What have been the terms which have assured that there has been a fair and a concrete way that has regulated how an election works. In other words, who is the person that is in charge ?? Currently as the election for president nears and the spew of facts along with the elaboration of statements have gone much more beyond past the famous left field. So the questions arise — What entities assure the fairness within what candidates speak on the public forum, during debates and in their interviews. Everything a candidates say is either live on television, or put on the internet for people to process as many times as they like to understand what is their stance and what route of action they would take to fix what they believe is broken. While all this political jargon floods the airwaves, and so much is being said, the question continues to arise and again, who regulates beyond the cameras, how do they check for all of this stances backed by a candidate’s fact to be seen as correct??
Media outlets have played a role of being the investigators that are holding debates, running countless news stories that keep a sense of an order, maybe more of a sentiment of legitimacy that blends with the nostalgia of the initial days of television that was in black and white, and regardless of the lack of color, their function of having put candidates on the screens of many across a growing nation so that they could watch live what it was that they were saying and what they were thinking based on the views and values which they hope would put them over the top and win the presidency. As more elections rolled up the corner, it became the norm for the audiences to tune in and watch in person those people that made it up to the podium, it was expected that the person be honest, and not lie, it was impossible for a person running for such an important position to make something up.
Now, that expectation is different, a whole lot different and with so many outlets to choose from, it’s not a problem to understand that those who can vote can have a hard time, pushing back and question how in 2016, the organism that is the media that are ran by these powerful conglomerates are in a whole new ballgame as they play a new role in which in fact has to have a direct conflict of interest as these owners of the media, have a lot to lose, if the outcome of the election brings a candidate that does not represent the view of the people that watch their newscasts, reports, or interviews. Which is worrisome, because instead of playing that traditional role of fact checking, there is without a doubt other things that are going on.
The reach of the media is immense and the money can not be said to not be a factor in this game of politics, because the conglomerates have other interests inside their inmense portfolios, and besides being a shareholder in media, they have shares in other industries that are also heavily affected by which candidate is selected, thus they can be tempted to use their influence to deviate from that role as a mean watchdog that is helping to clarify who is telling the truth so those viewers that are able to vote can then choose the right candidate on the simple basis of honesty which is one of the most important characteristics of integrity.
Without a doubt the news agencies have a lot at stake, every election is a tremendous business opportunity for there is so much more attraction to seek news that have to do with a candidate’s actions during their campaigning for the big prize, and the agencies backed by their corporate interest have to seize the market and perhaps do the extra that pushes to draw in more viewers while doing everything they can at their hands to tilt the ship that will after the election sails along with them, their viewers instead of going a different route much more apart from them.
Also published on Medium.