A CLEAR WINNER.

Of all the civic institutions, the fourth estate (the mass media) is where people look for the truth, and if that fails them, then there is nowhere else to go, but probably, the church.

This morning's news headlines tell it all about last night's Republican Party-Fox News-Google debate, except one.

Like "Perry Takes Heat From Candidates", "Perry focus of attention, attacks in debate", "Perry, Romney and Authenticity"; all giving a true clarification of the debate, with the exception of "Perry Stumbles, But No Clear GOP Debate Winner".

Of course, there was a clear winner, and it was Romney. So, why should the media hesitate or hedge around the periphery of the event by saying that there was "No Clear" person who won?

In every debate, the participants should be sturdy and accurate with their responses, facts and answers. If that did not happen, then the occasion would have been a waste of time.

However, to give the Republican Party the benefit of the doubt, the show was a good one. It was a program worth watching; but their main front-runner, Perry, fumbled repeatedly, and that was, somehow, not a good omen for the party.

Perry was nervous; he perspired profusely, there was no clarity in his words at certain points. He was a real mess for a person, who was aspiring to be the president of the United States; the leader of the Western World. He was a great disappointment; a failure.

Romney, on the other hand, spoke eloquently, with a very distinct and refined voice for the audience to hear him. It was deliberate, but he did it so naturally as a born actor, to show that he was prepared for the debate. His communications skills were good. He looked people straight in the eye, including the moderators, and replied them accurately. He was more alert than ever.

Even those who posed the electronic questionnaires would have been given the same preference, of making a direct eye contact with them, if they have been left on the screen long enough for him to do so.

The moderators monitored everything, answers and responses, very closely. They did not want to miss anything or give it to chance; and that added to the goodness of the debate.

Other candidates, who were impressive were Santorum and Huntsman. Bachmann was too repetitive, with her mantra of "Obamacare, Obamacare, Obamacare" angry outbursts filling the air of the vast auditorium.

Herman Cain was derisive, by talking about his 999 economic plan, to the point that Perry almost insisted that he was full of "games". His economic strategies were so simplistic, they deserved to be heard only in a Pizza parlor.

Yet, Romney, in many people's opinion, crafted a name for himself, as an eloquent speaker. He was also the only one, who really looked presidential among the candidates. The others were just dressed up for a special outing; so to speak.

The mainstream media should be taken to task for not telling the whole truth about the debate; that it was Romney, who won the night.

They should rethink how objective they should be, in the assessment of the news that they were reporting; for the public has the right to know what actually transpired at events, like this Republican debate, at all times. The news must always be laid out without any fluff or prejudice.

In other words, all Americans demanded that the outcome of any type of happenstance must always be accompanied by accurate and authentic report on the part of the media. They must be believable.