As a recently joined member, I have come to champion this site as one of few seemingly neutral media sources available (I say seemingly because I know not what neutral truely entails).  The level of thought behind the articles and the adjoining comments by educated users continues to challenge my mind by introducing campaign issues that go far beyond the scope and depth of traditional news sources.

In fact, in addressing the candidates platforms the writers manage to dissect the true mechanics behind, for example, an economic policy using historical evidence and professional guidance (e.g. Paul Krugman).  This is fascinating to me because the majority of Americans care not for these important facets that distinguish candidates, instead taking their summed up versions at face value.  This method of adoption requires for the voter a certain amount of laziness or futile acceptance of something they cannot hope to understand.  Thus, is it untrue to say that most of America takes what the news and candidates say for granted?

That is, only if they get that far in the first place!  I applaud the individuals who, upon each and every election, make an openminded decision without claiming allegiance to party, religion, sex, or any other denominating factor.  In the hustle and bustle of American society this civic achievement is worthy of praise, even if their assessment is still plagued by ignorance and some level of apathy.

But as I have hinted, it is an extremely difficult task to reach this level of participation in the first place.  Votes are somewhat pyramidal structure, where most of the population is truely vegged out at the bottom rung in a quasi-Orwellian twilight world.  Evidence for this lay in the fact that Fox News is STILL the most popular news station on the air - and its not for celebrated journalism and objective reporting.  No, most of the nation relegates its ability to research and understand a candidate to CNN and Fox. 

Therein lay the problem, however.  Many people recognize the main stream medias monopolized influence over the everyday news watcher and are left with 3 choices:  to not vote because they recognize their ignorance, to attempt to find a neutral media, or to keep watching Fox News and try and sift out the bullshit for the real issues.

The first choice is the easiest, so I won't go over it.  The third choice is downright rotten because every bit and parcel of information is filtered through Rupert Murdochs GOP agenda.  Furthermore, the vast majority of the important issues are touched upon in a distant, inaffectionate manner when depth is a necessity. 

The second choice, however, is extremely difficult.  It is predetermined by ones highest education level, their ability to find and use resources such as the internet, and their social environment.  The innate quality of a neutral media source such as TPM is the above average intellects of its writers and viewers.  How is the layman supposed to understand a progressive platform on international trade without a solid understanding of macroeconomics and foreign relations?  They won't, but thats the kind of depth expected by members of the site.

Another barrier to finding objectivity is the persons social environment.  I would argue that its the most important one!  Trying to be objective minded in a strongly biased environment is a task that I could have failed at many, many times if certain circumstances had not arisen.  Any type of reference group that a person subscribes to socially has tremendous power in thwarting dissent.

I'm stopping myself now from diverging too far from the point, but it might make for some interesting conversation otherwise.  The point of all this was to show that objective intellectuals who seek the underlying truth are an enormous minority in the grand scheme.  Yet our votes count as 1 and their votes count as 1.  I'm not attempting to sound elitist because I feel as if this problem was propelled and exasberated by the elites.   I just wonder what the point of all this is sometimes.  I'm not trying to sound nihlistic, but I feel like something should be done to make the media sources comprehensive as opposed to profit seeking.

Gday!