This is our final presentation of the material

For the next several pages you will find our final presentation on Channel One advertising and it's appropriateness in the classroom. When reading through the blog, please understand that you will be reading it backwards because of the way the postings are arranged. If you would like to start at the beginning, please scan 3 or 4 pages back and start from there. Also, the posts presented on the final pages are abridged versions of lengthier arguments we have proposed. Those pieces can be found in the comments section of each argument.  

We hope you enjoy.

-Pat, Jeanne, Grace, and Hauwa

Conclusion: Wrap Up of Channel One

Channel One's presence in schools is not appropriate in the classroom environment due to its commercialism. Shown in almost half of the U.S. middle schools and high schools, Channel One is not the daily news show its owners claim. Rather, Channel One is simply a promotional vehicle for its sponsors' products. It is true that schools have the option to enter into a contract with Channel One. However, with the recent explosion of technology and its educational benefits, it is perfectly understandable that less fortunate schools enters into these contracts to receive an upgrade in technology. According to Channel One's advertising policy, the ads presented through this program will be "truthful and tasteful". Through studies and analysis of this program, it is clear that Channel One has not lived up to its policy. Although portrayed as a news program, Channel One seems to be heavy on the fluff/ads and light on the news. Although there is potential for teachers to engage students in classroom discussions of current events shown on Channel One, this rarely occurs as the program airs during non-instructional class periods. To many, Channel One has not added value to students academics and has mostly brought up issues concerning wasted class time and taxpayers' dollars, its emphasis on materialistic values, promotion of unhealthy messages, etc among parents, educators, and policymakers. Originally started in New York, it has recently been banned from all New York public schools and other states such as Oregon and California soon followed. Taking all of this into consideration, what does this tell us about Channel One's educational benefits? Although some may argue a number of points to support this program ,it is clear that it is not appropriate for classroom learning.

Argument 4: Organizations For & Against Channel One + State Bans on Channel One

Reaction to [Channel One] was both swift and passionate. "A friend of mine called me and he went, 'Commercials in school televisions? You out of your mind?'" recalls Ed Winter, a former executive producer of Channel One who now heads his own marketing firm. "'You just declared war on education.'" The controversy soon spread nationwide, and both California and New York banned Channel One from their classrooms
~ PBS Frontline.


Main Points:

• Institutions and arguments in favor of Channel One are mostly coming from the company itself and lobbyists.
  
• Institutions and arguments against Channel One are coming from parties composed of legislators, parents, teachers, and civilians.
  
• Several states have already moved to ban Channel One from entering public schools.
  

More In Depth:
Typical arguments in favor of Channel One include the following:
Channel One news programming goals claim to support these 5 educational goals:
              a. Enhance cultural literacy
              b. Promote cultural thinking
              c. Provide common language & shared experience
              d. Provide relevance and motivation  
              e. Strengthen character and build a sense of responsibility

• The producers claim that it increases children's public-affairs knowledge
  
• Channel One is part of the media literacy movement: more and more health advocates and scholars argue that in a media-saturated society, educators must provide young people with the ability to understand visual elements and message subtexts that are communicated to them in media message
  
• Channel One advocates assert that it provides young people with news information in an enlightening and age-appropriate style, and its Web site promises everything from "issues in the news to what happens in school" (www.channelone.com).
  
• Some studies have shown that male students, high academic performers, older students, and those who discuss Channel One with teachers and parents are more likely to benefit from the programming.
  

Typical arguments against Channel One include the following:

• Critics argue that Channel One accomplishes little beyond providing a captive audience for teen-targeted advertising, forcing children to watch ads
  
• Channel One wastes precious time in schools. Schools showing Channel One spend the equivalent of one full week each school year watching Channel One, including nearly one class day watching ads.
  
• Channel One misuses tax dollars spent on schools.
  
• Channel One—not parents or school boards—chooses its ads and program content, taking the parents’ say on what affects their children’s lives.
  

Banning Channel One from Public Schools:

• When Channel One was in its early stages, the owner, Whittle, spent 6 months lobbying to obtain access to New York State’s student market, the second largest in the U.S.

In New York State, Whittle has also had to contend with the ardent and unwavering opposition of the State Commissioner of Education, Thomas Sobol. "What message would we send to students if we removed the ban?" Mr. Sobol asked today. "That we value you as consumers more than we value you as students."                 ~NY Times

• California has also banned Channel One
  
• In 2001, Seattle began to phase out Channel One news in middle schools and high schools by the end of 2004-05 school year.
  

After reviewing the business side, the content, and the effects of Channel One, we must wonder which institution is on the side of the students' best interests. From the analysis of the organizations that are for and against Channel One, it seems like the business commercial interests are overwhelmingly biased by their personal interests and gains. To the point where any content can be manipulated and claimed useful to the student and the advertisements used as educational tools, and not as the influential mechanisms that they are. As for the states and schools that have banned Channel One, they deserve a round of applause for holding to their convictions.


~ Chin-Shan Jeanne Lee


Please look in the comments section for more information.

Argument 3: Channel One's Many, Many Issues

Who would’ve thought that a simple 12 minute program designed to provide an educational service to update students on current events would lead to so many problems? What was a brilliant idea for its creators and sponsors has turned into virtually a nightmare for parents, educators, and policy makers. If someone listed every single Channel One issue, the list would probably be endless. However after much research and analysis, the main issues include the following:

• Wasted valuable class time
  
• Undermining of public school system/Emphasis on materialistic values
  
• Wasted tax payer dollars/ promotion of inappropriate health messages
  

Please find below a detailed explanation of each issue as well as counterarguments:

1. Wasted valuable class time: Channel One requires that their program be aired during homeroom and non instructional periods; therefore no classroom instruction time is wasted. By airing Channel One during instructional periods, is this helping to educate students on current affairs? Studies have shown that in order for students to learn about a particular topic, teachers’ facilitation of classroom discussion as well as relating the topic to regular classroom instruction is necessary. Teachers are not engaging their students in discussion as that time is usually used for administrative tasks. Therefore, Channel One is not adding any educational value to students’ curriculum.
   
2. Undermining of public system authority/Emphasis on materialistic values: What are the latest Nikes? What are the hot new celebrities wearing? So, it turns out that a majority of Channel One’s program is mostly a mix fluff pieces combined with advertisements. Students exposed to Channel One are more materialistic, place more emphasis on material object, are more likely to remember several ads featured on the program, have improvements in their product evaluations and a greater desire to buy products featured on the program. Channel One is mostly found in schools that are located in poorer communities. The public school systems are turning over its students to advertisers on a daily basis. Essentially, Channel One is sending the message to students that possession of material objects defines success. Is this the message we want to send to students who are underprivileged?
   
3. Wasted tax payer dollars/ inappropriate health messages: Channel One’s cost to taxpayers in lost class time is a whooping $1.8 billion per year. It is one thing for this amount of money to be spent on a program that is actually increasing students’ knowledge and prompting an in-depth discussion about issues presented; however, it is another for such a significant amount of money to be spent on promotion after promotion of unhealthy snacks such as soda, junk food, candy, etc. Obesity, particularly, childhood obesity, is a major concern in America. Policymakers have taken action in order to prevent schools from providing healthy snacks in on-campus machines. Some people claim that the airing of Channel One’s advertisements should not affect students’ because they would encounter these message in their everyday lives. Yes … it is correct that people are bombarded with an overwhelming amount of ads on a daily basis. However, shouldn’t the classroom be a place dedicated solely to academic instruction and not product promotion?
   

~ Hauwa Otori

Please look in the comments section for more information.

Argument 2: Channel One content and a dichotomy between interests

According to a study published in Pediatrics (Weintraub-Austin, et al., 2006), teenagers are more likely to remember the content of advertisements displayed on Channel One News than that of the programming. This news is especially unsettling when one realizes that advertisements comprise less than 20% of the 12-minute program. As a consequence of studies like this one and many others, parents, teachers and various special interest groups are wary of Channel One's implementation of an advertising-based model. Furthermore, many of these groups have called for such companies as Procter & Gamble to pull their ads out of Channel One's lineup, and some states such as New York have even gone as far as banning the use of Channel One in NYS public schools altogether. This type of conflict exemplifies the dichotomy between advertisers and the private rights of individuals. Where should the line be drawn when it comes to when and where an advertiser can communicate a sponsored message? In the case of educational institutions, sponsorships can be found on athletic clothing, scoreboards, school newspapers, and even special projects such as the Pizza Hut Book-It! club. Therefore, many advertisers would argue that advertising-based Channel One is no worse a medium for ads than any other that are in the school system. However, many argue that the Channel One advertising approach is a blatant attempt to prime children for additional consumptive practices later on in life. Additionally, many claim that the existing ads are hedonistic in scope and sensationalistic in nature (Johnston, 2001).

However, it is clear that an advertising-based economy is a pervasive force in America and it will not simply be undone by the protestations of angry consumers. Therefore, it is imperative that advertising companies find less-invasive ways to convey their messages. If they do not, their businesses may take a hit because of the controversy and ensuing pull-out by advertisers. Additionally, if private individuals want to see change in the way advertisers can access such private institutions as the school, then individuals must work to educate the teachers and the institutions themselves.

~ Patrick Castrenze


Please look in the comments section for more information

Argument 1: "funny" business behind advertising

What does it mean and how does a business effect an educational program when they are prominently an advertising business? Just to give some interesting facts and background on the business behind Channel One.

• KKR is best known for its leveraged buyout of RJR-Nabisco. R.J. Reynolds (the RJR portion of the company) is the parent of Camel Cigarettes, whose skillful advertising made its "Joe Camel" mascot universally known and widely popular among school-age children.
  
• 
  
• Channel One is an advertising vehicle owned by Primedia (formerly K-III Communications), a property of Kohlberg, Kravis & Roberts (KKR), which is well known for corporate takeovers. Channel One broadcasts into 40 percent of U.S. middle and high schools.
  
• 
  
• Prior to acquiring Channel One, neither Primedia nor KKR were in the daily news-gathering business. Yet Channel One promotes itself as the primary news delivery system for school-age Americans.
  

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=888

From the structure of and make-up of the business behind Channel One, a clear distinction of conflict can be seen. Obviously a business will want to promote their products to increase revenue. It seems that Primedia is using Channel One as just another marketing and advertising tool to promote their products through advertisements on Channel One. It would not make sense for Channel One to promote other products that they do not own or represent, so their advertisement segments definitely take advantage of THEIR products and only theirs.

This brings us back to the idea of Channel One advertising being a very biased marketing tool that is creating a monopoly specifically when it comes to the rights to advertising. Similar issues to this arises when companies such as Coca-Cola sign contracts with schools to serve only products produced by Coca-Cola on school property. The question arises, when does this cross the line? Is it fair to only have Coca-Cola products? Is it fair to only have advertisements on Channel One by products OWNED by Channel One? Does the fact that because it is the advertising portion justify the fact that it is biased....as long as it is not the news portion?

An even more general question comes into play. Is it OKAY for an advertising company to own an educational program like Channel One? Or are there too many hidden agendas that goes with this agreement? I guess it is up to the citizens of America to decide, but I believe it is just not right.

~ Grace Oh



Look for more information in the comments section of this post.

Introduction/ Thesis Concerning Channel One

Our group has come a long way from starting with the general topic of cultural implications of new media to our focus of the advertising behind Channel One, a supposedly "educational" program, being implemented in schools in the U.S.

To keep our blog somewhat organized, we split this issue into FOUR major points

1. Business behind channel one advertising - (Grace Oh)
   
2. The content of channel one advertising - (Patrick Castrenze)
   
3. Effects of the advertisements on the students - (Hauwa Otori)
   
4. Mention the people who want channel one out of schools and why they want it out. - (Chin- Shan Lee)
   

These points will cover the issues surrounding advertising within Channel One programs as well as support our point of view that the commercial nature of Channel One is not conducive (inappropriate) for the classroom environment.