Caveat: Warning! I am not neutral about Channel One
Educationally, it is wrong to blur the distinction between the school and the marketplace, to weaken the credibility, the objectivity, and the neutrality of the schools.
"We have the UNDIVIDED ATTENTION of millions of teenagers for 12 minutes a day. 8.1 million teenagers in classrooms nationwide .... And since they're not channel surfing, talking on the phone or getting snacks from the kitchen, they're tuning into the world and to you. To reach the largest teen audience around, call (212) 508-6800."
WHITTLE'S WATCHDOGS?
Cartoonists may use the stereotype of the hard-sell huckster as a quick "shorthand" to convey the idea of TV advertising. However, in reality, most commercials on Channel One are soft-sell ads -pleasant, humorous, entertaining, upbeat, interesting, and fun to watch.
The function of both the news programming context and the clever
ad itself is to act as a lure-to get and to keep the attention of the audience.
Furthermore, these ads promise benefits that this target audience
already wants: products such as candies, colas, clothes, and cosmetics-often
linked with desirable images of beauty, popularity, success, and fun.
Channel One offers their advertisers targeting the "youth market"
an access to children during a very valuable "day part" (from
8 a.m. to 3 p.m. - about half of a child's waking hours) which is "clutter-free"
from competing ads.
In Whittle's scheme, the role of the schools and the teachers is to deliver
the audience, to gather the kids together, quietly and attentively.
Once they are in front of the TV sets, then it's the job of Channel One's news programmers to keep the kids watching (and the teachers happy) with 10 minutes of news and lively "infotainment" features. They will do their job well. So also will the advertisers. Scolding teachers will not be needed to keep the kids watching these delightful and attractive ads. For example, Pepsi's recent commercials feature a beautiful, vivacious model (Cindy Crawford) in a clever and witty ad campaign, designed to elicit responses and comments from the audience.
Alas, any classroom teacher with a follow-up commentary about
potential health problems (sugared drinks, caffeine-cola addiction) or emotional
problems (engendered by advertising image manipulation) is apt to be seen as
a wet blanket, a spoilsport, a scold, a prude, a heavy, an old fuddy duddy,
or whatever the current term.
However, the appropriate role of parents, teachers, and schools is often
precautionary - to warn in advance, to point out the problems, the dangers
and disadvantages which are downplayed by persuaders. Such instruction is difficult
in any situation, but even more so when the distinction is blurred between the
school and the marketplace.
With over 12,000 schools currently using (or being used by) Channel One, some
teachers may think it's "OK," because it's still legal. Or because
"everyone's doing it." But, that doesn't make it right. (Doesn't
that phrasing sound familiar?)
We cannot allow millions of children now and in the future to be treated
as captive audiences to be sold to advertisers. During the next decade, legal
rulings may vary by state or jurisdiction, but we can assert some general ethical
and educational principles:
Ethically, it is wrong to exploit children, to deliver them as audiences
to the advertisers, to act as Channel One's agent or functionary.
Educationally, it is wrong to blur the distinction between the school and the marketplace, to weaken the credibility, the objectivity and the neutrality of the schools.
Channel One is currently in 8,000 schools delivering
a national audience of five-million students to its advertisers, who will pay
$150,000 for each 30-second spot. Channel One recently announced that it's pumping
another $115 million into its efforts, attempting to get into 9,600 schools
by year's end and ultimately into 15,000 schools. In return for their contract
to deliver this "captive audience" for two minutes of TV commercials
a day, the schools get a $50,000 package of hardware (TV sets, VCRs) and a ten-minute
daily "current events" program.
Critics during the past year have pointed out some of the educational and legal
problems of having Channel One. But, they have overlooked that this serious
escalation in "commercialism in the classroom" has made such quick
inroads because of three very common, and very wrong, unstated premises and
unspoken assumptions in our culture; namely, that ads are not significant, not
effective, and not harmful.
Ads Are Not Significant
Most people see ads as petty annoyances or interruption -- bothersome, but trivial,
unimportant, unworthy of serious consideration. We get irked when ads intrude
upon our time or litter our space, but we brush them away like pesky mosquitoes.
When the commercials appear on TV, we get up and leave the room. On our VCRs,
we zap them out, or zip by them. But, we don't worry much about them. They're
"just" ads.
Ads, however, are "units of persuasion." If we had seriously
thought of ads in this way, we might not have allowed them to be in our schools
or to appear on children's television programs. We certainly don't tolerate
strangers on the street walking up to our kids and trying to sell them something.
But most parents have grown accustomed to using TV as a free babysitter. (Pre-schoolers
today will see 200,000 TV ads before they reach first grade.) And many parents
have passively accepted the idea of such ads accompanying the cartoons as simply
being "harmless trade-offs" -- just as long as the ads
were not grossly deceptive or the products grossly defective.
But ads are units of persuasion -- commercial persuasion. If churches or political
parties (Catholics or Protestants, Republicans or Democrats, Black Muslims or
Scientologists or La Rouchies) were to offer public schools an information package
like Channel One offered them - with ten minutes of news and two minutes of
religious persuasion or political persuasion-, there would certainly be a widespread
and outraged response. We don't want our kids to be targeted by the professional
persuaders of some group promoting their beliefs and behaviors. But commercial
persuasion also promotes beliefs and behaviors which have significant, and sometimes
harmful, effects on the individual, the family, and society.
Ads Are Not Effective
Most people don't think ads work. Every year, in surveys taken by advertising
research firms, most American adults (75-80%) respond that "advertising
doesn't affect me." In schools, this attitude is commonly seen among the
young who, while wearing designer jeans and $150 gym shoes, will blandly answer
that they never buy things because of ads but because the product is "good"
or that they "just like it."
One reason people think ads are ineffective is that very few people have been
adequately trained during their school years in persuasion analysis. Thus, many
people erroneously limit the concept of persuasion to direct and explicit
rational arguments and "command propaganda." In reality, most
of the persuasion we encounter everyday is indirect and implicit, using nonrational
techniques (such as emotional appeals, association techniques, and "image-building")
and long-term, low-key "conditioning" propaganda. Using such subtle
techniques, ads are very effective. Although any individual ad may fail, the
overall effectiveness of advertising is demonstrated by its spectacular growth
and its omnipresence today: from ad expenditures of $61 billion in 1981 to nearly
$130 billion in 1991.
Ads Are Not Harmful
Most people see ads as "harmless" if the products advertised do not
cause immediate, direct, and visible harm. Many educators, seeking the hardware
and programming benefits of Channel One, said they tolerated the commercials
as "reasonable trade-offs" (unintended side-effects) because there
were only "harmless" ads -- for products such as cereals, candy bars,
and fast-food restaurants: "What's wrong with that? The kids have already
seen these ads on TV at home."
If we limit the idea of "harm" only to harmful consequences which
are immediate, direct, and visible, then most ads on TV are not
"harmful." Most legal products today do not cause any immediate and
direct harm because our society, during the past century, has enacted laws and
regulations attempting to protect citizens from the sale of many unsafe and
dangerous products and from fraud and deceptive advertising. But some people
then argue, erroneously, "If a product is legal, then it's not harmful."
Not so! Not all harms are immediate, direct, and visible. Some harmful consequences
can be delayed, indirect, and invisible (such as in DDT, asbestos,
and lead-based paint), making them very difficult to identify and to restrict.
All the problem cases today (smoking, nutrition, chemical additives, alcohol)
involve such delayed, indirect, and invisible harms. One cigarette or one greasy
hamburger or one candy bar is not going to kill a person instantly. But long-term
cigarette addiction will cause 470,000 deaths in America this year, and our
national diet of junk-foods (heavily advertised) will contribute to a nutrition
crisis and enormous public health problems.
Identifying indirect harms and legislating against them is a slow, complex process.
Many observers think that cigarette advertising will be totally banned during
the 1990s as overwhelming medical evidence creates public support for such legislation.
Furthermore, some "harms" may not be measurable. Religious critics,
for example, argue that ads encourage a self-centered materialism, detrimental
to altruism and spiritual values. Secular critics argue that not only do ads
cause economic harms (debt cycle, stress) and psychological harms (anxieties,
frustrations) to individuals and families, but also that ads, by encouraging
consumption and waste, contribute greatly to the global problems of pollution,
environmental destruction, and social justice.
Thus, as the controversy over Channel One continues, we should recognize that
ads -- as units of persuasion -- are significant and effective and may
be harmful.
The recent article "Channel One: Good or Bad News for Our
Schools" (May 1993) illustrates some limitations of opinion surveys and
statistical studies. Author-researcher Drew Tiene asked students and teachers
if they liked Channel One, if it presented "information in an entertaining
way," and if their school should keep it. "Yes, yes, yes" --
most of them replied -- I want my MTV!"
As an opponent of Channel One, I'll readily concede that its programs are entertaining
and that many students and teachers want to keep it. While Tiene's attitudinal
survey may be an accurate report of their feelings, I don't think the questions
asked (or the answers received) warrant his enthusiastic conclusion that "subscribing
to Channel One positions a school to exploit the "video revolution."
The questions are not very relevant to those who base their educational decisions
on principles rather than popularity.
The problem with the surveys about Channel One is that they often ask the wrong
questions -- blurring issues, omitting relevant information, and neglecting
ethical issues.
The Main Issue
All arguments about the 10 minutes of programming are side issues.
These include (1) the various arguments about whether news and feature stories
are biased (liberal or conservative) or superficial (a "dumbing down"
emphasis on trivia, pop culture, and "Kid News"); (2) objections to
method (some critics oppose the fast-paced, quick cut infotainment glitz as
antithetical to the values of teaching disciplined thought); or (3) questions
about learning effectiveness ("Are students learning current events?"
-- Tests show mixed results.)
To focus on any of these issues works on Whittle's behalf, as a diversionary
smokescreen. These less relevant issues blandly assume the validity of the commercial
"package" accompanying the news. They don't deal with the real issue
specific to Channel One: two minutes of ads.
Critics may generally agree that main issue is "ads in the classroom,"
but bring up diversionaries about kind and degree: "The products are legal....
The ads aren't that bad ... only two minutes a day." Or they may
point to another wrong: "What about ads in school newspapers or bulletin
boards or "Free Films for Educators," which promote the corporate
policies of their sponsors?" Further, critics may suggest that opponents
of Channel One are zealots, or that any criticism of the program is an
attack on the Free Enterprise System.
Whittle emphasizes the need for students to know current events,
his rationale for offering his services. But this ploy is a non-issue. Everyone
agrees with this general goal; we differ as to the specific means, such as the
ad-free news from CNN used in more than 10,000 schools, or VCR taping, and so
on. Whittle stresses that he'll present no commercials for alcohol, birth control,
abortion clinics, and "head shops"--only "good" ads that
are not likely to provoke parental criticism. (Whittle's not going to kill his
cash cow.) Indeed, most of the ads are likely to have been seen before at home
on TV: candy and cola, cereals, cosmetics, and clothes.
The main issue is the presence of television advertising -- of
commercial persuasion - actively targeted at the audience of children within
the classroom and sanctioned by the schools.
Commercial television is the appropriate venue for such persuasion. In our society,
commercial television is the main marketplace, where (as the courts have often
ruled) people expect puffery and "sellers' talk" that intensify the
"good" about a product and downplay the "bad." In a society
that values free speech and free enterprise and that accommodates diverse political
and commercial persuaders, we must expect to live in a verbal environment of
many persuaders in competition.
The schools, however, are the appropriate venue for neutrality and objectivity,
the place to teach the young how to analyze and understand the techniques and
patterns of persuasion common to all persuaders.
Instead, however, Whittle has blurred the distinction between the marketplace
and the schools. He has suborned the schools to function as a go-between, gathering
the children into a valuable "target audience" (currently 8 million
children in more than 12,000 schools), which Whittle sells to his clients. Channel
One offers its advertisers access to the "youth market" during a valuable
"day part" (8 a.m. to 3 p.m.) (hat is clutter-free from competing
ads.
In Whittle's scheme, the role of the schools and teachers is to "deliver
the audience." Once the kids are in front of the TV sets, then it's
the job of Channel One's programmers to keep the kids watching (and teachers
happy) with 10 minutes of news and lively infotainment features. They will do
their job well, and so will the ads. The ads promise benefits that this target
audience already wants: colas, clothes, and cosmetics -- often associated with
desirable images of popularity, success, and fun.
Teachers may claim that most kids "don't pay attention" to the ads.
But this attitude simply reveals naiveté or ignorance of the techniques
of indirect, nonrational persuasion -- such as "peripheral attention,"
repetition, and the "association" technique.
In addition to compromising the neutrality and objectivity of the schools, Channel
One also weakens the moral authority to deal with health and safety issues,
such as diet and nutrition. For example, a recent Pepsi commercial featured
a beautiful, vivacious model (Cindy Crawford) in a clever ad campaign, designed
to elicit cheerful remarks from the audience. Any classroom teacher with a follow-up
commentary about omissions and disadvantages -- potential health problems (sugared
drinks, caffeine cola addiction), emotional problems (manipulation of beauty
images), or financial problems (expensive clothes) -- is apt to be seen as a
scold or a prude.
Ads are intrinsically one-sided, not required (except in a few situations) to
disclose any disadvantages. Schools, however, should be evenhanded and disinterested,
teaching the young decision maker how to make an informed choice by weighing
the benefits and disadvantages.
Supporters of the program claim that teachers could use Channel One to analyze
ads. Perhaps somewhere, teachers do have the time, talent, and training to do
this. But, probably the more typical situation was reported by Drew Tiene, who
observed the
"limited time available in homeroom for any discussion. In the schools
I visited, the program concluded just as homeroom ended, and students immediately
streamed into the hallways."
The issue, more precisely, as I've argued in The Pitch, is not
the presence of ads in the classroom, but the purpose, why they
are there, and the procedures, how they are handled. If students are expected
to be passive receivers of these persuasive messages, either in terms of buying
the products or of "feeling good" about them, then there should be
no ads: certainly, no Channel One.
However, ads should be studied as part of a language arts program or
a critical thinking program: analyzed as units of persuasion, treated seriously
as examples of carefully crafted nonrational persuasion. The 30 seconds of "real
time," as viewed by the audience, is the end-product of a complex and costly
process in which scores of people (writers, psychologists, actors, artists,
camera crews) may have spent months putting together the details. TV ads are
often the best compositions of our era -- the most skillful synthesis
of purposeful words and images, in which every word, every camera angle, every
gesture is carefully planned. Such an ad may have 40-50 quick-cut scenes, associating
the product with "good times." An audience perceives these images
simultaneously, but must discuss them sequentially, one at a time.
Thus, analysis takes time! Ideally, such viewing and analysis of ads should
be planned and controlled by the teacher (not the advertisers), using magazine
ads or videotaped TV commercials. Preferably, this should be done by a trained
teacher, in a coherent program, with the goal of teaching the greatest number
of young citizens how to analyze persuasion from any source.
Instead, however, schools nationwide are eagerly running after Whittle's money.
Perhaps the real shame is not so much that they are selling their kids as audiences
to the few persuaders, but that the schools are neglecting to teach children
how to cope with persuasion.
Hidden Assumptions
Why did so many well-meaning educators sign up so quickly for Channel One? Partly,
Whittle was a skillful salesman: he came gifts in hand, not only offering thousands
of dollars worth of "free" hardware and packaged programming, but
also providing the mental rationalizations (the "good intentions")
needed by the teachers to justify their actions: altruism ("doing
it for the benefit of the children") and pragmatism ("reasonable
trade-offs"). Further, he flattered his audiences, praising their sophistication
("Teachers know best," "Kids today know all about TV ads").But
there was no nationwide outcry against Channel One. Why not?
Elsewhere I've argued that Whittle took advantage of three very common, very
widespread and very wrong unstated premises and unspoken assumptions in our
culture: namely, that ads are not significant, not effective, and not harmful.
Basically, most people see ads as bothersome but trivial, unworthy of serious
consideration. We get irked when they intrude on our time or space, but we brush
them away like pesky mosquitoes. They're "just" ads. If our society
had seriously considered them as "units of persuasion," we might not
have tolerated them on children's television programs or in our schools.
Further, most people think that ads don't work. Every year,
in surveys by advertising research firms, most adults (75-80 percent) respond
that "advertising doesn't affect me." In schools, students wearing
designer jeans and $150 gym shoes are blandly unaware that ads affect them.
One reason for such attitudes is that few people (and few teachers) have been
adequately trained in persuasion analysis. Thus, many people erroneously limit
the concept of persuasion to explicit rational arguments, as if an audience
were to obey commands robot-like
In reality, most of the persuasion we encounter everyday is implicit, using
nonrational techniques (emotional appeals, association techniques, "image
building") and long-term, low key conditioning. Listen to people when they
talk about "stupid" ads, unaware that some ads are not targeted at
their demographic group, or unaware that some corporate "feel good"
ads are not selling products, but policies.
In colleges and teacher training programs in the past generation, nobody cared
much about persuasion analysis. College English teachers were too busy with
literature. Speech teachers were Balkanized (debate, drama, speech therapy,
media studies). Although some did teach persuasion, most were saddled with the
freshman course centering on the three-minute speech. Generally speaking, the
study of persuasion analysis fell between the cracks in the college curriculum
and in teacher training -- during the very era of great growth and increasing
sophistication of the professional persuaders:politicians and advertisers.
Whittle was the first major intruder into the schools to take advantage of this
vacuum; he will not be the last. Even if he were to withdraw Channel One from
every school overnight, he has demonstrated to other commercial persuaders that
there's a vast gathered audience of children in the classroom, with very little
protection.
Ethical Issues
Ethically, it is wrong to exploit children. Teachers may agree in general but
sometimes exempt themselves because of their "good intentions." But,
as the debate continues, more ethical questions are being raised.
Avoidance of these questions may be the basic strategy of those
who advocate Channel One. Once educators grant the premise that their function
in Whittle's scheme is to deliver children as audiences to persuaders (or that
ads are "units of persuasion," "effective," and so on),
then they are in an uncomfortable position, embarrassed that others would view
them as being seduced or bribed by Whittle.
Not only have they made a wrong decision in a long-term contract, but others are challenging their intelligence and integrity. It's no wonder that some educators are going to get very huffy and defensive ("We've already settled that issue!"). Perhaps "cognitive dissonance" might describe this dilemma of educators who thought they were doing the right thing and then were criticized as exploiting the children. Both positions can't be held at once, so avoidance of this ethical argument is their first defense.
Denial is the second strategy. The compromise
position reached by many teachers is that of the "reasonable trade-offs."
(unintended side effects). But this argument will not hold up to close scrutiny
if one considers the teachers' lack of time and training, the sophistication
of the persuasion techniques, and the imbalance of the situation.
In practice, ethical issues are often blurred by hidden agendas. There are some
"dirty little secrets" seldom mentioned in the public arguments over
Channel One: some teachers like the program because it's entertaining ("I
want my MTV!"), or all opportunity for them to catch up with their other
chores while students are pleasantly occupied. Some administrators and school
boards like the program because it's "easy money" -- funding they
won't have to seek from an increasingly grudging taxpayer. Whittle could easily
distance himself from such abuses of his program, but they do represent real
ethical problems.
Channel One will continue to be divisive as long as it is in the schools. "Good
intentions" are not enough. Initially, teachers (or school boards) could
plead that they didn't realize the implications. But, future arguments over
adoptions and renewals should focus on these ethical questions, not on popularity,
not on programming. The first question must be self-reflexive: Is it ethical
for educators to deny the ethical issues raised?
Ads in the Classroom: A True/False Quiz - Hugh Rank - http://faculty.govst.edu/pa
If your school has Channel One, you may want to download this Ads in the Classroom: True/False Quiz and ask your teachers, principal, PTA members, and school board to take this little quiz.
___ Most people dismiss TV ads as"trivial
annoyances": bothersome, but not very significant and not very effective.
___ Many teachers accept Channel One's ads as a "reasonable trade-off"
because the programs are "good" and the ads aren't really "bad"
-- "They're just regular ads that the kids see on TV anyhow."
___ Ads are units of persuasion.
___ Ads are one-sided "units of persuasion" which intensify the "good"
about the product or service.
___ Ads, as one-sided units of persuasion, downplay the "bad" - such
as any harms (health, safety) or economic disadvantages about the product or
service - unless forced by regulations ("disclosure laws"- the "small
print" warnings).
___ Persuasion need not be in direct statements or rational arguments. In fact,
most ads today can be described in terms of indirect and nonrational persuasion
techniques (such as emotional appeals, "image building," the association
technique, and nonverbals.)
___ The association technique simply links (1) the product or policy, with (2)
something already liked by (3) the intended audience.
___ Channel One (and its advertisers) benefit from being associated with the
schools lending their approval, authority, and prestige.
___ Harms need not be immediate, direct, and obvious; some harms are delayed,
indirect, and subtle. The more obvious the harm, the easier it is to get agreement
to regulate it.
___ Most advertising controversies today (relating to nutrition, smoking, environmental
pollution, materialism) involve issues of delayed, indirect, and subtle harms.
While such harms may be real, they are hard to regulate, or even to get
common agreement.
___ Schools act as agents to "deliver the audience" to Channel
One which then sells this audience to its advertisers who want to reach a youth
market during a "day part" (8 a.m.-3 p.m.) "clutter-free"
from competing ads in the traditional marketplace.
___ The marketplace (including commercial television) is the appropriate venue
for commercial speech, a venue where people expect one-sided "puffery"
and "sellers talk."
___ Schools are the appropriate venue for neutrality, objectivity,
and the place to teach the young how to understand the techniques of persuasion
common to all persuaders.
___ Advertising in the class room blurs the distinction between the school and
the marketplace.
___ Channel One weakens the credibility, the neutrality, and the moral authority
of the schools to deal with some health and safety issues, such as diet and
nutrition.
Mark Crispin Miller, one of America's leading media analysts, Professor of Media Studies from Johns Hopkins University, analyzes the implications of Channel One, making a case for its removal from the classroom.
He elaborates on the content of Channel One which delivers several negative lessons which he tersely calls: (1) Watch! (2) Don't Think (3) Let Us Fix It (4) Eat Now (5) You're Ugly (6) Just Say Yes.
Miller concludes: "To recognize the falseness of that propaganda, to learn to read its images, and also to read widely and discerningly enough to start to understand the all-important differences between a good life and a bad one: such are the proper aims of school. Which is why Channel One should not be there."
* Professor Molnar is now at Arizona State University which hosts the Commercialism in Education Research Unit which provides online Guidelines (from PTA, CFT, others) for dealing with commercialism in the schools, legislation reports from states and cities which ban Channel One, Community Responses and news reports, and an Archive of its Annual Reports.
"Ironically, when nobody seemed to be watching, all of these concerns [about curriculum and textbooks] were pre-empted by television commercials.... No longer can anyone question which texts should make up our culture's canon or national curriculum.
Why? Because one private corporation sold a core curriculum to thousands of schools -- wrapped in a glitzy commercial television package. Many people who haven't actually watched Channel One think of it as educational TV, because that's how its been marketed. The notion conjures up images of college profs in horn-rimmed glasses holding pointers at blackboards. But that's the case. Actually, Channel One is more commercial than network TV; it's hipper, faster-moving, full of loud rock music -- and, directly and indirectly, it's always selling something.
In short, the most standardized text -- experienced the most frequently by the most students [over 8 million, in more than 12,000 schools] -- is the TV ad. Kids who are captive to Channel One's ads and buy the products (sometimes sold within their schools) are in fact the only people paying for this enterprise --- not just in terms of time and money, but also in terms of learning, language, thinking, attitudes, actions, and values. ..."
"Why do we accept this corporate feeding on our young? Mainly because our own notions of propaganda -- what it is and where it occurs -- are based, ironically, upon obsolete media images: gray prisoner-of-war camps with grimacing North Korean guards; Winston Smith's 1984 torture by rats, and Angela Lansbury's dark, darting eyes in The Manchurian Candidate...."
[After diverse and extensive examples of the "replay phenomena" of ads by kids, Fox concludes that each replay is "turning schools into echo chambers of commercial messages."] ".... The activities, information, attitudes, and values that makeup replay behavior are linked to products and services being sold for profit -- not to kids' own personal thoughts, not to family stories, not to academic principles, not to cultural concepts, not to spiritual needs, not even to practical information." (p. 125) Roy Fox, Harvesting Minds
"We have the UNDIVIDED ATTENTION of millions of teenagers for 12 minutes a day. 8.1 million teenagers in classrooms nationwide .... And since they're not channel surfing, talking on the phone or getting snacks from the kitchen, they're tuning into the world and to you. To reach the largest teen audience around, call (212) 508-6800."
To sign a "Commercial Alert" petition in opposition to Channel One
Obligation
Up to date (2006) news, quotes about Channel One, examples
of Channel One sales literature, Press Releases, Organizations Opposed, FAQ,
Suggested Readings, etc.)
Media Education Foundation
-- e.g. see their useful PDF checklist: "Deconstructing
an Advertisement."
SCEC - Stop Commercial Exploitation of Children -- "a national
coalition [whose] members include health care professionals, parents, educators,
businesses, advocacy groups and concerned individuals."
As the controversy about ads in the schools (and
on ) goes on, there's been a "feel good" evolution of terms
used: from advertisers to sponsors to corporate benefactors
to corporate partners in education.
ChannelOne.com describes itself as a "learning community":