3 ms·
To pay for the development of children's entertainment. Public television is wonderful but I bet all of us look back fondly on a show that we loved as children
by robobenjie 13y ago
To pay for the development of children's entertainment. Public television is wonderful but I bet all of us look back fondly on a show that we loved as children that would not have existed without ads to pay for its production.
- gbog 13y agoSo we feed kids with ads in order to feed them with tv?
- jlgreco 13y agoI wonder if young adults in two or three decades, the ones growing up with netflix and amazon instant video accounts, will have to say the same. I know I cannot already, since I grew up without cable television and had most of my childhood televised entertainment provided for me through public broadcasting and rented/bought VHS. I'll admit that my circumstances were unusual though.
- hatcravat 13y agoFollowing this train of thought to its logical conclusion: Without children's entertainment, kids would be forced to read free books from the library or go play outside. The horror! Look, shared cultural nostalgia is great, and all, but I'm not sure that makes for a good reason to allow advertizing to kids.
- eli_gottlieb 13y agoUntil you try watching an episode as an adult and realize it was complete and utter shlock. That's not to say good kids' stuff doesn't exist, but I see nothing wrong with just murdering the whole model of Media-Driven Consumption, from food to toys to fashion, in its sleep. With a knife. It's bad, and society should feel bad for allowing it.