Irked by media coverage of the elections

Media coverage of the 2008 elections are seriously flawed.

My main issues with the coverage are these:

1. What happened to the other candidates? After the Iowa Caucus, the only news I can find are on Romney, Huckabee, Clinton, and Obama. What ever happened to the other candidates? Let us not forget that Richardson is still a candidate (even if he might not win). And what about Edwards? HE only won second at Iowa. What about McCain and Guliani? There are not too many articles on them as well. And how about Mr. Libertarian as Republican Ron Paul? The disproportionate coverage on the elections is extremely disturbing and skews bias as well as reader knowledge of the elections.

2. Deceptive nature of media- The media can be a vicious hound dog in some instances. I find it highly annoying that articles like these exist. Watch the video for yourself, I do not sense anything wrong with her tone in that rebuttal. In fact, I found that there WAS much sense in that argument she was making. Obama is only riding on a word, change, and an empty paper trail. I understand the appeal he has as a "fresh page" in politics. But unfortunately, that kind of wide-eyed idealism doesn't usually work out too well in the real world. I'm not saying I hate Obama. I think he's a great candidate and has good stances. However, I find that when you boil it down, to a large degree, Clinton and Obama have similar stances (though Obama has more liberal economic policies). However, Obama does have some troublesome contradictions in his rhetoric- such as promoting bipartisanship but also the largest tax increase in a while- and doesn't have the experience and know-how like Clinton. Certainly, it doesn't mean that Obama can't do the job, but I'd rather be more conservative when it comes experience. Wooo, tangent.

3. Superficial nature of media coverage- when you look at the news articles around, most of them talk about matters like "Hilary making a last ditch attempt" or "Huckabee makes a surprise victory." Ok, that's important. But when every article I find is about the logistics of their strategy, the small, pithy issues surrounding their candidacy, and their bickering amongst each other, the media makes politics look like a insult-fest. What is more important is to actually consider what these candidates stand for. I would like to see the media continuously consider the politician's stances and write about the feasibility and effects of their policy. I would also like the media to give better coverage and break downs of the debates. I understand you can watch them. But seriously, who has the time to watch all of it? I would like the media to cover salient points, not over which candidate looks the angriest and thus deserves to lose or which looks the most "presidential" and thus deserves to win.

Thank god for blogs, where would the media be without people like us to give them real feedback.