> The guidelines said that foods advertised to children must provide “a meaningful contribution to a healthful diet.”
I've never received a convincing explanation of why advertising to children shouldn't be generally banned.
I've never received a convincing explanation of why advertising to children shouldn't be generally banned.
Sometimes these people have the audacity to believe that businesses should be permitted to voluntarily exchange with broadcasters and that parents should be permitted to make their own choices with regard to the content their children consume.
Anyway, I agree. I don't buy this whole "liberty" nonsense either.
If your counter-argument is predicated on businesses freely exchanging with parents to convince them what products to feed their children, I fully agree that they should be free to do that, but that's distinct from advertising to children directly.
Is it really so much to ask that we be allowed to make our own decisions about food? Come on, we're talking about food! Not medicine. Not heavy machinery or automobiles or airplanes or nuclear energy. Food!
I'm not talking about limiting anybody's decisions. I'm talking about regulating interactions between businesses and people who are incompetent to make their own decisions.
You don't have to accept the position of the documentary, that the corporate form is intrinsically a bad thing. But tell me that the marketers behind the "Nag Factor" report don't disgust you.
It is nice to imagine that each family is an island of rationality, well-informed about choices and their eventual effects, never choosing the easy path, immune to marketing and peer pressure. In the real world, things are a little more complex. And the marketers behind reports like "The Nag Factor" make millions by subverting family relations to serve their purposes.
It is good to be skeptical of regulation, but this is so clearly a case where more good can be done than harm.
This is exactly what makes it so dangerous. Just food? Food is something that can be as deadly as drugs, yet is as accepted as air.
>Not medicine.
It's worse than medicine exactly for the sentiment you are expressing. No big deal right? It's so normal it couldn't possibly be abused, right? It's exactly the opposite. We can push poison and it's no big deal because it's "just food".
It's not about forcing people to make decisions. It's about deceiving people into make the wrong decisions for your own profit. That is not innocent business. That is fraud.
Parents who do not wish their children exposed to advertising could use the same rules they would use to prevent their children from being exposed to violent media and profanity.
I think the solution is for parents to simply start thinking of media portraying drug consumption and media portraying Twinkie consumption as logically equivalent, and for parents to stop paying for an information service to deliver them such media (television), and to demand the market provide a new information service which more adequately matches their preferences for media (a kid-oriented Netflix?).
This solution does not require a state to monitor and decode the nutritional value of information transfers.
There are many forms of advertisement which do not assert facts or even include language. An advertisement could simply consist of a graphical fictional portrayal of consumption or brand usage done in a glamorous light.
If something does not include a representation of facts, it does include a potential for fraud, and it would not make sense to regulate it as such solely on a principle of equivalence.
That's sort-of fine, again, when dealing with competent adults. Though plenty of research demonstrates that even competent adults are incapable of avoiding being influenced by good advertising in ways that may very well be against their own interests.
But when targeting children, it takes very little before your slight manipulation gets treated as if it was fact by young children. That it isn't "asserting something as fact" by adult standards is meaningless when discussing advertising that is targeting children.
And as a parent: Short of locking my child in the house with no access to any media, there is no way I can prevent my son from being exposed to advertising that he (at 4 years old) is in no way prepared to objectively assess the fact content of.
That doesn't fly. The nature of advertising is intrusive. I have to sign up for porn cable channel. I have no control about what goes on air on Discovery Kids at 10 PM between the shows. I can choose what magazine I buy. I can't choose which ads are printed between the articles. It goes on...
Dumb mass media advertising could die tomorrow. Every advertising should be like AdWords (query initiated suggestions curated by the channel, not nagging driven by the advertisers). Unfortunately we still have mass media since that's profitable for the agencies mafia, they still get away selling impressions/exposure, not real results.
Children can't consent. So the state has to protect them. One way to do that is by shielding them from things that hurt them.
It happens that junk food hurts them, and a lot of the reason why they eat junk food is because of television ads. Since they can't consent and the state must protect them, we ought to limit advertising unhealthy things to kids.
Or, ya know, their parents.
I'm sure 99.9% of parents, if properly educated, would agree that an overweight or obese child is a bad thing. They might not know what to do about it, and TV ads might turn out to be more powerful than parent's routine meal planning.
It might turn out that asking them to turn off the TV is impractical. Maybe telling them what to feed their kids is even worse. In terms of practical means to reduce obesity, most parents would not oppose limiting TV advertising to children.
Besides, the state is parents. No big deal.
While I'm for reducing the power of the state, protection of children is not something society can abdicate from without severe negative effects.
Sadly I don't think there is any way to come to any real, objective answer on this issue. It is one, IMO, that will cause conflict as long as there are people.
But isn't it still up to the parents to decide what to buy?
There's a campaign in my country (Brazil) to ban/regulate all sorts of advertising to children, and I've heard some parents who support it claim (essentially) that they can't say "no" to their children. As someone who grew up in a lower-middle-class family and understood very early that I couldn't have all the toys, or even all the toys my slightly higher-middle-class classmates had, I find that trend rather bizarre.
Why should it be illegal for children to drink alcohol? Their parents should be permitted to make their own choices with regard to the beverages their children consume.
Why should it be illegal for an adult to have sexual intercourse with a minor? The parents should be permitted to make their own choices with regard to the sexual behavior of their own children.
Down with the meddling of the state! Our freedom is at stake!
I think you mean this to be sarcastic and obviously wrong, but many states in the US permit parents to give minors alcohol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Underage_consumption_map_2...) Some states permit this anywhere (including in pubs), others restrict it to the home. This is considered entirely reasonable by many, dare I say most, people.
The point, of course, is that parents can make a meaningful decision about whether they'll give booze to their kids a lot more easily than they can do the same for exposing their kids to advertisement.
Plus, I'm pretty sure that, even in those states, you could get in some sort of legal trouble for giving whiskey to a 2-year old. Obviously, we can't claim similar level of damage when it comes to advertising, but we don't seem to be willing to look more closely into it, either.
Yes, it is a damn shame when reality gets in the way of your strawmen...
Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and South Carolina all allow minors to drink alcohol on private property without the consent of their parents.
In several states the only way you could get in trouble for giving whiskey to a 2-year old is if you gave it in sufficient quantities that child endangerment became clear. Letting your kid to take a small sip of whiskey under supervision to convince the kid that he wants nothing more to do with it is reasonable and legal in many areas.
I'm not disagreeing with you; what annoys me is that the people who suddenly claim to support business independence from heavy government regulation remain silent until some new law is proposed.
If there is a problem with banning businesses from advertising from children, then there is a problem with the FTC today, not tomorrow, because they already heavily regulate advertising, including what you can show to children. In the US government agencies have vast reaching legal authority to create and enforce their own rules. When there is a scandal they answer to elected representatives, but otherwise? Not so much.
Does that mean that TV shows targeted to children can't have advertising? Goodbye kids TV (not all of it is bad). Venue aside, what are the signs of being targeted to children? Show too many kids in the frame, the wrong color scheme, the wrong narration style or fonts? How close can you get?
We talked about "airtightness" in the taxation thread, but I'm realizing there's another issue. If the law isn't carefully defined, it could be possible to interpret nearly any advertising as being targeted, in part at least, to children. This is the kind of thing that will slide toward more restriction under the pressure of various kinds of activists, once we get the idea that we can ban advertising based on its audience.
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/fastfood-logos-...
Anyway, "advertising to children" is already specifically defined and regulated in many countries. The question is simply how far to take those regulations under existing definitions.
Plenty of kids' TV is decent stuff, but almost all of it is still obnoxiously commercial. I remember thinking so as a child (the tendency of plastic toys to break into shitty little useless pieces probably helped make me an anti-capitalist, down the line).
So I see very little wrong with just outright banning advertising to children and shifting the creative effort over into "whole family" genres that don't just make up a new way to babysit your kids without paying a babysitter.
(I wish I could say I was wholly joking...)
One uses "think of the children" as an excuse to enact broader control over society. Witness kiddie porn being the argument against P2P and PGP, or trying to censor "satanic" or sexually explicit lyrics, or any of a litany of other such nonsense claims.
The other uses it to remind people that this shit actually, you know, affects the children.
With the kiddie porn issues, generally the number of children being talked about is a very small minority of the total, and usually the issue under discussion has only indirect possibility of helping those children.
However advertisement of poor food choices to children is something almost all children are subjected to on a daily basis, therefore when discussing regulation we can see that the majority of children will be beneficiaries.
Also you can create free speech zones on TV akin to the ones where the security herded protesters while Bush was showing on public events.
You are free to tell whatever you want except in these time slots when you must shut up.
I know I cannot already, since I grew up without cable television and had most of my childhood televised entertainment provided for me through public broadcasting and rented/bought VHS. I'll admit that my circumstances were unusual though.
Look, shared cultural nostalgia is great, and all, but I'm not sure that makes for a good reason to allow advertizing to kids.
That's not to say good kids' stuff doesn't exist, but I see nothing wrong with just murdering the whole model of Media-Driven Consumption, from food to toys to fashion, in its sleep. With a knife.
It's bad, and society should feel bad for allowing it.