Advertising Twinkies in National Geographic Kids
Do you think magazines should filter their advertisements, to make sure they are suitable for the targeted audience? Or should magazines accept money from anyone who wants to advertise a legal product?
That question was highlighted in The New York Times today, by a group who is upset that National Geographic Kids has ads for sugary junk food (especially since the cover story of the grown-up version of National Geographic this month is on obesity).
From "Obesity and National Geographic" by Nat Ives, July 21, 2004.
That question was highlighted in The New York Times today, by a group who is upset that National Geographic Kids has ads for sugary junk food (especially since the cover story of the grown-up version of National Geographic this month is on obesity).
"The Center for Science in the Public Interest has sent a letter to the National Geographic Society, publisher of the magazines, complaining about the ads for products like Hostess cupcakes and Kellogg's Smorz cereal in the publications.
"It is unconscionable that the National Geographic Society, with its esteemed reputation and longstanding educational mission for both adults and children, has chosen to cram National Geographic Kids magazine with advertisements for sugary cereals, candy and snack foods," the letter says."
From "Obesity and National Geographic" by Nat Ives, July 21, 2004.
1 Comments:
I think Rachel hit the key point at the end of her posting. IF the revenue from Kellogg's advertising influences the editorial decisions of the magazine...then we have a real problem, Houston. If it doesn't, you still have the question of advertising a potentially harmful product to vulnerable audiences. But, given the volume of junk food advertising that kids are exposed to in other forms of media, this is probably not a significant harm.
An alternative point of view is that advertising should not be blamed for the obesity epidemic among today's children and adults. In "McMissing the Point" Heather William writes:
"For all his upfront corporation-bashing, the filmmaker doesn't look beyond the issues of heavy-duty Washington lobbying and noxious advertising to kids to entertain the idea that maybe, just maybe, the epidemic of obesity might have to do with a global crisis of wage labor. Nutrition-related disorders don't plague the population evenly. There are real reasons why a lot of people, particularly working-class folks, are living in bloated, poisoned bodies. Foods full of transfats, cholesterol, sugars, and empty starches don't keep bodies strong in the long run, but they are frequently the only foods available for people who live in neighborhoods without grocery stores, or who work two or three minimum-wage jobs. Crappy food also goes down quick in a 15 minute lunch break, and it gets you through a long shift. It's crazy but true that McDonald's can retail a sandwich for less that it takes to purchase the ingredients and cook them. It's crazy but true that the unequal economies in the world (most of them in Latin America) are among the world's highest per capita consumers of sugared soft drinks. These economic realities, and not just corporate advertising, are really worth considering."
By
donica, at 11:20 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home