Repeat after me, it is not the role of the state, or any of its constituent bodies, to legislate over things like this. But, hey, here’s an idea. Why not stop building on playing fields? Why not stop the kiddy fiddler panic that stops children being allowed to play outside? Why not stop dealing with symptoms and start dealing with root problems?
First Tom and Jerry and smoking, now this ridiculous bugbear once more. IPCGMITY.
If parents seriously can’t deal with kids being influenced by adverts, perhaps they should have invested in rather better contraception.
Ha! Some days I think people need to be told these things because they’re stupid but more often I’m just thinking it’s a form of natural selection. If you’re going to allow your kids to eat crap all the time and pander to their requests just from adverts then you’ll get what’s coming to you. I must have asked for a My Little Pony on a weekly basis because of ads but my mum somehow managed to say no. And I somehow got the message.
Comment by Katherine — August 25, 2006 @ 3:54 pm
Personally I was outraged by the Tom & Jerry cigar scene. As a child I watched Tom & Jerry avidly and now I have a 90 a day Slim Panatella habit, drop bowling balls on cats’ heads for a hobby and train army ants to steal large legs of ham. Recently I wrote to congratulate the government on their ‘Don’t Let Children Inhale Your Cigarette Smoke’ campaign. Quite right…the little bastards can buy their own.
Comment by Pot Bellied Boar — August 28, 2006 @ 6:45 pm
Or not bought a telly.
Seriously, though, being a parent *does* change previously liberal/libertarian viewpoints – modern advertising *is* insidious and inescapable, and granted that our children have to grow up in this environment and learn to make sensible choices, there really is no excuse for junk food businesses to go for the “pester power” jugular. Some regulation is a good thing, surely….
Comment by King Cogidubnus — August 29, 2006 @ 8:51 am
‘Some regulation is a good thing, surely…’
Your Right Royal Cogidubnus…contraception and/or an IQ above 65 would seem more appropriate.
Comment by Brian Hughes — August 29, 2006 @ 5:30 pm
Yes Brian, and also an ability to distinguish between “your” and “you’re”…..
Comment by King Cogidubnus — August 30, 2006 @ 8:35 am
Ooh, spelling flame. That takes me back.
Comment by Bertie — August 30, 2006 @ 11:51 am
How long can parents blame any type of media for their own lack of attention and conveinience addiction? We are an entire generation raised by absentee ballot. To control your kids, you could start by controlling yourselves!
Comment by Simon — September 4, 2006 @ 9:33 am
It’s not simply a case of “blaming” the media, and I agree that parents should bear the primary responsibility for their kids’ upbringing, but….
when you have companies cynically marketing directly to kids (“pester power” and putting sweets in the checkout aisles of supermarket are well-used cynical marketing techniques), it makes a parent’s life much more difficult than it need be.
Thus, is it wrong to have some regulation of these marketing techniques? I think not.
It’s not fair to blame *everything* on the parents, you know!
Comment by King Cogidubnus — September 7, 2006 @ 8:58 am
I don’t think the ‘thus’ is quite justified. You just made an assertion! If companies are allowed to make material, they should be allowed to market it. ‘making a parent’s life …difficult’ should not be a reason for regulating things.
Comment by Bertie — September 7, 2006 @ 10:26 am
Well – I wouldn’t expect anything else from a libertarian such as you! ;-)
Seriously, though, as a matter of policy, Western governments regulate tobacco (and to some extent, alcohol and prescription drugs) advertising, and there are regulations regarding the advertising of most other things (“legal, decent, truthful & honest”). So what’s the problem with some regulation of advertising directly to children?
Or should we just add soma to the water supply and stop worrying?
Comment by King Cogidubnus — September 8, 2006 @ 8:44 am
Yeah, but they regulate tobacco advertising to reflect regulation of tobacco sale (likewise alcohol and films). My point is that they’re regulating advertising without being brave enough to regulate sale, which is dealing with an effect not a cause. Not to mention how one will define unhealthy snacks under the terms of the legislation. Its yet more NuLab ‘appearing to address a situation’ when really doing nothing of the sort.
Want to tackle obesity and the myriad health and behavioural problems caused by bad nutrition? Re-introduce free school lunches, add free school breakfasts (as Wales is now doing), stop selling off playing fields, stop PFI deals which build on the latter. But stopping advertising of crisps before the watershed? Yup, that’s really going to make a difference.
Comment by Bertie — September 8, 2006 @ 12:07 pm