I think the most interesting piece from this week was the "Consuming Kids" video we watched yesterday. I found it interesting that advertisers know how to market to kids as young as five. One of the things that was interesting was that they make sure kids see their ads as young as two and make it memorable to a kid that young (such as slowing it down for the youngest age group).
One thing that the movie didn't address was the fact that we give these companies incentives in our economy to do these things. That is how our whole economy is run, so these companies and people just do what they need to to make profits. I think that it was a bit one sided to just get people to make their points than to go out and look at both sides of the argument. What about the parents who let their children be the subjects of these studies? I'm sure these people would say that advertising to kids so young is wrong, and yet they let their kids be the ones that get watched.
My point really is that yes, I think it is a bad thing, but you can't always use results to try and say why something is wrong, especially when it is just an opinion. If people want these things to change, they need to take a look at the incentives companies are given. The point in the movie where they talked about the trends before and after the advertising restrictions were taken off, that shows how much the restrictions worked. If people want advertising to change, they need to make a case that it should be put back into place, and show how things are worse now that the restrictions are gone.