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?