|
THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA IN SELECTING THE PRESIDENT
LWVUS Task Force, July 3, 2003
THE CHANGING NATURE OF THE MEDIA
Let us begin by noting that things are not as bad as they could be when it comes to media coverage of the Presidential election. In fact, political campaigns in America have been much improved by the existence of a free and watchful press conscious of its growing role as a mediator between voters and candidates. Most of us never see the candidates in person, nor in a situation where we are able to judge their abilities. We rely on the press to explain, interpret, and judge. This has become especially critical as the role of the party has declined in the selection process. Journalistic standards have risen over the years, coming a long way from the days when newspapers were mouthpieces for one party or the other. Developing standards placed a strong value on professionalism, a separation of news and opinion, and a general appearance of fairness. Perhaps the latter value was helped along by the federal fairness rules for broadcast licenses. While newspapers are not subject to the same restraints of the licensed media, anti-trust regulations can intervene from time to time to prevent the domination of entire media market by one owner. That said, it is interesting and relevant to note that in a recent survey of trust and credibility, the media ranked last after NGOs, business and government, with only 28 percent of Americans trusting it to say and do what was right. (1)
Despite charges of bias from one side or the other, most serious scholars of the media do not believe the American media suffers from political bias. There are, however, what Michael Hagen calls "structural bias…. the professional, economic, technical incentives and constraints under which they work." (2) These biases encourage journalists to focus on the race and be skeptical of frontrunners. The tendency toward cynicism is grounded, in part, on the reporters very desire to appear unbiased, usually by presenting Candidate X saying one thing and Candidate Y disagreeing, with the implicit suggestion that truth lies somewhere in between. When it comes to the presidential race Hagen suggests reporters are particularly conscious of their roles as watchdogs of the political process. "Devoted to their duty, these dogs take a dim view of anyone getting too close to the White House." (3) They are more apt to be critical of frontrunners than those back in the pack, but they are not apt to cover those back in the pack. The effect is bad news about the leaders, and no news about anyone else.
When it comes to understanding the impact of the media on presidential selection, our understanding about the issues - probably goes back to Theodore H. White's The Making of the President, based on John Kennedy's campaign in the 1960 election. It set a standard of campaign reporting and opened the eyes of many to the role and dynamics of a presidential campaign, at least when seen from the inside. S. Hunter Thompson's book, The Boys on the Bus, a decade later presented a picture of "group think" from what might be called "the near inside:" a group of journalists following the campaign day after day, listening to the candidate and his press officers, writing the same story to be meet a deadline, and never having the time, energy, or resources to get beyond the campaign trail.
More recent technological developments - and campaign strategy - encouraged reporters from local papers and television to spend some time on the campaign trail. Local outlets like it because it makes them more relevant, especially when they get an interview with the candidate. Campaigns like it because local reporters tend to be less well-informed and are not likely to ask tough questions. Most importantly, their interview will be given greater play on a local station than anything likely to come from a network. Messages can be tailored to the local area. And, not incidentally, it gives the candidate an opportunity to wow them with charm. But Thompson's point remains valid no matter who is covering: the report will reflect the sources, and while there are more sources of information available today, including the Internet, there is a tendency for the press to act as a pack, using the same sources and writing the same story.
Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Paul Waldman, at the Annenberg School of Journalism at the University of Pennsylvania conclude that neither the press, nor opponents pay a great deal of critical attention to what campaigns are doing. (4) One reason may be that the pace of a campaign is such that much of the energy of individuals within the campaigns are so busy sorting out their own standing within the temporary organization, they actually pay relatively little attention to the opposition, and if a reporter ask them what they think of their opponent's view, they will give a rational answer, but it is not something to which they devote a great deal of attention. (5) Whatever the cause, the media tends to focus on the "horse race:" who has more money; endorsements; and delegates selected. Responding to that criticism, observers have noted a tendency to focus on campaign strategy as well as the horse race. Strategy, however, is not the same thing as a candidate's positions. A third effort to raise the level of coverage has been the development of "civic journalism" to engage the citizenry in more education on the issues so that they are in a better position to ask questions at debates and, in general, make more informed choices at the poll. The most informed voter today would need to understand the issues, the role of the press, and something of the character of the candidate. Ironically, it is the last factor that always remains the most elusive, usually perceived in the unrehearsed moments that escape the control of either the campaign or the media.
"The media" is something of a catchall phrase that pervades our lives in many different ways. For our purposes, we are talking about print media (newspapers, magazines, possibly campaign mailers since they are produced by the same people who produce others campaigns ads); electronic media (radio, broadcast television, cable and satellite services), and the Internet (which is a subset of electronic media, but has an entirely different relationship to campaign). The last will be covered in a separate report. We could also include e-mail within electronic media, although it is probably more akin to campaign mailers - could be significant, could be produced by the same folk who produces the mailers - but has yet to make a major difference in the process.
How the nature of news coverage is reflected in the different media is the subject of this report, but by way of introduction it is important to note how news coverage - no matter the medium - has changed in recent years. We are all aware, for instance, of the difference between paid and unpaid media. The former, in theory, projects the image the candidate wants the voter to know about himself or herself. In practice, paid ads have become increasingly negative, saying more about what the campaign wants you to know about the opposition. However much we dislike them, they often work, and the candidate who eschews their use is risking victory. In any case, it is the candidate's choice. A second category of news coverage - usually known as hard news or free media - is what television, newspapers, magazines, etc. report. The trend in hard news reporting-whether focused on the horse race or the strategy - is to cover less. In 1968, a candidate would typically get a 43 second sound bite on the network news. In 2000, the sound bite was down to 9 seconds. (6) If the candidate says less (how much can one say about war in 9 seconds?), and the reporter says more, it helps explain the shift away from a candidate's position to the analysis of why he or she is saying it.
Another structural change in the media's role has to do with the emergence of op ed pages in newspapers in the 1970s, and talk television and call-in radio in the 1990s. Twenty-four hour cable news stations that have also significantly added to the phenomenon of individual expert opinion with their need to fill time. Panels of pundits are now everywhere. The talk shows are cheap to produce, and they do give viewers the opportunity to hear different sides. The problem with this opportunity to explore issues is the fact that news shows are - at heart - shows. The panelists are there to be entertaining and controversy is encouraged. In turn, they encourage disbelief in candidates (and any other public official) as the talking heads disagree with each other and compete for the memorable sound bite themselves. Not all television shows are negative, and not all pundits see their role to be controversial. But many do. Gone are the days when Walter Cronkite was the most respected man in America.
PRINT MEDIA
Even though more than two-thirds of Americans get their news from television, the national print media (including the weekly news magazines) has enormous influence on presidential elections. Traditionally, television took its cue from the newspapers, relying on their news judgment as to what was important, but although that remains somewhat true, there is a greater divergence in local news, which tends to follow the dictum "If it bleeds, it leads," rather than the front page of the daily paper. One hold newspapers still have is that they partner with others (networks, and polling organizations) to publish weekly polls that determine the expectations of the horse race. In truth, the news is always about how a candidates does against what he or she was expected to do. If the results do not fit the expectation - or even if they do - the measure becomes a structural component in what the media reports every week.
It is usually cheaper for a newspaper to allocate reporters to do research than for television news, although that is much more the case at the local level. Since newspapers and magazine cannot compete with breaking news, it is not surprising that of the two, print is more likely to do the issue stories and background research on the candidates.
Another function newspapers have undertaken is analyses of campaign ads, checking for accuracy and falsehood. It is quite possible that this relatively recent development has limited bald faced lies in campaign literatures and media ads, but it has not had much impact on lessening the role of negative campaign ads. Nor will it, as long as they work.
A relatively recent effort to improve the quality of media reporting has been the advent of what is generally called "civic journalism:" often a combined effort with a newspaper and television station within a media market to provide background information about the issues. According to a recent study by the Pew Center for Civic Journalism, at least a fifth of daily newspapers (322 out of 1,500), engaged in some form of civic journalism between 1994 and 2001. (7) According to the study, 75 percent of the projects were undertaken by regional newspapers with circulations of under 250,000; 45 percent with circulations of 100,000 or less; and 45 percent were published in major metropolitan newspapers. Their goal was to explain the issues rather than focus on the horse race, and the Pew study by Lewis A. Friedland and Sandy Nichols suggests that more than half of the projects provided evidence that they succeeded. It is an evolving format and one that receives high marks beyond the initial purpose of educating its market in having its stories picked up by other media, and by beginning an interactive process that engages voters directly, either through the Internet or in focus group and other formats for discussion.
Whatever form of journalism newspapers use, the early press usually comes from the print media. The journalists who follow candidates in the lonely first stages of a campaign are apt to set the tone and define that candidate and his or her organization for the television cameras that come later.
ELECTRONIC MEDIA
Television: When television news began, it was a public service - a condition in the contact by which a local television station received its license from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The obligation to provide a public service was eliminated in 1984, as part of the deregulation of the industry by the FCC. While that turned out to be a significant factor in the decline of coverage of government (local government, particularly) it was not the only factor accounting for the decline in hard news stories on television.
Two other factors helped turn television news more toward entertainment than education: profit and technology. Today, a typical two-hour news period on a local station will be divided evenly between news stories and ads and promotions. No other kind of show would tolerate so much advertising. What began as someone reading the news, evolved into cameras going out to cover stories - placing an emphasis on the visual, to satellite feeds from anywhere. Disasters are the most photogenic so our daily intake of news will include natural and man-made disasters from almost anywhere in the world. Crime is ever popular, along with car chases, now followed by station helicopters, and human interest (usually animal interest, e.g., water-skiing squirrels, wandering bears, etc.), health, consumer information, and business news. There is not much left over for government or political news, especially when it requires reporters and producers to understand something about the subject. Most are too young to remember and - since we hardly emphasize civics in education - have never studied it either. Today's local news gives scant time to local public affairs and not much more to the national presidential contest. Unfortunately, the need to make news profitable has filtered up to network news and that, too, is filled more and more with soft news and less and less with hard news stories about the candidates. Studies suggest that independent stations that do not get their feeds as much from networks or large associations of stations provide better local news. Even so, the audience is declining, with only a slight majority watching the network news every night and only 23 percent turning to the networks as their primary source of news. (8)
Concerned about their impact on the presidential process, the networks agreed to a voluntary commitment to provide five minutes a night of candidate-centered discourse in the 30 day periods preceding the primary and general elections in 2000. Unfortunately, they failed to live up to it, averaging instead about 1 minute a night according to the Annenberg study by Erika Falk and Sean Aday. (9) "Candidate-centered" is defined by the researchers as giving the candidate the opportunity to speak, instead of being interpreted by the reporters, but no matter how the subject is measured, the bottom line is less coverage.
One factor may be a rejection of an earlier campaign tactic: setting up a "visual:" a photo opportunity for the camera to allow the candidate to demonstrate his concern for the environment (standing in front of a polluted bay), or the high cost of gas (in front of a pump), etc. Television news people lately appear to have a reluctance to be set up that way, but it is not clear which is better: manipulation by the campaign; or manipulation by the media. It is something of a symbiotic relationship either way. If the question is asked what it is voters actually know about a candidate's positions by the time they cast their ballots, it turns out only about half feel they know enough by the time they vote in the primaries. (10) In those states that hold primaries -- especially New Hampshire, South Carolina and Michigan -- voters do learn more (but not in caucus states because so few actually participate); and the other bursts of information come from televised debates, the convention, and finally, the election itself. Those are the points at which the media and the campaigns tend to converge. These are media moments in a campaign that define the candidates for most voters. It is a job that used to belong to the political party.
Another impact that melds the entertainment nature of television and American politics are the talk shows of Jay Leno, David Letterman, Oprah, Larry King, etc. The first two can make or break a candidacy with a well-focused joke; the latter two usually give the candidate the opportunity to talk with the host (who stands in for the viewer) at greater length than news shows, and certainly in a more personal, less confrontational way. Character, as already noted, can be just as important as issues when it comes to choosing a president. Bill Clinton broke new ground when he appeared on MTV, but odds are it will not be one-time presidential candidate stop. "The media" is more than news departments today; it includes MTV and "The West Wing."
Radio: Of the electronic media (broadcast and cable television and radio), there is no question that call-in radio shows are the most controversial because anonymous callers are not apt to worry about their professional reputations. The rest are at least under the direction of professional journalists. The reason call-in shows generate such ire is because people tend to call when they are angry, just as they tend to give small donations to causes because they are angry. In neither case do they really expect more than the opportunity to vent. As it turns out, there are relatively few liberal call-in radio shows. National Public Radio - which considers all things - tends to answer the liberal need in the nation, but even though their news audience is growing, public radio will not grow as wealthy as their more ideological colleagues to the right. While polls are a more accurate gauge of public opinion, the public is moved by what it hears and sees.
The Internet: This new medium grows with each election cycle. It has become a highly regarded source of information about candidates and issues (e.g., DNet and SmartVoter), a useful tool for candidates to explain themselves and, particularly, to raise money, and a very controversial site for uncorroborated stories. If the major newspapers and television networks are uncomfortable repeating gossip, they can legitimately claim it appeared in the Drudge Report, or one of the supermarket tabloids.
PAID MEDIA
Presidential campaigns set the standard for all political campaigns in the following four years. Nowhere is that clearer than when it comes to advertising. It used to be believed, for instance, that negative ads hurt a campaign because analyses suggested going negative hurt Hubert Humphrey in his race against Richard Nixon in 1968, in part because he was thought to be a kind man and the ad projected a nastier image of Humphrey. It was not until 1980 - when independent spending by NCPAC (the National Conservative Political Action Committee) targeted six liberal senators and won five races that campaign consultants began rethinking the issue. And it was not until the 1988 campaign of George H.W. Bush and the Willie Horton ad against Michael Dukakis (also, by the way developed and paid for as independent expenditures), and a campaign ad about pollution in Boston Harbor that the door truly opened for negative campaigning. The Dukakis mistake was thinking a president should be above such blatant misrepresentation. Later analysis suggested the media in its role as a mediating institution should have entered the fray earlier than it finally did to "set the record straight," but it is not certain that a negative ad repeated many times will not have some impact no matter who says what later on. Either way, it was a mistake few who followed have made since. While everyone deplores negative ads, they are not necessarily wrong, and they do have an impact on the voter's understanding of the candidate.
Whatever the nature of campaign ads, they are single most important vehicle campaigns have to present their candidate in the light and on the issues they choose. It is not surprising, therefore, that media ads are the single largest expenditure in a presidential election, although many argue that the increase in cost has as much to do with the cost of production and what television stations charge for time bought on air. In the last election, the total cost was about $1.5 billion; one third of which went to the production and airing of media ads. And of that, $248 million was spend in the 75 largest media markets. (11) Fifteen years ago, the total cost of the presidential election was $230 million. The costs today have way out-stripped the cost of living and are almost entirely attributable to campaign media ads. As long as the presidential candidates abide by the public financing rules of the Federal Election Campaign Act, there is a relatively even playing field during the general election, but if they choose to fund their campaigns without public money - as did George W. Bush in 2000 - the costs will rise as will a certain inequality when it comes to getting the message out. On the other hand, no election in the United States receives the attention a presidential race does, and given the basic tenet of campaign finance reform that it is the floor and not the ceiling that matters because voters can and will make up their own minds when they know who the candidates are, it is at cause for some concern.
Over the years, the nature and style of ads have changed and will undoubtedly continue to do so. Kathleen Hall Jamieson argues that they have become the natural extension of the handbills candidates and parties used to hand out, with the caveat that now the press stands guard for accuracy and fairness. There have also been proposals over the years to control excesses by:
- Requiring the candidate to appear in the ad,
- Identification at the end of the ad of who is paying for it,
- Lower rates - or free air time - to campaigns,
- Longer segments (half an hour or an hour) given over to the candidates to say and do what they want.
Clearly, proposals for change are constrained by the First Amendment, and by the rights of networks and local stations to earn a profit. It is the latter area of profit that is the most promising for reform because the license to use the public airwaves are given freely by the FCC and actually owned by the people.
SOURCES
(1) "The Fourth Edelman Survey on Trust & Credibility," World Economic Forum, Davos, 12 January 2003.
(2) Michael Hagen, "Press Treatment of Front Runners," in William G. Mayer, ed., In Pursuit of the White House: How We Choose our Presidential Nominees (Chatham: Chatham House Publishers, 1996.
(3) Ibid., p. 202.
(4) Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Paul Waldman, The Press Effect: Politicians, Journalists, and the Stories That Shape the Political World (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).
(5) Xandra Kayden, Campaign Organization (Cambridge: D.C. Heath, 1978).
(6) Erika Falk, "Our Voluntary Standards Working? Candidate Discourse on Newtwork Evening News Programs," The Annenberg Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, December 20, 2000.
(7) "Community Impact, Journalism Shifts Cited in New Civic Journalism Study," www.pewcenter.org/doingcj/spotlight/index.php.
(8) Erika Falk, "Are Voluntary Standards Working?" The Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, December 20, 2000.
(9) Ibid.
(10) "Annenberg Survey: Gaps Remain in Voter Knowledge," Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, September 29, 2000.
(11) "Issue Advertising in the 1999-2000 Election Cycle, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.
The League of Women Voters
1730 M Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036-4508
www.lwv.org
July 2003
|
|
