"The 20th Century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy" - Alex Carey
I found this somewhere in a paper I was reading last night that about the idea of "the myth of the neutral professional*. Basically, the point was that there is no such thing as neutrality when in a position in which you are to teach or present. As a teacher, you can abstain from presenting a dissident opinion when teaching politics or history, but that in doing so, you're perpetuating the dominant power. It says that neutrality, or at least the attempt at it in these instances is really the passive acceptance of the status quo. And even if you present the two major competing ideologies involved, who's to say you're not leaving a third or fourth out, and thus not giving them equal attention, blah blah blah.
I disagree with a lot of the points made in this article, not the least that I feel like the author has so liberally biased the article that it will fall to many of the concepts presented within it. Nonetheless, it's an interesting read and short enough that some of you might actually be interested in reading it.
So there's that.
*this is relating more to the more literal definition of the word. Or at least I'm told.