MOM sponsors

From
Date
   Many responses to my email concerns about NBC's reshowing of MOM have
suggested that we contact the sponsors.   Others want to know what effect
these contacts have had.  Here is my response to an email from Ms. Linda
Pell (Linda.Pell@kellogg.com) of Kellogg company last March after the first
showing.  Note that Kellogg's not only disclaims any responsibility for the
showing, but says their scientists are not competent to judge the program.
That is particularly sad.

"Dear Ms. Pell:

I am quite pleased that you responded for Kellogg Co.  Your answer is not
particularly satisfactory, as it again suggests that sponsors delegate much
of their advertising judgement to the networks.   That's a lot of trust!!
Do Americans dissociate advertizers from programming?   I think not.

>  Thank you for your message concerning the ad we placed on an NBC
>  program called The Mysterious Origins of Man.
>
>  Kellogg Company does not sponsor television programs.  We do place
>  spot advertising during time frames and on channels where we think we
>  can reach our target audiences.  Since we do not sponsor programs, we
>  do not have content editorial or selection rights.  We make our
>  placement selections based on a reviewers synopsis of the program
>  which is then compared to our placement criteria.  We make every
>  effort to be sure our commercials appear within television programs
>  that are considered wholesome by the vast majority of the public and
>  we avoid programs which include hard-core violence, explicit sex, and
>  or obvious anti-social behavior.  In addition, we support accurate and
>  fair news coverage and try to avoid programs which are one-sided or
>  put across a singular point of view.

Sounds very good--certainly removes Kellogg from any responsibility.  But
then everyone associated with this program, from NBC, to affiliates, to
those sponsors with the courtesy to respond to inquiries have refused to
accept responsibility.   Just who does decide what goes onto American TV?

In theory your reviewer system ought to work; in practice it fails because
your reviewer cannot properly evaluate what is and what is not science.
How good is your reviewer in evaluating violence, sex, anti-social
behavior, and fairness?   With the boundaries you state for exclusion, a
reviewer has a good deal of latitude.  Is getting shot hard-core violence?
Or only if it shows blood spattering?  Or more than one person getting shot
with blood all over?  I think you need more help in evaluating what Kellogg
stands for.
>
>  In addition, we very much support accurate representation of science
>  and scientific principles.

Thank you.  But why then delegate the responsibility to a reviewer who
cannot judge?

>We suggest that you do as we have done in
>  the past, write a letter to the Chairman of the network to let him
>  know of your concern with the distorted information provided by this
>  type of program.

NBC has yet to reply.
>
>  We have taken strong stands in the past when nutrition and food
>  science issues have been misrepresented (like the ALAR scare) because
>  we have the expertise within our organization to critically evaluate
>  the accuracy of the information and the science behind them.
>  Unfortunately, we are not experts on anthropology or biology and do
>  not feel that we can fairly represent your concerns, but support your
>  efforts in this regard.

My concern is not whether the anthropology or biology was correct or
distorted.  My concern is that a nonscience program was represented as
science.  Ask your scientists if they can recognize how science is done.
If they cannot, Kellogg is is trouble.

If the public were properly informed about science and nonscience, Kellogg
would have fewer problems with ALAR.    But then Kellogg refuses to take a
stand on what science is or is not, I gather, and thus begets what it
eschews.

Perhaps Kellogg's would join with me and other scientists in promoting
intelligent science presentations and representations in the media.  Sounds
like science is as critical to Kellogg as it is to those of us who teach
it.  How about it?  Ask your scientists if they might be interested.  They
really do know the difference between science and non-science, I assure
you, or Kellogg would be in deeper trouble on lots of other issues."


Jere H. Lipps, Professor and Director
Department of Integrative Biology and
Museum of Paleontology
University of California
Berkeley, California 94720 USA

Voice:  510-642-9006.  Fax:  510-642-1822.
Internet:  jlipps@ucmp1.berkeley.edu
WWW:  http://ucmp1.berkeley.edu