Has the Media Coverage been bias/unbalanced in its election coverage?

Question

Have followed with interest the coverage on various networks and feel that the media coverage has been bias and unbalanced. Most recent being early sunday morning on one of the networks a bias/unbalanced comment coming from a male presenter with his female work mate raining him in.

Answer 1

of course every person has biased ideals but none of the reporting has helped me pick a person yet, we've still got a long way to go, may the best man/woman win.
i must have a person who is solid and not wishy washy, that narrows it done to 3 people so far that i admire..... but who knows if they will even get into the primary.... its' all a mystery to me.

P.S. I really like Ron Paul but he's independent and very unlikely to get the votes unless the public starts getting involved and show up and vote !
More Iraqis showed up to vote in Iraq during a war percentage wise than any elections in the USA.
NOW that is truly pitiful

Answer 2

Oh most definitely. After all the ridiculous coverage of Rudd's visit to a strip club (who really cares?) and his supposed medical problem (so much for confidentiality), absolutely nothing was made of John Howard standing around like a spare part while a woman in the crowd at the shopping centre he was visiting was knocked over. It was the perfect opportunity for him to be seen as a caring individual but no, he stood around looking like he wanted to be anywhere else until somebody led him away. He couldn't even be bothered to give her a pat on the shoulder or ask her if she was okay. I'm not expecting him to administer first aid, but he could have at least looked concerned. He'll kiss every baby under the sun, but help an injured woman? Heaven forbid.

Answer 3

Short answer: it has been ludicrous. Fake headlines, slanted stories, incompetent childishness without ideas.
85% of so-called news is obviously extremist right-wing nonsense, biased toward simple-minded order-giver order-obeyer imperial presidential rule. This isn't Americanism at all--it's totalitarianism. Judging candidates according to whether or not they would make a good caesar is insane. Making a horse race out of what is supposed to be an opprtunity to hear candidates speak, answer questions, handle themselves under some stress, write their own wordds and think up their own answers turns any election--your choice among qualified candidates--into a choice of fraudulent campaigns put up by paid liars and paid for by those who bribe individuals to hand them favors if they win.
This isn't an election at all; and the coverage of it by newsmen hasn't mentioned word one of what I've just argued. And when John Edwards raised the issue in the last debate--he got booed by Hillary's sycophants in the audience.
Disgusting. And not one commentator analyzed the accusation nor the only important moment in the debate for a restoration of our constitution afterward.
Only one man raised the issue--and he deserves to be our next president. because if you vote for anyone else-- no matter what news hacks say about him--you'll just get another benevolent dictator. Or something worse, like what we have now.

Answer 4

Edited to declare: BONE ~ no-one is having a flow at all of us 'in basic terms' because of the fact of a misspelling. that's recommended to envision human beings out in the previous identifying they are being unfair! II jen II: See below ... ~*~*~*~ who's Labour? Are you from the united kingdom? Media coverage would have appeared extra balanced if Mr Howard were keen to look on media which does no longer assure to maintain on along with his script. Kevin Rudd would have regarded an entire neek (midway between a nerd and geek, as he pronounced) on Rove this evening, yet he had the coronary heart to be there or perhaps to respond to the infamous 'who would you turn gay for' question! He had a flow, unlike Howard, who could be biting his pyjama twine in frustration at no longer being adequate of a rapid logician to fulfill one among those venture, surprisingly after the 'trojan horse' debacle. and that i'd hardly have pronounced Channel 9 became anti-Howard earlier then, would you? Kerry P could be spinning in his grave! besides, Mr Howard has all his advertising at taxpayer fee to maintain the stability, so i would not difficulty approximately him too plenty. Cheers :-) ~*~*~ Re Rove: It became truthfully humorous, he performed up the nerd difficulty nicely. He pulled out a catalogue he pronounced were emailed in by applying viwers ~ First call, Dame Edna, 2nd mane kel Knight (Kath and Kim), yet then he pronounced he had to admit, he would desire to in basic terms supply his coronary heart to ... his spouse. Very daggy and standard, lol. i'd have enjoyed to have seen Bob Brown ~ what did he say? I did seize Jason Donovan (oh excitement), he pronounced possibly Kel (because of the fact he handles meat for a living), yet settled for Rove, and that they complete with a 'guy hug' and simultaneous 'i like yous'.

Answer 5

The Fox News Channel has been rather rightwing. Or rather, it is more accurately described as anti-left. They haven't seemed to play up any Republican candidate, but they regularly attack Democrat candidates as misguided at best and outright traitors at worst.

Beyond that, I haven't really seen any networks being biased. They don't seem to really be investigating, like making sure that the claims each candidate (from either side) makes are actually true; they seem instead to be trying to see who is ahead and why. But they don't seem to be picking a specific candidate to support.

Answer 6

Yes i believe media attention has been bias .but then what do u expect when the media is only interested in stories that they believe are bringing them higher ratings . as has been proven time and time again that they are compulsive liars and controlled by the media moguls..........

Answer 7

Yes, the media is always biased no matter what they're covering. It all comes down to ratings and getting paid. Then there's the whole probability that the government and media are fake anyway, so who cares?

Answer 8

It feels like the media spend an enormous amount of time on Clinton and decent amount of time on Obama. For some reason they don't seem to spend as much time on the Republicans.

Answer 9

The media covers polls as the most played news stories

hillary wins everytime

i think their job is to make every american aware of the stances on the issues each candidate takes

Answer 10

Well there is FOX's not Fair and unBalanced news. And of course the NO SPIN ZONE where everything spins.