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 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.