Nanny State in the Extreme

A Literal Nanny State?

AlterNet: The Parents' Bill of Rights

By Jonathan Rowe and Gary Ruskin, Mothering Magazine April 28, 2003

Paul Kurnit is the president of KidShop, an advertising firm that specializes in marketing to children, and he has plans for our kids.

"Kid business has become big business," Kurnit says. To make it even bigger, he preaches what he calls "surround marketing" – saturation advertising that captures kids at every possible moment.

The folks over at AlterNet.org and Mothering Magazine (what a great name for a mag that puts out this sort of idea) seem to think that Mr. Kurnit is dangerous and that government involvement is needed to keep kids from seeing advertising on TV and elsewhere.

Look at the proposals involved in this Parent's Bill of Rights (Q: indicates a quote from the article, N: indicates my note about the immediately preceding quote):

Q: Leave Children Alone Act: Bans television advertising aimed at children under 12 years of age.
N: If the product is legal for children to buy or have bought for them, then this would seem to be prior restraint unless I completely misread the definition.

Q: Child Privacy Act: Restores to parents the ability to safeguard the privacy of their children. It gives parents the right to control any commercial use of personal information concerning their children, and the right to know precisely how such information is used.
N: I do not see any immediate problems with this one. Then again, I wonder if it has been thoroughly thought through for consequences or if it is promoted just because it "sounds good."

Q: Children's Advertising Subsidy Revocation Act: It is intolerable that the federal government rewards corporations with tax write-offs for the money they spend on psychologists, market researchers, ad agencies, and media in their campaigns to instill their values in our children. This act eliminates all federal subsidies, deductions, and preferences for advertising aimed at children under 12 years of age.
N: I am all for our government spending less money, but that’s not even what these guys are talking about. The government is not giving these corporations money. It is simply not taking it from them. I see nothing wrong with that. Corporations make our economy work. These guys seem to think that they are evil and want to influence your children’s thoughts. Oh, wait. That is what they want – to convince your kid to want their toy. While this may be annoying at times, it does not mean that the government should start doling out extra taxes to stop advertisements aimed at kids. If you have a problem with such advertisements, find a way to stop your kid from seeing them. No TV watching for the kid. Use a PVR to blip by the commercials. Watch TV with your child and explain why you think the advertising is wrong. (I never said it would be easy – just possible.)

Q: Advertising to Children Accountability Act: This act helps parents affix individual responsibility for attempts to subject their children to commercial influence. It requires corporations to disclose who created each of their advertisements and who did the market research for each ad directed at children under 12 years of age.
N: Aha! Now we get to the meat of the thing – making it possible and easy to SUE. Follow the money folks.

Q: Commercial-Free Schools Act: Corporations have turned the public schools into advertising free-fire zones. This act prohibits corporations from using the schools and compulsory school laws to bypass parents and pitch their products to impressionable schoolchildren.
N: Does this mean that charity would not be able to post things in a school? What about funding? Many times corporations pay good money to schools to allow their products or advertisements in the school. Who will make up the difference in the funding?

Q: Product Placement Disclosure Act: This law gives parents more information with which to monitor the influences that prey upon their children through the media. Specifically, it requires corporations to disclose, on packaging and at the outset, any and all product placements on television and videos, and in movies, video games, and books. This prevents advertisers from sneaking ads into media that parents assume to be ad-free.
N: Another bow to the gods of the lawsuit.

Q: Child Harm Disclosure Act: Parents have a right to know of any significant health effects of products they might purchase for their children. This act creates a legal duty for corporations to publicly disclose all information suggesting that their product(s) could substantially harm the health of children.
N: Once again, this looks good on paper. I wonder if they have done any studies that show what the consequences of this act would be or if it is just another “sounds good” idea?

Q: Fairness Doctrine for Parents: This act provides parents with the opportunity to talk back to the media and the advertisers. It makes the Fairness Doctrine apply to all advertising to children under 12 years of age, providing parents and community with response time on broadcast TV and radio for advertising to children.
N: So it is a good idea to force station owners to provide, free of charge, programming to anyone who dislikes something said on that station? Even if the only person who dislikes what was said is the person complaining? Besides, I thought that advertising to children under 12 would be illegal based on the first point above. But we need a separate act to make it mandatory that any crackpot who wants it get equal time to rail against something already made illegal in these people’s eyes?

Q: Children's Food Labeling Act: Parents have a right to information about the food that corporations push upon their children. This act requires fast-food restaurant chains to label contents of food and provide basic nutritional information about it.
N: Once more into the breach of sounds-good-but-are-there-any-unnoticed-consequences ideas.
--30--