My first OP-ED draft

Untitled (for now)

“More games, more toys, oh boy!” shouts the five year old boy sitting on a swing with the happiest face on Earth. What he does not know, is exactly the problem, the fact that he is being watched over national TV by more than just 30 million other kids.

As time passes, our culture has degenerated into a planet full of meaningless consumerisms. Not surprising at all, the main victims are the weakest and most vulnerable ones; the children, and here is where the big question arises; has the behavior of them changed since the work of media and consumerism reacted on them?

This is undoubtly an easy one.

Toy’s R Us´s campaign “I don’t want to grow up, I’m a Toys R Us kid” has been playing with children’s minds for too long now. It is time that big companies start developing new strategies avoiding consumerism, to get our kids attention. Making a sweet five-year-old girl sing “They got the best for so much less”, is not going to get anybody anywhere.

Lets face it; children today are overexposed to a growing number of commercial messages, which affect the way the play, learn and most importantly, behave. In other words, commercial world is actually corrupting childhood. Yet, what does all this mean for a child itself?

Not long ago in West Bengal, a 14-year-old teen murdered his ten-year-old friend because she refused to part with her iPod. This is clearly a murder that we would not have been able to see five years ago, but as cultures all over the world develop, not especially in a positive way, scenarios like this become more common, and sadly more normal.

This situation is for sure not the first one in these days societies, horrible moments likes this have become extremely common in high-class families, I would say TO common.

There is no doubt about it; children change with the influence of media, in a bad way. Subliminal messages fill the screen everyday, creating humans that just want one thing; more.

But we are not the wisest ones; we are actually the ones being the most put-upon, why? Because every time our children make a scene, we give them what they want. In other words; yes. We are overindulging our children.

So be aware. Your kid saw it, now he also thinks it, and as the little blond girl with tails would say: “They got million toys at Toys R Us that I can play with”, and one day, he also will.

My own Op-Ed Outline

What questions do I have to answer through my Op-Ed?

- How has the behavior of children changed with the work of media and consumerism reacting on them?
- Are parents also guilty for this behaviors?
- Which are the main personality changes we can see on children?
- How does media manipulate the children´s minds?
- Are children over-exposed to media?
- Should there be a limitation to these kind of manipulations?

Topic: Consumerism on kids with the use of TV
Primary Source: Children the latest victims of consumerism Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVu4BZKEo2E
Secondary Sources:  Is consumerism harmful?
http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2007/11/07/consumerism-harmful

1. Beginning: I will begin with an example; telling a story. It has to be a true story, that impacts the reader and makes him want to read more.

2. A brief introduction to the topic will be given.

3. I will focus on the exposure of children to consumerism, the tactics of media on children and the perception of them.

4. I will focus on the change of behavior of children, the change of it. I will give more examples.

5. I will focus on the parents; are they guilty? do they have something to do with these behavior? should they do something about it? I will cite parents thoughts and opinions from videos or articles from the internet.

6. I will finish with critique, going back to the story told on the first paragraph.

Persuasive Techniques to take in mind:

• Focus tightly on one issue or idea --- in your first paragraph. Be brief.
• Express your opinion, then base it on factual, researched or first-hand information.
• Be the voice of reason.
• Be personal and conversational.
• Be humorous, provided that your topic lends itself to humor.
• Near the end, clearly re-state your position and issue a call to action. Don't philosophize.
• Don't ramble or let your op-ed unfold slowly, as in an essay.
• Use clear, powerful, direct language.
• Avoid clichés and jargon.

Today while investigating on more specific cases of consumerism on children I found this one and it just impacted me the most. A 10 year old boy MURDERED his 10 year old friend because he did not want to share his iPod with him. Let us be realistic: would something like this happened 5 years ago? 

Lets face it: Consumerism on kids is affecting their behaviors not for long, it is kind of a new thing. 

I also had to point out the reaction of parents towards this "Non-tolerable" behavior. As the woman in the video said: "If you don't do what they want, they will not do what you expect them to do" .

Based on the investigations I posted before about materialism and how media impacts us; and mostly children, I am going to be writing an opinion editorial about a more specific topic that involves mostly all these characteristics. My main idea is to write about how specifically children are affected by the selling media; how does media influence them and make kids greed and selfish?

Before I write my Op-Ed I decided to research more about my topic, and look deeper into my question. My first concern was that kids are now begging for the latest must-have playthings or school essentials, why? They think these thing are critical to their social and emotional survival. And all this ideas are just created because of media.

I found an extremely helpful article posted on a parent guide on the web, it talks mostly about the consumer culture and how to confront it. Children and Teenagers are also shown as an important factor of the consumerism, here you can see what I mean.

Bolstering Media Literacy

Young children are particularly vulnerable to merchandising tactics due to their lack of media savvy and immature cognitive capacities. One study found that when kindergartners and 1st graders viewed a television program and a commercial, only half were able to correctly identify the commercial, about the same rate as chance. These young children see commercials as just another form of entertainment. Until youngsters are about 7 or 8 years of age, they do not comprehend the true purpose of commercials, which is to persuade. Likewise, advertising can be devastatingly effective.

One parent I spoke with explained: "Shows are packed full of commercials that say "you've got to have it right now." My younger son gets totally consumed. He'll come up to me and say, "You know what I want for my next birthday? I want the Bionicles because it does this and it flies like that!"

Research tells us that many parents eventually give in to their youngsters' unrelenting requests for something new. However, bolstering children's media literacy, their ability to think more critically about what they're listening to and watching, goes far in helping children to develop impulse control and bypass the attitude that buying something new leads to lasting gratification. (See the sidebar for help with this.)

I also found these questions, which point out in some way the truth about all the advertisements.

Questions and tips to initiate discussions about media with your child

• Does the toy being advertised look like this in real life? Would you need any extras that don't come with the toy?
• Have you seen a commercial like this before? Who do you think it's designed to target? Would you want this product if you hadn't seen it advertised? What makes it seem appealing?
• Consider a "buying journal" that the whole family contributes to. Keep track of everything you buy for a week. How many items in the journal were discovered through advertisements?
• Talk about how each family member uses the home computer. Is the use educational, social or consumer-oriented? Is anyone "addicted" to the computer?
• Consider taking a collective TV diet for a week or a few days. What do you learn about yourself? What do you learn about your family?

Op-Ed Columnist: Return of the Organic Fable

By Roger Cohen

LONDON — Life is a journey full of discoveries and I have added at least one important fact to my store of knowledge this year: Hell hath no fury like an organic eater spurned.

Damon Winter/The New York Times

Roger Cohen

It seems you don’t park your Range Rover outside the Whole Foods store without having worked out your priorities for the planet, assembled a raft of arguments to support them and decided anyone who thinks otherwise is a Monsanto stooge or ex-propagandist for Big Tobacco.

So here goes, for all the devotees of organic cotton bedding, a follow-up to “The Organic Fable” (Views, Sept. 7) in which I cheered a Stanford University report pooh-poohing organic; argued that organic foods were a form of premium branding rather than a science; and suggested the organic movement was little more than upper-middle-class narcissism.

Reasonable debate may not be an organic commodity, but it is unquestionably in short supply in this shrieking, solipsistic age. In an attempt to bolster it, I will begin by acknowledging the several good points made by my critics.

First, the problem of feeding a planet whose population will surge to 9 billion before the middle of the century is a complex one that goes far beyond the conventional versus organic food argument. Food wastage, overconsumption in the developed world and possibly adjustable meat-eating habits are all important parts of the equation.

Second, the Stanford report did say that “the risk for contamination with detectable pesticide residue” was 30 percent lower “among organic than conventional produce.” As many who opt for organic food do so primarily because they want to avoid chemicals they believe may have a bad cumulative effect, rather than because they were under the illusion that organic is more nutritious, this appears to be a significant, or even central, finding (more below.)

Third, there is an argument for organic on the grounds of taste. It may be more expensive but it packs flavor.

Fourth, although I noted that “organic farming is probably better for the environment because less soil, flora and fauna are contaminated,” I did not allude specifically to a concern of many organiacs: The damaging effects of big agriculture’s fossil-fuel driven mono-cropping culture and the positive effects on biodiversity and sustainability of smallholders with organic farms.

Fifth, not quite everyone who eats organic is rich. And, O.K., some people want animals to be treated nicely.

All this said, the organic bourgeoisie, with their babies in reusable cotton diapers, gazing at menus of “organic, local, farm-raised” stuff and inveighing against genetically modified (G.M.) food, inhabits a world of illusion.

The loudest cheering for “The Organic Fable” came from agronomists working in the developing world. One — he preferred not to be named knowing the righteous rage of the organic movement — said that in the palm oil sector alone, the planted area will have to increase by 12 million hectares by 2050 to satisfy demand. That means either increased yield or increased areas (encroaching on rain forests.) Higher yield means fertilizer and “probably means G.M. if it can add traits to crops so they are more resilient to drought and disease,” he said. “To reject science and technology is a completely Luddite response.” His view of the organic ideology: “A substitute for organized religion.”

Put bluntly, without fertilizer the world grounds to a halt. Without herbicides, pesticides and insecticides, yields will not rise in areas, like the corn belt of East Africa, where they must. Moreover, as the World Health Organization says, “chemical control (use of pesticides) is still the most important element in the integrated approach” to control of vector-borne diseases like malaria and dengue — not, I know, a big problem in Notting Hill Gate or the West Village.

On pesticides, the Stanford report noted that “differences in risk for exceeding maximum allowed limits were small.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sets limits for pesticide residue on food. These limits work, although some believe there is scientific evidence they don’t and, if they can afford it, buy organic. Fair enough, but the countries where pesticides should really be a source of concern are those like India where regulation is rudimentary.

A few other points the organiacs ignore. First, in this new era of land pressure, organic farming requires more land for a given unit of crop. It will therefore impinge on wilderness. Second, when an organiac gets sick, he or she will likely not reject the latest brilliant chemical solution for the disease: Why then reject such solutions for crops? Third, “organic” is a slick marketing tool that may be very misleading when a farmer who, say, raises great free-range chickens but can’t ship in feed from organic-certified mills is unable to use the label. Fourth, the World Health Organization view on GM: “No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”

Elitist freakouts spurred by the organic ideology are no answer to the world’s food problems. In fact they are a distraction.

Op-Ed Colmnist: At long last, Dignity?

By: Frank Bruni

If you live for 80 years, Chuck Bennett told me, you see things you never imagined. Crazy, fantastical stuff.

A man on the moon. “Amazing,” he said.

The Soviet Union’s disintegration. “Also amazing.”

And on Nov. 6, if the polls are right and his hope is fulfilled, the people of Maine may pass a referendum for same-sex marriage, which no state has adopted by popular vote before.

“That’s equally amazing to me,” he said. Ten minutes later, he circled back to say it again. “I would like to reiterate how amazing it is.”

Bennett was born in 1932 and grew up in Brooklyn without anything but slurs and clinical terms to describe his attraction to other men. In the late 1950s, he was forced out of the Navy for being gay.

He never found a long-term romantic partner, thwarted in part by a disapproving society with no obvious role models for him, and he bought his dream house on the ocean here 15 years ago with two close friends, because he didn’t want to grow old alone and didn’t expect to meet anyone special, not so late in the game.

“You know that old saying, Born 50 years too soon?” he asked me. “I think I do feel something of that.”

Maine is one of four states with same-sex marriage on the ballot on Election Day, a crucial moment for advocates and opponents alike. The referendums are the first and best tests of popular sentiment since President Obama’s history-making statement of support in May. (For more on this, visit my blog.)

In Minnesota, the vote is on an amendment to the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. But in Maine, Maryland and Washington, the vote is to permit it, and thus to join the six states where it’s already legal, thanks to legislatures or courts.

Advocates are most optimistic about Maine, and I traveled here last weekend for a sense of what victory would mean to someone who’d known and braved a much different world. I found my way to Bennett, a courteous man with a soulful gaze and a precise way of speaking that reflects his long career in academia, first as a college English professor, then as a dean.

He recalled that during his teenage years, his only assurances that there were other people like him were newspaper stories about men arrested on Fire Island for “obscene” or “depraved” behavior.

For a while he dated women, but couldn’t summon any real passion for them. He wasn’t sure where that left him. Clearly, he wouldn’t marry. But what about a relationship like that with a man?

In his late 30s, he had one, and wanted it to go on forever. It lasted five years. Nothing like it ever came along again.

He felt the need to be secretive about his sexuality and kept work colleagues at a distance. His parents died without knowing he was gay.

Starting in the mid-1980s, he marveled at the proliferation of gay characters in movies and on TV. He later joined efforts to end the ban on gays in the military, giving money to the cause.

But when gay advocates started talking about marriage, he thought it nuts, partly because they were buying into such a flawed institution. But also, he said, “The likelihood of winning was so, so far-fetched.”

One of his housemates, David Newman, 71, who is also gay, still has trouble understanding the way “I do” and gold bands became such an ardent, defining quest. He spent a lifetime trying, out of painful necessity, not to be tormented by the straight world’s norms, which excluded him.

“How can somebody like me, who has made a significant investment in inventing an alternative world, come around to accept gay marriage?” he asked, clarifying that he supports the referendum. It’s just unsettling to him, this challenge to what he thought he was supposed to believe about such conventions.

For Bennett, the marriage focus of the Maine referendum is almost beside the real point, which is validation.

“I see it as something of profound significance,” he said. “Whether anyone winds up getting married in Maine, I don’t care. I care that they can get married.” That right means that gay people are equal to straight people. It recognizes their dignity. His dignity.

I asked him if the absence of such recognition during most of his life made him bitter.

“I was fortunate,” he said, explaining that his family wasn’t especially religious and his nature isn’t self-punishing, so he never felt that being gay was some abomination. But it was certainly a limitation. A cause for hiding, or at least holding essential parts of himself in reserve.

“I’m inclined to look back not in anger, as John Osborne once said, but with some degree of sadness,” he said. “Everyone could have been happier. Everyone could have been more fulfilled if they hadn’t been burdened with this prejudice.”

Television influence on children

What do kids want these days? The answer to this is exactly what big companies who are willing to sell big quantitys of a specific product want to discover.
I found a very interesting article in a webpage that focuses on human health; especcially in kids. Citing; did you know about the following facts?

• two-thirds of infants and toddlers watch a screen an average of 2 hours a day
• kids under age 6 watch an average of about 2 hours of screen media a day, primarily TV and videos or DVDs
• kids and teens 8 to 18 years spend nearly 4 hours a day in front of a TV screen and almost 2 additional hours on the computer (outside of schoolwork) and playing video games

Media is consuming kids!

Today while watching different videos about consumerism, I found out that the main victims for this kind of strategy are the children. And why not? ; children are easy to manipulate, convince and sell, aren't those the intentions of almost every company? No wonder 7 out of 10 comercials are for kids on TV, they are the perfect bait for companies. What follows next is the pressure parents recieve from their children to buy something, because the advertisment has truly convinced them; they WANT this toy/sweet/accesory, and there is nothing to do in order to change their minds.

Take a look at this video I found, it explains exactly the idea I am trying to convey.