Amazon.com Widgets

Media coverage of Hillary Clinton's email scandal has far outweighed the coverage of Donald Trump's failed business dealings. Should media coverage during elections be regulated?

Media coverage of Hillary Clinton's email scandal has far outweighed the coverage of Donald Trump's failed business dealings. Should media coverage during elections be regulated?
  • Yes, I think so.

    The report shows that during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Donald Trump in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers—a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump’s rise in the polls. Trump’s coverage was positive in tone—he received far more “good press” than “bad press.” The volume and tone of the coverage helped propel Trump to the top of Republican polls.

  • Yes, media coverage during elections should be regulated.

    Yes, media coverage during elections should be regulated. It should also be balanced. The only story the media has reported is about Clinton's emails, even though Trump has done far worse things. Everyone seems to have forgotten his past scandals, and it is the media's job to enlighten potential voters.

  • There are plenty of outlets.

    Even though the media is extremely biased, people know that the media is biased. People go and look for the media outlets they want to listen to. Media coverage does not need regulation, because a person can seek out the source they want. If they want liberal, there is MSNBC. If they want conservative, there is Fox News.

  • No, the government can't regulate the media.

    The government can't regulate the media. The media's job is to hold the government accountable and inform people on what's happening in the world. If the government controls the media, then we risk becoming a totalitarian state, where the government decides what gets covered in the media in order to stay in power.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.