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.
<span>By removing the Native Americans, the whites saw an opportunity to expand the land that they had and their resources. He stated that he wanted to civilize the Native Americans and wanted a government that encompassed everyone without them having a separate government of their own. This led to the Trail of Tears where the Native Americans were forcibly removed from their territory and treated savagely by Americans. The Americans then took over their land, cattle, and any resources in the areas that they took away from them.</span>
Answer: Mohamed Morsi
Explanation: After the Arab Spring and the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak's power who was forced to resign on February 11, 2011. Presidential elections were held in 2012. In those elections Mohamed Morsi won, the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood. Morsi was in the office as a president until 2013 when he was overthrown by a military coalition led by general Sisi.
Answer:They excelled in large battles fought by a mass of troops on open ground. They also had far more experience firing artillery than Americans had. The British forces were well supplied, as well. Unlike the pitifully equipped Continental army, they seldom lacked for food, uniforms, weapons, or ammunition
Explanation:
read it you will find the answer. hope this helps
