On July 24, 2006, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) asked the general public to comment on the nation’s media ownership policies. One of the rules the Commission is considering addresses whether or not a single owner should be allowed to own two or three broadcast television stations in the same market – what they call “duopolies” and “triopolies.”

Many public interest groups, including Children Now, are concerned about how the formation of duopolies and triopolies may affect the quantity and quality of programs broadcast for children.  While there is a longstanding public debate on the beneficial and detrimental affects of television viewing on children, there are many studies that show that quality educational television programming can have a positive effect on a child’s ability to succeed in school.

 The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) is of the view that that duopoly ownership is “necessary to preserve and enhance television broadcasters’ ability to serve their viewers and communities in markets of all sizes.” This study was designed to test whether or not the NAB’s claim is true with regard to children. More specifically, the study looks at how the children’s programming provided by duopoly stations compares with individually owned competitors in a given market.

 This research examined the number of children’s programs and weekly hours of children’s programming for all commercial broadcast television stations in eight U.S. markets, of varying geographic location and market size. The study focused on two time periods: 1998, before any duopolies existed, and 2006, after several duopolies were established in the markets.

 The results indicated that there has been a dramatic decrease in children’s programming over the past eight years in every market in the study. But the overall trend was not the same for all stations. A comparison of duopoly and non-duopoly stations revealed that by 2006 duopoly stations at best performed no better than non-duopoly stations, and at worst reduced the number of children’s series and weekly hours of children’s programming at significantly greater rates than did non-duopoly stations. There were no markets in which duopoly stations reduced their children’s programming less than did the non-duopoly stations.

Most duopoly stations offered more children’s programming before they became duopolies. And since the majority of duopoly stations in 2006 offered less children’s programming than did non-duopoly stations, this study clearly shows that the formation of duopolies does not, as the NAB claims, “preserve and enhance” station’s abilities to serve the needs of children. Instead, this study lends support to the view that allowing a single owner to own more than one television station in a market leads to a decrease in educational programming.

 Given the results of this research, Children Now calls upon the FCC to protect children’s interests by maintaining the existing media ownership rules and not allowing further media consolidation, specifically the formation of duopolies and triopolies.

The full report “Big Media, Little Kids 2” is available online at the Children Now website at http://childrennow.org .