Charlatan

I would suspect that that is a different question, whether the press is "free" or not.

Regardless of that, is it not the media's job to examine and explore the candidates? To both report their activities as objectively as possible as well as editorialize with opinions?

It seems to me this is the function of the press in thriving democracy. To complain about the media without first recognizing this can be problematic. I would argue that media consolidation and a shift in general from "hard news" to "entertaining news" has resulted in a general drop in quality of the coverage on offer.

That said, another part of the equation in a thriving democracy is an active citizenry. If the media is not doing their job satisfactorily there are other sources of information. The Internet offers an abundance of choice and diversity. It follows that if citizens are to remain engaged and informed that they need to seek this information out and in this day and age, it is getting more and more complicated.

I think relying on the "media" as the problem is a bit of a crutch.

As for the OP, I would argue that any candidate who ignores the reality of the threat of terrorism is an idiot who should not be elected. Conversely, anyone who appears to use that same threat as a one issue is showing their limitations as a candidate that can see the big picture.

Any candidate needs to be able to fully address a plethora of issues.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke