Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, March 26, 1995 TAG: 9503250013
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: G-3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: MARY NEWSOM
DATELINE: CHARLOTTE, N.C. LENGTH: Long
Three frogs in a pond start croaking, ``Er'' and ``Wise'' and ``Bud'' randomly until they - surprise! - hit upon ``Bud-wise-er.'' Now, instead of wanting Muggsy to shoot baskets, Maggie wants timeouts. ``When will the frogs come on?'' she demands.
As beer commercials go, this one is benign. No men ogling bikini-clad women's bouncing chests or other values you don't want your kid absorbing. Nevertheless, it undoubtedly embeds ``Budweiser'' into her fresh, young brain. It is possible she believes all frogs croak ``Budweiser.'' I don't know, and I'm afraid to ask.
I resent this. As her parent, I want more control over what takes root in her mind, and a skunky beer is not what I want imprinted when she is only 3. Nor do I want the brand names of trashy toys or greasy food or gaggy-sweet cereals settling in, when we're trying to teach her to wipe her own nose, share her toys, love reading and all the other things we hope for our children. But in this country, commercialism is virtually inescapable.
Community events are renamed for corporate sponsors. College bowl games carry names such as ``The Poulan/Weed Eater Independence Bowl.'' Even our local school system has agreed to allow advertising signs at school ball fields, to raise money.
A few years ago, at a Charlotte Hornets game, we were agog that advertisers had found even more scraps of space in which to hawk themselves. Even the halftime stats had a sponsor. Then the Honeybees cheerleading squad bounced onto the floor. Something sparkled on their tight spandex shirts. We got out the binoculars and read ``HQ'' perched between each Honeybee's breasts. This season, I believe it reads Toyota.
I say all this as someone who draws her salary from advertisers' willingness to buy ads in my newspaper. I read magazines and watch commercial television, also supported by advertising. Further, I admire the creativity and wit of an excellent ad campaign. But when you look around, it is clear too much is for sale.
Children's programs and movies are notorious for disguising advertising as entertainment. Mickey Mouse is no longer a character; he is a commodity to be bought, preferably at the Disney store in your local shopping mall. Whole TV shows are created by advertisers to con children, and thus parents, into buying useless garbage.
Good advertisers are clever and subtle. They can get your attention when you'd rather be distracted, and they manipulate you, playing on insecurities, primal instincts and things you cherish. Nothing is out of bounds if it brings in money.
And advertising is deliberately relentless. As a local ad exec told me recently, ``You must repeat your message over and over and over. You'll get so sick of it you can barely stand it. But at that point, most people are only starting to hear it.''
Not every civilization sells its soul to the highest bidder. A few years back, Hornets forward Kenny Gattison spent a few months playing in Italy. It altered his world view. Interviewed last fall, back in Italy for an exhibition game, he said, ``We think America is the best place to live. It's not. It's just the most convenient. There's no honor. In the United States, the loyalty is to money. Here, it's to family and friends. It's based on the real things.'' In Italy, he said, ``People fight Americanism as hard as they can because they think it's a corrupt society. It's all based on earnings.''
That is why proposals to end government money for public broadcasting are horrifying. Public stations are the only ones not driven entirely by commercials.
I'm an adult and I'm media-savvy. I view advertising skeptically, and I choose what to buy based on a lot of factors, not just ads. My child can't do that. Neither can yours. Kids make ridiculously juicy targets for advertising bullies to manipulate.
The only children's programming anywhere in the country not larded with commercials is on public TV. That alone makes public broadcasting worth its cost, $1.14 a person. It offers a haven where we are not targets in anyone's campaign to make us buy things.
There's every reason for government to occasionally examine whether services it offers are worth the money or might be better offered elsewhere. But that question ought to apply to the Pentagon's bloated budget and sugar price-supports and corporate tax write-offs, too.
Members of Congress would have you believe they are just listening to the voters on public broadcasting. Are they? Recent polls show 70 percent to 80 percent of Americans support continued federal funding. Ten days ago, the House voted to reduce public broadcasting money for this year. Stay tuned for more cuts.
Local public-broadcasting executives fully expect federal subsidies to end. They just hope the money dies gradually. And they hope to be allowed to loosen their guidelines, so they can begin showing commercials.
Mary Newsom, a former Roanoker, is an editorial writer at The Charlotte (N.C.) Observer, for which she wrote this column.
- Knight-Ridder/Tribune
by CNB