by Danny Sol

Created on: May 19, 2008   Last Updated: November 10, 2010

Tainted.

As the presidential candidates try to get their message across, the media is right around the corner and in their faces, leaving us, the people, with a sense of what each and everyone of them is all about. Some people get their news about what the candidate is about by listening to the pundits, while others get a perfect seat out on the trail, listening to what exactly the candidates have to say first hand. This is a difference between witnessing a presidential nominee and listening to the news at night for a much broader review of what the media witnessed.

Electing a candidate in all the 50 states is exactly what the media wanted, but not what the public thought they would get, and that is because of all the national coverage of the elections itself. It might be the same thing as trying to pick out a jury that hasn't heard all the news about a certain delinquent. The effect the media has on all of us is not all that negative as it is tainted with various news you wish you never heard nationally, but you wish you have heard it locally.

But then again, the media is a national club, and we all ascribe to news be it on the internet or on the TV, the papers and so on. Plus, if we all witness nationally a debate between the candidates at least 20-30 times, as it has been the case all throughout this election round so far, then what is the point of voting about someone in the next state and the next one and the next one... We can be influenced, thus, by all the talk and all the written so far, so how can we be a fair judge or even make a fair opinion about the presidential candidate?

If one negative story hits the news, the media is all over it; if we are voting for the same candidates after all the news, then why are they continuing on and on throughout all the states and not have one primary for one party at a time nationally; if one smear-story gets out there, how can we not be influenced by it, should it hold true or false in the end?

This time round, the election process pertaining to the Democratic party has been anything else but democratic, however, as there are two states who, thanks to their party leadership, are debating whether to count their votes or not. One candidate was not even put on a ballot in one state, while the other is trying to show muscles over the two states default wins. The media has been all over that, even if at some point it has not influenced the outcome.

The media should never pick sides in an election, although some broadcast companies and newspapers have. Endorsing a candidate is different than supporting one, and that should not be a broadcasting network's job, for example, leaving the public to make their own opinion, same with newspapers, because what you heard in one state may sway your vote in the other, depending on how big the paper's reputation is.

In conclusion, the public should not trust the media but their own voting heart and mind. A heart and a mind is much more important than a TV or a newspaper. What you're hearing in one place is not the same as your state needs, therefore, the heart is where your home is, and that is where your mind adorns the place, presuming you are choosing the right leader (candidate) for your neck of the woods.

Learn more about this author, Danny Sol.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.