Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

CRedskinsRule · 09-13-2011, 11:10 PM

You do realize how ironic your thread title is since the US has never been a "true" democracy.

Now to your point, the media has a huge role in picking candidates, and the elections, but it is mostly a chicken and the egg argument. Yes the media can manipulate within bounds, but the people pretty much set the boundaries of those debates. If, as a whole, the population felt that Kucinich or a libertarian candidate's ideals were the best then the media would move to capture those viewers' interests with stories and candidates that espouse those views.

Put another way, do you think most of our president's haven't used the media machines of their times to sway the eligible voters toward electing them? Or that the parties(however they were named at the time) didn't use media/backroom dealings to get their "elite approved candidates" elected?

I would even think that now the candidates are far less influenced by media/establishment, as voters can find information through far more sources today then, say, in 1880. But, ultimately, in a 2 party system, you will have a rising tide effect as people put their smaller issues aside and select a candidate that most closely aligns with their "life view" of politics.

09-13-2011, 11:10 PM	#2
CRedskinsRule Living Legend Join Date: Aug 2008 Age: 58 Posts: 21,701	Re: Is true democracy in the US is dead? You do realize how ironic your thread title is since the US has never been a "true" democracy. Now to your point, the media has a huge role in picking candidates, and the elections, but it is mostly a chicken and the egg argument. Yes the media can manipulate within bounds, but the people pretty much set the boundaries of those debates. If, as a whole, the population felt that Kucinich or a libertarian candidate's ideals were the best then the media would move to capture those viewers' interests with stories and candidates that espouse those views. Put another way, do you think most of our president's haven't used the media machines of their times to sway the eligible voters toward electing them? Or that the parties(however they were named at the time) didn't use media/backroom dealings to get their "elite approved candidates" elected? I would even think that now the candidates are far less influenced by media/establishment, as voters can find information through far more sources today then, say, in 1880. But, ultimately, in a 2 party system, you will have a rising tide effect as people put their smaller issues aside and select a candidate that most closely aligns with their "life view" of politics.