When the Government Advertises…
Just today, I read news about the government running ‘ads’ in cinemas—in a 15-minute ad spot shown before the film begins. While this spot is usually filled with a company's products or other films that also play in that cinema, it's quite rare for an ad to feature the president highlighting their achievement projects and successful statistics.
Then, it has sparked public discussion, with some people grumbling about the ‘ads’, questioning the ethics, and asking for government confirmation. The response, however, seems very normative: the government says it is “normal” and just part of government-to-public communication. But is it really communication, or is it advertising?
Why Does the Government “Advertise”?
In the recent case, it’s very obvious that the government is running ‘ads’ in cinemas. These are not really “communication,” since they only showcase positive projects. This raises questions: why? We might understand it in light of the last mass protests, which were driven by public frustration over government mismanagement that affected people’s lives, especially economically. It could be a sign of growing distrust in the government. And instead of fixing structural problems, the logical shortcut is to run a 30-second spot highlighting “successful” projects.
But this exposes deeper issues about the government’s capabilities. It shows an insecurity about actually improving the nation through real work and solving real problems — something that takes time to prove. And if the public is blindsided by these polished portrayals, believing that conditions are “just fine” when they’re not, the long-term outcome could be disastrous.
Why Is It Unethical?
Sure, we can understand that during economic or political crises, ads might “work” in the sense of nudging trust or optimism, which could have some positive impact for the country through work productivity and seemingly good climate investment. But this raises a serious ethical issue: should taxpayers be forced to finance what is essentially political mood management?
We, the public, intentionally and willingly give part of our wealth to the government so that the budget can be managed and then used for public facilities and wealth distribution, to ease people’s everyday lives. Instead, we get a narrative that contradicts that purpose. It’s like paying someone to hypnotize you into believing they’re competent.
And let’s be clear: this isn’t the same as public service ads. Those are designed to educate or inform the public on matters that truly require mass awareness, such as mandatory vaccinations for children, health protocols and physical distancing during the pandemic, or instructions on how to access new programs like a government scholarship. Using tax money for that kind of ad is understandable. Using it for self-congratulatory PR is not.
When Government Becomes Corporation
When the government runs an “ad” that feels more like self-congratulation, we might think the government is turning into a company that spends huge marketing budgets polishing its own image and exaggerating the benefits of its products or services.
Get Luthfiyyah Damayani’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
But think about it for a second — government and companies actually seem to work in the same mechanism. Look at this: why is government trust as important as company branding? Anyway, who is the consumer of the government? Yes, we are — the taxpayers. Our money funds the government and the nation, whether it comes from taxes, economic productivity, or any other public spillover.
Then, from our taxes, what do we “buy”? Essentially, the government’s products — which should be good policies and programs to manage the country well. It’s supposed to be a win–win transaction.
But do you feel it’s a fair transaction? Consider that we don’t willingly pay taxes; they’re deducted from our salaries, our administrative processes, and our transactions. Taxpayers are trapped. And government “products” (policies, regulations, public services) don’t operate under market discipline. A useless or harmful law can still be enforced, even if much of the public protests.
And, while companies do market research and testing to reach product–market fit and profitability, governments go through a similar phase during campaign periods and aspiration-gathering processes. The difference is, these are often hijacked by aspiring politicians through money politics or buying votes.
Government PR vs. Reality Raised by the Public
I’m aware that there is seemingly a clash between government and public narratives that constantly counteract each other. Instead of acknowledging public frustrations, the clash seems to worsen when the government tries to deny and insists that they are performing well, rather than confirming and addressing them.
When officials issue statements about new projects or policies, they always highlight the positive impacts that will supposedly be created, often to counter potential negative effects. They emphasize how the economy is doing well, politics are stable, poverty rates are declining, and other achievements. In practice, they function like a PR agency, trained in communication strategies to build public trust in the government.
Meanwhile, the public on social media consolidates power through viral cases that seem undeniable. Public frustration is highlighted with real cases, news, images, or footage showing that reality isn’t going as well as claimed.
And we can’t ignore how the government itself already run “ads” through online buzzers, whether bots or real influencers, paid to produce statements or content that look more like scripted compliments than honest reviews. Who funds them is still unclear, but the patterns are obvious: template words, stock images, and suspicious profile pictures or usernames.
I just worry that, in the long term, this split is toxic. It may work like the Boy Who Cried Wolf fable: even when the wolf finally tells the truth, no one believes him. My fear is the erosion of trust — where officials ‘lie’ more because they assume people won’t believe them anyway, and the public digs deeper into mistrust because they assume every claim is propaganda.
I just want to end this article with an idealistic and might seem utopic aspiration, that the government start to increase humility of the public's frustrations.
Just choose the middle path, instead of blasting ads that scream “everything is perfect!”, the frame communication can more acknowledge the reality, while also commit improvement. It’s okay to show progress, but please, without exaggeration.
Instead of gaslighting the public with forced positivity, the government can build trust through honesty by proving policies do have impact, even if still imperfect or in progress. It would be better overall in the long term, I believe.
