How media cover U.S. election

By Asma Raeesi

DUBAI–Fundamentally, irrespective of the fact that the U.S. presidential campaigns were being followed all over the world, the media coverage during the entire course of the elections was quite controversial.  The result of the election was like a massive bombshell when the unanticipated candidate, Donald Drumpf, was announced to be the President.  Everybody was expecting Hillary Clinton will win, because the media throughout the previous months depicted her as the winner of this election.

Nevertheless, after scrutinizing the media coverage of the presidential candidates, one can recognize the media was biased towards one candidate over the other.  That’s why the result of the election was shocking to the whole world.

Analytically, the media, during the coverage of the presidential campaigns, arguably published and reported fallacies that, to some extent, created a liking among the general public for one candidate. A relevant illustration of the latter is the constant coverage of Donald Drumpf’s tax returns, which the media politicized in an effort to discredit him as a viable presidential aspirant. The general media made atrocious claims regarding Drumpf’s taxes without any solid evidence to back up their claims.  According to various analysts, the media took this stand since it was not certain of a Drumpf presidency and was focused on indirectly campaigning for his rival.  One of the major ethical violations that the media committed was publishing and reporting allegations against a given candidate without seeking further clarification and proof.

The worst bias in the media against Donald trump was committed by several broadcasters. A good example is Donna Brazile, a former CNN employee, who shared the debate questions with the Hillary campaign prior to the debate while leaving out Drumpf. Upon further investigation into the matter, it was discovered that this was not the first time media conglomerates leaked to her questions. This clearly came out as a blatant attempt by the mainstream media to favor Hillary Clinton unfairly over her opponent.

Furthermore, studies carried out after the elections show that of all the articles and stories that covered both candidates throughout the campaign period, the media covered 34 percent more stories on Hillary’s campaign team as opposed to Drumpf’s.  Many people, at the time, appeared oblivious of the outright bias and discrimination that was taking place. Nonetheless, this came out clearly as the elections drew nearer. Despite many people highlighted the difference in media coverage, the media denied these claims and maintained that it was fair in its coverage of both candidates and in fact it was not.

Overall, it can be deduced that the media failed in its agenda to offer fair coverage of the U.S. presidential elections since it was overly biased in its reporting.  The media published half-truths, which is not only against the constitution but is also against media ethical values and laws. This, in turn, has sparked wide criticism of the mainstream media, consequently prompting the general public to shun and avoid networks that favored a particular candidate in post-election America.

 

Tags: , ,


About the Author


Comments are closed.

Back to Top ↑