Final answer:
Yes, historically, political censors have sought to control or ban literature they viewed as dangerous or subversive. The balance of power between political entities and the public, when it comes to media gatekeeping and influence on public policy, is continually in flux and subject to various factors.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether political censors have sought to banish "dangerous" books is complex; historically, it is true that various governments and political entities have on occasion attempted to control or censor literature deemed subversive or threatening to the status quo. As it pertains to the balance of power between the political arena and the public in relation to the media's role as a gatekeeper, it's evidence that there's an ongoing tension and struggle for power over public discourse.
Instances such as conservative commentators using violent language without censorship or radical poets facing threats but not official governmental censure illustrate a nuanced landscape where freedom of speech is often contested but not absolutely curtailed. The existence of laws that limit expression, like requiring real-name registration for online commentary or the banning of terms like “human rights”, indicates that governments do take actions to influence and sometimes restrict public discourse.
However, the question of a true balance of power is more contentious. The media plays a significant role in shaping public policy by dictating which topics are prioritized. The dynamic between government interests, media gatekeeping, and public influence is not static and can vary widely depending on the political climate, legal framework, and the relative strength of civil society in a given country.