RESOLVED: The influence of the media is detrimental to the american political process.

If my opponent was truly unable to see the videos I posted to my first argument, I will repost them here differently in the hope that he/she will see them:www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch? v=bYQGdpZ3QhAwww(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch? v=JGmH2UTfi3cwww(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch? v=7XYlJqf4dLIMy opponent's argument for round 3: "Here my opponent has neglected the definition for media that i am using in this case and is operating under the false conclusion that news is the only way of conveying information to a large amount of people. "My opponent's argument for round 1:"Before I begin, I would like to announce that the definition for "The Media" as stated in the resolution that I will be using in this case is: The means of mass communication. (especially TV, radio, newspaper, and internet) regarded collectively"It is with great remorse that I point out that my opponent appears to have committed the fallacy of shifting ground; or perhaps I am misunderstanding exactly what my opponent is arguing in the first place. Are we not arguing about mass communication methods, including TV, radio, newspaper, and internet? If so, this is exactly what I have been attempting to argue to be detrimental to the political process thus far. Also:"Here my opponent has neglected the definition for media that i am using in this case and is operating under the false conclusion that news is the only way of conveying information to a large amount of people. "Well there we have it, voters - my opponent agrees with me completely in the stance that the news, being detrimental to the political process, is not "the only way of conveying information to a large amount of people". "On my opponents hypothetical "Neo-Nazi" argument. Since this is value debate we are arguing what ought to be not what is, therefor I do believe we can both agree that the American people ought not be "Neo-Nazi's". "It appears that we have an agreement here, also. "since this is a value debate and we are still arguing what ought to be not what is"I think my opponent has once again committed the fallacy of shifting ground - if I remember correctly, and if I am reading the title of this debate correctly, the topic of this debate is "The Influence of the Media is Detrimental to the Political Process". Yes, this is a value debate, but if I'm not mistaken, this debate is also about what is. Because, the question of this debate is, IS the media detrimental to the political process? And I say, yes. "The people that we are speaking of are not mindless sub-human slaves at the hands of the government. We have the ability to think and perceive what is right and wrong. "Perhaps. However, this resource is my rebuttal:"Last week, the national media widely reported on an important United States Supreme Court decision dealing with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Typical of many news media, the New York Times headline trumpeted, "COURT SAYS THAT SENIORITY HAS PRECEDENCE OVER DISABILITY. " Although the body of the Times article explained the decision in more detail, many readers stopped at the headline and, as a result, came to a dangerously misleading impression of this decision Like ignorance, misinterpretation of the law is no excuse, and can cause loads of legal trouble. In the interest of lawsuit avoidance, we need to set this record straight. In the case, an injured US Airways baggage handler, Barnett, sought a "reasonable accommodation" under the ADA - permanent assignment to a less physically demanding job in the US Airways mailroom. However, two other US Airways employees with more seniority also sought the mailroom job. US Airways was left with a "damned if you do - damned if you don't" choice: should it honor Barnett's request for a "reasonable accommodation" as required by the ADA, or should it honor its seniority system as required by its collective bargaining agreement with its union? US Airways chose to honor its seniority system, and Barnett sued, claiming that by failing to provide him with his requested "reasonable accommodation," US Airways violated the ADA. The case eventually ended up before the United States Supreme Court, which rendered a 5-4 decision (there's nothing like legal decisiveness. .. ) in favor of US Airways, triggering headlines like the "seniority has precedence over disability" report quoted above. Consequently, many employers now believe the rule of law to be this: if a disabled employee requests assignment to a particular position as a "reasonable accommodation," and another, more senior employee requests the same position, the employer can safely choose the more senior employee without risking an ADA suit. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Here's what the Supreme Court really said . . . The law will generally respect the sanctity of a seniority system like the one US Airways had - a structured, pervasive seniority system that consistently governed the most important aspects of the employer-employee relationship. But if an employer did not typically use seniority as the benchmark for work assignments and other employee management decisions, seniority will most likely not trump an employee's ADA-inspired request for a reasonable accommodation. " ( . http://www.powelltrachtman.com... ) As per my opponents first two arguments in round 1, I would agree that knowledge is important - I believe anyone would. As per the third argument, yes, many people watch the news, that's tremendous - but does this really prove that the news is not detrimental to the political process? Ideological diffusion is good, I agree, but is the news the best form of ideological diffusion? Perhaps it is efficient, but is it the best? This is the claim that I am disputing. Perhaps the news is accurate, but it is not always necessarily true. Back in the early 1900's, there existed many newspaper articles that were very racist and presented many false truths. (such as this one . http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com... )Is this truly good press? Would a magazine article such as this one not have been detrimental to the American political process? I am not so much presenting this as new evidence as much as I am presenting it as a rebuttal to my opponent's argument of whether or not the news is the best form of ideological diffusion. In reference to my opponent's third argument in the first round, imagine what would have happened if someone saw this racist article in the magazine? To answer, I quote my opponent:". .. he shares this with two of his other friends. One of his friends is an author, and the other is a newspaper editor. The author writes a book about the topic and the editor writes a newspaper article about the topic. This is a great example of how through ideological diffusion, we can spread a single idea to a very large amount of people. Through news, TV, books, radio, newspapers, etc. We are able to convey all this information to the entire United States. A recent study from a journalist team consisting of KENNETH OLMSTEAD, MARK JURKOWITZ, AMY MITCHELL AND JODI ENDA. Shows that 71% of people watch local news, 65% view network TV news, and 38% watch cable TV news. Through these calculations we can see that ideological diffusion is efficiently reaching a mass number of people through only one of many types of media. This study also shows that 82% of local news viewers also view network TV, and 44% of them also watch cable TV. Other percentages of Americans who view more than one TV source are available upon request.