HARTFORD, Conn. - The announcement by the Walt Disney company that it will ban junk-food advertising on its children's programs and networks is being hailed by First Lady Michelle Obama, who campaigns against obesity and unhealthy food. But do voluntary initiatives by corporations go far enough?

Makani Themba, who directs the group Communities Creating Healthy Environments, welcomes the move by Disney but retains some skepticism.

"Disney did not say they were going to stop marketing to kids, but they said they were going to stop marketing junk food to kids. I think that there are still some things to watch and to monitor about - What does that mean? And what kinds of food? And how do we even understand what are healthy foods? - because I think there's a lot of debate about that."

Michelle Obama's efforts are laudable, Themba says, but it's time for policymakers and government to play a stronger role in children's nutritional issues. She says the Disney junk-food ban underscores the enormous power of media.

"The most important thing about this is that Disney is admitting what communities have known forever, and that is: Junk-food marketing is bad for kids, it's unhealthy and companies should stop it."

Themba says Michelle Obama already is one of the most successful first ladies to use the "bully pulpit" of the White House to effect social change.

"Of course, she can't do it alone. And government and policymakers have to step up and play the role that they need to play to protect our kids."

Other broadcasters, including Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon, restrict the marketing use of their characters to foods that meet specific nutritional guidelines. Nickelodeon uses standards developed by the food industry. Disney says its standards will follow federal recommendations.


get more stories like this via email

O.J. Simpson's death has the nation looking back on the infamous murder trial that resulted in his acquittal. Experts say one of the lasting impacts is news coverage and how people consume it.

The lengthy trial proceedings from the mid-1990s were televised, setting a pathway for cameras in the courtroom.

Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota's Hubbard School of Journalism, said it also ushered in a cottage industry of pundits brought in to analyze the events of each day. That made it easier for people to get a recap during a 24-hour news cycle, but she added that there was a drawback to getting so much information through analysis.

"It also meant that people could suspend their critical thinking, to a certain extent," she said, "and I believe we're still seeing that today. The rise of social media has only made it easier."

However, she said it did expose issues with how criminal cases are handled, and viewers were able to see it firsthand. Given how the accessibility of information has exploded since the trial, Kirtley said, news consumers can't lose sight of the need to examine where they're getting it from. That includes whether the source is producing the news themselves, and if the details are being vetted.

Tessa Jolls, president and CEO of the Center for Media Literacy, said the trial firmly established entertainment as a core element of news coverage, making it profitable. She said outlets still have to reel people in with this approach to survive in a challenging landscape, but added that a sensationalized case such as this one sometimes helps with engagement in a positive way.

"They were seeing what the news organizations chose to show, and that gave people a chance to talk to each other and compare notes," she said. "In that sense, I think people probably did become savvier."

The trial also touched on racial issues and domestic violence, and Jolls said it was natural for people to have strong emotions about the developments. But she noted that it serves as a reminder for audiences to not let their gut feelings cloud how they weigh the facts presented to them.

"We need to see that our emotions are definitely present and that they may be swaying our thinking," she said, "and so, it's important to ask questions, to be skeptical."


get more stories like this via email

Missouri lawmakers are concerned with protecting people from the potential risks of the increasing accessibility of AI-generated images and videos.

The Innovation and Technology Committee is planning to vote on the Taylor Swift Act, a bill aiming to make it illegal to publish or threaten to publish AI-generated sexually explicit images of people.

Rep. Adam Schwadron, R-St. Charles, authored the bill and said it is important to be proactive in protecting ordinary citizens.

"They were able to take it down for her," Schwadron acknowledged. "However, common Missourians would not have the same protections afforded to her. Not everyone is Taylor Swift."

The bill would allow victims of the fake image attacks to sue the creator in civil court and recover the offending images. Rep. Bridgette Walsh, D-St. Louis, also supports the bill and said it is necessary in this day and age, given how easy videos and images are to access and create.

Schwadron noted while they will need to learn how to track items originating from the dark web, he is optimistic the legislation will cover most common offenses.

"The cases that we are seeing across the country of classmates that are being attacked by other classmates of theirs that is creating these images and it's affecting young girls and even boys and those are a lot easier to track when they're being shared from phone to phone," Schwadron explained.

Schwadron added the name "Taylor Swift Act" was fitting due to her ties with the state of Missouri and her recent ordeal with explicit deepfakes.


get more stories like this via email

Experts are saying social media algorithms are radicalizing users and increasing extremism in Arizona and around the country ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

Michael Chertoff, a member of the National Council on Election Integrity, said better protecting data privacy could make the algorithms less destructive, without infringing on free speech.

"I do think we could regulate access to data, uses of data and the application of algorithms to that data without offending the First Amendment," Chertoff contended.

Chertoff pointed out data is one of the most critical ingredients in building algorithms using artificial intelligence. He argued data collection by Big Tech companies should be better regulated, as it is used to send specifically targeted and polarizing messages to consumers. A large majority of Americans said they have little to no trust in companies to use AI responsibly, according to the Pew Research Center.

Farah Pandith, senior adviser for the Anti-Defamation League, noted extremism and radicalization are not decreasing. She suggested the first step to improve the situation is by having government and nongovernment stakeholders acknowledge the severity of the situation and to start having more conversations, which she contended is not happening at the scale it needs to be.

"You're not seeing the commitment as a priority area," Pandith stressed. "That shows up in the funding that is required for NGOs that are doing the first responses to all of this that come up with the creative ways. It doesn't show up in the way in which we can scale solutions that we know."

Pandith added solutions are available and called on social media platforms to assume more responsibility for the inciteful content they display.


get more stories like this via email