Protecting kids from harmful ads

'What we want to see is more discussion, at the FCC for instance, that could lead to re-establishing some regulation of what can be marketed to children. Sometimes we get lost in the First Amendment argument. In fact, we have a long history of the government protecting children.'

Protecting kids
from harmful ads

Is the notion now more frivolous, or more timely?

By David Everitt

    Certain issues just don’t have the same emotional punch that they had before the horrendous events of Sept. 11. The private life of Gary Condit is one that comes to mind. The wearing of animal-derived clothing and campaign-finance reform would be others.
    Something else we were hearing an awful lot about just a few weeks ago was the idea that the media was responsible for a great many social ills, from violence to drug addiction.
   Now that some time has passed since the terrorist attacks, how does that issue look to us? Is it still an issue at all?
   A particular activist event provides a way of gauging how people regard this matter. On Sept. 10, right before the catastrophe that has changed our lives, a group called Stop Commercial Exploitation of Children staged a mock awards ceremony, called "Have You Lost Your Marbles?" to protest the Golden Marbles Awards to honor the best advertising for children.
    SCEC maintains that child-targeted ads inflict great harm on the minds of kids, ranging from the sexualizing of childhood to simply encouraging kids to nag their parents to buy them something.
   Among other things, the SCEC protesters praised Sweden’s efforts to ban advertising to children within the European Union.
   Predictably enough, we haven’t heard a whole lot about the danger of commercials in the wake of the unspeakable murder of more than 6,000 innocent people. But, as it turns out, that doesn’t mean that media watchdogs have necessarily moved on to other things.
   I called Gary Ruskin, director of Commercial Alert and a prominent critic of marketing campaigns aimed at children. I asked him if the catastrophes of Sept. 11 changed his perspective on this issue at all.
   "Nothing’s changed," he said. "Commercials will continue to go on harming our children."
    From there he went on to cite the usual complaints (junk-food ads encourage obesity, violent-video-game ads promote products "that teach kids how to kill") along with some fairly novel ones (alcohol ads "lead to other problems like date rape"). I have to admit I was relieved that he didn’t talk about what video games Osama bin Laden used to play.
   Dr. Diane Levin, an SCEC official, differs somewhat. She thought the terrorist attack would make it difficult for people to deal with the commercial exploitation issue.
   "But then," she adds, "a week later there was much more talk about media violence, about certain violent images that are not acceptable right now."
   But, I pointed out, those concerns have more to do with how we respond to this particular national nightmare than the ongoing questions raised by SCEC. "As we connect to those responses," Levin replied, "I think we’ll make some progress."
   The reaction was even more different from Marcelle Bonanno, associate publisher of KidScreen Magazine, which sponsored the Golden Marbles presentation. She said she couldn’t believe I was calling her about this issue in light of what had just happened in New York and Washington, D.C. And, to tell the truth, I had a hard time justifying my call.
   Once we got beyond that, Bonanno answered the Golden Marbles critics. "What we hope to achieve is to raise the bar, to celebrate excellence in advertising for children. Our judges are very careful about the commercials they select. Anything exploitive or not good for children is not honored. Mostly, these ads are very humorous. And many of them support a lot of wonderful programming that wouldn’t be financed otherwise."
   In light of SCEC’s support of Sweden’s efforts to ban child-targeted advertising, does that mean the organization wants to see an American law making this kind of marketing illegal?
   "That’s pie in the sky at this point," says Levin. "We try to be more realistic. What we want to see is more discussion, at the FCC for instance, that could lead to re-establishing some regulation of what can be marketed to children. Sometimes we get lost in the First Amendment argument. In fact, we have a long history of the government protecting children."
   At first the target would be commercials aimed at those ages eight and under, but Levin adds that "you can make a case for regulation for children up to 12 and even adolescents."
   Ruskin concedes that the regulation issue is complex, but he singles out one prominent concern. "In the long term, what we have to do is revoke the commercial speech doctrine."
   He is referring to a series of court decisions that make a distinction between political speech, which receives the highest form of protection from government interference, and commercial speech, which can be regulated to guard against false and deceptive advertising but still enjoys considerable protection as well.
   David Rubin, dean of Syracuse University’s Newhouse School of Communications, points out that advertising can be regulated if it involves a health issue, but the basis for that kind of regulation is difficult to establish outside clear-cut areas such as tobacco commercials.
   "Some people have tried the same approach with violent content sold to children, to apply rules governing tobacco-ad speech to, say, ads for an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, saying that this product causes the same kind of harm.
    "But the government hasn’t been willing to go that far. They’ve made it clear that there isn’t the same kind of evidence relating to violent content that can be found in regard to the ill effects of tobacco."
   Getting back to the horrors of Sept. 11, Rubin says we’ll probably see a pullback in the marketing of violence for other reasons.
   "The events of a couple of weeks ago have done more to sober Hollywood and the TV industry than anything that politicians or activists could do. Changes are being dictated by the market, which is probably how it should be decided."

-David Everitt covers television and technology for Media Life, writing from Huntington, New York.

Printer-Friendly Version | Send to a Friend
Cover Page | Contact Us