By now, most of us are familiar with the story of the late Senator Ted Kennedy.
He famously refused to allow the Republican National Convention to be televised, arguing that it would “put our country at risk.”
He also refused to endorse a candidate in the Democratic primary for President.
That was, until he was shot and killed.
The assassination was blamed on Lee Harvey Oswald, the lone gunman who had been a longtime member of the Democratic Party.
But many Republicans, including many in the House, were critical of Kennedy, saying that he would not have won the election if he had won the popular vote.
And while many in Congress and the media were quick to dismiss the idea that Oswald’s actions could have played a role in the election, there were also some who were outraged that the mainstream media were covering it.
It wasn’t until the day after the shooting that the news finally made it into the mainstream press, and many of us began to pay attention.
We were shocked that people who have devoted their lives to fighting for the most marginalized groups were being subjected to a political attack from the likes of the NRA and other conservative groups.
A few weeks after the election we were reminded of what happened in the Senate, when Republicans tried to defund Planned Parenthood and forced President Obama to sign a partial-birth abortion ban.
The day after that, we saw the Senate Republicans vote to defund the Affordable Care Act, which was the cornerstone of President Obama’s signature health care reform law.
We saw the Republicans vote on an assault weapons ban.
We witnessed the Senate vote to repeal the Affordable Housing Act, and then we saw President Obama veto the measure.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg.
So while it may not be as simple as Republicans saying, “We’ll defund Planned and get rid of the Affordable, we’ll defund and get Obamacare,” it is still a reminder that we are in the midst of a concerted effort to try to marginalize and marginalize those who disagree with us, regardless of their views.
While the political battle over “the election” has raged for years, the media is no stranger to the issue.
There have been instances where the media have tried to marginalise or marginalize the people who disagree, but there have also been instances when they have tried desperately to portray those who are opposed to them as dangerous or as enemies of the American people.
This was especially true in the 1970s and 1980s, when the media and the right-wing media took an anti-communist stance, as did many conservatives.
In the 1960s and 1970s, for example, conservative pundits and politicians were often accused of being Communists and communists.
In some cases, these accusations were made with impunity.
Even as conservatives were being denounced as communists, the left-wing left-leaning press often defended them.
When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, for instance, the leftist press repeatedly called the war a Soviet victory, despite the fact that the Soviets were not defeated in Afghanistan and had a substantial military presence in the country.
This attitude continued for decades.
There were also instances when the right, or conservative commentators, were attacked for their opposition to homosexuality, abortion, abortion-on-demand, or other social issues.
While it’s true that the media has a role to play in creating public awareness of important political issues, they have an even bigger role to have in shaping public discourse.
The role of the media in shaping the public debate is something that has been explored by political scientists in a number of studies, including a 2012 article by David Greenberg.
Greenberg argued that the public is far more susceptible to the influence of the “tipping point” in the media when they see negative coverage of the candidates or issues that they find to be controversial.
“This is because the media can affect the public’s attitude about the candidates, the issues, and the candidates’ positions,” Greenberg wrote.
“For example, negative coverage can influence voters’ decision about who they will vote for in the general election.”
And the effect of the influence can be more pronounced in political news that the popular press tends to cover more broadly.
This is because news outlets tend to be more partisan, and there are fewer outlets that provide more neutral coverage of important issues.
In other words, it’s not just that the people in power in the newsroom are less likely to use their power to shape public opinion; the people that control the media also have more incentive to shape the public discussion of important social issues, as evidenced by the fact, for the first time in history, that more and more Americans are beginning to take notice of the importance of climate change.
A lot of people are saying that this is a crisis, and that we need to have an urgent conversation about this, because if we don’t, it will just continue to happen.
And, of course, that’s not the case.
As the debate over the “election” continues, the mainstream is