Media: As We Approach Nov. 5, Cover More Candidates' Speeches

(Editor's Note: The following opinion column does not constitute an endorsement of any political party or candidate on the part of Newsmax.)

News networks should devote more time to airing the speeches of former President Donald Trump, Vice President Kamala Harris, Sen. J.D. Vance, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz from their campaign events.

It seems that news networks have adopted a practice of not televising the events, putting them in a box in the corner of the screen without audio, or not covering them at all.

It is important that the American people have access to these events so that they can learn about the candidates. Listening to the candidates describe their views and positions is one of the best ways to become informed prior to the election.

Hearing from the candidate is far superior to hearing a newscaster report on what was said or a commentator express his/her opinion on what was said. Additionally, a viewer may be interested in part of a candidate's speech which a newscaster or commentator does not discuss.

Sometimes, the media (newscasters and commentators alike) mischaracterize what the candidates said in their speeches. It happens to candidates of both parties. It is especially prevalent, however, in the coverage of President Trump.

Airing the actual speeches, therefore, is sometimes the only way that the candidates can accurately convey their policies and beliefs to the American people. The speeches are the candidates' actual words and not a biased recount of what a newscaster or commentator reported that a candidate said.

An additional reason to cover Harris' and Walz's speeches is that they have done so few interviews. Harris and Walz have done approximately 45 interviews while Trump and Vance had participated in approximately 83 interviews.

The American people, therefore, have had 50% less of a chance to learn about Harris and Walz. With the vast difference in the number of interviews, listening to speeches is one of the only ways that Americans can learn about Harris and Walz.

The debate schedule in this election also magnifies the importance of covering the candidates' speeches. In previous elections, three presidential debates occurred, and these telecasts were often avenues for the candidates to communicate with voters.

This election, it appears that Americans will have only two presidential debates and only one between Trump and Harris. (The other presidential debate was between Trump and President Joe Biden.)

During the Trump-Harris debate, political bias was present as ABC News' David Muir and Linsey Davis interjected themselves into the debate. Coverage of the speeches will fill the vacuum left by the absence of further debates.

Covering the actual speeches may also reduce the intensity of partisan divides which is present in America. Political divisions in America are normal, but, for the past several years, they seem to have gotten more severe.

One of the reasons for this phenomenon may be that some news networks have individuals on the air that make outlandish and false claims. If news networks show the actual candidates making their real pitches to voters, then viewers will have less time to be subjected to and influenced by those making false statements.

In addition, viewers will be able to more easily detect incorrect commentary because they will have heard the actual statements from the candidates themselves.

The purpose of news stations is to cover news. They should return to their original mission.

MTV (Music Television) used to play music videos, but it hardly does so now. A common joke about MTV is "do you remember when MTV played music videos?"

Let's hope we don't have news networks where the joke is: "Do you remember when the news networks used to cover news?"