ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Campaign 2016 - Part III (The Media)

Updated on September 8, 2015
Perspycacious profile image

Writer, editor, publisher Demas W. Jasper's articles on HubPages have had 61,000 Views and 9,000 Comments on a wide range of subjects.

The Media needs to give voters balanced and true reporting.

Source

The Media looks at today and 14 months ahead.

With a few more candidates opting to try offense rather than defense (http://perspycacious.hubpages.com/hub/Campaign-2016-Part-II-Offense-or-Defense), Campaign 2016 attention shifts to a look at what national media seem to be trying to accomplish in terms of providing true non-partisan news.

Recently a TV journalist questioned presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson about what the journalist claimed was Carson's remark (it wasn't) about killing illegal immigrants with drones.

Carson answered by repeating that he had specifically cautioned journalists not to change his statement about using drones to only monitor the U. S. border areas.

It may be that newspaper readers are more interested in bombast and personal digs, and that newspaper editors are featuring those portions of Campaign 2016 to give readers what editors think the readers want, but the present coverage seems to be failing newspaper readers and TV listeners by not fully covering the present candidates' positions in key political issues.

Any TV or newspaper editor would maintain that informing the electorate is their primary concern and a key to the electorate's ability to choose "the best candidate for the job",

But, if the big headlines seem at times to ridicule candidates' personalities, rather than focus on the real issues (writing about candidate Trump's hair and candidate Clinton's blonde dye job)), how do those same editors walk the walk after talking the talk?

In so many elections the media has sharpened its print type to use praise and favor, or satire and outright ridicule, to paint candidates in soft or harsh tones. When that is printed or broadcast as the declared personal opinion of a columnist or a station's editorial board, it is permissible.

When it is presented as news, it is misleading at best, and biased at worst.

Should we expect anything to be different in Campaign 2016?

The truthful answer is "Yes!"

Freedom of the press comes like all other freedoms. It includes a responsibility to exercise the freedom without harm to others....even to political candidates.

____________

© 2015 Demas W. Jasper All rights reserved.



What do you think?

From what you have heard, seen, and read so far, is the media being balanced and fair in providing the information voters need?

See results

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Perspycacious profile image
      Author

      Demas W Jasper 2 years ago from Today's America and The World Beyond

      Deb, I want to cheer for all the citizens who found themselves eligible to run for the presidency and have thrown their caps into the ring. There are lots of folks who are saying "he shouldn't have run" or "she shouldn't have run," and some who will ask "why didn't so-and-so run?"

      More power to the ones who are running and are giving it their best shot!

    • aviannovice profile image

      Deb Hirt 2 years ago from Stillwater, OK

      Let's see what else happens this time around...

    • Perspycacious profile image
      Author

      Demas W Jasper 2 years ago from Today's America and The World Beyond

      There are surely different kinds of "informed voters". Then there are poorly "informed voters", and "uninformed voters".

      Who are the best voters?

      Certainly we can start the categories by eliminating eligible citizens who for any variety of reasons seldom or never vote.

      Then we can have a variety who only vote in elections with the office of President at the top of the ticket (but not in "off year" elections for House and Senate, etc.)

      Then we could have voters who vote in both types of national elections, but don't "bother" to vote in state, county, and local elections, including their Party Primary elections.

      Somewhere at the top of a long list of voter categories (and there are others defined by how well informed a thoughtful voter is) would be the serious, well-informed voter who actually exercises his or her right to vote as part of a free society.

      And for them, three cheers, but there is no question about it; they are not the majority of USA voters.

    • MsDora profile image

      Dora Isaac Weithers 2 years ago from The Caribbean

      So listeners to the media should do research elsewhere and think; since we cannot make reporters do/say the right thing. Thanks for underscoring that.