English 102: 11:00
18 April 2013
Media Bias in the Presidency
The media bias and effects over the presidency is and has been increasing since the founding of our country. As technology got better the media got more nosey, and when the Watergates broke the media was granted access to almost anything. The media has become increasingly bias in their coverage over the presidency and is attempting to play a larger role in each outcome, although some would argue that this extra effort will not affect the outcome or that its effect is necessary in politics.
Media bias in the presidency has increased exponentially since the beginning of America, but has recently shifted to an all out party against party mudslinging political battle. This increase in bias has been noticed by the nation, in a poll conducted in April of 2012 77% of the people surveyed said the “media tend to favor one side” compared to 53% in 1985 (Farhi). In the beginning of the country there were two parties, but they were able to compromise and work with each other to achieve goals and start a new country. In the beginning of America the media was limited to newspapers, horseback mailing, and slow printing presses to get the word about what was going on, and information was usually received days or even weeks after the event happened. Now a days, with emails, next day shipping, and up to the minute information, we can barely agree to cut 2%, $600 billion of our $3.7 trillion, of the federal budget, even with a two month extension (Haviv). The major divide between the two parties has become increasingly worse because of the media who have divided on which party they affiliate with and always trying to make that party look good and the other look bad. Well this causes people to normally only watch one news channel and listen to one news station, who then only hear one side of each view and find that they “always agree” with the side of the party they affiliate with...