Today's television is perhaps the most popular of all past-times, inducing people of all ages and dimension to spend fruitless hours glued to a glass screen and wooden puppets. Therefore what ever is put before the vulnerable on screen will be scrutinized to the very last end? In this case, we are looking at advertising. A format of television used to portray certain images and opinions about a particular product and/or service. Television is not the only distributor of advertising but it is the most influential, with more people seeing TV advertising than any other format. The Swedish ban focuses on children under the age of 12. The Swedish government wants to extend this ban to all the member states of the EU in 2001 when it assumes the presidency of the EU. Currently, in Sweden all advertising that is deemed to be aimed at children under 12 is prohibited.
"TV advertising may not aim at catching the attention of children below the age of 12 years."(Swedish RT law Chapter 7-4)
The two arguments put forward are simple. Firstly, the ban should proceed because of the unethical nature of advertising that attempts to get to parents wallets through children. In opposition are the arguments that suggest advertising does not affect children and therefore there needs to be no ban. Which of the arguments will prove stronger and more beneficial to society when the decision has to be made?
It has often been said that TV does has an influence on children and that it can in some cases lead them onto more disruptive behavior than originally displayed. This is particularly in the case of violent programmes. The arguments against advertising follows the same structure but with a different outcome. Advertising does influence children but the effect is not terrorizing round schools flashing weapons but terrorizing round parents and peers trying to get them to flash their cash. Does advertising attempt to get to parents through child...