carmenclassof06

Do you believe that media teaches citizens which political ideas are "accepatble" and which are not? what would be an example of a positive impact , whereas im pretty sure we all know the the negative impacts.

beta_hat

The media has a vital role in framing the national debate and setting the boundaries for what is acceptable and not.

There has been a rising tendency by the media to replace hard news shows with opinion shows where the hosts have an agenda. These hosts are usually very explicit in emphasizing what political ideas and which people are unacceptable. Someone like Bill O'Reilly exemplifies this, by routinely labeling certain groups and ideas as "the loony left" and "far-left loons." To be fair liberals do this too - witness Keith Olberman's "Worst Person in the World."

In general though, the way the media marginalizes certain groups is much more subtle than Bill O'Reilly's name-calling. They do it by simply ignoring them and not giving them an opportunity to present their views. This is a major deal for Presidential debates, where third-party candidates cannot get legitimacy because they are never invited to any debates and are not given any coverage by the media. The media often seems to believe that objective or fair coverage means giving equal time to party hacks from both parties to spin at will, without fact-checking or investigative journalism.

On your question about positive impacts, one positive impact is that marginalizing extreme views does tend to make discussion more civil. Frequently drama and controversy have to be deliberately created on these shows (witness the now defunct Crossfire show on CNN). But you are not going to have one side calling the other one fascist or communist or babykiller on the air. By marginalizing views considered outside the mainstream, the media also avoids offending viewers who may be personally hurt when someone starts telling them that their president or their relative who is a soldier is a war criminal or something like that. Thus while it is unfortunate that critical voices like those of Ralph Nader are not given a wider airing, it is also true that people like David Duke and Pat Robertson are given less of a platform for their views.

Longhaired Freaky Person

From the perspective of our rulers, it is a positive impact that we are so easily ruled.

SWMynx

Lately I cannot think of a single positive impact, at least by the mainstream media.

I belong to a minor party and in my party's case, the media's refusal to even include our ideas and platform positions in the greater national debate has kept us isolated and unknown.
One only need hear questions and assumptions posed at some event to realize these people know nothing about us.

Likewise, the media has served (and I believe this does imply a certain degree of purchase and ownership) to decide which candidates best serve the greater corporate interest to the silencing and detriment of those candidates considered a threat.

Look at the response, or rather lack therof, to Denis Kucinich.
To John Edwards. To Ron Paul. They could have streaked across a crowded stadium and may indeed have! You'd never have heard about it!

We've come a long way since Woodward and Bernstein indeed. Since that time, the media has increasingly become the lapdog of industry, instead of the guard dog of democracy.

As long as the scores are still reported . . . meantime, seems like the average American citizen hasn't even blinked.

Jeff M

If you referring to the U.S. media....maybe
They teach or manipulate ,brainwash people to accept their ideas..
they almost never just tell the news without some innuendo of their opinion in it....they need to separate the commentary from the news....I want to hear the friggin news....not their opinions

Ann Coulter's Nemesis

The only political ideas the media likes is smear and fear based on non political issues such as patriotic lapel pins. And, no, it is not positive.