Childrens' TV and Food
The Blame Game
11/11/06 10:59 |
Permalink
|
Facing The "Facts"
25/10/06 17:47 |
Permalink
So
the death knell is sounding for children's TV. In an
industry where a degree of cynicism is of far greater
value than one in Media Studies I can hear the cries
of "who really cares?" Well, actually I do and I am
one of many.
I
have spent the last 30 plus years working in both
adult and children's TV and have always found the
latter to be a far tougher audience. They have an
immediate reaction to a programme which is honest and
not influenced by previews in the tabloids. And in
today's world, where they embrace new technology -
while most adults are still trying to work out which
remote control does what - they are even harder to
hold as an audience.
Disturbed by the possible impact of a food advertising ban I wrote to both Ofcom and Shaun Woodward the Minister For Creative Industries and Tourism at The Dept For Culture, Media and Sport. His reply stated that while it "would be inappropriate to comment on something that is strictly a matter for Ofcom and ITV" any action taken "must be rooted in evidence and fully reflect the balances between welfare benefit and economic impact"
So, I wanted to "root" out the available evidence. Having "googled" for ages with no obvious links, I read the website of Sustain, an organisation which lobbies hard in favour of a complete ban on food advertising. Great website, lots of mentions of advertising impact and a beautifully presented document which I dutifully downloaded and studied called "The Children's Food Bill". But alas, still no hard evidence. The only true research that seems to be available was a report by Prof Gerard Hastings of the University of Strathclyde and another by Dr Brian Young from the University of Exeter. Incidentally, neither of these gentlemen has a doctorate in nutrition. The former is from the "Centre for Social Marketing" and the latter the "School of Psychology"
The Food Standards Agency held a seminar in 2003 to decide which of these two often conflicting reports should be supported. They concluded "that practical constraints and the complexity of the issue militated against seeking a definitive experiment to test a direct causal effect of food promotion and diet and obesity" and " it was "unrealistic to expect the studies examined in the reviews to be capable of providing a definitive answer" But, despite that, they backed Hastings as "the Hastings review had provided sufficient evidence to indicate a causal link between promotional activity and children's food knowledge, preferences and behaviour"
Confused? Me too, so I sent a nice email to Sustain asking if they could point me in the direction of the research available. I am still awaiting the reply.
In reality though it is a triangle of self interest. On one side the Government is keen "to be seen" to be doing something (some say anything) while at the same time not tackling the problem at its source in case it upsets the all powerful - and of course generous - food retailers. On another side, ITV are using the proposed ban as a way of worming it's way out of it's statutory and - judged by a balance sheet alone - unprofitable public service requirement and finally, Sustain are...well I am not sure what their motivation is!!
Sitting in the middle are the real losers - the children. They do not yet have the power of the vote and are an easy target to take advantage of.
Disturbed by the possible impact of a food advertising ban I wrote to both Ofcom and Shaun Woodward the Minister For Creative Industries and Tourism at The Dept For Culture, Media and Sport. His reply stated that while it "would be inappropriate to comment on something that is strictly a matter for Ofcom and ITV" any action taken "must be rooted in evidence and fully reflect the balances between welfare benefit and economic impact"
So, I wanted to "root" out the available evidence. Having "googled" for ages with no obvious links, I read the website of Sustain, an organisation which lobbies hard in favour of a complete ban on food advertising. Great website, lots of mentions of advertising impact and a beautifully presented document which I dutifully downloaded and studied called "The Children's Food Bill". But alas, still no hard evidence. The only true research that seems to be available was a report by Prof Gerard Hastings of the University of Strathclyde and another by Dr Brian Young from the University of Exeter. Incidentally, neither of these gentlemen has a doctorate in nutrition. The former is from the "Centre for Social Marketing" and the latter the "School of Psychology"
The Food Standards Agency held a seminar in 2003 to decide which of these two often conflicting reports should be supported. They concluded "that practical constraints and the complexity of the issue militated against seeking a definitive experiment to test a direct causal effect of food promotion and diet and obesity" and " it was "unrealistic to expect the studies examined in the reviews to be capable of providing a definitive answer" But, despite that, they backed Hastings as "the Hastings review had provided sufficient evidence to indicate a causal link between promotional activity and children's food knowledge, preferences and behaviour"
Confused? Me too, so I sent a nice email to Sustain asking if they could point me in the direction of the research available. I am still awaiting the reply.
In reality though it is a triangle of self interest. On one side the Government is keen "to be seen" to be doing something (some say anything) while at the same time not tackling the problem at its source in case it upsets the all powerful - and of course generous - food retailers. On another side, ITV are using the proposed ban as a way of worming it's way out of it's statutory and - judged by a balance sheet alone - unprofitable public service requirement and finally, Sustain are...well I am not sure what their motivation is!!
Sitting in the middle are the real losers - the children. They do not yet have the power of the vote and are an easy target to take advantage of.
And all for £1.99
11/10/06 19:25 |
Permalink
Some
people might call it irony, while those less
charitable might call it hypocrisy. At its best, it
seems plainly unbelievable that the government are
looking for scapegoats for child obesity by trying to
restrict television advert
ising
of so called junk food, while at the same time
promoting the largest advert in the world for such
food. They are apparently allowing sponsorship for
the 2012 London Olympics from none other than - yes
you have guessed it - McDonalds!!
If the reports are to be believed, the golden arches will be on display for the whole planet to see and the majority of the visitors to the games – both adults and children - will be happily munching away at the food you are not allowed to decide about on your own telly!
Meanwhile, the effects of the proposed advertising ban will have likely decimated the Children’s TV industry in the UK. Kids of all ages will be denied the original and educational programming that is admired worldwide and at the same time be deprived from having their own little part of the UK culture.
If the reports are to be believed, the golden arches will be on display for the whole planet to see and the majority of the visitors to the games – both adults and children - will be happily munching away at the food you are not allowed to decide about on your own telly!
Meanwhile, the effects of the proposed advertising ban will have likely decimated the Children’s TV industry in the UK. Kids of all ages will be denied the original and educational programming that is admired worldwide and at the same time be deprived from having their own little part of the UK culture.