ginger griffin, herman & Chomsky

Advertising in the media, for as long as it has been around, has always been ruling-class based, and I feel that without media and advertising, objects would be made a whole lot better because we (the buyers) wouldn't have to be convinced about something and how great it works. To further my point about the ruling class, I give you this quote, "...media are tiered, with the top tier - as measured by prestige, resources, and outreach...It is this top tier, along with the government and wire services, that defines the news agenda and supplies much of the national and international news to the lower tiers of the media, and thus for the general public." (260) A few things popped out to me when I first read this: that the general public (larger of course) is not that of the ruling class, which ceases our discussion a few weeks ago about was the upper class or the general public the ruling class, well Herman and Chomsky would state that it was the ruling class in which we (the general public) get our ideas.


It is assumed that the larger general public are just a bunch of robots ready to be made into whatever it is that the ruling class want to mold us into. "It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society." (257) After reading this I began to think about the video we watched in class last week about the kids being made into robots, standing in line falling into machines that eventually make them into spaghetti meat. I believe that Herman and Chomsky knew what they were talking about when they wrote about advertising. I think it is safe to say that advertising makes objects seem like they are bigger better faster than the previous model. Advertising sells, we all know that, but what if we stopped buying? What would happen to the industry then?