Agenda-setting media

Are the media being agenda-setting?

Agenda setting is the theory that the news media have a large influence on audiences by their choice of what stories to consider newsworthy and how much prominence and space is given to them.

From my point of view, this is exactly what the media do to increase their audience and I don't agree that this is right. I think that they are becoming merciless invaders of private space by prying into other people's lives. For instance, take the recent cases of homicide or rape. We have seen how many people have lost their relatives or their relatives have been harmed due to crimes like manslaughter, and sexual assaults. Is it permissible that the media intrude into other people's homes and ask for abundant detail some of which is even deemed as transgressing privacy?? If I am watching the news I just want to be informed, but there is a big difference between being provided with what we call due information on a certain event, or being provided with some ostentatious detail on a killing or rape. Ok, maybe the law hasn't been broken in that the victims might have agreed to answer to mostly intimate questions, but there must be a limit to this!! The media are always itching to get information to impress the audience. The reality is most of us are falling for these stupid tricks. They need our anguish and they are constantly in the lookout for misfortunes to broadcast because they know how we will be glued to the television for hours as our hearts sink in sadness and pity for the poor family that lost their son or the people that are being killed in Libya. It is just horrible. My viewpoint is: allocating a ridiculous amount of time to the bad and sad news is not right; it just makes the audience feel depressed and unmotivated. It just does not contribute to people's lives! We want to know what is going on, but we do not need to be listening to it for hours-on-end? What about the other good things that are going on? Oh, they are mentioned but probably met with a certain bluntness that one can't even notice they've happened. And, come on, all I hear when I turn on the radio or watch the TV is terrible news and more sinister news! It the world really this damned?

Personally, I am fed up with this hopeless tendency. It doesn't contribute at all with life, society and it is not what the media have been initially created for. If you want to have your say, I will be delighted to get a second opinion! Thanks

My opponent, who is the con, has conceded that the media does set an agenda. This means that you affirm.

Even if you do not look to this (as I am sure that this was an accident), look to the fact that his case is entirely irrelevant to the round as it does not show that the media does not have an agenda. All he says is that the media spend too much time focusing on the details of crime, but this does not constitute any sort of political motive. He has not provided you with a link as to why this is true, so the case is irresolutional and you affirm on topicality.

Insofar as the media can focus on the type of the story, it has the ability to set the agenda. For example Fox News attempts to misalign President Obama by focusing on minor gaffes, while it tends to support President Bush by attempting to provide evidence that will vindicate him. Insofar as the media chooses what story to highlight, they choose which issues to rally the voters around, and thus they have a great influence on the public policy agenda.

My opponent dropped all of my arguments and has conceded the debate. Please vote appropriately. Thank you.

Please extend the turn on the negative case and vote affirmative. My opponent has clearly conceded the round because he or she has not bothered to refute my arguments; even if you do not like my ideas, you should still vote for me because she/he conceded the round.

Thank you.