When you're bringing in a fairly unknown candidate challenging a sitting president, the population needs a lot more information than reduced coverage provides.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
If you rely on the media for your information, to educate yourself about the candidates and what issues are facing the country, then you get just part of the equation. I think it's important that we as citizens of this democracy take the responsibility to get as much information as possible before we go into the voting booth.
Presidential coverage used to be a very serious endeavor.
People, not just reporters, are more interested in politics than in government, so the actual issues wouldn't be something that interested them.
The press doesn't just cover presidential campaigns, they influence them by making arbitrary decisions about who is 'top tier' and merits coverage.
And the user may have a higher comfort level deciding what information to provide rather than worrying about what inferences might be made from what they've gathered.
The better the coverage, the more discriminating the viewer.
I've seen how the issues that come across a president's desk are always the hard ones - the problems where no amount of data or numbers will get you to the right answer.
Well, when you come down to it, I don't see that a reporter could do much to a president, do you?
In a presidential campaign, you can't lie. You can't hide what you are and what you want. You can't hide what kind of President you'll be. You can't keep on talking about nothing indefinitely and committing to nothing, you can't keep running away from debate, masking the challenges.
I can't begin to count how many times I have warned politicians and candidates to worry as much about the good coverage as the bad, because the more air they put in your balloon, the bigger the target when they start shooting.
No opposing quotes found.