As Foucault writes, (paraphrasing here) when individuals aren’t held in their place from above (i.e. an aristocracy), then all sorts of little rules and regulations for social behavior will be imposed on them by society as a whole.

How this relates is that, Big Business has successfully convinced us (speaking for U.S.) that “we are what we buy.” Children do not have the autonomy to realize that what you have or do not have does not (mostly) define you as person.

Have so many of you other commentors forgotten what it was like to be a child? There were so many stupid things that so many people had, that if I didn’t have them, or others, they would be socially ostracized for being “uncool.”

And it’s just not true that parents only have to deal with keeping their children away from advertising, because it’s the other children that can really damage a person, for not fitting in and whatnot.
And obviously there’s just too many people in our society with so much going on that it is totally unreasonable to expect that individual parents can just shield their children from the rest of society.
It is society as a whole that has to change society. Which I doubt will happen, but whatever, I’m speaking somewhat hypothetically here.

And to the people who have written “well, gee, I just don’t see how highly invasive advertising and constant over-stimulation is having a negative impact on our society…” Well, I just really have no words to describe how effing stupid I think you are (and the masses in general). But that’s my problem and does not undermine what is written above. Good day!

Only in America could you get people, I mean every day, middle class, $40,000/year salary people to scream “WHAT ABOUT THE CORPORATIONS?” when issues like this arise.

Now, this is quite likely more than the average parent would commit to. And STILL I am undermined at every possible moment by marketing (at daycare, at school, at friends’ houses, in any environment outside our home, really). I strongly believe that the government NEEDS to intervene. This is beyond one family’s realm, this is our entire society’s problem. So many of you who don’t see a problem think this way because you have been immersed in it since you were a child (I am 42). There is enormous pressure on parents to not leave their children in the pop-culture dust…I can only hope my children will be able to discern for themselves one day that they are being manipulated by people who want to exploit them in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.

“Consumer advocates” is a really dumb sounding title as well. They are arguing that there should be limits imposed on marketers. As the video shows, Congress made it clear who they serve in the 1970s by weakening the FTC and thats still how the system works today. The government is designed to protect commerce/trade/capitalism. When they impose limits (the FDA, the EPA) it is only so that the system is not overthrown/abandoned by frustrated people who have reached their limit. Capitalism cannot exist without government (despite what objectivists and anarchocapitalists claim).

Targeting ‘marketers who advertise to children’ and limiting your outrage to that will do nothing. Its like trying to cut down a tree with a salmon. They might notice you but they will only laugh. Instead, you must target consumerism as a whole (capitalism) and mass media (propaganda). Anything less is futile against their resources.

Imagine someone building a chemical plant in your neighborhood. I think we would all agree that that chemical plant should meet certain standards of control to safeguard all of the local families; I think some of us would even stand up and say “the inherent risks of this plant are unacceptable. Not In My Backyard.”

Now imagine someone standing up and saying that yes, the chemical plant might poison the water, but really as a responsible parent your job isn’t to limit the chemical plant’s behavior–it’s to make sure that your family meets the safety standards that you think are appropriate; don’t push your safety standards on us. If you don’t like the water, don’t drink it.

I think most of us would agree that this is absurd. It absolves the chemical plant of any responsibility for harm it may do. Most of us would agree that it’s actually the chemical company’s ethical responsibility to be a good neighbor. Of course, that’s not where corporate law is in America, where the fiduciary responsibility to stockholders is the guiding principle.

Advertisers aren’t chemical companies and the airwaves aren’t the water supply, but the principle applies: corporations that use publicly owned resources (like the airwaves) should be accountable to the owners of those resources (us). We sometimes seem to think that the conscientious acts of corporate employees might make the corporation act conscientiously, but often that’s not the case because corporate goals have a way of masking individual moral choices–”no, it’s probably not good that the company is doing this, but really my job is to do the best job I can do.” Corporations generally can’t be relied upon to act conscientiously–it’s usually not compatible with maximizing profits.

Government regulation is a way for amoral corporate giants to become socialized and “get religion.” Enron was not raised in a functional household.

(I’m not a parent, so I feel I need to qualify statements I’m making on this stuff – feel free to criticize)

Sounds a lot like the standard “thesis, body, conclusion” structure of an essay to me.