Editorial: Presidential debate fantasy vs. reality TV

This article is a perfect example of why balance especially in political journalism is bad.  The Editorial Board who wrote this article doesn’t seem to have a bias view towards either one of the presidential candidates. The editorial starts off by critiquing Jim Lehre, the conductor of the political debate. By doing this, the editorialists are creating unnecessary controversy. Lehre, the person conducting the debate shouldn’t have been the focus of the article, yet the editorial dedicates an entire paragraph criticizing the approach that Lehre took on Wednesday’s debate. This creates nonexistent controversy. It’s not like Lehre had much  say as to how the debate should have been conducted, he was simply the conductor and he focused on unclear issues. Most American’s are well aware that Republicans are pro-life and anti-gay marriage however, not everyone knows what the Republican stance is on the future of Medicare; which was one of the issues that were covered in the debate. In addition, even though the editorial mentions that sixty seven million people tuned in to watch the debate, what the article fails to note is that most Americans have already chosen a political side especially with the election less than a month away and Wednesday’s debate was just a formality to reiterate both candidates stance on vague issues. The authors of the articles want the reader to realize that the debate terrible and failed to include most issues such as gay marriage. Finally, by criticizing both candidates, the article conveys that political questions are unsolvable and that both candidates are unfit for presidency because their political stance is flawed. The article's credibility is questionable because the article lacks objectivity and a bias opinion.