Children's Television Shouldn't be Regulated; T. F. Harris, Jr.

Exactly what, according to ACT, is wrong with children's television? Well, it seems that most of what children watch is "just dumb." Furthermore, children must be protected from "over-commer cialization," particularly when it comes to pro grams which are themselves commercials for a product. While ACT's complaints may seem well-found ed at first, they don't stand up to scrutiny. In the first place, children generally aren't interested in educational programming. They watch "dumb" shows to be entertained. After all, whyshould chil dren be any different from adults, who scorn Mr. Harris is studying political science at Auburn Uni versity. "quality" television in favor of sitcoms and soap operas? Every day there is more evidence that the viewing habits of children are similar to those of adults. Game shows, long a staple of adult televi sion, are now appearing as children's program ming. One example is the immensely popular game show,"Double Dare." Ms. Charren says that broadcasters should be ashamed of their pro grams. But there is no shame in providing con sumers with shows they want.

Consider, for example, the cartoon "G.I. Joe." "G.I. Joe" was under constant attack for being too violent, mindless, and for being a "program-length commercial" for a brand of "war toys." Critics, however,totally missed the program's good points. In the program's early days, the stories and anima tion were of very high quality. Story lines were innovative and were written by some of the best writers in the industry,includingthe highlyrespect ed comicbook author Marv Wolfman.One story in particular dealt with the children of Vietnam veter ans who grew up in Vietnam without fathers and who were outcasts in Vietnamese society.Such pro grams may not teach children their ABC's, but who can claim that they are not "quality"? However, when the story and animation quality of "G.I. Joe" began to decline, so did the show's ratings. The "program-length commercial" disap peared from the airwaves even as the toys it was "selling" continued to dominate the market. Quite simply,children tuned in to be entertained. When the fun stopped, they tuned out.

As for "over-commercialization," Ms. Charren 30 THE FREEMAN • JANUARY 1991 "/ like everything Big Bird's ever done." DRAWINGBY M. TWOHY; © 1990 THE NEW YORKER MAGAZINE,INC. and her associates act as if it were a crime for advertisers to aim commercials at their intended audience. It is the advertiser's job to target ads toward children. It would be sillyto run advertise ments aimed at senior citizens during "Pee Wee's Playhouse." The only people not doing their job are the parents. Their job is to just say "no." Here is the root of the children's television "cri sis." Parents either cannot or will not take respon sibilityfor their children. Parents want the govern ment to step in with controls and regulations so that they won't be put in the position of saying "no" to their children. The fewer commercials children see, the less parents will need to say "no." The less "junk" on television, the less often parents will need to change the channel or turn the TV off. Par ents just don't want the hassle of crying children.

The problem goes far beyond children's televi sion. In every walk of life, parents want govern ment to take the responsibility out of parenting. But who ever said that parenting would be easy? Children shouldn't be deprived of entertain ment just because they are young. It is far better to let the ratings figures determine what goes on tele vision than any small group of individuals, no mat ter how "concerned" they are. 0 31 Calling the Bluff: Reflections on Liar's Poker by Katherine M. Boudreaux L iar's Poker by Michael Lewis (Norton, 1989)has been trumpeted as one of a num ber of indictments of the 1980s, a time when greed reigned supreme and unfettered mar ketsresulted in moral and financial ruin. This near unanimous interpretation by book reviewers gave me little incentive to purchase Lewis' book. How ever, with some time between classes this past spring, and a copy borrowed from a colleague's shelves, I did read Liar's Poker. The title, it turns out, is indeed appropriate: Lewis wants us to believe that he is baffled by this supposed world of excess in which he participated. But he is bluffing.