CNN

Jack I went to see my doctor today and he looked at me and told me to sit down. He said he had some bad news for me. He said, " I have examined you from top to bottom and the only thing I can find wrong with you is the exact same thing the last 25 patients that came in before you had". As I sat lip quivering in anticipation and fear of what he might say he cleared his throat and said, "Sir what you have is what is called
Electile Dysfunction : the inability to become aroused over any of the choices for president put forth by either party in the 2008 election year".

They can blame who ever they want to but all any of them has to really do to find blame is to look in a mirror.

No. It is the media's job to keep me happy. It is doing a lousy job – well, at least I am not happy listening to the endless drivel from the talking heads (CNN's excluded, of course). Everyone who ever participated in an electoral campaign is some sort of expert? Could youse guys just once report the facts and quit claiming that every word of every politician and every pundit is news?

Jack, there is very little in this campaign that is believable. Each candidate says what he or she wants believed, not what is true or correct or moral or legal, or even consistent. The Heads are so afraid that they are going to offend someone that any intelligence is obfuscated. Any member or the senate who is running for president who claims he or she has a solution to the problem in DC should be fingered as 'part of the problem', which they are.

Matthew's, Abram's, and Olbermann's opinions are at least stated as opinions, and they are three who are not afraid of offending a candidate. But MSNBC never claimed to be a "news" channel. I suggest you concentrate on the facts and demand the truth from all of your "experts" – no one gives a damn about their opinions.

It's not the job of the media to keep candidtaes happy. However, I agree with John Edwards on this. It took Ron Paul to get a huge 1 day donation total before the media even gave him 1 days worth of coverage. You don't cover John Edwards like you used to unless it was because his wife Elizabeth said something controversial, then you all went negative on her & then you would go negative on him. But, not to worry, I voted for John Edwards anyway I just hope my vote counts.

When people complain to me about the job I am doing I tell them " Don't tell me how to do my job I am better off not knowing" Just wing it out there and see what sticks to these cry babies.

No!! It is the job of the media to ask the tough questions of the candidates. Questions like what their position is on immigration and border security. Why aren't they talking about the North American Union and the free trade deficit. How are we going to bring back the three million manufacturing jobs lost because of outsourcing. I know I'm a Canadian observer but as things go in the US so they do in Canada. This is the approach I would want our journalist and media people to use. If the candidates don't want to be in the line of fire perhaps they should consider a different career.

Are you kidding me Jack? The media's job is to tell the public the truth, not to coddle politicians whose main goal in life is to gain power at any cost.

Hell no Jack, nor is it the news media's job to create conflict where there otherwise would be none.

it is not only the media's JOB but also their DUTY to the public to point out a candidates "inconsistant statements" (ie: LIES) when they occur. if that doesn't make them "happy", that's TOO DARN BAD.

the United States is NOT a Dictatorship, at least not YET.

no, but you have the obligation to cover all candidates equally without bias. none of you take Ron Paul serious, and you all gruff when your told the truth about your out right bias.
having said that, the media needs to step back and realize that patients is a virtue that none in the media have.
your all like a worm on a hook, but we the voter are the ones holding the fishing pole. and by damn we'll cast it when we feel like it.
yanks wolfs chain doesnt it.

Scott Missouri

Jack, I don't know what you mean by "happy" but as long as candidates are still in the race the media should cover all of them! After all how is America going to make its choice if the media's focus is only on 1 or 2 candidates in each party! Here is to the media being more inclusive!

It's the media's responsibleity to get at the truth. Whatever it takes, without ambushing. Cut off the candidates answers when they start with their push button automatic rhetoric junk; ask questions they really don't want to answer, and not be put off by those who think they don't have to answer at all.But the responsibility doesn't end there. A true reporter must get all the freebie food and drink they can, and be properly trained in how to roll an orange.

Jack, for the most part I am pleased with the media's coverage of the candidates and their stand, or lack of stance, on the important issues of the middle class majority. Someone has to keep us informed as we only get the run around from the candidates. In fact, if the media was not controlled by the big corporations we would be getting more info and the candidates would be more unhappy. Keep up the good work.

No Jack, the media's job is give ther people an unbiased view of all the candidates. This may be done by following them on the campaign trail, broadcasting their speeches and views during debates, personal interviews,and reporting the results of voting in the different states (or transmitting this on paper, in the newspapers and magazines). I am tired of polls and listening to round tables ad nauseum - just give me the facts and I'll make my own decision! No offense, Jack, but if you want to take a vacation from all your reporting, I won't complain.

No. But it is the media's responsibility to present the news and the facts in a clear and unbiased manner. Fair and equal time should be given to every candidate. The field is not that big right now that this would be impossible. Currently, the media is putting far more time and effort into covering what they consider the most viable candidates. I say cover them all equally and let the public decide who is viable. I also think the media needs to be a bit more fair with the leading questions and the magic editing for those wonderful soundbites that don't provide and context.

I know, I'm a real party pooper....

If keeping them happy means giving each one equal air time then absolutely. I've said it once and I'll say it again: The media is doing a great disservice to this country by focusing on only a few candidates. Give each one equal air time or give them all NONE and let the people do their own research. One needs to go no further than the internet to see where each candidate stands on the issues.

The media should avoid the appearance of favoring, or disfavoring one of the top candidates. I had noticed the lack of John Edwards coverage too. And I resented it when Jack dissed Hillary about something. Obama has seemed to get a free ride, but I appreciate the fact that even the media has to cautious not to appear to be biased against blacks.

Jack, the media's responsibility is to give unbiased views to the voting public. If you want to make a few extra dollars broadcasting or writing advertisements for hopefuls, that's your decision, but I don't have to listen to them. I am tired of polls and round tables ad nauseum - just give me the factsand I'll make my own decision. If you and your colleagues cannot stop your daily bickering, take a vacation with my blessings!

certainly not. but Jack, the FCC is suppossed to have a policy which in turn for allowing a media outlet the privelege of broadcasting to the public, they are to offer equal airtime to opposing arguments, in order to command fairness. this has always been ignored when it comes to electoral coverage; a time that is probably needed the most. when media coverage ultimately results in free advertising for the more popular candidates, and the less popular are simply doomed to fade into the abyss. Of course, if the FCC were to get involved, it may result in de facto censorship, but i just think it is important that the media keep fairness in mind so that doesn't have to be the result. for more important insights into the power of the media, i recommend reading The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand.

No, its not the news media's job to keep the candidates happy. It does discomfort me that some candidates try to buy their way in, others are loved by the media because the candidate's all out war ideas line the pockets of the parent company, and still others have so much special interest money feeding their campaign that they stand for anything but the will of the people. Still it would be nice to have someone the is Fair and Balanced...Faux can't even cover that.

No, it is the media's job to report the facts. The biggest trouble with the media is they sometimes ask the stupidest questions. Also one time before I die I would like for a media type to ask the President at a news conference to answer the last question but they do not they just pander so they will be called on the next time.
Not you though Jack.
Mel
Colorado

Nobody should give a stink about the media keeping the candidates happy. What a non-issue. What the media should be doing is giving fair and accurate reporting of all the candidates and not just the selected few who all have the same message but different placards. The media should be getting in their faces and asking hard questions about global warming, the loose arsenal of nuclear material out floating in the world market, our absolute disaster of an economy, and the usual wash list of domestic issues. This is important stuff, let's get real folks. Leave the kitty litter drama issues for the soap operas.

How about keeping me, your viewer, happy? Why do McCain and Romney and Clinton and Obama get so much coverage? Other candidates like Ron Paul, Huckabee and Edwards are still in the race! Why don't they get any coverage? And why is all the coverage all about the race (who said what about whom) and NOT about the issues?

I could watch CNN all day and get nothing of substance! What is Hillary's position on Immigration? What is Edward's position on Social Security? What is Ron Paul's position on Global Warming? What is Huckabee's plan for the Economy? What is McCain's plan for Iraq? What is Obama's position on the Energy Crisis? What would Romney do about the Mortgage and housing collapse?

I guess you don't know either. That is why all you show is FLUFF!

Jack:
I think it's the news media's job to try to get the truth in all matters. Hard job, since candid-dates are rarely candid and honest, dishing out vague non-answers to keep from offending any partisan group.

No, it is the news media job to ask the appropriate questions, especially when they know what the candidate is saying and what to real truth is. Romney said there is no lobbyists running his campaign. That is not true and reporting why that isn't true is a job of the news media. John Edwards is whining about his news coverage because he is behind in the polls. If he was ahead in the polls and was receiving the same news coverage you wouldn't hear a peep out of him. I like it when the news media reports the truth that needs to be told to the public. Then reporting who prefers briefs or boxers. That doesn't include Hillary of course.

Jack, no one can keep politicians happy, it's not in their makeup. However, the media have, or should have, a duty to report on all candidates. That's what makes this country a democracy. Since this race began, Clinton and Obama have been given prominence in every debate, check the seating arrangements and where the cameras were always focusing. My best laugh was when Joe Biden stated after being ignored, "Oh, please don't make me speak!" Everything is printed about O & C first and the other candidates are relegated to sidebars. Poor Dennis Kucinich; I give the man credit for guts and one who tries to be heard.

The Republicans on the other hand, have been so mixed up that the media doesn't know who to run up the flag pole first. Guiliani hogged the stage for quite awhile then his song and dance wore thin, along with Romney's, and life according to Huckabee's gospel has people scratching their heads – does he want to marry church and state? Scary. Think about other countries in the world who run on religion. The Republicans ought to put their money on the only qualified one in the bunch – McCain – the media seem to be cautious about praising him. You notice I didn't mention Ron Paul and Fred Thompson-the who's-its...I missed their sidebars.

Well Edwards is getting attention now so that should shut him up. I'm not sure if the media's job is to keep all candidates happy but they sure are making me happy . Someone is either complaining about how they are being covered or that they are not being covered. I guess they should send the media a list of things they want so the media can save them some campaign money with free coverage.

Jack,

in all fairness i do think CNN is Pro Clintons and you seen to
do everythink to help make her case she seems to get more air-time
then anyone else.

Just shut up and do what you are going to do and win the people over. I am so sick of whinners. Quit blaming everyone when stuff goes wrong. I have that now and I am gut full.

It isn't the media's job to keep candidates happy, but what seems to make candidates happy makes me stick to my stomach. All I'm seeing is attacks on other candidates about things they said which is rarely related to the issues. If anything it's the candidates' and the media's job to talk about the issues. So far, they seem to be doing a lousy job.

Jack of course they blame the media. The media is completly unfair and unbalanced. Look at Fox News. They didn't let Ron Paul in the New Hampshire debate despite the fact that he had beat two of the people invited. They edited out his "electability" question in the rerun of the debate in South Carolina.

CNN has a Republican race that's down to McCain, Giuliani, Thompson, Romney and Huckabee and rarely even mentions the fact that two other candidates are still in the race: Paul and Hunter. You've made up the mind of the voters already. You never talk about Kucinich, Gravel or Keyes unless its to make fun of them. You've spent more time talking about race relations between Clinton and Obama than the issues that actually matter to the voters. The media is completely unfair and is just terrible. Doesn't it trouble you that the majority of people don't read a newspaper and don't watch the news on T.V. There's a reason. You guys don't report all of the news!

I don't think it's the media's responsibility to keep the candidates "happy", but it is their responsibility to report the news rather than create it. Dennis Kucinich is a prime example of the media purposefully excluding a candidate thereby directly influencing a campaign. If you disagree then you can prove me wrong by doing a piece on the results of the discussions and votes to impeach Cheney, which is another story the media likes to pretend doesn't exist.

In regard to the government in general and political campaigns in particular, the news media's primary role is to provide the voting public with factual information and to expose all evidence of government wrong doing. Professional investigative reporters should not allow themselves to be bullied by government officials and should not be swayed by whining politicians who don't always get their way. Professional journalists should also be capable of identifying all of the most common propaganda tools that are used by those in power and/or those who are trying to gain power and they must be willing to expose any and all attempts to unfairly influence public opinion. Personal attack ads and fear tactics must always be exposed. "Spinning the truth" in order to gain an unfair advantage or "telling little lies" to manipulate the public might pass for "good politics" but such tactics should always be exposed by professional journalists. The news media should also openly admit that it has – in fact – provided unequal coverage of all the candidates and has thus unfairly influenced the current campaign. In other words, Jack, professional journalists must keep the candidates and elected officials honest, but they should do so by demonstrating both personal and professional integrity. Lying reporters are no better than lying politicians!

Read your own coverage.

The media is skewed here, it was skewed 4 years ago, and it was skewed 8 years ago. You are all about selling something so your ratings go up. You'll sell anything. Scandal, tabloid journalism, or even an under-experienced candidate who No-Votes more than he actually votes.

These are the things that are dragging our country down.

-KR

The news media's job is to report on the news. You don't get to determine what candidate is more important. If a candidate did nothing for the day than you don't have to say anything, but if they are actively campaigning you should at least mention "so-so was also campaigning today." The newspapers do. My Des Moines Register listed where everyone was and WHAT THEY SAID. They put Obama and Huckabee on the front page, but they deserved that. They didn't however fail to report on the other candidates just because they didn't win or weren't "top-tier."

I am so sick of members of the media claiming that no one is talking about the economy. It's not true. That is the backbone of Ron Paul's campaign and he said in the last debate that we are in recession. The media plays favorites and smudges the facts to the point where nobody watches them anymore. There was 19% voter turnout of registered voters in Iowa. Do you really think the top-tier candidates are providing the answers the public wants? They certainly aren't motivating them.

No the media's job is to keep the canidates unhappy. It would only seem right to cover every aspect of any canidates career, beliefs, and life upto, before and, even after their respective campains. These people are our suppossed leaders and every citizen has a right to know everything about them. If they are natural born leaders they should have nothing to hide or be defensive about. Every regret is a lesson unlearned.

I don not think that it's your job to keep the candiddates happy. However, I do think that you have a responsibility to the public to inform them equally about each candidate's record, platform and positions on areas of interest and concern to the general public. My concern is that the media plays a direct role in choosing national (particularly) candidates. Your selective coverage and the comments of your "pundits" has a subtle but definite impact on many voters. It would be refreshing to have "uneditorialized" news.

I agree with John Edwards about him not receiving the amount of media coverage that Hillary or Obama are receiving. I realize Hillary is the first female to run and Obama is the first black person to be doing this well but it shouldn't out shadow John Edwards. I think he has a lot to offer and he should receive an equal amount of media time. I guess he's not as interesting. He only is representative of the white male who is running. You may not agree but it's pretty evident when you watch all the news, it's usually Hillary this and Obama that and I keep asking myself? Is John Edwards still in the race. With out equal media time, he doesn't have the same change of winning the nomination that Hillary or Obama have and that's the media influencing the outcome. Nothing fair about it. I can listen to you on the show Jack and realize you are pro Obama. That's fine but the media need to give each candidate equal air time or coverage. Ya All do better now, Ya hear!!

As a viewer and consumer of reporting (news) I want two things; first when you question someone on a “hot” issue (if it wasn’t hot why are you even talking to them?) I want you to really get that person’s attention and get their blood pressure cranked up. A real response will usually result. Second, I want the media to report the news not manufacture it. Although I would never vote for Edwards (it’s that southern lawyer thang) he is absolutely right about the circus like atmosphere and manufactured attention you have given almost exclusively to Hillary and Obama.

Know it's not Jack, but it is the media's job to "state the facts "in an unbiased way. The Republicans party has been using the strategy for the past 20 years and managed to spin its way into the White House by openly biased news commentary disguised as news analysts. These spinmeisters took over the news rooms in the radio airwaves and brainwash the average idiot to believe there are people can do no wrong. Can you say Fox news! And Rush Limbaugh ?
Positive or negative, news air time is valuable for any candidate, just ask Richardson, Dodd, Ron Paul and that UFO guy .........

Hey Jack, maybe just maybe the media has it right for once, there is not one of these clowns/ clownetts who has said the same thing or sung the same turne two days in a row......well maybe Ron Paul, then again he is not blaming the Media, his blame is pure, plain and simple...... Poor Washington management and no leadership at the top. Can you imagine an American politician trying to get elected by putting Americans First, how dare he?

David
Nova Scotia

NO! Media's goal is to be neutral. Right now there is a trend. Obama, Hillary, Huckabee are endorsed by CNN. Fox favors McCain, Romney, Giuliani and MSNBC favors Obama, Hillary. Like seriously what the hell is going on? Even you, Jack, cannot tell me what I have to vote for, yet your news network does prefer some candidates over the other. Sad. SAD! Very sad, Jack.

No.............but it IS your job to be FAIR, question what they say, check the facts, and present a balanced picture.
Clinton was baited, Romney was baited, and Edwards is being totally ignored.

Truth be told, he has the best record as a populist, and has a terrific history of winning some landmark cases for consumer protection. Of course we don't know this, because all of you are so busy with the Black/White thing.

It's all about Obama, who can do no wrong, and Hillary, who can do no right. We DO have Edwards...........and I agree with him. If you are going to give away free air time, why not give some to him?

Keep them happy? How about the old way: once again, I say Jack Webb had it right. Of course some of us want TMZ journalism, but as James Earl Jones says, THIS............. is CNN.

It's the medias job to tell the facts. If the facts offend a candidate then they need to change their ways not try to change the media telling the facts.

Perhaps if the media actually provided adequate coverage for Edwards he wouldn't have to point out the fact that you don't, in fact, provide adequate coverage of him. You and the rest of the media have, for the past year, promoted a two-person Democratic race. In spite of that, Edwards bested Clinton in Iowa and is within a handful of delegates of the two anointed front-runners. That, of course, didn't fit your narrative, so you proceeded to continue to portray the Democratic race as Clinton versus Obama. Meanwhile, on the GOP side, Giuliani, who has accrued virtually no delegates and has been noncompetitive in any primary, merits equal air-time with the other GOP candidates.

Clinton and Obama will spend much of their haul on television advertising, and much of that on CNN. Interesting, isn't it. It's pretty easy to connect the dots. And forget actually reporting about the candidates' ideas and positions. No, with the American media, including you, it's all horse race all the time. Congratulations on rendering the citizens of this nation ignorant. Nice job. Thank God for the internet or we'd never get anything beyond the most superficial "news."

The Founding Fathers saw fit to give the press an elevated position and responsibility in the First Amendment to the Constitution. I'm fairly certain that the current state of the corporate-run media isn't what they had in mind.

Oh, I'm sorry. Is that too much "whining" for you?

No, it is not the news media’s job to keep all the candidates happy. It is the news media’s job to report the news. CNN, as is true of all the media, has acted as if there are only two Democrats running for the Party nomination for Presidential candidate. Of those two, you are ready to crown one as king of the world. John Edwards is a very viable candidate, and he should get as much coverage as either Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton. The truth is that he should get more coverage, since he is the best hope for the Democratic Party and the Country. Mr. Obama is full of hot air, and Mrs. Clinton is, well, Mrs. Clinton. Even though she would make a very good President under normal circumstances, the Country is tired of dynasties.

I don't believe that the press has the responsibility to keep anyone happy, but it does seem like this election year has been more "digging" on the media's part. The one thing that I have seen is the amount of favortism showed by some shows and media professionals towards one candidate or the other and believe it or not it did sway my suppory, I am now a Hillary follower and with the ruthless attacks by some shows on every little thing and not towrads her opponets I believe more people are seeing it.

Jack: It's the news media job to keep all the candidates "honest". I'm unsettled by the fact that the news media's recent and remote expsures of Rudy Giuliani's sexual, and even criminal scandals (which are too numerous to mention here) haven't yet led to his being ousted as an presidential candidate. Remember Gary Hart who was expeditiously kicked out of the late 1980's presidential race when discovered by the news media that he had taken an yacht ride with an attractive woman. (Hart was married at the time)! Dr.George in Torino,Italy.

not to keep candidates happy, but to report in reasonably equal time way, if you call edwards' whining' about coverage, you are not the sharp cookie i thought you were. i thought you would have the decency to acknowlege the fact that this plain white man can't get the notice of the media between the 'ground breaking' white woman and black man. c'mon..

Jack, absolutely not, Keep them on their toes, yes. It kind of reminds me our children yelling look at me momma, look at me momma. See what I can do!!

It's not necessarily your job to keep everyone happy, but you could all be a little less
biased on your opinions. I think the media and all the candidates on both sides
need to take a deep breath, We are never going to get this divided country
back together if we don't. Also we need to have one primary election, so
everyone has a fair chance to choose the candidates. The primary should
be held the same day for every state.

Carol in Ohio

t

Jack...the media is expected to keep the candidates happy. However, the public does expect some reasonable coverage of the top candidates. I know the issues with John Edwards–but his finish behind the 2 top candidates was not shabby. He is still in the double digits and the actual numbers of Americans casting ballots for Edwards is far more than most of his GOP counterparts–which should give him at least as much claim to fame as Guliani–who is in the news 2-3 times per day and has one nothing.

Yep, it appears a little lopsided...and I'm sure the Edwards campaign has noticed too.

Candidates like Edwards and Huckabee without large $$ contributors...depend on generating some press to assist in their efforts. No question it helps. In Huckabee's case–he has solved that dilemna by intermittently making outragious remarks which catches the ears of everyone!!

Nope, it's the Medias job to make sure they ask the candidates about the real issues and how they plan to handle them. For instance, Hillary says she's ready from day one if there's another attack on the U.S.. Pray tell, what would Hillary do to assure us she's on top of it and we won't have to worry! Most of the things these candidates say have no value and the Media lets them skate! Why!!!!! What are any of them going to do about illegal immigration, about our failing education system, the economy, foreign trade, loss of jobs. It's the Media's job to find out and hold their feet to the fire!!!!!!!

No. The press is supposed to be our eyes and ears. Individually, Americans don't have the time to do the research to determine if what their government is telling them is a bunch of huey. That's the reason for the First Amendment; however, we now have fewer reporters and more pundits who are selling us out for access. They have become stenographers, not investigators. And if you think it doesn't have consequences, remember we went to war in Iraq because the media did not do its job. Judith Miller, once with the New York Times, was notably complicit.

No, Jack:

the media job is to REPORT the news... not the extra-curricular activities, not the excesses... neither is the job of the media to be biases (and is very easy to tell what media goes left and right, and that is BAD for the public!!!)... is also NOT the job of the media to ask "light-questions", to keep a script of what can and can't be asked....

in a Presidential campaign, the media's job is to:
1. report on the candidate's points of view (not pick-and choose the most 'sensational', you HAVE to report ALL of it....)
2. report on EVERY and ALL candidates, EQUALLY....this campaign have been focusing way to much in the media-named 'front-runners'.... we have lsot a few good men in the process of highlyghting only the star-powered candidates....
3. learn from your mistakes.... (NH results, anyone!!??)

Please make sure you read this right... I did NOT used the word "ANALIZE" anywhere....and that is on PURPOSE: you people spend too much air-time talking spreading your own opinion (Loo Dobbs comes to mind) you forget your job is not to tell us what you think: you job is to tell us what you SEE!!!!.....

I think the news media is getting bolder. They ask questions that dig into people. The media is ruining this presidential nomination race. They seem to be able to sway the voters, and that is not good either. On the democratic side, Obama gets nice coverage, Hillary gets criticized all the time, and Edwards gets ignored.

No, it's the media's job to cover ALL the candidates, not just the media darlings, not just the "front runners," and to do it fairly and professionally. The corporate-owned media has a great deal to answer for, and to apologize for, such as barring Dennis Kucinich from the Democratic Iowa debate (Gannett-owned Des Moines Register), N.H. debate (ABC) and Nevada debate (MSNBC), and Ron Paul from the Republican N.H. debate (Fox). They marginalized Kucinich and Paul before the elections even began. And the question is why? What are they afraid the American voters might hear? Something that could hurt the corporations' bottom line?

Now the media is trying to marginalize John Edwards, even though he beat Hillary Clinton in Iowa. This is just a big joke being played on the American peole. And people are getting angry - that's why you saw Ron Paul's supporters Sean Hannity in N.H. Keep it up, and they're only going to get angrier.

I agree with the candidates, the media spin on the political campaigns this year is sickening.
Especially when the candidates have already decided to drop an issue and the media continues to play the same stories over and over again.
Shame on you for trying to turn, or sway public opinions towards certain candidates.

BTW, here's another thought on your question:

Bzzzzt! Wrong question. Your question should be:

"Is the media biased in the amount of reporting given to any of the presidential candidates?"

NO, it is the news medias job to provide us, the viewers, with an unbiased opinion. Now we all know we do not get that, isn't that right Jack?

Certainly not. It is the media’s job to report on news. Too bad Edwards doesn’t do anything news worthy.

Jack I thought this was Anerica WHERE THE PRESS WAS USED AS THE GREAT EQUILIZER . But after the last 8 years the press has become the silent minority
when it has come to politics especialy with this white house they did not ever ask any of the hard questions of this adminastration So no wounder that any canadate
they may be asked any question that might catch them in misinformation , Let me put it that way , After all no one lie's in publick office any more ,
Gee I regress that they would put the blame on the press if they are caught .
So Jack My answer Is no Hell no it is not nor has it ever been the responability not to get at the truth.

No, it's the media's job to cover the news as it is, not to write the script as they wish it was. The media decided long ago that the Democratic nomination was a two person race, and they've been beating that drum for months. Do the research because despite your "I'm An Ordinary Joe All Fed Up" shtick that's part of your job too. The facts are out there. They're not not hard to find. In fact, The Project For Excellence In Journalism has done your job for you, Mr. Cafferty. John Edwards points this out, and dares to tell the truth and you call it "whining".

M. Skott Bennett
San Francisco, CA

Jack I thought this was Anerica WHERE THE PRESS WAS USED AS THE GREAT EQUILIZER . But after the last 8 years the press has become the silent minority
when it has come to politics especialy with this white house they did not ever ask any of the hard questions of this adminastration So no wounder that any canadate
they may be asked any question that might catch them in misinformation , Let me put it that way , After all no one lie's in public office any more ,
Gee I regress, that they would put the blame on the press if they are caught .
So Jack My answer Is no Hell no it is not nor has it ever been the responability not to get at the truth.

It is not the responsibility of the media to make candidates happy. It is the responsibility of the media to fairly and evenly present the platforms of all valid candidates and to avoid choosing the front-runners and nominees before the voters have a chance to make their choices. So far this cycle, the fourth estate hasn't carried out its responsibility any too well.

Jack:

The media shouldn't be responsable for keeping the candidates happy, but they should be fair. The media have characterized Obama as the second coming, Hillary as the establishment and Edwards is all but forgotten. I feel for Edwards, but let's face it he was never going to win this thing. I think it's the media hyping up Obama that is more dangerous because Republicans are just waiting to rip this guy apart if he gets the nomination. America won't buy into the Obama as change agent line after the Republicans have their way and we'll get more war, tax cuts for the rich that never trickle down, privatized Social Security and a huge border fence rivaling China's Great Wall if another Republican gets the White House.

The media inspired celebrity candidates have personality...
No, it's not their job to make all political candidates happy. The whiners or complainers are lacking something?... what is that?

Jack:

What does the Nevada caucus approach do for/to John Edwards and Ron Paul. To hear you folks tell it, Clinton and Obama are the only ones running for president.

Jack, of course it's not the medias job to "keep candidates happy". But it IS the medias job to report the news fairly and without bias. CNN and other media outlets have been doing neither. If Edwards is wrong, I invite you to prove it.

It's sad when Fox News is ACTUALLY the network giving the most balanced coverage.

The media should make every effort to include ALL candidates in their coverage, not just the front runners. IF they are truly unbias.

Like it or not, John Edwards is right. The media has been running up a darling story of Clinton vs Obama for years now, and has given extraodinarily little coverage to any other democratic candidates in the meantime. It's difficult to figure out how there can be any other explanation for the fact that Hillary's third place finish in Iowa was labeled merely "a surprise for Hillary" while Edwards's completely unexpected second-place finish, above Hillary, was dismissed as unimpressive. Everyone knows that politics is all about exposure. Media coverage is free ad-time. When you focus exclusively on two candidates, it's no wonder the remainders "whine" about it– it deprives the American people of their ability to fairly assess the candidates.

Jack, it is not the media’s job to keep anyone happy. It is their job to report the news in an accurate and truthful manner. Most of you have NOT done that. Even if you don’t count ABC, NBC and FOX preventing their audiences (the voters) from hearing and seeing some of the candidates, there is plenty of blame to go around with you guys. It seems obvious that those candidates who have stated their intention to work in the public interest (which means ending the war, tax cuts for the wealthy, corporate welfare etc.) have been marginalized. Only those who have shown they can be bought or otherwise persuaded will be given face time with the cameras. The media has already chosen the democratic candidates for us. Republicans, can all be bought so they will be treated more than fairly.

No, it is not the media's job to keep all the candidates happy, but it is the media's job to accurately and objectively report the news. When NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams reported the results of the Iowa Caucus, John Edwards was not even mentioned in passing. It was all Obama and Hillary. To the uninformed multitudes in this country (and judging by the last two presidential elections, they are Legion) it would seem obvious that Hillary came in second. In addition, Huckabee's campaign was dutifully dismissed until his surprising grassroots surge made him impossible to ignore. No, we dont expect the media to keep all the candidates happy, but we do expect a level playing field so we all can make informed choices.
Oh, and by the way, while we're at it, let's do away with all the B.S. polls. Let the voters decide without pundit and pollster peer pressure.

No, it's not the media's job to keep anyone happy. Sadly, though, reporters and assignment editors are looking for juicy stories, not issue-based content. The Clinton-Obama rivalry on race feeds in to a lengthy history of high t.v. ratings that involve race and gender. Think back to Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, O.J. and Nicole, the Duke lacrosse case. Karl Rove – who made sure not to mention John Edwards yesterday in his "who we will beat in November" comments – must be drooling at the prospects of talking about Monica and comparisons to dead civil rights leaders rather than the economy and jobs.

Jack,

I really like your program but I am concerned that none of you are talking about
John Edwards but you do talk about the 3rd candidate of the GOP, Huckabee.
Why this difference?

I have not decided on a candidate at this time but I am increasingly becoming
concerned with how you, the media, are limiting our choice by only covering
and talking incessantly about the front runners in the democratic race giving no
voice to other opinions. In the past we the people could trust the media to stay
neutral and present all views. I am a 63 year old woman that fears where
this change is leading. Pleas do your job as a newsman and present all
sides.

Thank you,

Bonnie

P.S.: I am sure this will not be addressed but I felt I needed to raise this
question and let you know of mine and others concerns on this matter.
Is the TV media now trying to determine outcomes, if so you are no longer
a free press.

Whining? You media folks have lost credibility a long time ago. Shoddy and prejudiced reporting has made you the least respected entity in America.
You can't even police yourselves. You've got a lot of gall to complain when someone confronts you. Media producers are hipocrites.

I believe it is the media's job to present fact based information on the campaigns of all candidates, and to further inform voters on each campaign equally. While I am not an Edwards supporter, I do believe that he has a point that he has not received fair coverage on the campaign trail. The media seems bedazzled right now by the campaigns of Obama and Clinton, and have followed them much more closely due to the social repercussions of each candidacy, and because they are the two front-runners.

I do think the media has given Bill Clinton too much coverage considering he had his shot in '92 and '96. Hillary is running for president, not Bill. I do understand why he has been getting so much coverage though; the sheer entertainment value of his remarks and his recent meltdown are explanation enough.

I do believe there should be a better balance of coverage for each candidate moving forward, but I understand that the media is also run by corporations that base their marketability off of ratings. The polls suggest that Obama and Clinton have more supporters, which means more coverage will turn into higher ratings.

No, it's not the media's job to keep them all happy. As I see it, it IS however the media's job to keep things equal (as close as possible) for all the candidates and not focus in on just the front runners no matter who they are.

Not necessarily. We the people have enough brains, or should have, to either not read what we don't want to hear or tune out the TV/radio trivial news.

Truthfully, the media hasn't given John Edwards enough credit, that one is true enough. It would be nice to hear more of Edwards in order to make a better voting judgement. And we ARE tired of hearing from the Clintons. They're like the boy who cried "wolf" so much that no one really wants to hear more. Bill is a hindrance to his wife's campaign anyway.

The broadcast stations should look to themselves to decide what is important and fair. Quite frankly, I look to CNN all the time now and refuse to watch NBC. The MSNBC debate in Nevada was the last straw for me. I think the public will decide how well the coverage is by drops or additions of number of viewers. If reporters didn't ask the questions, we wouldn't get as many answers as we've gotten.

The news media's job is not to make the candidates happy, it's to make their sponsors happy. The sponsors are happy when more people watch more TV. The media believes it can deliver the most viewers by creating controversy. So mountains are made out of molehills and candidates have no choice but to endure. The only people who are not happy is us, the viewing public.

No, of course not , but they should be fair to all the candidates! He is right , very seldom do hear anything about him in the news. I hear a lot negative reporting about Hillary and only positive reporting about Obama– what give with cable!!!!!!

No. It's the media's job to keep the candidates honest. Bill Clinton got angry because the CWU didn't endorse his wife, Romney got angry because the reporter caught him in a lie, and Edwards got angry because he couldn't raise as much as he had hoped when he chose to forego matching funds (he was against them before he was for them). They're all taking their anger out on the media.

No, Jack, it isn't the media's job to keep the candidates happy. It IS the media's job to report the news, cover all of the candidates equally, thus ensuring the American public have the information necessary to make their choice in the voting booth.

Let me add that Edward R. Murrow must be spinning in his grave over what passes for "journalism" these days. Chris Matthews would rather die than let anyone answer a question, you too Wolf, and all of the "talking heads" seem to feel we need them to do our thinking for us. Memo to talking heads, get a grip, we can think for ourselves, thank you very much.

Stop "jumping the shark" and getting ahead of the news and try reporting it, fairly, for a change. Unless the corporation who owns you won't permit you to do so, and it certainly looks as if that is the case.

We the people are screwed.

Hi Mr. Jack,

I liestened to you on radio when you were here in Des Moines. I always enjoyed your show. Your question today upset me somewhat when you said John Edwards was whining about media coverage.

You know Jack, I've thought the same thing ever since Obama and Hillary announced they were running for the presidency. The other candidates did not get a fair share of the publicity given to them. Now with only three candidates left, please include John Edwards when speaking about Obama and Hillary.

I want to believe that M$M is not biased and I always held you in high regard. We all know journalism is a thing of the past, now it's all about sensationalism, that's not news... I don't care if Britney gets engaged again or is picked up again for DUI, instead I would love to see articles about how our soldiers are fighting a war and being brave, how the family makes do on a pittance amount and still is able to give their kids a college education. These are the things that mean something to all of us, as well as the politics of everyday life.

Thank you for reading this and no offense is meant. As Jack Webb used to say long ago.... "Just the facts maam", just the facts"!

No, it isn't the media's job to keep candidates happy, They are supposed to report objectively and truthfully. I don't care for Edwards, but he's right. The news media has focused on the two celebrity candidates. Even Brittney Spears and Lindsey Lohan must be feeling slighted.

However, the tabloid industry sells paper and isn't that what it's all about? The truth went out when Karl Rove successfully threaten the mainstream news media during the Rubberstamp 109th Congress and Bush's wild pork and war spending days. Dan Rather is a first rate, grade "A" genuine jerk, but he was right when he made his self destructive report on "W". Just happened the wimps at CBS wouldn't back him. I suppose he can at least look in the mirror every morning and know that he did the right thing.

The media does not need to keep candidates happy but they do need to objectively tell the truth. Unfortunately truth rarely sells papers or ad spots so news media tends to misrepresent truths and create conflict. After all, we enjoy drama. The news media should not do this but most reporters, anchors, editors, and other contributers do exactly that. Reporting the truth would have the secondary effect of making candidates happier (until they say something stupid and the media happily and objectively reports it).

No, it isn’t the media’s job to keep candidates happy, They are supposed to report objectively and truthfully. I don’t care for Edwards, but he’s right. The news media has focused on the two celebrity candidates. Even Brittney Spears and Lindsey Lohan must be feeling slighted.

However, the tabloid industry sells paper and isn’t that what it’s all about? The truth went out when Karl Rove successfully threaten the mainstream news media during the Rubberstamp 109th Congress and Bush’s wild pork and war spending days.

This is just sad Jack. Independent media watch dogs have verified in numerous that the media has been giving vastly more coverage to Obama and Clinton, and virtually ignoring Edwards.

Most media have been portraying this as a two person race and ignoring the fact that Edwards has been leading the other campaigns on the issues. Six monthes ago Obama was campaigning on hope, Clinton was running on experience and Edwards was demanding change; now everybody is demanding change. Even if he doesn't win, he will most likely go to the convention with enough delegates to play king maker. He'll be choosing the nominee and shaping the party platform. Are you telling me that's not a story worth covering?

The media is ignoring an important candidate. This isn't whining; it's a statement of fact. I'm very disappointed Jack; I expected better than this of you.

It is not the media's job to hype candidates either! Only highlighting Obama and Clinton gives them an unfair advantage over the other candidates. People notice what is front of their faces and do not delve further. At this point, they believe that only Obama and Clinton are running! Be fair! Give John Edwards some air play and quite focusing on the Hil and the Bar.

Jack:

NO! Its the job of the media to keep the public informed. And to keep the candidates honest. When they try to deceive us, its up to the media to set the record straight. If they want to be kept happy, "GET A DOG!"

No, it's not. The media should scrutinize and challenge candidates as often as possible. Candidates feed us (the voters) propaganda on a daily basis. I feel that the media does somewhat of a good job keeping the candidates honest. Kudos to the reporters that get under the candidates' skin when they ask them a question. If they don't like it, they shouldn't run for President. There should be a very high price to hold the highest office in the land.

There's a difference between whining and having facts, Jack. Edwards has the facts and his media coverage is below pathetic.
He has lead the way on every issue. Besides his supporters, the Hil/Obama campaigns seem to be the only ones reading his positions to get a blue print for the policies which they then dilute to please K Street. Check out his "Sacred Contract" on his Web Site.

Jack,
I have noticed that the Edwards campaign is not getting as much attention as the two "leading" Democratic candidates. Could it be that his message of ending corporate corruption is upsetting ALL CEO's, including yours. I watch CNN all the time as you are truly more "fair and balanced" but I would ask you, let us know how much media time the candidates are getting without buying it and I believe the answer will become very clear, even to you.

Jack.

your CNN and other dorporate media haven't even begun to ask the right questions to the candedates but focusing gossips and horserace projections that often turned out to be completely off. IT IS THE MEDIA'S RESON D'ETRE TO INFORM THE PUBLIC OF WHAT THE CANDIDATES STAND FOR, not whether this and that tactic of this and that candidate's are gonna help or hurt the condidate and why type of self-serving sensationalzing BS.

stop whinning about people blaming you for your BS, and prove that you are capable of reporting real substance.

No. But it would make me happier if you provided some semblance of equal coverage to all of the candidates, not just the so-called "frontrunners", who may just be in that position because they get the most coverage in the media. Which came first, the coverage or the leaders? I believe that a lot more people vote for the candidate whom the media says is doing well rather than the perceived underdog.

How the heck do you consider it the "campaign" whining, when it's me, the voter complaining about the way you ignore an important candidate like John Edwards? I have no direct connection with the campaign, but I sure as heck am ticked off at all of you for limiting his time, his message, and his voters from hearing his thoughts. It's exactly as I called it. You want the big drama at any cost, even if it means no real and substantial improvements in our country's policies and economy. That big emotional noise is all that counts in this media of 2008. To hell with all of you. You're not worth the money you make, and none of you should be leading any news casts for the voters.

I'll tell you what Jack, I don't know who jumped first: the cat or the mouse, but it seems like the candidates are trying to distance themselves from the media these days. If its not making an inflammatory remark about Dr. King, its about coke-sniffing. If it's not about a former president lashing out at reporters when asked about the Nevada unions, it's a silver spoon candidate saying that he doesn't have a lobbyist in his campaign, though the evidence says so. What do the candidates want? Are the reporters supposed to sit around campfires making marshmellows and sing Kumbaya? Come on, it's politics, wake up. When are candidates going to realize that news pundits have a job to do to? It's called Freedom of the Press, stupid, read the Constitution. Where's the Teflon President when we need him?

Alex
Cranston, RI

Is it the news media's job to keep all the candidates happy? No...but it's not really about keeping the candidates happy, it's about giving as much information as possible to the American people.

Report on ALL the candidates regularly whether you "think" they might win or not. Until they drop out, we need to know EVERYTHING. Media is scrutinized now on what they DON'T report as much as what they DO report.

We want to know about everybody in the race. Verified facts only please & always ALWAYS show us how you backed them up.

Big Media's lost our faith. We're not going to take things that are reported as fact anymore just because we saw it on TV. It's too late for that. Reporters better make sure they have their facts straight and be able to BACK UP what they say with proof from now on. Make no mistake, we can & will get the truth and if it takes dragging all our computer illiterate friends & family members over to the computer, we'll do it.

As for you Mr. Cafferty, I think you're going to do just fine. Keep up the good work.

By the way...you uh...forgot to mention a few candidates in your article there

Absolutely! Just as it's the news media's job to solve all of our problems. Certainly we can't expect our elected officials to be bothered with our countries problems.

Glen

I'm about as sick of the media as I am of politicians. I agree with Edwards. Would it kill you guys to include ALL the candidates in your coverage of the primaries? Equally? If I didn't know better, I'd think you guys had an agenda...hmm could it be? Naaa you wouldn't do that..........would you?

It isn't the media's job to keep them happy, but it is doing a great disservice to the American people to squelch the views of people like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. If you think Obama is going to bring "change," I dare you to google Ron Paul's platform, because you won't hear any of it on TV.

You know Jack...neither CNN nor America lives in a bubble. The rest of the world is watching this election very closely and the "coverage" as well and we are not bound by the Time-Warner-Turner, GE, Disney, etc. rules of debate handed down by your corporate masters.

They have already been conducting studies on the coverage of Edwards (and even Ron Paul) relative to both the other candidates, poll numbers, money...any other metric you want to make up. There is no justification for the Blackout and no where was it more telling than right after Iowa, where apparently you count, {1, 3} and no one predicted Edwards finishing 2nd ahead of time. Ignoring or pushing Kucinich off the stage isn't right either, but his poll numbers and lack of delegates could justify it...not so with Edwards.

If it is becoming clear to people paying attention in your country that CNN along with the rest of the Media is trying to directly push an agenda and outcome...think what it looks like to the rest of the world outside whose media has not completely sold out it's democracy.

I give you a challenge that I am sure you have no guts to do or will be vetoed by you bosses...why not have Noam Chomsky on to talk about what sections of "Manufacturing Consent" you guys are engaging in during this election. Lou Dobbs own poll of over 90% of the people what the media to focus on more substantive issues than the Glamor Horse Race and Mudslinging that is all you know how to cover.

The media's job is not to keep the candidates happy. But I would agree with John Edwards that he is getting less coverage then his two competitors Clinton and Obama. But perhaps that's his fault – maybe his PR team is weak and the content in his press releases has no soundbites and his press conferences are boring. I find most troublesome the sad job the media is doing in carrying out balanced scrutiny of all the candidates. If you look at the article headlines, you get "Clinton lashes out", when from the video report it just looks like he was answering a question. Anyone who's ever had a pack of journalists chasing after them, cornering them and screaming questions, knows that it's hard to remain civil. So why not run a more accurate headline, "Clinton gets testy after being hounded with irrelevant media questions." Go chase Obama and ask him silly questions all day and see how jovial and civil he remains. But in the end it will always hold true: stupid tabloid stories about non-issues (Hillary's laugh, Obama's drug experiments) always sell and catch attention, real stories about real issues like – who the hell's gonna rescue the USA once we are financially insolvent and owned by China? – they – I guess – aren't newsworthy.

Jack,

No It's not your job to keep them happy but to ask tough questions and get the right answers. If they don't like the question the reporters are asking don't run for the presidency, we have 9 candidates and some will answer all the questions some will laugh and walk away. So does really matter any more jack. Every one should have equal time and not get frustrated with the questions from the reporters.

George

Media's role, especially in this pivotal campaign, is to inform – not placate or pander. Such impedes free and fair elections. If memory serves, Americans Rise Up against skewers in some third-world-countries. It appears you're whining that John Edwards' supporters opt to Rise Up against consensual coercive tactics foisted by the media.

Bill Clinton said it's "not fair" it's not one vote for one person. But I recall on a CNN news piece, Bill needed "super delegates" to secure his first presidential nomination. So what goes around comes around.

Jack Bishop
Hershey, Pa

We do hear more about the top canidates than we do about any of the lower tier ones. This may not be fair, but then it should give the lower tier canidates a chance to get more air time by concentrating on the issues that are important to Americans.

None of the canidates has really hit on any of the issues, what else is the media to do but to entertain us until one of the many canidates give us a clear view of what we are to expect when and/or if they become president. Will they actually do their job, or get American deeper into debt, more of a foe than friend, etc.

My advise to these canidates that feel they are not getting the media coverage is to make some noise that Americans really want to hear about.

It's the media's job to treat each candidate fairly, Jack. Edwards has National Delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Denver, CO. He is running a strong campaign with a strong message that people want to hear. I don't own a television because of media bias, Jack. Because the media that I see, including CNN, doesn't tell me the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Just a perception it may be, but imagine how much better things would be if the American People trusted the media not to be beholden to people with money. How much better would this world be?

Yes, things are ugly on the campaign trail, but the ugliest face is the media (I’m not referring to our illustrious commentator). I really don’t like the way the media has handled this whole thing. I want to hear each candidate for myself, not only who the networks want me to hear. I want a real debate among all the candidates, not hand picked questions used to torpedo certain contenders. I want to see them all held up to the same light equally. I (and my fellow voters) should decide who gets to run, not the media.

No, it is certainly not the media's job to keep all the candidates happy. But it is also not the media's job to give negative coverage to candidates they don't like, give an easy ride to the ones they do like, and ignore the unfortunate rest. It is the media's job to report the news and inform the public, not try to sway voters.

Fair and balanced... I think not. He has a real concern and a basis for it; however, the media are private companies and should not be forced to give more equal time to all candidates. So long as people understand that the media is not the pinnacle of information and research things for themselves change can occur. Finally when the media can no longer deny the existence of a lesser known candidate you will get something real like Ron Paul. There is hope, but TV needs to be supplemental information not primary information.

Jack,
It is my humble opinion that the media has but one job, to deliver all the facts on a story and allow the viewer form their own opinion. Weather these candidates like it or not they are a story right now and if they were as straight forward with the American people as yourself and Lou dobbs maybe they wouldn't be so concerned with what the news is reporting. After all an honest person shouldn't be worried about getting caught in a lie.

Jack-it appears that the candidates have too much time on their hands with months of campaigning. So they might as well fill in their time "mud-slinging" and attacking the media. This is not to say that the news media doesn't cause these candidates aggravation by making comments that may or may not be the truth or factual. But, let's get a reality – one would believe that those candidates that are interested in the "role of president" would concentrate on critical issues that are seriously affecting this country and the American people. These candidates need to quit their childishness and take care of business!

No, it is not the media's job to keep them happy but it is their job to report the news fairly. When there are very few news stations they have the ability to control information, the mass media can make or break anybody. CNN gives the candidates a pretty fair amount of coverage. However you can not tell me that FOX news does not have an agenda against Ron Paul, 'fair and balanced', I don't think so.

By the way Brittney Spears getting in a fender bender is NOT NEWS!

Jack,

I don't recall Walter Cronkite ever belittling a political candidate as you did John Edwards by saying he was whining. I thought CNN was supposed to be about reporting the news, but all I usually hear from you is a question baiting responders to write something witty for you to use during your segment. While I do admit I sometimes get a chuckle from the responses, I find myself wondering if this is the kind of reporting that truly makes us better informed or does it make us even more cynical about the mess we find ourselves in.

I do believe John Edwards has a very legitimate concern that he is being ignored by the media. It is blatantly obvious that the two front runners are receiving a vast majority of the coverage. It is difficult to believe that you could not understand his being upset.

Frankly I'm surprised that you and Lou aren't giving him more coverage since he is the only candidate vowing to fight corporate greed and take our country back for the common man. He even refuses to take contributions from Washington lobbyists.

Come on Jack, give him and us a break.

Mike, Arlington TN

The media sure loves to huff, puff and blow themselves up so big don't they? They think they are more important than the election itself. I say the best thing we could do for America is dump the pundits! That would improve the quality of life by a 100 fold in the US.

Than maybe we could start solving the issues of this country.

Personally, you are making me happy : I don't want to hear Edwards on T.V., what is he still doing in the race anyways? He's lost. Romney, if he had no lobbyists, then why was he so defensive? Makes you wonder. As for Bill Clinton, he should do himself a favor and keep his mouth shut if he wants his wife to win.

So, no the media's job is not to keep the candidates happy. Or else, we would never see the true nature of these people!

Hey, the news media doesn't have to keep the candidates happy, but tearing them down, and making it so obvious, is a bunch of crap. I switch channels constantly and cnn is becoming as bad if not worse than fox news when it comes to Hillary Clinton. I just think all you "older" men can't stand the thought of a woman being President, especially Hillary.

Simple : If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!

It's not the media's job to keep the candidates happy, but it is the media's job to treat each and every one of them fairly and none of you have done a particularly good job of that. In TV and printed news the media shows glaringly obvious prejudice towards some candidates and clear favoritism towards others. The media dredges up things that probably shouldn't even be talked about and spins them, out of context, into something that is totally not so. By the time the candidate can respond the damage has already been done by you, the media. The media plays "fantasy politics" and says if so and so wins and so and so loses then this person will be out of it and this person will take a commanding lead. Well, we have had several primary elections or caucuses now and none of your fairytale dreams have come true. But overall, the media is doing a bang up job of picking our favorite candidates for us when, in truth, it is we that people who are supposed to be doing that.

I can only speak for myself but I want to know more about John Edwards and where he stands on the issues so that I can make an educated decision about who I want to vote for.

Jack-

I don't think that whining helps any candidate, but I do think the media is definitely part of the problem. If not, why would every media outlet proclaim Hillary the "Winner" in New Hampshire when she and Obama both received the same number of electoral delegates (n=9). How is that a win? Granted, more people did vote for Hillary in NH, but if past elections have taught us anything, the populous vote does not decide the winner; the electoral vote does. However, proclaiming Hillary the "Winner" in NH was a better story for the media since the previous weekend polling all but proclaimed Obama a double-digit winner.

Come on Jack-

I used to watch yo on A.M. when your corporate masters actually let you report actual news. I miss those days, Solidad, Jack, and actual news stories. Now all I have in the morning is flakey short skirts, trivial social issues about race, religion,ect., and pop-culture updates. You know exactly what the media has morphed into, no longer in the interest of America- just profit while they feed the sheep. I'd like to hear you response- the old Jack that is...

Jack, it's not your job to keep them happy, but America is steeped in a fair and free press. Just get back to letting the news HAPPEN. OK?

What a nasty comment about John Edwards whining? He only stating a fact that has been recognized by many people. The mainstream media is all caught up in the historic aspect of having two viable candidates who are a woman and an African-American man. I agree it is refreshing and historic, however, John Edwards has set the tone of the debates and brought the most specific plans to the forefront. The other candidates often adopt his phrases and plans. He does not need me to take up for him, I just did not like the tone of your comments. Reminded me of Rush Limbaugh.

No..the media's job is not to keep the candidates happy. However, the media has been WOEFULLY inadequate in the job it's supposed to do. The media's job is to report the news.....OBJECTIVELY, EVENLY AND NON-JUDGEMENTALLY. I, for one, am completely sick and tired of speculative journalism. "What would happen if this were the case?"..."How does THIS affect so-and-so's chances?"....GIMME A BREAK!!!

I want to know what the FACTS are.....I can think for myself..thank you very much!

Mitt Romney seemed really upset when asked about lobbysts on his campaign. You cant blame the media for digging up dirt, its their job.

While the economy was tanking last year – Edwards was WARNING about Corporate greed that keeps the working poor poor and the middle class struggling.

So who did the corporate media promote?? Candidates offering "hope" and "inevitability" – Obama and Hillary – who would later COPY Edwards plans and solutions – sometimes word for word.

Edwards released an economic stimulus plan in a speech early December. The corporate media ignored it – because they wanted the public to think the Economy was going great – right through Corporate Christmas season.

Obama and Hillary released economic stimulus plans a week ago – and the corporate media has promoted their plans.

If Obama and Hillary are so "great" – why do they keep copying Edwards plans???

You have to admit, if you re-watch any of CNN or MSNBC

That you hear only Hillary and Obama...
And you think that is fair and balanced media?

Be honest with yourself and the American people?

People are turning off the cable news networks..
Look at the ratings=2 million people watch? that is half of
Atlanta and no one else in the country=SAD, that is your answer
if the media is fair and balanced?

I am starting to go EDWARDS just because there is a
reason people are trying to get the other two elected. Do they have
alot of people to pay back?

It is the job of the media to be fair and balanced with their reporting and you know yourself this has not been fair to a lot of candidates. Corporate run media don't like candidates who tell the truth or challenge them so they shut them out or ignore them. It is a shame when here in the land of the free, the media doesn't treat everyone lie it is with their handpicked choices and going for a tabloid type of story ( black man vs. a woman).Talk about whining Cafferty. Your name is next to the definition in the dictionary. Don't shove your/media's "choice for a good story "candidates down our throats. We can decide for ourselves. Or at least some of us can.

Jack,

The media's job is to report a story not to be fair and unbaised like kindergarten. A washed up candidate that got one percent of the vote in New Hampshire ISN'T a story. All of you out there that rely on media for fair and unbaised information need to get a clue.

No, it's your job to investigate and find the truth about Bush and the War, Bush and special Interests, Bush breaking Laws, you know the "TRUTH"! But you aren't doing that either! So, I don't know what your job is, because quite frankly, I can ask leading, misgiving, and dumb questions of Politicians as well as you!

It's hard to really know what the "News" is anymore! No since Woodward and Brenstein!

Since the dawn of YouTube and websites for each candidate I no longer use the news media to gather information.

No, Jack, your job is not to keep the candidates happy; your job is to inform voters of the candidates who are running for President and give them all equal access to get their message out to us. The people are supposed to decide who wins the primaries, not CNN. Perhaps CNN would be better served with "All the sensationalism, all the time."

Is it the news media's job to keep all the candidates happy? Hummm? Lets see... No! Jack It's the Media's job to report and find out the truth with a common sense approach. Report the facts that lead to the truth and present it to the public to decide. The fact is that not all cadidates are being given a fair shake from the Media like Ron Paul. Ron Paul has been dropped from the view of the Main Stream media lately. How can anyone watching the Main Stream media come to a decision about any candidates without getting the whole truth? Without Ron Paul the Status Quoe will continue no matter how sweet of a deal that is offered in the package. Ron Paul is the real deal. rEVOLution!

No, they shouldn't. It's important for the media to keep the pressure on the candidates and question their theories and beliefs. This allows us voters to have more knowledge on where there cadidates stand. It also allows us to see whether or not a candidate is able to handle difficult situations well. This ability is key to anyone planning on taking office.

Edwards is not saying anything new. These boards have been awash with complaints about the skewed reporting on the candidates and their messages. Where have you been Mr. Cafferty?

Jack-If the canidates think it's the medias responsibilty to keep them happy then they don't understand cause and effect. I would first remind them of their resposibility, to represent the people. They can't run on their own records so they have to run against each others records. They create the atmosphere that they deserve. Their new plan to stimulate the economy, give me a break.lower oil prices thats what will give people more money.These candidates are running on the image that they can reach across the aisle in Washington. haha they are doing more damage to their own parties with this negative campaigning, and I am supposed to believe they will unite, Well I was born at night just not last night. I have been close attention to all the candidates and I am ready to endorse one. The name is...............none of the above

No jack it is not the medias job to keep the candidates happy; it is the media's job to serve the people. So Jack why is it that the media only covers the candidates that are having trouble or leading in the polls somewhere. What happen to representing the middle man? The media has failed to cover alot on Ron Paul or even on Richardson when he was running. The media is the only people that can get close enough to these candidates, so you need to represent everyone equally. Even if they are all full of hot air!

Dana
Florida

If the media keeps the candidates happy then all they are doing is promoting the candidates propoganda. The media needs to get each candidate's position's on record and then ask tough questions to see if they really believe what they say or are just pandering. Most voters don't have the opportunity to ask questions of each candidate and we need the media to do this. That is why it is so important that we have an unbiased media, but sadly that is not the case. Today we have to use many sources to get a broad picture of the news and then make decisions based on that.

Mr. Cafferty,I would hope by your influence and leadership at CNN that you could help to make it possible within the up-coming CNN debate,to put the debate back in the debate by posing the questions that matter to the American people.The last debate,on another network,was more like gossip in a beauty parlor than a political conversation dealing with the issues.So far as Mr. Edwards goes,I would at least like to have the opportunity to hear what he has to say.

Is this the first year that the candidates blamed the media? Sounds like the blame game all over again.

If you count complaining about major media oversights like calling Clinton the first to release a economic stimulus plan, when Edwards released a similar plan in mid-December to little coverage, then yeah, I guess we're whining.

The media's job is to keep the public informed. I don't care if the candidates are happy as long as I know whats going on.

No, but it's the media's job to cover all the candidates that are running, not just the front runners. How can we make an informed decision without seeing everyone's proposals on the issues that concern us?

Jack, I think it's only fair to cover all the candidates. That is, when the candidates actually have something going for them.

Don't be silly – the media's job is not to keep candidates happy (which, just by the way, is not something John Edwards has ever said). Its job is to accurately provide voters with the information they need to make an informed decision at the polls and caucuses.

I do not need hear John Edwards' courageous stand in calling out the very entities he needs to reach voters to know that THE MEDIA HAS FAILED ITS JOB. I starting realizing over a year ago that the only Democrats the corporate media was interested in reporting on were Hillary and Obama. That has been their story and they have steadfastly stuck to it.

I am proud of John Edwards for speaking out about this, even though he must have known he will get the type of reaction personified by your question. Good going, Cafferty! You have proved his point.

It is not the media's job to choose our president. It is not their place to artificially narrow the field with biased coverage. I've been increasingly ashamed of American media in the last few years. Thank heavens for the internet. We don't trust your filtering any more.

Hi, Jack -

Well OF COURSE it's the media's job to keep all the candidates happy.

You really don't want to see them cry do you?

No. Just plain no. I think that a lot of the point of the primary is to test the candidates, and if they keep it together that proves they are able to be our president. Please keep poking and prodding the candidates! If they can take so much now they can probably handle a lot in the white house.

It is the media's job to provide information on the candidates without being biased. It is also their job to piss the candidates off!!!

No Jack, it's not the media's responsibility to keep all the candidates happy. However, John Edwards is right to a large extent. Every network has its favorite candidate/party and actively promotes their choice. We no longer have unbiased reporting on any network...including CNN. All of the networks have biased the results of this election by choosing to report only on the front-runners in the (very)early going of this process. Americans don't want to waste their vote on someone who clearly (according to the media) has no chance to win. Now, instead of casting their vote for the candidate of their choice, they vote for the candidate in their party that the media has pegged as having the best chance to win. As has unfortunately too often been the case, the Parties control everything. Now they are enabled by the media!

No.

To be fair Jack, it seems that Bill Clinton gets more press than John Edwards. I don't know about everyone else, but I can only overdose on one Clinton at a time!

Keep it up!

Marcie

Jack

It is not the media's job to keep the candidates happy. It is the media's job to keep the public well informed, and, for several months now the media has been doing a piss poor job covering the presidential primary. There are three viable democrats running for president. However, the major networks have chosen to count Edwards out, and focus on the top two "celebrity candidates".

No Jack they don't have to keep them happy, but I do agree with Edwards, I tired of only Clinton and Obama, Clinton and Obama. CNN I love but you could give a little more equal time to the others. And Bill Clinton forgot his makup looking bad.

The media is so biased in this election that several of them are continually showing it by their comments. Chris Matthews, Jack Cafferty, are just two of
the media that can't wait to rejoice aboout bad news about Hiliary. Obama walks on water with them. Neither one has commented on his voting record in Illinois
or his votes in DC.

Fairness is not the media's agenda their agensa is to elect Obama.

Mary
Wittenberg

That's absolutely absurd. If the news media tried to keep all the candidates happy, then they'd have nothing to report. The candidates will twist and turn everything, no matter what the media says, so that they can continue to skirt the issues people care about and keep fighting amongst themselves.

The American people should be the ones concerned about their candidates having press coverage. But are they? I've only seen a few complaints from supporters of the less-covered candidates. When the press decides who they air, they also have the ability to sway the vote. This isn't a problem with the media though, it is a problem with the citizens not doing the research they should be doing. Unfortunately I don't see change coming any time soon.

Joe
Seward, NE

The media is supposed to inform in a nonobjective way. The media appears to give more notice to those higher in the polls...believing they satisfy the reader or listerner or watcher. It occurs on the right and on the left which justifed the need for Air America. Media has definitely gives more attention to certain candidates and does an injustice to those seeking objective information. There is no doubt. If the media wants to promote candidates of their choice then the media should pay all the taxes.

No, it is not the job of the media to keep the candidates happy; however, it is their job to keep the public informed about the candidates equally and objectively, aiming to prevent media bias from influencing the vote. But we all know how likely that is.

It's clearly not the media's job to keep anyone happy. I do believe there has been preferential coverage given to Clinton and Obama. I rarely see Edwards featured or mentioned let alone covered ad nauseum like the others. This very subject has been a common topic of conversation lately among people I speak with about the primaries. The general feeling is that Edwards, being anti-corporation, is being black listed by the major news outlets.
Ron Garkey
Los Angeles

I noticed right after NH the tendency of most (but not all) media pundits and network statisticians to frame the race as between Clinton & Obama, even though (1) voters in 48 states had not yet voted (2) coverage continued of Republicans regardless of how much they trailed "front-runners" (3) Edwards has only a handful of delegates fewer than either of Clinton or Obama, so far, (4) as a Southerner, he was never expected to do terrifically in NH and (5) he has done well in debates and has other electable attributes.
Then I discovered on-line that other Edwards supporters were complaining about the same thing.
Finally, the word gets through to you from the campaign itself. Rather than ackowledge the blackout, you call it "whining" and posit a silly rhetorical question about the media's job and keeping candidates happy.
If you don't know your job by now, what the heck are you doing on the air? Stop trying to get ahead of the story.

No, but it is the medias job to adequately inform its viewers. I am tired of getting the sensational counter charges of the campaign without the media providing factual analysis.

The media has an obligation and responsibiltiy to keep us inform. After all, without its viewers, the media is nothing. Keeping unbias information is very important, however, at times i feel as if the media only concentrates on the top 2 or 3 front runners duirng this election year.

No, but its the media's job to keep me happy, and I am not happy with the skewed coverage of this primary season. I need to hear about all the candidates, not just the ones you think will win or the ones that are arguing with each other.

Is it the Media's job to keep the candidates happy, or is it the Candidates job to keep the media happy to then keep its viewers happy. Its a horrible cycle, if the candidiates are mad, does that then make the view happy? If media wasn't so hightech we wouldn't know what was happening at that time, so all in all the media makes itself happy, the candidates mad, and its views well, they are still watching.

Sure it's your job to keep them happy. You've taken it upon yourselves to suck up to them every time you interview them, so they're surprised when you disapprove of anything they say when you're on TV. Politics (absolutely including the media) is all about cliques. Talk to America when you graduate high school.

No its not the media's responsibility to keep the candidates happy. It is the responsibility of the media to report fairly, equally and and unbiasedly. When the Washington Post headlines an article after the Michigan primary '44% Vote Against Clinton' I hardly call that keeping the candidates happy.

The media wants to be the kingmaker ... stay out of the game of politics and report on all viable candidates and let the people decide.

No, but it is your obligation to give them each fair and equal coverge.

Duh, No!

Yes Edwards has reason to be annoyed with the media. The media is not required to cover all politicians, but the media should be required to represent the candiates fairly. The media's coverage of Edwards has been almost non-existant. He is a viable candiate and deserves much more than that the media gives him. What exactly is the media afraid of? The fact that Edwards could actually beat the Republicans?

Of course it is not the media's job to keep all the candidates happy, but it is the job of the media to keep all of the citizens informed. What are the facts? What is the percentage of air time spent discussing Obama vs. air time spent discussing Clinton vs. air time spent discussing Edwards?

It is not the media's responsibility to ensure that candidates are happy, it is the media's responsibility to report the news objectively and fairly. CNN has not reported the news fairly. Comments about Obama are always postive and comments about Hillary are always negative. CNN, in my opinion, is doing everything possible to steer this election.

Jack, it's not the media's job to please the candidates. bottom line. and if it is, the media is doing a pretty bad job. Lets be honest, the candidates would rather not make commercials. The more publicity off the media they get, rather than spending millions on commercial ads, the better. If anything, the media is what is being taken advantage of.

It is not your job to keep all of the candidates happy but it IS your job to report on all candidates without bias. That has been a great failing of CNN during this primary process. I have been a CNN junkie for several years and this is the first time that I have seen so much bais when reporting on certain candidates. I do wish that CNN would go back to reporting fairly and unbiased. After all you are not FOX news.

Your question is phrased wrong. No, the media should definitely not keep every politician happy, but the media should give equal coverage to all running politicians. I'm afraid we are losing our best candidates becuase they're not black and they're not a woman on the democratic side, and they speak out against the war on the republican side. Campaign finance reform is also a must. The constitution says nothing about having to have a war chest to be able to run for president. The rules are clear – you must be born an American citizen and must be 35 years old... it says nothing about having rich friends.

It is the media's job to cover the election of all candidates. I do feel it is a little lopsided. The republicans seems to get more coverage of all their candidates and the democrates just the two. Edwards is right to complain, I don't know what took so long. I did notice that CNN does not mention Rudy too much, which is good because he has done nothing as of yet. Edwards has been up there and it is very confusing to us simple people who rely on the media for the coverage as to why he wasn't considered the front runner from day one. He did well in '04 and was taken as Kerry's running mate – I just don't get it!

No, it's not the media's job to keep politicians happy but it is there job to report fairly without bias. I personally believe that they have failed miserably in this primary.

John Edwards is absolutely right that his campaign has been largely ignored. You'd have to have paid very close attention to realize he's the ONLY candidate to speak out against Fox 's takeover of Dow Jones as being anti-competitive.

Like that stance, his other positions are well worth the coverage, way more so than the saturation coverage of Brittany and Paris Hilton.

Jack,
It is not the medias job to keep "all the candidates happy". It is the job of the media to fairly and equally present all of the candidates, no matter whom the media believes to be, or wants to be, a "front runner". So far, the media has been less than fair and equal.

You can't make everyone happy I suppose, but I noticed coverage for Guiliani and Thompson. Ron Paul has beat BOTH of them–TWICE! What gives?

Steve
Overland Park, KS

I don't think it's the media's responsibility to keep the candidates happy. However, I do believe it is the media's responsibility to remain objective and unbaised. Unfortunately over the past few years or so, many media journalists have disregarded this code of ethics and have been really unfair and sometimes just plain nasty.

The media has a moral obligation to its viewers to tell the truth and a financial obligation not to offend its sponsors. However, these two obligations don't always work out to the same end. Especially since 'truth' can be such a relative thing.

No, it is not the media's job to keep the candidates happy – but it is not their job to push certain candidates instead of letting the people get to know all the candidates.

No, that should not be it's job. I believe the media's job is to provide a fair and unbiased coverage of the campaigns. I have to agree with the Edward's people, the media covers the campaign with pure hype and gossip as they do Britney, Roseanne and Rosie, except for a few who care about the country like Lou Dobbs.

No, it is not the media's responsibility to keep the candidates' happy. But, I feel that the media should stop shoving certain ones down our throats. We, the people, need to be able to look at a host of candidates, not just the supposed front runners. I wouldn't vote for any of them right now.

Jack,

As a reporter I can tell you it's our responsibility to make their lives miserable, and that's by asking questions to keep them honest.

The only person I feel sorry for I Ron Paul, because the media is totally over looking him.

Shame on you Bill Clinton, without the media there would be no campaign.

T McLean

It is not the media's job to make candidates happy but to make sure that every candidate gets equal time. Wasn't there a bill or law already about it, the equal time rule? Obama gets positive media coverage while other candidates do not, it is simply not fair. PLAY FAIR. This is not about media companies profits; but rather making individual American lives BETTER.

Heck, no. Keep 'em honest.

While it is admittedly difficult for the media to cover such a wide range of candidates, it is undoubtedly important for any democratic entity wielding this much power to be somewhat impartial if it intends to be so. If you think it is really not your responsibility to show us the news unbiased, well then why don't you come out and say so!? Then we'll know just what to do with anything any of you tell us, and just where to tell you where to stick it.

well sure it is jack the media likes to pick the winner and is hoping edwards will drop out so dont give him the free air time like they do clinton and obama anddont get me started on the pollsters who work for the media remember new hampshire obama up by 10% the media tries to influence the vote for sure take it to the bank

It is the media's job to report the news objectively. They are no longer journalists who embark on shaping the news to their corporate vision. Let the reader form his own opinion !

Perhaps it's not keeping them happy that's important but merely giving them all comparable coverage. Ron Paul has beaten other candidates such as Thompson before, but he's not regularly covered in the same manner as the other Republicans. Don't even get me started on Sen. Mike Gravel. The so-called mainstream candidates have no room to complain when a guy like Gravel who has done so much for his country can't even get more than a blurb every few days, and that's when he's lucky.

Hi Jack.

Great question. No it isn't the media's job to keep the candidates happy.

It IS the media's job to report honestly and fairly. That's why I watch CNN, and you in particular!

Wolf is pretty good, too!

NO...! The media's job to keep the voters informed so that they don't put another moron in the White House.

When candidates rail against "the media," it's worth asking them, "which media?" The papers endorsing you? The commentators boosting you? The talk shows hammering your opponents? No, I didn't think so. It's the media who don't find you as wonderful and charming and pure as you find yourself. Here's a clue: stop testing the wind each time you open your mouth, and just say what you believe. If enough people agree with you, you won't have any problem getting media coverage.

The press should be more questioning, especially with this administration, but also with the candidates. I also agree we are being railroaded into a two choice Obama/Clinton race. The media is trying to sway the election. Look what happened to Kucinich! Edwards and Kucinich talk against our corporate masters and they get marginalized.

No. The News Media's job is to keep us informed, and expose the truth about the canidates, as well as the rest of the government.
Yea the Media needs to give every canidate an equal opportunity to speak, as every canidate deserves an equal opportunity to tell us where they stand and what they intend to do when they get in office, as well as an equal opportunity to hang themselves if they screw up or if they are lying to us.

It's not the media's job to keep candidates happy, but it is their job to give the people fair coverage. After all, the airways belong to the public. John Edwards and the rest of the candidates should be given their equal chance to be heard.

It's not the job of the media to keep all candidates happy, but it is their job to report on ALL of the candidates!

Leaning on the media for public influence would be a poor decision, seeing as though your message and/or voice to the people is taken out of your hands (editing). The fact that our countries presidential "race" has become so quiet that without you (the media) the runners are unheard, is quite depressing. It's not like every person living in this country watches TV, let alone can afford cable. Just because Hillary Clinton is female, shouldn't make her any different. I don't think political problems or governmental reform can be solved by a genetic solution, sliding in the door on the tailcoat of a former president.

OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!!!

Jack,
While it isn't the media's job to keep the candidates happy, it isn't the media's job to decide the election either. When John Edwards came in second in Iowa, it was disappointing that his name and campaign was barely mentioned the next day. I have been complaining at the lack of coverage regarding his campaign during this process. I'm glad to hear the Edwards campaign if finally standing up and shouting about it. I don't want the media to tell me I only have two choices long before the primary process is completed. If that makes me too a whiner, then so be it!
Sharon of Michigan

It may not be the job of the media to keep the canidates "Happy" but it is important that you be fair about the coverage. I sense that you are not dividing up the time evenly. Since Bill Clinton is not supposed to running for president why don't you take his coverage time and give it to Obama and Edwards since Hillary seems to get most of the spots. Some of us are sick of listenting to Bill's whining. Sorry guys, but its very noticable.

No it is not the media's job to keep the candidates or anyone else happy.
Their job is to report the news. ALL of it. Regardless of which party it benfefits or diminishes, or whose agenda it disrupts.

Unfortunately, all of the media outlets, from CBS to CNN seem to forget that and have let the Bush,Cheaney bullies decide what they report and what they dont. Quit whining about FOX news, at least they say they are fair and balanced with tongue in cheek, they know it is a load of BS.

Somehow the rest of you guys seem to have forgotten. It is not Republican news, or Democratic news, that we want to hear, we want to hear the facts. Let us decide what we believe or disbelieve about it!!

If you would just air the candidates words, instead of paraphrasing or extrapolating to get some sensational sound bites going, it would be much apprecited. Most Americans are smarter than you guys give us credit, else we would be pseudo journalist.

The news media shouldn't keep all the candidates happy but I can sympathize with candidates like John Edwards. The small candidates can't get their message out, even though, in a lot of cases, they have a good message. Edwards doesn't, but that's another matter entirely. He does deserve fair coverage despite his message of anti-capitalism. Everyone who runs deserves fair coverage.

What makes Hillary Clinton better than John Edwards? Simply her name. That's the only reason why she gets more coverage. What makes Mike Huckabee better than Ron Paul? Chuck Norris endorsed Mike Huckabee. Why do we care about stupid things like this when the two North American democracies have been run by mongrol idiots for the past two decades? The real people who can instill change in our democracies are sidelined for the people with big names. Democracy isn't about supporting the elite, it's about giving people power.

Larry, Saskatchewan, Canada

It is not the media's job to keep any politician happy but to keep them honest and in the light of the public for whom they work. However, the media, as far as I have seen in this current round of election coverage, is not looking to do this job but to collect sound bites to fan the fires of controversy and tv ratings. Sad.

Jack,
No it's not the responsibility of the media to keep the candidates happy. But it should be the media's responsibility to not show the same clips from one candidate 3 or more times before you show anything about another candidate.
I seen the same speech from McCain 3 times this weekend before I seen any of the "so-called" lower tier candidates. Thats bias, no matter how you spell it.

As someone who watches the news, I find this very distrubing. And have actually started watching more than the news on TV, And began getting more and more of my news off the internet.

But, your still ok Jack.

Ever since ownership deregulation, the news media is ever dependant on pleasing politicians. The major TV networks and other large media ownership groups don't know any more than we do who the next president will be. Doing a strong story about a political candidate is a lot like local tv doing stories about local car dealers...cutting off the hand that feeds you.

It is the media's job to report what exactly is happy across this nation and the world, not glamorize the candidates. Unfortunately you do have various media outlets that distort the truth, but it is the candidates and their spouses that have been creating the stories for the media, rather than vice versa. With the behavior of the candidates lately, even Fox News has not had to spin their stories to get attention.

Jack the media should make the US citizens happy by using stun guns on the canadates that lie. But then there wouldn't be anyone standing.

It's not your job to keep the candidates happy, but it should be your job to make sure that every candidates is covered equally, not just the candidates that the media sees as "the top contenders". Also, when you do mention the non-high profile candidate, maybe you shouldn't conclude, with "..but they're not gonna win", as you do with Ron Paul, etc. You should be giving the candidates platform and news relating to them, and let people decide based on the issues, and not on the amount of air time they get.

You mean the fare and balanced media. Remember Watergate? That was when we had a media. Thanks for the smile thats on my face signed David, Ron, and Edwards.

It's not the media's job to keep the candidates happy, but objective reporting has always been the standard by which the best media outlets are judged. I agree that John Edwards has been slighted in media coverage, not only by CNN but by newspapers like USA Today and The NY Times. Give voters the straight scoop on all the candidates and let us make up our minds. Between the poll numbers and the talking heads, the media leads us all around like dogs on a leash.

Barclay
Hummelstown, PA

Its the Medias job to be fair and balanced, and I don't mean like
fox news! You all could do a much better job of it.

Forrest
Libby,Mt

It is not the press's job to keep candidates happy. It is the press's job to cover the candidates fairly and to provide real NEWS.

The media covers the horse race and not the issues because there are no ratings in issues. And it means the reporters will actually have to work for a story instead of taking what the candidates' spin machines spoon feed them.

Cynicism, phoney outrage and meaningless predictions is not the press's job either, but unfortunately it's what you do.

Give us the facts, keep the opinions and punditry to yourselves and report how the voters act. Not how you expect them to act. Please.

To answer the question, no Jack, it's not. But a better question would have been "Is it fair that the media can influence the outcome of an election by giving more coverage to one presidential hopeful than another?"

I don't necessarily think it's the media's job to keep the candidates happy, but it is the media's job to keep the public informed. When the media concentrates on just a few candidates, they deny the public the information they need about the other candidates to make an informed decision. Right now people are being told that some of the lower tier candidates don't stand a chance and that's wrong. The media should allow equal time for all candidates until the primaries are over. Put it all out there and let the people decide for themselves. They're smarter than the media thinks.

If you mean, is it the media's responsibility to make sure it gives an equal amount of coverage to each candidate, then YES. It's not just the candidates who complain about it. Everyone I talk to about the unfair coverage has this same opinion.

The media has picked their favorites from the start and focused on them for all their coverage. This heavily influences opinions of voters. Why would they vote for someone they don't know?

How much time was spent on-air by the media saying that Chelsea Clinton was travelling with mommy? How much time was spent on-air talking about Dennis Kucinich's brother dying?

Frankly Jack, I think the entire mainstream media sucks with regards to this issue.

I, and so many family members and colleagues, are tired of the media's biased coverage. It is your job to cover ALL of the candidates, not just the media darlings. I am tired of the majority of the media claiming that, "No candidates are talking about the economy", when Ron Paul has been talking about the economy all along (and continues to do so when given the opportunity).

Perhaps you don't like the messages of some of the candidates, but it is not the media's place to censor those messages. By deciding what the public hears and does not hear, and by pandering to some candidates while ignoring the existence of others, you do the American People a great disservice. So far in the caucuses and primaries, Ron Paul has gotten more votes than Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson, yet you ignore Ron Paul's existence and fail to ask the same questions of him that you do of the other candidates.

Please stop trying to decide who we should vote for. As Americans, we have the right to vote for whom we choose. The media's job is to provide the information we use as a basis for that decision - NOT to make the decision for us.

Of course not. But there IS an obligation to avoid the all-too-obvious selective coverage provided to the pre-anointed darlings of the media. What has happened to objectivity? It's become, to paraphrse another outlet: We decide, then report. A pox on all your houses.

The air waves belong to the public. Citizens are the ones harmed by poor coverage of the available candidates (Hello!?!??? There are clearly three Democrats right now, not two!) What matters is keeping the citizens informed... not entertaining them with a 2-way horse race. Speaking of informing the public, please ask all 3 of the top Dem candidates about Global Warming, the number one issue for the survivability of our planet. I listen often and I have seen no questions on this ... NONE ... even though I hear that there have been three whole Global Warming questions asked of the candidates during the past year. How could I have missed those?!!

Happy?
No. But equal treatment would be a welcome relief. It is patently obvious that many in the media decide early on who they feel is deserving of their attention, whether or not the candidate has a message that would resonate with voters. As such, those messages that might reach the public over time do not get the opportunity to be heard, once those who make the decisions make their choices.

Jack, Your're right,"It's getting ugly out there." I don't believe the media should place a babies bottle into the mouth of the candidate, however, I do believe anyone running should have the opportunity to Equal Press, whether it be good or bad, bu the bare simple facts would be enough. A mediablackout on a specific candadite could swing a vote without the knowledge otherwise, that alone is not what the media stands for, at least not CNN=Politics as the leader in fair and balanced viewpoints. Go Obama!

The question shouldn't be about the media being required to make the candidates happy, Jack. The point is that no matter what the corporate bosses tell you, the media has an obligation to report in the public interest. That means covering the candidates equally and fairly. I agree with the Edwards campaign. Hillary Clinton might be divisive, but she is not a favored candidate. Obama might have notoriety, but he and Clinton are little different. John Edwards has set the tone for the entire campaign. The issues he has put forward as being most important are the issues the citizens state are most important. He has a more well rounded and nuanced stand that springs from good common sense.

He is the only candidate who talks about needing to take on bad trade deals like NAFTA, CAFTA and MFN status for China, things you have grumped about yourself, Jack. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want to allow the corporate elites to keep running us into the ground. I expect, no, DEMAND that the media provide fair and equal coverage of John Edwards campaign, instead of give us the Britney Spears type coverage you give us of Clinton and Obama. I'd like to ask why you haven't reported on Obama's crooked land deal in Illinois? It was reported in that state, and it hasn't been discussed nationally during this campaign.Neither of those two candidates have proposed anything of substance. What little they have put forward was stolen from Edwards or just a weak watered down spin on the issues. I'm not voting on gender or race, but on substance. Edwards is the only candidate who offers substance.

NO! It is the Media's job to report the TRUTH. Sometimes the TRUTH isn't so flattering to the Candidate, and they have to live with that. The AP and other Media are not a PR Firms! Kudos to Glen, from the AP for speaking out and and fighting for truth.

It's your job to report the news, which you aren't doing. We don't want the Media shoving certain candidates down our throats while ignoring the rest.

Mr. Cafferty-

The media is not responsible to the individual candidates in any way, shape, or form... period.

The media is on the other hand, responsible to the public if it presents itself as an unbiased voice providing a balanced perspective or reference for the various candidates and their platforms and the dynamics of the campaigns during the election process.

I won't necessarily say you haven't given Mr. Edwards fair coverage, but I will say that I feel CNN has not been very even handed with it's coverage of all of the candidates running for president. I do feel that even you and your network are unable to say you have fairly distributed the media coverage.

With the exception of Fox News, the news media is made up of people who are very knowledgeable about politics and know what qualities a candidate should have. The media does not work for anybody so John Edwards shouldn't complain about the lack of coverage he's getting.

Of course it is not the media’s job to keep the candidates happy. To the contrary, it is the job of the media to scrutinize, transparently, all candidates equally. Freedom of the press has always been a tool of balance, a “contending force” to contest all information presented, to shine a light under the rock of image control and possible despotism. Being friendly is for editorializing. Journalism is for seeking truth. And that, Jack, means making a lot of enemies.

No, it is absolutely not the medias job to keep the candidates happy. The mainstream media does have to make some major changes though. Stop reporting about election race tactics, candidates fights and start reporting on the candidates politics. Report the politics they present, state if they do not present any, have experts comment on the politics and judge the effects of the presented politics if implemented. Interview the people who stand to be affected by the politics. Right now the actual politics is at most 1% of the coverage, which is unbearable.

NO…! The media’s job is to keep the voters informed so that they don’t put another moron in the White House.

So John Edwards is now complaining about the media. Try being a Biden supporter in Iowa prior to the caucus. One of the most impressive candidates in decades and he is relegated to the Metro section in the Des Moines Register while Obama, Clinton and Edwards are front page news. Why complain John? You had plenty of press for the 4 years you were campaigning here in Iowa prior to the caucus. Oops, wait a minute. You can only campaign 1 year prior to the caucus. Guess you were here fighting for the poor and speaking about poverty for good money. That wasn't campaigning and you didn't get press coverage.

It is not the media's job to keep the candidates happy, but it is the media's job to report on ALL candidates ACCURATELY and EQUALLY, regardless of poll performance. Selection of the president should be based on the candidates platform, position on the issues, and past accomplishments, NOT on name recognition, popularity, or celebrity. It is the media's job to make sure the voters are well informed on ALL of their options. Positive vs negative is not relevant. Accuracy and Thoroughness is.

I agree that it is not the media's job to keep candidates happy. Neither is its jobs to annoint a candidate president on the basis of being a good news story. Barrack Obama has repeatedly recieved a free pass from the media. Past drug use and business dealings with those under federal indictment (aka Tony Rezko) would ruin any other canidates chances. Yours and others in the media's bias toward him is obvious.

Nick J, Chicago, IL

The media has an incredible amount of unchecked power, and you know it. Look at what happened when the Bush White House wanted us to go to war in Iraq! The media did it's job and followed the misinformation campaign and we went to war. Don't tell me they don't make or break people.

I agree with Edwards! He's been left in the dust with all this rivalry talk about Obama and Clinton while he is the only candidate that has concrete policy details that he's put forward on all the major issue. The reason he can't get traction isn't that he's not strong enough, or that he's negative, or a whiner, it's that the "powers that be" have decided he's not viable. In return, image-conscious Americans with shallow ideas of what a president is have turned their backs on the only true candidate for change.

Jack, to illustrate a point about the media. Where are the reports on the Green Party's Presidential Candidates? Where is the airing of their debates? The same can be said of the media ignoring the Presidential Candidates of the Constitution Party. There are more poltical parties in the USA than are dreamed of in your own political philosophy, Jack, or at least coming out of your mouth. Lets hear from all Presidential Candidates great and small from all the parties and not just your darling Republicans and Democratic parties either.

it's not the media's job to keep the candidates all happy... but it is the media's duty to provide the public with a complete picture of the candidates.
Instead the media, in their coverage and in their polls, defines who is electable in the voters mind. They should instead cover the election results and let the voters truly show who is electable.

Keep the candidates happy…. I doubt any unbiased media could do that. But then it isn’t your job to keep anyone happy. It’s your job to report the news. When it comes to reporting on John Edwards, I do believe you give a lot more time to Obama and Clinton. I haven’t yet made up my mind, and even though I am leaning toward Clinton, I want to hear about everyone. How else do we make an informed decision?

Gary Kleier
Louisville, KY

I would have to say as a CNN viewer you help the candidates and they hurt themselves. If they blame the media then they should stay out of the media. But as we all know they get more publicity for getting heated at the media. And thats what their hoping for. More publicity more votes.

No. It is not the media's job to keep the candidates happy.

Clearly, it's the media's job to keep itself happy, to dramatize every incident into a "lashing," a snipe fest, a slap down, a big confrontation or major fight of the first magnitude. It's the media's job to try to convince us that each outlet's pundits are "the best political team in the country"–or the world... perhaps the universe. It's the media's job to keep us caught up in the nonsense and ask banal, idiotic questions about likeability or quarrels at debates, INSTEAD of doing a cogent job of keeping us informed of the issues and the differences of substance among the candidates, or weeding out the schlocky rumor from fact in the accusations of candidates.

Please. So the candidates whine. Your viewers simply throw up and go online to find out what the candidates actually espouse.

A pox on EVERYONE connected with the campaigning season. It's a three-ring circus and has nothing much to do with trying to figure out which candidate will truly serve our needs the best. Thank God for the Internet.

This is the most ridiculous and loaded question I have ever heard. Why ask it like this? So you (a member of the media) can feel good about having the public "on your side"? Obviously it is not the job of the media to make all candidates happy, but it is the job of the media to be fair to ALL candidates. I am thinking of John Edwards here, who has a legitimate beef with the media. He has nearly as many delegates as the two celeb Dem candidates but he is hardly mentioned in the media. Don't even ask about Dodd or Kucinich.

its not the media's job to make the candidates happy, but if the media continues to bash one candidate and go on to interview other media personel who has their candidate's interest at heart then you will have the cadidates' outburst at the media, especially if what they are being asked or told is not true. I am no fan of any of these candidates running but I am tried of CNN interviewing peple who are bashing Sen. Clinton. I personally think if this country needs a change and someone to put it on its feet again, Bush placed it on its knees, it would be a person like Sen. Clinton.

I do not think the role of the media is to keep the candidates happy. However, it is the role of the media to prvide more balanced coverage of the candidates. John Edwards events and his message are not showen and debated as often as the ones presented by senatords Obama and Clinton. This country is absessed with celebrity and unfortunately it plays too much into national politics.

No the media does not have a responsibility to keep the candidates happy. But they do have an obligation to cover them relatively equally when and if they drop out of the race. However both positive and negative stories should be shown on all candidates rather than simply concentrating on the front runners from the beginning. Had they done that in 1992, you wouldn' t even know the name Bill Clinton.

When the Situation Room is on for three solid hours every weekday, there should be plenty of time to give all candidates equal coverage. But, no, the greatest attention is given to certain candidates, and others are barely mentioned. The Edwards campaign has a legitimate gripe. After taking second place in the Iowa caucus, John Edwards still was excluded and ignored while the media fawned all over Barack Obama and worried and fussed about Hillary Clinton. Either cover the candidates fairly or don't do it at all.

Jack,

Personally, no I don't think it's the media's job to keep the candidates happy. But I do think it's the media's job to keep the american people informed on all candidates, not just a select few, which is what has been going on, and the American people are getting angry. Take for example the case that we're all familiar with of Fox News purposely snubbing Candidate Paul from their New Hampshire debate, and then asking him disrespectful questions in the South Carolina debate in order to make him appear to be a joke.

And now that many of the GOP candidates are low on money to campaign, Fox seems to have taken it upon themselves to help them, via the Super bowl. Candidates including Rudy Giuliani, but again not Ron Paul. Ron Paul is ahead of Giuliani nation-wide and this only shows huge bias in the media, this is what's angering the American people. Why should the media be able to choose a candidate that they dislike and try to keep them hidden from the viewers? You guys in the situation room are almost the only show that appears un-bias at this point, for that many of us are appreciative.

Jack – Since when is it the media's job to make or keep anyone happy, let alone a political candidate? I have always believed that it is the media's job to report the news is the most unbiased way it can. Otherwise why should I watch, read or listen? If the media worked to keep any politician happy then it certainly wouldn't be working in the public's best interest or reporting the truth now would it? Tell us the truth, whether we like it or not because it's what America needs.

Jack, it's not the medias job to keep them happy, but it is their job to cover all of them. It's not just Edwards, but also Kucinch, and Ron Paul that don't get the time of day. The corporate media is afraid of Edwards and what an Edwards Presidency would do to reign in the propaganda which is so prevalent today. The media wants to pick our candidates for us. I say to Edwards "keep screaming"!

Dave Denis
Clarkston, MI.

YES!! It is the medias job to make sure everyone gets fair and unbiased coverage. Unfortunately I haven't seen that on any networks. I am ashamed of CNN and Cafferty for talking about Edwards "whining" I might as well turn the tv to Fox News so I can hear them talk about how Democrats are whacko, crazy, and all Republicans do nothing wrong. GROW UP and STOP the name calling how old are you ? Come on now. The media has definitely let us down again.

Wow, Jack...calling Edwards a whiner? You know what they say about those who go on the defensive immediately...could it be true the maybe, just maybe, the Edwards camp has a valid complaint? It's not the job of the media to keep the candidates happy, but fair and unbiased coverage would be an idea. Wait a second, did I just hear that a story on Edwards is up next...could it be? Really?

Is it the news media’s job to keep all the candidates happy? My answer to your question would have to be a resounding, "No." The job of the media is to inform the public, "us", in a fair and unbiased way about each and every one of the numerous candidates' platforms, regardless of their party affiliation. Don't you think that "we" deserve to hear how each and ever potential candidate plans to solve the myriad problems of our country? I know that a cat fight between two of the top candidates makes for interesting news, but come on America and wake up.

Jack,
The responsibility of the media is not to keep the candidates happy but rather to keep the public informed about ALL of the issues we need to know to make intelligent decisions. If the media had done their job 8 and 4 years ago, the public would not have been so concerned about who they wanted to have a beer with (Bush) and more concerned about the realities of the challenges the world faced and the substance of the candidate's messages.

Keep the public informed, and the HONEST candidates happiness will probably follow.

the news media only covers candidates they feel are viable... however by limitng coverage of all candidates they are in turn picking the viable ones... in other words the ones who have money will be viable... in my experience people with money are not always the smartest or even nicest but i guess we just want a rich president not a humble, smart individual who can relate with not just the top 5 percent but the 95 percent of americans that are forgotten about.

Of couse not. On the other hand, it WOULD be a good idea if the media, and particularly CNN, would give equal coverage to the whines of at least the top 3 in each current party. Or at least as much coverage as you give to Brittney et al. I care a LOT more about those running for the top political job in the US than I care about some whiney celebrity. Granted, sometimes these folks fall into the same catagory but it's up to y'all to decide what is actually news and what's just junk. I just sit and watch. I only get to vote when I go to the polls. Well, that and with my remote. Heh heh.....

Diane, Houston

It is the news media's job to give equal coverage to all the canidates but you gave Clinton and Obama 10 times more coverage than you did the rest of the canidates combined. Now the most qualified, like Joe Biden, has dropped out of the race.

Jack, this proposed question is just another way you keep redirecting attention. The question here is not whether it is your JOB to keep them happy.
The question is:
Is media coverage bias and geared toward specific candidates? That answer is YES.

As a voter, I feel Edwards has a legitimate argument, and I’d like to see more coverage on him as well. Obama and Hillary receive much more attention and honestly, most of it is crap. It’s almost as if there is some sort of conspiracy behind it.

No, Jack. But the news media should not enable disinformation and aid the campaigns in fostering false images. Most recent case in point was the the continually showing of Hillary's soft moment and not following through by showing the seamless segue into a less than subtle attack on Obama. This would have revealed her duplicity.

Jack, No, it's not the media's job to keep the candidates happy, but it IS the media's job to report facts to us, the paying public. I applaud the reporter who busted Romney on his parsing of who is running his campaign and what their alliances are. I agree with the Edwards campaign that they're not getting the press when I and a whole lot of other people want to hear more from him. We need a free and independent press that gives us facts and investigates the claims of the candidates rather than covering their campaigns like they're covering tactical moves in a yacht race. If I could find any investigative journalism on TV, I'd probably send love letters to the producer.

Jack,

I really enjoy your comments & questions. In my not too humble opinion it isn't the media's job to keep them happy, but honest. CNN years ago had a "Truth Meter". Wish you guys would bring it back. It's also your job to not write candidates off. You guys killed Dean, you tried to push the Obama story because you (the media) wanted to tell the story. We need real honesty. Right now it seems we are headed for, by my count, our 3rd Republican lead recession brought on by deregulation & record deficit spending. Why was this not a story a year ago? Guess Mrs. Hilton was more important.....

It's the Media's job to make candidates very uncomfortable. When candidates complain to the media for exposing things that matter, like trying to block workers from voting, just think about what their administration would be like and the difficulties media would have trying to get even basic information from them if they win.

Dictatorships are made from trying to keep candidates happy.

Please the candidates? I don't think so.
The first job the news media has ...report the news.
The second part is...be honest.
Which part of that don't they understand?
When you journalists are getting ready to go in to your own rant.
Tell us. At least I have a choice to grab the remote.
When you're back to reality, maybe a flashing prompt saying "this is real news now" should go up.
In fact, I think the FCC should make a law.
Just a thought.

No Jack, It's not the media's job to keep the candidates happy. It is, however, your job to be fair. The media has failed miserably in this regard. It seems as though you have become the national inquirer of the 24 hour news cycle. I had to watch the Hillary emotional scene at least 500 times and lately It has been Bill regarding the cacus law suit in Nevada. Please, focus on the canditates and the issues and not the sensational.

Jack,

As a reporter I can tell you it’s our responsibility to make their lives miserable, and that’s by asking questions to keep them honest.

The only person I feel sorry for Is Ron Paul, because the media is totally over looking him.

Shame on you Bill Clinton and all the others, without the media there would be no campaign.

T McLean
Red Deer, Alberta, Canada

Jim no you cant make everyone Happy. But I believe everyone should get fair coverage of the media.

Keep the candidates happy? No. But it is your job to be, dare I say, "fair and balanced." Well, we know how blatently untrue that is of Fox but CNN has a little better record. Still, everyone is disgusted with all the "free press" because of the last election, where it proved its bias toward the Bush regime, stuck with them through all the inuendo and complaints, did no in depth investigations, let the populace believe all the Bush lies–uncontested. Now you're doing it again. You've picked your Democratic favorite, and it isn't Edwards or the Clintons. Do any of those candidates have a right to complain? You bet. It's time you guys quit with your "opinion" slants and do what you're supposed to do– honest, fair reporting.

No, but it's not your job to unfairly influence the unwashed masses either. A consumer media research group has reported that both Edwards & Obama have received 83% favorable media news coverage, while Hillary Clinton (the only female candidate) has received around only 61%. How do you GUYS explain that?

There is a BIG difference between keeping the candidates happy and providing fair coverage. It does seem that the candidates with the most money get the most media coverage and I would agree that John Edwards, and several other candidates who have now dropped out, are not getting/did not get equal coverage. The media just loves to reduce these primaries into a competition between two people – how simplistic can you get? On the democratic side, it has pretty much been Clinton Vs Obama all the way, according to the media. That is not fair coverage, and the issue has nothing to do with keeping the candidates happy which of course, duh, is not your job......

In all fairness, John Edwards' campaign has a point. Clinton has the name and for some reason Obama has acquired rock star status, and coverage of Edwards goes by the wayside. If the media really wants to be fair and unbiased, everyone gets covered equally. As far as fielding tough questions, the job of President is going to be a lot tougher, so deal with it.

Absolutely not. The job of the news media is to keep it's customers happy – meaning complete and unbiased coverage of the candidates. As a customer, I want to see Edwards receive as much attention as Obama and Clinton. There's only three of them, and Edwards is viable. Come on.

Jack, your job is to keep me accurately informed about all matters newsworthy. If some politico gets his or her feelings hurt because of your accurate reports, well tough you-know-what.

Mike from South City, CA

It's not anybody's job to make the candidates happy, except perhaps their families and campaign workers. Short of enacting a public financing law for federal elections, it's the news media's RESPONSIBILITY to cover all the viable candidates equally. That standard has not been a major priority for the "infotainment" media in the coverage. The real journalistic news has been cancelled, all that's left is Britney, Lindsey, and Paris.

No, the media isn't supposed to keep candidates happy, but neither should it be voting for the populace. When I studied journalism, I was told to report the news, that personal opinions were reserved for the op-ed page. Today the media talks about their expertise, their opinion, so what they choose to cover is all that counts. Unfortunately with so many uninformed Americans, your choice of what and who is how we get people like George Bush.

Of Course it isn't the news media's job to keep the candidates. However, it is their responsibility to report the truth. Your question, as ususal is deliberately tristed. The candidates do not expect the media to keep them happy. However, attempts to make Bill Clinton look like he and Hillary filed the suit in Las Vegas was an insult. The Reporter knew they had not and was asking the wrong question to the wrong people; and CNN was trying to make it appear otherwise. In tlhe case of Romney he was hiding the truth on question of lobbyists "running" his campaign. There was high level lobbying involvement and it was fair to bring it out. CNN repeatedly tries to make the candidates look bad because they they think it makes news. However, the viewing public can recognize the difference and ultimately it is CNN that looks bad. CNN has unfairly attacked the candidate to make the looser look like a winner and make a winner look like a looser. A little truth and fairness by CNN would be appreciated. After all, news media are not fooling the public.

Jack: No, it's not the media's job to keep the candidates "happy," but I would think it's the media's desire to keep their viewer's happy. I have personally witnessed the media in general, (not as much on your particular show) repeatedly favoring Clinton and Obama, even when Edwards came in second in Iowa. They give Thompson more air time who only got 1% in New Hampshire. I'm confident the Edwards campaign has researched this and can prove it. Perhaps the mega media corporations don't like his message that it's in the best interests of the people for anti-trust laws to be enforced.

No, it is not the news media’s job to keep all the candidates happy. However, balanced coverage on all candidates is the news media's job. Ron Paul is one example of an under appreciated candidate. Time is money, so when you give certain candidates more air time ...... well you see where I'm going.

No the media does not have a responsibility to keep the candidates happy. But they do have an obligation to cover them relatively equally until when and if they drop out of the race. However both positive and negative stories should be shown on all candidates rather than simply concentrating on the front runners from the beginning. Had they shown only the top candidates to begin with in 1992, you probably wouldn’ t even know the name Bill Clinton

Sorry to say, your media coverage is pretty sad, when it comes to actually understanding candidates. You can take refuge in that, pretty much, almost all media covers so badly, its best to read the propaganda from the candidates themselves than read the news. Whether Edwards, Romney, or Clinton are right or wrong in their assessment that the media is biased hardly bears a candle to the blazing torrent of adds I have to look at every time I read the news. And do you think for one second while I'm being surrounded by all those advertisements that in some, far-fetched way, that those advertisers have no bearing, whatsoever, on the news that I am reading or watching? I laugh the most when media posts criticism of itself, in feigned defense that it is willing to be self-critical. There was a time when newspapers were worth the paper they were printed on. Well, you could say that media today is worth the same as what it costs me to read this web page. Basically, zero.

No, you keep them honest.
'If everyone cared and nobody lied we'd see the day when nobody died'

I have a question for you, why would we believe anyone who has lied under oath?
Why does anyone listen to anything Bill Clinton says?
I think he is a big baby who throws fits when he does not get what he wants.
I don't believe anything the Clintons say now.
Thanks,
Linda in California

Follow up:

I would like to remind you that there are three democratic candidates, but by listening to the media, YOU have already decided FOR US – that, my friend, is not reporting, but narrowing the field to the masses based on what?

: )""""` (...I spit in your general direction – Monty Python and the Holy Grail, 1972?)

You're part of media, Jack - what do you think?

No. The media should ask all candidates questions and report their answers, positions, voting, records, etc. Instead the media comes up with a cartoon of each candidate and sells it to the public. The media has tended to ignore or trivialize populist candidates, especially Edwards. I'm sure his opposition to media consolidation hasn't made him popular among the mainstream (corporately owned) media. Sounds to me like you're the whiner, Jack.

Jack. Here's a great example on how the Media has played a Negative Role in this campaign. The Media has annointed Hillary Clinton as the candidate of "Experience" because she has been on the National Stage for decades. However, Hillary Clinton does NOT have the most experience to be President and the Media has erroneously excepted her self-proclamation that she is as such. ill Richardson technically had the most experience, but when you operate on a State Level, people tend to discount your abilities and cridentials.

8 years as First Lady is not justifyable experience to be President of the United States. Hillary Clinton is just barely in her SECOND term as a United States Senator. She has served in no other elected offices in the Unites States Government. Barack Obama has served 4 years in the United States Senate and 11 years in the Illinois States Legislature... and if my math is correct, Obama has nearly twice the time in legislative offices in our government. Why is Obama's experience in the Illinois State Legislative Body not as relevant has Hillary's experience as Wife to a President? I am baffled. To boot, Obama graduated at the Top of his class at Havard Law School. By-passed a 6-digit figure salary to teach Constitutional Law at the #2 Law School in the Nation.

OBAMA has more experience when it comes to the U.S. Constition which Chaney has thrown out the door for the past 7 years. The country would have been better served if many of the so-called "experienced" Politicians would have taken his class. Obama knows how to bring people together. He proved that by taking a challenge on the South Side of Chicago, leading an economically challenged community, directly helping layed-off steel workers and addressing crime in the trenches. I would love to see Hillary on the South Side in the Ghettos dealing with real people and real problems. OBAMA is a leader... Hillary is a Manager. Obama transends race, age, religion and party. He can restore dignity to the Office of the President which has been tarnished by the Last TWO Presidents.

Obama will bring the World back to America and lift the spirits and hearts of a sorely divided people. Obama should be the President and Hillary should be the Vice President. That's the ticket Americans are Hungry for... and that's what the Democratic Party needs to deliver to America.

Jack. Here's a great example on how the Media has played a Negative Role in this campaign. The Media has annointed Hillary Clinton as the candidate of "Experience" because she has been on the National Stage for decades. However, Hillary Clinton does NOT have the most experience to be President and the Media has erroneously excepted her self-proclamation that she is as such. ill Richardson technically had the most experience, but when you operate on a State Level, people tend to discount your abilities and cridentials.

8 years as First Lady is not justifyable experience to be President of the United States. Hillary Clinton is just barely in her SECOND term as a United States Senator. She has served in no other elected offices in the Unites States Government. Barack Obama has served 4 years in the United States Senate and 11 years in the Illinois States Legislature... and if my math is correct, Obama has nearly twice the time in legislative offices in our government. Why is Obama's experience in the Illinois State Legislative Body not as relevant has Hillary's experience as Wife to a President? I am baffled. To boot, Obama graduated at the Top of his class at Havard Law School. By-passed a 6-digit figure salary to teach Constitutional Law at the #2 Law School in the Nation.

OBAMA has more experience when it comes to the U.S. Constitution which Chaney has thrown out the door for the past 7 years. The country would have been better served if many of the so-called "experienced" Politicians would have taken his class. Obama knows how to bring people together. He proved that by taking a challenge on the South Side of Chicago, leading an economically challenged community, directly helping layed-off steel workers and addressing crime in the trenches. I would love to see Hillary on the South Side in the Ghettos dealing with real people and real problems. OBAMA is a leader... Hillary is a Manager. Obama transends race, age, religion and party. He can restore dignity to the Office of the President which has been tarnished by the Last TWO Presidents.

Obama will bring the World back to America and lift the spirits and hearts of a sorely divided people. Obama should be the President and Hillary should be the Vice President. That's the ticket Americans are Hungry for... and that's what the Democratic Party needs to deliver to America.

There is only one Candidate that has actually been black listed by the Media including CNN and that Candidate is Ron Paul.
Fox would not even allow him to be in the New Hampshire debate. CNN will put on TV the Republican candidates and their scores, but they wont put up Ron Paul's eventhough his score is better than Gulianni and Thompson.
I guess that tells you right there.

Ron Paul has raised more money in a single day than any candidate. All you have to do is listen to Ron Paul speak and you can tell he is the guy for the job, but americans are ignorant on candidates and they get their information from the media wich is completly false and hyped out for ratings, never foreget that fact, it's all about ratings.

Do yourself a favor and listen to Ron Paul speak one time, and listen to him stand up and defend your Constitution of the United Staes of America.

P.S Look up his VOTING RECORD, you will be shocked, this guy should be president on that alone.

Dear Jack,
I tell you now that PEOPLE, our general populous, deserves EXACTLY what they are about to get, and that is 2 candidates, 1 democrat and 1 republican, of your (I.E. the Media's) choosing. You people (Let me be clear –the media–), have a long history of bias reporting, always snuffing the flames of lesser known candidates early on, in favor of the ones that YOU like and take seriously. Lets look at the facts, since television became THE Media outlet for the USA, sometime around the late 50's, we've become ruled and influenced by so called experts and polls, and we've lost all of our Jobs, have fought in about a half dozen POLICE ACTIONS (not wars) to no real gain, inflation is going through the roof, and we are losing our position as the best nation in the world. We are headed for economic disaster, Jack, and there are people out there actually wanting to vote for Hillary Clinton, who had 8 unproductive years in the white house already, and Barack Obama, who was BORN rich, and handled to be what he is, a career politician, or Mitt Romney, THE definition of giving what's left of our country to Corporations, or how about McCain, and essential flip-flopper who's going to RE-TRAIN us all to do our old $23/hr. jobs for $10. I tell you now, that "WE THE PEOPLE" deserve the Worst choices that you media types can choose for us! After all, you guys are all wealthy TV types that are guided by concerns other than financial well being, unlike the rest of us. Why should you even care about who is the best for the country? But it doesn't matter now. I fear it's too late. If we don't start thinking freely, telling THE MEDIA to "shove-it", and TAKING BACK OUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE FREELY, (and in a real hurry) we are all screwed. You know the funny part is that when this nations markets crumble, many of you bias, wealthy folks will be put in the poorhouse with the rest of us poor college graduates, looking for new $10/hr. jobs with no insurance.

p.s. .... I personally still like Edwards and Paul, who are still in the campaign. I didn't know if you knew that or not, Jack.

the media's job is to report the news, not make it. too often the media is making news to sell advertising. the evening news lacks intelligence and is stupid sounding. when contrasted with a show like the news hour on pbs, network news looks like an animated disney version. yes, edwards has got the short end and we can only guess this is because it is more exciting to have a real 2 way horse race. and the debates, run by the media, are not very intelligent either. it really is embarassing.

I don't think it's the media's job to keep the candidates happy but I do expect they should be equal to all of them. NO ONE has asked Barak Obama any tough questions or shoved a microphone in his face. I'm not even a Hillary supporter and think the media has been much more critical of her. Is the media afraid of Obama?! The racism is coming from the media but please remember – he is biracial-and all we hear is that he is black-what about his mother-she was white-doesn't that count for anything? They are already making him the President and forgetting that it is the people that will decide. What about some of the lesser known candidates? Let's get to know them and what they stand for. Let's not make this contest be about race or just two people as the media is trying to push. I am an undecided voter but the person who secures this country from illegal immigration and defends out borders will be the one who received my vote.

Jack, the media should report the "news" of the day, that being the "newly received or noteworthy information about recent or important events." This may be broad enough to include the daily happenings on the campaign trail. To be fair, all candidates should be covered, even those with low "poll" numbers. Who knows how the "polls" might change if lesser "known" candidates were covered. Plus, it would be more interesting to see the extremists of each party, making the viable candidates' moderate stances more apparent. ! Let's hear what Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kuccinich answer the same questions asked of other candidates. (OK, Tim Russert is doing so on Meet the Press. Hearing Ron Paul's lack of specific knowledge on troop numbers, costs, etc, proved him to be unelectable.) Plus these extremists can be down right entertaining

Only when profit became a motive for news was "spin" invented. When News departments are expected to turn a profit and reporters become celebrities, often the media is required to MAKE news, (to up ratings, fill time, and appeal to advertisers), whether from enflaming a situation by repeating a story over and over, having commentators "expound" on the events, or sensationalizing personal tragedies of celebrities and common people (Britney Spears to Staci Peterson).
Reporters have actually gotten lazy. It is much easier to regurgitate what a press release, spokesperson, or candidate says, than to really report, (to give a spoken or written account of something that one has observed, heard, done or investigated). Anything else is just pablum.

When the act of reporting affects events, then the role of journalism is no longer effective. Just as in science, when the act of observation becomes a factor, influence of the experiment, the results are questionable. So to for the general state of reporting in our country.

I applaud CNN for the best attempt at reporting. Without Anderson Cooper, would New Orleans' fate been so well documented. However, now, if Anderson Cooper shows up to observe an event, it is news just because Anderson Cooper showed up. The "fickle finger of fate." So, media is supposed to show up, observe, report, and investigate. Sometimes, no news is news. What would happen if a reporter assigned to a candidate said something like the following? "Today the candidate made speeches to xxx group here in zzz repeating the same speech used for the last 3 days. He took similar questions from individuals and gave the same evasive answers we have already reported. The crowd of supporters of course were enthusiastic. The undecided voters were still unsure, and those against the candidate were vocal." Hmmm. Would sure give time for more detail on what is really going on in Iraq, corruption, Haliburton, the economy, the state of rebuilding in New Orleans, International news, etc. Then there would be new items to ask candidates about.
But that would be "hard work" in the terms of our fearless leader. Why do that when it is much easier to be a newsdesk potato and just sit around and talk, talk, talk. Give us some meat, facts, things to think about. Oh wait, that is what YOU do, Jack. Thanks.

It's the job of the media to cover All the candidates, not just the top two. There are 50 states in the United States and the media keeps talking about how South Carolina is so important. What about the rest of us. I live in Ohio and our primary isn't until March 4th. I guess we might as well forget it. Sounds like they will already know who the candidate will be. This selection of a candidate should not be over until ALL the states have voted. We all get the right to vote so let us all vote. I don't quite understand why all the states don't vote at the same time so it gives us all a say in what is going on. This way is ridiculous.

Having watched the exchange between the reporter and Romney , on the news, and so seeing several different edits of it, I do NOT recall ANY of them showing Romney say "stinkin"- !!

Is this a deliberate attempt to lower the GENTLEMAN like response of Romney to the level of the "rude" as quoted from a woman staderby in the video- of the press mans exchange?

For the PRESS to be defensive and the PRESS to "whine" while saying the candidates are defensive and whining is amazing. Who gets hurt worse??

When the press can and DOES often take things out of context and blow them up and HURT a candidate who has spent so much time and money for the run, while the press gets PAID to REPORT!!

I think it is VERY IMPORTANT that the press do its job, which is to REPORT the news accurately, and for them to misquote- and be a heckler in a speech is not right!

Shame on the press!!!

The media is skewing the reporting. Obama is a rock star. Hillary is a cry baby.
Clinton fights with the media. Look at Obama tell jokes. Oprah is Queen of politics. Blacks want Obama. Clintons are pit bulls. Change is key. Experience is not as importaint. Please report policy and unbiased news. These sound like headlines from a tabloid newspaper. Stop it!!!!!!!!!!1

I think it is good for the media to engage candidates and not just "report". The public can get a lot of good information from these exchanges. The Romney exchange offered me (a political novice) a closer look into Romney, into his campaign and also how this whole process works.

p.s. When I understand at least one candidate HAS a lobbyist RUNNING his campaign, while Romney does NOT nor even in the paid category of it, nor in on the upper level strategies- then that is DIFFERENT!!!

I think the public wants to see if our candidates might be unethically influenced, and that Romney is NOT beholden to special interest group, helps keep politics clean!

I think Romney was RIGHT ON, to clear up what smear the reporter tried to do- in making a FACT (running is running, while lower level adviser does not RUN it!) called a lie- and to see on here that some now THINK Romney lied, because of the reporter- is exactly the point!!!

I also believe the public would like not to see such bias in the press or such making an offender for a word- then to have the reporter call it "semantics" when it WAS said right by the candidate!!! Sheeish!

– Just like a fee is a fee and a tax is a tax, and if they weren't different then they wouldn't have different words!

Fees – I understand are supposed to be for the usage in a comparable way for the services, - a fee to camp overnight in a state park, is paid by those who use it, to cover the cost of maintaing etc and if they haven't been raised appropriately to the costs for decades, then they should be raised!

Taxes- I understand are more just assigned to raise money in general, often not at all specific to any certain usage, while the govt. gets to spend it where they will. I think there IS a BIG difference!! I don't have to go camping!

Why keep them happy???? How about keeping the Americans happy. Why don't they mention the future of Social Security and lower healthcare costs. My husband retired and has to pay $725 a month to keep his healthcare coverage on the 2 of us. He will be turning 61 in May, so Medicare is not an option yet. They should look at these two issues also and maybe make us happy too. They don't care because they won't even need to collect their SS because they have money. What about the people that have worked all of their lives?? Don't give it away to all these "aliens" coming into the country that don't deserve it. !!!!!!

Jack,
All that Bill Clinton and his wife are doing is just going more and more negative and abusive against the media/journalists, union workers and Obama. Hillary has not yet told us the change that she represents. It is clear to everybody that if Hillary gets the nomination, then the democrats will loose the general election in November, because she and her husband are surrounded by lots of issues that the Republicans will love to use to launch attacks against her. Her rival Obama is more honest; is a uniter; and he can work well with all the parts (Republicans, democrats and Independents) in politics.The entire world wants Obama-Edwards to join reconnect America with the rest of the world. If Clinton gets nominated, it is no change at all. Hillary simply wants power over the people but Obama wants to serve the people. Just see how desperate Bill Clinton has become now. Hopefully the media is keeping Hillary Clinton's campaign diary for her. I can't forgive her for that crocodile tears at New Hempshire. Hillary and Bill Clinton, and Mitt Romney are not treating the media nicely. Hopefully, the media won't be intimidated.

Romney wasn't "asked" about the role of lobbyists in his campaign...he was challenged in the middle of a speech by some smug little boy. He did not approach Romney in a dignified, professional manner. He interrupted him by accusing him of lying.

Certainly "the media" can come up with better ways to address an issue than that. If not, then it deserves whatever the candidates give them. The media should be as accountable as the candidates.

I still cannot believe that the media in the biggest democracy in the world still shuts out running candidates and favors some over others. Every election year it's the same. Remember Nader in 2004? People are blogging, emailing, calling and writing letters to show their contempt, but things just don't change. Want to know the reason? Because corporations run America and their power scares even CNN. One more thing: I feel sick to my stomach hearing debate anchors giggle, and especially the invited CNN experts. I just can't add these things together. Why media America lowers its level by far during election time, when it normally really has good quality and balanced coverage.

Hi Cafferty,

I wish more candidates had the guts to attack the media. All of you are doing worse than lousy. The death of informative, accurate and objective journalism occurred when the so called experts started appear on TV. Hell, every one is an expert. Someone writes lousy article on Economics and that person becomes an expert/pundit on economics on TV, same goes for Foreign Policy, War on Terrorism, you name it. To become a pundit on TV, all one has to do is write a lousy article or a lousy book.

Have any of you looked at surveys on trust, you guys rank just about equal with snake oil sales men. None of you have any credibility. Watch Carl Bernstien, Bob Woodward, it is sickening.

Then you have Chris Mathews and the other guy on Fox (forgot his name at the moment). They like shout down everything they don't agree with. Hannity and Combs is another story all together.

None of you are reporting news objectively. Instead, all of you are producing Reality shows.

Jack, Lou Dobbs, Wolfe, AC-360 & CNN,
Please tell Hillary & Bill Clinton, and Mitt Romney to stop abusing and intimidating the media and journalists. They remind me of Dick Chenney not allowing Wolfe Blister to speak during one of their sittings on CNN. I am not happy to see people who intimidate journalists doing their jobs. That is a third-world phenomenon. In the third world countries, politician slap journalists in the face and get away with it. That is nearly how verbally abusive, Bill Clinton and Mitt Romney and Hillary seem to be doing (not physically) these days. The media needs to expose and televise these bad behaviors of the Clintons and Mitt Romney now before others will begin to emulate it. Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton do not represent the change that Americans and the world need now. Clintons have had their 8 years term to have effected any change that they want now. Present Bush might be way better than Mitt Romney. There is no need to risk with Romney. Washington needs new faces and names...no more aristocracy is needed.

It is not the medias job the keep the candidates but they also have to remember the media is the only way people can rate the candidates in a lot of cases.
I think John Edwards has a lot to offer..........Its a shame that the media will pick the next president not the american people lets just hope they get it right.

What i think is the news media should ask real questions about the situtation in this country not the phoney ones that are asked now.

1. national id card = loss of personal freedom
2. why when either party gets a majority they still can not get any real work done = it seems like they just want to keep the good old guys network going and the heck with the rest of us.
3. they obviously do not want to work out health plan for us – they do not care they have one so not interested in us

as far as you reporters are concerned you should give more coverage to the ron paul and his ideas, perhaps he can not be elected HOWEVER IT APPEARS THAT HE IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN TALK ABOUT THE ECONOMY AND THE PHONEY FEDERAL RESERVE BANK – RUN FOR PROFIT = AND I DO NOT MEAN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

STOP PREDETERMINING WHO WILL WIN I THINK IT STOPS VOTER TURN OUT AND STOPS PEOPLE FROM THINKING FOR THEM SELVES, AFTER ALL YOU ARE NOT GODS, ARE YOU?

No, I do not think it the job of they press to make candidates happy, but I do believe it is their job to provide accurate and fair reporting. This is not happening. The major news shows such as CNN, MSNBC and Fox have all been making the campaign news instead of covering it. Their coverage has been exaggerating and keeping alive information that should have been given a blip of coverage and then moved on to more pressing information. Their has been so much cynacism and negative reporting by these programs – yours included, that it appears to be an attempt to sway the vote. Certain candidates definately receive more attention. Take the democrats. Edwards is right, he receives the least attention but then he has the least to cover. He was in all the same elections and debates and stays pretty close to Obama's coattails. Many say he is running for vice-president. Obama is constantly shown to be the bright, positive force in the campaign, while Clinton is the constant source of cynical, overexaggerated reporting. I don't care what your personal opinions of the candidates are – I want to hear about their stand on the issues that will help this country get out of the mess it is in. I WISH I had the public forum to ask questions that you have. I have been a supporter of CNN and to a lesser degree MSNBC. Lately I might as well be watching Fox. You guy seem to be taking lessons from Hannity. I have been extremely disappointed in the coverage of this election by people that I have long admired including but certainly not limited to Wolf and Jack. I am so tired of seeing them drag blacks on camera to support Obamas position on some stupid inconsequential story and completely derail Clinton. It is so biased. It is you, gentlemen – who are keeping the race issue alive. It is not Obama or Clinton and if you would refuse to report OVER AND OVER instances they would die down and we could see the real issues. You, the press and newshows, are spinning this campaign in a very dangerous way. This country has come a long way with racial prejudices and has a long ways to go, but your slanted coverage and constant shoving it down our throats that this is racial will set us back into the stone ages. After all, who does it help to make this electiion about race. Not the Clintons – they have fought their entire lives to eliminate racial unfairness and prejudices. If it were not for people like the Clinton's you would not even have Obama standing on a stage, running for president today. Please stop trying to make this about race – YOU ARE DESTROYING THIS ELECTION AND PUTTING RACIAL OVERTONES IN THIS COUNTRY. WE DO NOT NEED THIS.

My husband and I left NE Ohio in 1998 for the far southwestern corner of South Carolina. Our first election there was a real eye opener. We signed in at a desk and surrounding the desk were dozens of folding chairs, empty ones. We were handed a paper ballot and a clip board and told to take a seat. All folding chairs were soon occupied and we all sat there, pencils in hand, marking our ballots. We could easily have seen how others marked their ballot; no one seemed too interested in doing that. After we marked our ballots, we put them into a box and later that day they were hand counted. archaic??? Yes, but I knew my vote was counted, more than I can say for my Ohio vote when we moved back. Elizabeth

Edwards must have a message about big governement and corporations don't want us to hear! That is what the real problem is, you are afraid of him winning, that may be the downfall of the freerides and big money lobby groups... hmmmm. Thanks for making this so clear.

Jack, you know as well as most of the people posting here that not only has the Media coverage failed to recognize Edwards as a viable candidate, you along with others try to turn their comments into a negative spin. I, along with millions of other Americans, am insulted with you and other MSM (Main Stream Media) outlets that report hoping I can be persuaded and responded to you slanted views. Like Russia from years ago, governement and large corporations ahve a stronghold on what "real" news is released and allowed to be reported. We were spellbound that citizens could be duped in such manner.

I BEG other Americans to follow me in studying the facts without the fluff of the major networks, polls and pundants. One of my biggest factor in determining who I supported was based on "who does the news not want me to know about?" "who do they no want to cover and why?"... and you helped me answer that this weekend... I support Edwards.

No matter how the media tries to force feed us Obama, we will not buy it. It is a shame that we have allowed the media so much power to decide for us who to like based on their selective coverage. Double standards by the major networks are clearly seen in this campaign.

That's a really loaded question. There's a difference between pleasing the candidates and playing your part to ensure fair elections. I don't agree with his views, but I can sympathize with John Edwards...media coverage can make or break a candidate. So no, don't go out of your way to please the candidates, but be sure to play fair and no one will have anything bad to say.

Jack,
Maybe your right, but as soon as the Edwards campaign called the media (CNN included) onto the carpet over this issue, all of a sudden Edwards appeared in your coverage where he was conspiciously absent before. Yes, the candidates are responsible for their own success, but the media has a duty to present the news to it's public with engendering any bias into it's coverage. Gotca – you guys were guilty! How about a little more coverage on the "other candidates" and a lot less star struck banter over the candidates the media loves. Even though a candidate may not have a chance to win, he or she may have something very valuable to add to the political; debate and in doing so help change political policy and actions going forward. BTY – I'm still undecided and looking for more information on the candidates stance on issues.

I believe that the media only covers what gets immediate headlines. What they do now is incomplete.

I used to watch the news on television, 7 days a week, cnn was my favorite ( i guess still is if you have to pick one)

I actually gave up watching television during this presidential election – no kidding!

The news has been so biased lalely ( on so many different levels) that has been pathetic to watch.

I figured out that you have to really read into things yourself, because if you let the media tell you – they put their "spin" on it.

It is lame....

The media is doing what it always does, providing the necessary spin to promote the candidate THEY want elected. The usual media bias. Move along, move along.

No, it's not the media's job to keep candidates happy. But, like a few people have already mentioned, it is the media's job to cover every candidate equally who is still in the race. Also, I realize that this has been the longest campaign season in history, but it is not the media's job to "stir up" controversy between the various campaigns simply so there is something to report on. As the weeks have gone on, I have become less and less pleased with the campaign coverage.

Jack, so what was it Edwards was wrong about? You've been hanging around with that idiot Lou Dobbs too long. No. it is not the media's responsibility to keep the candidates happy and the public is best served by those in the media asking ALL the candidates hard questions, but the fact is that some in the media pick favorites or try to narrow the field waaaayyy too soon. Your network and others have anointed front runner status to Clinton and Obama and Edwards is exactly right to "call" you guys out on the arbitrary narrowing of the Democratic field. Edwards is a legitimate candidate and deserves better coverage than he's getting. (By the way, you guys would love to narrow the GOP's candidates down to a more manageable level but none of those morons have distinguished themselves, nor have the early voters been able to pick one or two, mainly because there isn't a dimes worth a difference between any of them.)

Its not the news media's job to keep the candidates happy any more than it is their job to keep the public happy. The candidates are applying for a job. The job makes them hired help for the American people not royalty. The news media are our interviewers in the selection process and they should be as aggressive, skeptical and if necessary confrontational as needed.

Agree w/virtually everyone here–but what do you bet that even though these responses almost certainly reveal what the vast majority of the country feels re: the media, not only will it be either ignored or given short shrift.

How about proving me wrong, Mr. Cafferty? How about taking the media–and yourself–to task and showing (not difficult; I'm sure the figures are easily obtainable) in a simple pie chart how much coverage overall/print/TV has been given to each candidate since the campaigns kicked off, or even since, say, a week before Iowa? How about having a round-table on it with some critics of the media or some reviewers who can tell you the truth?

A little more in depth but no harder: show how much was issues-vs-personality, and how much was negative by the reporters/opinionators themselves?

Sorry you don't want to hear it, but you're too smart not to know it's true. And of course we are too smart not to know you'll ignore all of these comments as though they were a John Edwards or Ron Paul major policy statement (I'm not a big fan of either, but anyone who can't see how shafted they've been compared to the so-called "front-runners" -of whom I am a supported – is delusional).

Self-fulfilling prophecy–"they aren't electable so we won't cover them which decreases their chances of being elected"–and calling truth "whining" and asking the bogus question about "keeping them happy" instead of "is the perceived bias true"–are things bad/biased media does. Though beneath you, apparently they strike too close to home. You've dropped the ball (named truth) on this one, sir. I'm only sorry neither you nor any of your fellows have the courage to pick it up.

The media had the nominations decided for the american people before the caucases and primaries even started. Now they are nursing bruised egos because the people generally voted how they wanted to and didn't follow the media. What canidate is getting positive news coverage depends on which news outlet you watch. There is no such thing as unbiased journalism anymore.

No, there is no anything wrong with caucuses being held in casinos. More location, more participation. That's GOODNESS.

No, the media need not work to keep candidates happy. The media need only report on all candidtes, being impartial and reporting only facts and issues presented by the electorate.

I believe CNN does a great job. I especially enjoy the spots of Jack.

It's not the news media’s job to keep all the candidates happy, but it is their job to cover the race accurately so voters can make up their mind. And ignoring because you don't like a candidate critical stance on big corporations and thereby shaping a presidential race insteda of reporting it is pathetic.

It is not the responsibility of the media to keep the candidates happy, but it is their responsibility to remain objective and present UNBIASED reports on ALL news, be it natural disasters, war, and yes, politics. Generally speaking, the media has abandoned its primary responsibility of factual reporting to push their own agenda. They influence their audience in many subtle ways, including repetitive unflattering/flattering pictures of the candidates, the constant replay of statements made out of context, as well as outright personal disparagement of the candidates. In some cases, they even become the story, as did the reporter in SC who interrupted Romney while he was speaking to challenge Romney's veracity, regarding his relationship with lobbyists. The reporter was unprofessional. He should have waited until Romney concluded his speech and then politley asked the question. It was a question that needed to be asked, but in a civil way.

It's the media's job to report the news and, God forbid, investigate things. If anything from the last seven years of the Bush Administration we've learned the media is utterly incapable of investigating and instead just acts as the White House's puppet, but you'd think they could at least report the news fairly. It's not the job of the meida the keep the candidates happy, but complaints from John Edwards and Ron Paul are valid. You (the media) don't appreciate how you affect the process. You spend all your time focusing on the big frontrunners, blowing up minor scuffles and pretending they are much bigger deals than they really are, and in the mean time, who is actually looking at the meat of the candidates? Who screening them? It's supposed to be the job of the public AND the media, and it's harder for us to do our job if you won't do yours.

Don't just do it to make them happy, actually do your jobs and get into the issues, report the candidates evenly and fairly, don't blow up minor wordplay into huge fights that don't actually exist, don't nitpick every statement they say. It's no wonder we have brushed and polished candidates, the media won't allow for anything less.

It's not the news media’s job to keep all the candidates happy, but it is their job to cover the race accurately so voters can make up their mind. And ignoring a particular candidate because your corporate sponsors don't like him because of his critical stance on big corporations and thereby shaping a presidential race instead of giving him an proportional amount of coverage is pathetic.

Today's "reporters" have sold their professional expertise to the media giants who exercise control over the stories that "sell" in the competative market. The history of journalism in America has been to make we Americans uncomfortable enough to think about the larger situation upon which our personal existence depends. There have been periods in our history when the media stepped up and gave the public the information they needed to make sometimes difficult but necessary decisions. The print media will occasionally print a well researched article that points out facts that causes unease about our country but not so with the broadcast media. Currently, folks like you Jack will immediately undermine any attempt to point out that the broadcast media is pandering to the sound bite appetites of Americans who do not choose to know uncomfortable facts and make difficult decisions. I do understand that my statement will get very little attention from you, or anyone like you, because you will continue to pay your bills by being a sassy talking head rather than a serious journalist.

No one asked you to make the candidates happy. All any of them are asking for is equal time. It is very obvious that there two favorites on the Democratic side and three on the Republican side. God help the others that don't appeal to the networks! Matthews and Scarborough are the worse, I thought reporters were supposed to be unbiased. Those two should be on Fox News instead. What they don't realize is they are driving voters to Hillary's camp by drooling over Obama. Hey Chris there is a lot more to being President then being "one good looking family".

you just don,t get do you Jack? I guess that makes you a Pundit and not a reporter!

It is absolutely not the responsibility of the news media to keep the candidates happy. The news is supposed to give the people information, not necessarily appeasing them. Likewise, candidates should realize fully that their actions influence what the news media says about them, and act accordingly.

This “shot in the arm” stimulus plan is to the economy is not going to work. This is UNACCEPTABLE!!

The Undocumented Citizens who has no income will be unbeneficial from a tax cut and how would that put money into their pockets when they are unemployed and unqualified/disqualified from all Social Services Benefits????

This plan is flawed and will create more of a problem down the line. Talk about selling out of the Middle Class Citizens who are undocumented, unemployed who are non-tax payers.

This Stimulus Plan – why not use is solely on the Citizens who are undocumented, non-tax-payers, unemployed, homeless…etc why not put the money in their pockets on a permanent bias and correct their hardship????

How many individuals who are non-citizens will benefit from this Stimulus Plan? How many illegal aliens, who have jobs will benefit from this Stimulus Plan, over the undocumented Citizens???? How many undocumented Citizens who are unemployed will benefit over non-citizens???? Should non-citizens/aliens/illegal immigrants who broke the law be awarded/bribe with this Stimulus Plan?

This perpetuation of a Stimulus Plan is a process/pattern of behavior that is only beneficial to law breakers. If it had not worked in the past (2001, 2005) been corrected, and was unbeneficial, what would make it work this time around??? Therefore the WAR on the undocumented citizens, who were middle class America citizens, continues.

This prove that undocumented citizens is a class of people that is and will be defunct and that has be depraved indifference upon their lives by the Government/White House Stimulus Plans and by all governmental officials. This group of classless individuals are continued to be an eyesore to everyone who pass them on the street and turn up their noses. This stimulus plan is to enforce beliefs that reckless endangerment is pre-mediated and they are forced against their will involuntarily to accept their faith as such; and continue with hardship. This is unacceptable. All of the Stimulus Plan, money, should be awarded to the Undocumented Citizens. Instead it is used to push them out by bribing the working class, non-citizens, aliens…etc for having the undocumented citizens obsolete. How does that make this the “Greatest Nation?” Ms. C. Jugmohan

It's not the media's job to keep the candidates happy. It is the media's job to report FACTS not OPINIONS. Jack, you just stated your opinion.

No, but also it is not the job of the media to be propeganda media for
Obama & McCain.

No Jack, but it is also not the medias job to try and create a race war between the Democrats. Enough is enough with that Jack. The small race issues that are left in this country will die with your generation.

John

I didn't read all the responses to the "media bias" issue because I am fed up to the gills with both the media frenzy and the candidate posturing associated with the upcoming presidential election. It has gotten so bad that I find myself gaining relief when your seemingly never-ending, assinine commercials come along to break up the diatribes from both factions.

Mit Romney was not innocently "asked" about the role of lobbyists in his campaign, as this ridiculous story implies. Rather, a rude reporter blurted out during the middle of one of Romney's speeches, calling him a liar to his face in front of several other reporters. When Romney tried to explain his story, the petulant reporter repeated his attack. Romney had EVERY reason to get in the reporter's face. This election has made me detest most "eporters, most of whom do not "report "at all but spin their stories with a strong liberal slant. Romney in particular has been relentlessly attacked by the media. It's time that it stops. Reporters need to get back to the business of reporting and at least try to be objective.

Those in the media should ask relevant questions and report the facts. Period. Not push their own agenda or create news stories where there are none. I'm sick of soundbites intended to inflame and promote "news" that doesn't exist except in a few small minds.

The questions and answers in the debates have been mostly worthless in terms of telling us what the candidates will actually DO should they get elected. Does Clinton like pearls or diamonds? Please, get real. Not allowing Obama his question? Unprofessional. Comments about the looks of Clinton's daughter, or McCain carrying a piece of luggage has no place in commentary.

Priorities of the issues – all the issues – is also important. Don't use smokescreens to divert from more important things. While it's a legitimate issue of importance in some states, the 15 minutes spent talking about licenses for illegal immigrants (that was a Republican debate) when most people across the nation are much more worried about war, paying bills, health care, etc., just angered me.

I want to know a candidates position and a plan for action on issues that matter every single day. Let the candidates tell us in their own words, in detail. I'm sick of hearing the word "change", without any substance. I want to know HOW a candidate proposes to do that. Also, the fact is that no matter who gets elected, that person must still work with congress to get any proposal through to law. Perhaps the media might actually remind the candidates and the voters of that occasionally, lest we all get caught up in the mentality of expecting miracles. Compromise is a reality. Let each candidate tell me about their plans/positions on issues that matter, including education, social security, outsourcing, health care, abortion, guns, Iraq, Iran, the Patriot Act, and how they expect to work with and unite both congress and the nation to put their ideas into action.

Jack, I love ya but you and the rest of the media are out for ratings and seem to have forgotten the meaning of your jobs. The media is suppose to report the news in a unbiased manner. Should be reporting on all of the candidates, not just the glamour guys. Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards, Ron Paul are all still in the running, but get little or no mention in the so-called news. I used to think Fox was the only network to be completely biased in there reporting. Not so. All of the media should be included. There is not one network or newspaper giving the people of this country a fair and balanced look at all of the candidates and their plans. John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich both have very good ideas and plans, which have been usurped by Clinton & Obama, but nobody reports on that. The only reporting is on Clinton this or Obama that. I realize that while Dennis is porbably no longer viable, John Edwards still is in the running. You guys can say what you will, but hopefully the voting public will do there own research, forget the media hype, and elect someone who can bring this country some peace, prosperity and diginity.

The media is always blamed when things just don't go as they want it to go. True that some times the media can be very hard ond candidates. But if it wasn't for the media no one would know who is Barrack, Clinton or any one of then. Use the media wisely.
But i hope Obama wins. Nice change.

Just like to say i see the Cafferty File on Cnn Europe here in Portugal almost every day. Very good show.
Keep up the good work

Duarte from Portugal.

If Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama decided to opt out of any and all CNN Presidential Debates in favor of MSNBC and FOX debates your network would be up in arms! That's because just like the politicians CNN is desperate for attention or in your case ratings because it's obvious it makes a difference in investment, support and relevance...

How ridiculous for your network to equate Mr. Edwards complaint with the scenarios of Bill Clinton and Mitt Romney. Worse still is how shamefully you've attempted to mask you and your networks lack of journalistic integrity with such a slanted and misleading question as " Is it the news media’s job to keep all the candidates happy?"

Why don't you ask a real real question for once and direct it at the candidates and their staff. ALL of the candidates. That's what happened to Mitt Romney and Bill Clinton. A couple journalists doing their job demanded something of these men that CNN so often fails to demand. REAL INFORMATION! As seen by their responses politicians aren't too use to having to answer such questions are they? I wonder why that is?

Entertainment tonight has more substance than your presidential coverage.

What a joke.

Hi Jack, just a quickie, I just finished your book, "It is Getting Ugly Out there" and it was fantastic. I agree with all you said and then some. You are right on the button with the Bush Administration and his monkeys. Keep up the good work and keep those comments coming, I watch your show every night and you could not be more honest. How about running for President.

Liz
Ft. Edward, NY

To answer your question, No, it is not the medias responsibility to keep the people happy, just to tell it like it is and let the people judge who is telling the truth, if that is at all possible,.

This may hurt.....but here it goes....At the top of the list on the republican side we have a snobby morman liar and flip flopper who thinks we all should be able to afford healthcare easily, we have a "fake" christian who is using the bible to gain votes and not his screwed up message which also includes ending the IRS but replacing it with a 23% sales tax which most of us could not afford, we're better off with th IRS if you do the math! And last but not least a notorious warmonger who claims that he could care less if we pass this "fake" war onto future generations for the next hundred years! What kind of hope do we have with that? That is why we are voting for Ron Paul and no other ,even if we all have to write him in, as our votes are not transferrable. Ron Paul will be our next president even if we have to literally carry him to the oval office! Now it's our turn to choose our next president, Not the media's. The only reason RP is not doing better "YET" is because there are still so many un-informed voters. We still have time

No, it is not the media's responsibility to keep the candidates happy. But it is the responsibility to be fair. Romney has been in the lead for weeks yet how many headlines call him the Front Runner? Not many.

Dear Jack,

Perhaps you do not know how highly regarded you are in Canada. (and therefore probably in the rest of the world as well).

A fair percentage of the general public are highly intelligent people who do not have the desire to be leaders. I'm one of those people. Too many politicians think the public is stupid. Bush doesn't realize how stupid he looks in the public eye.
Both you and Lou Dobbs are highly respected by Canada because you have the guts to stand up for the people and for truth. Oh yes, Larry King has an interesting program. But it's obvious that he is no Jack Cafferty, nor is he a Lou Dobbs.

I wonder if the US govt. realizes how stupid they look to the world with their child-like bickering. The public would vote for someone like you or Lou ahead of these children who are gutless. No wonder the US is going down the tubes. Tell your people at the top of CNN which newsmen are really respected by the world.

For example, Larry King had a show on Friday night on UFO's. He featured several people who witnessed a UFO in Stephenville, Texas. Then he brought in a UFO skeptic who tried to make the witnesses look like fools. The witnesses described what they saw. (10,000 other Texans saw the same thing) Then the skeptic laughs at the witnesses. Does CNN actually think the public believes that 10,000 people are crazy and the self proclaimed expert is accurate. People are not stupid. The skeptic actually looks like the fool. Yet Larry seems to give the skeptic more creedence than the 10,000 witnesses. I'm not pro UFO. I'm simply an intelligent Canadian citizen saying, "Where in hell did they come up with this idiot who is skeptical of UFO's when he wasn't even there. Having him on the show was ridiculous. He wasn't even there at the scene. It's like a fisherman trying to explain the assasination of Kennedy. But the fisherman was at sea when Kennedy was shot. Larry is not using his head. Larry is losing credibility by putting this skeptic idiot on his show. (Especially when 30% of the population have already seen UFO's. What is Larry thinking. Maybe he should retire. We need people who have the guts to question the government. "Jack and Lou, I salute you both for having the guts to intelligently say what you think, even if it's dangerous. We need people like you running for President.

Respectfully,
Bill

They should just be happy that there name is out there. The media likes to forget the Ron Paul is running too.

Jack – I enjoy your approach but didn't appreciate your dismissive comments about press coverage. It was very telling that during the very same discussion (with Wolf Blitzer), a chart was shown of a poll that showed yes/no whether or not 6 of the candidates had 'presidential qualities' and Edwards wasn't even included in that group.

Here's my overall view. Democrats have been stinking this thing up since 1968 because they think they know it all, when they (the wealthy liberals in the cities, anyway) know so little. Instead of finding a candidate that can actually win anywhere (Edwards), they flock to who they feel secure with or get the warm and fuzzies from (who might - might! - win Ohio and that's all). This year looks to be more of the same.

So you are doing a great disservice by reporting on the rock stars, since so many voters aren't that educated and may want to tune in now to get some real facts. They already know who the rock starts are.

"It's the media's job to dig up dirt." So says one of your insightful observers," Jack. I always thought it was to provide accurate commentary and insightful perspective. As for Edwards, yes I think he is being short changed by the media and I don't think that is right. The only time the media seems to think Edwards says anything worth reporting is when he throws in his lot with Obama, which is quiet frequently. How wise a tactic is that? Not very I don't think. We will have to see what develops down the road. Hillary is the only candidate who is qualified 'on day one' (I hate that phrase)to lead this nation and the free world. Edwards deserves a fair shake. I spent 24 years in uniform, and all candidates is entitled to that. The fact he keeps his nostrils firmly up Obama's 'rear cavity 'does not endear him to me, but that seems to be the American way? As an aside, I must say I totally am capivated by Gov. Romney's wife. She is a darling. As for Hillary, Adopt the motto, "Fired Up, Pissed Off, Ready to go on day one!"

Oh Please, it may be ugly, but it may be entirely true and justified. I have never seen in my life so much bias in CNN before than I have these days. Because of shoddy coverage and blatant entertainment reasons I do not know ONE thing about the TWO candidates I am debating over. Mind you its the two candidates that get the most coverage, yet only focusing on petty lame parts of their speeches and campaign spots. Its disgusting and pathetic on your part. CNN focuses on one negative comment out of a 10 to 15 min speech, talk about single-minded coverage. You've made the candidates seem inhumane and ill advised. Forget about the fact that Clinton or Obama can quote voting histories, forget that Obama has let his supporter run nasty ads when he supposedly calls for positive campaigning. Because lets not forget the Obama effect. He won IA, he's set for the nomination for sure! When you don't mention that IA has only 20% of the time voted for the one candidate to go on to win the nomination. this whole Obama effect, please, even Huckabee, the most outrageous candidate has gotten the most coverage by you, the moderate, Giuliani has not gotten any attention otehr than he workers are going without pay, while it seems he's doing nothing because he gets no coverage, when in truth he has been all over and around Florida doing true campaigning. Now there is no place for good news except outside, international sources. Because of CNN becoming the arch-nemesis of FOX, it has become Liberally run and suddenly only Obama seems to be the savior of the Democratic party. Huckabee is the "dark horse" of the Republican party, and the true moderates, Giuliani, Clinton and even McCain have been played as the fool, cougar, or comeback, when they we're never really down and out. CNN is just like another news network. the only reasons it is voted most trusted is because the other networks are just a little more pathetic and CNN is less blatant of its true stance, when there should never be a stance to begin with. Give me real news and then you'll be a real news network, instead of a comment bashing coverage team.

CORRECTION:"all candidates 'are' entitled to that"

Dear Jack, No. I would like to know when are you quys going to quit handling Obama with kid gloves like he your little sister. He is a washington insider just like the rest. He is an American running for the White House so big deal that he is half Black and half White. Big deal that Cliton is a woman so what. Ask the hard question. That is the only way we will know who we should vote for. Hit them all hard with the important questions. Whom ever gets the job has a hard road a head and it want be kid gloves it will be more like a brick wall falling on them. I just want to vote for the one that will attemped to get the job done. I want the truth the real deal, we all know it is going to be a hard road a head for all of us. Sugar coating only keep us from moving forward. I do wish they would quit talking about other president as if the past can fix something. We face real problems in this country and looking back want fix anything that was then and this is now. So bring it on Jack be yourself. P.S. I enjoyed your book.

The job of the media is to present the news. Our job is to acknowledge that regardless of the source each media network carries its own bias and that to get a better reading of the "real" news we need to "average" the reports from multiple sources.

Let's face it, if it makes a good headline it sells. If you have "straddles pulpit", "lashes out", "takes heat", "touts"...connotation already biases before reading the article or hearing the report...

In my state I have to vote alone party lines in the primaries. However, in the general election I can pick and choose whom ever I want to vote for.

Talk about whining! Every time the news media is called out for its behavior, it starts shouting about its 1st amendment rights, and the uncooperative whining subject, etc. The fact is that the media censors what we see and hear. They do not present all the facts so that we, the voters, can make up our own minds. Their mantra seems to be, "If it bleeds, it leads!" Selling advertising is the goal, not keeping the public informed. They make the decision as to what we will see and hear. And if the media outlets are left-leaning, we will get only the left point of view. Period.

I suggest that the news media get its act together or we will have to send the federal government to help make some rules of behavior.

Based upon certification standards established for practioneers in the medical, fertilizer, accounting, education, etc. professions, I have a set of standards I'd like to propose for whining journalists. If the media is interested, let me know.

By the way, what ever happened to MY 1st amendment rights to a free press?

NO, it's not their job 'to keep the candidates happy" Jack.

BUT, IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO REPORT THE NEWS!!!

We don't want your opinion...we have our own.

There are three (3) major Democratic candidates...so how about givins us news coverage on all THREE candidates!!

jACK,
RECESSION
(3 things come in mind)

1. "Bush the Brain" started a "Bush ILLEGAL war for congrol of the Iraq Oil.
That has cost us Billions and more Billions to come in the future.

2. "Bush the Brain" gave his Oil/Corporatins rich buddies "HUGH" tax
reductins, tghat "HaS NOT" helped to improve the Economy what-sop-ever, as he said that it would do (remember his little speach about that?). And now he wants
them extended beyond 2010, another givt to his Oil rich buddies on his way out
the door).

3. "Bush the Brain" "ALLOWED" his buddies in big Corporatins to move jobs
out of the United Staes to other countries, to make more money for his rich
buddies.

NOW DO WE WONDER WHY WE ARE IN A RECSSSION?

ps.
Who is gong to pay for that tax refund(?) hat "Bush the Brain" is proposing?
(Bush and Karl Rowe are laughin AGAIN, "We pulled another one over
the American People).

Kyle Cassell
A Sr. Citizen/Veteran

Jack Cafferty is pathetic. When studies show a candidate who has roughly as many delegates as Obama and Clinton (25-24-18), but receives 1/10th the news coverage, and a "straight shooter" like Jack Cafferty can't own up to bias, there's a problem.

The media needs to stop talking about the media.

Why do you need $100 million to run for president?

I appreciate Jack Cafferty "I'm cute but tough" thing, but his reporting skills are embarrassing. It's pathetic.

It's not that the media should please anyone, the media should be there to report and nothing more.

The most frustrating part of this presidential race is how the media is constantly trying to find the winner after just a few states having cast their votes. What happened to our democracy?

Jack,

I am sorry to say but as a viewer/listener, I have to admit, the media is very disappointing. I heard you on my way home from work yesterday, telling people, that Obama, telling his weakness, in comparison to Hillary's and Edward's, he's being himself and the other 2 lie. Do you realize what negative impact you give to the world? You need to watch your words since you guys have the edge to influence people's decisions. So, yes, you do make some candidates happy.
For all I know, the media is a major contributor to the devastation of morale of a lot of people and yet you are too busy blaming the government for what has become of this country.

Jack,

Sen. Edwards is completely right about the unfair media coverage throughout the 2008 campaign. For the better part of the campaign, the focus in the Democratic campaign has been on Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama, the two celebrity candidates. The other candidates, Edwards included, were mostly ignored by the press. Edwards only got more attention than the "second-tier" candidates because he was the former Vice Presidential candidate. Unfortunately, media attention leads to support and money, and the severely biased media attention towards the 2-3 frontrunners damaged the campaigns of the other candidates severely. Sen. Gravel and Rep. Kucinich recieved a significantly smaller time in every debate, and have been shut out of recent ones. Sen. Biden, Sen. Dodd, and Gov. Richardson have also recieved proportionally much less time, and even Sen. Edwards had a significant amount of less time in the debates than Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama. The media attention on this campaign ruined it for many highly qualified candidates who did not recieve media attention because they were not a Bill Clinton's wife or the poster child of the "new" Democratic Party. Now that the other candidates are out, the coverage of Sen. Edwards is highly limited, and it shows when almost every story is about Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton and their frontrunner status. The media needs to realize that, for a lot of people, it is the primary source of information on candidates, and with unfair coverage, it is going to just cause a cycle of more unfair coverage as the more highly covered candidates are able to recieve far more media attention as they get more and more support.

Jack, you won't ever keep them all happy, but if you want to make friends and influence the most people, please have more stuff on Ron Paul. Thanks Art, member of the revolution.

Jack- I do think the media is somewhat resonsible for the momentum a candidate gets. For instance, Ron Paul has huge support on the internet or other medias, except news channels. Why, is he not important to this process. People don't know anything about his values because he is blacklisted on the media. Are you telling me people don't want a President that abides strictly to our constitution? I heard fox news censored his reponse if he is electable on the rerun. This is stupid and most americans know it. I understand that you need ratings and talking about Guilianni and Mccain od Romney would get higher ratings. I know you can't hurt your ratings? Wolf is the man for at least bringing up his name once a month. WAKE UP EVERYONE!!

Jack,

No, it is obvious that is not the media's "job" to keep them happy. But here's the real story behind that.

I have to admit that you and Lou Dobbs are about the only two guys I respect in the media. But this is my litmus test. Complaints about the media? How about the fact that many media members are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, (CFR) just like the politicians.

No one mentions that Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Giulinai & Thompson are all members of the CFR. No one mentions that Ron Paul, Mike Gravel & Denis Kuicinich are not members. Hence the majority of the media coverage is upon candidates that give voters little choice as despite any party leanings, the majority of the CFR globalist agenda will still be carried out.

Proof? In one debate Romney criticizes Huckabee for an article he wrote in the Foreign Affairs the magazine of the CFR, while on National TV, (http://www.cfr.org/publication/15076/). Huckabee asks him if Romney read the article. However no one ever goes into WHAT article.

More proof? If you count the actual total popular vote cast so far in the primaries, Ron Paul is ahead of Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani & Duncan Hunter. But after the ABC New Hampshire debates there has been a virtual blackout on any coverage & mention of Ron Paul's name. And after the Fox debate, text votes had ROn Paul winning the debate with 32%. But Hannity flat out said,"Ron Paul didn't win the debate." And Paul is the only candidate they didnt interview after the debate. WOW.

If a majority of the countries political leaders & media leaders were found to members of the same club or church or even college I think that most journalists would want to investigate that. How could such a small minority of people have such a dominate control of the political process. It does not reflect upon the actual general populace. It should be investigated, BUT no one does investigate it.

Jack you know and I know and many of us know that the media has an agenda too. You just dont want us to know, you just dont want to talk about it. Period.

regards
Kurt in Florida

Jack
I think it would serve fairness to keep all the names in the game viable. Of course, every report can't mention every candidate, but there does seem to be some undue sensationalizing over a few, and down right dismissal of others.

If you have actually read all of the above postings, then you must be aware of the general feeling in the country. Stop trying to manufacture news items and do report on genuine news items...eg. candidates stances on REAL issues. We are pretty much aware of their personalities, give us their ideas...good, bad or indifferent...and let the chips fall where they may.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I do have to agree with John Edwards in that the vast majority of media coverage centers around two main candidates. If he got the same amount of coverage, this could very well be a 3-candidate race on the Dem side.

It is absolutely true that the media covers some candidates more than others. However, it is the publics fault for relying solely on what the media broadcasts to make their decision on who they are going to vote for. Websites like CNN have detailed profiles of each candidate and how they stand on their issues. There are lots of sources (the internet for one) from which voters can find information about every candidate in order to choose who they are voting for. The media reports what people want to see, and unfortunately the general public (maybe not you) cares more about what Obama and Clinton have to say than other candidates. It is not the media's fault that a lot of voters support candidates that are popular instead of doing their homework, and doing unbiased research on every candidate.

John
Champaign, IL

I believe these complaints stem from the fact that the level coverage everyone is given appears to be directly related to their perceived status according to a few metrics. When Giuliani was the frontrunner, we kept getting irrelevant stories about his favorite movie, a cold he had, etc. Now we hear about random comments made by some guy who supports Obama that somebody took offense to, or about Huckabee and McCain exchanging words about immigration.

In essence, the media is telling us who is important simply by its choice of who to report on. Why is the everyday stuff Hillary Clinton (or Bill Clinton, for that matter) is doing more newsworthy than the everyday stuff Dennis Kucinich is doing?

And I completely agree with them. Look at this article, for God's sake! Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter were omitted from the NH debate on MSNBC, and the NH Republican Party pulled its support of the debate. Dennis Kucinich sued CNN to be allowed into the Nevada debate. But they weren't mentioned here, only the major candidates who griped about it. I'm not faulting you for whatever drove you to make those choices, but when everybody in the media fairly consistently makes the same choices, I think your impartiality is called into question.

P.S. I didn't answer your question. To answer it, no. I don't know what the news media's job is. To keep its consumers informed with by whatever manner it sees fit, by presenting factual information, and deny any responsibility for any unintended (or intended) consequences of the manner in which it presents those facts.

Who's whining now, Jack?

It's the media's job to report the facts – that hasn't been happeneing. I would think it is their job to grant the entire audience, including prospects, the full story. That isn't happening, either. The media gets their hand slapped for it, the public takes a stand, and all you can do is whine about the candidates? Please.

It isn't politicians, Jack – it's politics. Get back to a fair, equal and factual presentation, and you won't have to point your finger at anyone.

There are often times more than one truth. A large difference between people's truths tends to be connotation and context when it comes to politicians. To be honest it's the job of the each individual entity within the media to do whatever it wants. Honesty is definitely something worth upholding, but ultimately those media companies which stay in business by having a large audience are appeasing either the masses or small sects of people.

Given market forces no vantage point could be over-portrayed. There is a finite viewership and media corporations can only seek to maintain an audience size equivalent to the proportion that agrees with it's stance. So being a capitalist country, the media can do whatever it wants. The boundaries to be decided every moment by the audience and changed over time. The only way to find these boundaries is by checking viewer response to scandals, lies etc. within the media.

This is under the assumption that the audience is well informed of media blunders/successes. Well, in this day it seems that very few get away with very little. Also seeing as how a media corporation sells little more than its reputation and perspective, if it were damaged once it could severly injure the corporation and eventually shut down that media source. In a sense, by the media interacting purely on the mood of the public, it is perfect. The internet has increased the flow of information giving everyone channels to voice themselves; the "media" is the entity that covers the subject of public displeasure of the media. So I suppose the job of the media is to dance for the people and show them what they want.

But seriously, I think this was a rhetorical question. I know few people that would answer that they think the media should keep all the candidates happy. The only thing a politician could whine about is not getting a free handout like advertising. Does it surprise me that filthy rich people with extremely influential positions and power seeking to become "leader of the free world" would want a handout? Very little surprises me nowadays.

At any rate, with people voting which media corp. stays alive by viewership then maybe the media is the new step-sister of the electoral college.

I'm happy Romney was able to save companies by helping them make millions of dollars but I'm curious if that came by sending jobs overseas to the detriment of our own workers. If so, as president, we would then be getting more of the same.

The news media does a horrible job focusing on real issues and an even worse job focusing on candidates and how they would approach those issues. Instead, the news media focuses on who they would like to be the real contenders and sets the agenda by dismissing valid candidates from consideration.

No, it's the media job to report the facts and cover all candidates in an equal and timely fashion, presenting their ideas, which you do not do. You're just another reason why I no longer watch CNN.

keep all the candidates happy:

Jack, it is the job of the media to keep the viewer happy by presenting all sides of the story. "We The People" are the judge and jury.

Keeping the candidates happy is most certainly not the media's job!
Most of these candidates say very little which should be believed by anyone who has even a modicum of critical thinking skills. Unfortunately, we live in a time where critical thinking is no longer valued. I am sick and tired of the media giving these frauds a free pass to pawn off their half-truths. It dumbs down our political discourse and makes it practically impossible for anyone to figure out what these actors might actually do if elected. How about you folks at CNN pledge to not let the candidates get away with lies and semantic games. Hold their feet to the fire and do your job! Maybe then we will not have to sit through another eight years of incompotent government.

Its not the medias job to make canidates happy but for crying out loud CNN talks about every canidate regularaly with the exceptions of Ron Paul, Hunter, Gravel, Kucinich and Edwards. Everyone else is getting more then their share of coverage and considering Ron Paul has defeated Rudy more times and has even beat Thompson in Michigan, CNN has hardly ever covered Paul at all. The last 2 weeks have been a blackout on Ron. Shame on CNN and all the other networks for such biased reporting. Stop choosing the winner for us and show all the canidates equally. The winner isnt decided untill ALL the votes are in!

How can CNN and AP and everyone else choose a winner while the caucuses are still open and there's only 1% of the caucuses reporting?

Jack, Jack, Jack. You really think CNN is reporting things equally and fairly? That's a laugh. The election aint over untill everyone has voted yet CNN only covers a handful of canidates equally. To speculate who'll win after only 4 primaries is pathetic. CNN's "equal" coverage of all canidates would make other dictator controlled media angencies proud. Why don't you people do your job like it's supposed to be done, after all Britney Spears gets more coverage then some canidates. (gag)

Mr. Cafferty-I would respectfully ask in return whether it's the job of a journalist to report news or to gossip, opine, and spin? It appears to me you "media people" find it your primary job to keep your sponsors and your bosses happy. You and the other journalists and pundits of the major media companies seem determined to turn the electoral process into not just a horse race but something more like heavyweight boxing or People magazine. How long are you all going to avoid talking about what's going on with our nation, and what the candidates have to say about the real issues we're facing in America? As a voter, I'd surely like to know. And I can't help but think that some substantive coverage would make the candidates happy as well. Who knows, maybe you'd even sell more cars, or Flomax, or credit cards!

Of course it's not the media's job to keep candidates or their campaigns happy. But let's be fair; there are 3 democrates running, not 2. Yes, 2 are historic for the nation – an african-american and a woman. But John Edwards is as viable a candidate as they are.

The problem is that a good portion of Americans don't do their research. They listen to unfortunately, media soundbites. When all we hear is Obama Obama Obama and Hillary Hillary Hillary, many think they are the only two in contention. Additionally, if people hear that "John Edwards in not a factor," many think "then why vote for him?"

Personally, I'm voting for Edwards on Feb 5th. But I'll vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is in November.

AIPAC decides the candidate.

Thank you Jack. You left my post up for over 2 hours, a record. Must be because it's Saturday.

This caucus system is baloney! How many of the Democrats, especially, are illegals, working with phoney I.D.'s How many of these workers have been "e-verified" by their employers! The Republican Caucus is run like a vote, the Democrat Caucus...like a joke!

Did you even watch the Romney footage? I didn't hear the words "stinkin'" nor did he say it was a "high level" advisor. Oh... the dramatics! Romney was annoyed with the AP reporter because he was speaking untruths like they were true, but never did Romney lose his composure or break a sweat. What he said was this person was an unpaid advisor (not high-level) who doesn't even sit in on important meetings. The reporter was the one who got worked up, not Romney.
I don't know why the media is so down on Romney. It's like you want to pretend he is not a viable candidate, the same way this was done to Reagan. Reagan was not a darling of the media when he ran for the Presidency. I am behind Romney 100% and I think a lot of voters are starting to listen and agree with his message!

Well Jack, I think the Edwards campaign has a point here, I personally think all our choices for President this time are terrible. However it does appear the media has chosen to concentrate its attention on the woman and the african american as a historical choice,I am disappointed, on the other hand Edwards claim of such compassion for the common man seemed phony as hell to me. So come on Jack, lets at least be fair with the coverage of these pandering candidates that seem to believe we are all idiots. T.Harney Tampa Fl. Oh, one other thing could Hillary even get elected without Bill, I wonder...

Jack,

The new media's job is to report the facts in a fair and balanced approached. Unfortunately, the media is focused on the ratings game and the sensationalism that seems to get them higher ratings. The trend of that sensationalism is to bash, as hard as they can, the right wing. In the current election, that also includes any left wing candidate (Edwards) who does not have a chance to win the presidency.

Gone are the days of newscasts that primarily took place for one hour: once in the morning, once in the midday, and once in the evening. With the advent of the 24 hour news network, sensationalism of some of the most inconceivable hypothesis or individual perspectives of our TV journalists is the norm.......be it CNN or Fox Network.

Give us a break Cafferty.

Those who have woken up are very aware of the Media's influence and interests and the tie-in on public opinion. Has Ron Paul gotten fair and equal coverage during this run ? How is the CNN Politcal Pie Chart holding up ?

Nice blog post, but, no.

Is it the news media’s job to keep all the candidates happy?

Not all of them, just John McCain.

Although, that's not their real job, just what the coverage leads viewers to believe.

The real job of the media used to be to fact check what the candidates said, and when they fibbed you were to call them on it. What it has become now is often nothing more than a collection of stenographers mindlessly giving candidates' talking points as the viewers are being misled.

Canidates have always been whiners except when someone like Fox news gives them all the attention. The news reporters job is thankless, to some canidates,
I respect the people that get and deliver the news, otherwisee we would not know what is going on. Bill Clintion was like the spoiled brat this week, when talking to the reporter. The news media can make or break a canidate, perhaps,
some of them will learn that lesson this year. We enjoy you and Wolf on the TV very much.

I agree that the media is not covering this election effectively. You never hear anything from John Edwards always the other two. They are coporate dems. I do not feel either is right for the job. Hillary and Obama both flip flop. My vote is in already in Missouri as an absentee voter, and I hope my vote for Mr Edwards counts. He is the BEST looking candidate in my opinion! He reminds of the Kennedy's. He is the most truthful one that I have seen. Hillary and Obama you scare me to death!!!! Obama you know is a Republican and will be a puppet for his cousin Dick Cheney and George Bush. A leopard does not change his spots that quick! Then you have Hillary, who is a flip flopper, says one thing but does another. I am not attacking these candidates personally just by their record. They bicker all the time and I am sick of it!!! John Edwards can be considered their referee. Ding Ding!!!!

It seems the television media has always done two things, they sensationalize a story into something it is not, and sell air time for commerical products, not to mention its own political bias and interest. For example: Drugs are being advertised on television and pharmaceutical commercials are constantly telling us about the various kinds of wonder drugs available. The cost of prescription drugs has skyrocketed in America because of expensive air time, while doctors have turned into pill pushers giving out untested remedies while the FDA does nothing.
It is hard to distinguish just who the drug cartels really are. People are dying from prescribed drugs therapies being advertise on television, which is like a drug injection needle poking us every day to poison our yearning to breathe free. With such constant bombardment, pharmaceutical companies selling drugs on TV have turned America into a nation of hypochondriacs.
Actually there are many major concerns for America today, a flagging economy, illeagal immigration, unsecured borders in a time of war, prescribed psychoactive drugs, the open sale of alcohol and tobacco, and of course gambling. These are powerful issues we face that are not even mentioned by candidates. Throw them bums out of office. America needs to bring back the people like the butcher, the baker and candle stick maker, the doctor, lawyer and Indian Chief... George B

Jack,

There is something wrong when Bill Clinton is allowed in a caucus room and bring people with him.
It is the same as having Hillary Clinton twisting arms for votes.

He will do anything to get back in the White House.....

No, the media is not to make the candidates happy. There should be a love hate relationship between media and candidates. Comentators should keep their coments to reporting events and not give opinions as a certain MSNBC comentator (Chris Mathews) did in past weeks. The apology was appropriate. We are watching and we will let the media know when you cross the line.

Jack;
I have been watching your broadcast the last few days. Please explain why you have not mentioned Ron Paul. I am watching now and I see you are not showing the 12% win of Dr. Paul, over Huckabee but you show his results. Yesterday CNN was spouting the candidates blame "the media". Maybe I missed it (probably not), but it seems CNN is purposely NOT talking about Ron Paul. Also you mentioned candidates are speaking the same talking points and not reducing spending. Ron Paul is. I have never spoken up on your blog and now I must. Please atleast research Ron Paul because it seems you are not aware of his responsibility. I am sure he is against this Bush plan to "jump-start" the economy which, in my opinion, is a BAD idea to again throw money at a problem. Money we don't have a problem printing which will in no doubt deflate our dollar and put more debt onto the next president.

I disagree with much of what you say. I will wait to see if you atleast talk about Ron Paul's numbers in Nevada.

With great respect to human kind, Gary Corrales

Hi Jack:
It's the medias job to report the news. The media seems to think it's job is to interpret and generate the news. Hyping small points and asking lead questions to cause and develop arguments isn't reporting. It's making news.

Jack,
The media does make a big difference on the election.I talk to people that intended to vote for Edwards and they now say that they think they should go to their second choice because after watching the media he does'nt have a chance.Not me, I'm not changing my vote no matter how much the media crams Cinton and Obama down our throats. I am or used to be middle class but
I feel as though I;m climbing a huge mountain ,I can barely see the wealthy at the top, mostly I see all the bodies where I am falling to the bottom. Let me give you an example that the media makes a difference. I was watching Oreilly on Fox and I heard him say that CNN polls were down and that they were the best news team,so I turned my tv to CNN and left it on even when I wasn't home. That shows you that sometimes things you say can back fire.
Dana

Jack, You are dead wrong about Edwards "whining". Your definition of "whining" translates to the corporate media selecting two candidates. Maybe you don't see it as much because you are on CNN, but MSNBC ought to be put on trial for manipulating the Democratic nomination. Something smells stinky when Corporate Media is selecting a Woman and an Afro-american w/ a Muslim name. Both Hillary and Osama Obama will be easily defeated by anybody the republicans put up.. This is called a Corporate ambush of an election. MSNBC is a subsidery of GE and the biggest defense beneficiary by the the Iraq war ...they don't want Edwards in....ABC is partially owned by Saudi Arabia and they want a guy like Bush... CBS has gone right-wing as well so don't trash talk Edwards ..the fact is the media is promoting the other two democrats on purpose because they are easily defeatable...and if you think I'm lying then why did America ever elect George Bush president if not for the Corporate Media?

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Clinton and his wife are really playing dirt politics and we are happy this man is in America because the way he is fighting the power using dirty game if he was in Africa he could be killing people because of power!!
Bill Clinton already show his true color to the world and Americans that he doesn't care about people or democratic party, what he care is about power to be in White House!! What the deference between him and those dictators in Africa who don’t want to give up power to new generation?
I hope Americans will do something about this American dictator who is willing to divide Democratic Party because of his own interest.
American justice has to investigate his past administration too.

I agree with Jeff from Connecticut that the media should not create conflict where there is none, which it has done during the primaries – CNN included. I am disgusted especially with Tim Russert, who looks more and more like a manipulative snake-oil salesman. He behaved disgracefully during the Democratic debate in Nevada, and it is to the credit of the candidates that they managed (for the most part) to rise above the bating questions to Senators Clinton and Obama. He just cannot manage to pin candidates down on the issues – just sensationalism. He and his colleagues, especially Chris Matthews and Wolf Blitzer (don’t get me started on them!), should be suspended and sent back to journalism school. The U.S. free press is sacred to Americans; but, CNN, Fox News and others new organization representatives (they cannot call themselves journalists) often deserve a good tongue lashing from politicians, celebrities and regular citizens when they step out of line – they do not deserve a free pass or respect for their arrogant and outrageous behavior.

Every main stream media company is owned by someone with their own personal agenda. They already know who they want as president to further their own agendas. Anyone who does not fit into their agenda will be ridiculed, dismissed or at best downplayed as unimportant. There has not been fair and unbiased reporting of information for years.

It certainly isn't the media's job to keep the candidates happy, BUT it is their job to keep the scope of debate as wide open and fair as possible – which it has failed to do. (ie:Rep. Dennis Kucinich)

The old adage "follow the money" applies here – now more than ever – and I have no more faith in democracy ever continuing to exist again. We're closer to China and Russia than we've ever realized.

Hey media – as a voter, thanks for NOTHING. Literally.

Edwards is right. The media systematically boycotted him. He wasn't whining...he was just stating the facts...if you want the media to cover you, you have to buy it off...end of story...

No Jack it is not the media's job to keep the candidates happy,but it is also the media's job to be impartial and not influence the media's decisions on to the voters I see every day how the media stirs up news and causes their influence to be put on the air ie: South Carolina and how you Twisted and stirred up the racial issue and even after Obama and Clinton called a truce cnn kept talking about it. Also the media has pushed John Mc Cain till here he is right in there and it was the media that influenced all of that.

Several points about the media:
1) The voters, the candidates, the liberals, the conservatives, etc. all blame the media for just about everything.
2) On the other hand, I do think that much of the media concentrates too much on trivia which will create controversy or sell their broadcast, newspaper, magazine, etc. and devotes too little time to relaying to the public as much information as possible about actual facts, issues, opinions, positions, etc.
3) We the people (or at least some of us) have displayed an insatiable appetite for sound bites, scandal and fights, and too little patience to sit quietly and study serious information, history, and both sides of every issue.

No, it's not your job to keep them happy, but to INFORM your listeners/ readers/ audience, etc. of EVERYONE running for the office.

The media does have responsibility, on many fronts, not all fronts, but many. Keeping the playing field as open and equal as possible is one of those responsibilities. I DO care what John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul have to say and I WOULD be voting for Kucinich but for the sad fact he doesn't have the "rock star" status the media have blessed Clinton and Obama with so he therefore will not get the votes. It's all a luck of the draw for these candidates and the one that holds the power to "draw" is YOU Jack.

Of course not, but the media should be honest brokers. Obviously, they are not, and I can live with that. I would like to know if the biases I see are those of the talking heads, or does corporate tell you what to say?Who to cover, and who to ignore. If you are the former, then I respect your opinion, but if it is the latter, then my respect doesn't matter, your self-respect becomes the issue. My gut feeling is that self-respect is in short supply in the media.

FOX NEWS cut out Ron Paul from debate. FOW NEWS cut out Parts of last Republican debate later on to not include some of congressman Pauls views. Media not fair you tell me and justifie FOX NEWSES position . Thanks Todd.

First of all I would like to say I very much appreciate the media's coverage particularly CNN and MSNBC. However there is truth to Edward's claims. I am an independent who will vote for Barrack Obama, but it is fair to say that Barrack Obama and Hilary Clinton definitely have been the most media sensationalized candatates that I have ever seen in my life. I am sure millions agree with me.

No, it is not the job of the media to keep the canidates happy. However, I do believe the media needs to give a fair balanced coverage of all the canidates.

I may be a Obama supporter but I think Mr. Edwards is correct. Not only is the media not giving him equal coverage as Obama and CLinton, but various media outlets are decieding who the American public see and hear from. Such as determining who can be in a debate or not. THe Primaries have only just begun, there are a lot of States to hear from yet, let teh Canidates be heard as well.

In addition, there are far more than only two parties in this nation. It is a crime that the media pays no attention to the other party candiates. Maybe the playing field would not only be more balanced, but the options for a better run government would be better decided if Americans were to really get a chance to hear from all the parties and all the Canidates.

I am happy for one thing though. Except for some minor moments, it seems that Mrs. Clinton is being covered as a experienced Democratic Canidate and not a Female Democratic Canidate. LIkewise, Mr Obama is being covered as a young, intelligent and refreshing leader and candiate for the office of PResident and not a Black Canidate. Thank you media for keeping the race about idealogy and resume' and not a gender/race thing.

Curtis
Columbus OH

What is it about the media that they forgot how to be journalist and all they do is concentrate on tabloid spin you need to investigate yourselves the American people are trying to tell you something. Are you listening?

As I understand from a CNN news channel that some of the members participating in the caucus needed translators. Aren't all USA citizens supposed to be able to speak and understand English like all the legal immigrants do on their path to citizenship? I would guess that their ability to not understand and/or speak it fluently and the usage of the casino IDs means that a bunch of them were illegal immigrants. Am I wrong in this? Perhaps this is something that was set up by Harry Reid and the Democratic candidates. This smacks like corruption to me!

The job of the news media is to report the news – which includes every candidate. And every candidate should have as much press coverage as the next. Media is to present as unbiased point-of-view as possible. The media has seemed to have forgotten their role and have become quite opinionated and biased. That not news, that's editorial. I want news – not newscasters opinions.

Despite the campaign rhetoric and the candidates' assurances that they are running on the issues only, each and every campaign, particularly national but local as well, still makes one feel that we are participating in a fifth grade class election. Personal attacks and name calling are the order of the day.

The fact is that these candidates are pathetic. They are professional politicians, aspiring or otherwise, something that the Founding Fathers could never have imagined and would likely have frowned upon!

They need to get a real job to find out what it is to make a living, before living off the largesse of the population at large. Not one of these people is as magnanimous as they would have you believe! But what better way to assure a pension and future source of income?

Of course it isn't the media's job to keep politicians happy–it's the media's job to disseminate unbiased news, and if the media actually did that, then all of us (politicians included) would be a lot happier.

Jack, here's my question for you: Is it the media's job to package celebrity gossip as news?

Keeping people happy? That is not your job. Your job is to be objective and report the truth.

As for the candidates, it is not their happiness that matters.

It is the uneducated, unemployed, homeless, hungry, and ill Americans that matter.

Happy? NO. Fairly covered? ABSOLUTLY. For some people, the only information they receive on the Presidential candidates is from their television. It is definately the job of the media to report ALL the information on ALL the candidates. Don't call yourselves journalists if you can't.

One of the things that the media does manage to do is to fuel the fires or instigate issues such as the Nevada polls in the workplace. The opines incorrectly providing misleading poles that are inaccurate, distorted, and exagerated.

Rather than providing accurate, realistic reporting the includes all candidates running for the presidency they provide disparate reporting many time trashing candidates on either sides, providing onesided views and unrealistic one liner healines to reach audiences giving a false or wrong impression of candidates.

The media needs to do a better job and provide the real news not the one that they want to public to hear or the one that is going to win more readership for them.

It should not be a corporate or stockholder earnings issue but reporting the "real" news with out exageration for the sake of information. The public deserves that and that alone.

It's the medias job to keep the people happy.
When you go for ratings and report to no end How Hillery cried or how Bill is throwing a tantrum, you do not serve the people.
you must know the truth about them, they lie, cheat, etc...
Please do your job and expose them for what they are.

People who talk about how politicians just make claims to make us happy and get votes should think about what they would do if they were throwing millions of dollars at something that they don't even know if they have a chance at. They want to win and they are spending the money to. Of course they are going to please us, wether what they are saying is true or not.

Think twice about how what you say because you're no different than them. You're human too and would want to win. If you can find someone that wouldn't be corrupted by politics within the first week of running, you better make them run for president.

It's all a game and the ones who have gotten this far are the ones who play dirty. They aren't going to stop.

If anyone is fueling the Race Issue, it is CNN news. Stop! You are my
farorite news, but will turn you off. Please just report the News for a Change.
I am a 70 year old white woman and I have seen it all.
Payson AZ

Senator Clinton speaks about being the candidate with experience. As a yet undecided voter I must ask what experience she is talking about. Is she running on her experience or the experience of her husband, the former President. Who is running this race? We need to hear from her and not him.

While I respect the former president and the accomplishments of his years in the White House I sincerely believe that voters are somewhat confused on who the real candidate is and who,,s record of experience and accomplishment are being evaluated. Is this campaign being run on the success and experince of the Senator or the success and experience of the former President,s years in the White House.

All due respect to the Senator and her candidacy I do think that each and every voter needs to ask this question before going to the ballot box.

"Is it the news media’s job to keep all the candidates happy?"

Of course not! To the contrary, in fact–it's among the media's most important jobs to keep the candidates honest, something few if any of them would do otherwise.

But it's also among the media's most important jobs to remain honest itself and to report the new fairly–something Fox News, and possibly other organisations including CNN, is obviously not doing in its efforts to ignore Ron Paul into oblivion.

Common, since when is it ANYONES job to keep the candidates happy?
Debbie Miller
Norfolk, Virginia

Jack, there is a case to be made for media bias–McCain wins by 3 points margin with 33% and it is a sigificant victory for him. For Hillary she actually wins a majority with 51% and beats Obama by 6 points and it is presented as a narrow win and Bill Clinton is viewed as a pariah–give me a break..Michael Wagner, Spokane, Washington

i saw the interview today with the obama campaign worker in new york. was i the only one to see the bong in the window. kinda reminds me of the huckabee christmas card with the cross in the background. will the slogan be "bong hits for obama?"