Media and politicians are dependent on each other, because of how they can change a person's view.
Media, whether it be a talk show, advertisement, etc, can be used to give people 'positive' or 'negative' "opinions" at large, while putting in some facts to make the whole look like it's completely true.
To be able to get people to vote for the politician they want, there are a couple way they can do this.
Bias: Whether positively or negatively, some politicians may get longer 'air time', as well as people giving their opinions (presented as facts) to help swing votes. For example, people can say that "Obama is the best president ever because of such~and~such things he do" (positive bias), OR they can say "He is the worst president because he allowed America to fall from her great power (negative bias) Polls: Whether it is true or not, polls CAN affect how people vote. Some people vote purely to be "within the crowds", and, when seeing large amounts of people vote for a certain group, politician, or party, they will also vote for them. However, this does not affect everyone. Media can skew charts to make it different from reality, whether positively or negatively, to change how people vote (as some follow bandwagon)
In exchange, Politicians usually help the media, whether provide funds, or (if they are elected) give favors to the media.
In the end, It is for money, familiarization, popularity, or anything other, politicians and media will always work together to create 'pictures' for the public to digest before and when voting.
Yes the next generation of rabbits, most of them must learn to eat grass during drought periods because there is time and season to the production of what they eat.
The next generation will possibly eat grass depending on the period of the drought ,if the drought persist, then they must learn to eat grass to survive
Normative ethics is a branch of ethics that reflects on what is morally right and what is wrong. It is through that reflection that principles for human behavior are established.
<em>"Normative ethics, that part of moral philosophy, or ethics, concerned with criteria of what is morally right and wrong". (Quoted from Britannica, link is the following: https://www.britannica.com/topic/normative-ethics)</em>
In the other hand, metha-ethics is a branch of ethics that studies metaphysical concepts regarding morality and with special emphasis if these moral values are independent of humans.
<em>"Metaethics is a branch of analytic philosophy that explores the status, foundations, and scope of moral values, properties, and words". (Quoted from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, link is the following: https://www.iep.utm.edu/metaethi/) </em>
<em />
The main difference between these two branches of philosophy/ethics is that normative ethics main focus is the morality on a certain action, whereas metaethics focus is morality itself.
