One of the reasons I started this thread (on ARRSE) and was so interested by this US congressional document was because it illustrates the importance of carriers in the maritime domain:
Late 1970s US Congress report - the US Sea Control mission
The contributions of a former US Navy EA-6B Prowler veteran are very informative - in the the carrier in the Atlantic was all about defeating the Soviets at sea. Even the anti radar capabilities like HARM were for use against Soviet warships.
Yet many of the public and the media seem to think that the carrier is first and foremost a platform for ground attack. Why? Up until 1945 the carrier was mostly used to protect friendly forces and convoys, and to attack enemy naval forces. Although these things have continued as roles throughout the Cold War and beyond, and conflicts such as the Falklands and things such as US carrier based fighters intercepting Iranian P-3 Orions during the 'tanker war in the 1980s, this belief persists.
In 1990, pretty much at the end of the Cold War, a defence related publication claimed that the role of the US supercarrier was (ground) attack. During the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam carriers provided ground attack - I am not sure if carrier aircraft took part in the few naval battles. Did that influence the authors? Since then, in the Gulf, Adriatic, and Afghanistan carriers have provided various capabilities but mostly ground attack.
Now we are waking up to a return to having adversaries with conventional capabilities across the environmental domains. Can the media and public be educated? Can the media be dissuaded from talking about fighters being carried 'to defend the carrier' or ASW helicopters 'defending the carrier'. In a documentary in the nineties the Captain of a Royal Navy CVS described the role of the carrier as providing local air superiority around a naval force. Is that too complex for the public?