It is true that the media has handed us negativity toward our current election. It is, however a completely different thing to think that it may be any worse than usual. Sixty years ago, the television coverage was far contributive to the American voters than it is today. The press is there to report back to us what is being said or done while we are unable to witness it for ourselves. It is up to we, the public to determine whether what we read is positive or negative. Assuming that the people of this country are not smart enough to form their own opinions when left without bias is a bit presumptuous. We are able to form our own thoughts, and decisions. The media simply plants the seeds; we determine what will grow.

Since the press coverage is so abundant, we miss less than we could of this election. One might wonder if FDR would ever have been elected President if the media, and televisions had focused on nothing but his physical problems. It's hard to proclaim that anything that is actually true would be considered negative. If what is being reported is in fact a truth, does it matter who reported it to begin with? We wish to stay informed, yet when we witness a picture racing across the web with lightening speed of one of candidates not placing a hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance, we claim it's destructive. Should not, then, said candidate have known that when the picture was taken? Or does said candidate not care? Is this the media's fault? Is this the media being negative, or is it simply the press being informative? Because with all of this talk about 'change', from a picture like that I assume the 'change' that is being considered is dropping the pledge of allegiance from existence.

The press, and reporters are simply doing their job. If they come off as negative, or partial to one idea or another, that is human nature. We all have opinions, the media simply reports things to us through their eyes. We interpret their words, we decipher the letters, and dissect the messages. What the media causes is speculation, and arguments.

I recently attended a rally given by one of the candidates, and can honestly say that being there was quite different than reading about it in my local newspaper. I heard each word that was uttered, I saw the facial expressions, and I heard the pitch in the voice. I also know that not one word either positive or negative was uttered by this candidate about any of the opponents. Had I read otherwise in

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

---

Add your voice

Know something about US elections 2008: Assessing the media's negative impact on the campaign?
We want to hear your view. Write now!