I'm not saying I like this, but I find it to be true:
You are only right if being moral and ethical is more important than actually effecting change. Experience turns people into straussians (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/stephen-harper-... (it's about the Canadian PM but has a wonderfully concise description of the Straussian philosophy)).
Basically you can try and teach the general public how to think so that you can then convince them with facts or you can just be better at spin. One is practically impossible, the other is always some level of evil.
I used to believe that too. But my experience over the last twenty years it that anyone without specific interest in the problem tends to average everything they here and assume that's where the truth lies.
So the product of (amount of editorializing)*(how much noise you make) should balance the other side.
There are non-linear effects - e.g., you lose listeners if you editorialize too much, ("RIAA is killing babies", which might be plausible with some chain of reasoning that includes far fetched assumptions and highly improbable assumptions, but not entirely invalid deductions).
But basically everywhere, and especially in American politics, being calm and factual is a guaranteed way to lose the vote, regardless of how right you are.
You are only right if being moral and ethical is more important than actually effecting change. Experience turns people into straussians (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/stephen-harper-... (it's about the Canadian PM but has a wonderfully concise description of the Straussian philosophy)).
Basically you can try and teach the general public how to think so that you can then convince them with facts or you can just be better at spin. One is practically impossible, the other is always some level of evil.