Peggy Charen: The Killer of Saturday Morning TV?

[TMC]

http://www.gleitsman.org/achievement.html

January 10, 1992...From a modest beginning in 1968, Peggy Charen with two neighbors, founded and built Action for Children's Television into the leading crusader for better television for children. A tireless conscience of children's television, a constant thorn in the side of the networks and a battler against commercialization of shows for young viewers, Charen and ACT were largely responsible for the passage of the 1990 Children's Television Act.

http://www.newsreel.org/films/publictr.htm

"An important education for America's families. If parents and teachers act on its message, television could become a valuable educational tool for young audiences."
-- Peggy Charen, Action for Children's Television


http://www.awn.com/mag/issue1.7/articles/sito1.7.html

Rotting Children's Minds
However, I cringe whenever Peggy Charen, of Action for Children's Television, or some other politico complains that children's minds are being rotted by cartoons, while shows like Mr. Roger's Neighborhood or Sesame Street are touted as being infititely more desirable. While I agree with their motives (heck, as a child I too would occasionally enjoy watching an arrested adolescent with a folk guitar singing "Puff the Magic Dragon" to a sock puppet), I just wish they wouldn't damn our medium along with the message.

Ms. Charen may think of animation in the abstract, but I know that she's talking about the incomes of 2,500 American union artists and their families in L.A. alone. Not elves in trees, not pornographers in basements, just plain folks who make car payments and buy insurance and go on unemployment. Young wage earners who do storyboards for Batman, older pensioners who did Crusader Rabbit and Touché Turtle, and top animators who did Ariel, the Genie and Simba.

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=...ation%26meta%3D

> When did Saturday linups begin to hit the crapper? 1997?>
I'll could go even like 1992 when NBC aired lame show like Pro-Stars and
then beginned with the Today Show news on Saturday mornings thanks to the
Peggy Charen's mob
(did I go too far?) and the lame rip-offs crap of Peter Angel after Saved by
the Bell like Hang Time and California Dreams. There was also the time when Michael Eisner
put ABC on his empire, when Nickelodeon dropped the forgeign series in favor
of their own, etc....

For me, Sat. AM went in the crapper right after CBS aired their last
episode of Garfield and Friends. As for the rest of NBC's swan song
lineup, all I can recall is "Yo, Yogi!" with a 3-D gimmick that rankled
Peggy Charren and company because you had to buy boxes of certain
cereals to get the glasses or something like that, and "Wishkid"
starring Macauley Culkin.

------------------------------------------------------------
http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p...haren&hc=0&hs=0

[cubsfan1060]

Interesting point! You know how I lay down the law when it come to "hitting the crapper," in this case it would be cartoons. I think you really did a fantastic job of explaining not just what caused Saturday morning T.V. to crash like the 1929 New York Stock market, if you know what I mean, but also told who killed it. I would love to start a petition for two things:To get this mob that you mentioned to stop this crap, and two to put on good old classic Saturday Morning sitcoms like Valerie(aka The Hogan Family) and cartoons like The Real Ghostbusters. The Real Ghostbusters were really fun to watch. The theme song is cool too. In this case, instead of just being ghostbusters to bring back the old stuff again, we should be called the Real Classic Ghostbusters. Then these T.V. stations and that one mob will be very sorry. Since when did Mr. Rodgers not educate children. WHenever I am not in school, I watch this man because he is very funny and I learned things I never would imagine learning. I learned that Grape jelly starts out as juice. When I was 5, I did not know that. So, since I am at it, get ready to sign a petition. One more thing. Since I am a fan of Valerie Harper and Sandy Duncan, UPN aired the Hogan Family in Chicago for a year. That was the second and most decent airing of Valerie.

[TMC]

I'm bumping this in light of the recent passing of Peggy Charren. Perhaps the fundamental problem is that Peggy Charren and her group (ACT) crew were putting a finger into a dike, irrespective of the water pressure involved. To put it in another way, even while they were cleaning up children's television, they couldn't exactly stop the influence of media and culture that *wasn't* children's television. A lot of this influence wasn't geared specifically towards children, but which trickled down from a teen and adult universe. Unfortunately for Charren, the kids came to embrace over and above the increasingly watered-down kiddie pap directed straight at them. (Paradoxically, sort of similar to the appeal of classic animation.) Worst or above all, Charren only compounded the issue through counter-injustice--to classic animation (e.g. Bugs Bunny cartoons) by framing it as simply being inane "kiddie entertainment".

In short, it is not the job of the television to guide the social/moral development of children. That is what parents are supposed to do. While children are certainly influenced by what they see on television, this must not be their only exposure to life since there is a reality beyond the "boxed window." To be brutally frank, the supposed wasteland that is today’s E/I programming on commercial broadcast television is the ultimate result of Peggy Charren’s interference in the free market.

[TMC]

http://www.avclub.com/article/read-w...ows-kid-238535

Running a television network is a little bit like running a convenience store. It’s important to maximize every last bit of floor space (read: airtime) for maximum profitability. So what were the major networks to do back in 1990, when a watershed law called the Children’s Television Act required them to broadcast more educational programs for children with significantly less advertising allowed per half hour? The answer was to find a loophole in that law and then exploit the holy living hell out of it. That way, the networks could obey the letter of the law while basically ignoring the spirit of the law. In this case, the loophole was that the advertising restrictions only applied to shows aimed at preteens. If the networks claimed that their educational shows were targeted toward adolescents aged 13 to 16, they could cram several more minutes of commercials into every show. David Robb tells the whole, disheartening saga in an article for Deadline.

The networks found ingenious ways to skirt the 1990 law while working even more kid-targeted advertising into their programming. If it weren’t so sleazy and soulless, it could almost be considered an art. Many of the networks have farmed their educational programming responsibilities out to a company called Litton Entertainment. Litton’s specialty is cranking out quasi-educational shows that are really testimonials for various sponsors. ABC’s Sea Rescue and The Wildlife Docs shill for, respectively, SeaWorld and Busch Gardens. Meanwhile, the host of Jack Hanna’s Wild Countdown gets to mention the Columbus Zoo And Aquarium frequently during his show, all because it’s aimed at 13-16 year olds. Whether any teens are actually watching Jack Hanna’s Wild Countdown remains a mystery.

But how did all this educational requirement for network TV come about? Robb tells that story, too. It all goes back to the late 1960s, when the late Peggy Charren, a stay-at-home mom, began her crusade to clean up children’s television after being “horrified” by what her kids were watching on Saturday mornings. Charren formed an organization called Action For Children’s Television (ACT). The 1990 law was the result of literally decades of lobbying on behalf of Charren and ACT. So what would Charren, who died in 2015, think of today’s “educational” programming for kids? “She’s probably rolling over in her grave right now,” says her daughter.

[Steve Carras]

ANd people like to fault Sarah Palin for censorship (Bugs Bunny, NOT a "Kids cartoon" was, conservatively put, a teenager/college student, and most of all an ADULT toon---seems the bobbysoxers satirzied at the time watched those, rather than the toddlers. Even Hanna-Barbera with Top Cat and the first three seasons of the Flintstones weren't just inane "kiddie' fare!) And NO conservatives, not Anne Coulter or Palin, EVER tagged Bugs Bunny etc.for being gay, yet Peggy Charren and Hillary Clinton, both of whom supposedly were GAY-friendly DID try to ban the cartoons. [blah]

Why as a matter of little old fact, I bet even Chick-Fil-A is selling Bugs Bunny,etc. on drinking glasses or some other beloved 50 or older American cartoon that dressed in drag..I send condolences for the CHarren family's loss, sure, but P.C.'s initials were deserved..she was like Palin if that meant calling a liberal a Sarah Palin :rolleyes

[Steve Carras]

Originally Posted by TMC

http://www.gleitsman.org/achievement.html

January 10, 1992...From a modest beginning in 1968, Peggy Charen with two neighbors, founded and built Action for Children's Television into the leading crusader for better television for children. A tireless conscience of children's television, a constant thorn in the side of the networks and a battler against commercialization of shows for young viewers, Charen and ACT were largely responsible for the passage of the 1990 Children's Television Act.

http://www.newsreel.org/films/publictr.htm

"An important education for America's families. If parents and teachers act on its message, television could become a valuable educational tool for young audiences."
-- Peggy Charen, Action for Children's Television


http://www.awn.com/mag/issue1.7/articles/sito1.7.html

Rotting Children's Minds
However, I cringe whenever Peggy Charen, of Action for Children's Television, or some other politico complains that children's minds are being rotted by cartoons, while shows like Mr. Roger's Neighborhood or Sesame Street are touted as being infititely more desirable. While I agree with their motives (heck, as a child I too would occasionally enjoy watching an arrested adolescent with a folk guitar singing "Puff the Magic Dragon" to a sock puppet), I just wish they wouldn't damn our medium along with the message.

Ms. Charen may think of animation in the abstract, but I know that she's talking about the incomes of 2,500 American union artists and their families in L.A. alone. Not elves in trees, not pornographers in basements, just plain folks who make car payments and buy insurance and go on unemployment. Young wage earners who do storyboards for Batman, older pensioners who did Crusader Rabbit and Touché Turtle, and top animators who did Ariel, the Genie and Simba.

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=...ation%26meta%3D

> When did Saturday linups begin to hit the crapper? 1997?>
I'll could go even like 1992 when NBC aired lame show like Pro-Stars and
then beginned with the Today Show news on Saturday mornings thanks to the
Peggy Charen's mob
(did I go too far?) and the lame rip-offs crap of Peter Angel after Saved by
the Bell like Hang Time and California Dreams. There was also the time when Michael Eisner
put ABC on his empire, when Nickelodeon dropped the forgeign series in favor
of their own, etc....

For me, Sat. AM went in the crapper right after CBS aired their last
episode of Garfield and Friends. As for the rest of NBC's swan song
lineup, all I can recall is "Yo, Yogi!" with a 3-D gimmick that rankled
Peggy Charren and company because you had to buy boxes of certain
cereals to get the glasses or something like that, and "Wishkid"
starring Macauley Culkin.

------------------------------------------------------------
http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p...haren&hc=0&hs=0

Yo Yogi, with then trendy rap blingies, would have outraged Miss Charren as a mom/grandmom. Peter Engel, not Angel,. The superbabe and legit actress Tiffany Thiessen (back then known as her full name Tiffani-Amber Thiessen) and male counterpart Mario Lopezx have become extremely popular on television> Tiff espeically (White Collar then Breakfast with TIffany..)

[MrCleveland]

To me, 1996 was when everything that we knew got traded with what we have today...even SatAM! These are the 16 things that destroyed SatAM...

1-Litton Entertainment and E/I
2-Censorship
3-ACT
4-Corperation
5-Commercial Shows
6-Sports
7-Divorce Rates
8-Price in Cartoons
9-Junk Food Wars
10-The News
11-Teen Shows
12-Other Alternatives like Infomercials and Play Outside
13-Weekday Afternoons/Syndication
14-VCR and Cable
15-Video Games
16-Streaming Channels

I'll go into further detail with these real soon....

[TMC]

What are the biggest criticisms that were directed towards Peggy Charren's children's television advocacy?

What are the biggest mistakes that Peggy Charren made regarding her children's television advocacy?

[TMC]

In the case of Peggy Charren and her advocacy group Action for Children's Television (ACT), do you see the liberal paternalism of mid-to-late 20th-century media reform: a sincere belief that reforming could reform society. Instead, those efforts often narrowed artistic and imaginative space under the banner of protecting youth?

In the case of Peggy Charren and Action for Children's Television (ACT), one can observe aspects of both sincere reformist intentions and criticisms regarding the potential narrowing of artistic freedom. The organization's efforts led to significant, widely-praised improvements in children's broadcasting but also sparked debates about liberal paternalism and the limits of media regulation.

The reformist impulse and the Children's Television Act of 1990

Peggy Charren and ACT's advocacy arose from a genuine desire to improve children's television, which in the 1960s was considered by many to be a "vast wasteland" of low-quality, commercialized programming.

• The "public interest" mandate: The group's strategy was rooted in the Communications Act of 1934, which required broadcasters to serve the "public interest." ACT argued that ignoring the educational and developmental needs of children violated this mandate.
  
• Targeting commercialization: ACT took aim at "program-length commercials," where shows were created primarily to sell toys, and advertising targeted directly at children. They also criticized the general volume of advertising during children's programming.
  
• The Children's Television Act of 1990: After decades of lobbying, Charren's efforts led to the passage of this landmark law. The Act required broadcasters to air a certain amount of educational programming ("E/I" content) and limited the amount of advertising during children's shows. These changes reflected a progressive belief that media could and should be a tool for social good, not just a vehicle for profit.

The liberal paternalism critique

Despite its successes, ACT's agenda has been described by some critics as paternalistic. This critique argues that well-meaning reformers imposed their values on the media landscape, limiting the choices available to both creators and consumers.

• First Amendment concerns: ACT's efforts sparked First Amendment debates about government regulation of speech. President Ronald Reagan vetoed an earlier version of the Children's Television Act, arguing that conditioning license renewals on programming decisions violated freedom of expression. A court case in 1995 affirmed the government's compelling interest in protecting children but also highlighted the constitutional complexities of such regulations.
  
• Impact on artistic and imaginative space: Some critics, such as animators and writers, have argued that ACT's influence narrowed the range of acceptable content. The intense focus on educational and informational content, coupled with restrictions on commercial tie-ins, was seen by some as stifling creative freedom.
  
  • One common example cited by detractors was the decline of more imaginative, character-driven cartoons and local children's shows in favor of mandated, often more didactic, educational programming.
    
  • This created a tension between what reformers considered "good for kids" and what might have been artistically diverse or just plain entertaining.

The legacy: a complex balance

The legacy of ACT is a useful case study in media reform, illustrating the tension between social engineering and creative autonomy.

• Intentions vs. outcomes: Charren's intentions were clearly focused on increasing quality and diversity, not censorship. However, the institutionalization of her agenda through government regulation arguably had unintended consequences for the creative market, even if it led to demonstrably more educational content on television.
  
• An enduring debate: The debate over ACT's methods and impact continues today. The Children's Television Act helped create a generation of high-quality educational programming, yet it also raises perennial questions about the role of regulators in defining what constitutes "good" media and the balance between protecting youth and preserving artistic freedom.

The advocacy of Peggy Charren and her group Action for Children's Television (ACT) in the mid-to-late 20th century reflects a form of liberal paternalism. Charren sincerely believed that reforming television content for children could contribute to societal betterment by providing educational programming and limiting commercial exploitation. Her efforts led to the Children's Television Act of 1990, which mandated broadcasters to air educational shows and restrict advertising targeted at children. This reflected a genuine belief in the power of media reform to positively influence children's development and society at large.

However, these reforms also narrowed artistic and imaginative space in children's programming. Critics have argued that such reform efforts, under the banner of protecting youth, imposed restrictive standards that limited creative freedom and diversity of content. While ACT's focus was on safeguarding children against excessive commercialization and poor-quality programming, it sometimes led to a constrained conception of what children's media could be—prioritizing educational and censored content over imaginative and varied entertainment.

In essence, Peggy Charren's advocacy embodied a well-intentioned liberal paternalism, aiming to responsibly shape children's media for the public good, but sometimes at the cost of restricting artistic and imaginative exploration under the protective guise of reform. Her impact is a study in the tension between protective regulation and creative freedom in media for children.

Peggy Charren and Action for Children's Television (ACT) represent a significant moment in the discourse around media reform, particularly concerning children's programming. Charren's advocacy stemmed from a genuine concern for the content that children were consuming, reflecting a broader liberal paternalism that characterized mid-to-late 20th-century media reform movements.

This paternalism was rooted in the belief that media could shape societal values and behaviors, and therefore, reforming media content was seen as a path to improving society as a whole. Charren and her colleagues aimed to ensure that children's programming was educational, enriching, and free from exploitative commercial influences. They believed that by protecting children from negative media influences, they could foster a healthier, more informed generation.

However, this approach often led to unintended consequences. In their quest to protect youth, reformers sometimes imposed restrictions that limited creativity and expression in children's media. Programming became formulaic, focusing on didactic content that prioritized moral lessons over imaginative storytelling. Critics argue that this narrowed artistic space, stifling the very creativity that could engage and inspire young audiences.

In essence, while the intentions behind Charren's advocacy were sincere and well-meaning, the implementation of such reforms frequently resulted in a constrained media landscape. This reflects a broader tension in liberal paternalism: the challenge of balancing protection with the need for artistic freedom and innovation. The legacy of this movement prompts ongoing discussions about the role of media in shaping culture and the appropriate ways to safeguard young audiences without stifling creativity.

Peggy Charren and Action for Children's Television (ACT) indeed embody the liberal paternalism of mid-to-late 20th-century media reform. Charren, driven by a sincere belief that television could be a force for education and social good, founded ACT in 1968 to push for higher-quality, non-commercialized children's programming. ACT's advocacy led to significant changes, like the Children's Television Act of 1990, which mandated educational content and limited advertising in children's TV. Her efforts stemmed from a conviction that media could shape young minds for the better, reflecting a broader progressive faith in reforming institutions to uplift society.

However, this paternalism often had unintended consequences. By prioritizing "appropriate" content and imposing regulations, ACT's campaigns sometimes constrained creative freedom. The push for educational programming could stifle the imaginative, freewheeling nature of children's media, favoring didacticism over storytelling. For example, the emphasis on "pro-social" content led to formulaic shows that prioritized moral lessons over artistic depth, arguably narrowing the range of narratives available to young audiences. Critics, like animation historian Maureen Furniss, have noted that such reforms could homogenize content, sidelining experimental or boundary-pushing works under the guise of child protection.

This tension—between protecting youth and limiting creative space—is a hallmark of liberal paternalism. Charren's work was undeniably well-intentioned, but it reflects a broader mid-century tendency to see media as a tool for social engineering, sometimes at the expense of artistic diversity. Still, defenders argue that without ACT's pressure, commercial interests might have dominated children's TV even more aggressively, leaving little room for educational value. It’s a messy trade-off: societal reform through media came with guardrails that could, at times, feel more restrictive than liberating.

[TMC]

Preteen Saturday Morning Kids Shows Abandoned By Broadcast Networks

David Robb
Labor Editor

June 20, 2016 10:17am

The landmark Children’s Television Act of 1990 was designed to provide educational broadcast programming for kids while limiting the amount of advertising. But an exemption has allowed the five commercial broadcast networks to increase ad time while completely abandoning programming for kids under 13. It has meant the end of an era in Saturday morning kids’ shows.

Low ad rates and competition from kids’ cable channels as well as streaming platforms may partly explain the networks’ exodus from the preteen market, but a footnote in the FCC’s interpretation of the 1990 law made it possible. Under the agency’s rules, broadcast stations are required to run at least three hours of “educational and informational” children’s programming each week for kids 16 and under. To retain their licenses, broadcasters must also limit the amount of advertising aired during these so-called “core programs” to 10.5 minutes per hour on weekends, and to 12 minutes per hour on weekdays.

However, a footnote to the rule states that “for purposes of this section, ‘children’s programming’ refers to programs originally produced and broadcast primarily for an audience of children 12 years old and younger. If the target age for the children’s programming is over 12, the commercial limits do not apply.” This allows the stations to meet the FCC’s three-hours-a-week mandate by airing shows that only target kids aged 13-16.

To qualify for this exemption, and to run over 50% more ads than would be allowed on younger kids’ shows, all the stations have to do is tell the FCC that their target audience is children aged 13-16. And that’s what every ABC, CBS, Fox and CW station in the country has done. Quarterly reports they file with the FCC show that the target audience for every single one of their kids’ shows is now the 13-16 demographic. And NBC will be following suit later this year.

The FCC declined comment, saying: “We do not provide opinions outside our official process.”

Fox was the first to give up on the preteen audience; it hasn’t aired a show targeting kids under 13 since 2008. ABC switched to an all-13-16 demo in September 2011, when the network dropped all of its shows targeting kids 12 and younger. CBS discontinued all programming for preteens two years later, and the CW followed suit in 2014.

NBC, the last holdout, has confirmed that it will exit the preteen market in October when it switches to a three-hour bloc of Saturday morning shows targeting kids aged 13-16. “A big part of this programming switch is the audience who is watching it,” said a source familiar with the change. “The Today show airs prior to our block of children’s programming on Saturdays, and we found that we were losing that Today show audience. It’s such a huge leap to go from the Today show to 2-year-olds. The new programming will be a better fit.”

Under the law, the NBC stations’ current crop of Saturday morning educational shows aimed at younger kids can only air 5.25 minutes of commercials per half hour, but nearly all shows on the other networks that target kids aged 13-16 run at least eight minutes of ads – 2.75 minutes more. Over the course of a three-hour block of programming, that comes to an additional 16.5 minutes of advertising every Saturday.

Between the ads, kids who watch a three-hour block of programming are now exposed to hours of promotional tie-ins to the shows’ corporate sponsors.

A company called Litton Entertainment has been the single biggest beneficiary of this dramatic shift in the networks’ targeted demographic. Litton currently produces three-hour blocks of educational kids programming for ABC and CBS; a five-hour block for The CW; and beginning in October, another three-hour block for NBC. All are aimed at kids aged 13-16.

“Litton provides award-winning educational programming for teenage audiences,” Litton said. “We believe – and experts in child development and psychology agree – that our programming provides better educational value to that audience, and to others who watch our shows, than many of the cartoons they have replaced.”

Even with the demise of network programming for kids’ under 13, Litton said there are still plenty of shows for them to watch. In the Los Angeles market, the company said, “there are currently 941 30-minute programs airing each week aimed at the 12-and-under market, and only 226 aimed at the over-12 market.”

Many of Litton’s shows promote their corporate underwriters. Sea Rescue on ABC, which won the Emmy last month for outstanding children’s series, is sponsored by SeaWorld and presented by SeaWorld Family Entertainment. On a recent episode, the host made several on-air references to the theme park, where much of the show is set and whose rescue teams help injured animals. On many of the episodes, the SeaWorld logo can be seen more than 50 times on the staff’s T-shirts and emblazoned on the sides of vehicles and boats.

A recent episode of ABC’s The Wildlife Docs, another Litton show, also referred to or showed the logo of its corporate sponsor, Busch Gardens, more than 50 times during the half-hour – eight minutes of which were devoted to commercials, including a 30-second spot for SeaWorld, a Busch Gardens sister company. Litton says that both shows average 1.4 million viewers each weekend.

“SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment is proud of the inspiring and educational television programming that Sea Rescue and The Wildlife Docs provides viewers,” said Elizabeth Bassler, the company’s manager of corporate communications. “We have a long history of providing high-quality, family entertainment while educating our fans about the rescue efforts of our team and partner organizations – whether it takes place inside or outside the park. Our partnership with Litton Entertainment for these two award-winning series continues that tradition of excellence.”

Litton’s Game Changers, which airs Saturday mornings on CBS stations as part of the CBS Dream Team block, highlights inspirational stories about athletes who give back to their communities. It is sponsored by EA Sports, a subsidiary of Electronic Arts, the giant video game company. Each episode of the half-hour show, which includes 7.5 minutes of advertising, is “Presented by” and “Sponsored by” EA Sports, whose logo can be seen on-screen more than 30 different times on each show. Host Kevin Frazier even introduces the show as “AE Sports’ Game Changers,” though CBS doesn’t call it that on its website and CBS stations don’t refer to it as such in the quarterly reports they file with the FCC.

Unlike actual infomercials, which pay the stations to air their paid programming, Litton’s shows receive no license fees from the stations. “This is not paid programming,” Meg LaVigne, president of television at Litton, said, “but high-quality, award-winning content that relies, in part, on partnerships to deliver compelling stories to audiences across the country.”

The FCC’s ban on “host-selling” prohibits the use of “program talent or other identifiable program characteristics to deliver commercials during or adjacent to children’s programming featuring that character.” But ABC’s Jack Hanna’s Wildlife Countdown, another Litton show, gets around this rule because it says its target audience is kids aged 13-16, which qualifies it as a “core program” but exempts it from the “host-selling” rule.

Hanna makes numerous on-air references to the show’s co-sponsor, the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium, and during commercial breaks of every episode makes a pitch for the show’s other co-sponsor, Nationwide insurance.

And while many Litton shows – like ABC’s Born To Explore, CBS’ Dr. Chris Pet Vet and the CW’s Dog Whisperer With Cesar Millan — don’t appear to have any corporate tie-ins, many others do. CBS’ Chicken Soup For The Soul’s Hidden Heroes promotes its corporate sponsor, Chicken Soup for the Soul; CBS half-hour drama The Inspectors promotes its financial backer, the United States Postal Inspection Service; and the CW’s Dream Quest, which is shot aboard the Norwegian Escape cruise liner, touts the show’s corporate sponsor, Norwegian Cruise Line. CBS’ The Henry Ford Innovation Nation also heavily promotes its sponsor, The Henry Ford, a Dearborn, MI-based museum whose name appears in the show’s title and in a recent episode was mentioned or shown on-screen more than 25 times, in addition to a 30-second ad for the museum.

Litton says the ads that air during its shows “are a far better alternative to the ads that have often previously aired during children’s programming, whose sole purpose was to sell less than beneficial products to children.”

“Not only have Litton and our partners helped move over-the-air children’s broadcasting away from hamburger clowns and toy-boy action figures, we have led the industry in aspirational storytelling that meets child psychologist-developed standards that did not exist prior to 1990,” Litton said. “This is exactly what the FCC was looking for in 1991 in implementing congressional intent.”

According to the FCC’s website, kids today watch more than three hours of television every day. “This invited ‘guest’ into our homes has the potential to significantly shape our children’s development,” the agency says. “In view of this, Congress determined that broadcast television stations – both commercial and non-commercial – have an obligation to offer educational and informational children’s programming.

“In addition, television licensees, cable operators and satellite providers must limit the amount of commercials aired during children’s programs.”

Because of the FCC exemption, however, kids are being exposed to more ads and sponsor tie-ins on the network’s Saturday morning shows than at any time since 1976. How it got this way dates back to 1968, when Boston-area stay-at-home-mom Peggy Charren turned on the TV one Saturday morning and was horrified to see all the cartoons and junk food ads her daughters were watching. It led her to launch Action for Children’s Television, a grassroots organization dedicated to improving kids’ TV shows and limiting the amount of advertising shown on them.

Charren and her supporters began lobbying the FCC, calling for it to ban all advertising and sponsorships on children’s programs, and requiring stations to broadcast no less than 14 hours of educational kids shows every week as part of their public service requirement including several weekly hours of shows for preschoolers aged 2-5; primary schoolers 6-9; and for elementary school kids 10-12.

In 1970, the FCC accepted ACT’s proposals as a petition for rule-making and invited public comments. The FCC, describing the response as “overwhelming,” received more than 100,000 comments. The general public expressed strong support for ACT’s general objectives; not surprisingly, the broadcast and advertising industries were mostly opposed.

In the wake of the public’s overwhelming support, and perhaps in apprehensive anticipation of FCC action, the broadcast industry undertook limited self-regulation. In 1972, the National Association of Broadcasters amended its code of practices to reduce advertising on kids shows from 16 minutes an hour to 12.

Over the next two years, the FCC hosted three days of panel discussions and three days of oral arguments on the full spectrum of children’s television practices. ACT then filed reply comments, arguing that “unless commercial pressures were eliminated, children would never receive adequate broadcast service.”

In June 1974, after a private meeting with FCC chairman Richard E. Wiley, newly appointed by President Richard Nixon, NAB officials announced they would further limit the amount of advertising on kids shows. Beginning in January 1975, they’d be reduced to 10 minutes per hour on weekends and to 14 minutes during the week, and that by January 1976, to 9.5 minutes an hour on weekends and 12 minutes during the week – less than is allowed today.

This self-regulation satisfied the FCC, which in October 1974 issued its Children’s Television Report and Policy Statement, which rejected all of ACT’s proposed rules. Charren and ACT promptly filed a petition for reconsideration, and when the FCC rejected it, took their case to court, arguing that the agency’s rule-making process “epitomizes abuse of administrative process” by its failure to solicit public comment on the industry’s proposals for self-regulation that had been negotiated “behind the closed doors of Chairman Wiley’s office in a private meeting with NAB officials.”

When the courts ruled against her in 1977, Charren began a decades-long battle to get Congress to act. President Ronald Reagan vetoed a bill she lobbied for in 1988, but she kept trying. Her efforts finally paid off when Congress passed the CTA in 1990, and President George H.W. Bush allowed it to become law without his signature. (Bush wouldn’t sign it because although he “wholeheartedly” supported its goal to improve children’s programming, he said, “To the extent that children’s programming is financed by the revenue from advertising … restrictions on the amount of advertising will tend to diminish, rather than enhance, the quantity and quality of children’s programming.”)

In 1991, the FCC issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order spelling out the new rules. And there, in Note 2 on the section limiting advertising on kids shows, it defined “children’s programming” as only those shows “produced and broadcast primarily for children 12 years old and younger.” That footnote would go on to end an era in broadcast history.

Charren, the activist whose lobbying led to the passage of the landmark kids TV law, died last year, but her daughters told Deadline that she’d be distraught by what’s going on.

“She would be disgusted,” said daughter Claudia Moquin. “She’s probably rolling over in her grave right now.”

Said daughter Debbie Charren: “All the work my mother did has vanished. Now it’s like the Children’s Television Act doesn’t exist anymore.”

[TMC]

This isn't only the finale of the '80s series but also a reupload, and that can only mean one thing: New segment. Timestamp for the new segment: 58:02 - 1:04:37.

It's for those who have seen the episode in its entirety. For the rest who haven't seen the episode, please give it and the subseries a watch. I would greatly appreciate it.