The Role of Propaganda in the Media.

I feel as though my topic may have been a bit too ambiguous, perhaps it should have been written differently. The implied subject of the topic would have been better declared as an expansion on Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent"; which was an analysis on the news media of the United States. Summarizing that it was an effective and powerful ideological institution, used to carry out a system-supportive propaganda function by various principles listed in his treatise. This debate will not revolve around Chomskys theory; it merely serves as a starting point to avoid drifting into the fog. To rebut my opponent"s claim, "the best interests of the voter do not and should not matter in a democracy", a statement verging on the edge of naivety, the best interest of the voter forms their opinion. Since we cannot possibly know the specific reasons why every individual voted for their respective candidate we must assume the logical incentive of income. For instance, an eligible voter earning $30,000 a year with no post-secondary education would logically vote for the candidate adhering to their best interests. This is where the separation occurs, the phenomena in the US at present is that the least educated, lowest income earning citizens support candidates who advocate policies opposite of their best interests. This point is merely a reflection; the role played by the mainstream media is what this debate is focused on. Glenn Greenwald published an article "Limiting Democracy: The American Media's World View, and Ours" in which he argues, "Most of us are willing to talk about political propaganda and the way in which political opinions are manipulated as long as that means somebody elses opinions". He goes on to argue that in general we are all aware of media manipulation we do however, avoid reflecting that it could be ourselves that have been manipulated or propagandized. This occurs through a series of self-reinforcements which confirm our pre-existing bias. For instance, an individual watching Fox News observing a negative story concerning a Democratic Politician, that individual is likely to believe without question the "information" he is presented and thus not likely to seek further research from a separate source. This is evident by the sheer amount of falsities factcheck.org and others are confronted with. For my point to be clear and concise I will not have to prove whether or not a particular candidate"s approval rating is low, as this is itself an example of manufactured consent. Rather the use of misinformation and rhetoric to improve perception of specific policies. For example, during the presidential campaign Mitt Romney proclaimed that under Obama, individuals would not have to work for a job, the government would just send them their welfare checks. This was determined to be false; Obama attempted to allow states the opportunity to apply for a waiver to revise work requirements for welfare recipients, a waiver in which not a single state has requested. This was, quite simply a lie; however, it was used deliberately to misinform voters. The issues are entirely non-partisan as Obama himself is guilty of misinforming the public; the solution is not to ban news media but to enforce some level of accountability to providing accurate, objective information. In an effort to inform the public and not manipulate them as is presently the case. Source: http://ezproxy.macewan.ca... http://factcheck.org...