Channel One is a commercial enterprise that produces and distributes daily TV programs to schools. "The news is not the point of Channel One. It is no more than filler ... meant primarily to get us ready for the ads." It primarily teaches students six messages: 'Watch.' 'Don't Think.' 'Let Us Fix It.' 'Eat Now.' 'You're Ugly.' and 'Just Say Yes.'" Miller quote, "To recognize the falseness of that propaganda, to learn to read its images, and also to read widely and discerningly enough to start to understand the all-important differences between a good life and a bad one: such are the proper aims of school. Which is why Channel One should not be there." Miller states a strong reasoning here. When a public school requires children to watch a commercial, then the government is telling children what products they should be purchasing or what movies they should watch.
That is unethical. According to my opinion, the proper aim of school is for teens to develop they're full potential of each course that provide common core of knowledge about the key areas of human experience. Second, the school should also be a caring environment. They should respond sympathetically and quickly to the needs of teens, and provide support and ensure that each individual is known and valued as a person in his or her own right. Third, the school should encourage teens to see the school as a model for the larger community outside and to take proper pride in belonging to the school and the community it serves. Teens need to read, write and think in school; thus are the proper aims of school.
Miller also concluded a weak reason in support of his conclusion for Channel One. He quote, "Over and over, the product flashes into view as something that you ought to pay for not because you might enjoy it but because it promises to make you indestructible, as tough as nails, as hard as steel: a Superman or Superwoman." It's one thing to say that the ads idealize power and identify the products with that power. But what exactly is that "power"? And what precisely is it that the advertising asks its teenaged audience to do, and think, in order to attain that "power"? True power is manifested within his or her own free will and whatever they make of it; not by ads.
A strong argument in favor of keeping Channel One was stated by ABC News, "We are very impressed by their product. They do serious stories that are credible, well produced and as good or better than most TV stations." This is a strong argument, since the program now reaches more than 8 million students, or 40% of all teenagers in the country. That is roughly five times the number of teens who watch newscasts on ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN combined. This means huge ratings! Unsurpassed reach. And unparallel among teen viewers. Among those 8 million students and 40% of all the teenagers are mostly likely to agree that money is everything, and a nice car is more important than school. According to my opinion, designer labels do make a difference and teens do want what they see advertised, which proves why so many teens watch it and are in favor of it.
A weak argument in favor of keeping Channel One was stated, "Two independent studies have shown that more than 90% of teachers in Channel One schools approve of the show and find it useful." Two independent studies are taken out of a random sample and I find the argument to be weak in favor of Channel One. If Long Beach was to conduct a study on Channel One and stated that 95% of the students were in favor of Channel One, does not necessarily include the world entirely or most likely to be in favor of Long Beach. A larger sample may prove to be valid; in this case, the argument is weak.