23

“What's TV Good For?”

Views of Producers of Television for Children around the World

Dafna Lemish

There are few critical studies of the production domains of television for children. Several scholars who have undertaken comprehensive analyses of the children's television industry in the US and UK explored various economic, organizational, commercial, and content-related topics (Alexander & Owers, 2007; Banet-Weiser, 2004; Bryant, 2007; Bryant & Monge, 2008; Buckingham, Davies, Jones, & Kelley, 1999; Hendershot, 2004; Pecora, 1998). These studies unveiled some of the mechanisms in operation in this professional world and demonstrated, for example, how economic pressures enforced institutional decision-making processes that incessantly drive for higher ratings in a profit-driven market.

These studies have also been helpful in documenting the fact that the community of children's television production and broadcasting shares one assumption that seems to be applied in axiomatic fashion, and therefore serves as a non-debatable truism: although girls will watch boys' shows, boys will not watch girls' shows. Direct evidence of this shared belief comes more specifically from the few studies that actually talked to professionals themselves (e.g., Seiter & Mayer, 2004). The implications of this truism are profound, as it provides a rationale – both economic and “moral” – and a general argumentation for the production of more programming aimed at boys' interests and needs, under the umbrella of serving children's tastes and pleasures.

However, overall, we still know very little about what media professionals assume and expect of their child audience, and what role they assign themselves in the production processes (Buckingham, 2008). In a rare example of one such study (Buckingham et al., 1999), the researchers identified four broad discourses about child audience in their interviews with professionals in the UK. The first, a protectionist discourse, perceives the child to be vulnerable to the negative effects of the media and therefore in need of protection. The second discourse is child-centered and dwells on the child's essential nature and unique stages of development, which form the rationale of specific industry practices. The third understands the child to be a consumer of services and goods provided by the industry. And the fourth discourse frames the child as a social actor who is perceived to be a citizen in the making. The authors' discussion focused on the implications of these different discourses of childhood for the practices employed by broadcasters of children's television and for the yet to be realized potential of a research agenda that will probe these findings and discover others.

Though little is known about producers' perspectives on their work, the fundamental reality is that these are the professionals whose thinking and actions create the story lines and representations of social worlds that travel globally on children's screens. The vast literature on the roles screen culture plays in children's lives suggests that it has significant implications for their development and well-being in all aspects of human life: cognitively, socially, emotionally, behaviorally, and even physically and sexually (Calvert & Wilson, 2008; Lemish, 2007; Mazzarella, 2007; Pecora, Murray, & Wartella, 2007; Strasburger, Wilson, & Jordan, 2008). Critical reviews of television programs popular among children suggest that much of what children are watching around the world does not necessarily have their best interest in mind. Indeed, much is violent and imbalanced in terms of gender and human diversity (class, religion, ethnicity, race, disability). Furthermore, it is highly commercialized, hypersexualized, and quite often just plain uninspiring. Yet alternative programming for children does exist on television that is sensitive to their needs and well-being. In my experience, these quality productions are produced for the most part in educational public as well as in small specialist for-profit and not-for-profit organizations around the world, and occasionally by some of the big commercial corporations (Lemish, 2007).

A much debated issue, both in the professional and in the scholarly world, is that of the meanings ascribed to “quality” television. These meanings are embedded in larger concerns about the role of power hierarchies in television for children – concerns such as: Who defines what quality is, and on whose behalf ? What are the criteria for judging quality? Who determines them? And do they shift across cultures as well as over time? Is quality judged differently for different audiences? Have new television genres and aesthetics, as well as innovations in television production techniques, created a need to adjust definitions of what quality means?

Overall, we can say that the criteria of quality employed are colored by value judgments, personal tastes, and emotional responses to television content (McCabe & Akass, 2007). Yet there is a broadly shared view that can be summarized as follows. Quality children's television needs to provide children with programs prepared especially for them without taking advantage of them; programs that entertain, but at the same time try to advance child viewers – physically, cognitively, emotionally, and socially. Furthermore, such programs allow children to hear, see, and express themselves, as well as their culture, language, and life experiences, in ways that affirm their personal identity, community, and place. Doing so requires taking steps to protect and encourage programs that reflect local cultures and cultures with minority languages. At the same time good quality programs for children recognize, and seek to be inclusive of, the significant differences that exist among children, which are the result of their cognitive and emotional development, talents, interests, personality characteristics, interpersonal relationships, and social environment. Finally, such programs are expected to offer children a variety of genres and content that do not necessarily reproduce programs according to a successful formula and that avoid unnecessary presentations of violence, sex, and other contents deemed age-inappropriate (Lemish, 2007, pp. 200–201).

Who, then, are the people engaged in advancing alternative productions for children that can be defined as “quality” television, according to these general domains of agreement about criteria for determining quality television? What do they bring with them to their workplace? How do they perceive their profession, their responsibilities, and their limitations? And, most of all, what roles would they like television to play in fostering children's well-being? The social action research adventure that I advanced sought to answer these questions.¹

The Study

Over the course of four years – between 2004 and 2008 – I interviewed 135 media professionals from 65 countries in all continents, whom I met at various international events for children's media, including the most central ones: Prix Jeunesse International festivals of 2004, 2006, and 2008 in Munich, Germany; the Japan Prize of 2006 in Tokyo, Japan; the Basel–Karlsruhe Forum of 2007 in Basel, Switzerland; and the 5th World Summit on Media for Children in 2007 in Johannesburg, South Africa.² These events are designed to allow professionals to exhibit, exchange and network with, and learn from other professionals concerned with quality productions for children.

Collaboration with the interviewees spanned from enthusiasm and desire to converse and willingness to share ideas and dilemmas through to rare occasions of outright antagonism (although these few incidents do not seem to have anything in common). Most expressions of reluctance to be interviewed were related to a concern about inadequate English linguistic skills and an overburdened schedule during the events. What was clearly helpful for my project was the atmosphere and the expectations of conduct in these international events: professionals who attend them come with a predisposition to interact, network, meet new people, talk about their work, and demonstrate tolerance and interest in the work of others. So, being approached by a total stranger who presented them with a request to meet was a completely normal and accepted situation. Therefore, on the whole, interviewees were agreeable and in the majority of the cases seemed delighted to have an opportunity to talk about themselves and their own work, as well as to express their views on the work of others to which they have been exposed during the event or outside it.

Interviews included questions about the producers' own personal career development; their current work; their perceptions of social issues in their culture and in television for children in their country; their impressions of social representations in their own work and in that of others, which they had viewed in the festivals and elsewhere; their suggestions and aspirations for change – and the like. While I embarked on this study with a specific interest in changing gender representations in children's television around the world, the interviews developed in quite unexpected ways, to encompass a host of issues of concern in television production (such as cultural diversity, the workplace, budgeting, and policy).

Each of the 135 interviews was unique, and, collectively, they created a wide range and diversity of responses. Interviewees employed various types of response techniques that included the use of diversion, confrontation, and avoidance strategies, as well as advancing personal agendas. Overall, it is impossible to summarize their nature in a unified manner, except to say that they required a great deal of flexibility on my part. Almost all interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim, and – since most interviewees were not native English speakers – they were also lightly edited for English, but with the attempt to preserve the style and flavor of the original conversation. The transcripts were later submitted to a grounded thematic analysis of the main issues that surfaced in the interviews.

The presentation of this project here, in a very selective and brief form, mobilizes the expertise of professional producers of quality television, allows their voices to be heard, and in doing so enables them to contribute to debates within the community concerning critical approaches to media studies. I make use of selected quotations to enable the producers to speak for themselves rather than I, the privileged researcher, attempting to represent their views in my own voice. Thus the project that evolved now also illuminates the potential benefits of integrating professional and academic ways of knowing about the media and social world. When quoting or referring to interviewees, I use pseudonyms reflecting their specific gender and culture, as well as their other individual characteristics. The following discussion focuses on two main themes: who the producers of quality television for children are; and what quality television means to them.

Who Are the Producers of Quality Television for Children?

Collectively, producers of quality television for children represented a diversity of cultures, religions, races, historical backgrounds, political regimes, technological advancement, media systems, and a host of other variables that may affect the social realities portrayed on the screens. The predominance of female interviewees (two thirds) is, however, reflective of the professional makeup of the field of media production for children (suggested also by others, see for example Banet-Weiser, 2004). Indeed, many interviewees commented that female professionals dominate the specialty of children and youth as well as educational television within the world of television production; as Augustine (Portugal) put it, “it's a woman's world.” The observation about the feminization of this area is consistent with, and reflects, the traditional segregation of occupations, which perceived the area of children and television to be an extension of women's specialization in the private sphere. Such, for example, was the explanation offered by Hanne (Norway): “Women choose caring jobs and children's television is more caring than economics, news, or sports. So you can see the same pattern: most of the people involved in children's television are women.” A similar argument was put forward by Eric (Canada): “I think it is a way to balance the fact that there are so many men working in media and other fields, and women are caring, and they are good in nurturing children [. . .].” The above two quotes suggest the argument that, first, the definition of femininity includes a capacity for caring, apparently perceived to be lacking in masculinity; and that, second, children's television is an extension of the private sphere of childrearing and nurturing, as is evident in many professions dominated by women (e.g., education, nursing, social work). Many other interviewees supplied evidence of having internalized this position as well. This was particularly evident among female Asian interviewees (from Pakistan, Malaysia, Nepal, Iran), who explained how children's television was perceived to be a legitimate professional area of employment for women in societies where women's presence in the workforce was not necessarily always deemed to be acceptable.

Another explanation offered for the dominant presence of women in this domain relates to the political economy of media employment. Hope (US), for example, provided a structural argument in addition to the nurturing one: “[It] started coming about 25 years ago, when it was a fairly young industry, so women who came in at the bottom, as I did, as somebody's secretary, were able to move up in the rank.” This explanation too, is not unique to the television industry: women find it much easier to move up the ladder in young organizations with a yet to be established tradition of male domination.

That the feminization of media professions is associated with lower status and income, as well as with a lower frequency of long-term contracts, has been documented in many studies (as in the case of the feminization of other professions – education, secretarial work, or family medicine), and its discussion is not within the scope of the present chapter. Yet evidence of this significant phenomenon leads to more general political economy concerns related to the interlocking relations of gender and money (Meehan & Riordan, 2002), including their impact on the field of television for children more generally (e.g., global phenomena of limited governmental support and low budgets for educational children's programming), as well as to the material conditions of women working in this domain of media practice.

Furthermore, there is additional employment segregation along some marked lines within the specialty – and the world – of children's TV. Interviewees agreed that, while women occupy most of the roles of producers, developers of content, and consultants, they remain a minority among those who actually convert these ideas into television programs – that is, among the technological and production professions: directors, camera and sound professionals, or program directors. While organizational and content-oriented roles are more “women-friendly” and are deemed to be more in line with feminine traits and skills, the technical ones have been historically male dominated, and thus more difficult for women to infiltrate and flourish in. Most notably, argued many interviewees, the world of animation, which dominates the industry and perpetuates many of the problematic stereotypes, remains mostly a male world, as very few animation artists are women. Indeed the US animation guild reports a 10% membership of women (Geena Davis Institute, 2007).

In addition to the various aspects of horizontal segregation, many interviewees brought up issues related to vertical segregation – that is, the hierarchal authority structure within each workplace. Despite the fact that children's TV is a “woman's world,” in many places this world is still managed by males at the executive levels of decision-making. While this situation was changing dramatically, according to North American and European interviewees it remained particularly true in many other countries in the rest of the world.

The discussion of the gendered aspects of employment in children's TV brings us back to the point of focus of this study: the influence that this situation may have on the content produced in such an environment. Clearly, television production is not an individual creative activity, but it is part of a contextualized cultural process, situated in a particular institutional setting. However, a specific reference to the personae involved in the “moment” of production “in which cultural objects or texts are brought into being” (Buckingham, 2008, p. 222) deserves our attention. This line of thinking leads us to a series of questions, such as: Do women produce different types of programs from men? Do they prioritize different issues? Do they bring to the screen different perspectives? Do they choose more female characters? Do they develop different narratives? Similar questions have been debated, for example, in the area of news journalism: Do women journalists define news' values in a manner different from men? Do they advance a different social agenda? Use a different language and style? Interview more women and present them in a less stereotypic manner? (see Byerly & Ross, 2006).

Overall, it is interesting to note that few interviewees evidenced any awareness that the gender of persons involved in the TV world makes a difference to the kind of television content produced for children. However, as many of my interviewees suggested in one way or another, it is the survival impulse of making money that is much stronger among female industry leaders than their feminist conscience, and therefore women in positions of power do not necessarily behave differently from their male colleagues in similar decision-making positions or make different choices from the ones they do. As noted above, this argument has been made in relation to other realms of media production, and it suggests that the mere gender of the professional is no guarantee of particular social sensitivities, nor does it provide sufficient motivation to struggle against institutional barriers and to take personal career risks.

Perceiving Television for Children as a Safe and Relevant Space

The overriding theme that emerged from the interviews with regard to producers' perceptions of the role of quality television for children was the desire to present to them a world that is safe, yet relevant to their real life experiences. “Safety” was framed by several of the interviewees in general terms, as a symbolic space where “parents can turn the TV on for their child and not worry that something will suddenly be on it that is disturbing or inappropriate,” as Diklah (Israel) stated. Disturbing and inappropriate are usually terms referring to violent and sexual representations, the two “red flags” often cited by politicians, policymakers, and advocate groups. However, in the context of this study, those concerns were taken for granted, as the interviewees moved beyond them, to much more nuanced concerns regarding the social world presented on television. As Mike (US) expressed passionately:

Similarly, Abby (US) said:

It is interesting to note that both of these quotes surmise that a better world is one not so dominated by money, which was a central underlying theme of the study.

In sharing their visions of a safe and relevant television world, producers framed their ideas within two general meta-themes along the lines of designing a program concept: the nature of characters on children's television, and the characteristics of the context in which the storylines are developed. Interestingly enough, the narratives themselves received little attention in the interviews, as they seemed to be perceived as driven by the creative process of designing strong characters and of placing them in a socially desirable environment. We turn now to the discussion of these two meta-themes.

Strong, Complex, and Diverse Characters

A prerequisite for quality television for children was the presentation of both boys and girls on television as “strong” characters, as suggested by Maggie (Ireland): “A strong character is someone that takes the lead in action, who suggests solutions to problems.” When probed for more details, interviewees suggested that a strong character is, for example, energetic, intelligent, active, trustworthy, cooperative, someone who works toward a goal, overcomes difficulties and deals wisely with conflict. Such characters are supported by good friends and by caring adults. Interviewees referred to an ethical dimension of personality: the character would have to be someone who is respectful and caring of others, and who is concerned about values that go beyond one's own gains and self-centered satisfaction. Brad (US):

A theme repeated by several interviewees addressed the need of both boys and girls to see children overcoming difficulties and becoming stronger and better as a result of the challenge, along with stories of girls and boys who are survivors, not victims. Beatriz (Ecuador) wanted to present a character that “knows very well where she wants to go, what she decides, but [is] also able to show weaknesses, and how to deal with them [. . .] to show the process [of] how one can deal with weakness and convert disabilities into abilities.” Eric (Canada) shifted this thrust when he suggested that boys and girls need programs about finding one's mission in life:

Kate (US), too, believed that engaging characters are what makes the difference in children's television:

Strong characters on children's TV are also complex characters, according to these professional experts. The need for character complexity was one of the central arguments raised by interviewees, given their widespread critique of the general presence of underdeveloped characters and, more specifically, of gender stereotyping. Their arguments claimed that unidimensional characters built upon one specific trait (e.g., being the “bitch-blonde” or “goody-book reader” girl, or being the “bully” or “geek” boy) lend themselves to simplification, stereotyping, and underdeveloped plots. While this is quite an accepted rule in scriptwriting (Cowgill, 1999; Dancyger & Rush, 2007), interviewees insisted that it is essential in efforts that seek to break stereotypes, since underdeveloped characters almost always fall into the trap of reducing the type of person they portray to specific traits, for instance gendered ones, along traditional binaries such as active/passive, rational/emotional, leader/follower, ugly/sexy, intellectual/fun-loving, manipulative/victimized, and so on (Lemish, 2008). Here is Mike's (US) view:

Julie (UK) provided a more detailed explanation in advocating for complexity:

Part of the effort to provide children with a “safe space” of television via the choices made in the presentation of characters was a desire to present a society of inclusion. Elaine (Brazil), for example, suggested: “When we talk about inclusion we are talking about the blacks, and the poor, the disabled, the Indians [. . .].” Similarly, Svein (Norway) described diversity issues related to recent immigration waves from around the world, a concern expressed by many north European interviewees:

The interviewees' discussion of diversity calls for attention to be directed to the intersections between all central human circumstances and characteristics that interact to construct identities: gender, race, ethnicity, class, religion, language, geography, history, abilities, age, sexuality, family. Diversity is required everywhere, in all the forms and types of characters in fiction and non-fiction formats, both frontstage and backstage: different bodily and facial shapes and skin colors, costuming and apparel of all cultural styles and fashions, languages and accents, home interiors and foods, customs and religious traditions. This diversity should reflect the urban and the rural ways of life, as well as the various classes that constitute and are representative of children's worlds. Good characters and exciting stories can appear in all colors, shapes, and forms.

Overall, participants' framing of diversity assumed a general liberal position, most often referred to as multiculturalism and tolerance for difference, expressed by means of representations that are consistent with the changing configurations of societies and with the challenges involved in shifting away from the hegemonic whiteness on television. Interestingly, while racial hybridity seems to be a growing feature of commercial children's television and related merchandising (with popular images such as the Bratz Girls, Lizzie McGuire, or the Cheetah Girls), interviewees did not address it directly or give it as an example of representations to be included in children's programming. Hybridity and racial ambiguity can be interpreted as producers' acknowledgment of the lack of racial purity, yet at the same time it seems to work as a successful marketing strategy, which attracts diverse audiences through a limited number of characters that seem to speak to all of them. One ambiguous “Brown” character can appeal to a wide range of ethnicities – including Latin, Middle Eastern, Asian, and Native American – without alienating public of Caucasian descent (Valdivia 2008; 2009). With trends of colorism (the whitening of people of color), even some Black populations can relate to the character “Brown” as one of their own. This may help, for example, to explain the global success of the Nickelodeon pre-school hit Dora the Explorer (2000–); the ease with which Japanese animation featuring racially ambiguous characters travels; or the popularity of High School Musical (2006), whose lead female character is a Latina. For some interviewees, hybrid characters represent a true vision of a world of racial equality, one in which people create life together on the basis of who they are and of the nature of their relationship, rather than on the basis of their biological and cultural heritages. However, for others, hybridity represents a form of “dissolving” or “erasing” race instead of marking and celebrating it, and therefore a true danger to the preservation of heritage and a threat to the most basic beliefs that constitute people's identities.

These concerns build upon a feminist reaction to the historical failures of a variety of media, including children's programming, to incorporate the diversity of marginalized voices: of young people, of non-heterosexuals, of the disabled, of people of color, and of people from lower classes of society. It is worth noting, however, that sensitivity to diversity issues has come to be understood not only as a moral and political issue, but also as a requirement for a central cognitive skill that is crucial for survival in the global world. The need to cultivate a “respectful mind,” as Gardner (2008) defines it – responding systematically and constructively to differences among individuals and among groups, seeking to understand and work with those who are different – extends beyond mere tolerance and political correctness, into the realm of flourishing and well-being. Indeed, Todd (US) described a program he was producing along these lines:

As Todd explained, highlighting commonalities in spite of their cultural manifestations is perceived as a means to advance tolerance and cultural understanding.

Finally, related to the notion of presenting strong, complex, and diverse characters was the suggestion to present, in children's programming, the perspectives of children themselves, as they are viewed and expressed by them. The notion of empowering underrepresented and misrepresented groups by giving them a voice in the media has been discussed extensively by scholars with diverse interests and coming from a variety of theoretical approaches (Couldry, 2008). Children, in particular, lack space, a voice, and hence agency – both in the theorizing of childhood and in its representation, in all cultural and media forms. The extremely limited presentation of children's voices in research has led some scholars to question our ability to make sense of their media experiences and of what can be concluded about their inner worlds. One form of “giving voice” is the development of children-and youth-made media – for example independent blogging, the posting of photos and art-work, and the production of home videos and biographical documentaries; guided school projects; aided productions in training workshops and specialty classes; or involvement in social movements and activism through the use of media and through the production of messages. The value of these activities in the development of literacy skills, civic engagement, and personal growth has been widely discussed (see Chalfen, 2008; Kearney, 2006). However, in the context of our discussion, “giving voice” has quite a different (albeit related) meaning, as it refers essentially to enabling children's perspectives to be expressed in adult-produced media. For the most part, this is rationalized by producers in terms of the importance of the programs becoming relevant to children's lives and in terms of producing better “value” and higher quality programming for children audiences. These interviewees felt that creators of children's programs often talk about children rather than letting children talk for themselves. This was also expressed in the form of a distinction between programs about children and programs for children. This distinction suggests that a program featuring children does not necessarily have children's well-being and needs as its goal.

Several examples illustrate this argument: Emma (Bolivia) said: “We made a series with the title With Our Own Voices where children talk about their lives, about their rights. They can speak, they can talk with their point of view; and I think it's very important that they do so in their language [. . .].” Margaret (Kenya) shared: “We were watching a program from Asia about a girl who wants to go to school and it is very interesting because it was a story from a girl's point of view [. . .] so the issues are still the same but from a different point of view.” And Mpule (Botswana) recommended: “I give them all voices so that they share how they feel, they share their success stories, their fears, their disappointments together. Let them have a face.” Thus it became clear that casting children as program characters may be a necessary, but is certainly not a sufficient, condition for a program to be considered a quality program for children.

In summary, then, according to my interviewees, a diversified screen provides more realistic and humane portrayals of current societies around the world, and is also central to the well-being of the children growing within them. It celebrates girls and boys as children who share the same challenges, aspirations, morality, dreams, and hopes; children who need love and friendships, have adventures and overcome difficulties; children who are curious and eager to explore their surroundings, and who struggle with their multiple identities; children who try to carve their place in the world. Children's television, the interviewees advocated, needs to present children who are self-willed, positive, share their problems and accomplishments. Good programming, so the interviewees told me, brings children closer to each other and at the same time closer to themselves. With so much in common, sticking to gender and racial stereotypes “is just plain lazy,” they often said, while developing fun and smart characters who are true to themselves but also do unexpected things is difficult and creative. As many of the conversations unfolded, it became clear that breaking stereotypes and opening up the screen to the possibility of blurring gender and racial differences and of offering children a real choice that cuts across divides is seen by interviewees as a way to foster a safer and healthier environment for children's growth and development.

Between the Local and the Global/US

In addition to offering children strong, complex, and diverse characters with their own voice, interviewees believe that television has a responsibility to offer children visions of a socially desirable context in which such characters take action. Concern for social context spreads on a wide spectrum, from family arrangements on the one hand to a global world order on the other. The presentation of children growing up while they are supported and cared for by responsible and loving adults is claimed by many to be one of the major contributions that television can make to assist children. These may be street children in huge urban centers whose life circumstances left them to fend for themselves, or “latchkey” children of affluent families – of parents caught in the pressures of a competitive capitalist world who pamper their children with leisure technologies and accessories as replacements for a real and meaningful presence in their lives. Given this emphasis on change, I should also note that none of the interviewees spoke in favor of restoring a traditional family structure with a clear distinction between the private and the public sphere, with a stay-home mom and a wage-winning dad. Neither did they specifically address children as the purpose and goal of family life – a central notion associated with capitalism (Kapur, 2004). Instead they expressed a wish to recapture the view of families as responsible for the well-being of children, and particularly a view of adults as significant caregivers and upholders of culture and tradition.

Indeed, for many of the interviewees, particularly those from non-Western countries, television for children was expected to serve nation-building roles and to encourage children, first and foremost, to love and take pride in their own culture even as they learn tolerance to others. As Sumita (Bangladesh) put it: “Good television for children means that you teach them that they should love their country, they should love their culture, and also they should gain knowledge of other cultures.” This theme was strongly entangled with a discussion about the Americanization of children's television around the world. Producers were cognizant of the unique “feel” of their local productions, as they were constantly comparing their work to that of others in their profession – especially those in the “imagined production center” of what they referred to as the Westernized television screen. This social practice of “imagination,” to apply Appadurai's (1990) conceptualization, refers to the construction of collective aspirations for some global sense of place. The interviewees, however, tried to dissociate themselves from such a collective imagination, as they were wishing for their own local voice to be on the screens that children were watching.

Thus the much debated tension between “local” and “global” and the perceived consequences of cultural globalization, as well as the differing conceptual varieties of Americanization and Westernization (Featherstone, 1990; Feguson, 1992; Tomlinson, 1999), were salient in the interviewees' reflections on their own work. Unsurprisingly, “global,” as used by the interviewees, rarely meant “universal.” Indeed globalization seemed to refer to the spread of products and images mediated by the West (Sreberny-Mohammadi, 1991), from which none of the countries involved in this study was immune. Thus the notion of “the West and the Rest” came out very clearly in their discourse, together with a form of cultural particularism through which producers attempted to assert their own unique identities. The claim that we live in a world increasingly characterized by Americanization has been put forth repeatedly by these interviewees, reflecting much of the intellectual and political thought on these issues. Objections to the erosive power of globalization on local cultures have frequently featured among the fears of Americanization: the influence of the US and, more specifically, of its values, ideology, economics, political interests, and culture. As in other realms of discussion, the critique expressed “from the ground up” by the producers here is strongly entangled with admiration for things North American, as well as with a desire to perform at a similar professional level.

This cultural “feel” was frequently framed within the local–global tension, highlighting a clear “we” versus “they” binary. Mapule (Botswana) expressed it quite bluntly when she said:

Mapule recognized the dependency of her society on the resources and training offered by the developed West, but she suggested that this comes at a price – the price paid to the cultural authenticity of the images on the screen.

Interestingly, the “we” versus “they” was not unique to non-Western societies alone, as many of the interviewees from European countries – as well as from Australia and Canada – defined themselves as “we” in contrast with a specific US “they.” For them, globalization trends are clearly synonymous with American imperialism, as they do not perceive themselves to be part of the Westernizing cultural trend. While it is impossible to measure the intensity of responses in this type of study, my reading of the interviews suggests that the interviewees from Western non-American countries were as concerned and critical of US television as the non-Western producers were. Sarah's (Australia) argument is paradigmatic of such views:

Comparing one's television programs to the dominant US ones was a common discursive strategy adopted spontaneously by many of the interviewees, regardless of the topic under discussion. Kasper (Denmark), for example, compared his culture to the US screen:

The longing for more visibility of their own culture, as expressed above, was shared by many of the producers and was interwoven with a deep concern for issues related to the political economy of local production, as Leona (Philippines) explained:

Valentina (Chile) recounted in her own voice what she understood children to be saying, on the basis of their participation in a workshop conducted by her station:

Some producers took this desire for cultural visibility a step forward and translated it into their actual work. Suzanna (Kenya), for example, was more proactive about the ways in which they attempted to highlight cultural uniqueness:

Interestingly, Suzanna, like many of her fellow interviewees, is not blind to the potentially valuable contributions that some US television for children is providing, as her example of the Powerpuff Girls (1998–2005) implies. Again, like most other participants in this study, she is also quite familiar with the “big hits” traveling around the world and attracting children all over. Nevertheless she positions the specific needs of raising the “leaders of tomorrow” in her and their Kenyan culture in clear opposition to what US productions can offer them.

Indeed, on occasion, discussions of discrepancies between the local and the North American were perceived as cultural clashes and took a clear form of critique. Direct blame was directed at US television and its role in perpetuating inappropriate values (e.g., consumerism; a Caucasian unattainable “beauty myth”; middle-class lifestyle; hypersexualization of culture). Interviewees even critiqued approaches employed by US producers, claiming that they flooded the children's television market with stereotypical representations of the supposed American way of life and its associated gender roles and racial stereotypes.

Thus US programming was criticized at many levels: for being stereotypical of gender and race; for perpetuating a particular, unattainable beauty model for girls; for being irrelevant to indigenous cultures; for being too limited in the scope of its content and in issues for children as they mature; for unnecessarily accelerating adulthood. True, these critiques echo many of the themes that dominate the discourse in the literature about cultural imperialism. Yet these are not views of academics, but rather statements made by practitioners, people who populate the production professions in the television industry around the world, most of whom are far removed from the heated intellectual debate flowing through academic journals and argued over in conference halls. That is, these are the views of hands-on television producers, who watch a lot of television for children from around the world and who struggle to create their own.

Some of the North American interviewees dismissed the notion of “American values,” claiming that the US culture itself is heterogeneous, and they disregarded the conflation of economical interests with cultural influence. A few of them referred specifically to 9/11 as a sea-change date that made them think differently about their role as television producers, as Todd (US) explained: “I think one of the things we say [is that] we have to teach children not only to respect the differences but, after 9/11, how to stand up to intolerance, and so that's part of what we are trying to do in our shows.” Abby (US) also reflected on the particular global circumstances in which US children are raised today and on what she would like to see television provide children:

Children, so the argument goes, are facing similar global issues of personal safety, anxiety over the future of the world and their place in it. Television has a responsibility toward all the children to help them become courageous citizens of this world.

North American professionals also brought up the fact that they adopt (and adapt) programs produced elsewhere; the unprecedented success of the Japanese animation series Pokémon is a case in point. This is an example of the “the Megaphone Effect,” according to which “true acceptance of a cultural product seems to come from crossing the Atlantic and becoming a success in the United States [following which] items seem to acquire an ever-expanding sphere of appeal extending across the globe” (Bloch & Lemish, 2003, p. 159). Pokémon began in 1996 as a video game used in Nintendo's Gameboy; it became a popular TV series, a card game, a movie, and then the subject of massive merchandising. From Japan it traveled to the US and from there to the rest of the world, becoming an instant hit, dubbed “Pokémania” in the late 1990s. The international commercial success of Pokémon was based on the effective use of localizing. This included the omission of five episodes, deemed unacceptable to US child audiences on account of the overly sexual objectification of the female character; changing the names of characters so that they would have a more appealing sound to the US ear; and changing color schemes (see Tobin 2004).

Direct reference to such forms of localizing was provided, for example, by Dana (Israel), who, in her discussion of purchasing Japanese animation, explained:

Dana's explanation serves well to illustrate how US plays the role of a cultural megaphone for products whose origins lie elsewhere.

Such adaptation efforts are immediately relevant to the desire for authenticity, which came across strongly in the interviews, as a call for television programs for children to be constructed with depictions of true-to-life characters, narratives, and social contexts. There seemed to be broad agreement among this global collection of interviewees that most popular commercial television texts designed for children (as well as for adults) promote behaviors and attitudes that are inauthentic in relation to viewers' own inner selves and desires, while camouflaging the structural mechanisms in operation behind them.

Children's TV and Social Change

Overall, then, the interviewees' discourse, presented here in a very selective, condensed, and brief form is about processes of change – those that are taking place and those that need to occur – in the global television industry's productions oriented to young audiences. Through citations from the interviews I conducted, we come to learn about the producers' ideologies and these ideologies' extension into production practices, the producers' experimentations with a safer social world, relevantly negotiated by the media, as well as the interviewees' alignment with the discourse of social responsibilities and how they advance their visions for social change. As a presentation of itself, this action research project mobilized the expertise of professional producers of quality television, allowed their voices to be heard, and in doing so enabled them to contribute to debates within the community of critical approaches to media studies.

The trend to deliberately incorporate a variety of social issues – health, literacy, risk behavior, conflict resolution, racial tolerance, and so on – in the programming of all the genres of entertainment viewed regularly by children and youth (including soap operas and telenovelas, cartoons, drama, talk shows, quiz shows, and reality TV genres) is particularly evident in the non-Westernized world. This approach draws from the study of “edutainment” genres – that is, an integration of education with entertainment (Singhal & Rogers, 1999) – which have been constructed and employed around the world to advance social change. It recruits popular television texts to advance awareness of social issues, with the ultimate goal of contributing to the empowerment of young viewers by offering them not only information and knowledge, but also role models, reasons, values, and the motivation to be involved in shaping attitudes and actions that can be incorporated in their own everyday life. The effectiveness of most such efforts has yet to be studied in a systematic, comprehensive manner, although, from what we already know about the relationship between children and media, there is reason to believe that such an approach does have a great potential to contribute to the well-being of children viewers.

However, a critical view of the obstinately conservative status of children's programming in relation to the possibility of change was shared by many interviewees, and even by top executives of major US media corporations. And, interestingly, there seems to be widespread agreement that, since “it is all about money,” the most effective arguments for advancing change should not be moralistic ones about social responsibility, but rather arguments that are framed as profit-driven: arguments that demonstrate how money can be made by changing images and by catering to growing demands from the children audience. As one top executive who spoke on promise of anonymity observed: “The best way to promote change is to show there is profit in it.” In reflecting later over this proposal, a Latin American executive sighed: “No wonder that television is called, in the US, the ‘industry.’” She explained, in response to my request for clarification, that the choice of the term “industry” (over “arts” or “world,” for example) reflects the ideological value system behind it: this is a corporate world driven by profit considerations, producing goods on an assembly line, to be sold to mass consumers. Thus “better” programming, for the industry, does not mean “socially better,” but rather “more profitable.”

In striking contrast, many interviewees – particularly those more gender-sensitive, socially engaged, and involved in advancing change – reflected on the need to develop their own awareness and social consciousness continually, because they admitted to falling regularly into the trap of gender bias, for example – given that all of us have been so strongly acculturated to gender blindness. Interestingly, they employed a model of social epistemology that assigned researchers a very important role: scholars can assist them by conducting action research that will put at their disposal data and observations about attempts to advance programming and about organizational changes related to key social issues. Furthermore, their critical perspective challenges the axioms discussed above and draws a rich agenda for the socially engaged research that is involved in policy and programming changes: Is it true that boys will not watch girls' programs? Will introducing greater diversity expand audience numbers, or will it lead to a decline in them? Do new images of boys and girls, as well as of new relationships and collaborations between them, appeal to various young audiences? How do children react to seeing persons who do not fit the “ideal appearances” of the people on their screens? How are decisions made in organizations that produce and broadcast for children?

Overall, I concluded that most of these interviewees want to be listened to and to learn from relevant research that will help them in their decision-making processes. This finding stands in sharp contrast to another accepted “axiom” employed in both academic and industry circles: one that argues that these two professional worlds are mutually suspicious, disrespectful, and dismissive. Accordingly, so the axiom goes, professionals believe that academic research functions in an unapproachable and generally out-of-touch “ivory tower,” irrelevant because it is unaware of, or unwilling to account for, the constraints of “the real world.” In turn, academics believe that many professionals are too arrogant and uninformed to listen to solid, substantiated, and evidence-based advice. The findings of this study support a view that is diametrically opposed to both claims: the media professionals who participated in the study call for serious, in-depth, and productive collaboration between these two worlds of expertise.

The professionals' desire for collaboration with academics is encouraging, given the rise, in academic associations and published scholarship, in current debates about the role of communication scholars as public intellectuals (Garter, Dutta, & Cole, 2009). Indeed, this study can be seen as an example of how engaged scholars of media studies and media professionals can move beyond conventional studies of media representations toward developing our understanding of the ideologically driven mechanisms, political economy constraints, and means of production that drive the images that both academics and many media professionals have been criticizing for so long.

NOTES

1 This chapter is based, with permission, on Lemish, D. (2010). Screening gender on children's television: The views of producers around the world. New York, NY: Routledge.

2 For a detailed methodological account, see Lemish (2010, Chapter 2).

REFERENCES

Alexander, A., & Owers, J. (2007). The economics of children's television. In J. A. Bryant (Ed.), The children's television community (pp. 57–74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global economy. Theory, Culture and Society, 7, 295–310.

Banet-Weiser, S. (2004). Girls rule! Gender, feminism, and Nickelodeon. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 21(2), 119–39.

Bloch, L. R., & Lemish, D. (2003). The Megaphone Effect: The international diffusion of cultural media via the USA. In P. J. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 27(pp. 159–190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bryant, J. A. (Ed.) (2007). The children's television community. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bryant, J. A., & Monge, P. R. (2008). The evolution of the children's television community 1953–2003. International Journal of Communication, 2, 160–192.

Buckingham, D. (2008). Children and media: A cultural studies approach. In K. Drotner & S. Livingstone (Eds.), The international handbook of children, media and culture (pp. 219–236). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Buckingham, D., Davies, H., Jones, K., & Kelley, P. (1999). Children's television in Britain: History, discourse and policy. London, UK: British Film Institute.

Byerly, C. M., & Ross, K. (2006). Women and media. A critical introduction. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Calvert, S. L., & Wilson, B. J. (Eds.) (2008). The Blackwell handbook of children, media and development. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Chalfen, R. (2008). To see what it's like to live like you: The popularity of making kids make pictures. Paper presented at the seminar “Emergent seeing and knowing: Mapping practices of participatory visual methods.” Harvard University, Radcliff Institute for Advanced Study.

Couldry, N. (2008). Media and the problem of voice. In N. Carpentier & B. De Cleen (Eds.), Participation and media production: Critical reflections on content creation (pp. 15–26). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Cowgill, L. J. (1999). Secrets of screenplay structure: How to recognize and emulate the structural frameworks of great films. New York, NY: Watson-Guptill.

Dancyger, K., & Rush, J. (2007). Alternative screenwriting: Successfully breaking the rules. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Focal Press/Elsevier.

Featherstone, M. (Ed.). (1990). Global culture: Nationalism, globalization and modernity. London, UK: Sage.

Feguson, M. (1992). The mythology about globalization. Journal of European Communication, 7, 69–93.

Gardner, H. (2008). Five minds for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Garter, L. M., Dutta, M. J., & Cole, C. E. (Eds.). (2009). Communicating for social impact: Engaging communication theory, research, and pedagogy. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Geena Davis Institute on Gender and Media. (2007). Website. Retrieved February 2007, from http://www.thegeenadavisinstitute.org

Hendershot, H. (Ed.). (2004). Nickelodeon nation: The history, politics, and economics of America's only TV channel for kids. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Kapur, J. (2004). Coining, for capital: Movies, marketing, and the transformation of childhood. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Kearney, M. C. (2006). Girls make media. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lemish, D. (2007). Children and television: A global perspective. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Lemish, D. (2008). Gender representation in media. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), International encyclopedia of communication (pp. 1945–1951). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Mazzarella, S. R. (Ed). (2007). 20 questions about youth and the media. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

McCabe, J., & Akass, K. (Eds.). (2007). Quality TV: Contemporary American television and beyond. London, UK: I. B. Tauris.

Meehan, E. R., & Riordan, E. (2002). Sex and money: Feminism and political economy in the media. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Pecora, N. (1998). The business of children's entertainment. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Pecora, N., Murray, J. P., & Wartella, E. A. (Eds.). (2007). Children and television: Fifty years of research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Seiter, E., & Mayer, V. (2004). Diversifying representation in children's TV: Nickelodeon's model. In H. Hendershot (Ed.), Nickelodeon nation: The history, politics, and economics of America's only TV channel for kids (pp. 120–133). New York, NY: New York University Press.

Singhal, A., & Rogers, E. M. (1999). Entertainment-education: A communication strategy for social change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sreberny-Mohammadi, A. (1991). The global and the local in international communications. In J. Curran and M. Gurevitch (Eds.), Mass media and society (pp. 118–138). London, UK: Edward Arnold.

Strasburger, V., Wilson, B. J., & Jordan, A. B. (2008). Children, adolescents and the media (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tobin, J. (2004). Pikachu's global adventure: The rise and fall of Pokémon. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Tomlinson, J. (1999). Globalization and culture. Cambridge, UK: Polity

Valdivia, A. N. (2008). Mixed race on Disney Channel: From Johnnie Tsunami through Lizzie McGuire and ending with the Cheetah Girls. In M. Beltrán & C. Fojas (Eds.), Mixed race Hollywood: Multiraciality in film and media culture (pp. 269–289). New York, NY: New York University Press.

Valdivia, A. N. (2009). Living in a hybrid material world: Girls, ethnicity and doll products. Girlhood Studies, 2(1), 73–93.