Earlier this month, I was browsing Facebook on a Sunday afternoon when I came across a surprising headline: Hillary Clinton Leaves 9\/11 Memorial Feeling \u201cOverheated.\u201d Interested to hear more, I did what anyone seeking quick, up-to-date news would do: I turned on the television. Not surprisingly, the only political channel covering Clinton\u2019s fainting spell was Fox News. CNN and MSNBC limited coverage of Clinton\u2019s pneumonia scare to the web until the following morning. Of course, Fox News just gave its viewers exactly what Fox thought they wanted, the indelible image of Hillary Clinton being dragged into her motorcade like a sack of potatoes. I generally dislike attacks on America\u2019s media for biased coverage; when nicknames are thrown around like CNN, the \u201cClinton News Network,\u201d or the neo-conservative \u201cFaux News.\u201d Criticizing certain media outlets for political bias only encourages people to surround themselves in a bubble of news they want to hear. Nonetheless, in the race for clicks and ratings traditional journalism appears to be losing badly. Donald Trump is certainly vocal about the entire mainstream media\u2019s attempt to smear his candidacy, repeatedly calling the news \u201cdishonest and corrupt.\u201d I\u2019m no fan of Trump's, but it's hard to disagree with him on this issue after watching political news coverage for the past year. Take what happened on Sept. 14 when MSNBC held an interview with Vicente Fox, former president of Mexico, to \u201cweigh in on the 2016 race.\u201d During the broadcast, an interviewer explicitly asked Fox whether Trump\u2019s candidacy reminded him of \u201cany past demagogue candidates in Latin America.\u201d The media should naturally address Trump\u2019s troubled relationship with the Hispanic community, but when an interviewer literally asks Vincente Fox which Latin American dictators he thinks resemble Trump, that\u2019s one-sided journalism. The biased coverage in supposedly non-partisan news sources isn\u2019t limited to television either. Websites like The Huffington Post and The Guardian constantly post attacking headlines on social media like \u201cTrump\u2019s Maternity Leave Plan is His Biggest Insult to Women Yet,\u201d \u201cOfficers Backing Trump Have Murky Legal Histories,\u201d or my personal favorite: \u201cTrump\u2019s Behavior Similar To Male Chimpanzee Says Jane Goodall.\u201d Maybe it\u2019s no surprise that Pew Research identified more than half of stories on the three major news outlets as opinion pieces, not factual reporting. Whether it\u2019s Fox News constantly harping on Clinton\u2019s email scandal or Buzzfeed\u2019s incessant anti-Trump headlines, the mainstream media has become a mob of contrasting opinions, a character unto itself in public policymaking. Even when journalists cover both candidates fairly, they have little room for proper fact-checking within the rapid sound bites and 10-minute attention spans of modern television. During the Commander-In-Chief Forum, Trump repeatedly said he was \u201ctotally against the war in Iraq,\u201d referring to an article from Esquire Magazine. In reality, that article in which Trump said he \u201cwould never have handled it that way\u201d was from 2004, when public opinion of the Iraq war was already shifting to negative. On top of that, in 2002 Trump actually admitted on Howard Stern\u2019s show that he was for the war in Iraq. Maybe the forum\u2019s moderator Matt Lauer knew this, maybe not, but he unfortunately didn\u2019t spend any more time challenging a lie that\u2019s the foundation of Trump\u2019s foreign policy credentials. In modern forums and debates, where time is limited and candidates often step outside the bounds of truth, it\u2019s simply impossible for journalists to fact check everything in real time. Of course, for distressed voters the Internet still contains a selection of objective sources for political news. Websites like the Pulitzer-winning Politifact are excellent fact checkers, while on television and in print, PBS and The Independent have remained relatively neutral throughout this cycle. Surprisingly, the candidate\u2019s websites are also great resources for seeing actual policy proposals from Clinton and Trump. However, if Americans go to the polls on election day having only watched CNN, only listened to Rachel Maddow, only read The New York Post, then voters will not have the full picture of this election. The responsibility of journalists is to inform the masses, to communicate facts about important aspects of our lives. Bias has a place in mainstream media, but many of our current political sources are too opinionated to present a clear image of our candidates. Unfortunately, voters will have to dig deeper for accurate, objective political coverage this election cycle. Jonah Hirsch is a junior at Wilton High School and a member of the Model Congress club.