Ideology in the Media... really?

(From toothpastefordinner.com)

The mass media may not be harmful, but it is certainly not as unbiased and truthful as we'd like to believe it is. Even articles that present themselves as essentially factual represent the ideological viewpoints of their authors and publishers through what they say and what they don't say.

The Issue:

The issue at hand is whether "junk" food--which includes soda, pastries, candy and other unhealthy treats--should be sold in public schools. Many students buy food at school and most schools contain vending machines, which can feature unhealthy fare such as candy and soda.

Pople are concerned about what children eat because of the growing obesity problem in the US. These days obesity is the second most common preventable cause of death, second only to smoking, and in the past 25 years the percentage of obese American children has doubled (source: "Supersize Me"). Obesity can lead to type 2 diabetes, liver failure, decrease of fertility, heart disease and many other life-threatening health problems. The thought is that controlling children's access to junk food in school will help them develop healthy lifestyles. But is it the government's place to control what kids eat?

Several ideologies run through this argment:

The Conservative viewpoint, represented here by Fox News, argues that the government does not have the right to interfere with what children eat. Parents should decide what their children eat. If kids are unhealthy, it is the family's own fault and not the government's concern. To interfere with the personal affairs of individuals and to prevent people from making their own choices (whether to eat junk food or not) is overbearing and can set a dangerous precedent. I mean, first junk food, then what? So the main ideology here could be called freedom of choice or individual responsibility, and limited government.

The Liberal viewpoint, represented here by Channel 9 News, an NCB affiliate in Colorado, is not opposed to laws that protect children from things that are bad for them. The government has the right to do what is best for the country, and ensuring that the future generation is healthy is in everyone's best interest. They do not claim the right to control what students eat at home after school, but anti-junk food advocates want to set a good example and promote healthy eating habits on school grounds. Another key point here is that since schools are the guardians of students for much of their day, schools have the power to shape young minds and cure societal ills. One such societal ill is rampant childhood obesity, and schools should provide a safe and healthy atmosphere to prevent it.

Another dominant ideology that is present on both sides of the argument is adultism. This is the hegemonic belief that children cannot think or make intelligent decisions for themselves. This is why there are laws in the US setting age limits to drink, smoke, buy lotto tickets or fireworks, drive, get married, have sex, own a gun, vote, or run for president. Adults make medical decisions for children, decide what they will learn, and when they go to bed, all without their consent. Children buy into the idea that they are incapable of handling serious responsibility, and they submit to this ageist oppression because they know if they live long enough they will be the oppressor someday. If this isn't hegemony, what is?

NBC Affiliate in Colorado: New Law Combats Childhood Obesity

February 14, 2008: "Legislature considers bill to ban soda pop in schools"

This article focuses on a particular proposed bill to ban the sale of soft drinks and whole milk in Colorado schools and only allow water, low-fat milk and juice. It frames the argument in terms of promoting children's health in school.

The title, "Legislature considers bill to ban soda pop in schools," highlights soda pop, although other beverages (such as whole milk) would be affected by the bill as well. Is soda pop more interesting or controversial than whole milk? Or is it the more obviously unhealthy beverage? Or more popular among students? It is unclear.

The first line explains that the law aims "to reduce childhood obesity by restricting school beverages to water, fruit juice, and low-fat milk," which sounds fairly positive. It makes it clear that the aim to to make kids healthier, which is good. It also focuses on what students will have rather than what they will be denied. It mentions the wide ranging supporters of the bill, including health experts and soft drink manufacturers. As a whole it is a very positive spin on the issue.

Whose voices are heard?

The article quotes a health expert, Dr. Mark Johnson, and two democratic Senators, one who opposes and one who supports the bill.

Dr. Johnson asserts that children are becoming increasingly obese and that soft drinks, which contain hundreds of empty calories per serving, compound this problem. Obesity has also been linked to life-threatening diseases such as diabetes. Senator Dan Gibbs, a supporter of the bill, explains that it is not meant to be an attack on soft drink manufacturers, but meant to support children's health.

Senator Ron Tupa opposes the bill because he fears that banning soda could spawn a black market where students sell illicit soft drinks to their peers for profit. It would have been interesting if they had interviewed a Republican congressperson, who may have had different reasons to oppose the bill.

The article, although it mentions that parents testified, they were not interviewed. They also did not talk to students, teachers or administrators who would be directly affected by the soft drink ban. Are teachers going to miss buying soda at school, or do they not consider it a problem? Are teachers and administrators worried about losing revenue from soda vending machines? We just don't know.

By only speaking to a physician, a senator who was concerned about children's health and a senator with a rather trivial reason for opposing the bill, it portrays the bill as completely an issue of children's health and combating childhood obesity. And we all want to stop childhood obesity, right?

Mmm... donuts...

What's left out of this discussion?

In addition to the obvious lack of input from students, teachers, administrators and republicans, the article did not cover how the bill would affect schools and students if it were passed. Would schools lose revenue from soda sales, or would low-sugar substitues be just as popular?

It also did not explain the bill clearly or explain where to find more information. Would the bill ban diet soda? Would high sugar and high calorie fruit drinks be affected as well? Would serving sizes of high calorie healthy drinks such as juice and milk be limited? One cannot forget that drinking a large glass of skim milk still has tons of calories, although it has a lot of vitamins and minerals as well.

Ideologies

The issue of ideology is not as obvious here as it is the Fox News story. This piece is not framed in terms of a small group of people who think they know what's best and want to impose their views on all Americans-- the idea that laws can be passed to limit children's access to unhealthy things is not questioned or even mentioned. The writers seem to subscribe to the liberal viewpoint that the government has the right to pass laws that control some aspect of people's lives if it is what is best for them.

The authors of the article also seem to subscribe to the ideology that schools provide more than just math, science and reading: what kids drink at school is part of their school experience as well. It is not unreasonable that schools might control what beverages students have access to in order to provide a positive environment. This also ties in with the idea that schools can solve societal ills such as childhood obesity.

Fox News: "What gives you the right to dictate what other people's children eat?"

Follow this link for a Fox News program with Stuart Varney interviewing Merideth Roth, a parent and opponent of selling junk food in public schools. (I would have embedded the link, but that function was disabled by the provider)

This program framed the argument in terms of "principles" and whether one woman has the right to decide what other people's children should eat.

Whose voices are heard?

This program features Fox Newsman Stuart Varney interviewing concerned mother and anti-obesity advocate Merideth Roth. She presents her argument that junk food should not be sold in schools and that only healthy things that enrich children's lives should be made available to them in school.

Whether Roth's voice was "heard" per se is an interesting point, because Varney listened very selectively and in some instances quoted her out of context or outright ignored what she had said to make his point. For example:

Roth: "What I'm talking about is during the school day. I'm sure there are many opportunities for celebrations and treats and sweets and all sorts of things, but during the school day if it doesn't actually help a child with his academic experience, I'm not sure why it would be there. For instance..."

Varney: "So you're categorically opposed to any junk food. That is automatically bad for my children. Period. On all occasions. Bad for you. No way. Get out of here."

So while Roth was permitted to speak, he clearly did not listen to what she was saying. As Roth put it, "I feel like you're trying to be more sensational than I would like to be." Indeed, Varney ignored Roth's message-- that junk food has a time and a place, and it's not schools-- and interpreted her position as an extremist with whom few people would agree, arguing that children should have no access to sweets whatsoever.

So in addition to leaving out the perspectives of children, educators, or health care professionals, it also more or less left out the voice of Merideth Roth.

Ideology:

Varney completely side-steps the health issue, which is Roth's main argument. He states from the beginning of the interview that he wants to discuss the issue in terms of principles and what right any individual has to dictate the diet of other people's children. Clearly this is a decision that should be left up to children and their parents, not fanatic cookie-hating liberals. "I'll tell you what," Varney ended the interview snidely, "you take care of your children and I'll take care of mine."

This is about more than cupcakes and soda. This is an issue of personal freedom versus government intervention to control other people's lives because it's "good for them." Varney and the conservative ideology of Fox News believe in personal freedom (except maybe when it comes to warantless wire tapping, dictating who is allowed to marry who, and making me take my shoes off to go through airport security), and one way to support one's viewpoint is to portray your opponents as a fanatic with unreasonable beliefs. By accusing Roth of depriving his son of birthday cupcakes, he "sensationalizes" the issue and adds emotional appeal. You don't want little boys to not get their birthday cupcakes, do you? People have the right to decide what they eat for themselves and it is not the government's business.

Personal responsibility is also a key part of this argument: people have the freedom to choose what they will eat for themselves and they will take the responsibility for that choice. This assumes that students or their families have access to nutrition information (pretty tough to get when they item is in a vending machine) and have made an informed decision, or they'll suffer the consequences. So students who guzzle soda, get fat and develop type 2 diabetes chose that lifestyle, and schools or the government have no right to interfere.