much more easily lead to charges of bias or a rigged election
But it's probably very important to keep in mind that the media has a vested interested in the horse race aspect of an election, as well as the notion that it will be quite close until the evening of Election Day.
If an election is clearly in the bag for one candidate, they may as well go home. Or start reporting on other things that actually matter. But that's simply not how the media works. They want to report as breathlessly as possible about how the two candidates are neck and neck until the final stretch. Without that analogy, they have nothing at all to say, because they never cover the issues. If they did, elections would be quite different.
As someone who doesn't have a TV, hasn't had one for almost a decade now -- and this is my third time as an adult without TV -- but who reads books and magazines, who looks at various stuff on-line, who listens to Amy Goodman every day, I find (somewhat to my amazement) that I'm generally far better informed than most people. TV has always been a trivial source of genuine information. Oh, it's often quite good at delivering breaking news, but I have access to the internet, and most of the time I can find live streaming, often from a local TV station, when something genuinely newsworthy happens.
I can also watch a lot of regular shows on the internet if I care to.
It does seem to me (at the risk of being a bit judgmental here) that many heavy TV watchers are singularly ill-informed. Obviously, it matters what the actually watch. If it's Fox, then they are genuinely misinformed.
= new reply since forum marked as read
