- 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:
- 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.
- 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?
- 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?
Please look in the comments section for more information.
5 comments:
Channel One and It’s Many, Many Issues…
Although once classified as passive, it is now clear that media audiences are active viewers. Channel One’s creators have realized that children spend a significant amount of their time in school. What better way to promote advertisements? By promoting products in a school environment, the students are most attentive and will most likely pay attention to the messages they are receiving in school. As active audience members, students may form an idea of what a certain product means to them or even discuss these products with their peers. Although a brilliant idea for its parent company and sponsors, Channel One is also somewhat of a nightmare for some parents, educators, and policymakers. After much studies and analysis of the Channel One program, many issues have arisen with this program. The issues with Channel One seem endless; however, the main concerns include the following: wasted valuable class time, emphasis on materialistic values, inappropriate health messages, and the undermining of the public education system.
According to the Commercial Alert organization, the 12 minute Channel One program takes away valuable teaching time from the teachers as well as students. Although the program is supposed to have only 2 minutes of advertising messages, past studies have shown that this is not the case. The Center for Commercial Free Public Education writes that about 80 percent of the 12 minute broadcast is spent discussing topics such as advertising, sports, weather and natural disasters, features, and Channel One promotions while the remaining 20 percent covers recent political, economic, social, and cultural stories. Wetzel, Radtke, and Stern (1994) write that Channel One requires that their program be aired during homeroom and non instructional periods. In Channel One and the Education of American Youth, Bachen (1998) writes that the primary supporters of Channel One believe that the program is an educational source for students in terms of current events. 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 (Yale Journal of Ethics, 1995). By airing Channel One during these non-instructional class periods such as homeroom, 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. Additionally, it is possible that the program will air when actual instruction begins. During the school year, the 12 minute program adds up to approximately an entire week of classroom instruction (Commercial Alert). For those schools that air Channel One during regular classroom instruction, this is time wasted on mostly irrelevant topics that will not be made up during the year.
Those that oppose Channel One believe that the public school system’s authority is being compromised by the program. Rather than taking control of their students, teachers turn their students over to the commercialism behind the Channel One program. Opponents worry that rather than focusing school time on positive messages, Channel One’s presence in schools is placing a greater emphasis on materialism amongst students. In a study conducted by Greenberg and Brand (1993), students exposed to the Channel One program tended to have more materialistic attitudes than non-viewers. Additionally, viewers retained at least three products advertised during the program. According to the study, those that view Channel One claimed improvement in their product evaluations and a greater desire to buy products featured on the program. This study exemplifies people’s main concerns with this program. When parents send their children to school for the day, they expect that their children are gaining valuable knowledge that will lead the academic success. However, the reality of the situation is that although these students may be gaining educational knowledge, they are also being told that owning material things defines their success. From this information, we can assume that this is not a positive value system for the students exposed to Channel One. As noted before, Channel One is mostly found in schools located in disadvantaged areas. By promoting products through Channel One, schools are sending the message to these underprivileged students that society values material objects rather than receiving an education.
As taxpayers, parents also oppose Channel One because they believe their money is being wasted on a program which promotes poor health messages. According to a study conducted entitled “The Hidden Costs of Channel One,” Sawicky and Molnar (1998) determined that Channel One’s cost to taxpayers in lost class time is $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. (Obligation, Inc.). Most people are aware that obesity is a major issue in America and to combat this issue, policymakers advocated the passage of laws that would prevent unhealthy snacks from being served in schools. In 2004, Senator Edward Kennedy introduced the Prevention of Childhood Obesity Act which required public schools to ban vending machines that sell unhealthy snacks and drinks in vending machines (Commercial Alert). In addition to this act, other organizations have been making it a point to address healthy snacks within the school environment. However, Channel One’s promotion of a variety of snacks such as Snickers, McDonald’s, Pepsi, etc. may be undermining these efforts. Some people may argue that students are bombarded with messages promoting these products in their everyday lives. Although this a valid point, students should not be bombarded with these messages in an academic environment.
Conceptually, Channel One seemed like a revolutionary idea that would introduce an innovative teaching tool. However, the actual execution of this program is not proving to be enhancing students’ knowledge in terms of current events. Instead, the main focus of Channel One is centered on advertisements and product promotion to generate money for its business sponsors. With time and money wasted as well as the emphasis on material possessions, Channel One is not an appropriate program for classroom education. Therefore, it is understandable to see why so many organizations strongly oppose its presence in schools.
Resources:
Bachen, Christine M. Channel One and the Education of American Youths. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 557, Children and Television (May, 1998), pp. 132-147. Sage Publications, Inc. in association with the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
Research Note: Television News and Advertising in Schools The "Channel One" Controversy. Journal article by Bradley S. Greenberg, Jeffrey E. Brand; Journal of Communication, Vol. 43, 1993. 9 pgs.
Wetzel, C. Douglas, Paul Radtke, and Hervey Stern, 1994. Instructional Effectiveness of Video Media. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
www.commercialalert.org
http://www.yale.edu/yje/ch1.html
http://epsl.asu.edu/ceru/Documents/cace-98-02/CACE-98-02.pdf
http://www.commercialalert.org/pcoasum.pdf
I would have to agree with the masses on this one. I am in opposition of Channel One. It is clear as daylight to see that the motivation for such an outlet was birth from a mind of marketing genius (one concerned with a single bottomline: profit) rather than one of altruistic integrity with concern for the enrichment of impressionable young minds. If for a moment we allow ourselves to get up on our high horses and look at what's unfolding in our society today, we may soon realize we indeed have a moral compass that innately steers us away from inventing "better" ways to expliots our own youths. Sadly, we all get caught up in our day to day responsibilities of "making ends meet" and subconciously fall prey to the "great ideas" of a "well meaning" marketing CEO with pupils dilated with dollar signs.
I feel that the issues you pointed out about Channel One are very pertinent ones. I agree that it is a waste of valuable instructional time to have students watching TV that isn't even geared at an educational message. I do believe however, that educational instructional television programs have there place it does not seem that Channel One fits this bill at all. Parents send their children to school to receive a quality education and not to watch the latest celebrity gossip.
I do believe that educational TV does have it's place and if Channel One were to cleanup it's act it could be a part of this front. This would require that they address all of the issues that you have set forth and show a commitment to change and helping to develop the young minds of America's youth instead of maintaining loyalty to various products.
I agree with Fatima’s claim. Although she states that the marketing machine and greed of corporate America are mainly to blame for this, I believe the ultimate responsibility sits in the lap of the public school officials, who should have the wherewithal to comprehend the fact that 12 minutes of television does not aid in a child’s educational growth. I can’t phantom how the “no child left behind” slogan equates to letting impressionable youth add 12 more minutes of television; in the classroom no less. Instead of “no child left behind” maybe we should start saying “no public school official left behind”.
I wholly agree with the points you've raised about the ineffectiveness of Channel One, Hauwa. Why is the majority of what's presented totally unnecessary for a school environment? I never thought that schools would come to be a place featuring advertisements of junk food and other business promotions that deter from the facilitation of worthwhile learning. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Post a Comment