![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This Is Not Democracy
Jul. 2nd, 2007 10:56 amA recent news article I read quoted Lauren Turner, a Health Account Planner at Google, regarding her blog's comments about the alleged one-sidedness of Michael Moore's Sicko. To wit:
But Ms. Turner also said that she stood by her earlier comments that Google stood ready to help anyone, whether the healthcare industry or Mr. Moore's himself: "Whether the healthcare industry wants to rebut charges in Mr. Moore’s movie, or whether Mr. Moore wants to challenge the healthcare industry, advertising is a very democratic and effective way to participate in a public dialogue," she wrote.
There seems to be a bit of confusion in this country about what democracy actually is. I'd like to clarify, for those who seem to have a hard time with the concept:
Democracy is "rule by the masses". You could make an argument that the republic style of government we have here, where we elect representatives who vote for us, is a form of democracy. Majority rules, but in general there is an implicit concept of equality in the democratic decision making process. Please note that plutocracy is not democracy. Plutocracy is governance via the power of money, where people with more money get to exert more power, regardless of whether they are in the majority or minority of opinion.
Advertising... is not democracy in any way, shape, or form. Advertising is, if anything, a form of plutocracy, because "money rules" and people with more money get more rights and priveleges, a la getting their ad into heavier rotation by paying more money. If anything, a "democratic" advertising system would give equal time to all ads no matter how much they pay, and the best ads would be "voted on" by having a majority of users click on it - but that system would not be profitable, naturally. Putting an ad in heavier rotation is almost equivalent to stuffing the ballot box or using a biased hanging chad.
One could also argue that the United States government is leaning more towards plutocracy than democracy at this time, as lobbyists with deep pockets get to "advertise" to elected representatives and get their voices heard more clearly and more often on corporate run media. Millionaires are the only ones who can be successfully elected into office because no one else can afford the cost of campaigning. Better ads run in heavier rotation get the votes... this may in fact be why people so easily confuse democracy and plutocracy, because our elections are merely popularity contests driven by advertising from lobbyists representing billion dollar interests and wealthy candidates.
A cynic is me.
But Ms. Turner also said that she stood by her earlier comments that Google stood ready to help anyone, whether the healthcare industry or Mr. Moore's himself: "Whether the healthcare industry wants to rebut charges in Mr. Moore’s movie, or whether Mr. Moore wants to challenge the healthcare industry, advertising is a very democratic and effective way to participate in a public dialogue," she wrote.
There seems to be a bit of confusion in this country about what democracy actually is. I'd like to clarify, for those who seem to have a hard time with the concept:
Democracy is "rule by the masses". You could make an argument that the republic style of government we have here, where we elect representatives who vote for us, is a form of democracy. Majority rules, but in general there is an implicit concept of equality in the democratic decision making process. Please note that plutocracy is not democracy. Plutocracy is governance via the power of money, where people with more money get to exert more power, regardless of whether they are in the majority or minority of opinion.
Advertising... is not democracy in any way, shape, or form. Advertising is, if anything, a form of plutocracy, because "money rules" and people with more money get more rights and priveleges, a la getting their ad into heavier rotation by paying more money. If anything, a "democratic" advertising system would give equal time to all ads no matter how much they pay, and the best ads would be "voted on" by having a majority of users click on it - but that system would not be profitable, naturally. Putting an ad in heavier rotation is almost equivalent to stuffing the ballot box or using a biased hanging chad.
One could also argue that the United States government is leaning more towards plutocracy than democracy at this time, as lobbyists with deep pockets get to "advertise" to elected representatives and get their voices heard more clearly and more often on corporate run media. Millionaires are the only ones who can be successfully elected into office because no one else can afford the cost of campaigning. Better ads run in heavier rotation get the votes... this may in fact be why people so easily confuse democracy and plutocracy, because our elections are merely popularity contests driven by advertising from lobbyists representing billion dollar interests and wealthy candidates.
A cynic is me.