Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume XXX, Public Diplomacy

209. Information Memorandum Prepared by the Associate Director for Educational and Cultural Affairs, International Communication Agency (Ilchman)¹

Washington, July 11, 1980

SUBJECT

• Fall, 1979, “Books and Broadcasting for Children”—An International Symposium

The attached assessment (prepared by Marti Villarreal of the ECA staff) is an unusually balanced and readable report on a complex project. “Books and Broadcasting for Children” was USICA’s major contribution to the UN-designated International Year of the Child.

The project is worth reviewing for several reasons. Its genesis and funding required support and approval by the Director. It was exceedingly effective in building bridges to interested American private sectors (35 groups and private sector institutions were ultimately allied with USICA in the project). It proved to be the only really effective U.S. Government agency response to the IYC.

At the end of the report is an assessment of the opportunities seized (and missed) in implementing the project.

Attachment

Assessment Prepared in the Associate Directorate for Educational and Cultural Affairs, International Communication Agency²

Washington, undated

AN ASSESSMENT OF USICA’S ROLE IN “BOOKS AND BROADCASTING FOR CHILDREN”—AN INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM

What became USICA’s major program effort for the International Year of the Child (IYC) began with two separate grant proposals received by Private Sector Programs (then ECA/IP) in 1978. Both were concerned with media activities aimed at children. The first originated with Virginia Haviland, Director of the Library of Congress Children’s Literature Center, and Mr. John Donovan, Executive Secretary of the Children’s Book Council. They asked grant funding to bring international authors, librarians and books to the attention of American librarians and educators through regional workshops, media participation and public presentations. They were interested in both authors of printed works and in those involved in preserving the oral traditions in children’s literature prevalent in much of the developing world.

The second proposal came from Cecily Truett, a young TV producer who had just completed a successful public television series STUDIO SEE³ for the South Carolina Educational TV Network. Additionally, she had participated in the Munich PRIX JEUNESSE⁴ and had developed many international contacts in children’s television programming. She wished to establish a private international body to promote higher standards and international exchanges of children’s TV programs of an educational, cultural and entertainment character. The first step would be a “model” international conference on children’s TV programming. Ms. Truett also believed she could obtain financial support from other sectors. USICA staff members were intrigued with the proposal, feeling that the new Agency could play a role in such a pilot project which involved both education and international dialogue. However, they made three stipulations: (1) find a PBS station willing to collaborate; (2) get an international commitment; (3) enlarge the project to include a children’s literature component.

USICA was represented on the Interagency Council for the International Year of the Child by Anthony Hackley, Program Development Officer (PGM/D). The Agency had no plans at that time for formal programs in connection with the event, and IYC was not included in Agency Country Plans. However, Mildred Marcy, then Director of Institutional Relations (ECA/I) and Dr. Wilbur Blume, Program Officer, saw unique and innovative possibilities for USICA through some combination of the two projects, plus added possibilities in accomplishing it during IYC. Among those opportunities were the following:

1. It would be an excellent chance to work with the domestic constituency USICA had been mandated to develop.

2. Cooperation with the Interagency Committee on IYC would be good interagency politics and could contribute to the success of future programming.

3. A project combining media with education concepts was clearly suited to USICA.

4. If the applicants could obtain other funding, it would be an excellent test of joint funding concepts.

By December, 1978, Ms. Truett had managed to persuade WPBT–TV, Miami, South Florida’s Educational TV outlet, to co-sponsor her proposal. She also got a commitment from PRIX JEUNESSE of DM 10,000 (which was later withdrawn), plus commitments from the Boston Book Council and the Children’s Literature Section of the Library of Congress. Accordingly, she and Ms. Haviland met with USICA personnel to discuss a joint project. At this point Ms. Haviland withdrew, suggesting that the Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC), a division of the American Library Association (ALA) be invited to participate instead. ALSC Executive Secretary Mary Jane Anderson discussed the project with USICA and Ms. Truett in Washington in late 1978. The rough working draft of their two proposals became “BOOKS AND BROADCASTING FOR CHILDREN: An International Symposium.”

DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE

The basic concept was that since books in translation, as well as radio and TV signals, transcend national boundaries, it was especially important and beneficial to bring together professionals in both fields from a variety of geographic and cultural backgrounds to let them discover and explore ways of contributing to the enrichment and improvement of each other’s work. Such a meeting could also focus on the need for a more universal interpretation of children’s media made inevitable by impending technological change. The Books and Broadcasting Symposium would assemble 30 professionals, equally divided between print and broadcast media, for a 36-day period to identify and discuss their common problems with possible solutions, to prepare a workshop production demonstrating steps taken in translating print literature to the broadcast medium, and to share their knowledge and experiences with U.S. professionals. The dates were set—September 13–October 19, 1979. As it eventually developed, the Symposium was to begin with seminars for the entire group in Boston, New York and Washington, to take advantage of the number of experts present in those centers. The participants would then divide into small groups following USICA’s International Visitor format, and visit other areas of the United States, with itineraries suggested by their individual needs and suggestions made by members of ALSC and the educational broadcasters. The group would reassemble in Miami for the final workshop production and evaluation. The candidates selected were to be nationally recognized leaders concerned with these media and their implementation for children, or scholars with an interest in children’s growth and development.

The ALA Executive Board and the ALSC Board of Directors gave their approval to the project in January, 1979. Grants were then written by ECA/IP.

As the program evolved, financing problems grew in step. The USICA grants amounted to $33,120 to the ALA and $39,754 to WPBT–TV. ECA/IP had the promises of cooperative assistance from a number of other sources, both Government and private. WPBT–TV, for example, eventually contributed facilities and staff services amounting to $18,000 for the production workshop. The Children’s Book Council of New York promised to host some events, as did the Boston Public Library and the Library of Congress. However, there were no funds at all for the estimated $99,000 international travel costs for the 30 IV participants. Early in 1979 USICA Associate Director for Educational and Cultural Affairs Alice Ilchman asked Agency Director John Reinhardt to approve central funding in this amount, citing the project’s great opportunities. In her request, Mrs. Ilchman cited Salah Abdel Kader, Secretary General of the Arab States Broadcasting Union, in his article “TV Programmes for Children: The Arab Opportunity”:

“The attention given by each nation to its children has become the benchmark of its civilization. Countries that put children even second or third in their rank of interests cannot in any way keep pace with an age that is aspiring through its children to a better and yet more brilliant future.”

On March 8, the Director agreed to provide funds for the IV grantees’ travel, from central funding. Charles W. Bray III and Michael Pistor agreed to help mine private sources for additional money.

At this point there was intense activity in three areas: rounding up additional contributions from private or Government sources; screening prospective grantees; and planning the program logistics.

FUNDING:

Ms. Truett established headquarters in New York, while Ms. Anderson returned to the ALSC headquarters in Chicago. Ms. Truett was to prove an important catalyst in funds appeals. She was also able to entice graduate student Nancy Golden, who had formerly worked in publishing, as a volunteer aide.

While American participation was felt to be of utmost importance, there was no legitimate method of funding participation by U.S. citizens. Eventually, Lawrence Wyatt of HEW’s International Education Section, was able to scrape up grant funding for participation by three Americans. EXXON Corporation made a $5,000 general support grant. Numbers of other groups and associations agreed to provide tours, lunches or receptions, speakers or equipment loans. Ultimately, 35 organizations participated.

GRANTEE SELECTION:

Both the coordinators of the program (Ms. Anderson and Ms. Truett) were concerned that they have an important voice in the grantee selection. It was agreed that they would furnish USICA posts with suggestions but that, as is the general practice, the posts would have the right of final nomination.

USICA posts received the project announcement cable⁵ May 14; the first reply arrived May 16. Fairly predictably, immediate response was mixed, from enthusiasm through mild approval to strong disapproval. The deadline for nominations was July 1; afterwards both Ms. Truett and Ms. Anderson reviewed them. Some of the invitees originally suggested were unable to attend and counter-suggestions were made. The final list was approved at a meeting at USICA in Washington in August. Of the 30 nations represented, 4 were African, 7 Latin American, 4 Asian, 9 European, 7 from the Near East/South Asia, in addition to the U.S. citizens.

PROGRAM PLANNING/LOGISTICS:

Ms. Anderson and Ms. Truett began meetings in late March with representatives of the Visitor Program Service of Meridian House International, which was chosen to administer travel and lodging arrangements. At USICA, Mrs. Marcy directed the sometimes delicate negotiations between NCIV and the Agency IV Grants staff. ALSC/ALA and WPBT–TV planned all activities in all seminar cities and arranged for participants. Through their own professional networks, they tailored the grantees’ itineraries during the small group phase. They also called upon these professionals to act as volunteer hostesses in many cities, asking them to coordinate their activities with those of the IVS volunteer network. With so many people sharing the action, firm control and constant communication was necessary. All planners were involved in three Washington meetings in June, July and August.

The staff realized that the participants would not know each other at the start, nor would the broadcasters necessarily be knowledgeable about the book field (and vice versa). Neither were they likely to be aware of differences in development levels. Time must also be allowed for sharing the videotapes, books, and other materials the grantees had been urged to bring along. Sightseeing had to be arranged, plus “personal” and “rest” times. The programs had to be divided as equally as possible between print and broadcast media, and not all the time given to lectures.

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION:

Both the ALSC and WPBT–TV issued final reports on the project which eloquently describe the 36-day program from its Boston beginning to the picnic in Miami which ended it. ALSC’s report is a 31-page booklet with 8 appendices and a financial report.⁶ It also contains excerpts from the evaluations submitted by the grantees, almost unanimously ecstatic. WPBT’s summary takes the form of a 30-minute video tape narrated by Cecily Truett. Among its highlights are the two workshop productions prepared by the Symposium participants in Miami. One translates a contemporary children’s book (Leo the Late-Bloomer)⁷ to TV; the second is a particularly arresting rendering of an oral-tradition Uncle Remus tale. Both should be seen to better weigh the Symposium’s effectiveness.

RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS:

With so many opposites and experiments involved, the possibilities for misunderstandings were built in. For starters, there was the fact that it was the first time that two traditionally rival media had been asked to cooperate for a period of time on a single project. Certainly it was the first time such a linkage was established in the field of children’s literature. Adding an international element intensified problem areas. The children’s literature grantees were generally older and in some cases more mature than their broadcast colleagues. Furthermore, in dealing with their U.S. counterparts in the industry, many remarked that the children’s literature professionals were child-oriented, while the broadcast professionals were largely working in an adult-oriented world. There was almost universal complaint by the literature professionals that more time was spent on broadcasting activities. To some extent, the verdict is “guilty as charged,” but then it simply takes more time to see a videotape or listen to a radio tape, while a book may be satisfactorily skimmed by a rapid reader. And some of the broadcast time included exploration into media interrelation, such as trips to the Weston Woods Studios⁸ in Connecticut, and the Miami WPBT–TV workshop itself.

The participants were asked to evaluate the conference and to list the most positive experiences, the least positive, plus suggestions for future conferences:

1. At the top of this list was the personal interaction across cultures and disciplines, coupled with the opportunity to examine education through mass media. The participants also enjoyed their visits to studios such as Weston Woods, WGBH–TV in Boston, and the Children’s Television Workshop⁹ in New York. Successful small group visits were tours of the Hanna-Barbera Studios¹⁰ in Los Angeles and to Mr. Rogers¹¹ in Pittsburgh. It appears that while there may have well been some complaints about the division of time, the audio-visual events were among the favorites.

2. There were complaints that the program was overcrowded, with insufficient time for rest or sightseeing. Additionally, there were comments that the symposium showed a lack of definition or focus.

3. The primary suggestion was that the “sharing” take place at the beginning and not the end.

Participants had been asked to bring books, videotapes and other examples of their work with them. These were not viewed until the end of the conference. (One reason for the delay was that meeting facilities in the Boston hotel were found to be inadequate.) Admittedly there were technical problems connected with the projection of videotapes; (i.e., different scanning systems had to be used for examplars from different nations). But, had the group been aware at the outset of general conditions in participating nations, discussions and indeed, the dynamics of the entire group, could have been different. Another suggestion was that the literature professionals be given more briefings on the technical problems of translating books to electronic media. Still another was that the schedule be less crowded, leaving time for more group interaction.

A particularly thoughtful critique came from participant Keith Tyler-Smith of South Pacific Television, Christchurch, New Zealand. He immediately commented that the time factor is particularly critical for such important professionals; he recommended a 14–21-day symposium for future projects. He also stressed that the factor most lacking “seemed to be a coherent overview of why the symposium was being organized and what were the objectives and how best could they be achieved.” He believed this fault lay in the dual responsibility and authority of the directors. (There will be further observations on this theme.)

Rukanuzzaman Khan, participant from Bangladesh wrote, “We have been especially moved to see the session on story telling for pre-school children in the children’s section of the public libraries. On my return to Bangladesh, I have been trying to introduce the same system in the libraries run by the Central Kachi Manchar Mela.” He further commented on the initial lack of “sharing time.” Also, he remarked that except for an incident in Indianapolis, there had been no opportunity to meet with children on a personal level. He ended his evaluation with the statement that the authorities of Bangladesh television had “warmly welcomed” a proposal to exchange children’s programs with other nations, and the hope that such a project would be successful.

A November 15 post cable from Manila¹² gives Antonio Padilla’s assessment of the Symposium. Padilla was also impressed with the use of a story-teller for TV and radio and he felt that using a story-teller in libraries US-style would encourage children to read. He also said he had made many useful contacts with Americans and his conference colleagues, which he planned to follow up at the 1980 World Conference of Librarians in Manila. He said that he “came away with the experience with the idea that broadcasting can complement reading activities to enhance learning and likewise books can provide a reiterative effect to broadcasting.” He described the whole program “as one of the bright pages of my life.”

ASSESSMENTS BY ESCORT-INTERPRETERS

Several points in these reports were significant. The escort for participants from Bulgaria, Australia, Sweden noted, “The three were ideal grantees, competent, articulate, interested in everything. They related to each other exceptionally well. . . .” The escort also noted that they would have preferred a TV project, and found some of the literature aspects “irrelevant.” This is further evidence of the occasional tensions between these traditionally-rival groups.

Another escort underlined their stay in Madison, Wisconsin, as particularly outstanding because of a visit with a producer of films based on traditional children’s stories from around the world, a tour of an “open” school, and exposure to the Children’s Television Channel, where children use the equipment. Each adult was then interviewed by a child reporter. The escort also remarked that the TV people acutely felt the lack of an international organization and strongly desired forming one.

A third escort raved, “These visitors were the most delightful persons I have escorted. All three felt honored to visit here. . . . There seemed to be no jealous feelings that the USA is far advanced—only admiration. Where they thought the US may have made a mistake in TV or media for children, they could profit by not doing the same.”

THE AMERICAN LEARNING EXPERIENCE:

The Symposium had a dual function in this area: 1) for the first time there were American participants; 2) the foreign participants were able to influence the attitudes of both private citizens and important organizations within the U.S., in several different ways.

1. The American Participants

As documented earlier, HEW grant funds were made available for the participation of three U.S. citizens in the Symposium. After the initial misunderstandings about their function, they took their places among the other international professionals. They were Martha Barnes, Children’s Services Consultant, Westchester County Library System, New York; Deborah Durham, Executive Editor, “The New Voice,” WGBH–TV, Boston;¹³ and Elizabeth Huntoon, Children’s Services Specialist, Chicago Public Library. In a letter to USICA Director Reinhardt, Ms. Huntoon said, “I would . . . like to thank you for the opportunity that made this Midwesterner an internationalist.” She also spoke eloquently of her experiences in an interview published in the Chicago Tribune November 18.¹⁴

The American participants’ evaluations went into the same ballot box as those from other countries; therefore cannot be excerpted. However, the foreign participants were unanimously positive in their reactions to their U.S. colleagues, as giving them immediate access to professionals who could supply the “American” reaction to a certain experience, or to provide personalized explanations.

2. Effects on U.S. Citizens

An important sector of the U.S. was contacted during the Symposium, as members of ALSC were asked to serve as volunteer hostesses for the small group phase. They were given the names and telephone numbers of local IVS volunteers to contact and offer their assistance. IVS in Washington also received a list of ALSC names, and at ALSC’s request, they were sent a copy of the Symposium program. ALSC estimates that more than 300 of its members had contact with at least one of the Symposium participants. In many, but not all, cases, the ALSC hostesses were very enthusiastic and helpful.

In rural Arkansas, some of the Symposium participants rode a Bookmobile and were able to talk with Americans far off the usual IV circuit. The participants munched sandwiches from a country store and talked with children from a nearby school who had come to get books. The librarians involved asked, “Please let us know when you have more coming this way.” The Little Rock Council for International Visitors wrote to thank the ALSC members saying, “You were truly inspired to direct us toward Perry County . . . (it) was a roaring success. . . . I hope that we will all be able to cooperate on more foreign visitors in the future.”

From a librarian in California: “. . . when we reluctantly said goodbye to one another, I recognized that these women are my colleagues, my sisters, my other selves. They have made me feel that our conspiracy to bring books and children together is a global one, and that it is an awesome undertaking. . . .”

From a librarian in Cleveland: “. . . the program seems to all of us here who had a part in it to be a valid one, with great potential for more interchange between librarians and broadcasters, Americans and their foreign colleagues.”

There was extremely positive reaction from U.S. broadcasters who had come in contact with the Symposium. From Boston, the Executive Producer for Community Affairs at WGBH wrote to Director Reinhardt, “On September 19th, WGBH hosted a day long conference for this impressive group of international visitors. The seminar was attended by many of our WGBH staff, as well as special guests from the Boston Community. We all welcomed the chance to be part of an international exchange of ideas between those who care deeply about children and the media designed for them. Indeed, it is clear that the more we can communicate ideas and values internationally, the stronger radio and television we will all be able to produce for children.”¹⁵ A number of other U.S. broadcasters wrote to support Ms. Truett’s proposal that an international TV clearinghouse be formed, featuring a newsletter sent to all members. There was less documented reaction from U.S. broadcasters than from librarians, perhaps because they are not accustomed to writing, not because they are less articulate or less interested.

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE SYMPOSIUM

These were also unique in tune with the project. The major problem seems to have been the lack of one person with overriding authority for the duration of the Symposium. Here, three high-powered women were in charge—Cecily Truett and Mary Jane Anderson, with Nancy Buttermark of VPS. Each was protecting her own interests as she saw them, which left ample space for battles over territory. Luckily, the most serious battle came quite early in the trip, involving the role of the American participants. Ms. Buttermark felt they should be additionally impressed into service as escort-interpreters, while the others believed their function was clearly that of “IV’s.” After some heated discussion, additional escort-interpreters were hired and the show went on with the Americans being treated as all the others. There was also tension among the three because both of the Program Directors’ pride in the uniqueness of the Symposium as opposed to the VPS attitude that the exercise was “just another IV program.” Certain oversights, such as VPS’s insistence on taxis over buses in New York because “it’s what we always do” resulted in wasted time and short tempers, until corrected. But on the whole, once committed, there was a genuine effort to make everything work. The fact that almost everything did function is a tribute to the triumvirate’s ultimate flexibility once the ship was in the water. However, someone to play the Solomon role is definitely indicated in the future.

There was also significant positive reaction from U.S. groups concerned with children’s TV programming, such as WATCH, which hosted a reception. And a letter from PBS revealed that international children’s programming exchanges were “high on the list” of projects seeking funding. PBS also urged the founding of an international children’s TV clearinghouse.

It appears that the Symposium had one major fault: the lack of sufficient follow-up, especially for the broadcasters. A great deal of energy, good will, and positive experiences were generated, and generally abandoned after the Symposium. Of course, there is the philosophical question of just how much should be furnished to funding recipients and where they should take up on their own. But in this case it does seem that we had a marvelous opportunity which was not advantageously used. Also, an international organization was in Cecily Truett’s original concept; it was also at least abstracted later.

ASSESSMENT OF AGENCY ACTION AND REACTION:

A number of “firsts” and departures from the norm were involved, as far as USICA was concerned. The following is a recap of these points, with results:

1. It was the first time that USICA had sponsored a national (or international) rather than USICA-oriented project. Additionally, it was the first Washington-originated program. At USICA’s inception, the rule had been established that no programs were to be imposed from headquarters.

There were extremely mixed reactions all along. When the project was on the drawing board and reaction was tested, three area offices were mildly approving while two were violently opposed. Most of the opposition appears to have been because “Books and Broadcasting” was not connected with previously-approved Country Plans. Even when central funding was obtained, several PAO’s refused to consider it. Therefore, several important nations, such as Japan and Mexico, were not represented. On the other hand, the “Walt Disney of Brazil” was a participant.

The problems did not end with central funding; tensions among USICA elements over the various “different” aspects of the project continued. This was especially obvious in the IV office. However, unlike the Symposium, there was one person with authority and, furthermore, approval from the Director’s office.

2. It was the first time that any attention had been devoted to children’s programs. Some USICA area opposition can doubtless be traced to the fact that children are not a target audience. However, in dealing as USICA did, with professionals active in literature and broadcasting for children, it reached a sector—one of its most important audiences, the world’s educators. And the evidence is overwhelming that it reached them successfully and touched them deeply.

3. It was the first time that linkage was established between the electronic and print media in such an event. As reported above, there were obvious and continuing tensions here, but all participants seem to have been at least receptive to the link. For some, it marked an important change in attitude toward a traditional rival.

USICA’S USE OF OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED

As recorded at the beginning of this report, the project was undertaken in large part to take advantage of the unique opportunities it afforded:

1. A good opportunity to work with the domestic constituency. All evidence suggests that the domestic constituency reached by the Project was impressed and enthusiastic. Eventually, more than 35 groups and organizations participated, some making quite significant contributions. For example, the Boston Public Library postponed its Spring Book Fair until October to enable it to highlight the presence of the Symposium. EXXON Corporation made a $5,000 grant. The Oregon Public Broadcasting Service made video playback machines available, free of charge. The Children’s Book Council provided discussion moderators during a two-day session in New York. Children’s Television Workshop (creators and producers of SESAME STREET) hosted a day at their facility, with the participation of top-level people. National Public Radio sponsored a panel discussion, as did the Public Broadcasting Service. CBS, ABC, and NBC each hosted a group for screening sessions and lunch. In all, 35 groups participated. However, concern remains that in some areas the opportunity was not fully utilized because of a lack of follow-up. Ms. Truett was invited to describe the project at the prestigious Aspen Institute, and later, at the National Association of Educational Broadcasters convention. And there have been other opportunities, though as mentioned before, no systematic follow-up.

It should be noted again that the Symposium participants also influenced individuals and groups around the United States wherever they went.

2. It was good interagency politics. Follow-up meetings of the Interagency Committee on the International Year of the Child indicate that this opportunity was fully utilized. Books and Broadcasting for Children was hailed by the Committee as the only really effective effort by a government agency. At a meeting of the Committee February 27, 1980, the project’s particular significance was discussed. It was saluted as “one of the most outstanding examples of a project that happened only because of IYC; broke new ground by challenging agency policy on children; and shows evidence of having lasting effects on the international development and exchange of quality children’s media productions.”

3. The project, which melded media and education, was clearly suited to USICA. No argument on this point.

4. It would be a good test of the joint-funding concept. The test results are largely successful. There was, as previously noted, grant assistance from HEW. And other government entities participated, while not writing checks. The Agency for International Development provided facilities for a panel concerned with literacy programs. The Federal Communications Commission participated in a similar manner, and the Library of Congress hosted a tour and luncheon at which Librarian Daniel Boorstin was speaker.

RIPPLE EFFECTS:

Turkish book illustrator Ms. Can Goknil was highly successful in reaching high-level Turkish audiences to relate her experiences with the Symposium, in a January 23, 1980 discussion on children’s publications at the USICA Istanbul library. As a result Ms. Goknil was approached by every publishing house representative in the audience for additional information on U.S. publishing companies and upcoming international children’s book fairs. Ms. Goknil was also asked to be guest speaker at the Istanbul Fair later in 1980.

Ms. Loty Petrovits-Androutsopoulou made a presentation through USICA/Athens in March, which she described as “successful.” It included the 30-minute videotape produced by Ms. Truett. Ms. Petrovits-Androutsopoulou’s comment: “. . . Great was also the contribution of Brer-Snake, who fascinated my audience!”

Dr. Ingeborg Ramseger of West Germany documented her experiences in two articles which appeared in Borsenblatt (similar to Publishers’ Weekly) and in Buchmarkt, a trade publication.

There was spotty, but generally adequate press coverage in the U.S. as well. There were three TV interviews in Washington, one in Pittsburgh, plus radio interviews in Boston and Oregon. Articles on the Symposium appeared in The Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times, The Oregonian, The Daily News of Longview Washington, The Miami Herald, The Washington Post and Broadcasting, among others.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT:

“BOOKS AND BROADCASTING FOR CHILDREN: An International Symposium” was in almost all respects extremely effective and successful. Its two major drawbacks were the lack of complete focus during the Symposium (though not during the planning), mainly due to the dual nature of the project and the lack of one person with final authority; and the failure for whatever reason to follow-up with some proposal for an international clearinghouse, especially for educational broadcasters.

There is every reason to be optimistic that another project, similarly conceived and executed, could be even more successful with the basis of experience gained on this project.

1. Source: National Archives, RG 306, USIA Historical Collection, Subject Files, 1953–2000, Entry A–1 1066, Box 178, Books, Children, Books and Broadcasting for Children, 1979. No classification marking. Ilchman sent the memorandum to Reinhardt, Bray, Cohen, Pistor, Roth, Hackley, PGM/RL, Nalle, Marcy, Hopper, Inman, ECA/E, and ECA/PPE.
2. No classification marking. Drafted by Villarreal.
3. Children’s magazine-style television program, produced by South Carolina Educational Television (ETV) that aired from 1977 until 1979.
4. Biennial international children’s television festival.
5. Not found.
6. A copy of the report is in the National Archives, RG 306, USIA Historical Collection, Subject Files, 1953–2000, Entry A–1 1066, Box 178, Books, Children, Books and Broadcasting for Children, 1979.
7. Written and published in 1971 by children’s author Robert Kraus, the book features a tiger cub who is a “late bloomer” compared to his animal friends.
8. Established by Morton Schindel, Wilton Woods Studios produced short-films based on children’s books such as Ezra Jack Keats’s The Snowy Day (1962).
9. Founded by Joan Ganz Cooney and Lloyd Morrisett, the Children’s Television Workshop (CTW) oversaw the production of the educational television program “Sesame Street.” Throughout the 1970s, CTW would develop other educational programs such as “The Electric Company” and “3-2-1 Contact.”
10. Hanna-Barbera Studios, established by former Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer animation directors William Hanna and Joseph Barbera, produced cartoon programs such as “The Flintstones,” “The Jetsons,” and “Yogi Bear.”
11. Reference is to Fred Rogers, creator and host of the educational television program “Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood,” which debuted on the NET network (later PBS) in February 1968. Rogers produced the program at the WQED public television station in Pittsburgh.
12. Not found.
13. Produced by WGBH, the weekly, scripted series depicted six high school journalism students writing about a variety of topical issues.
14. See Carol Kleiman, “Can TV help turn kids on to reading?” Chicago Tribune, November 18, 1979, p. K7.
15. Not found.