The most serious flaw in television’s coverage of election campaigns

Its not correct to say D is not supported by passage. "at the expense of substantive coverage of the issues and the candidates’ positions on them"

Still, C looks better just because strong tone of passage towards opinion poll..

The problem is TV coverage is concentrating on who is winning. How do they do it? by opinion polls.

What would be a good first measure? Limit the number of opinion polls

C is my pick

I still think that D is a good answer here. Any takers?

Fact of the matter is, there may be a lot of literature out there already, but who is to say anyone is reading it or that it changes their mentality. Plus this is television coverage, not library coverage. Thats my reasoning for picking C.

I think the main conclusion is the argument is this:

Which of the following best completes the passage below?
the most serious flaw in television’s coverage of election campaigns is its tendency to focus on the horse-race side of politics—that is, to concentrate on the question “Who’s winning?” at the expense of substantive coverage of the issues and the candidates’ positions on them. The endless interviews with campaign managers, discussions of campaign strategies, and, especially, the obsession with opinion polls have surrounded elections with the atmosphere of a football game or a prizefight. To reform this situation, a first step might well be______

Notice the bold part where I highlighted.

(D) the publication and distribution of voter-education literature to inform the public about each candidate’s position on the major issues

- directly attacks the statement, and that's why that's the best way to reform the situation.

I believe the opinion polls only address one aspect of the problem (only part of the conclusion) while informing the public of the candidate's position does a better job in addressing the ENTIRE problem: "lack of coverage on issues and candidate's position".

I think D would not remedy television's mistaken focus, which is the problem, according to the argument

um..i would go with C... C is a good first step..D is probably the last step of the reform..

But you need to assume that public are not well aware about the politics.
May be the public is well aware and still is more interested in the race .....

C is my pick.

Thanks, your comment put things into perspective for me.

Experts, could you please comment on why C & why not D here.

C. a reduction in the television coverage of opinion polls during election campaigns
D. the publication and distribution of voter-education literature to inform the public about each candidate's position on the major issues

My logic:
Reducing media coverage of "who wins" or increasing coverage of "candidates' position on various/major issues" - could both work as an answer to the question.

Since, the argument talks about the media coverage whereas option D isn't about media coverage. So, option C makes more sense.

My 2 cents.
Focus of the argument is not at what we can do to inform the public about each candidate’s position on the major issues ?
Overall argument is criticizing behavior of television broadcasters, and author wants to see some change in their behavior.

Further author says that endless interviews with campaign managers, discussions of campaign strategies, and, especially, the obsession with opinion polls have surrounded elections with the atmosphere of a football game or a prizefight.

If I ask you to take first step to screw television broadcasters so they change their behavior then what you will suggest ?

Personally I feel we should prohibit campaign manager from giving bytes, or we should restrict opinion polls or any such thing which author mentioned in his/her complaint.

I hope you got the point.

Thanks for your reply but I still can't really understand why the answer should be C & not D because the argument clearly states that coverage on "who's winning" isn't good at the expense of issues and candidates position; otherwise media could probably cover "who's winning" but not at the expense of "issues and candidates' position"
“Who’s winning?” at the expense of substantive coverage of the issues and the candidates’ positions on them

Experts, could you please resolve the problem here for everyone to understand the right answer?

let me frame an argument on similar lines :

Today's doctors are interested in making money and are not diagnosing patient properly -- doctors earning commission are prescribing expensive medicines to the patient. Patients do not know much about underlying cause of the disease and they rely on the doctors advise. To improve this situation government must interfere by __________.

A) making strict laws against such malpractices in medical profession.
B) publishing list of medicines for every disease so patient can counter check prescribed medicines and providing medical books to general public at low price.

Suppose you are prime minister.
How you will deal with this problem ?
Where you should strike to correct the problem ?

So very kind of you to have replied again to the fussy arguer but pls know that I'm not arguing just for the heck of it but I'm just not able to wrap my head around the idea.
The above example is very good and A really is the quick answer but it isn't really parallel to the question.
A really parallel example would be:
A) making strict laws against such malpractices in medical profession.
B) Deploying government doctors to treat patients and prescribe medicines for government medicos for some reason do NOT involve in such activities.
because "doctors not properly treating patients" or "doctors prescribing medicines for profits" is a serious flaw and MUST be stopped (not just reduced) whereas the argument says "who's winning" shouldn't be given coverage at the cost of imp info about "issues and candidates' stand on them" i.e. "who's winning" must NOT be stopped but just shouldn't over take the "issues and standing" part.

That's exactly how my mind is working right now. Does that make any sense to you?

Actually these events are in series.
Cause: television is not showing what author thinks that it should show > effect: of such event is that people are not getting important information.

D is trying to treat effect. Actually you should first identify conclusion in this argument. rest of the argument is framed to support that conclusion. Author can tell as many possible effects of a cause as to bolster his/her claim. When I read the argument I sticked to the core of the argument and when I was checking options I realized OA is hitting on the core and trying to solve the issue at cause level and when I read D it appeared to be curing effect of the cause. Therefore, I liked the OA.

To reform this situation, a first step might well be______
(A) a shortening of the length of election campaigns to a period of six weeks
(B) a stringent limit on campaign spending
(C) a reduction in the television coverage of opinion polls during election campaigns
(D) the publication and distribution of voter-education literature to inform the public about each candidate’s position on the major issues
(E) a limit on the length and number of political advertisements broadcast on television

according to the argument the most serious flaw in television’s coverage of election campaigns is its tendency to focus on the question “Who’s winning?” by:
-endless interviews with campaign managers,
-discussions of campaign strategies,
-and, especially, the obsession with opinion polls
they do this at the expense of substantive coverage of the issues and the candidates’ positions on them.

so to reform this situation, the first step might well be eliminating these opinion polls and instead of these opinion polls coverage, in second step should be covering the issues and the candidates’ positions on them

if producers do not eliminate the coverage of opinion polls they won't have enough space to cover the issues and the candidates’ positions on them; so, C should be the answer

Something which improves candidate position time or reduces horse race stuff shall be the answer.
C fits the bill perfectly and precisely