The media contend that without such subsidies, the cost to consumers would be considerably higher. Indeed in Germany, where until recently there was almost no commercial time on television, viewers pay an annual fee of about $360 to watch television. And in this country, magazines that do not accept advertising, such as Ms or Consumer Reports, are priced two to three times higher than those that do.

Moreover, the audience may well enjoy seeing the advertising, or indeed choose a media type in part because of the ads within it. If you are planning to buy a new computer, you are likely to pick up a copy of PC Week or Macworld not only to read about the different machines available but also to scour the ads in those issues for further information.

Although advertisers’ influence on the media is usually indirect, they can still have a serious impact. One might wonder whether the so-called “trash TV” talk shows could exist without advertiser support. As the situation in “Consumer Insight: When Talk Leads to Murder” shows, the media’s desperate efforts to keep audience sizes large enough to be attractive to advertisers can sometimes have fatal consequences.

In looking at the institution of advertising, you realize that critics focus more on its social role, while defenders present economic arguments. The debate continues because advertising is so pervasive that it is impossible to be immune from its impact, either harmful or beneficial. Increasingly, we are exposed to advertising messages wherever we turn, from television to train stations, magazines to malls, and billboards to book covers. Not only is our exposure more widespread, it is also more frequent. We are likely to see the same advertising message over and over again in an effort to help us remember the brand name.