National Geographic goes over to the dark side

[donsu]

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0719-04.htm

National Geographic Pushes Junk Food to Kids, Says CSPI

The National Geographic Society’s once ad-free magazine for kids is now packed with ads for fast food, candy, sugary cereals, snack cakes, and other products, according to the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). CSPI today urged the Society to reject ads for low-nutrition, high-calorie foods which CSPI says put the magazine’s young readers at greater risk for obesity, tooth decay, and other diet-related diseases.

The magazine, National Geographic Kids (NGK), also runs very few articles about nutrition or healthy eating and shamelessly blends food advertising into its editorial content, according to a review CSPI conducted of 17 recent issues. Those issues had 51 junk-food ads, including ads for Twinkies, M&Ms, Frosted Flakes, Froot Loops, Hostess Cup Cakes, and Xtreme Jell-O Pudding Sticks. In one recent issue, the magazine printed a wrap-around cover, similar to the actual cover, promoting Arby’s “Adventure Meal” that contains National Geographic Kids materials. Each meal is “loaded with learning,” according to the ad copy, and “trusted by moms.” One of the meals depicted is fried chicken fingers with French fries, which provides 590 calories and more than half-a-day’s worth of fat and sodium.

-snip-

CSPI also said that for a magazine supposedly devoted to encouraging respect for the animal kingdom, some of its ads seemed particularly inappropriate, such as ads for Hostess Cup Cakes and Twinkies that depict a duck being hit by a train and a beaver getting crushed by a fallen mailbox.

-snip-
----------------------------------------

america does not like children

voting in Nov. is a dream

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ripley]

2. Gee, you must be really young.

If you still read NGK. What made you come here?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ripley]

5. Why doesn't it bother you that something you let your children

read has an ulterior motive of making corporate profits as the expense of your kids' health?

Do you not understand what advertising does to kids?

[redqueen]

6. Gotta chime in here - kids don't spend money, parents do.

I use advertising as a way to teach my kids. Every time they parrot what some ad has claimed, I use that opportunity to explain how advertising works.

IMO it's great - my kids will not be suckered by ads when they get old enough to spend their money.

[AP]

7. In the doc "The Corporation" they have an interview with a woman

who runs a company which helps companies market to children.

Apparently, it's very easy to get childrens to want things and to get them to carry out strategies to get those things from their parents.

[redqueen]

10. I don't get it - carry out strategies on their parents?

Aren't parents the bosses here?

:wtf:

[AP]

18. IIRC, the woman explained how they train kids to whine until

they get what they want.

It was pretty sophisticated.

[redqueen]

21. LOL

You gotta be kiddin me!

It's all the advertisers' fault! I can't resist my kids whining!

*sigh*

There's the reason for the downfall of society, right there.

[AP]

28. It's not ALL the advertisers' fault. But it isn't ONLY the parent's fault.

[redqueen]

32. I disagree -- who else buys food for the kids on a regular basis?

C'mon!

[AP]

41. So you don't buy them what the whine for. They resent you and then believe

that consumption is the way to rebel against their parents when they're a little older and can buy things for themselves.

Parents should stand up to their children, but the advertisers are really effective, and will win in the end.

Parents should behave responsibly from the beginning. It's not just about not buying the crap. They should take the responsibility of not exposing their children to the advertising and the desire to desire (or whatever) from the first instance.

[redqueen]

43. I don't think that's even possible

How can you possibly shelter your children from advertising?

It's on billboards, buses... everywhere.

Easier to wear shoes than to carpet the world.

[Ripley]

47. Do you seriously not see a difference?

I don't believe anyone here is saying let's ban all ads. Of course ads have been aimed at kids for Barbie dolls forever. But the nature of it has changed over the years. If you don't think ads have had any affect on the health of American children, are you saying it's just stupid American parents? Of course with the exception of the three of you on this thread.

[redqueen]

52. You know

You *can* eat unhealthy foods and not be unhealthy. Moderation is the key.

[AP]

56. The key is what kind of parent you want to be.

[redqueen]

58. I agree

You can be a super-strict parent (no cartoons ever, no junk food ever, etc.) who will definitely end up having their kids rebel in whatever form they can... or you can be reasonable.

[AP]

65. Your initial premise that it was easy to say no to your kids, and that's

why advertisers shouldn't be blamed.

And now you say that it's unreasonable to always say no.

Which explains why advertising aimed at kids, encouraging them to whine, is so effective. It's because parents like you feel that it's unreasonalbe to always say no, and they know that they're going to have a decent success rate based on the occassional reasonableness exception.

[redqueen]

74. And honestly I don't begrudge them that

I never claimed I never buy my kids anything unhealthy. Is it too much to expect parents to know that a diet of chips coke and fast food isn't healthy for their kids?

I don't think McDonald's or Hostess should be driven out of business because parents can't make decisions about what constitutes an appropriate diet - we all learned that stuff in grade school.

Besides, it's nice to have a piece of cake or a bag of chips once in a while, don't you think?

Those parents who buy the junk *regularly* do deserve the lion's share of blame when it comes to health problems, IMO.

[AP]

94. I have totally lost track of what you're trying to argue.

But I encourage you to see "The Corporation."

[redqueen]

98. I will

I was seeing this more in terms of the willingness of parents to abdicate their role as gatekeepers, and completely missing the larger 'power of the advertising dollar' issue, thinking it a separate issue altogether.

[AP]

112. But back to my point: you have admitted that you, as a good parent,

feel that you can't reasonably deny your kids their desires about what they get to look at.

Do you feel that you are abdicating personal responsibility? No. Many parents feel exactly that way about what their kids ask them to buy for them.

It is hard being a parent, and the media doesn't make it easier.

I have a friend who just got the Disney Channel for the first time and IMMEDIATELY after getting it her daughter now talks all the time about what she wants to own. It has changed her personality dramatically and the reason for the change is very obvious to my friend.

Who do you blame for that? Maybe the issue isn't about blame. But the answer certainly isn't to sit back and let Disney have its way with your child's mind.

[redqueen]

115. I don't deny them everything

but not because I can't. I was raised that way -- no junk food, no cartoons... my dad would lecture us for *hours* about history and whatever he had on his mind. I'm sure he thought he was doing us a favor. But what I did after I ran away was watch cartoons and Three Stooges every waking minute. I didn't gorge on junk food, but that's just a personal health thing.

As for the media making it easier, I agree they don't. And my kids do the same thing about what they want all the time. However they're *kids* so I expect this right now. The thing that tells me that moderation is the best is that even though I tell her she can't hvae new toys all the time, she still likes to donate her toys she doesn't use anymore. The conscious awareness that there are others who have less, and that kids 'back in the day' didn't even have manufactured toys, is sticking. I do buy them toys every great once in a while, but they know that plastic doesn't go with the earth very well, so most of their outdoor play involves imagination games with bamboo (you can make a LOT of toys out of bamboo!)

I do blame the consumer culture and corporate giants, but also parents who seem not to want to ever be the 'bad guy'. Again, to me - moderation is the key.

[AP]

49. If you can walk through a store and tell your kid they can't have a brand

of cereal or sneaker they're whining for, you have the power to not buy the NGK or not let them sit in front of cartoons, or cancel Nickelodian or the Disney Channel.

Are you saying that you have the power to deny your kids what they want in the store but you don't have the power to cancel cable?

[redqueen]

55. Sure we have all that power and more

I let them have some special snacks, and watch some cartoons. I don't deny them *any* junk foods. I just save them for once in a while.

Why should I cancel cable? I like the Daily Show... I like the National Geographic Channel too.

I'm somehow missing what the huge big deal is here.

[sangh0]

57. Do you like contributing to the RNC?

Because that's exactly where a portion of your cable fees are going. Right into Bush*'s campaign.

Nope, not a big deal

[redqueen]

59. lol... so you accuse anyone with cable of supporting the RNC?

GMAB!

I've never seen you on the ubiquitous Jon Stewart threads trashing people for supporting the RNC, sangh0. What gives?

[sangh0]

71. It was a question

That's why there was a question mark at the end of it.

I've never seen you on the ubiquitous Jon Stewart threads trashing people for supporting the RNC, sangh0. What gives?

You've never seen me on the Jon Stewart threads trashing people for a simple reason - You never see me on the those threads at all. Never

And I already implied the answer - I keep away from all things cable. I'd rather give my money to people who DON'T support the RNC

[redqueen]

77. Gotcha

I never knew you were so committed, sangh0. I'm impressed... really.

:toast:

[sangh0]

85. Cut your cable

Just do it

[AP]

60. The big deal is that you were saying advertising towards kids is not the..

...problem and that the problem is ONLY parents who can't say no.

And people disagree.

Some people think that a good parent would also protect their kids from the advertising.

[redqueen]

63. And I think you can't protect kids from advertising

What... we're supposed to use blinders in public?

[AP]

68. Before you said it was so easy for parents to control their kids' con-

sumption.

So, is it easy to deny kids what they want you to buy, but it's too hard to deny your kids what they want to watch?

Or is it the case that it's not that easy to do either? And, thus, the effectiveness of ads targetting kids.

[redqueen]

79. Hello? Billboards?

Buses?

*sigh*

Yes, it's easy to control your child's diet. It's easy to control what they want to watch. But I find it more reasonable to allow them to see cartoons once in a while, or to read magazines with those evil, evil junk food ads in them - BECAUSE I know that *I* am in charge of the food supply.

[AP]

88. 90% of the advertising your kids sees probably comes from TV, and the

advertising that are geared towards a childs psychology is NOT on the buses and billboards -- it's in places that you, the parent control.

The problem with this argument is that I think you feel like your parenting is being criticized. You felt strong about your first position, because you feel that it's something you do, so your policy position says something flattering about yourself. Now we're talking about something you don't do, so it's automatically not valid in your mind.

Set your parenting aside for a moment and think about the issue. Think about this logically.

Busses and billboards are not the counterargument. Either you care about advertisers' manipulation your children or you don't. If you do, you can do something about it. If you don't want to, that's fine. You may be raising children who are going to have to do a serious gut check when they get old enough to appreciate the political implications of consumption. You might be creating more work for them in the future, by not doing the work of a parent now.

[redqueen]

93. I think you're misreading me

I'm not taking this as an attack on me, rather a deflection of responsibility by parents in general. I think it's commonplace and sad.

As for buses, tell that to my kid. I'm still hearing about a circus ad she saw weeks ago.

And as for creating work for them later because I'm not doing the work of a parent now... that's uncalled for.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nadienne]

119. LOL

I think you hit the nail on the head - that the reason for the downfall of society is parents who can't say no to their kids.

But then, it's easy - even for adults - to get suckered into wanting things... which is what advertising does: make you want things... Make you want things enough to buy them, to spend your money in exchange for some hinted-at promise.

It can't help when a loved-one becomes one of their salespeople.

I haven't seen The Corporation. I doubt it will ever play in theaters in NW IA; therefore I will probably have to buy it... But I imagine the documentary uncovers advertising tricks that make kids very convincing in their sales pitches.

It makes me glad I don't have kids.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ripley]

12. You know, I'm not trying to ban ads...

But some of you seem to be in deep denial. Yeah, your kids don't read the ads. Ask them if they know what a Twinkie is.

[Ripley]

11. You haven't read the stats then.

Advertising works on their brains more than adults'...that's why they spend so much money at such a young age to get them "brand-hooked" for life.

I'm sure you are a great parent, but if you think your kids won't drink coke when they're away from home because you told them not to...

[redqueen]

13. I watched ads as a kid too

I think we're getting a little carried away here... trying to ascribe more responsibility to the teevee than we have ourselves.

They may very well indulge at parties or at friends' houses, but a little junk food once in a while is not something I consider to be the end of the world.

[Ripley]

15. Why does everything have to be so black and white for some?

I didn't say ban ads. I didn't say coke will kill a kid. Sheesh. You know it's a fact American kids are the fattest, most unhealthy kids in the developed world. Why? They eat shit and marketing is extremely different today than it was when I was a kid. Yes, parents should control what kids eat, but did you have Coke and candy in your elementary school? We had milk.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

23. No, but the OP said that by using advertising money

NG had gone 'to the dark side'.

Sorry, but I don't see it.

American kids aren't unhealthy because of advertising. It's because their parents don't encourage them eat the right foods (if the parents do, even), nor to get enough exercise.

I didn't have coke and candy in my elementary, but in secondary schools, yes. And IMO those should be banned from school, but that's a whole other issue, isn't it?

[Ripley]

29. Well take it up with donsu..not me.

I didn't say they went to the dark side.

And the issues are all related.

[redqueen]

45. I agree the issues are related

And I didn't say that you said that... calm down, eh?

However, to trash what I consider a good organization over such trivial matters is... well... irritating.

[Ripley]

50. What is up with you people?

Where, show me where I trashed NGK! You can't, because I didn't.

I read it myself (well the grownup version).

I have been criticizing the ads, not the magazine, so don't tell me to lighten up okay?

[redqueen]

62. Once again, I didn't say that, did I?

Sheesh! I think it's you who needs to lighten up.

[Ripley]

66. You said:

However, to trash what I consider a good organization over such trivial matters is... well... irritating.

Where did I do that? And if you think direct aggressive marketing to children is trivial, then you must think that the consequences are also trivial. Childhood type 2 diabetes, heart problems and general unhealthy overweight kids.

[redqueen]

81. I said that to you

But did not accuse you of doing it. I'm simply stating why this thread has generated so much acrimony. National Geographic is a respected organization.

If you want to start another thread about the evils of advertising, be my guest.

[Ripley]

84. So you're telling me what I can and can't talk about here?

Seriously, I don't want to argue. I think you have completely misunderstood me. So I'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[redqueen]

89. No I'm not

I'm simply confused at why you think the outrage at the OP is being directed at you personally. You defend the OP, you get the brunt of the rebuttal. I haven't insulted you.

Peace!

[AP]

I don't respect NG. It's become more about commerce than information

in the last ten years.

[redqueen]

99. This is sad to say

but what hasn't? :(

[AP]

106. The internet. Michael Moore. I think the New Yorker, although watering

down some of its coverage, has managed to resist the push towards being more about bull shit pro-big business BS than about journalism.

I think there are lots of good children's authors I'd rather have my kids read than NGK.

[redqueen]

110. The internet is a luxury for me

just because of my job. My kids want to get on at the library, but I usually don't allow it because I know they'll just stare at it (I've seen experts say it's the same as TV as far as attention-development goes - and mostly they just want games games games), so I just let them get books & hear stories & such.

[UdoKier]

107. National Geographic is good by American standards...

...but they seem to have no problem with running VERY deceptive oil company "greenwash" ads, and have done so for a long time.

Thus far, I haven't seen the influence of these advertisers affecting the editorial content where it concerns environmental issues, but if PBS is any example, it won't be long before the influennce shows up.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AP]

25. That's why food cos want vending machines in schools.

Apparently people become strongly attached to brands they consume between the ages of 12 and 18, or something like that.

I vaguely remember reading a stat like 79% measuring this stickiness, but can't remember what it measured.

Maybe it was something like, the chance of your favorite brand of something at age 35 is 79% that it was your favorite brand at age 18.

There is a ton of money to be made by getting people to love your shit when they're young because the nostalgia carries over for a lifetime.

I think this rule also applies to hairstyles and clothes. How many of your highschool friends look and dress exactly the way they looked and dressed in high school?

[Ripley]

33. Exactly.

People seem to think all advertising is innocent and has no responsibility.

People in the UK are shocked that we allow such blatant advertising on TV and in schools directed at such young kids. I guess those Brits are just plain anti-capitalists!

[AP]

46. You know, I think capitalists should object to crap like that, because

what you're doing is skewing the playing field. You're giving an unfair benefit to companies which can get themselves into the schools through political connections or whatever, which totally screws it up for everyone who wants to compete fairly in the marketplace for adult consumers who (ideally) should be making INFORMED decisions about their consumption, rather than decisions based on nostalgia.

It's only the huge corporations and monopolists who like that shit because they know it helps them fend of competition later. But every company but the biggest (and companies which can't throw around their weight with the local schoolboard) should object.

[Cleita]

22. In my logic class in college, our assignments were

to bring in magazine or newspaper ads and point out which fallacies of logic that they embodied. It sure opened the eyes of many of us about how many lies, disinformation and ommissions of facts advertising embraces to sell their products. The same techniques are used in political propaganda like that flash ad on Bush's website interspersing various Democrats with Hitler's face.

Your children will grow up with a critical eye that not all claims are the actual truth. Now if educators could only reach freeper and fundie kids to teach them these skills, we could get common sense back in our country within a generation.

[redqueen]

27. Ooooh good idea!

That would be a great suggestion to discuss with the PTA. Kids shouldn't have to wait for college for that information! :)

[AP]

4. Remember when NG had that issue of their most famous photos...

...they did a ton of publicity for it -- the Afghani girl was on the cover -- and then a week later, SURPRISE, they find the girl all grown up.

The whole thing was so stage-managed. They pretened the two events weren't connected, as if it were an incredible coincidence, and all the morning shows played along.

It was very sad.

Ever since the Bridges of Madison County it has become so obvious that NG is now run by a bunch of investment bankers rather than journalists.

[redqueen]

8. The National Geographic Channel did a story on that

They were quite clear that they searched far and wide for that woman, and IIRC that it was the anniversary issue that was the motivation for the search.

Don't know about the morning shows or the spin they indulged in at the time.

[AP]

17. Obviously they searched far and wide. But they timed the issue to be

released one week before they announced that they found her, and then presented the whole thing as a coincidence -- that the search had been successful coincidentally one week after they spent millions promoting that issue.

Both events were scheduled to happen together in order to sell as many magazines as possible.

They got extra mileage from their advertising dollar by doing all the publicity for the issue one week (conveniently, without mentioning that they knew who the woman was, or even that they were engaged in a search for her) and then forcing the media to treat the discovery as a news story, since the picture was on so many people's minds. That's free advertising in the service of selling magazines. It's not news, except, insofar as the NG's ad company was able to turn marketing into news. (And you can bet they weren't searching for that woman to make news. They were searching for her to sell magazines.)

And then there's the whole issue of whether journalism is incompatible with commerce.

That issue of NG, IIRC, actually ranked the photos, right? It put the Afghan girl on the cover, and presented that as the best picture they've ever taken. Now, was it the best, most interesting picture that really said something about NG and modern culture which NG tries to portray, or was it the picture they could best turn into an advertising campaign and which could sell lots of issues?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

31. We're all victims!

I think I should just leave this thread now. :)

[sangh0]

34. Lying is immoral

No one said anything about it being a crime. That's just another straw man

[redqueen]

39. Then by all means let's ban advertising that's not factual

I'm all for that!

I've even had a psychiatrist tell me that he agreed with that, for psychological reasons... can't remember the term he used, but he said it was too effective. I told him that we should just raise smarter children and he just laughed.

:hi:

[sangh0]

44. "we should just raise smarter children"

That's privilige speaking, there. Some parents are working too hard trying to support their families. Some parents are too busy arranging for a place to sleep for their children.

"we should just raise smarter children"...meanwhile, school budgets are being cut and states around the nation are finding that the way they set their school budgets unconstitutionaly favors white children.

[redqueen]

51. Oh don't even start with me, sangh0!

You call me privileged and I'll ... well ... something. ;)

I've been working full time the entire time since I had my kids. As for the homeless, how would that make them incapable of talking to their children?

As for school budgets and ingrained poverty though, you most definitely have a point. The *intentional* effort to keep people mostly ignorant (not an insult, but TPTB truly do want ill-educated people) is arguably THE MOST IMPORTANT issue we face. It contributes directly to EVERY OTHER PROBLEM faced by the poor.

But again, we're getting pretty far away from the topic of the now evil NG. :P

[sangh0]

67. You are priviliged

and if you don't know that, it's because of your privilige.

You have a home, and a computer. You're educated. You speak English. You have the time to post. You have the time to devote to raising your kids. Not every parent has those things.

As for the homeless, how would that make them incapable of talking to their children?

Well, for one thing, if you're homeless, your children are more likely to be taken into custody because of negligence. It's hard to talk to your children when the State has custody of them and considers you a negligent parent.

For another, homeless parents with children do not have much free time. There's work (and no, homeless does not mean "unemployed") and the shelters are not the best environment for teachiing children.

And then there's the higher levels of illiteracy in the homeless population, which makes it hard to even recognize the problem, nevermind teach their children about it. Then there are sometimes language issues, and more...

[redqueen]

86. Oh here we go

I have a computer *at work*. I *am* privileged to have a job where I can get away with this... but everyone in this country is privileged not to live in a country where homeless children are killed indiscriminately or sold into slavery. We can play this game all day.

[sangh0]

102. So, you have a job?

Yes, you *are* priviliged. That's all I am saying, and you agree.

but everyone in this country is privileged not to live in a country where homeless children are killed indiscriminately or sold into slavery

Nope, children who are left to their own devices because their parents are poor and our government does nothing for them are NOT priviliged.

And the point is "we just have to raise smarter children" is NOT an answer for millions of people, many of whom happen to be children. It's a way to blame the parents without helping the children.

[redqueen]

105. Ah but I didn't say it was *all* on the parents.

I believe it does take a village.

on edit: not sure why you took this as an attack on poor parents. IMO they're less culpable for the very reasons you've given. Also it's not poor parents indulging their kids with all the junk food they could ever want, at least not for me. I was poor growing up, and fast food was an infrequent treat.

[AP]

40. Hey, I like capitAlism as much as the next guy, but I regret the time

the news wasted acting as a commercial for a magazine because they got suckered into treating an advertizing campaign as if it was news. Think of all the more valuable things that they could have been talking about instead.

Of course, I believe the news -- even NPR -- know what they're doing and are willing to comply with these marketing charades.

But I think the slightest bit of journalistic integrity would have required NPR news editors to ask, "seriously, you didn't know about this woman one week ago when you were on all our shows talking about this picture?" Without doing that, they've announced to Madison Ave, "we will shill for you anytime you chose." It totallly sends the wrong message about the proper role of the news media.

Actually, I think it was outrageous for NPR to be plugging the magazine in the first place. They were seriously giving the magazine half- and full- shows to pretend that they were doing something culturally significant with that issue.

Retrospectively, it was about as culturally significant as a late-night infommercial, if you ask me.

[redqueen]

42. NPR has been shillling for a while now

It is quite sad. But on the whole, pretty meaningless compared to something like them not taking hardly any calls during Diane Rehm's show on the lies of F-9/11, to name just one example.

[AP]

54. It's all part of the same plan. Why do you think they do that stuff?

It's to keep Bush in office so that Repbulicans can legislate a world which helps the big corporations which own everything, including NG, continue to make huge profits (which they pass on to corporate insiders in ways that are barely taxed), and they make their profits by using NPR to plug their products.

When Terry Gross plugs the latest million-selling whatever, or does a hour long commercial for BMW in the guise of an interview with the british actor who stars in their on-line ads, it's all part of the same tilt towards fascism that is achieved by stiffling debate and hiding information.

[redqueen]

69. Issues are being conflated here

This started out with an article trashing NGK for advertising junk food.

Now it's switched to corporate domination through censorship. I agree that's a serious problem, but I don't necessarily see a direct correlation between Twinkie advertisements and the efforts of the RNC to decive the public about *important* matters of self-governance.

[AP]

72. It's all part of the same problem: the corporatization of information

and journalism just being a vehicle for delivering profits.

[sangh0]

75. That's not "conflation"

Conflation is when two idea/issue/etc are discussed as if they are related, when they're not really. Corporate censorship and the ads in NGK *ARE* related. The way corporations get magazines (and other media) to self-censor themselves is with the threat that they will cancel their advertising is the magazine doesn't self-censor.

[AP]

92. Yeah. How are these things NOT connected. NG is published by a huge

corporation that is probably happier with anti-labor anti-middle class Republicans in office.

That they treat kids as consumers rather than as people who need to be informed has a lot to do with, perhaps, the reason NG is not running stories on depleted uranium in Iraq, and other stories that might not cast a favorable light on US foreign policy.

[Ripley]

95. I remember reading a LTTE a few months ago..

NG had run a story about the ME and I gather it was a little bit political (I didn't see it). The letter-writer was offended that they mentioned anything political in "her educational magaine."

I thought, how do you keep politics out of an in-depth article about the Middle East?

Some people just refuse to see the larger picture.

[redqueen]

101. I'd love to know what they said

Wonder if she was aghast at seeing something against the corporate rules, or if she was railing about the corporate slant.

:shrug:

[Ripley]

109. It sounded like it was a left-leaning article.

And she didn't like the liberal politics being addressed. I'm sure she would never be offended by the conservative article recently that promoted Boeing.

[redqueen]

113. Gee, maybe they're actually

more 'fair and balanced' than not... for now, anyway.

[redqueen]

96. Ok you two I see the connection now

The fact that NGK is tied to NG, which *should* be carrying those stories, was kind of going over my head.

Point taken. Thanks for taking the time.

[AP]

100. NGK is the pathway drug to NG. It's trying to get kids nostalgically...

...hooked to the TM so they subscribe as adults.

[redqueen]

104. As for me I'm not a subscriber of any print anything.

Waste of paper, IMO.

I do enjoy their channel, though. But now sangh0 wants to deny me that, even! Waaaaah!

[sangh0]

108. Another important point

Corporations get the media to self-censor by holding out the promise of continued advertising revenue. Government gets the media to self-censor by holding out the promise of legislation that help the media owners make more money by consolidating and through tax cuts

[redqueen]

117. And as you said

consumers have the power, if we choose to use it.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ripley]

19. Where am I paranoid?

I didn't say it was the end of the world. Good Gawd! Why are you so anxious to defend the filthy rich corporate giants that don't give a damn if they make your kid diabetic or not?

Do you really think children should have Coke, Taco Bell and Twinkies for lunch at school?

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Texasgal]

37. I am failing to find

the logic with your initial post. Who cares? Advertising is advertising....even the twinkie workers need jobs!

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[UdoKier]

111. Huh?

So the only choices we have are:

1. Market ever-increasing amounts of garbage food to ever-younger kids or:

2. Put the (dozens?) of workers who push the buttons to make Twinkies out on the street?

Honestly, I wouldn't eat ten twinkies a day just to create economic stimulus, would you? It's pretty clear that most kids are consuming too much of this slop. Why is creating a couple of low-wage jobs worth sacrificing the health of a generation of kids?

[Ripley]

116. They're tag teaming.

You're using logic, they don't.

It's always the same. Let the markets take care of everything. Unhealthy Americans?...well, we'll just give more corporate welfare to Phizer who will create new drugs for those ills.

Uneducated work force?...well, we'll just outsource those jobs to smarter Indians so the American dummies can afford cheap underwear at Wal-mart.

All in the name of Freedom!

[UdoKier]

121. The sad thing is...

These "DUers" think it's okay for everybody else's kids to be morbidly obese and artery-clogged and diabetic as long as THEIR kids are not (probably because they have them in private school.

I want EVERYONE to be fed, sheltered, healthy and safe in my society. why the hell is that such a bad thing all of a sudden?

[sangh0]

48. It's in the propoganda playbook

Any idea that is threatening is, by definition, "paranoia" or "silly" or "insert derogatory term here". No need to explain oneself - Just pick an adjective and let loose

[Ripley]

53. Wow.

I agree with you.

[AP]

82. Absoultely true. Although INCREDIBLY ubiquitous, a good example

is in the Chavez movie, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. They had clips of the Venezuelan private media in panel disucssions about Chavez. They talked about how he was crazy. The strategy was so clearly to just to make his politics seem pathological.

When you have no argument, you have to cut off the opposing argument at the knees by saying, "oh, it sounds OK, but it comes from madness, so you have to discredit the whole thing."

[dukmon]

103. that may be what they give your kids up north or.......

one the left coast but not here in the south. no sir.

[redqueen]

120. I attended school in TX and we had coke & candy machines.

School lunches may have been slightly better, but the junk was available to anyone with change.

[sangh0]

38. I thought you didn't read NGK, and your kids didn't read the ads

Now you're changing the story, and implying that YOU do read NGK. Which is it?

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

78. The thread is about the ads

which you claim not to read. Then you go on to say "The ads (which you don't read) are not a problem"

Have I committed a crime?

I dunno. Is inconsistency a crime?

on edit: and please note how this poster tries to make it look like I've accused him/her of a "crime". It's just like how the idea that there's a problem with NGK's ads is "paranoia"

Strong emotion-laden words, with no facts to back them up. Just line them words up, and let loose

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

118. Who cares?

Entitling the topic NG is heading for the Dark side seems extreme

And you're not alone in using the words of one poster to misportray the opinions of many others. The RNC does it all the time.

[donsu]

130. the thread was meant to show how corporations have taken over

National Geo. corporations that stuff money in smirk's pocket

[Maestro]

30. Yes I think this is an overreaction

I grew up surrounded by ads. When I said I wanted something my mother told me no, end of story. My daughter and son tell me they want something immediately after seeing a commercial. Ads do indeed work with kids, but as a parent one needs to take the opportunity to have a mini-lesson on what advertising is and reality vs. fantasy. It is all about parenting, which too many parents do not do.

NG has to pay the bills to continue with its fine reporting. I see nothing wrong with this. In a utopic world it would be great if NG didn't have to do this but they do. It is business and in business you have to play to compete.

[redqueen]

36. Well put

NG is great.

:toast:

[depakid]

61. It's a public health issue

and I think that we're entitled to expect more from a venerable institution like National Geographic than pushing junk food garbage on our kids in the midst of an obesity epidemic.

The fact that people are even defending this just goes to show how deeply rooted the problem is and how difficult it's going to be keep kids healthy in the 21st Century.

[Ripley]

73. Thank you!

A voice of reason. It's amazing how people have turned this argument around on those of us merely connecting the dots.

And you are right. We should expect more from such "hallowed" institutions. For instance, does Sesame Street promote unhealthy food? I don't know, but I hope not. They could promote apple juice instead of Twinkies and still get ad revenues.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

83. More propoganda

more emotion-laden words, with not one fact to back them up.

[Ripley]

87. Heart breakers.

That's a good name for Twinkies, you think? Corn syrup, white refined sugar, lard, and all those weird long words in the ingredient list.

Denial is such a terrible thing.

[depakid]

90. sounds like

you'll need no help from me- just keep on eating what's advertised and you'll "break" your own heart quickly enough.

Trouble is, that you'll expect all of the rest of us to subsidize your triple bypass somewhere down the line.

[UdoKier]

97. What a strange attitude you have towards predatory advertising, Panicroom.

And you've already used the old RW standby "Capitalist Pigs" to mock anyone who might have a problem with hard-sells to impressionable kids. Overwhelmingly pro-corporate, anti-public health attitudes are not really the mainstream at DU...

Anyway, I think NG's practice of running these ads is shameful, and subscribers should bring some pressure to bear on them not to run them. If they continue it, they should drop their subscriptions altogether. NG IS free to run sleazy ads, and we are free to not buy it.

Other posters have called NG a "venerable institution", but that distinction was sullied long ago. They've run ads in their main magazine for ages, and they never hesitate to run those deceptive oil company ads where ExxonMobil or Texaco pretend that they are preserving the environment with a pretty picture of the one pond they cleaned up (and none of the thousands they've destroyed)


Marketing of junk food to children in places like the classrroom, where they are supposed to be safe from such things is a serious problem, Panicroom, and find your dismissive attitude about it to be pretty offensive.

[redqueen]

123. But see here's the thing

If people quit buying it, that just increases their motivation for getting money from advertisers.

Wouldn't it be wiser to threaten to quit them, since it seems that despite the ads, their articles are still at least more responsible than those in most other publications?

I think the cutting of public funding for PBS/NPR is at least part of the reason for their decline. If consumers bail out instead of fighting corporate cash will take over everything. I don't have the disposable income to spend on subscriptions & memberships, but if I did I think I would use that power rather than give it away.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

128. I guess our mistake was taking you seriously

That won't happen again

My "Capitalist Pigs" remark was a joke. You do know what a joke is right? I guess I had better be careful what I say.

[CWebster]

91. And the cover story of the latest issue is :

"The Heavy Cost of Fat"

[DaveSZ]

122. I'm not going to read this entire thread, but...

Our good friend Rupert Murdoch owns the National Geographic Channel.

[depakid]

124. You're killing me with the irony

It's one thing to send mixed messages and disseminate "greenwashing" ads to adults, who have the congnative ability to see through them- but doing this to kids, who haven't developed the ability to defend themselves, is not only unethical, but borders on criminal, IMHO.

[Lisa]

131. Neil Smith (geographer) would not be surprised!

He slammed the National Geographical Society for cozying up to Bush's dad -- said that the only reason that the Bushes wanted to promote geography was for military and commercial interests.

[bhunt70]

132. I like NG