Sesame Street is brought to you by the letters "p" and "h", and by the corporations Bechtel, McDonald's, Lockheed Martin...
When I was a junior in college, a political science professor first turned me on to the cliche of a "slippery slope." He was a diehard federalist, and was using the phrase to talk about how, even in the smallest instance, if the federal government steps in where a state or local government had previously reigned, it creates a "slippery slope" to big government.I always thought this prof was based more in 1810 than the 21st century, but he was a wonderful teacher nonetheless. I'm reminded of his "slippery slope" lecture again today, as PBS just announced that it will start using web banner ads on its popular Kids website.
Is this a problem? Truth is, I don't know. I know PBS needs money, especially when every few years GOP operatives threaten to scale back federal funding for public broadcasting and "Kill Big Bird." But I'm also horrified at the thought of children being drawn to a banner advertisement for french fries and happy meals, or some damn dancing monkey asking them to take a survey.
The Boston-based group Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood has cried foul on PBS (no 'Big Bird' pun intended), issuing an action alert email for concerned parents and activists to send an email to PBS President Paula Kerger.
PBS, on the other hand, is holding fast that they need to find new ways of bringing in revenue.
So another culture battle ensues. I don't have the smarts to say what is right or wrong here. I watched plenty of commercials growing up, and I don't feel like I turned out to be a corporate whore (so says the blogger drinking his Starbucks coffee this morning). But I'm glad that watchdog groups are speaking out about this, only to raise it as an issue. I'm reminded of a comment that former Senator Alan Simpson said years back on the issue of civil liberties:
"There is no 'slippery slope' toward loss of liberties, only a long staircase where each step downward must first be tolerated by the American people and their leaders.”
Can the same be said about the commercialization of children? Does one McDonald's ad today equal cardiovascular failure later? I guess time will tell.
posted by MikeJ at
11:38 AM
3 Comments:
Well, I was going to offer you some consoling words in the form of Jakob Nielsen's research on a phenomenon he's dubbed banner blindness, but I stumbled across this while trying to find the reference, so never mind (particularly the "Advertising Works" section).
For what it's worth, it's very likely that PBS really does need the funding, and it would be a shame to see the channel disappear entirely.
Plus, children are constantly bombarded with advertising as it is. Most Saturday morning cartoons, as my mother would often lament, are half-hour ads, occasionally interrupted by shorter ads.
Don't get me wrong: advertising sucks, and I hate that it creeps into every facet of our lives. But we live in an economy-driven society, and it's the nature of the beast.
For what it's worth, predicting the death of advertising has become the trendy thing to do in marketing circles, so maybe there's hope.
By
Smitty, at 12:43 PM
Great post as always, and I agree with Smitty. Maybe PBS will have some control over whose banners get to be shown on their web site, so at least to some degree, the images kids who visit these pages will be somewhat moderated. But whatever. Advertising sucks.
P.S. I'm going to overlook that bit about SBUX. :-D
By
Mags, at 2:33 AM
I don't know much about the other stuff, but I love me some birds...and the idea of a BIG bird excites me.
By
Frida, at 4:13 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home