Chelsea Lepley
Re-envisioning Education and Democracy
Public Intellectual Essay
April 26, 2002
CHANNEL ONE CAN’T
SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS
Introduction
Imagine a high school like many in
This obligation to advertise is the
point at which many teachers (and others) become uncomfortable, and this tension
is understandable. The conflict between
the desire to get technology into school and the desire to keep advertising
out is felt particularly keenly
now, when a disturbingly large number of schools are drastically under-funded
and under-equipped to teach student how to succeed. Because of Channel One, people in tens of thousands
of schools have faced this same decision (whether or not to accept televisions
with ads contractually attached), and that is why millions of students in
What is Channel One?
Channel One is a television media company owned by Primedia (which also owns many popular magazines, like Seventeen) whose audience consists exclusively of secondary school students. Channel One provides schools with a television and videocassette recorder in every classroom, provided that the teacher in every classroom has agreed to show Channel One News, a 12-minute program of news, banter, features, on-air quizzes, and 2 minutes of commercials. Companies like Nike, Pepsi, and Clearasil pay nearly twice as much money for a 30-second ad on Channel One as they would on regular network television, because viewers are guaranteed – students are a captive audience. According to Primedia, there are approximately 12,000 “Channel One schools,” which means that nearly 8 million students see Channel One every day.
Public opinion varies somewhat on
the topic of Channel One and its commercials.
Some people say any arrangement that puts technology in schools is
a good one, while others see the benefits of technology but are skeptical
about the programming. Others have
pointed out that it may be completely unnecessary to have a TV/VCR in every
classroom, as long as teachers have access to what they need. Overall, though, Channel One seems dissatisfactory to almost everyone
involved. Teachers complain that, among
other things, it wastes valuable class time. Students also complain that it wastes their
time; furthermore, studies show that most do not learn from it. Parents and other community members are concerned
with the explicitly commercial nature of the programming. In general, it seems that the only people satisfied
with the status quo are advertisers, since they can currently reach about
40% of high school students through programs like Channel One (and they would
assuredly love to reach 100%). Such
programs leave most people feeling uneasy. No,
the students aren’t forced to buy a certain brand of a certain product, and
yes, they already see commercials at home
– but nonetheless, there is something unsettling about commercials being a
scheduled part of a public high school student’s day. So…
What’s wrong with Channel One?
- Selling out: First and foremost, private companies advertising in
public schools raises serious questions about the nature of the education
students are receiving there. If public
education is financed with private money, is it still public? How can a public school
accept corporate money without some obligation? Certainly, a school’s obligations to a private
company jeopardize its integrity, independence, and decision-making power.
For example, if a school accepts an endorsement with an athletic company,
it is obligated to abstain from criticizing that company and its practices
(including ethics and labor practices, which has been an important issue for
student activists). Likewise, if a school accepts Primedia’s audiovisual
equipment, it is contractually obligated to show Channel One in its entirety
(including commercials) to every student every day. Can we still prepare students for a meaningful
democracy when they see that school time – public time – can be bought?
- Getting cheated: In exclusive
exposure-for-material contracts between schools and private businesses (‘We’ll
give you – and only you – access to students’ attention, you give us TV’s
and content’), schools may receive inferior materials. Channel One, for example, has been widely criticized
for low-quality, “fluffy” news. As
a profit-making company, it’s important for Channel One to provide a hospitable
environment for advertisers, so the program tends to avoid or give only cursory
coverage to controversial or divisive issues. Much of the program’s time is devoted to on-air
banter and promotion of Channel One’s website and activities. This is hardly the enriching, engaging substance
promised to teachers.
- Exposing kids: In recent decades,
public school was one of the only places where a young person could go without
being surrounded by mass media images and messages. Schools no longer represent the “safe havens”
from advertising and commercial media that they once did. Some people argue that what students see at
home (on, say, MTV) will not affect them any more if seen at school. Others respond that allowing advertisers into
schools shows implicit approval of the messages they send to students. For example, even commercials send strong messages
about what is attractive and what people should eat, drive, wear, do, like,
and think. If schools include these
commercials in the mandatory viewings, it quietly demonstrates their hesitance
to actively create a supportive and intellectual school environment for all
students.
Why the Dilemma?
If schools were better publicly
supported – financially and otherwise – they would have less need to turn
to private businesses for assistance, but in the absence of such ideal support,
there a number of possibilities for making the most of the current situation,
and most of them involve other sources of news and information. The following solutions admittedly do not fully
address the underlying problem that apparently drives schools to allow advertising
in schools: lack of traditional funding (since a complete reorganization of
the national education budget is beyond the scope of this essay), but they
do offer an overview of some proposed alternatives to Channel One.
Proposed Alternatives
- Incorporate: Some teachers have worked to incorporate Channel One into existing curricula. Teachers can develop lesson plans to augment broadcasts. They might include analyzing the arguments of an anchorperson, or conducting research about a place in the news, to name two options. However, it is not practical to suggest all teachers regularly include content from Channel One in their lessons (especially not in subjects like math and chemistry). Teachers of classes that emphasize argumentation and analysis (and perhaps geography teachers) would have the best opportunities to incorporate Channel One materials. This idea disappoints further when one considers the nature of news presented by Channel One: stories are simple and uncomplicated. If schools do show Channel One (or a similar program), it is important for teachers to engage students in critical dialog about what they watch, but there are certainly better, more academically challenging lessons for teachers to use than those based on a 12-minute teen news show.
- Modify: There are pre-recorded, ad-free programs that function similarly to Channel One. For example, Cable in the Classroom, a cable industry project, provides free cable television connections (but nothing so costly as a TV/VCR) and commercial-free educational programming (although the criteria for what characterizes “educational” are negotiable). Companies like A&E, CNN, ESPN, and The Discovery Channel participate. It is available free of charge, but it has at least one drawback in common with Channel One: it is run by profit-hungry media companies. Thus, the programming runs the risk of being shallow and unbalanced, and – while it is technically free from commercials – it is full of promotions for the companies who provide the services. While Cable in the Classroom avoids the advertising pitfalls of Channel One, it cannot serve as students’ main news source or invitation to critical thinking.
- Innovate: Instead of relying upon commercial media for news and current affairs information, schools could support a student-based alternative. Students could produce a weekly (or semi-weekly, or daily) program, wherein they researched, analyzed, and presented information and viewpoints about local, national, and international current events. Besides increasing students’ awareness of “the rest of the world,” a project like this would give them valuable experience with research, analysis, writing, and public speaking. In schools with the resources to produce an actual taped program, students would also learn how to use technology for their own purposes (in schools without such audiovisual equipment, there would still be valuable experience in creation and presentation). Of course, there are drawbacks, too, mostly involving shortages of time and/or money to devote to a student project.
- Reminisce: Some people have
boldly suggested that we leave newfangled television programs out of classrooms
altogether. For centuries, students
have graduated as competent global citizens without programs like Channel
One, relying instead upon reading, criticism, and debate. The argument also contends that a restoration
of these “classical” methods of teaching and learning might help promote a
more democratic and connected society, where people are more willing to engage
one another in dialog. These values
could easily be blended with Twenty First Century values like objectivity
and global perspective. Almost every
class taught in high school could incorporate current events discussion: developments
in scientific research, new literature, politics, and cultural interactions,
to name a few. If a school totally adopted an approach like this one, it would
leave students relatively unprepared to process mass media images, which is
an extremely important part of being a successful member of today’s society. On the other hand, this emphasis on thinking
critically about the relevance of others’ actions is probably the most desirable
aspect of including current events lessons in any curriculum.
Moving Toward Action
- Students: With some thought and organization, students can make a difference in the decisions regarding their schools. To address issues like Channel One, it is most practical to work one’s way up the chain of command. Find out who – in your district – is responsible for deciding whether Channel One comes into schools (it might be your principal, the school board, or the superintendent, for example). Tell school board members how you and your friends/family feel about it (as elected officials, they are very likely to listen and follow your advice), and let them know you want them to keep commercials out of your school.
- Administrative officials: For decision makers, there should be nothing more important than contributing to the best possible education of each student. Listen to student and parent concerns, and work with community members. Consider the above alternatives to advertising-based programs, and work with the one that best meets students’ needs.
- “Regular” people: Community members have the power to make a big difference in schools, if they know what to do. Ask questions. Gather facts. Talk with friends and neighbors. Spread the word (especially to local news media) about ads in schools (most people are unnerved by this, and it’s a good way to motivate them toward actions). Submit and support prohibiting certain types of school-business interaction. Petition school boards to drop Channel One and/or resist its entry into schools. Petition Primedia to re-format Channel One as commercial-free. Petition advertisers to stop advertising on Channel One (this can be a very powerful tactic; companies will do almost anything to avoid alienating the coveted youth market).
Everyone can do something to protect the values they want to see in schools.
Regardless of the quantity and nature
of their news sources, students must be trained to think critically about
mass media’s messages, and to use their knowledge responsibly. Mediocre programs like Channel One do not help
students develop these skills. By incorporating
more consciousness and deeper understanding of current affairs into the classroom,
we will accomplish a few important things: development of analysis and critical
thinking skills; establishment of a sense of connection between students,
school, and the “real world”; and creation of a more socially and politically
aware citizenry. Whatever the method
achieves this important goal, it should be shared, implemented, and adapted
to fit the needs of all students the education system serves. This is true for a multitude of reasons, including
the fact that students can then go on to serve and improve the education system
itself, so we can attempt to start an “upward spiral” of education, communication,
and awareness.
Recommended Reading:
Klein, Naomi. No
Logo.
Mathews, David. Is
There a Public for Public Schools?.
McChesney, Robert. Rich Media, Poor Democracy.
McDonnell, Lorraine, ed. Rediscovering
the Democratic Purposes of Education.
Other Sources:
www.AdBusters.org
www.ChannelOne.com
www.Primedia.com