In response to the question pertaining to the value of free speech and the effects it may have vs. the court of global opinion on America, i feel that the preservation of free speech is worth any potential stigma, particularly regarding the level of respect for the President. I am a firm believer in supporting the President of the United States, whether I feel that he is my candidate or not. The liberal media may choose to bash the President for the sake of ratings, but i believe the intellectual capacity of voters in this country is strong enough to be able to look past the unfair portrayals. I believe it is the duty of every American to challenge the government to perform up to their own personal standards, but at the same time understand that not everything can be accomplished. Thus, believing, but also challenging the Presidency is the right of every citizen as well as the job of every citizen.

The right to free speech in this case must be looked over. Trusting the media to instill our opinion of the President is wrong. Only then would i consider the intellectual capacity of the voter to not be up to the standards of an American. Regarding the opinion of people around the globe, i feel that America will always be seen as a country full of rich, stupid people. However, I do not feel that it is the American media that is the cause of this "problem". Other countries will devise their own opinions of America and choose to portray the country however they wish, but it will never effect the way that i feel about this country, and it would be wrong of me if it did.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

In class we talked about shows like the O’Reilly Factor and Countdown with Keith Olbermann as representations of a celebration of anti-intellectualism in America. I think that news programs like these are excellent examples of “dumbing down” in American society. Though these two “commentators” have no doubt, many opinions concerning important societal and political matters, the legitimacy of their opinions is something that often comes under harsh scrutiny. Who these men are that they deserve such a public place to spout their ideologies remains undetermined. Though they might be, in certain terms, considered well-educated, very few would consider them “intellectuals.” And yet, we could assume that technology has made their existence possible. Cable TV and, of course, the internet, allow so many more mediums for conversation, which, consequently, allow for so many more voices to participate in the conversation. If we only had newspapers, competition would be much more stringent, and only the most knowledgeable and legitimate voices would be present in the sphere of public debate.
However, what remains more illusive is whether or not these shows are “dumbed down” on purpose. I think it can be acknowledged that it is often beneficial to “dumb down” such programs. After all, cable network shows want to make money, and the way to do that is to develop a faithful viewership. If some brilliant political theorist from this or that university had his or her own cable news show, would it have as many viewers? Probably not, because the sad truth is that people want to watch shows they can follow and understand, and for the most part, people prefer to follow the news as it applies to their own lives, their own experiences, and their own social ideals.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?