Poll: What matters most: the message or the messenger?

[Yassen]

I was having a debate with my older sister today, we were debating what matters most; the messenger or the message. I'm under the impression that the messenger matters most, all too often I try to tell someone something important but they ignore me. It's only when someone else tells them that they actually listen. I've done this myself and I know it. Some friends of mine were trying to convince me that weed should be legalized but I never agreed. It was only when I read an article in New Scientist suggesting we legalize it that I changed my mind.

My sister believes the message matters the most because if someone important with a lot of influence said a really redundant and in essence "stupid" message no one would pay any attention or think he lost his mind. I replied "Look at Glenn Beck. Plenty of people listen to him."

So what's your opinion, does the message or the messenger matter most?

 

[Yassen]

The message must be important and the messenger must be credible.
Two sides of the same coin in a way.

Indeed, they're both important. But I'm asking which makes the most difference?

 

[NuclearPenguin]

THIS IS SPARTAAAAAAA!!

No but seriously, to me its the messenger. It just is I dont really know why.

 

[Tourette]

Without the messenger, there is no message.

 

[martin's a madman]

Seem concept with "The Medium is the message". I'd say however, that the information being given is independent of the way it is being given. That being said, if someone is a more interesting speaker than you are, you represent the same medium but they will likely capture attention much easier than you could.

 

[lostclause]

The message must be important and the messenger must be credible.
Two sides of the same coin in a way.

Indeed, they're both important. But I'm asking which makes the most difference?

Either way, one without the other means you're screwed. You might dismiss the most important information as the ravings of a madman if he's not credible and, similarly, you might accept false info from a usually credible source.

Overall, I'd say it's more the message because if it's serious enough most people will be willing to look into it, even if they don't entirely believe you. However there needs to be a balance.

 

[soilent]

wait, I want to change my vote, I thought we were talking about massages, (with oil and happy endings.)

 

[Bat Vader]

One isn't really better than the other. I see both the messenger and the message have to both be equally credible. Not one or the other.

 

[siffty]

with out one there can not be the other but whether the message is one you want to receive will depend on what you think is more important of the two

 

[sky14kemea]

Uhhh....

I was gonna say the message, but your post has a pretty good argument ',:|

I need to think about it now...

I guess both can depend on the situation, I mean, if you get bad news from someone you like, then it helps ease the burden a bit (I think? bear with me here, Ive been up all night )
But if you get bad news from someoen you don't know/don't like, it makes it worse, 'cause there's no one to comfort you.
I think?

I'm going to sleep -w-

 

[Kron_the_mad wants to be deleted]

unfortunately most people are morons and easily distracted for these people the messanger is more important. It SHOULD be the message but it isn't and thats why we get scientologists.

 

[Crossborder]

The messenger. Everybody listens to famous people.