Day 065 - 09 Dec 94 - Page 27

     
     1        popular belief that children are more "vulnerable" to
     2        advertising, younger children, than older children?
     3        A.  What is entirely clear is that younger children are not
     4        able to understand advertising in the way that older
     5        children are.  Older children are not able to understand
     6        advertising in the way adults are.  If that is what is
     7        meant by "vulnerable" -- it is not clear in this conclusion
     8        what the authors mean by "vulnerable" -- but if that is
     9        what is meant by "vulnerable", then that is a factor of
    10        age.  It says it casts doubt, but it does not disprove it.
    11
    12   Q.   No.  Can I read on: "Findings from both countries", that is
    13        Australia and the USA, "indicate that TV advertising does
    14        not 'prey' on younger children more than older children.
    15        Also, it should be reiterated that no undesirable
    16        consequences of TV advertising to children have been
    17        demonstrated other than that children occasionally pester
    18        parents for products they see advertised.  This is the
    19        result of free speech (advertising) protected by the
    20        Australian constitution; it is not the result of any
         demonstrated 'subliminal persuasion' force inherent in TV
    22        advertising.  Parents must decide whether a degree of
    23        pestering is a reasonable price to pay for commercially
    24        sponsored television programming."
    25
    26        Ms. Dibb, am I right in supposing that you are not willing
    27        to allow parents the freedom to make that decision so far
    28        as food advertising to children is concerned?
    29        A.  No, you are quite wrong to suggest that.  What it says
    30        here is that TV advertising does not -- and using those
    31        words -- prey on younger children more than older children,
    32        perhaps it can be said, to use their word "prey", that it
    33        preys on them just as much.  "Undesirable consequences of
    34        TV advertising", I think I referred in my previous research
    35        to evidence which showed the parent/child conflict; the
    36        pester power, what parents feel about that.
    37
    38        Secondly, this makes no reference to the nutritional
    39        implications.  We have a Health of the Nation that has
    40        decided, in consultation with all interested parties, that
         our targets for health that are sought to be achieved, the
    42        government in that sense has not just decided to leave it
    43        to parents.  After all, it is the government that picks up
    44        to a large extent the National Health Service's bill for
    45        consequences of poor nutrition.
    46
    47   Q.   For -- sorry, go on.
    48        A.  Therefore, I have -- you tried to suggest to me just
    49        now that I wanted somehow to take away parents' role.
    50 
    51   Q.   No. 
    52        A.  Sorry, what did you suggest to me? 
    53
    54   Q.   I asked you whether I am not right in thinking that you
    55        want to deprive parents of the freedom to make the decision
    56        whether a degree of pestering is a reasonable price to pay
    57        for commercially sponsored television?
    58        A.  Parents may have some role in the decision-making
    59        process but they are not the only party.  I also think that
    60        many parents feel very unhappy about being faced with a