Media coverage gives voters an impression of the candidates.
Because much of media coverage comes in very brief news segments and even short "sound bites," it tends to provide an impression of the candidates, without necessarily providing in-depth presentation and analysis of their views. This varies, of course, depending on which "media" you have in mind with the question. Committed news organizations which employ highly skilled journalists will do deeper pieces on candidates and their views or policies -- see, for instance, articles in The New York Times or Washington Post or The Atlantic.
There are many new forms of media--such as social media websites and politically-aligned cable networks--where people can go to get biased perspectives and be told how to vote or not to vote. But the most respected media outets strive to present a full picture and cover all candidates. Still, because most voters will watch or read only portions of news media coverage, the best answer is that media tends to give voters an impression of candidates -- which sometimes is less complete than the full picture.
The correct answer should be <span>4. always amins to bias voters
</span>.
This is how it works in an ideal case. Often the media companies support one candidate so they show him in the perfect light while they show others poorly. The impression usually already exists or if it didn't it does by the end of the elections.
On July 16, 1790, a compromise between Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison—known as the Residence Act—was passed, declaring George Washington's selection of a site on the Potomac River as the nation's new permanent capital. As part of the agreement, the federal government assumed the states' debts.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
