View Full Version : It's the Medias fault no it's the government's fault no blame Canada no blame .......
sarettah
12-06-2005, 07:33 PM
Anybody except the ones who are actually responsible for the shit.
In this case, the parents. It is their job to ensure that the kid has a healthy diet and remains active rather than pumping them full of mickey d's fat pills and plopping them down in front of their computer/tv/xbox/whatever other electronic babysitter they choose.
But blaming advertising because kids are fat?? :blink:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=ai3DcJRAdaL8&refer=us
Ads Blamed for U.S. Children's Poor Diet, Study Says (Update1)
Advertising may be contributing to poor eating habits in U.S. children by encouraging them to choose foods and beverages that are higher in fat and calories, according to a government-sponsored report released today.
Food and restaurant marketing geared to children often promotes unhealthy foods and influences the short-term preferences of 2- to 11-year-olds, according to the nonprofit Institute of Medicine's review of more than 120 relevant studies. There isn't enough research to determine if the same influence extends to teenagers, the institute said.
.............................
Companies spend about $10 billion a year to advertise food, beverages and restaurants to children through television and other media, according to the report.
Dravyk
12-06-2005, 07:37 PM
For starting another thread about how irresponsible many parents are, and how we live in a society where no one takes responsibility ... http://oprano.com/msgboard/images/smilies/buttkick.gif
sarettah
12-06-2005, 07:43 PM
For starting another thread about how irresponsible many parents are, and how we live in a society where no one takes responsibility ... http://oprano.com/msgboard/images/smilies/buttkick.gif
It's not my fault dammit :mad:
i think that when children are bombarded daily with billions in advertising for shit food, drinks, candies and so on, endorsed by all their favorite cartoon characters, singers or other idols... it is a problem that extends beyond "good parenting". besides that, parents today for the most part, eat like fucking idiots as well and lack any perspective on what healthy eating habits are.
how do you counter hundreds of billions of advertising? personally, i dont think its realistic to think you can teach a kid what good eating habits are. most are never going to get it because it your message and 10,000,000 others and peers saying and doing the opposite.
this is one of the few areas of society where i feel government should get involved. schools should not have candy and pop machines. they should not have mcdonalds in them etc. if mcdonalds is going to almost exclusively market to children with toys, birthday parties, happy meals and indoor playgrounds, then they should bear some responsibility for it.
its not an issue anymore of freedom, free market economics or good parenting.. its a problem that has become pandemic in its scale.
do you allow the genocide just because those dying don't complain? no. if anyone had the slightest bit of compassion for those around them... they would encourage healthy lifestyles and healthy eating habits and do whatever is necessary to stop some ghetto retard, self loathing trailer trash or otherwise damaged parent from making their kids obese for life.
Ugh, I agree with you on this one Sar, in this case it is the parents.
Undoubtedly distant relatives of the ladies who put their dead aunty's finger in their chili to try to win money, or the woman who sued for the hot coffee being hot, or the other lady who is suing because hot poppers were hot...
PornoDoggy
12-07-2005, 01:08 AM
Parents need to learn to say no.
That being said, I see no less justification for regulation of advertising aimed at children as I do programming content.
One of the things that really pisses me off is when advertisers exploit children to promote a rather unchild-like product.
Our local high speed cable company uses kids on a playground, doing the "My dad can beat your dad up" on and on and on and then it goes to "My internet is faster than your internet"
Or another one which actually cracked me up everytime I saw it, had the little boy in a classroom of little boys constantly going up to the "instructor' or whatever, and in an imploring tone of voice & a sweet little accent, "More speed sir! More Speed?" It made no real reference to internet connections exept for the kid was holding a laptop, other than that he could've been asking for drugs.
PornoDoggy
12-07-2005, 01:14 AM
How do you figure that those ads are "exploiting" children?
I disagree with the means in which they're using the kids to market a product in which the kid likely has low to no understanding of what it is they're doing there.
But I also disagree rather strongly with using kids in marketing anything that isn't specifically supposed to be for kids, like diapers, or orange juice, or a child's toys.
PornoDoggy
12-07-2005, 01:48 AM
The simple fact that they use kids in the ad doesn't mean the ad is aimed at kids. They use kids to be cute or to be funny, and I can't see how you regard that as exploitation.
One I found "odd" lately is the use of the actress that plays the role of the President's daughter on West Wing in an anagalesic ad (Excedrin, I think). She's young enough that it almost seems like the ad is aimed at teens - or maybe I'm just old. :)
The simple fact that they use kids in the ad doesn't mean the ad is aimed at kids. They use kids to be cute or to be funny, and I can't see how you regard that as exploitation.
One I found "odd" lately is the use of the actress that plays the role of the President's daughter on West Wing in an anagalesic ad (Excedrin, I think). She's young enough that it almost seems like the ad is aimed at teens - or maybe I'm just old. :)
Okay lets put it this way.
The way these ads are constructed, (ESPECIALLY the playground one) it is aimed at kids. Its aimed at their vulnerabilities, their peers, the fear of rejection because you *don't* have high speed internet, the marketing tactic is one that would easily result in kids all across the ad aired area (phew!) harassing their parents to "Please can we get Shaw, please?" and they even HAD another ad which was the kids setting up an "ambush" at the dinner table talking about all the educational purposes high speed internet would have. Yes that ad featured older kids around 13 or 14, but the younger playground ones where "King of the Castle" gets played I found a lot less "cute or funny" and a lot more "oh my god, I can just imagine what kids who see that ad are going to start doing"
Robin
12-07-2005, 07:59 AM
Anybody except the ones who are actually responsible for the shit.
In this case, the parents. It is their job to ensure that the kid has a healthy diet and remains active rather than pumping them full of mickey d's fat pills and plopping them down in front of their computer/tv/xbox/whatever other electronic babysitter they choose.
But blaming advertising because kids are fat?? :blink:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=ai3DcJRAdaL8&refer=us
You know, I think you are discounting the real power of advertising. If it didn't work then companies wouldn't spent BILLIONS on it each week.
It *really is* the large junk food purveyors that are mostly responsible...
sarettah
12-07-2005, 09:14 AM
So, based on that logic....
Alcoholism can be blamed on the beer companies.
Diabetes can be blamed on the candy companies.
Credit card debt- The credit card companies and the consumer product companies.
etc etc etc
They all spend billions bombarding us with messages to buy buy buy....
JR, same logic applies to the war in Iraq. The administration hired PR people, fed lines of bullshit, etc but you have claimed in other discussions that it was up to the individuals to decide their viewpoint and they were not responsible for what someone thought.
You can't have it both ways.
If we do not protect the big food composiums right to say "EAT ME" we could end up losing the right to say "EAT ME"...... :okthumb:
Robin
12-07-2005, 09:25 AM
So, based on that logic....
Alcoholism can be blamed on the beer companies.
Diabetes can be blamed on the candy companies.
Credit card debt- The credit card companies and the consumer product companies.
Alcoholism - No - that, I believe has been shown to be something you are born with. If you drink alcohol your brain makes you want more and more - far in excess of any 'normal' person.
Diabetes - Absolutely, you can blame that on all the high fructose corn syrup and sugar in sodas, on all the fat in burgers, all the sugar in candy. If they were not advertised so heavily they would not be so desirable.
Credit Card Debt - You betcha - what's in your wallet! ?
Now - I don't say these companies are doing anything illegal - or even say they should be stopped. But I do say they are morally responsible for what they do. The same way Wal-Mart is morally responsible for destroying thousands of Downtowns (but that's another story).
Jeremy
12-07-2005, 09:32 AM
Interesting language there.
Headline: Ads Blamed - pretty damned definitive, it's obviously all the ads' fault.
Article: Advertising may be contributing - much more realistic, that ads may be a part of the problem.
The ads are targetted at the kids so they tell mom and dad to get it for them. It's been that way since the advent of commercial tv.
It's up to the parents to put the brakes on. If your kid is overweight and you keep feeding him junk, the kid is going to get keep getting fat.
The advertisers aren't going to stop. The responsibility lies with the parents.
Nickatilynx
12-07-2005, 11:45 AM
Bottomline childhood obessity is the parents fault...
I think what bothers me more than the ads targetting the kids, is the way the advertisers perpetuate the destruction, the dumbing down and the ghettoizing of the English language. This is what parents should be outraged enough to write letters about. (The current one that really irks me know is Boost cell phones with their slogan of "Where you at?")
If enough people cared about that, it could change. I have personal experience to prove it can be done.
You may remember for years Curad bandages had the slogan of "It wont ouch me." What you may not remember that when that campaign started in 1973 the slogan was "It don't ouch me." I was appalled at that and being the activist/radical I was at 18, I wrote them a letter stating that it was bad enough that kids are graduating school being functionally illiterate and they were adding to it. I also told them that I would boycott their product and that I was sure every schoolteacher in the country would agree with me. I received a very nice letter back stating that they were forwarding my letter to their advertising department. A month later the slogan was changed.
Robin
12-07-2005, 12:23 PM
Bottomline childhood obessity is the parents fault...
Yes - but it often goes back generations because today's parents were badly brought up and so on. It's very hard to expect a heavily overweight mother not to feed her kids the way she was fed when she was young.
Living in South Texas I see this problem everywhere - and it's mostly the poorer people who are fattest it seems to me. They are likely the least educated too. In the UK the govt spends a lot on advertising healthy lifestyles. I think they should do that here on Disney and Nickelodeon. Actually Nickelodeon do it themselves - which is excellent.
No, somebody needs to counter the misleading ads of the big fast food companies. You can't do nothing and just say "It's the parent's fault" - that's not fair on their kids!
JR, same logic applies to the war in Iraq. The administration hired PR people, fed lines of bullshit, etc but you have claimed in other discussions that it was up to the individuals to decide their viewpoint and they were not responsible for what someone thought.
i'm sorry, i am confused with the iraq analogy. are you comparing Saddam to Ronald Mcdonald? last i checked, Bush was not targeting 4-12yr olds for support. an adult can be held responsible for his decisions. a child cannot.
i think an obese child is of course the failure of the parent. but i think this issue is a little different than all others in that the parent has to fight 100,000 messages a day and hundreds of billions in marketing annually and litterally 10's of trillions in marketing before 18, telling that kid that eating pop tarts, cookies, candy and fast food is a great thing to do.
people in this country and in the western world in general are getting fatter every year. people have no perspective anymore on what good eating habits are and yet people will say "its the responsibility of the parent".... so ... what about the 10,000,000 parents that are failing? what about the children that will be fucked up for life battling weight and weight related problems until they die? what about their children that are going to be caught in the same cycle?
as a general rule, i couldn't give a fuck what people do. but when i see countless people destroying their kids everyday... i think the "its up to the parent" arguement begins to breakdown.
feb 15. that is the target launch date of a magazine i have created with a partner will be launched. its about womens health and fitness. why i am doing it? first its a lucrative market. second, i am SOOOOOOOOO FUCKING TIRED of watching people destroy themselves and their children. i have decided to put my money where my mouth is on this very issue.
PornoDoggy
12-07-2005, 01:00 PM
I'm not sure I agree with the idea that the President of the United States should be held to a lower standard than a large corporation - after all, both Bush and Ronald McDonald are fucking clowns
Newton
12-07-2005, 01:44 PM
Advertising is responsible as they deliberately target age groups at certains times of the day for catchment. Keeping them active, finding sports or activities they love to do and being there with them is important. You will never get that time with them again ...
i think an obese child is of course the failure of the parent. but i think this issue is a little different than all others in that the parent has to fight 100,000 messages a day and hundreds of billions in marketing annually and litterally 10's of trillions in marketing before 18, telling that kid that eating pop tarts, cookies, candy and fast food is a great thing to do.
You're absolutely right. It takes work on a parent's part. Ask any parent with a child who, for one reason or another, has dietary restrictions.
is this really JUST a parenting issue? my opinion is that it isn't. i think the parent is somewhat responsible. not sure to what degree. i think that there should be something done to curb how food is marketed that targets children. not sure how. i believe very deeply that schools should have their asses kicked for the shit they feed kids and that the federal government should re-evaluate their own programs where they subsidize schools which feed kids absolute shit.
1) a child is being programmed to be a turd until he dies. thats not his choice, but its going to affect him until he dies and most likely be the cause of his death.
2) its something that has a direct impact on us all economically.
=========================================
http://www.obesity.org/treatment/cost.shtml
Costs of Obesity
Several researchers have examined the costs of obesity. The World Bank has estimated the cost of obesity in the U.S. at 12 percent of the national health care budget, according to the Worldwatch Institute.
The American Obesity Association commissioned a cost study in 1999 by the Lewin Group, a respected health economics consulting firm. The Lewin Group examined the costs of fifteen (15) conditions causally related to obesity. They included: arthritis, breast cancer, heart disease, colorectal cancer, type 2 diabetes, endometrial cancer, end-stage renal disease, gallbladder disease, hypertension, liver disease, low back pain, renal cell cancer, obstructive sleep apnea, stroke and urinary incontinence. Utilizing the National Health Interview Survey in 1995 and the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) databases, they established prevalence rates of each comorbid condition.
For each condition, the percentage of the cost of each disease was determined through the scientific literature or professional associations and were computed according to the percent of the costs attributed to obesity. This method established the direct health care costs of obesity at $102.2 billion in 1999. See Table 1. This study did not examine indirect costs. It should be noted that the study relied on published data on the costs of the specific comorbid diseases. There is probably some amount of double-counting in the figure which could not be adjusted.
=========
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9545015&dopt=Abstract
Current estimates of the economic cost of obesity in the United States.
Wolf AM, Colditz GA.
The Women's Place, University of Virginia Health Systems, Charlottesville, USA.
This study was undertaken to update and revise the estimate of the economic impact of obesity in the United States. A prevalence-based approach to the cost of illness was used to estimate the economic costs in 1995 dollars attributable to obesity for type 2 diabetes mellitus, coronary heart disease (CHD), hypertension, gallbladder disease, breast, endometrial and colon cancer, and osteoarthritis. Additionally and independently, excess physician visits, work-lost days, restricted activity, and bed-days attributable to obesity were analyzed cross-sectionally using the 1988 and 1994 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). Direct (personal health care, hospital care, physician services, allied health services, and medications) and indirect costs (lost output as a result of a reduction or cessation of productivity due to morbidity or mortality) are from published reports and inflated to 1995 dollars using the medical component of the consumer price index (CPI) for direct cost and the all-items CPI for indirect cost. Population-attributable risk percents (PAR%) are estimated from large prospective studies. Excess work-lost days, restricted activity, bed-days, and physician visits are estimated from 88,262 U.S. citizens who participated in the 1988 NHIS and 80,261 who participated in the 1994 NHIS. Sample weights have been incorporated into the NHIS analyses, making these data generalizable to the U.S. population. The total cost attributable to obesity amounted to $99.2 billion dollars in 1995. Approximately $51.64 billion of those dollars were direct medical costs. Using the 1994 NHIS data, cost of lost productivity attributed to obesity (BMI> or =30) was $3.9 billion and reflected 39.2 million days of lost work. In addition, 239 million restricted-activity days, 89.5 million bed-days, and 62.6 million physician visits were attributable to obesity in 1994. Compared with 1988 NHIS data, in 1994 the number of restricted-activity days (36%), bed-days (28%), and work-lost days (50%) increased substantially. The number of physician visits attributed to obesity increased 88% from 1988 to 1994. The economic and personal health costs of overweight and obesity are enormous and compromise the health of the United States. The direct costs associated with obesity represent 5.7% of our National Health Expenditure in the United States.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.