the kids anyway? We're trying to give schools more
funds, for example, to open early and stay open late. Is there some
way to redirect the programs in there so that -- and work with the
schools so that they will show the programs to the kids in the after
school area. You really need to think about this because the kids
that need what we're doing the most may have barriers that we haven't
even discussed today.
I want to make one last point. I think it would be very
good for the adults of this country, including all of us who work in
the White House, if Mr. Rogers' poem could be read once a week on
prime time television. (Laughter.)
Thank you and God bless you all. (Applause.)
END 12:19 P.M. EDT
![[Footer icon]](.gifs/footer.gif)
![[White House icon]](.gifs/home_icon2.gif)
![[Briefing Room icon]](.gifs/pin_briefing.gif)
![[Help Desk icon]](.gifs/pin_info2.gif)