Watch TV or Go to Jail - Page 2

Dr Strangelove · September 18, 2003, 17:41

Our local PBS channel has aired some Channel One programs. They're really pretty good.

Japher · September 18, 2003, 17:41

What about all them crazes over Christmas gifts every year that turn parents into killing machines? They'd practically kill each other to get their kid the new Rub-Me-Elmo" or "Crab Apple Kid" or whatever... Talk about advertising having a bad effect on people...

General Ludd · September 18, 2003, 17:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

Great response there... did it take you a few minutes to come up with it

Find some "real" scientific study to prove the point... good luck...

Does it matter? I don't like ads and am not going to watch them. If someone tried to make me watch them every morning, I would refuse. I couldn't care less if you think people should be forced to watch them, just 'cause you're in the buisness of it.

Ming · September 18, 2003, 17:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Starchild
Ming shows a remarkable ability to bend to authority.

The kids walked out because they had objections to television. It's the equivalent of walking out of a biology on dissection day because you have moral problems with cutting up a frog. It's something that gets sorted out in the school, not juvie.

I have never said that I agree with the punishment.
That was over the limit in my book as well...

I am however defending the right for schools to use Channel One as an educational tool. And if a "FEW" commericals come with it... no big deal.

I agree with you that the kids should have been treated the same as if they had walked out on dissecting a frog.

Sava · September 18, 2003, 17:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

Prove it... instead of just making stuff up, show some real life proof of your claims.

(Oh, and what did you think of Jag bag Thursday today... some great stuff)

Here for starters...

Quote:

UAE University study suggests ban on cigarette advertisements in media
Al Ain |By Aftab Kazmi, Bureau Chief | 29-07-2003
Print friendly format | Email to Friend

Cigarettes should be included in the category of 'dangerous and addictive drugs' to restrict their sale and advertisement, suggests a recent study carried out by the UAE University (UAEU).

The study also recommended enactment of appropriate legislation to support the measure and increase the tax on tobacco products from the current 100 per cent to 200 per cent.

It also suggested to ban advertisement of cigarettes in media and public places seen by children and youth as it feared a constant increase in young smokers despite several control measures taken by the UAE authorities.

Referring to a report of the Ministry of Health issued in October last year, the study said some 14.3 per cent male and 2.9 per cent female teenagers are smokers.

The research was done by three students of the university, Shatha Mohammed Al Suwaidi, Jamila Saif Al Ketbi and Kulaithem Mohammed Al Mazrooei from the Faculty of Medicines and Health Sciences at the UAEU.

Peter Barss and Dr Fatima Al Maskari from the Department of Community Medicine supervised the students' work and investigation. The team sought help from the teachers and students of Al Ain Educational Zone in a cross-sectional survey in which Grade 10 students of several schools were interviewed through a questionnaire.

The questionnaire had 18 questions to collect information for analysing the students attitude, knowledge, and opinion to prevent smoking.

Some 360 female students were included in the study out of which 242 were UAE nationals and 115 from other Arab countries. The information thus collected revealed that 51 per cent of them have a smoker in their family, and 26 per cent have a smoking father.

Fifty per cent students, who have a smoker in their families, perceived a smoker as someone who lacks confidence. Fifty-two per cent girls from the non-smoking families perceived smokers as losers. Sixty-one per cent girls, who have no smokers in their families, said they will not marry a smoker. This opinion was also found among 38 per cent girls who belonged to smoking families.

The researchers also found flaws in public awareness as 50 per cent girls received almost no education about smoking in schools.

Only 53 per cent girls felt that it is extremely difficult to give up this habit. Girls who had a smoker in their families were found more aware. They said it is extremely difficult to quit smoking.

Most of the girls (63 per cent) believed that peer pressure is the main reason for acquiring the habit. More girls from smoking families said it is extremely harmful. Nearly all girls knew that smoking causes heart diseases and lung cancer.

However, 60 per cent did not know that smoking causes other cancers. Seventy per cent did not know that passive smoking causes health problems for children including ear and chest infections and asthma.

During the survey students also recommended many control measures to prevent smoking such as restricting cigarette sales to those aged 21 years, banning cigarette advertisements in all forms of media, and training health professionals on counselling for smoking cessation.

The research also recommended increased educational activities for children, youth and parents in schools and in media about addictiveness and its effects on health.

I'll look for more studies. But advertising has been linked to eating disorders in women as well. If advertisements didn't have any effect on people, IT WOULDN'T BE A HUGE INDUSTRY! To say that ads don't have a negative effect is wrong.

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/ne...rticleID=93784

Japher · September 18, 2003, 17:48

I know it's not a study or anything, but if it wasn't for this ad:

I wouldn't have bought the game, ergo I would have spent more time with my wife, ego I would have a better relationship with her, ergo I wouldn't have found this site, ergo I would actually find better ways to waste time at work, ergo I would own this company now!!!

Advertising is evil

Ming · September 18, 2003, 17:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Osweld
Does it matter? I don't like ads and am not going to watch them. If someone tried to make me watch them every morning, I would refuse. I couldn't care less if you think people should be forced to watch them, just 'cause you're in the buisness of it.

Like most smart people... you don't like ads. You probably have learned the ability to tune "out" the hundreds of ads flashed at you as you do something as simple as walk down the street... you probably have a pop up blocker on your computer as well...

As far as being in school... part of the deal is you do what you are told to do... or suffer the penality. So if you want to get a lower grade... or sit in the corner... or go to the principals office... fine by me. Sending them to JUVE was over the edge.

Giovanni Wine · September 18, 2003, 17:49

Why can't be school be funded by the state, and the state only.. like in any other part of the world?

The US school system already receive way too much fundings from the government that it hardly needs any extra funds.

Saluti

Ming · September 18, 2003, 17:55

Uhhh... sava... they don't allow smoking ads on Channel One...

But back to your "study"... The study has more to do with the danger of smoking... not the ads. One of the findings of the study is that ads for cigs shouldn't be allowed... but because smoking is bad... NOT THE ADS.

So yeah... some products are bad.

And to your other point... The industry is huge, because advertising can work. That doesn't make it bad. Blame the PRODUCTS for having NEGATIVE IMPACT on people's lives... NOT THE ADVERTISING OF LEGAL PRODUCTS

Sava · September 18, 2003, 17:58

I'm not saying all advertising is bad... but some of it is. Sure, that channel one thing might have standards... but they are still trying to sell stuff. Personally, I don't think the school day should devote any time to selling kids stuff.

Ming · September 18, 2003, 18:06

Advertising can't make a person do something they wouldn't normally do. You don't go out and buy a BMW just because you saw an ad. It might make somebody by a BMW over a Lexus... but it's not going to make somebody buy one vs a YUGO.

Good advertising informs... and let's people know about new products... and why one product in a categoy you buy is better than another. If you wouldn't buy a product in that category in the first place, an ad isn't going to make you do so.

Schools already have ADs... this is no different. The pop machine with the Pepsi Logo is an ad... The kids themselves are walking ads with tee shirts and designer cloths. There are already commercial messages in and around ALL schools.

Channel One is an excellent educational tool. These days, many kids won't open a book, but will watch tv. Using it as an education tool is smart. A few commercials doesn't negate that.

Bereta_Eder · September 18, 2003, 18:08

Free public quality education for all!

That's the point isn't it?

General Ludd · September 18, 2003, 18:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Advertising can't make a person do something they wouldn't normally do. You don't go out and buy a BMW just because you saw an ad. It might make somebody by a BMW over a Lexus... but it's not going to make somebody buy one vs a YUGO.

Pogs. Pokemon. Tamagatchi.

You must not do alot of childrens advertising, geting them to buy useless things that they would otherwise never think about is what it's all about.

Alot of advertising directed at adults is, too. But I'm sure it has a much lower success rate.

EDIT: Just thought about iMacs, maybe not that much lower afterall.

Quote:

Good advertising informs... and let's people know about new products... and why one product in a categoy you buy is better than another. If you wouldn't buy a product in that category in the first place, an ad isn't going to make you do so.

Yes, it's about informing the consumer... with catchy songs and dancing monkeys.

realpolitic · September 18, 2003, 18:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Giovanni Wine
Why can't be school be funded by the state, and the state only.. like in any other part of the world?

The US school system already receive way too much fundings from the government that it hardly needs any extra funds.

Saluti

We can't afford it because we need jails to discipline kids who don't watch commercials.

Ming · September 18, 2003, 18:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Osweld
Pogs. Pokemon. Tamagatchi.
You must not do alot of childrens advertising, geting them to buy useless things that they would otherwise never think about is what it's all about.

They would have bought or wanted "some" kind of toy... advertising only directs them to a brand/product... not a category. Kids want toys... and that isn't going to change. So you are incorrect.

And your assumption is wrong... I've done my share of kids advertising.

realpolitic · September 18, 2003, 18:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Uhhh... sava... they don't allow smoking ads on Channel One...

But back to your "study"... The study has more to do with the danger of smoking... not the ads. One of the findings of the study is that ads for cigs shouldn't be allowed... but because smoking is bad... NOT THE ADS.

"Methinks he protests too much" -Shakespeare

Jaguar · September 18, 2003, 18:43

I don't object to them showing channel one, but I do object to sending them off to juvy for not watching TV. It just sounds stupid.

Traianvs · September 18, 2003, 19:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Channel One is an excellent educational tool. These days, many kids won't open a book, but will watch tv. Using it as an education tool is smart. A few commercials doesn't negate that.

I don't rightly know what Channel 1 is; is it something you watch at school every day? Or do they just do programmes on the stuff you should be talking about in class?

In any case, tv programmes can be quite useful, as they can show experiments (sciences) that require sophisticated/expensive tools, or they can show information on nature in general you would not see otherwise. But in the end, such programmes are just something extra, you won't pass your exams if you have only watched these programmes, teh kids'll need their fat ugly book if they like it or not!

advertising is not really appropriate in educational tv, but I wouldn't make a fuss about it.. it's not like you're watching the uberdumb advertising on normal stations anyway (I don't!)
I just don't see how ads fit in with these kind of scientific programmes (I can't imagine having seen ads myself at school!)

Ben Kenobi · September 18, 2003, 20:52

Quote:

If one of the rules is, you have to take tests... you take the tests... if one is, you have to watch Channel One... watch Channel One.

Ming:

Do the students agree to do extra work to make up for the time spent watching channel one? If this is so, I see no reason why not to let them walk out on the class.

Secondly, why should the school have to advertise in order to provide proper education? That to me tells me that there is something seriously flawed with the educational system.

If the advertisers really want to help schools, they should DONATE airtime to the schools, rather than advertising.

Can the advertisements.

Verto · September 18, 2003, 21:03

Something IS wrong with the educational system. It is no longer about educating. It is about providing "senior year experiences"; it is about school spirit(ie. pep rallies on a nearly weekly basis, at least in the school district here). We put more money into the public education system, and results continue to go downhill.

They don't need more funding - they need to get back to educating. One of the high schools here has 14 coaches for football alone, with the top coach making 70,000 a year. This doesn't count the rival high school, or the numerous basketball, baseball, tennis, track, volleyball and softball coaches. Does this school district need money? Apparently, as they are "being forced" to cut school bus routes, make do with less, etc.

A lack of funding, or a lack of proper priorities?

Back to the topic: Students perceived something as a problem, and protested it. American history is replete with this kind of stuff (ie Boston Tea Party, Revolution, Women's Rights, Civil Rights, etc etc.)

Nubclear · September 18, 2003, 21:05

Never heard of Channel 1, but from what Google has taught me it's a news organization for children.
No, this is not like saying "It's against my religion to take tests" or saying "It's against my religion to learn math". That is a large overstatement. It's saying the child does not want to watch television. Everything one can learn on TV can be learned in a book as well. To send a youth to a Juvenile Detention Facility is what Stalinists would do for refusing to watch a propaganda video.
This school is defiant in the face of the American tradition of freedom of religion, and the administrators of the school should be held to a public flogging.

Thank you.

Sava · September 18, 2003, 21:07

Quote:

To send a youth to a Juvenile Detention Facility is what Stalinists would do for refusing to watch a propaganda video.

We're the People's Republic of America my friend... only the state supports corporations...

chequita guevara · September 18, 2003, 21:45

The could have placed their heads down on the table/desk and refused to watch while remaining in class. That would have made a better protest in my mind.

Ben Kenobi · September 18, 2003, 21:49

Walkouts are way more effective, since they attract much more attention.

It depends on your goal, to just not have to watch the channel, or to stop the television advertisements altogether.

Verto · September 18, 2003, 22:21

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The could have placed their heads down on the table/desk and refused to watch while remaining in class. That would have made a better protest in my mind.

Then the teacher would have simply disciplined them for "sleeping".

chequita guevara · September 18, 2003, 22:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Verto
Then the teacher would have simply disciplined them for "sleeping".

Better than going to jail. Start small, then escalate. Don't start at the top or you have no where to go.

korn469 · September 19, 2003, 02:06

We had channel one in high school, and their "education" were like a bad version of headline news on cnn hosted by lisa ling...

i will never forget that horrible pepsi one commericial they would play OVER AND OVER AGAIN, it had right now, by van halen or somebody in it, i wanted to kill the pepsi ad executives who came up with it, but the commercial did stick

anyways...

we live in a sick society when we jail kids for refusing to watch tv
and people wonder why americans are fat

Snotty · September 19, 2003, 03:18

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Better than going to jail. Start small, then escalate. Don't start at the top or you have no where to go.

Like any of us would have given a damn about some kids putting their heads down in class, and get a lunchtime detention for it.

Nubclear · September 19, 2003, 03:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
We're the People's Republic of America my friend... only the state supports corporations...

All Americans support the right-thinking news organization Channel One!!!

In other glorious news, the People's Educational Enforcer has rescued revolutionary students from the counter-revolutionary thinking of the communist pigdogs known as "DJ" and "Carlotta Maurer".
"We simply want what's best for future revolutionaries. We do not wish to infect them with the communist plague" said an anonymous People's Education Enforcement Dept. official yesterday.

Drake Tungsten · September 19, 2003, 04:10

Quote:

The kids walked out because they had objections to television. It's the equivalent of walking out of a biology on dissection day because you have moral problems with cutting up a frog. It's something that gets sorted out in the school, not juvie.

Those ***** animal rights ****s should be put in the clink as well.