Sweden banned advertising to children a decade ago. Is this bad?

[JackRiddler]

The thread about the San Francisco proposal to ban toy giveaways with (McDonald's Happy Meals unless the meals include vegetables and water instead of sugar drinks) made me recall that Sweden banned advertising on children's TV programming altogether almost ten years ago. By comparison, the San Francisco idea is lame and bound to be ineffective. Really protecting children from McDonald's propaganda would mean getting the clown and his accomplices off the TV altogether.

I was rather surprised by the reactions of Americans, especially purportedly liberal ones, to the idea of giving children minimal protection from faraway strangers who would irresponsibly manipulate them(1) into desiring food that is very bad for them. There's a lot of talk about the "nanny state," I wonder if the same people would like to see the return of Joe Camel to television, or would approve of advertising for other dangerous items? The fact is that McDonald's food and sugar drinks is not good for children. I expect some guilt is involved here, since we have all at some point succumbed (as have I) to the incessant demands of children to go to McDonald's and Chuck E. Cheese and the rest. We need to get over that guilt and acknowledge simply that in this case, less is more.

The broader issue is that children are largely helpless targets in a war for the mind. And at least to the advertising side, this is a war. They act on no higher impulse than winning market.

One common response is to say that it's the parents' responsibility (assuming there are parents, by the way) to feed their children well and protect them from commercial manipulation.

What about the responsibility of the corporate strangers?

How is it all right for them to be planning how best to manipulate the minds of the young and helpless, if possible from infancy, and spending billions to do so? How is it all right for them to employ whatever tricks they can devise to circumvent parental responsibility? Why should already overburdened parents be forced into a competition for their childrens' minds with predatory corporations who care only for sales?

Discuss.

NOTE

(1) The purported effectiveness of this manipulation, or the possibility that the damage is relatively slight, should be irrelevant to the main point that it is an attempted manipulation without any regard for the interests of the children. If advertisers had a magic button by which they could literally take over the minds of children and cause them to demand McDonald's all day, or any other product no matter how harmful, does anyone believe it would not sooner or later be put to use?

[JackRiddler]

1. WTF? Edits to this thread don't seem to work...

I did some copy editing but it won't display despite repeated reload attempts. Weird. I'll just post the slightly cleaner text here:



The thread about the San Francisco proposal to ban toy giveaways with McDonald's Happy Meals (unless the meals include vegetables and water instead of sugar drinks) made me recall that Sweden banned advertising on children's TV programming altogether almost ten years ago. By comparison, the San Francisco idea is lame and bound to be ineffective. It manages to sound evangelical and be cosmetic at the same time. Really protecting children from McDonald's propaganda would mean getting the Clown and his accomplices off the TV altogether.

I was rather surprised by the reactions of Americans, especially purportedly liberal ones, to the idea of giving children minimal protection from faraway strangers who would irresponsibly manipulate them(1) into desiring food that is very bad for them. There's a lot of talk about the "nanny state," I wonder if the same people would like to see the return of Joe Camel to television, or would approve of advertising to children for other dangerous items? The fact is that McDonald's food and sugar drinks are not good for children.

I expect some guilt is involved here, since we have all at some point succumbed (as have I) to the incessant demands of children to go to McDonald's and Chuck E. Cheese and the rest. We need to get over that guilt and acknowledge simply that in this case, less is more. It's all right if you take your kids to the junk food once in a while.

The broader issue is that children are largely helpless targets in a war for the mind. And at least to the advertising side, this is a war. They act on no higher impulse than winning market.

One common response is to say that it's the parents' responsibility (assuming there are parents, by the way) to feed their children well and protect them from commercial manipulation.

What about the responsibility of the corporate strangers?

How is it all right for them to be planning how best to manipulate the minds of the young and helpless, if possible from infancy, and spending billions to do so? How is it all right for them to employ whatever tricks they can devise to circumvent parental responsibility? Why should already overburdened parents be forced into a competition for their childrens' minds with predatory corporations who care only for sales?

Discuss.

NOTE

(1) The purported effectiveness of this manipulation, or the possibility that the damage is relatively slight, should be irrelevant to the main point that it is an attempted manipulation without any regard for the interests of the children. If advertisers had a magic button by which they could literally take over the minds of children and cause them to demand McDonald's all day, or any other product no matter how harmful, does anyone believe it would not sooner or later be put to use?

[KansDem]

2. Well, Sweden ranks no. 4 in Forbes "happiness" poll...

http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-realestate-gallup-table.html

The US is no. 14.

But I imagine that has more to do with health care and education being socialized, rather than if a child gets a plastic tolken in a Happy Meal...

[JackRiddler]

3. k

[Luminous Animal]

4. K&R

[seabeyond]

5. oh, i hear the touting of free and open sweden as they do all these things that make a healthy

society that is contradictive to what i hear about the free and open society.

just a hoot.

gotta love them. and du.

[Luminous Animal]

6. Does unfettered capitalism = a free and open society?

[seabeyond]

8. my back is really tired from sitting here about the FD threads. to understand my post

i would actually have to explain. instead, i will just giggle to self, and trot off to a shower.

[JackRiddler]

10. You have done great service to the cause of your argument.

Here's your prize:

:eyes:

[WeekendWarrior]

7. To my mind

Getting rid of happy meal toys is no different than getting rid of Joe Camel.

McDonalds is selling poison. In order to promote that poison to kids, they offer toys.

It's a no-brainer, if you ask me.

[Luminous Animal]

9. +1