Is it really true that media’s influence on the common listener or viewer has a pronounced and measurable effect; an effect so definitive that general elections and special issue ballot results (by professional harbingers) are routinely predetermined? Is the common seduced into voting submission by political slogans, memorable phrases and rhymes? Is the politician’s prose so melodiously persuasive to actually prompt voting obedience?
As for opposing perspectives, are the common listeners and viewers open to meaningful contemplation of differing of counter arguments? Is there truly a measurable contest (within the mind of the voter) of competing political ideals or is the voter’s predetermination or existing mindset the winning elixir?
Does the media by the purposeful manipulating/editing and careful presentation of news information willfully emphasis a particular political agenda that is in keeping with the prevailing political ethos? Can this manipulation of news by media actually change a predetermined political mindset? Or, as a coincidence of unconscious prejudicial preference, do the media and the listener/viewer simply reinforce the established politically mores of the individual? Is the inductively induced bias of established predetermination so overwhelming a force that new facts to the contrary will not cause a differing result? Or is this public display by the common listener/viewer of concern of and for the truth nothing but a ruse. Perhaps it is simply that truth is not and has never been the objective of the media or its audience? Possible, competitive media have divergent views, these views are inherent within the competing media community: therefore, management controls the political slant or opinion.
Does loyalty to a conviction once held best the rational process of utilizing principals of good sense that might lead one to a heretofore differing conclusion? Does the inductive triumph over the deductive? Will Senator Ted Kennedy ever support a conservative principle? Could President Bush ever support the federal funding of stem cell research?
As with this writing, questions naturally precede answers; answers, to some exacting extent, depend on the wording of the question; plus, all answers have a limited shelf life and must configure to changing terrain and situation. History declares flux as the momentum of the constant; today’s blue is tomorrow’s yellow; in politics, war, social pursuance, as well as, all human endeavors ‘change’ is the reputable constant. There is a rule of law that states unequivocally: One citizen represents one vote and that rule of law is considered a definitive of democracy. Therefore, those who wish to be elected to a political office must positively influence those who possess a vote. It matters least that the influence is beguiling, a distortion of fact or a blatant untruth or that the possessor of the vote is ignorant, stupid, or finds the context of voting particulars perplexingly incomprehensible. Undeniably, the objective of the ‘to be elected’ is to be elected; as long as the action taken to be elected is within reasonable adherence to civility all pre-election shenanigans are for the most part accepted.