Criticism of my paper

Reviewing my paper, I am concerned that I'm being hypercritical of the persuaders and perhaps not giving us (the public) enough credit. I'm spending a lot of energy focusing on where this idea I have of the persuaders spoon feeding us our culture, morals, and ethics came from and not enough on what we do about it. It's very easy for me to get on my soapbox and say that I'm not swayed by the politicians and the advertisers because because I know me, and I know my friends and my family and what we agree and disagree with and why. What I don't know is how other people feel about this bombardment of propaganda. Maybe I'm not giving enough credit and what I consider apathy is in fact a person's choice to, after doing their own research, go ahead and purchase whatever the persuaders were selling, be it a product or a president, not because they were being told to, but because they honestly and for their own personal reasons desired it. In Manipulating Public Opinion, Bernays called propaganda - "the psychology of public persuasion" (52) - "a technique for the mass distribution of ideas" (52) Under that definition, it's down right idealistic: getting as many ideas to as many different people as possible. For you see, Bernays fails to discriminate against who is distributing what. While it's only one sentence, I think it's worth holding on it. It gives the public the instruction and the power to control their own opinion. I think that's an idea I should look at more closely.