This article provides a lot of information regarding media influence and elections. The writer includes "expert" opinions along with references. However, it is poorly organized, it's repetitive, and its claims lack effective support. Here are the problems: (1) It lacks coherence in almost every paragraph; (2) It cites as experts people not generally known to most readers, thus reducing the strength of their opinions; (3) It makes many claims with little support, and what support is provided consists of a short opinion by the generally unknown experts; (4) some claims are without support and make no logical sense. For example, one of the main claims states that the media has a greater influence on what issues are important rather ... More »

This is basically "much ado about nothing". It spends a lot of space to come to the conclusion that "media" do not shape public opinion very much, overlooking the fact that the corporatist media have been pushing the corporate point of view for a century now, with terrible effects on the public's knowledge of issues and events. It spends practically no time at all trying to draw connections between the ownership of media and their biases, and is unimpressive in its assessment of the relative biases of named media outlets; I was particularly disgusted by its naming of such as the corporatist Washington Post as being "liberal". I strongly recommend that the writer read Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" for a meta-view of ... More »

It is very well-sourced, and its conclusion seems valid. However, it needs to be tightened up and copy-edited. It is too long, and there are errors in spelling etc.