USA Presidential Poll

Michelle Obama has done an incredible service across the USA and the world for school children's lunch menus, children's fitness, young girls rights, etc.

She could not possibly do that without staffers.

She has to attend and speak at many state functions around the world.

A lot of your comparisons are to the 1950's June Cleaver view of women who stay at home and be exclusive home keepers to the husband and children.

After the Obama's leave office, Michelle will continue her charitable work and raise private money from grateful donors.

$2M a year seems like a great value compared to a lot of the other wasteful gov't programs in the USA.

Even in Canada, the new Prime Minister's wife, Sophie Trudeau, had to ask for and rec'd extra money and staffers to keep up with the demanding global lifestyle of a spouse to a world leader.

The 2 million dollars could have fed some of the poorest children in the US for years and years.  Better to give to those that are hungry.

Republican House Panel Backs Bill Reducing Free and Low-Cost Meals for School Children

http://www.allgov.com/news/con...n-160523?news=858861

The legislation, which the full House will consider, would also roll back some healthier school nutrition rules championed by first lady Michelle Obama. Some schools say they are too restrictive and the healthier meals are not appetizing enough to students.

Hunger and nutrition advocates from the American Academy of Pediatrics to the American Heart Association sharply criticized the legislation, saying it could mean that some children go hungry at school.

"The bill would significantly weaken access to healthy, nutritious foods for our nation's children," said Dr. Benard Dreyer, president of the pediatrics group.

As a Canadian viewer, there is some serious bias happening between the media published by CNN and Fox News sixty days before the election. It is like two different news feeds.  One has a major story, the other has a different major story.  To me, both seem to be a cheerleader for the Democrats or the Republicans.  Fox seems less balanced.

TRUMP will win by a Landslide

"Fox seems less balanced."? Are you saying that you think Fox is less balanced than CNN or that Fox seems less balanced than they used to be?

I see two factors at play in the way that the media broadcast news, particularly in the US.

The first is to present news to attract an audience, and in so doing it tends to prefer the sensational over the mundane. It is sensational to find the hidden flaws in any public figure, be that political, in the entertainment business or a sporting figure.
We see in this US election coverage repeated inclusion of Trump's bogus claims without any serious fact checking and we also see this in commentary on Clinton's history since she has been in the political eye for so long and has managed to create a critical eye for many reasons..

The second is the inherent bias in the US media where we have stations such as MSNBC which is clearly a Democratic influenced news source, and Fox News with the added blowhards involved in talk radio who shamelessly promote Republican ideology. They will say anything to undermine any non-Republican, regardless of the truth.

Perhaps a third issue is the ubiquitous presence of social media which is notably not fact checked and more of a rumour mill that users lap up like cream.

Underlying this is the simple fact, perhaps, that neither of the candidates for President are particularly attractive as capable Presidential material but represent either the establishment that has not solved the problems of the middle and lower income classes or the outlandish as a way to break the established order with populist outcries.

Finally,

Fox News is “mainstream" only by the modern and severely diluted definition of the term. Walter Cronkite once pulled audiences in the tens of millions.  Fox is watched by 2-3 million people.  By any reasonable calculation, Fox News is niche. And its niche is old white men. Cable news is a kingdom lead by elders where Fox News serves as king. The median age of Americans watching CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News is over 60. Half of Fox News viewers are over the age of 68.

Television is particularly popular among men, people who didn’t go to college, and people over the age of 70, which is a great description of a predictable conservative. (Retired seniors watch more than 50 hours of television a week.) Indeed, this older male group is not only ready-made for cable-television-viewing; it comes prepackaged with extremely conservative views. Over the last three general-election cycles, the 65-and-up group voted for the GOP presidential candidate by an average of 9 percentage points.

The fact that you include talk radio into this discussion regarding news and mainstream media illustrates the obvious bias you bring to the discussion which is OK unless you claim to be providing an unbiased opinion. Talk radio is not news nor do they claim to be. This is also true of Fox's Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc. What's most disturbing is when a "news" program presents things that are clearly biased and presented in clearly biased ways.

I do not follow your logic about how mentioning talk radio makes me seem as a biased commentator.

Unlike 10 years ago and certainly unlike 20 years ago, people consume media from many more different platforms than was ever available in the past.  People who form their opinions based on only a few media outlets that they exclusively pay attention to are at risk of having the same bias as the media outlet.

A perfect example was two days ago when George HW Bush Senior stated that he was going to vote for Hillary Clinton.  I checked as best as I could and no former Republican president has ever announced that he would vote for the Democratic nominee.  CNN, CNBC, ABC News, Reuters, BBC and CBC reported the story.  On Fox, not a mention two days later.

Media bias can not only be presenting a position but ignoring a story.

And George H.W. Bush didn't announce that he was going to vote for the Democratic nominee either but you wouldn't know it by listening to the libral networks you site above.  Is it a "story" when one person claims something that can't be substatiated? Snopes.com..."all the news about his (George H.W. Bush) voting for Hillary Clinton so far is hearsay relayed by someone else." (That someone else was a Kennedy.)  If I say I heard Bill Clinton say he was going to vote for Trump, is CNN obligated to report it? Maybe Fox was the only responsible party here.

CNN Recently edited the word "crooked" out of a Trump tweet on Hillary and added the word "racial" to a Trump quote on profiling when he never once said the word. CNN also edited out Hillary calling the NY explosion a bomb so that they could attack Trump for using the word.

By the way, your earlier post said, "Fox News is “mainstream" only by the modern and severely diluted definition of the term." I agree. Anybody that includes Fox News in the "Main Stream Media" discussion has dilluted the definition. I don't think most people include Fox News when they speak of the Main Stream Media. The Main Stream Media is ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN. MSNBC really isn't even a part of the MSM because they are definately not main stream either. 

I'm an "old white guy" and I'm voting for Trump. My son is a "young white guy" along with being a member of a union (Police), he is voting for Trump,  he also tells me that most in his union support Trump and will vote for him rather than Hillary.  Go back 4 or eight years ago and this entire group would have supported the democrats.