Advertising and Democracy

Writers such as Jhally extend their critique of advertising and commercialism into a critique of advertising and democracy. In doing so, they are trying to reverse a longstanding perception that advertising and democracy go hand in hand. Supporters of advertising have emphasized for decades that it is far better to have a media system that relies on advertisers for money than one that relies on the government. They point out that heads of states often try to control media in ways that preserve their power and take away the ability of citizens to understand other ways of looking at their worlds. Although outstanding examples of government-run media that encourage democratic thinking do exist (look at the British Broadcasting Corporation), many societies with government-owned media are not politically free. Because people cannot afford to foot the entire bill for their media menu, advertisers are a good alternative to government interference.

Advertising critics don't necessarily dispute the contention that government-controlled media often abuse democratic ideals. They insist, however, that advertisers

also often guide ad-supported media in ways that hinder democracy. They do this by controlling content for marketing purposes in ways that are counter to encouraging citizen participation.

Consider the situation in the United States. The First Amendment does not protect media practitioners from advertiser control, critics note. In fact, because of their importance in funding the media, advertisers actually have a lot more power over the content of media in the United States than government agencies do. What advertisers get from that power, say the critics, are media vehicles that create a friendly environment for them among the audiences they target. This relationship between advertisers and media firms hinders democracy, the critics say, because their audiences get a selective view (or no view) of certain parts of the world that they don't know from personal experience. In effect, the advertising industry’s power over media screens people from learning the perspectives of certain groups in society and discourages public discussions on certain important issues.

Some critics go even further with their complaints about the effect advertisers have on the public’s knowledge about, and involvement with, parts of the world that they do not experience first-hand. They say that the advertiser-media relationship has led to a situation in which much material is created primarily to get people interested so that they will see or hear commercial messages. The result, they add, is a media environment that attracts people with attention-grabbing stimuli such as sex and violence, yet puts them in a good mood when they watch, hear, or read the ads.

At its worst, say the critics, a media system driven by this mentality fosters a society of audiences, not of citizens. That is, it encourages people to pay attention to the media, but not to become actively involved in tackling the problems of the larger society, partly because the media focus so much on keeping them tuned in and entertained. Culture critic Neil Postman insisted, in fact, that because of the advertiser-media relationship we in society are “amusing ourselves to death.” Postman's argument is that the stress on unchallenging, feel-good pap in so much of the U.S. media (including the news) is leading American society down the path toward a situation in which society will be too involved in entertainment to cope with serious problems, and so these problems will destroy it. Sut Jhally, with his focus squarely on advertising's role in the deterioration of the global environment, would agree.