Good BBC article on US presidential elections

[frigidweirdo]

Does America need to change how it elects its presidents? - BBC News

"Yet for sheer entertainment value it is hard to beat the "Road to the White House", as it zigzags through the cornfields of Iowa, the snowfields of New Hampshire and so very many airfields that one becomes indistinguishable from another.
Surely no other country can rival this electoral blockbuster."

"
Others, like Donald Trump, are scene-stealers. And some, like Ben Carson, look like they have stumbled in from a neighbouring film lot, and ended up in the wrong production altogether. And then there are those delightful guest appearances: step forward Sarah Palin."

"Presidential elections are box office. Just ask the cable news channels, which are attracting record audiences for the presidential debates, staged with the mandatory red, white and blue backdrops and rousing music, usually with a martial drumbeat, that would not sound out of place as the soundtrack for Top Gun."

"Because campaigns have become so elongated, money has become even more important.
Campaign finance merits a column all of its own. Suffice to say that the 2012 presidential election cost a record-breaking $2bn, and this year's race could cost $5bn, much of that money coming from Super-Pacs (political action committees), which can raise unlimited funds."

"We, as journalists, play a part in the dysfunction of the process.
Covering this chaotic spectacle is always a guilty pleasure, and though we often set out with the noble aim of exploring the issues and of not being fixated by the headlines of the day, it is hard, if not impossible, to resist.
It explains why the US networks' evening news in 2015 devoted 327 minutes to Donald Trump, but just 57 to Jeb Bush, 57 to Ben Carson, 22 to Marco Rubio and 21 to Ted Cruz. It's a character-driven, rather than policy-driven, narrative."

The last part is interesting, the amount of time Trump gets over other candidates. He's set himself up to be entertaining, to grab the attention of the media, and therefore the attention of those people who are easily bought by TV commercials and advertising.

 

[Stephanie]

well biased like I expected. Dump on the Republicans. BBC isn't unbiased so take it with a grain of salt.

 

[frigidweirdo]

well biased like I expected. Dump on the Republicans. BBC isn't unbiased so take it with a grain of salt.

Biased would probably be the wrong term. It's written for the British audience, it's explaining things from a different perspective with no real need to take political sides in the matter.

 

[Stephanie]

well biased like I expected. Dump on the Republicans. BBC isn't unbiased so take it with a grain of salt.

Biased would probably be the wrong term. It's written for the British audience, it's explaining things from a different perspective with no real need to take political sides in the matter.

We don't mess in their elections. they don't need to worry over ours. that's the last thing I want to be is like them over there.

 

[frigidweirdo]

well biased like I expected. Dump on the Republicans. BBC isn't unbiased so take it with a grain of salt.

Biased would probably be the wrong term. It's written for the British audience, it's explaining things from a different perspective with no real need to take political sides in the matter.

We don't mess in their elections. they don't need to worry over ours. that's the last thing I want to be is like them over there.

They report your elections, you report their elections. What are you going on about?

 

[Stephanie]

well biased like I expected. Dump on the Republicans. BBC isn't unbiased so take it with a grain of salt.

Biased would probably be the wrong term. It's written for the British audience, it's explaining things from a different perspective with no real need to take political sides in the matter.

We don't mess in their elections. they don't need to worry over ours. that's the last thing I want to be is like them over there.

They report your elections, you report their elections. What are you going on about?

they were suggesting we need to change on how we elect people.

 

[Missourian]

As one might imagine, the word "good" in the title is a relative term.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

well biased like I expected. Dump on the Republicans. BBC isn't unbiased so take it with a grain of salt.

Biased would probably be the wrong term. It's written for the British audience, it's explaining things from a different perspective with no real need to take political sides in the matter.

We don't mess in their elections. they don't need to worry over ours. that's the last thing I want to be is like them over there.

They report your elections, you report their elections. What are you going on about?

they were suggesting we need to change on how we elect people.

So whats the problem ?

 

[Correll]

well biased like I expected. Dump on the Republicans. BBC isn't unbiased so take it with a grain of salt.

Biased would probably be the wrong term. It's written for the British audience, it's explaining things from a different perspective with no real need to take political sides in the matter.

You're kidding your self if you think the BBC is unbiased in this.


THey completely miss the point why Trump gets so much media play.

The media spends that much time on TRump because they are trying to destroy him.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

well biased like I expected. Dump on the Republicans. BBC isn't unbiased so take it with a grain of salt.

BBC is like most left wing media outlets.

 

[frigidweirdo]

well biased like I expected. Dump on the Republicans. BBC isn't unbiased so take it with a grain of salt.

Biased would probably be the wrong term. It's written for the British audience, it's explaining things from a different perspective with no real need to take political sides in the matter.

We don't mess in their elections. they don't need to worry over ours. that's the last thing I want to be is like them over there.

They report your elections, you report their elections. What are you going on about?

they were suggesting we need to change on how we elect people.

Yes, and? That doesn't mean they're telling America what to do, it means the reporter took an angle on the election that might interest people with some intelligence.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

How about who gives cherio about what Great Britain thinks.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

well biased like I expected. Dump on the Republicans. BBC isn't unbiased so take it with a grain of salt.

BBC is like most left wing media outlets.

Many of us see the BBC as a right wing mouthpiece. It swings back and to and is closely watched in the UK. I would say that on the whole it is generally ok.

 

[frigidweirdo]

well biased like I expected. Dump on the Republicans. BBC isn't unbiased so take it with a grain of salt.

Biased would probably be the wrong term. It's written for the British audience, it's explaining things from a different perspective with no real need to take political sides in the matter.

You're kidding your self if you think the BBC is unbiased in this.


THey completely miss the point why Trump gets so much media play.

The media spends that much time on TRump because they are trying to destroy him.

I don't think it is the highly educated person who doesn't get it.

Some might be trying to destroy him, most just love what Trump does, even if they don't like what Trump does.

 

[frigidweirdo]

well biased like I expected. Dump on the Republicans. BBC isn't unbiased so take it with a grain of salt.

BBC is like most left wing media outlets.

Many of us see the BBC as a right wing mouthpiece. It swings back and to and is closely watched in the UK. I would say that on the whole it is generally ok.

Many of the reporters will write reports that are fair, some don't.

 

[Iceweasel]

That doesn't mean they're telling America what to do, it means the reporter took an angle on the election that might interest people with some intelligence.

He isn't a reporter, he's a journalist. do you know the difference? Reporters report the news. Journalists create the news. No one with a brain over here gives a fuck on how some Brit thinks we should elect our leaders.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

well biased like I expected. Dump on the Republicans. BBC isn't unbiased so take it with a grain of salt.

BBC is like most left wing media outlets.

Many of us see the BBC as a right wing mouthpiece. It swings back and to and is closely watched in the UK. I would say that on the whole it is generally ok.

Many of the reporters will write reports that are fair, some don't.

Yup. There is also a question mark in the title which suggests that he is trying to start a conversation rather than laying down the gospel.

 

[Correll]

well biased like I expected. Dump on the Republicans. BBC isn't unbiased so take it with a grain of salt.

BBC is like most left wing media outlets.

Many of us see the BBC as a right wing mouthpiece. It swings back and to and is closely watched in the UK. I would say that on the whole it is generally ok.

Then your "us" must be very far to the left.

Criticism of the BBC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former political editor Andrew Marr argued in 2006 that the liberal bias of the BBC is the product of the types of people the Corporation employs, and is thus cultural not political.[8] In 2011, Peter Oborne wrote in his Daily Telegraph blog, "Rather than representing the nation as a whole, it [the BBC] has become a vital resource – and sometimes attack weapon – for a narrow, arrogant Left-Liberal elite".[12]
Speaking to journalists at a Broadcasting Press Guild lunch in 2009, Jeremy Hunt, the Shadow Cabinet Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, claimed that BBC News needed more Conservatives: "I wish they would go and actively look for some Conservatives to be part of their news-gathering team, because they have acknowledged that one of their problems is that people who want to work at the Corporation tend to be from the centre-left. That's why they have this issue with what Andrew Marr called an innate liberal bias."

 

[CowboyTed]

well biased like I expected. Dump on the Republicans. BBC isn't unbiased so take it with a grain of salt.

Biased would probably be the wrong term. It's written for the British audience, it's explaining things from a different perspective with no real need to take political sides in the matter.

We don't mess in their elections. they don't need to worry over ours. that's the last thing I want to be is like them over there.

Spoken like most African Dictators... Nothing to see here...

 

[CowboyTed]

I think the BBC just raised the questions which has been said on this forum and number times:

Is the US in a permenant state of campaigning?
Has campaign finances dominated candidates decisions?
How is it every other country has the campaigning season at around 6 - 12 weeks and US is moving closer to 2 years?
Is the Electoral College a fair way to select a candidate when 40 states votes effectively mean nothing?
Is there better way to do this?