Why do some people consider the way the media cover candidates for public office bad for democracy?
a. people tend to vote for the candidates who they find most appealing, rather than the ones whose beliefs are most like their own.
b. the media are for-profit businesses, unable to be fair or objective in the interest of the public.
c. candidates already in office receive more media attention than those who are trying to take their positions.
d. people always vote for the person the media determine is most qualified, rather than the candidate who can bring about change.

The correct answer is D) people vote for the person the media determine is more qualified, rather than the candidate that can bring about change.

Some people consider the way media cover candidates for public office bad for democracy because people vote for the person the media determine is more qualified, rather than the candidate that can bring about change.

Sometimes Press coverage is biased. Some candidates receive more air time or coverage than others. TV hosts or radio hosts express their opinions about candidates and that creates a bias that influence people’s minds when they make a decision on who to vote. Instead of voting for the candidate that can bring about change, many times people vote for the person the media determine is more qualified. So that is why many citizens demand a better campaign coverage and more objective too.  

The correct answer is B.

The media are businesses whose main objective is profit maximization. It is also true that they are required by law to care for certain ethical standards but, in general, they show the contents that will attract a larger audience. They do not care on whether these contents can be giving visibility to candidates whose political proposals are bad for the welfare of citizens.  

money is the anwser i think