Commercial-Free Childhood?

// 1.19.06 // Filed under: Freedom & Politics, Parenting

According to Blogging Baby, the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood are suing Nickelodeon and Kellogg for pushing too much junk food.

It’s offensive to me that an industry “watchgroup” supposes that my children and I are too weak-minded to think and shop for ourselves and that we need them to prevent the existence of such “horrible” junk food from coming to our attention.

And I just can’t let this go without commenting on a quote from the same Blogging Baby story:

“The Center for Consumer Freedom opposes the lawsuit, saying that the lawsuit rests on three flawed assumptions: that parents can’t turn off the TV, that parents can’t control what their kids eat, and that parents can’t send their children outside to get some exercise. That’s a little disingenuous. If Nick and other stations were constantly broadcasting commercials and content that were attempting to sexualize kids, parents would be in an uproar and would have a right to complain. Why shouldn’t parents be concerned if the majority of food advertising pushes junk?”

That analogy is flawed. If Nick were running ads “attempting to sexualize kids,” you can bet Nick would lose most, if not all, of its viewers. While the food they are advertising may not be the healthiest, parents are obviously not turning Nick off.

Parents have the right to be concerned, but businesses have the right to make money – since that is the primary reason for their existence. A concerned parent has the right to turn off the TV and to tell their child he or she can not have said junk food, but a concerned parent does not have the right to dictate where Nickelodeon gets its advertising dollars from. The marketplace will determine that.

Share or Save:

Related Posts:
Social Responsibility and Bratz Dolls
The Spears Debate Gone Mad
Fresh Beat Band: Music, Action and Fun for Preschoolers

6 Responses to “Commercial-Free Childhood?”

Jess says:

1.20.06 at 9:03 am

I agree that businesses have a right to make money, and I wholeheartedly support the 1st amendment. What we must remember is that children’s brains are not adult brains. Their brains are still growing, and they must be guided by responsible adults until they learn to think for themselves. Further, the informed, well adjusted parents are most likely turning off the TV and making good choices for their kids. It’s the children out there, and there are countless, whose parents aren’t doing so that I worry about…parents, who are struggling to keep from getting evicted and/or are fighting to keep the lights on, don’t have the time or inclination to be concerned about what’s on the children’s television. All children are our future, not just the priviledged ones, and that is what worries me.
Sanchez says:

1.20.06 at 2:39 pm

Whether the suit succeeds or fails,

Here’s a post by a woman from the CCFC:
http://www.commonsenseblog.org
Sanchez says:

1.20.06 at 2:40 pm

Whether the suits succeeds or fails, it serves as yet another reminder to industries: regulate yourselves or someone will try to regulate for you.
trixie says:

1.20.06 at 5:44 pm

Yes, very absurd and yet very unsurprising. First, is there even decent evidence that junk food advertising has adverse effects on kids’ weight? From what I know on the topic, the answer is no. See http://www.reason.com/sullum/061104.shtml for a brief discussion.

Regardless, I agree with Shannon. People have the right to turn off their TVs, boycott the station, or start their own “junk-food awareness group” that asks others to do the same. But they don’t have the right to force Nickelodeon to change anything about its broadcasting. The choice here is between liberty and a political system that allows an elite (educated, wealthy, “better-aware”, whatever) group to force its morals onto everyone else. For me, the choice is clear.
Jabafatboy says:

1.21.06 at 3:05 pm

Hey padme !! just found out from oneida that you had this site. Wife and I homeschool as well.

Will try to stop in and check this site now and again. K
Shannon says:

1.22.06 at 11:10 am

Jess wrote: “All children are our future, not just the priviledged ones, and that is what worries me.”
Yes, when the next generation grows up, there will be “priviledged and under-priviledged” – just as there are now. But how is this the responsibility of, say, Nickelodeon? It is the responsibility of the parents. If a parent has a low income or is not educated, that does not mean they can not be a good parent. Are you saying that the “under-priviledged” are not intelligent enough to know that an apple is better than a cookie? As I see it, the only way to “fix” the system is for everyone to take responsibility for themselves.

~~~

In reply to the link sanchez left above — it’s interesting that ALL the comments to her post DON’T agree with her, yet agree with what I am saying.

~~~~

Hey jabafatboy! Stop by anytime!