GRADUAL & SILENT SPEECH - The Pocket Internet

"GRADUAL & SILENT"

(Page 2)

James Madison had good first-hand knowledge. In the period between the French and Indian war and the Revolution, there were about 40 American newspapers stirring up resistance against the policies of the British government. These newspapers, just as newspapers today, were able to exist because they had from 40% to 60% of their content in advertising.

"If you can stop
the advertising,
you can shackle
the press."

In 1765, the British government retaliated by passing the Stamp Act. Now, I doubt whether any school child has been taught the fact, but a major part of this impact was a two shilling tax on every ad that appeared in Colonial newspapers. Considering that the average ad cost three shillings, it was prohibitive.

The British had the right idea, of course. If you can stop the advertising, you can shackle the press. Their only mistake was they failed to follow Madison's formula of gradual and silent encroachment. In the uproar that followed, the Stamp Act was repealed.

But the British government's idea was basically sound. Never in history has there ever existed a substantial free press that has not been supported by advertising. Very few people notice this. They think that when they pay for a newspaper or a magazine subscription they are paying for it like any other commodity. Of course, as you know, they are not. Newspapers get less than 50% of their revenue from their readers -- most magazines probably get less. Radio and television are solely dependent on advertising for their expenses. Now, let us look at what happened when we get rid of advertising support.

"Just the pure, objective truth
distilled by government bureaucracies
and ladled out in easy doses."

We don't have to guess because the world is full of countries where advertising does not support mass communication. Need I tell you who controls mass communication in all of these countries?

The government, of course -- right there ready, willing and able to tell the population what it should know. No troublesome editors, no disturbing editorials, no dissident commentators. Just the pure, objective truth distilled by government bureaucracies and ladled out in easy doses.

We hear much these days about correlation. You know -- how the increase of marijuana smoking is caused by the increase of marijuana commercials on TV. How the enormous increase in car thefts correlates with the number of horses rustled on the Ponderosa ranch.

Nobody much is interested, probably, in the correlation between freedom of the press and advertising. I am, though. Every year I check the percentage of national income spent on advertising throughout the countries of the world. Let me give you the top 7 --

United States 2.6%
Switzerland 2.6%
West Germany 2.00%
Finland 2.0%
Austria 1.0%
Canada 1.7%
Sweden 1.6%

Now, let me give you the bottom of the list.

USSR 0%
Red China 0%
East Germany 0%
Cuba 0%

Do you not think it's strange that the percentage of national income of a country spent on advertising is such a fine indicator of democracy? Could it just be that democracy depends on a free press and that a free press depends on advertising? If this is true, I am not optimistic about democracy.

"Long ago the
Supreme Court
made it clear
that the
First Amendment
to the Constitution
does not apply
to advertising."

It is much too late for us to talk about government control of advertising. Long ago the Supreme Court made it clear that the First Amendment to the Constitution does not apply to advertising. Freedom for the owner of a printing press is one thing -- but freedom of speech for mere tradespeople is evidently unthinkable.

Bureaucracy and legislators have studiously followed the recommended process of gradual and silent encroachment. The thing to do, of course, is to pick off one industry at a time, establish a beach head, then leap frog to the next. I will guarantee that every industry will stand idly by until its turn arrives -- and then it will be too late. The control of advertising content by bureaucracy is today almost complete. Next comes the taxation and limitation of advertising budgets. Slowly the oxygen line of our free communications system can be cut off.

Shall we guess what the next move will be? Now that freedom of the press has been restricted to those who own printing presses, one can turn his attention to other communication media.

(Go to page 3 of 3)

Try Another Speech?