Debate Digest: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook, Law school, Balanced budget amendment, US debt ceiling deal.
Debate: Ban on advertising targeting children
From Debatepedia
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Should there be a ban on television advertisements aimed at children? |
Editing tasks you can do:
- This article's pro/con resources section (bottom) needs expanding. Arguments and quotations need to be drawn from the gathered pro and con articles and presented in this debate article. See how in the getting started tutorial.
|
Products: Do ads to children foster a "must-have" mentality? | |
Yes
|
No
|
Social: Do TV ads targeting children have negative social consequences? | |
Yes
|
No
|
Argument #4 | |
YesThis measure stands alone but has a good precedent in the restrictions placed in most countries upon advertising tobacco and alcohol. It also takes a stand against increasingly exploitative marketing campaigns that ruthlessly target children. In the USA marketing companies are already offering schools free televisions in exchange for their students being forced to watch a certain amount of programming and advertisements each day, and selling marketing data on those children. It is time that childhood was protected from such commercialisation.
|
NoThis measure sets a bad precedent which is likely to result in ever more restrictions upon the freedom of expression. Children watch many programmes that adults also enjoy, and some adults are also particularly suggestible; should we then extend this ban to all television advertising. And why stop at television when children are also exposed to radio, cinema, the internet and billboards in the street as well? Perhaps companies should also be banned from sponsoring entertainment and sporting events for children, and prevented from providing free branded resources for schools. On the other hand, any restrictions will be impossible to enforce as television is increasingly broadcast by satellite across national borders and cannot easily be controlled - nor can the internet.
|
Argument #5 | |
YesExploitative advertising brainwashes children into becoming eager consumers and capitalists. Multinational companies deliberately encourage them to be materialistic so that they associate happiness with purchasing power and the possession of particular goods. A study recently found that children in Sweden, where marketing campaigns to the under-12s are banned, wanted significantly fewer toys than children in Britain, where there are no restrictions. |
NoBanning advertisements is a severe restriction upon freedom of speech. Companies should be able to tell the public about any legal products, or innovation will be restricted and new companies will find it hard to market their products successfully in the face of established rivals. Children also have a human right to receive information from a wide range of sources and make up their own minds about it. They are far from being brainwashed by advertisements, which form only a small part of their experiences; family, friends, school and other television programmes are much more important and all give them alternative views of the world. |
Argument #6 | |
YesBroadcasting is increasingly diverse, with state-funded, commercial and subscription channels all available in most countries. Restricting advertising a little will not make much difference to revenues of commercial broadcasters, and they can be regulated to ensure that they continue to offer a good standard of children’s programming. Programme quality is likely to improve as much children’s television these days involves considerable product-placement and advertising tie-ins, which result in poor programmes and unimaginative formats. |
NoAdvertisements are the means by which most television stations are funded. If advertising to children is banned, then broadcasters will stop showing children’s programmes, or greatly reduce their quality and quantity, which is clearly not in the public interest. State broadcasters funded by a license fee, such as the UK’s BBC, and specialist subscription channels that are also not dependent upon advertising revenue would both welcome restrictions upon the ability of commercial broadcasters to compete with them in children’s programming. As competition is the best means of improving choice, diversity and quality, their lobbying on this issue should be disregarded. Nor does advertising only benefit commercial broadcasters, consumers also benefit. Greece has banned advertising of toys, and this has led to a more limited selection of toys being sold in Greece. Children’s magazines rely upon advertising to be affordable - logically under this proposal they should be prevented from doing so, and so effectively shut down.
|
Pro/con resources | |
Yes
|
No
|
References:Motions:
In legislation, policy, and the real world:See also on Debatepedia:External links and resources:
Books:
|
Categories: Debatabase | Under-age | Family | Business | Food