The Role of Propaganda in the Media.

As this debate is focused on the role of propaganda perpetrated by the mainstream media in the US, I would encourage Con to either read Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" or simply read a short summary on its plot. Proof is not needed since I made no such claim that income and education were the only voting factors that "matter". I again encourage Con to remain on topic, debating semantics in a claim meant only to elaborate on the topic of this particular debate convolutes the overall purpose. Confirming pre-existing bias leads to the formation of opinions void of factual information, thus an uninformed electorate is born. The argument in which this topic resides is the misinformation spread by the mainstream media, if an individual votes Republican and is bombarded with positive news segments manipulating the voter into believing the candidate is doing well, he's more likely to appoint him/her a positive approval score. There was no mention of the methodology of surveying, analyzing, and summarizing approval polls, this is again entirely off topic. "This is my whole point. So-called "misinformation and rhetoric"(propaganda) is good because it improves public perception of specific policies, unifying the country." To the credit of Con this is the first argument on topic, since it is entirely based on personal opinion and not reinforced by logical reasoning or sources indicating this avenue of thought to be valid, it cannot be taken as a satisfactory argument. US citizens are free to think and believe as they choose, I will assume "people" is in reference to them or possibly individuals residing in democratic nations. "...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. Hyperbole is certainly not regulated neither is lying, 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. They are systematically manipulating the electorate to affirm their beliefs and to agree with their contradictions and biased arguments. This is done by censoring the full depth of the facts: i.e., creating their own current events by selectively editing facts that would refute their argument (1). By the post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning used by Con earlier; they would be dividing the country. I'd like to remind Con that there are two more rounds to present arguments supporting his position that the mainstream media has not impeded democracy. Brian Britt published an article "Manufacturing Consent or Purloined Dissent?" arguing that the presence of various online sources of news media, readily available to the public allow voters to become more informed than years past. This article is poorly written and not strongly supported by facts; yet, it is an example of an argument against the notion of propaganda in the media. Though Con has expressed his agreement that propaganda (eg: information of a biased or misleading nature) in the media does exist, he expressed so as a positive occurrence, thus Con did not present an argument in favour of my original claim. As is the case I would encourage Con to deviate from the approval ratings argument, they are not relevant to this particular debate. Democracy resides on the simple notion of eligible individuals casting votes for the candidate whom they believe to be better able to deal with issues that are relevant to them and to the constituency. If those voters are not presented with factual information their decision making process is impeded thereby limiting democracy. Earlier Con mentioned the results of a ban on media, "I believe that voters would become less informed, limiting democracy"; while this is certainly self-evident what is less overtly obvious is the scope of the misinformation presented by the mainstream media (2). Misinformation is defined as: false or inaccurate which is deliberately intended to deceive, deception through inaccurate information is limiting democracy. Yet it is so highly efficient that the occurrence of a self-referential process is continuously reinforcing the ideal that all other sources of information are inadequate or unreliable (1). Sources: (1): http://ezproxy.macewan.ca... (2): http://www.worldpublicopinion.org...