The Media's role vs The People Around You in the Development of Personality (continued)

Rebuttals for mass media arguments (readdressed) (1)The ultimate deciding factor in changing a person’s personality is the person’s acceptance of the information presented. I think that we both agreed to that in the previous debate. Hypnotized or not hypnotized is no longer an issue. (2) Although both the media and peers contain fallacies, the media is represents a higher authority and is thereby less subject to scrutiny than peers, which gives the media an edge in its ability to be believed. Despite their respective fallacies, a person is more likely to continue to give the benefit of doubt to the media for future statements then they are of friends who consistently provide unreliable information. Diminishing the fact that the media often provides unreliable information, people generally believe the information to be a mistake, whereat people who provide unreliable information are considered to be unreliable. The media still holds its reliability and friends do not. On this factor, Media holds the decisive edge in personality influence. Rebuttals for interpersonal relationship arguments (readressed) (1)Peers still do not outweigh the influence of mass media. (2)I honestly think this idea of changing the channel breaks the rule of unfairness presented in our last debate. However, because changing the channel only occurs ‘if the influence goes against their beliefs,’ it should be automatically assumed that agreement that all of the ideas presented during a media experience are agreed to at the moment a person begins participating. Ideas that are presented are assumed to be agreed with by the individual unless the person rejects all parts of the media influence. So not watching TV, or changing a channel is not a plausible argument considering that it negates the possibility for influence. I wouldn’t dare say stop having friends, or stop going to work because people might say something you don’t agree with and you will be influenced by their comments. A person’s change in personality comes from within themselves despite what outside influences they may, or may not have. Yet we have come to the conclusion that media is presented with assumed agreement, where as peers are presented with presumed contention. This also gives Media the decisive edge in influence. Purely comparative arguments I think you have conceded the McDonald’s issue. Despite my protests, and purpose to influence them away from such atrocities, I failed. Peer influence failed and Media influence won. ‘But very few will step forward and stand for what they believe in alone.’ Very few people will step forward if they believe that what believe is outside of social norms. Media represents the higher authority and therefore people are subject more to the social norms presented in the media than they are of their small group of friends. ‘It is a shameful fact of humanity that we will sit back and allow wrong things to happen but i argue that a man on TV telling you that it's wrong will be no match for your friends and family telling you to do something about it, as long as they are also willing to act.’ There is a keen caveat to your statement here that affects every part of your argument that would give peer relationships a greater influence over media. Media is already in action and portraying the method of being in action where peers are subject to their willingness to take action. Because you caveat your statement with this premise, I assume that you also believe that peers are less likely to take actually take action and that a person will not take action based on their beliefs unless they have outside support. The media is an excellent place to get that support when your friends won’t. Your caveat proves that the media has the decisive edge in this matter also. To further prove The superiority of Media. In our last debate we talked about the effects of the Generation Gap being greater due to the affective influence of media. I believe there is no greater topic to prove this point than religion. Because the majority of the American population is Christian, it would be impossible for anyone to be anything other than Christian if peers were the primary influence. It would just automatically be assumed that if a person is a Christian, all of their peers would be Christian too. But it is not automatically assumed that peers are in agreement with each other. It is assumed that they are contentious with one another. Because it would be natural that any minority opinions would be rejected by a peer group, the individual would necessarily need an outlet to bring together like minded ideas. These minority ideas have gained considerable ground throughout history by way of media. The forms of this media have been public events, television, radio, newspaper, (now) the internet, etc. Some of the subjects that could have never taken off if we remained subject to peer influence include affirmative action, the women’s movement, hatred toward communism, et al, and now the influence of homosexuality. That’s it, there I said it, the approval of homosexuality is being generated primarily by the most powerful influencing source, the media. Not more than 15 years ago, homosexuality was considered an abomination to humanity. It had to be hidden by the people who considered themselves to be gay. There was a big ‘coming out of the closet’ movement portrayed by the media and now homosexuality is all but completely accepted. Homosexuals have been around for a long time, but never has it been so shouted from the rooftops as it now. What is that rooftop, you ask? The media! I can tell all my friends don’t be gay, thousands of others can still hold the value that homosexuality is wrong. But the truth is that a small group can use the media to claim an injustice that results in a nationwide protest of a company just because the owner has a different viewpoint than they do. The people who are homosexual in America is still a minority to its overall population, yet gay marriage is HUGE social issue. Have the individuals who disagree with the fact made it so renowned, or the homosexuals who remained in the closet for centuries? No, the media has. But let’s look at how that happens. I don’t watch Ellen Degenerous, I think the show is lame. I don’t watch a lot of random interview shows otherwise either. I’ll check out one every now and then, if there’s a particular actor, or topic that I’m interested in knowing more about. We all know that Ellen is gay; that’s why I picked her. But the understood concept is that in order to watch a show, you must agree with all of the premises of the show or turn it off. Knowing that Ellen is gay when you watch the show, is an agreement to be influenced by the ideas of a homosexual. Now, if anyone is offended by me naming a TV show, (put it in the comments if you are) it is because they have put great stock in the ideas portrayed by that show because the media has such a powerful influence over their pesonality. Another idea, generally unchallenged by its listeners is one from Laura Ingraham, a conservative radio host who continuously screams, “Power to the people.” She even wrote a book with the same title. If she were truly a conservative wouldn’t she use the more constitutionally correct term “Power from the people?” I understand, it’s just one small word, but it changes the meaning significantly. This is a way that the media is changing the way we think about our culture. Can you imagine America becoming nation where the government imparts its power to the people, rather than remaining a country where it derives its power from the people? Thousands of her so called ‘conservative’ listeners are having this complex idea inserted into their personal beliefs without them even realizing. Doesn’t that make you wonder how many of our beliefs, which affects our personality, came from the media and not from the people around us?