Public service announcements - a waste of taxpayer's money?
I don't know if this happens in the USA, but in Britain you often see ads saying stuff like " fasten your seat belt" and maybe a blurb underneath giving you the statistics on how it's safer and why you should.
Maybe that was a bit old fashioned, but it's not unknown for the Govt. here to do an anti smoking , or anti drinking ad campaign. And to be honest, while I support the idea in principle, I wonder if it really works to spend money on telling people what to do.
Ok, you can legislate to make sure that manufacturers print the number of calories there are in the burgers on the side of the box. But who reads it? And putting 'Smoking Kills' in big black letters on the side of the box does not seem to have done any harm to the tobacco industry.
I know that Libertarians will say that people should make their own choices and not have them dictated by the government. My only argument there would be that I want an informed choice - instead of having to ring the company, i would appreciate it if the packet said not only how much it cost but what's in it, thereby making an informed choice possible.
But leaving food aside, what about public education programmes that tell us about Public health and Safety issues. Like " Don't drink and drive" - while I agree with the sentiments expressed, do they have any impact on the idiots who do, or are they just preaching to the chior when read by most people who do anyway?
Might, perhaps, there be a case for some 'social education' in secondary schools?
I mean , I learned maths, English and a lot of academic stuff at school, but noting about opening a bank account, using a credit card, or how to sit on a jury or how a trade Union works until i left school.
Maybe things have changed and kids get told about drugs, driving licences and all sorts these days. But if not - how about it? not just education about drink and drugs in class, but also having disccussions on ethics and social responsibility.
I can see that some leftward leaning people might want to have kids taught about the Evulz of Capitalism, and corporate CEOs would have their eyes light up at the chance to come into schools and talk about the job opportunities of working for mc donalds as they hand out healthy and nutritious portions of fries - but then it does not have to be done that way.
Do we perhaps have a duty to kids to tell them how the stock exchange, the law courts and the voting system works, so that they can be more effective as young citizenswhen they leave school? Or do we let them loose to drift towards either the local gang or the local church, whichever way the wind blows and their sails have been set by their parents at home?
Let's assume that there is a diffence between the society and the government as a given. Should not Society be makking a bigger investment in it's young people, or is that an encroachment on the role of parents? Is it even possible for governments to write neutral presentations of credit cards and present an unbiased write up on drug use in society - or should kids just read the papers and gt that sort of info for themselves by listening to both sides arguing in the media?
how much time and money does your government spend in your country talking to young people about things like drink, drugs, teenage pregnancies and it's political, financial and social institutions? Do you consider it money well spent? what do they talk about and what should they talk about?
And getting back to the adults, do you consider 'public information sevices' to be money well spent, or a waste of time? How can governments make their info more effective if it isn't already?
Maybe that was a bit old fashioned, but it's not unknown for the Govt. here to do an anti smoking , or anti drinking ad campaign. And to be honest, while I support the idea in principle, I wonder if it really works to spend money on telling people what to do.
Ok, you can legislate to make sure that manufacturers print the number of calories there are in the burgers on the side of the box. But who reads it? And putting 'Smoking Kills' in big black letters on the side of the box does not seem to have done any harm to the tobacco industry.
I know that Libertarians will say that people should make their own choices and not have them dictated by the government. My only argument there would be that I want an informed choice - instead of having to ring the company, i would appreciate it if the packet said not only how much it cost but what's in it, thereby making an informed choice possible.
But leaving food aside, what about public education programmes that tell us about Public health and Safety issues. Like " Don't drink and drive" - while I agree with the sentiments expressed, do they have any impact on the idiots who do, or are they just preaching to the chior when read by most people who do anyway?
Might, perhaps, there be a case for some 'social education' in secondary schools?
I mean , I learned maths, English and a lot of academic stuff at school, but noting about opening a bank account, using a credit card, or how to sit on a jury or how a trade Union works until i left school.
Maybe things have changed and kids get told about drugs, driving licences and all sorts these days. But if not - how about it? not just education about drink and drugs in class, but also having disccussions on ethics and social responsibility.
I can see that some leftward leaning people might want to have kids taught about the Evulz of Capitalism, and corporate CEOs would have their eyes light up at the chance to come into schools and talk about the job opportunities of working for mc donalds as they hand out healthy and nutritious portions of fries - but then it does not have to be done that way.
Do we perhaps have a duty to kids to tell them how the stock exchange, the law courts and the voting system works, so that they can be more effective as young citizenswhen they leave school? Or do we let them loose to drift towards either the local gang or the local church, whichever way the wind blows and their sails have been set by their parents at home?
Let's assume that there is a diffence between the society and the government as a given. Should not Society be makking a bigger investment in it's young people, or is that an encroachment on the role of parents? Is it even possible for governments to write neutral presentations of credit cards and present an unbiased write up on drug use in society - or should kids just read the papers and gt that sort of info for themselves by listening to both sides arguing in the media?
how much time and money does your government spend in your country talking to young people about things like drink, drugs, teenage pregnancies and it's political, financial and social institutions? Do you consider it money well spent? what do they talk about and what should they talk about?
And getting back to the adults, do you consider 'public information sevices' to be money well spent, or a waste of time? How can governments make their info more effective if it isn't already?