Opinion Editorial | |
| Wednesday, September 16, 1998 | |
Advertising Benefits Consumers -- But Not Ralph Nadar |
Liberals have long hated the advertising industry. The reason is because paid advertising is an effective means of breaking through liberal domination of the media. For example, during recent debate over tobacco legislation, the major cigarette companies were able to turn the tide against them by running television commercials and full-page newspaper ads. These advertisements (correctly) painted the legislation as a government tax-grab that would fall mainly on those with low incomes. The facts in these commercials would never have been learned if one relied only on conventional news coverage of the tobacco legislation, which was strongly biased in favor of it. As people finally learned the truth, support for the legislation collapsed. Similarly, Republicans have long known that without advertising many wouldn't stand a chance of getting elected. This is because liberal media bias invariably undermines their support during the early campaign. But once Republicans are able to run advertisements during September and October, presenting another side to the unfair news coverage, their electoral chances improve markedly. Thus if liberals can somehow restrict the ability to run advertisements, people will be more dependent for information on those outlets that they control. This will greatly enhance their ability to implement a liberal agenda. Although the First Amendment to the Constitution constrains the government's ability to restrict advertising, many restrictions have been implemented. For example, tobacco companies are legally prohibited from advertising their products on television. There is ample room to further limit advertising without encountering constitutional limits. On September 8, Ralph Nader launched a new effort to restrict corporations' ability to advertise. Called "Commercial Alert," the project will help people "defend themselves against harmful, immoral or intrusive advertising and marketing, and the excesses of commercialism." Says Nader, "Corporate predators are preying on children and families. They use advertising, marketing, and psychological manipulation to sell junk food, cigarettes, violent television and movies, and other harmful products, and lure youngsters into the addictions of alcoholism, smoking, gambling and overconsumption." This is, of course, ridiculous; classic Nader overkill. Our most powerful advertising medium, television, doesn't even allow ads for tobacco or hard liquor, and I have never seen an ad promoting gambling. But Nader's statement does unwittingly reveal his hidden agenda. When he talks about the dangers of "overconsumption" he goes far beyond any legitimate criticism of corporate advertising toward children. He is really saying that advertising per se is wrong and ought to be restricted. For virtually all advertising is designed for the purpose of encouraging consumption, whether it's soft drinks or political ideas. Attacking advertising for encouraging consumption, therefore, is equivalent to attacking the very concept of advertising. Fortunately, a recent book refutes this silly notion. In "Fear of Persuasion," American Enterprise Institute economist John Calfee points out that advertising has had enormous benefits for consumers. It has lowered prices for many goods, such as eyeglasses and prescription drugs, and improved the welfare of consumers by providing them with information about new products and new uses for existing products. Indeed, the Federal Trade Commission, no friend of the business community, consistently defends advertising as essential to help consumers make informed choices. Calfee also points out that problems in advertising tend to be self-correcting. That is because one's competitors -- whether in business or politics -- will quickly point out any misstatements, overstatements or inflated claims in their own ads. This market constraint on false advertising is generally far more effective than government regulation in preventing advertising abuses. In the end, Nader is simply pursuing an ideological agenda. His goal is to ensure that his voice is the only one that is heard. Source: Bruce Bartlett, senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis, September 16, 1998. For more on Advertising http://www.ncpa.org/pd/economy/econ2.html Home | Support Us | All Issues | Social Security Debate Central | Contact Us |