In the Service of Young People? Studies and Reflections on Media ...

When Childhood Gets Commercialized, Can Children Be Protected?<strong>and</strong> Burger King, in c<strong>and</strong>y Mars <strong>and</strong> Hershey. <strong>In</strong> beer, Anheuser-Busch <strong>and</strong> Millerdominate. <strong>In</strong> food <strong>the</strong>re are more than two, but few – Kraft (Philip Morris), Nabisco(RJR), General Foods, Pepsico, Unilever <strong>and</strong> Nestle are major players. Amongmedia companies, rapid consolidation has occurred, <strong>and</strong> children’s media isdominated by Viacom, Disney, Fox, <strong>and</strong> Time Warner. <strong>In</strong>deed, it is estimated thatfive media corporations now control <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> U.S. media outlets (Bagdikian2004). The annual revenue streams <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se companies are enormous – Viacom,for example, has reported annual revenues exceeding $25 billion; last year Coca-Cola earned just under $22 billion. The companies <strong>the</strong>mselves are valued athundreds <strong>of</strong> billions <strong>of</strong> dollars.These corporations not only have enormous economic power, but <strong>the</strong>ir politicalinfluence has never been greater. They have funneled unprecedented sums<strong>of</strong> money to political parties <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficials. For example, between 1995 <strong>and</strong> 2002,Philip Morris gave more than $9 million dollars to <strong>the</strong> two political parties, with<strong>the</strong> bulk ($7.8 million) going to <strong>the</strong> Republicans. Time Warner gave more than$4 million, Disney $3.6 million, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> U.S. Sugar Corporation gave $2.3 million(Schor 2004). For three decades, corporate power <strong>and</strong> influence have been exp<strong>and</strong>ing.The power wielded by <strong>the</strong>se corporations is evident in many ways, from <strong>the</strong>irability to eliminate competitors to <strong>the</strong>ir ability to mobilize state power in <strong>the</strong>irinterest. Consider developments relating to food. <strong>In</strong> 2005, <strong>the</strong> expert panel advising<strong>the</strong> government on revisions to federal nutrition guidelines, a majority <strong>of</strong>whom had strong links to industry, proposed guidelines that made no mention<strong>of</strong> limiting sugar consumption, despite its role in rising obesity. While sugar dideventually appear in <strong>the</strong> final guidelines, after protests by activists, it is buriedinside <strong>the</strong> report under carbohydrates (see OMB Watch 2004). The sugar industryhas also bullied <strong>the</strong> WHO with threats that <strong>the</strong>ir anti-obesity initiative wouldresult in a withdrawal <strong>of</strong> U.S. funds to <strong>the</strong> industry. Agriculture <strong>and</strong> food lobbieshave pushed through food disparagement laws in twelve states where <strong>the</strong>y arepolitically powerful. Oprah Winfrey was sued by a group <strong>of</strong> Texas cattlemen under<strong>the</strong>ir ‘veggie libel law’ after she did a show on Mad Cow Disease. Biotech giantMonsanto not only used its clout to have recombinant bovine growth hormoneapproved by <strong>the</strong> Food <strong>and</strong> Drug Administration, despite <strong>the</strong> fact that it is bannedin every o<strong>the</strong>r industrialized country for its links to cancer <strong>and</strong> early puberty, but<strong>the</strong> company has pressured <strong>the</strong> United States Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture to preventfarmers from informing consumers that <strong>the</strong>y do not use <strong>the</strong> hormone (Mohl2003, Schor 2004). <strong>In</strong> schools, <strong>the</strong> s<strong>of</strong>t drink companies have dem<strong>and</strong>ed exclusiveaccess. The companies tout ‘nutrition education’ as <strong>the</strong> solution to poor diets<strong>and</strong> obesity, but have fiercely resisted government attempts to require labelingon <strong>the</strong>ir products. (For more on <strong>the</strong> political clout <strong>of</strong> Big Food, see Nestle 2002,Schor 2004.)Recent actions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> FTC also illustrate <strong>the</strong> growing reach <strong>of</strong> corporate power.<strong>In</strong> early 2005, <strong>the</strong> FTC dismissed Commercial Alert’s petition to require disclosure<strong>of</strong> product placements in television. The rationale for <strong>the</strong> petition was that41