Re: Advertising 30, 94 02:32:06 pm

[Herbert Gintis <gintis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim Devine says:
>One basic principle of economics is: whoever pays the piper calls
>the tune (which is modified by teh existence of monopoly and the
>like). Given this, who pays for the "free" TV services we receive?
>who keeps the price of a newspaper below $1?? who calls the tune?

	I don't think it is this simple at all. Communications media
must please both the customer who uses the service and the customer
who advertises (can this spelling really be right???). The two want
different things, and they may not be incompatible in general.

Of course, at times they are. For instance, newspapers NEVER publish
critical reviews of new cars (a la Consumer Reports) because the
advertisers go crazy. But to cavalierly say that the media's coverage
of news events or treatment of social issues is determined by
advertisers to me is just not reasonable.

>This complements Doug Henwood's anecdotal evidence (which could be
>multiplied a thousant fold, I would guess).  Anecta  Anecdotal
>evidence has its problems, but it's still evidence. The same can
>be said for econometric studies, which are often misspecified or
>leave out variables, etc.  If such studeies contradict personal
>experience, which are we to believe?
>
	Let me explain why I have trouble with Doug's evidence.
Suppose I believe that eating meat is bad for people, and the only
reason people eat meat is the beef industry and their capitalist
lackeys have convinced us to do so. Suppose I report on food for the
newspaper, and my editor refuses to let me publish stuff saying that
meat is bad for you, unless my material meets certain standards (e.g.,
it reports on medical studies, it reflects the studies of the Dept.
of Agriculture, etc.). I am likely to say that "the beef industry is
looking over my shoulder" when in fact it may simply be that readers
don't share my world view, and my editor recognizes that.

Herb gintis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx