Potter states in What is Media Literacy that "operating at a higher level of media literacy gives [us] more control over the media." By this he does not mean we can control what is presented in the media. Instead, from what I understood, he meant that we can control what and how much we are exposed to. He also mentions that we must understand that the media is only an interpretation of the person who created the specific media piece--i.e. journalist's pov in his/her article. Furthermore, he states that being media literate allows us to generate our own understanding and point of view of the media (and info presented in the media). By this he means that a person operating at a high level of media literacy will not easily fall for whatever the media presents to them. Instead, they will generate their own ideas whether it be against or agree with what is presented.
Considering this, I wonder if a person's own values and beliefs would affect whether they agree or disagree with a certain media message? Perhaps a person's pov has already been decided beforehand about a certain media message, regardless of whether or not they are operating at a high level of media literacy. Wouldn't they still believe in the "truths" of the media message that is similar to their pov? Would a person just ignore a message that was against theirs? Even after understanding the other argument, wouldn't, couldn't they just avoid it so it won't obstruct their pov? Is it as easy as what Potter makes it seem? By operating at a "higher level of media literacy" are we able to accurately agree and act upon the "correct" or "best" decision?