The Role of Propaganda in the Media.

~~~Clarifications:~~~ The topic is "has propaganda in the US media created limitations on democracy?" and not has propaganda created a less informed electorate. By definition, propaganda is designed to misinform people. Thus, I fully acknowledge that propaganda can result in a less informed electorate (it is very hard to argue the opposite). However, in addition to showing that propaganda can misinform people, Pro must show that it misinforms them in a way that limits democracy. I suggested that one way Pro could show this is by using approval rating polls -- for democracy to malfunction, less then half of the people must approve of elected officials. Pro does not have to use approval polls, but he must show this in some way otherwise Con wins the debate. My arguments have been that 1. People do not always act or want to act in their best interests 2. Acting against one's best interests is not incompatible with democracy 3. Voting for a candidate that one does not approve of (even if voting for the candidate is in one's best interest) is incompatible with democracy 4. Approval ratings are a good indicator of whether people who voted for candidates actually supported the candidates that they voted for 5. According to approval ratings, people have actually supported the candidates that they voted for 6. It follows that propaganda has furthered the goal of democracy or at the very least, it has not harmed or limited democracy. 7. Thus the resolution is negated Pro must dispute one or more of the seven arguments otherwise Con wins by default. ~~~Pro's arguments:~~~ "Proof is not needed since I made no such claim that income and education were the only voting factors that "matter"." If income and education are not the only voting factors that matter, then surely Pro will agree that we cannot assume the logical incentive of income. In other words, some people value certain things more than they ought to and act contrary to what is in their best interests. This is point 1. "Confirming pre-existing bias [...] if an individual votes Republican and is bombarded with positive news segments [...] he's more likely to appoint him/her a positive approval score." In confirming pre-existing bias, propaganda misinforms only people who want to be misinformed and are looking for an excuse to be misinformed. People without a pre-existing bias will be unaffected by the propaganda from both sides, which will effectively cancel each other out. Again, only those who want to be misinformed will be misinformed. This is not contrary to the principles of democracy and is reflected in approval polls. If the individual cares about the truthfulness of the elect, he can and will go to factchecker.org or a comparable site and disapprove of lying officials. Thus, positive approval scores are ALWAYS good. People being satisfied with the status quo is never a problem (in a democracy). If some people have a problem with propaganda, then they will disapprove of officials that employ or support propaganda, which will be reflected in approval polls. I am glad that Pro agrees that polls are accurate and do democratically represent the will of the people. "This is my whole point. So-called "misinformation and rhetoric"(propaganda) is good because it improves public perception of specific policies, unifying the country." Source: Nazi Germany (bit.ly/V2FaMD). ""...what is wrong with manipulating the public, if the public wants to be manipulated?" This too is a logical fallacy and does not constitute a sound or valid argument" How is this a logical fallacy or an invalid argument? Democracy decrees that the will of the people ought be instated. "Hyperbole is certainly not regulated neither is lying, this is the issue" Actually, they are regulated (oaths, trials, etc). "this is the issue: if the organizations appointed with the responsibility of reporting factual information have been and continue to be observed reporting misinformation then they are quite obviously not informing the public." Again, why is this an issue? Why is it the media's job to inform the public? They are doing what the people want, which is why people choose to watch and pay for dishonest media (eg Fox News). If anything, the viewers, not the media, are the problem. "By the post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning used by Con earlier; they would be dividing the country."" Explain. How is this topical? "the presence of various online sources of news media, readily available to the public allow voters to become more informed than years past" This is true but irrelevant. Although people have the ability to be informed (factcheck sites, etc) many choose not to, which is not a problem in a democracy. Only elected officials need to factually know about all the issues. "argument against the notion of propaganda in the media" People without a pre-existing bias will be unaffected by the propaganda "all other sources of information are inadequate" Nope, see bit.ly/1105gU.