One of the most notable aspects of political discourse today is how many of the problems we have seem to have relatively simple solutions for how consequential they are:

To reduce wealth inequality, we can use progressive taxation, antitrust, support of unionization so that poor people/workers have a large stake in their wages.

To give poorer people equal opportunity, we can use welfare initiatives like free (as in paid by taxes/free at the point of use) college, better pay for teachers and more equitable resource (as in textbooks, tables, chalk distribution for schools so poor people get more equitable education to rich people.

To reduce crime, violence and repeat sentencing we can reduce poverty (see the top question), encourage mental health initiatives and do not have cops take thatand have jail be rehabilitative rather than punitive.

To make make software less centralized and invasive, we can require Internet companies give you full, immediate disclosure of all the forms your data will be used and let people opt out of all of them, delete all their data, and also enforce antitrust when it comes to social media platforms (I.E Facebook should not own Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger and their new TikTok analogue and the first thing you should see when logging into any of them is a list of ways these companies will collect your data and let you opt out of all of them and be as anonymous as you please)

To make sure democracy is indeed representative of the people and works well, we can introduce a parliamentary system or multi-winner congressional seats and institute STV or RCV or just approval voting if you really can't have more than 1 representative for an area (the US senate is cucked)

To make more progress in stopping COVID, we can have mass testing by the government, people must take social distancing seriously and wear masks, medics need to be taken seriously and properly supplied with PPE and all that.

Given these solutions, what are large problems we have/will have that we genuinely don't have an answer to instead of just not wanting to do something about it?

A few examples that come to my mind are:

How do we get corrupion out of a government? Since the vast majority of stuff I have mentioned in this post would be done by governments and governments under extensive corruption cannot be trusted to regulate anything.

How do we regulate news outlets to be fair and objective? We can get news outlets to be publically/popularly funded instead of ad(large-corporate)-funded and enforce antitrust, but that doesn't stop bias, outright lying and sensationalism.

How do we get peple to change their minds? Evidence of everything I've mentioned in this post is more than around, but that hasn't convinced Republicans/conservatives. For some people groups, acceptance has literally been a decades-long political campaign to be recognized as normal or ok.

EDIT: 3 4 more.

How do we get people to befriend eachother and be social and tell apart those who genuinely don't want to do this and those who do but don't know how to or don't like to/aren't good at doing it in the ways usually available?

If we choose to let the population decline (see the climate change question), are we fully prepared for the consequences of having a society that will be growing older and older, perhaps indefinitely?

If we choose to not let the population decline and seek to keep birthrates at replacement level, how do we convince people to do so? If we don't/can't and start using things like artificial wombs to have children, who will take care of them? Do we make orphanages socially acceptable/valued and well-funded? Do we turn kindergartens and schools into a 24/7 institution and add in non-study things like housing and video games, and make teachers basically parents, but with many children to take care of?

If electoralism fails, what can we do to still have a voice in the world? Can we do anything?

OC from me when I was a college student. Also a good excuse to watch some cartoons and call it study ;-P Mods - feel free to move this if this isn't the appropriate sub. Thanks!

Who Has the Power? He-Man and the Masters of Marketing

Once upon a time the sole purpose of children’s television was to educate. But this changed in the 1980s when the Federal Communications Commission refused to enforce a ban on children’s programming tied to commercial products. Mattel took advantage of this to market a line of toys with their show He-Man and the Masters of the Universe. This was the crown jewel of the toy-based children’s programming in the 1980s and made Mattel over a billion dollars in revenue from toys and accessories. The program sparked controversy over marketing and violence in children’s programming.

The F.C.C. and Deregulation
In 1969 the F.C.C. found that the ABC children’s show Hot Wheels to be nothing more than an episode-length commercial for the Mattel product. The commission banned product-based programs saying that they are not designed to entertain or inform the public (New York Times, February 3, 1986). This regulation was enforced throughout most of the 1970s, but the F.C.C.’s position on children’s programming changed drastically during the 1980s to become market-driven. By 1986 this change was explicit when F.C.C. Chairman Mark Fowler told the New York Times that “‘The public’s interest determines the public interest.’”
Fowler had replaced Charles D. Ferris as chairman when President Reagan took office. Ferris had been a proponent for government-mandated children’s programming aimed at specific age groups (New York Times, July 25, 1982). Ferris said in the article:

We are well aware that it is not in the economic interest of the broadcasters to aim this kind of programming at an audience amounting to 16 to 18 percent of the population- age 12 and younger- but if the obligation falls evenly on all, then no one is particularly disadvantage.

For 27 years Captain Kangaroo served this function for CBS, but in July 1982 it went off the air leading New York Times reporter Holsendolph to ask “how could the situation reach a point where no children’s fair is regularly scheduled on weekdays on the commercial networks?” Like Ferris, Holsendolph did not realize that the door was being opened for commercialism. But Bob Keeshan, aka Captain Kangaroo, had an idea of what was coming, “‘Frankly, I think the needs of our nation’s children are just too important to be left to the networks and their profit motives, or to Mark Fowler’s market concept.’” With Fowler’s F.C.C. backing off from enforcing bans and also calling for deregulation of the industry, the market was ripe for the picking and the toy-maker Mattel was ready and waiting.

Marketing to Children
Before the popular show He-Man and the Masters of the Universe ever existed, the toys were designed and sold starting in 1982. He-Man was not the creation of a lone artist at Mattel but rather the product of marketing research. According to a People Weekly article by Carl Arrington, the research began as a response to the highly profitable Kenner Star Wars action figures. Mattel conducted 17 studies on everything from boys’ play habits to the preferred hair color of the hero (blond). Mattel examined such classic works as Joseph Campbell’s Hero with a Thousand Faces to develop archetypes for the characters. The characters were given a fantastic flair because the research indicated a preference for high-fantasy and made it easy to capitalize off of the success of the Star Wars toy line.

The first toys came with mini-comic books that explained some of the background behind the characters. Originally, He-Man was a wandering barbarian similar to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s character in Conan the Barbarian but this changed as the toy-line evolved. The toys were priced around $5 apiece and the accessories ranged between $20 and $40. Mattel eventually made 70 characters and urged kids to collect them all.

He-Man and the Masters of the Universe first aired in September 1983. Prior to that almost all children’s shows were on the networks (ABC, NBC and CBS), but with the number of independent TV stations tripling since 1972, a new market had opened up. He-Man took advantage of this by airing on 166 independent networks. The toy companies shared the cost of the programs with the producers. The producers then made a deal with a syndicator, who traded air time with the station managers for the use of the show. The syndicator then sold some of the air time to advertisers and funneled the cash back to the producer. Many independent TV stations also received a cut of the toy profits for airing a show, a practice the F.C.C. condoned (New York Times, February 3, 1986).

Many critics called the show “a program-length advertisement” for the toys. The Boston-based Action for Children’s Television, who lamented the end of Captain Kangaroo and advocated a government mandate to ensure children’s programming earlier in the decade, was infuriated that the F.C.C. had allowed the market to determine children’s programming. They said that programs based on toys constituted a commercial. Peggy Charren, the group’s president, said “‘What makes matters worse is that most of the products are being advertised on children’s television as well, making it hard to distinguish between product and programming.’” The president of the National Association of Broadcasters, Edward O. Fritts, said that the complaints were “‘an outrageously shortsighted and overly idealistic approach,’” and he added that the industry had made incredible progress in children’s programming (New York Times, October 12, 1983). Dr. William H. Dietz, chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ task force on children and television, also opposed the programs. “‘They sell a product while claiming to be entertainment. And kids don’t know the difference. It is unfair and deceptive advertising. It is unethical to do that, in my opinion,’” said Dietz (New York Times, February 3, 1986).

The Success of the Show and the Toys
The show became the No. 1 children’s program in America and was aired five days a week, something that had never before happened with a children’s program. Besides the 166 U.S. stations that aired the show, 37 foreign countries were invaded by He-Man. It quickly became a favorite of boys age 4 to 8, but around 30 percent of the viewers were female, according to the show’s executive producer Lou Scheimer (New York Times, December 18, 1984). He-Man had 9 million viewers after only 15 months on the air, wrote Patricia Blake in a 1985 Time Magazine article.

The show was a cultural phenomenon and parents everywhere were berated with demands for the toys from their children. Paula Higgins recalled how her son wanted the toys so badly that she took him to five toy stores in search of the He-Man action figure. She noted in her New York Times column that “He-Man and company have an advantage over their Star Wars counterparts, [because] they are on a cartoon five afternoons a week, every week.” Although she approved of the cartoon she did not like the marketing. She wrote “I also know I do not like what is happening, but this is all new territory for us. Our son has never got caught up in this kind of advertising hype before” (New York Times, April 29, 1984).

In 1984, Mattel had sold $500 million in toys and another $500 million in other merchandise, such as He-Man toothbrushes, underwear, lunchboxes and bed sheets. That year the toys were so popular that Mattel had to hire freight airliners rather than ships to get the toys over from Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Mexico to meet demand (New York Times, December 18, 1984). This was just the beginning of a wave of toy-based cartoons such as G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero, the Transformers and the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Violence and Morals
The 1980s was also a decade of concern about violence on television and most particularly violence in children’s programming. The National Coalition on Television Violence found that the new Walt Disney cable network was showing cartoons that contain violence unsuitable for children. They stated that 19.3 violent acts were shown in Disney cartoons each hour (New York Times, April 23, 1984). Disney’s cartoons paled in comparison to the violence in the military themed shows. Children’s shows like Rambo and G.I. Joe were at the center of the violence debate, but He-Man was not exempt. The He-Man show sparked debate among concerned parents who feared its extreme popularity spread violent play. At a viewing of He-Man at the Christ Church Day Care, Peggy Marble, a mother, said that she was concerned the show promoted violence and “unusually aggressive play” (New York Times, December 12, 1985).

Filmation, the studio that produced He-Man, hired Stanford University Communications Professor Donald Roberts as an educational consultant to ensure that the popular show kept the violence to a minimum. Roberts said that none of the characters get killed or seriously hurt, in a Time Magazine article by Patricia Blake. Furthermore, Roberts said that He-Man deplores violence and thus the battle scenes are “‘really anti-battle scenes.’” To combat the charges of violence that were occurring within the industry, the He-Man program also incorporated a moral message at the end of every show, much like another popular show of the time, G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. Filmation President and He-Man Producer Lou Scheimer defended the show by saying that they have done episodes addressing drugs, child molestation and gun control (New York Times, December 12, 1985).

A 1982 National Institute of Mental Health study found that violence on TV was directly related to children’s violent behavior off-screen. Dr. Jerome L. Singer, professor of psychology at Yale University, said “‘It is true that some shows, like He-Man, have a kind of moral. But our observations of young children have been that they don’t get it. What we have noticed is that the play with toys like He-Man tends to be rather aggressive’” (New York Times, December 12, 1985).

Conclusion
The debate over toy-based programming continued longer than the popularity of Mattel’s He-Man, whose sales dropped $250 million in 1986 as kids lost interest. In 1990, Congress passed the Children’s Television Act that limited commercials to 12 minutes of every hour of programming. However, the F.C.C. declined to define shows based on toys as commercials. Instead, they ruled that a program is only a commercial if an advertisement for the related toys is run during the breaks. This provoked the ire of Peggy Charren, president of the Action for Children’s Television, who said “‘The problem is not with the four or five minutes of advertising time. The problem is the 26 minutes that the ad agency, the program producer and the toy company have prepared’” (New York Times, November 9, 1990).

He-Man’s catchphrase that he booms out at the beginning of every episode is “By the power of Grayskull, I have the Power.” And he does, or at least Mattel does along with the rest of the toy industry. By uttering the magic phrase, He-Man transforms himself from wimpy Prince Adam, his alter-ego, into a muscle-bound barbarian with flawless super powers. In much the same way, toy companies like Mattel transformed themselves from mere manufacturers of play-things to marketing giants with muscles that bulged five days a week.

Coverage of F.C.C. deregulation was prevalent but its impact on children’s programming received less coverage than other aspects such as the Fairness Doctrine. Controversy of toy-based children’s programming focused on violence and the extreme popularity of the toys and the shows. F.C.C. regulations were usually only mentioned as a backdrop for these stories.

While the debate over market-driven children’s programming began over 20 years ago it remains a concern in today’s society. Prepubescent cries of “buy me this toy” can be heard in any toy store in the country, no doubt inspired by a TV show that has followed the He-Man marketing strategy. Today, parents and doctors are more worried about the marketing of high-fat and high-sugar foods during children’s programs. The Institute of Medicine recommends legislation banning ads for such bad food during children’s shows. At a time when 31 percent of children are obese this message is one of “urgency,” according to J. Michael McGinnis, chairman of the IOM committee. ‘The prevailing pattern of food and beverage marketing to children in America represents, at best, a missed opportunity, and, at worst, a direct threat to the health of the next generation,” according the IOM report (USA Today, December 7, 2005).