Media- a weapon of intrusion or protection

I will here be arguing that the media is a "weapon of protection", and to that end, I wish to define a few things:media - ( usually used with a plural verb ) the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely [1]protection - the act of protecting or the state of being protected; preservation from injury or harm. [emphasis added] [1]The media, by the definition provided above, communicates information to the populace. This information can consist of anything, from the news to celebrity activities to new books and movies. Entertainment has its obvious benefits in that it allows a population to relax and indulge in a different reality, be it via paper or the TV. However, the part of the media that has the most profound protective attributes is the news. Before news media via newspaper and, later, radio and television became widespread, people lived at the mercy of rumor and propoganda from various organizzations and governments. They became easily manipulated because of this. Take, for example, the Crusades in the Dark Ages. The Church sponsored the Crusades, and called upon Christians in Europe to fight to free Jerusalem from the Muslims. However, the Church's real motivation was the defeat of the Byzantine Empire's forces by Turkish armies, and the subsequent fear that Asia Minor would be conquered by the Turks[2]. The slaughter that would follow, perpetuated by Christians, was brushed off by the Church and Europe as the slaying of ignorant infidels, enemies of God. Take Antioch, where after breaking into the city after a lengthy siege, the Christians massacred the inhabitants. Nowadays, such wholesale, brutal murder would be played, day in and day out, by the news media. Such horror stories are loved by news media, as it causes more people to tune in. They inflate such stories to generate viewership[3], and while this sometimes causes distorted views, it is far better than not getting the news at all. To the contrary, such inflation of dangers protects the populace against potential harms, ensuring that true dangers have an almost 0% probability of going unnoticed. Company knowingly sold defunct products that led to loss of life? News media will scream about it. Government trying to take away your rights? The commentators will have a fit! New drug discovered that could cure AIDS? You will know for sure; news media will go crazy! Why in certain circumstances being hyperinformed by a news media addicted to scare stories can create a person who is overly mistrustful, in the vast majority of people it reduces the chances of individuals being caught by surprise by events they should know about. Response to my opponent's arguments I. "media is a weapon of intrusion because now-a-days brutalizing and vulgarizing are the key factors which dominate media""Brutalizing and vulgarizing" - I am not sure how this relates to intrusion, and I do not think media has, in any way, evolved to become more brutal or vulgar. In fact, with the emergance of competing news stations like Fox News and MSNBC who would be quick to blame each other were the other to do something immoral, I contend it has grown less so. Take, for example, the Spanish-American War. It is commonly accepted that "yellow journalism", or the embellishment of stories, caused this conflict. Reportedly, when a correspondent in Cuba reported there was no interesting activity, the owner of the newspaper, William Randolph Hearst, shot back, "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war"[4], implying he wanted war to sell more newpapers. Something more brutal than this I cannot imagine. Something more vulgar than lying to the public to sell newspapers is, indeed, hard to imagine. This occured in 1897, one year before the war started in 1898. II. "Advertisers have become mind benders"Advertisers have always acted this way. People have always exaggerated or outright lied about the usefulness of their products. In the 19th century in America, hundreds of placebo pills and other types of lies were perpetuated trying to make a quick buck, which led to a class of journalists called muckrakers, who sorted through the "muck" of inaccurately advertised products and brought the truth[5]. Here, I contend that media led to the debunking of these false products, and so protected consumers from wasting their money on products that would not work, were dangerous, or had no effect. III. "The era of great belief maker is ending and era of make believe is beginning"I am not sure what Pro is trying to say here. If he is referring to the exaggerated advertising, I discussed that above. Overall, I must recommend to Pro to say exactly what he means and not make metaphors, as the voters may be missing an important point in his argument. Back to you, Pro.