The Invisible Hand That Picks Your Pocket
Ad-supported media isn't about information; it's about power, profit, and perpetuating a system of inequality masked as inevitable progress.
The Modern Golem: How Advertising Eats the World
We're told that a free press is vital to a functioning democracy. But what happens when the press isn't free – not in the sense of overt censorship, but in the sense of economic strangulation? Jim, the host of "Attack Ads!," has been sounding the alarm about exactly this for years. It's not just about "misinformation" (Good News For News?). It's about the very structure of the information ecosystem, and how advertising, once the lifeblood of journalism, is now being siphoned off by tech monopolies like Aleph Bet (Google) to the detriment of public discourse.
As Jim points out in (Chopping At The Golem), Aleph Bet functions like a modern Golem, a monstrous entity built from acquired companies and animated by the singular purpose of maximizing shareholder value. This "Golem" dominates the online advertising market, controlling the software that manages the complex financial transactions where "eyeballs are bought and sold." The result? Newspapers, the traditional watchdogs of power, are financially crippled. "The advertising market has turned to a complex financial marketplace," Jim argues, "where your eyeballs are bought and sold... How much the newspaper gets has been reduced enough to bankrupt most of them." This isn't a natural market outcome; it's a rigged game. And the consequences are dire: Fewer reporters, less investigative journalism, and a weakened ability to hold the powerful accountable.
The "Invisible Handjob" and the Myth of Progress
The rise of these monopolistic behemoths isn't a coincidence. It's the logical outcome of a system that prioritizes profit above all else, a system justified by the seductive myth of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" (Adam Smith's Invisible Handjob). Jim doesn't mince words: "Adam Smith and his Divine Providence Made Business bullshit is a form of advertising." It's a comforting lie that allows the wealthy to believe their self-serving actions inadvertently benefit society. Smith's claim that "the rich only select from the heap what is most precious and agreeable. They consume little more than the poor" is not only demonstrably false, but actively harmful. It obscures the real suffering of those at the bottom, legitimizing a system where inequality is not just tolerated, but celebrated.
This isn't just about economics; it's about power. As Senator John Sherman warned in his 1890 address to the Senate (Senator John Sherman's Address to The Senate), "If we will not endure a king as a political power, we should not endure a king over the production, transportation and sale of any of the necessaries of life." The concentration of economic power inevitably leads to the erosion of democratic principles.
History Doesn't Repeat, But It Rhymes (Unpleasantly)
The problems we face today are not new. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in his 1938 message to Congress on curbing monopolies (Bonus Episode: FDR's 1938 Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies), warned of the dangers of concentrated private power surpassing the democratic state. He recognized that "private enterprise is ceasing to be free enterprise and is becoming a cluster of private collectivisms… a concealed cartel system after the European model." FDR's words resonate with chilling accuracy today. The tech monopolies, fueled by advertising revenue and a relentless pursuit of profit, are becoming precisely the kind of "private collectivisms" that undermine democratic governance.
The solution, as both Sherman and FDR recognized, lies in regulation and antitrust enforcement. But as Jim acknowledges in (Chopping At The Golem), even breaking up these behemoths might not be enough. The forces of greed and self-interest are powerful, and the "invisible hand" will always be ready to justify the next iteration of exploitation. We need not only to dismantle the Golems of today, but to challenge the underlying ideology that creates them.
The choice is ours: Will we continue to be seduced by the comforting lie of the "invisible hand," or will we demand a more just and equitable system, one where the press is truly free and the voices of the marginalized are heard? The answer may depend on whether we're able to escape the alluring, yet ultimately destructive, force of advertising.