Sociologists bring the same sorts of questions to advertising that they bring to
other forms of mass media: What is the relationship between producers and con-
sumers? Why do so many media texts promote stereotypes and oppressive ideologies?
If consumers aren’t passive zombies, under what conditions do media messages influ-
ence our attitudes, ideas, even behavior? The questions become more important for
two reasons. First, we consume many more ads than anything else, dozens every day,
hundreds every week. They are everywhere. And second, ads present by far the most
pervasive stereotypes of any form of mass media: Almost every commercial shows
affluent nuclear families in huge suburban houses, with Dad reading the newspaper
and Mom in the kitchen. Dad does not mop the floor, and whenever he cooks din-
ner, he botches the job and takes the kids out to a fast-food restaurant.
How does a steady diet of such images affect our ideas about how life works
or how it should work? Do most consumers really desire such a life, or are the com-
mercials imputing desire where none existed before? Do mass media reflect or
create desire?
Celebrities
Every year, Gallup surveys Americans about the living man and woman that they
admire most. In 2005, the top ten men included George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Jimmy
Carter—and Bono, the singer from the rock group U2 who has been working tire-
lessly to end poverty in Africa. The top ten women included Hillary Clinton, Laura
Bush, Margaret Thatcher—and actress Angelina Jolie, an Oscar-winning actress and
partner of Hollywood heartthrob Brad Pitt, who also does a lot of humanitarian work.
The surprising part is that more performers did not make the top ten. Actors and
singers are among the most common mass media products. Many Americans cannot
name their own senators and representatives, but nearly all of them know who Tom
Cruise is and even about how in 2005 he jumped on the couch and howled on The
Oprah Winfrey Show. Celebrity news often makes the front page of newspapers in
the United States and Europe, particularly in Britain. Why? Celebrity stories sell
papers—and magazines, and products.
Mass media created celebrity. There were professional performers before, of
course. But even the most diligent theatergoer might see the same actor only twice in
a given year. With the advent of radio, listeners could hear their favorite comedians
or singers every week. With movies, you could seeyour favorite performers almost
as often. Celebrity magazines grew up around the American film industry, develop-
ing the thirst for details on the smallest doings of stars.
Television, however, is even more intimate than movies: You
can see your favorite performers every week, in your own liv-
ing room. These people are not simply performers; they are
celebrities,famous not necessarily because of their talent or
accomplishments but because they appear so often in mass
media texts that audiences feel that they know them personally
(Dyer, 1987; Gamson, 1994). And, in some ways, you do: In
talk shows, magazine interviews, and fan articles, you learned
every detail of their everyday lives, sometimes more intimately
than your real friends. Of course, celebrities are not your friends;
the intimacy is one-sided. You think you know everything about
them, but they know nothing about you. Thus, the relationship
between celebrity and audience is paradoxical. They are neither
friends nor strangers; Richard Schickel (1985) calls them “inti-
mate strangers.”
MEDIA PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION 603The mass media crave celebri-
ties—they sell papers and
magazines, we watch them on
TV. The media also create a
cult of celebrity, drawing us to
certain people sometimes for
no other reason than the fact
that they are featured and
photographed. Paris Hilton,
like Zsa Zsa Gabor, is “famous
for being famous.” n