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.