A March 30 New York Times article ("Bob and Barney, With a Few Words from Sponsors") highlighted a new partnership between PBS, Comcast, the Sesame Workshop and HIT Entertainment (producer of "Barney and Friends"). In short, the article described a new 24-hour digital cable channel for preschoolers that will feature popular PBS kids programming -- plus commercials. Yes, you read it right -- commercials.

What happened to PBS being the safe haven for children and families? Isn’t that one of the reasons families choose PBS; to avoid the very commercial exploitation they are subjected to on other networks? Apparently the powers that be have washed their hands of any responsibility to the millions of children who will be subjected to yet another commercial enterprise.

"I don't like pitching products to young children and I never have," said Joan Ganz Cooney, a co-founder of Children's Television Workshop (now "Sesame Workshop"). "But to some degree that is nostalgia for a time that is past,” said Cooney in the same New York Times article.

Hold on -- nostalgia for a time that is past?! Since when did the Children’s Television Network and PBS decide it was OK to use the children they serve as pawns for their own financial benefit?

If your reaction to this news is indifferent, I would submit that is part of the problem. Over the last 20 years the increase in advertising and marketing to children has increased exponentially. This year children in the U.S. will spend and influence the spending of more than $1 trillion. Companies pursue children with rabid intensity because there is so much money at stake -- both in present and future purchases.

The unfortunate byproducts of commercial exploitation -- childhood obesity, depression and low self-esteem -- have been well documented by noted sociologist and best selling author Juliet Schor, of the Judge Baker Children’s Center at Harvard University and the National Institute on Media and the Family. Surely executives at PBS are aware of this research.

In 1969 Fred Rogers (aka Mister Rogers) appeared before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Communications to advocate for the support of public broadcasting.

According to the History of Education Quarterly (Summer 2003), "Rogers spoke with his familiar quiet passion about the social and emotional learning young children need to grow up as confident and constructive members of society, and how alternative television programming such as the Neighborhood could help nurture these qualities in children -- especially by contrast to other messages children were receiving from popular culture and media."

To all of the executives at the 170 PBS stations around the country who must decide if it makes sense to "opt in" to the Comcast partnership (FYI -- each station has a choice and many are still on the fence), I urge you to consider the following question: What would Mister Rogers do?

The following are a few suggestions of things you can do to share your opinion on this important issue.

1. Spend time calling, e-mailing or writing your local PBS affiliate. Tell them you are opposed to the Comcast partnership.
2. If you’re a PBS member, consider reducing or withholding financial support.
3. Visit commercialalert.org and sign their petition protesting this new venture.
4. Forward this article to a friend and ask them to participate.

By taking action, how might that improve a young person's financial future?

One of the primary barriers to developing healthy financial habits is understanding the gross imbalance of messages that relentlessly hype spending. For children, the lines between needs and wants are perpetually blurred. Unfortunately for many this will evolve into a life-long struggle. The situation will only improve when people speak out and demand change.

This question is designed to build on the Share-Save-Spend tip for the week and can be used as a springboard for additional conversations with family and friends.

"Companies desperately want to get into high schools, because they know they are getting a captive audience with disposable income that is about to make decisions of lifelong preference, like Coke versus Pepsi," said David Carter of the Sports Marketing Group, a California company.

Source: New York Times, Oct. 17, 2004