Needless to say, in this case anyway, perception became reality, Kennedy went on to win the election and the rest is, as they say, history. While this is a very specific instance of a dramatic change in a viewing audience's perception, and its immediate aftereffects, there are many, many more examples of television using its influence to precipitate changes in attitude.

To see such changes, one only needs to compare today's world with the world as described in Time's 1967 issue.

In the article Hollywood is described as the only asylum run by its inmates, and as ten million dollars worth of machinery functioning elaborately to put skin on baloney. With the intermingling of television and Hollywood, the same can be said for television media. Many individuals in the general public seem to hold the belief that if it was seen on television, then it had to be true. This trust would be fine if Hollywood and television executives were all trustworthy, outstanding citizens with only the highest standards of integrity, but such is often not the case. There is always an agenda, sometimes hidden, sometimes evil, sometimes seemingly for the benefit of the viewing public, but mostly it seems to be for financial...

The individuals making the decisions on what the public watches on television are usually in positions that are highly competitive and highly compensated. Many of the decisions have to be based on what will bring the most profit for the shareholders. If the wrong choices are made, heads will roll. By feeding the public a continuous diet of shows that allow for more 'pushing the envelope' attitudes are changed in an ongoing manner as to what is acceptable. The public may soon see reality murder shows, or other shows along these same lines, all in the name of freedom of the press or the almighty dollar.
Television can be used for good changes as well, but it seems that a battle is being waged as to what is permissible and what is not. It seems as if the general public no longer has a hero to root for.

As Time stated so eloquently, "comedy and tragedy are no longer separate masks, they have become interchangeable, just as heroes and villains are frequently indistinguishable" (par 10), and it seems as if the public's attitude has changed so that it no longer even cares that it has no hero, or even a villain, to root for or against. Whether that was part of the plan or not, remains to be seen.