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.