Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Maine middle school to offer birth controlDNA study seeks origin of Appalachia's MelungeonsAfter poisonings, PScreening finds skin cancer: Does it save lives?Pregnant women warned about antidepressantMore kids eating detergent packs, docs reportBorder town hospitals straddle care and costsItaly doctors save baby with smallest artificial heartObesity not always tied to higher heart riskToo many people get angioplasties, study suggests
Leave a Comment:
Let's end the Big Brother controls that the advertising industry holds over our lives, especially over the lives of our most precious possession, our children. The fattening of America should be unacceptable to every caring parent!
Never forget, if eating a good "sane" diet is important to you, it'll become important to your children!
I am glad I do not have cable in my home.
The word is "NO!" Why do parents have such a hard time saying no.
Don't blame the advertisers, blame the parents.
To some extent, I do blame the advertisers - because they know EXACTLY what they are doing.
But, who buys the food? Not the child. Not the advertiser.
The parent.
Is it true that the Obama administration has finally solved the problems of the deficit, unemployment, and "obesity" all in one fell swoop?
I recall recently reading that they are going to levy a "Fat-Tax." Sorry, that word is no longer P.C. neither is "obese." Fat people now prefer the term, "Unhealthy."
So there will be an unhealthy-tax coming to your home with newly hired government workers, each carrying a scale made in the USA. For every pound a person is over weight they will be charged $1.00 Get it? If you are 50 lbs over-weight that is $50.00 right into the United States Treasury.
The Federal government's calculations suggest that this will raise over 2 Trillion dollars the first year. They further suggest that it will reduce health costs as people become more trim and thus healthier.
I am going into the apple business.
How about parents cook a healthy meal and tell that child to eat what is on the plate...crazy how that seemed to work pretty well...
Researchers are surprised advertising affects food choices? Does this surprise anyone else? The idea that advertising is some harmless way to promote sales is dangerous. There's a reason we banned cigarette ads.
(Would that we could ban political ads!)
Cigarette ads were banned for political correctness. Those who did it violated the First Amendment's freedom of speech and of the press, but they feel good about themselves while millions of children continue to smoke. Deprivation of freedom is never the answer to a problem - it IS the biggest problem that we have today. It should be the parents' decision whether children should be allowed to smoke, not the government's, just the same as it should be the parents' decision whether they should buy french fries.
Let's end the Big Brother controls our GOVERNMENT has over our lives. Most of us do not need our hands held and protection from every single potentially harmful thing that may ever occur on the face of the planet. Believe it or not, most of us are able to make some good decisions for ourselves!
Children lack the life experiences to make good choices, so yes, they need to be protected from the relentless barrage of "buy this toy" or "eat this candy" messages they're subjected to every single day. Or do you want to ban your kids from watching TV altogether? Parents can't do it all alone.
Big brother? "Big Brother" is typically synonymous with government control of individual rights and freedoms. So how do you think we should end the "control" the ad industry has over our lives? It sounds to me like you want "big brother" to get involved. I would suggest people just turn off the tv and send their kids outside. Problem solved.
Parents can do it all alone. We don't need government telling us what we can and can't do. We don't need government telling us how to raise our children. They are OUR children, not the government's!
Therefore it's the parents fault!
I watch TV, I see the commercials and just because there is a cute little jingle (which there is not anymore) or a cool looking car or even a big juicy burger doesn't mean I just got to have one. I window shop on the Internet for clothes, I'm not buying. I am in control. My son wanted things when he was little, I knew how to say "NO" and I also explained why to him. He was not and still is not a perfect child\young adult but he knew and knows what "no" means and also "I'm sorry I can't help you with that."
While I agree government shouldn't be telling people how to raise their children, perhaps you should realise that through advertising, that is exactly what corporations are doing. If your child begs you for McDonald's, and you agree, who do you think is controlling you? Do you really think corporations care if you teach your child poor eating habits when they are most vulnerable to outside influence?
This is news? The cereal companies had that concept perfected by the late '50s with their "Send in the boxtops for..." and the "Free toy in each box" ads. And they came up with the cute pitch toons like Tony the Tiger and Sugar Bear and Silly Rabbit. Every thing since then has been improvements on or additions to those themes. They will use any scheme necessary to turn a five or six year old into a screaming nuisance to its mother in the grocery store.
This story sounded SOOOOOO stoopid.
For one thing,
Which would you choose? Kids who saw an ad for fries picked the fries, even when their parents tried to get them to pick a healthier alternative such as apple slices
Uhmmm... I would THINK (pfftttt) that the *other* choice vs. fries, would have been say, baked taters? ...I know......dumb me huh.
And if food ADS have more clout than the PARENTS... well.........perhaps from an early age, the parents should have learned to use that word NO more often?
I can't not believe this passed for any type of evidence!!! Verbal cues vs. visual cues?? Bad premise based on the analytical thinking of children?? Impulsive nature of children?? My 9 year old wants any toy that is advertised!! That is coolest toy..he is willing to make any deal for the rest of his life for it, until the next commercial...Can not believe this is even a story...How about making it a norm about cooking and eating at home?? That's what I do and my parents did in the 70s mom cooked(that is COOKED!!! not microwave a pre-made meal), I ate what was cooked, commercials be damned....
Madison Avenue and the weak minded American consumer has done more damage to this country than any other single factor.
I'm not sure I'd go quite that far, but it has to be up there. I suspect those protesting for their freedoms are also the ones wanting to smoke, eat too much, drink too much, etc., and don't care what effect advertising has on the population at large. I wonder how many of their choices were influenced for the worse by advertising and they don't even realize it?
There's no way to know, of course, but I know what I'm thinking right now.
I was thinking more in terms of promoting consumer spending to an unhealthy level that has left this country with a serious trade deficit.
I'm with knightrider, don't have cable, but the kids get hit with it at school, on billboards, etc. And saying no? Look at the state of education in this country. My kid can't spell or write to save her life, but get's 90's in english because "she can explain what she means to the class". And they say I expect too much, and kids and learning is different these days. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why without google voice search, many college students can't survive.
Wow, people use google voice search that much? That is ridiculous! I've yet to see a person relying on it..but wow. I find it 100% easier just to type in what I want to find.
This is news? Advertising aggressively markets to children, even more so than to adults.
Hmmm, a choice of french fries or apples w/caramel sauce -- neither one is particularly 'healthy.'
Maybe kids should also learn to eat food without needing to dip it into something that adds fat and calories with every bite.
Maybe parents should teach their children to differentiate between what they need and what they want. Wait - that would mean that parents would have to understand the difference - too late.
Caramel actually adds few calories and fat to apple slices. It's the equivalent of mixing chocolate with milk--the nutrition in the milk completely overrides the few extra calories from the chocolate. And it's not only kids who like to dip their fruits. I love to eat apple slices dipped in peanut butter or strawberries dipped in a cream cheese dip.
If a yummy dip gets kids eating fruits or vegetables, then I say go for it!
Sorry you just proved that kids have short attention spans -- advertisements got them to prefer apple!!! You also proved kids powers of abstract reasoning is low and therefore visual stimulation is more powerful than abstract words.
Conclusion: cutting total TV exposure time will not help anything but parental feelings of guilt (I did something even if that something is 100% ineffective). Any exposure to TV or billboards is dominate influence. You will be jailed for blindfolding kids all day.
But using the short attention span factor: Cutting TV 2-3 hours before meals might be somewhat effective for food or 2-3 hours before shopping if toys or clothes are in mind.
Better record your preferred commercials and edit them into a favorite program to be viewed right before meals or shopping. Business opportunity for parental website to make this easy.
I agree, this was just another worthless study if it didn't take attention span into account (Just because it wasn't mentioned in the article I won't assume it wasn't). Kids have the attention span of gnats and the article proves, as you mention, that they are easily influenced. If you have to do fast food for a meal, start pushing the healthy options before you even get to the restaurant. Or better yet, act like a parent and just don't give them a choice.
If you believe that our problems come from racial,ethic, or cultural differences, consider this and our obsession with the relentless pursuit of money. There we find the hidden enemy.
Another quasi scientific study paid for by the American tax-payers.
The researchers state; ".... their findings may not apply to all, in part because the sample size was small and largely Hispanic."
Knowing that, why didn't they simply change the paradigms before they started the stupid study?
Well, they do tell us why at the end. "Further research is needed." In short they want more in government grants to do more of these quasi Socratic scientific studies. We get to pay again and again for worthless data.
The study was done by Texas A&M International University, I don't see in the article where it said any tax dollars were used to fund it. Do you have some additional info or are you just assuming?
PS this same study was done long ago on adults of the same age group and different types and levels of education. That study directly linked overcoming the power of visual commercials to the degree to which abstract thinking is developed.
Well duhhhhh!
It is NOT school lunches that make kids FAT. IT is the food they eat outside of school, which when it comes to parenting, it's french fries, burgers lopped in grease, cheese and sauce. And just think, Micky D's has the HEALTHIEST food of most burger joints.
Then there are the chips and every other fat food they can stuff in their mouths while sitting and playing games, instead of being outside playing or doing some work.
That is right - commercials are most effective on the uneducated or those whose education leans to the emotional and social (e.g. social work is not very abstract). Ability in math and hard sciences tends to highlight the best abstract and critical thinking.
unsupervised television is the bane of our society. we let our televisions "babysit" for us. in other words, if junior is in front of the teevee, we don't have to bother with him. but when junior begins to exhibit tastes that are developed by strangers, we become concerned. no child should ever be allowed unlimited access to any television until they are at least 8 years old. better still would be jr. high or even later. teach your child those habits you would like to see intilled in them, and that means you have to take an active role in your child's life, especially during the formative years. that means that you will have to take time to read to them, to talk to them, to teach them the values you consider important. if a child must watch television, then select children's shows from video, without the sponsors that are on network television. and when your child has learned to read, when they can appreciate that ancient art, only then can you allow them to view commercial teevee. by then you can only hope they will understand that the sponsors of their favorite shows don't always have their best interests at heart.
Self education in broad based philosophy (versus a indoctrination into a specific cult like white power or specific religion) can also develop adult abstract thinking and make you more commercial proof.
It is advertisers' jobs to sell products. They are not to blame. Parents are wholly to blame. Parents choose what they spend their money on. They can just say "No".
I tell my boys "no" all the time when they ask for things. It's not that hard to do. But, apparently, I'm a mean mom.
The funniest story I read involved the mom in CA who was pushing for the Happy Meal toy ban. She said it was too difficult to stand strong against her kids whining and begging for McDonald's Happy Meals and wanted the toys removed so her children would stop asking. Just say NO!
Glad to know I'm not the only "mean mom" out there! It's true though that you have to say "no" and mean it! Giving in once just creates more whining later.
It would have been even more interesting if the study had followed up to find out how many of the coupons had been redeemed.
All advertising designed to attract children should be banned.
They don't have defences against it and their parents today don't have the fortitude to stick to the word "no".
I'm not going to get into all the harmful effects that also lead to problems in adulthood because its lengthy.
As adults people should know that good advertising manipulates your emotions and brains.
Nothing should be banned. If the parents do not have fortitude, that is not anyones fault but the parents. You should not be parenting for other people. Unless we are going to start testing people before they have kids, leave them alone.
Only people to blame are the parents.
It's mind games, that's what in substance advertising is. Why would you want to direct that at children.
I agree that parents are responsible for having the fortitude. But it still doesn't negate the negative mind and emotional effects of humans at that age.
Despite many parents efforts, many children grow up to be adults bemoaning what they didn't have in childhood because they had unconciously internally absorbed thru advertising they were supposed to have had something. Right or wrong.
Aim it at adults. And adults have problems with advertising too but that at least with be their shortcoming.
What?? Children have negative emotional effects from advertising? Are you serious? Advertisers are just doing their jobs, and there is nothing unethical about it. Parents are in control - they can turn off the TV, and they can say "No" to the kids' begging. Problem solved. You people and your nanny state, leave it to me to raise my kids. You and the state mind your own business! I will decide what they watch, and I will decide what I buy for them, NOT YOU!
Advertisers are doing there jobs, maybe. But the ethics are in question. Unrealistic claims, even if only implied, and partial truths are unethical, even if not illegal. But I still I don't blame the advertisers as much as I blame an educational system that no longer emphasizes critical thinking.
Where I have a problem with the advertising is, for example, the Arby's commercial that makes it look like there is an inch of beef on a sandwich, but when you buy the sandwich, you can't see the beef unless you remove the top half of the bun. That's deliberately deceptive, and should be illegal. But just promoting a product? What's wrong with that?
When was the last time you were in a McDonald's? How many obese people did you see there? When was the last time you saw a McDonald's commericial with an obese person in it? Unrealistic claim by implication. - In my opinion unethical.
Advertising thrives on unrealistic claims.
And every Hollywood movie and drama is filled with hot babes and hunks. That's what the people want to see. How many lady cops look like Heather Locklear? So what! Enjoy the show and quit complaining. How is showing good looking people in a McDonald's false advertising? Good looking people do eat at McDonald's. And hot babes do work at Arby's (I know, I dated one). It's what they say and show about the product that is or isn't ethical.
Non-sequiter. Movies and TV shows are not advertisements.
Of course they are. You don't see product placement in movies? And then read in the credits "automobiles provided by Ford"? Characters drinking Coke? etc. That's advertising, and it happens in most movies. TV shows not advertisements? "Sponsored by..." in the credits, and often verbally before cutting to commercial. Who do you think pays for the TV shows? Answer: advertisers.
The product placement, sportswear branding, walk-by may be an advertisment within the framework of something else but the movie, TV show or sports event is not an advertisement, it is understood to be a work of fiction or a sporting event. Disclaimers notwithstanding, commericals are presented as a factual depiction of product, usage and result and should be treated as such.
When are the healthy and obsessed with their looks going to get it? Not every kid will choose brownies made with black beans or soy hamburgers that taste like grilled cardboard, nor will most choose apples over chocolate cake. We are NOT going to turn into grazing bovines just to meet some artificial standard of healthy life styles dictated by the government bureaucrats. Please take your raspberry vinagarette and your tofu hot dogs and soyballs( I hesitate to use the word meat--it might cause a spasm) and put them where the sun don't shine. Seven of the past 9 years I taught in a large urban school system---when they changed the menu to reflect the government ordered politically correct food--the only thing that got fed was the garbage cans.
Heck, I'm grown and I wouldn't eat that stuff! Talk about gross.
Lucy you hit the nail right on the head, thank you!
Somebody paid for a study on this? Heck, two hours with my granddaughter, in front of the TV, would have yielded the same result. The kid has NO sales resistance. She responds to every ad on TV with "We need that" or "We should get that" or "I want that"... Just like I did as a kid (until I actually tried "Sperry's WheatHearts" cereal and found that, far from being an ambrosia which would turn me into Superman or Popeye or whatever, the things tasted like soggy cardboard, up to which time I could imagine nothing finer than to dig into a big bowl of "Sperry's WheatHearts" cereal and pestered my mother incessantly to buy some; I was 5 at the time and the disappointment still reverberates over half a century later).
What's amusing is that studies like this will generate millions, perhaps billions in extra advertising dollars for TV execs, yet they will then claim that what people (incl. kids) see on TV "doesn't affect their behavior" (when the issue is sex, drugs, and violence in the programs). The whole notion of commercial television is based on the belief that what people see on TV DOES, in fact, influence perception and behavior. Can't have it both ways.
Hey! Heres an idea. How about these people whom let their children watch TV all day long not complain and do something pro active and go play out side or get some physical involvement in their childs lives. My son has loves his french fries in his occasional happy meal, and I have no problem with that because he is an active and healthy child. He isnt glued to the TV because I dont allow it, he watches a handful of shows that he enjoys but I could not fathom an electronic device becoming his best friend. To all those complaining stop worrying so much about commercials and grease and counteract it with time away from the television and get your children up off their rumps!
My children put in their mouths only that which I purchase for them. This study, and article about this study, is the biggest waste of time and resources. In a time when our nation's finances are taking an uncomfortable ride in a hand-basket please tell me no one wasted money on this study. Can we get on with real business now?
There's something seldom them talked about, "snacks"
I wasn't raised on snacks. It was three meals a day and if you were hurngry otherwise there were apples, bananas etc. Desert was a special occassion, Sundays for example. If you got money of your own you could go to the store and buy candy, gum or potatoe chips. Halloween was a goldmine .
My sibling was born nearly a decade later. Suddenly, the cabinets were filled with potatoe chips, cup cakes, twinkies etc.
I recall an Oprah episode with someone who specialised in helping people loose weight and excercise. He asked the audience if they had snacks with them and take it out if they did. The majority pulled out some fattening snack out of their pusrses.
It's about more than what people are choosing to eat during regular meals.
The research was conducted by Aggies therefore it is suspect.
Sorry, the truth hurts.
No it wasn't, it was done by Dustdevils. Texas A&M INTERNATIONAL University.
Everything else aside, WHY does the article have to point out that the sample group was largely Hispanic? If they thought it made a difference they should have chosen a more diverse sample group in the first place. Don't wait until afterwards to say "Oh well these results were unique to a mostly Hispanic sample group." For those not reading between the lines, white kids are not so much better that they wouldn't choose french fries too. Can anyone say 'ethnocentric'?!
Why does the fact that most subjects were Hispanic make this not generally valid? Are Hispanic children somehow different from other children? I have no firsthand knowledge, but intution tells me that they are no different.
It would hardly be a scientific study if "intuition" was taken into account. The study does not say whether Hispanic children are different or not. It is mentioned because there is a possibility that they could be which would skew the results when compared to other ethnic groups.
So Hispanic children want the fries, but Irish children would take the apple sticks? Give me a break.
Again I'll point out that SCIENTIFIC studies must take ALL variables into account whether they seem to make sense or not.
I don't see the ethnic group of the children as a variable. If it were, then you would have to include thousands of global ethic groups. No, children are children, and that is all that is relevant.