Fighting the Good Fight for TV, Again : Television: In their new book, Newton Minow and Craig LaMay say broadcasters have shirked their responsibilities to kids and other viewers by hiding behind the First Amendment.

NEW YORK —  In television’s infancy, Newton Minow writes in a new book, its creators “expressed their hope that the new medium would be the greatest instrument of enlightenment ever invented, a blessing to future generations.

“They were wrong. Broadcasters and politicians have turned it instead into an instrument of child exploitation and abuse. In the American system [of television], children are not primarily to be educated, nurtured, or even entertained; like everyone else, they are simply chattel to be rounded up and sold to advertisers.”

Minow--who coined the phrase “vast wasteland” to describe TV when he was a young, activist chairman of the Federal Communications Commission 34 years ago--is angry about what he says is the abdication of broadcasters’ public-interest obligations to children.

“We’ve gotten so far away from the intent of the communications laws in this country that I doubt that most people even realize that broadcasters are required by law to serve the public interest, as part of their broadcast license from the government,” Minow, 69, noted in an interview.

“Today we have a situation where broadcasters enjoy the quid --exclusive, free use of the public airwaves--without the quo --serving the public interest,” said Minow, an attorney who has been chairman of PBS and a member of the CBS board of directors. “If we can’t define the public interest when it comes to children, what can we say broadcasters ought to be doing?”

In “Abandoned in the Wasteland: Children, Television and the First Amendment,” Minow and co-author Craig LaMay argue that broadcasters have shirked their responsibilities to children and other viewers by hiding behind the First Amendment.

“Every time someone criticizes the entertainment industry for their programming, executives respond by talking about their ‘First Amendment rights,’ ” Minow said. “That’s what happened when Time Warner was criticized recently about gangsta rap lyrics, and that’s what happens when someone questions the content of TV programming seen by children.

“The fact is, the First Amendment is badly misunderstood,” continued Minow, who is a professor of communications law at Northwestern University. “The First Amendment applies only to efforts by the government to restrict free speech. And even when the government is involved, it’s clear that there is a special zone of protection allowed for children that is not inconsistent with the First Amendment. There have been several court cases--for example, rulings about ‘indecent speech’--that have established this.”

*

Communications laws do not spell out exactly how broadcasters should serve the public interest, and Minow acknowledges that there are legitimate First Amendment concerns about government involvement in regulating television. But, he said, “the balance is off between three values that we cherish: free speech, children and the marketplace. We need to find ways to redress the balance. The marketplace is not serving the needs of children in broadcast TV.”

To improve children’s programming, Minow endorses a proposal put forth by some children’s advocates to have the FCC mandate that broadcasters air at least one hour a day of educational programming for youngsters.

“What we’re talking about is enforcing the original bargain of broadcast-station licensing,” he explained. “If broadcasters are going to serve the public interest, part of that means service to children. If we’re not going to require anything in exchange for getting a free monopoly, then let’s change the system, auction off station licenses and give that money to others to provide services to children.”

Minow is also a strong advocate of the V-chip legislation now pending in Congress that would enable viewers to block objectionable programming. The technology requires that programs be rated in some fashion similar to motion pictures, which he thinks the television industry should volunteer to do.

“TV executives are always saying, ‘If you don’t like the show, turn it off.’ Does a remote-control device violate the rights of broadcasters?” he asked. “The V-chip returns to parents the control of what kind of programming comes into their homes.”

When NBC West Coast President Don Ohlmeyer was asked at a press conference last summer about broadcasters’ responsibilities to children, he said he did not believe viewers would want their TV-viewing choices constrained by what’s appropriate for 10-year-olds, and he maintained that TV should not be asked to be the nation’s baby-sitter.

Minow has little patience with that line of thinking.

“Nobody’s asking TV to be the nation’s baby-sitter--that’s an extreme statement that begs the real issue: What are broadcasters doing that’s good for kids?” he said. “Saturday morning TV is driven by toy advertising, and when kids come home from school in the afternoon, they’re greeted with ‘I slept with my mother’s boyfriend’ and other such topics on the talk shows. I’d like to ask executives and producers to spend a day with TV and their children--could they say, ‘I’m doing the best I can for you on TV’?”