A "Pay or Play" Experiment to Improve Children's Educational Television

L. Levi
{"title":"A \"Pay or Play\" Experiment to Improve Children's Educational Television","authors":"L. Levi","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1464826","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article addresses both the constitutionality and the efficacy of the FCC’s current rules that require broadcasters to air children’s educational programming. It argues that, even though the rules would probably pass muster under the First Amendment, they should nevertheless be substantially revised. Empirical studies show mixed results, with substantial amounts of educationally insufficient programming. This is predictable - attributable to broadcaster incentives, limits on the FCC’s enforcement capacities, and audience factors. Instead, the Article advises a turn away from programming mandates. It proposes a 'pay or play' approach that allows broadcasters to pay a fee to a fund for high-quality public television children’s programming, or to air such programming themselves, or to choose a combination of the two. The Article details some specific suggestions designed to limit both broadcaster game-playing and FCC content-intrusiveness under such a scheme. Ultimately, however, it calls for a ventilation of 'pay or play' models in a public rulemaking proceeding. Such an inquiry might well result in a negotiated compromise. In time, its efficacy could be assessed by comparing the resulting programming to what was aired under the more traditional regulatory approach of the past decade.","PeriodicalId":423100,"journal":{"name":"Federal Communications Law Journal","volume":"94 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Federal Communications Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1464826","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This Article addresses both the constitutionality and the efficacy of the FCC’s current rules that require broadcasters to air children’s educational programming. It argues that, even though the rules would probably pass muster under the First Amendment, they should nevertheless be substantially revised. Empirical studies show mixed results, with substantial amounts of educationally insufficient programming. This is predictable - attributable to broadcaster incentives, limits on the FCC’s enforcement capacities, and audience factors. Instead, the Article advises a turn away from programming mandates. It proposes a 'pay or play' approach that allows broadcasters to pay a fee to a fund for high-quality public television children’s programming, or to air such programming themselves, or to choose a combination of the two. The Article details some specific suggestions designed to limit both broadcaster game-playing and FCC content-intrusiveness under such a scheme. Ultimately, however, it calls for a ventilation of 'pay or play' models in a public rulemaking proceeding. Such an inquiry might well result in a negotiated compromise. In time, its efficacy could be assessed by comparing the resulting programming to what was aired under the more traditional regulatory approach of the past decade.
提高儿童教育电视节目质量的“付费或游戏”实验
本文讨论了联邦通信委员会现行规则的合宪性和有效性,该规则要求广播公司播放儿童教育节目。它认为,尽管这些规则可能会通过第一修正案的审查,但它们仍然应该进行实质性的修改。经验性研究显示出混合的结果,大量的教育不足的编程。这是可以预见的——归因于广播公司的激励、联邦通信委员会执法能力的限制和观众因素。相反,这篇文章建议避开编程指令。它提出了一种“付费或播放”的方式,允许广播公司为高质量的公共电视儿童节目向基金支付费用,或者自己播放这些节目,或者选择两者的结合。文章详细介绍了一些具体的建议,旨在限制广播公司的游戏和FCC的内容侵入在这种方案下。然而,最终,它呼吁在公共规则制定程序中采用“付费或参与”模式。这样的调查很可能导致协商妥协。随着时间的推移,可以通过将由此产生的节目与过去10年在更传统的监管方式下播出的节目进行比较,来评估其有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信