The influence of the media is detrimental to the American political process.

"Whoever controls the media, controls the culture." -Allen Ginsberg It is because I agree with Allen Ginsberg, that I affirm the resolution, "RESOLVED: The influence of the media is detrimental to the American political process." The value I will be upholding in this debate is democracy. As our political process is, with elections, a democratic political process, valuing democracy is logical.The resolution therefore implies this value, as the question is whether the influence of the media is good or bad for our political process, which is a democracy. The criterion to achieve democracy is upholding the will of the people. I offer the following definitions. Influence: an effect of one person or thing on another (Collins English Dictionary) Media: transmissions that are distributed widely to the public (vocabulary.com) Detrimental: causing harm or injury (Merriam-Webster) Democracy: a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting (Merriam-Webster) So if in a democracy, the people choose leaders, upholding the will of the people must be the criterion to achieve democracy. If I show that the influence of the media undermines the will of the people, you can affirm, because this would be detrimental to our very democratic political process. Contention 1: The media has the power to decide the candidates in elections. It is necessary to eliminate the candidates who fail to perform in front of a camera or look unimpressive because the television brings the image of the candidates directly into the homes of voters. An overweight William Howard Taft or a ivory-toothed George Washington would not have much of a chance these days. Favorable media reporting over a period of time can create presidential candidates out of governors, senators and other political figures. The media creates name recognition, which is the essential quality of a presidential candidate and the first step to a successful election. On the contrary, when the media fail to report on the activities of an aspiring candidate, they can completely ruin their chances. Once the media has agreed on one candidate as a winner from a party, this winner receives the majority of the media coverage, and all other opponents are sentenced to sink into obscurity. Financial contributions to opponents begin to dry up because no one wants to patronize the losing candidate. In the 2000 presidential primary cycle, only candidates who were perceived positively by the public received extensive media coverage. For the Democrats, the only candidate to receive media attention beside Vice President Al Gore was former New Jersey senator Bill Bradley, who had been a star basketball player before he turned to politics. The other candidates were felt to be unimpressive and therefore unworthy of attention. So the media undermines the will of the people by eliminating potential candidates, not because of performance or any reasonable qualifications, but based on superficial media concerns- meaning the media precludes the people from knowing who might be the best candidate, and so you can affirm. Contention 2: Media front-loading is causing a shortening of the presidential primary process, leaving less time for voters to evaluate candidates. The phenomenon of states moving their primary or caucus dates forward to try to increase their influence in the nominating process is not new, but it did reach extraordinary levels in 2000. On March 7, 2000 eleven states held their primary elections and Democrats caucused in additional states, representing 26.8% of total Republican delegates and 37.2% of pledged Democratic delegates (30.3% of total Democratic delegates). Frontloading is of concern for several reasons. First, and most importantly, front-loading gives less time for voters to evaluate the beliefs and character of the candidates. There is also the fact that the rapid succession of contests gives the frontrunner a distinct advantage in that only he or she is likely to be able to marshall the resources needed to effectively compete in a cluster of early contests. Alternatively, some observers have suggested that the short time-frame could create a situation where an outsider or longshot is able to pull a surprise showing in one or two early contests and then ride a wave of good press through the crush of primaries without receiving a thorough examination from media and voters. A frontloaded schedule likely contributes to depressed voter participation in later contests. Finally, presidential primaries do not occur in a vacuum but are often held in conjunction with state and local elections; moving the presidential primary can have downstream consequences. So, the media undermines the will of the people by helping to shorten campaigns, meaning the people have less time to evaluate candidates and determine which ones have the character and beliefs to properly represent them, and so you can affirm. Contention 3: Individuals can use the media to distort voting decisions. A major concern in many liberal democracies is the emergence of media empires, where a few individuals have managed to concentrate vast amounts of media assets and use them to actively influence political opinion. Thus, these individuals, from whichever point of the political spectrum, can deliver a powerful political message on behalf or against a political establishment through their respective media empires. This is especially damaging if parts of the general public are more exposed to one particular media empire either due to its high popularity or the lack of alternative media sources. Furthermore, these individuals possess the ability to provoke people or interest groups into mobilizing, simply by highlighting a particular issue. For example, horrific images from the battlefield or a controversial medical study can invoke a massive response. Therefore, even if it could be argued that the media cannot exactly influence people directly, they can most certainly have a strong influence on what issues people are made aware of or exposed to. The danger in all of this is that it could distort the quality of information that people receive and that in turn could distort their decisions. If positive issues are reported in a negative manner then at least some voters will vote against them even if it is contrary to their own interests, and vice versa. This is made worse when there is a high level of voter apathy, which means people will be less interested in taking part or learning about particular issues that could affect them. And so, the media can be manipulated in such a way as to overwhelm voters with one-sided information, leaving them uninformed and unable to make a good decision. Therefore, the media is undermining the will of the people, which is one of the principles for democracy, and so you can affirm. Contention 4: The media itself has been known to distort the facts of political events. In-mid May, new Obama scandals piled up at the White House. A portrait emerged of a president whose Internal Revenue Service was harassing his enemies, a State Department that lied to the world about the fatal debacle in Benghazi and a Justice Department spying on reporters who might leak anti-Obama information. But several national journalists announced that Obama had been scandal-free for the first four years-and-change of his administration. On NPR"s "Morning Edition," anchorman Steve Inskeep asserted to Cokie Roberts that "this administration has been described " I don"t even know how many times " as remarkably scandal-free." On ABC"s "World News," reporter Jonathan Karl proclaimed "a White House that takes pride in being scandal-free has been hammered by a series of controversies." On MSNBC, Rana Foroohar of Time magazine lamented, "What"s so sad about it is the President has been very rightfully proud of the lack of scandal in his administration so far." These journalists suffered from complete, mentally paralyzing amnesia about the first term, with the deadly "Fast and Furious" gun-running fiasco, the embarrassing decline and fall of Solyndra and other solar energy companies funded by Energy Department loans and Benghazi-gate, to name a few. Therefore, the media, if not being manipulated, can manipulate on its own. This allows misinformation to seep into the public eye, and causes those affected by the misinformation to make uninformed decisions, thereby not upholding the will of the people. So democracy is not upheld, and I can affirm the resolution "RESOLVED: The influence of the media is detrimental to the American political process."