Advertising is not Democratic

I was disturbed to read a pandering post by a Google employee that decries Michael Moore's documentary Siko and offers advertising as a means for the U.S. health care industry.  Others were, and Google's official position that was no position.  Dan Farber has been following the story, and added this update:

Update 2: Now we have an explanation from Ms. Turner regarding how to read her post. She just meant to state Google’s position that “advertising is a very democratic and effective way to participate in a public dialogue.” I won’t argue with the idea of advertising as democratic. Anyone with the money or winning bid can get their message out into the ether.  But ads tend to be one-sided sales pitches without footnotes, not a public dialog. If we want a public dialog, having the two opposing sides in a public debate would be a far better way to educate the public.

I will argue with the idea of advertising as democratic.  It is the opposite.  Spending isn't speech.  Sure, U.S. health care can buy ads to be placed in context alongside public discourse.  But not everyone can.  It concerns me that the bright people at Google could be talking themselves into believing that either advertising is democracy, let alone that it helps democracy.

If the U.S. health care industry really wants to respond to Sicko, they will engage in, if not host, online communities for civic dialog.  However, most online communities these days are powered by advertising. Community hosts and ad networks have to balance against the very strong incentives to smudge context and placement until where the line between paid and unpaid content are blurred.  A balance is struck, not unlike between editorial and publishing in traditional media, but with a very big difference in that the audience has the choice to go elsewhere with a single click.  Or create their own without the influence of advertising. 

Comments

[Giovanni Rodriguez]

Ross -- I think you found the nub of the issue. How can advertising be democratic?

[dan farber]

I think I said what you said about ads...they are democratic in that anyone can put their message out, freedom of expression, but it is not a public dialog or civic discourse.

[Tom O'Sullivan]

When the most important thing in US politics appears to be how much money can be raised to spend on advertising, it is not surprising that the attitudes you've mentioned above are growing. When you try and keep control of the message, put forward only one side of the argument and use your money to get your message out more often than your opponent, that doesn't seem to be an ideal method for actual discussion of the issues.

[truth machine]

"Sure, U.S. health care can buy ads to be placed in context alongside public discourse. But not everyone can."

Specifically, Ms. Turner claimed that both Michael Moore and the health care industry can advertise to get their point across. Is she really so foolish as to think that Michael Moore and the health care industry have equal budgets for advertising?

"they are democratic in that anyone can put their message out"

Whether Ms. Turner is foolish or just pretending to be, I think Dan Farber's foolishness is the real thing.

[truth machine]

"Anyone with the money or winning bid can get their message out into the ether"

Dan doesn't seem to understand the difference between democracy ("political or social equality") and plutocracy ("a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth").

[Jon Garfunkel]

re: "If the U.S. health care industry really wants to respond to Sicko, they will engage in, if not host, online communities for civic dialog."

Well, speak to Paul Levy, president of Beth Israel Deaconness in Boston. Paul has a blog -- presumably because it's much easier to run (and also, to declaim any connection to the hospital management) than a real online community.

[Kirk Shorte]

It just goes to show you that advertising is altering our culture and our perception of reality. Advertising has become more art than science. Good ads can create markets and boost products that aren't the best technology. Money has become the main way of framing just about anything we want. the more money you throw at something, increasing its airtime, the more you can mold peoples opinions on the subject. If you want to know how true Sicko's message is do some real work, like research. Don't just take the word of the advertiser, check it out.

[Kirk Shorte]

Whatever happened to the way positions were formed in the old days? People of integrity would share their views with others and the word would spread. Now days if you have enough money to get your message on the silver screen, no matter how absurd, the more people you can get to join your own personal band wagon.