This thread will hopefully explore the power of media to shape our views. To kick things off I'll refer to a media experience I'm currently having.

I'm currently watching a documentary on Amazon Prime about the Kennedy assassination.

Briefly, the documentary goes in to considerable detail regarding a commonly held theory that Kennedy was killed by a partnership between the CIA, FBI and the mob. The investigation was led by a group of retired FBI agents, so it has some credibility. Given the vast amount of detail provided I'll make no attempt to recreate all the arguments here, because I have a different point to explore.

As I'm watching the documentary I find myself increasingly persuaded by the ever growing pile of seemingly well documented technical details presented. The show is drawing me in, and I'm buying it's theory more and more as the show goes on. The reasoning all makes sense to me, and seems credibly presented. Thanks to the documentary I bask in the glory of knowing for a few hours. And then this hits me...

If anybody wanted to get rid of Kennedy, why didn't they just reveal his chronic extra-marital affairs, which were apparently legendary?? Certainly the CIA, mob and FBI were all well aware of such affairs. Why didn't they just blow the whistle on Kennedy and make his affairs public? Why take on all the risk involved in killing a President?? (I haven't yet finished the documentary and will report further if they address this question.)

Upon arrival at this question my previous near certainty generated by the documentary goes up in flames!

Anyway, an interesting experiment perhaps revealing how persuasive a well made presentation can be. I was almost there and then, the inconvenient question brings the whole thing tumbling down.

If you choose to comment below my preference is to be addressed as Professor I. B. Sucker. :-)