Cannot think of a name
21-11-2007, 18:03
I have been frustrated by claims of inevitability regarding who is going to win what primary and/or election and started to wonder where that kind of thing comes from. Of course, the answer is obvious. Even people who pat themselves on the back for 'thinking for themselves' often just get their information, and thus shape their opinions, from an alternative source.
I was wondering how much of this was in my head, so I've opened up the politics pages for CNN (http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/), Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html), MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18970417/), NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/topics/topic.php?topicId=1014), The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/index.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1195660388-L07gCtUljSI9Uedk4GSorw), CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/politics/main250.shtml), and ABC (http://abcnews.go.com/politics). These are links to the politics pages and what I will say about them relates to the stories they have now, when I write this. When you click them, depending on time, they will have different stories. I encourage you to update the observations as the pages change to further evaluate the subject.
My argument is that the horse race is what is reported more than the the campaigns themselves, and that self perpetuates front runners and allows the media to essentially chose the candidates rather nakedly. Part of that is obvious, since the media is the main gate over whether or not we take a candidate seriously or not. If they so deem that the candidate doesn't stand a chance, that person gets no coverage and therefore doesn't stand a chance. Sort of self-fulfilling.
But lets look at the reporting, starting with CNN (http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/):
Their lead story at the moment is reporting on the War of Words (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/20/clinton.obama/index.html) between Clinton and Obama. Essentially it's just a short piece of snipping about foreign policy experience and is anemic at best. But for generosity, we'll consider that policy coverage as it focuses on differences in the candidates experience..
On their 'Top Stories' list the first election story is one on Clinton's lead (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/20/poll.dems.nh/index.html). This is a considerably larger article and details the breakdown of the polls.
Now, to be fair, there is discussion of policy in this article, but look at how it is couched-
"One issue that appears to hurt Clinton in Iowa is Iraq," said CNN polling director Keating Holland. "Caucus-goers think Obama can handle that issue better than Clinton. The reverse is true in New Hampshire -- although not by much. Twenty-seven percent said Clinton would best handle the war; 21 percent favored Obama.
In the terms of the horse race, not in the terms of what it is that the candidates are proposing or offering.
Second up, Huckabee (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/20/huckabee.iowa/index.html) in a story that could be about position and policy, but even it degenerates into horse race reporting-
Two polls out last week show Huckabee gaining ground -- second place in one and a statistical dead heat with front-runner Mitt Romney in another.
It is support from evangelicals like Whiting that is driving Huckabee's surge in Iowa, where Christian conservatives make up an estimated 40 percent of the GOP vote.
McCain (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/19/mccain.new.hampshire/index.html) gets similar treatment when addressing and actual issue, national security, in New Hampshire.
To win in the New Hampshire primary, McCain needs the support of the Independent voters who helped him win in 2000, many of whom are wary of his support of the Iraq war.
"Most Republicans support the war. Most Independents don't," CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider said. "Any gains McCain makes with Republicans on the war are likely to be negated by losses among Independents."
If he fails to strike that delicate balance the Arizona Republican may have to cash in his chips and go home in January.
Finally, we have a non-poll driven story about Firefighters criticizing Giuliani (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/20/giuliani.firefighters.ap/index.html), but it does have the link to the side about Giuliani's electability poll in Nevada... (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/16/nv.gop.poll/index.html)
Finally, yet another story on the Republican horse race (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/19/nh.gop.poll/index.html).
We have a blurb on a catfight, and a three to two ratio on the race vs. policy reporting, and even then, the policy is couched in terms of the horse race.
On to Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html), where they lead with Obama's drug comments to young voters (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312352,00.html). There'd be a comment here, except that at least it's not about polls or fund raising...in fact, polls are only mentioned in the 'context other information' section of the last paragraphs-
Obama, whose campaign was riding high Tuesday on the results of the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll that put him ahead of Hillary Clinton in early-voting Iowa, made the stop in Manchester to unveil his $18 billion education program.
...wait, why isn't the education program the story? Different issue, but worth noting.
In the headlines we get some fundraising reporting (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312366,00.html), a more detailed account of the cat fight (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312375,00.html), but then features a poll averages graphic prominently, no reading needed, just check the numbers.
In the YouDecide (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/youdecide2008/index.html) section theres the itenerary article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312373,00.html?sPage=fnc.politics/youdecide2008), and then the most sinister of the horse race articles, ones which jump both primaries and decide the actual Presidential race (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312270,00.html?sPage=fnc.politics/youdecide2008), this time Giuliani and Clinton...
Christ this is long...fuck it, you get the point. There are links if you want to prove me wrong (Fox actually does have a fair amount of 'policy' reporting, criticisms about their bias aside.)
So, does the media focus too much on the horse race and does that focus artificially create front runners or is the reporting simply following it, not leading it?
Or is it a case of tl,dr even though I bitched out after the second of my seven examples...
I was wondering how much of this was in my head, so I've opened up the politics pages for CNN (http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/), Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html), MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18970417/), NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/topics/topic.php?topicId=1014), The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/index.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1195660388-L07gCtUljSI9Uedk4GSorw), CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/politics/main250.shtml), and ABC (http://abcnews.go.com/politics). These are links to the politics pages and what I will say about them relates to the stories they have now, when I write this. When you click them, depending on time, they will have different stories. I encourage you to update the observations as the pages change to further evaluate the subject.
My argument is that the horse race is what is reported more than the the campaigns themselves, and that self perpetuates front runners and allows the media to essentially chose the candidates rather nakedly. Part of that is obvious, since the media is the main gate over whether or not we take a candidate seriously or not. If they so deem that the candidate doesn't stand a chance, that person gets no coverage and therefore doesn't stand a chance. Sort of self-fulfilling.
But lets look at the reporting, starting with CNN (http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/):
Their lead story at the moment is reporting on the War of Words (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/20/clinton.obama/index.html) between Clinton and Obama. Essentially it's just a short piece of snipping about foreign policy experience and is anemic at best. But for generosity, we'll consider that policy coverage as it focuses on differences in the candidates experience..
On their 'Top Stories' list the first election story is one on Clinton's lead (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/20/poll.dems.nh/index.html). This is a considerably larger article and details the breakdown of the polls.
Now, to be fair, there is discussion of policy in this article, but look at how it is couched-
"One issue that appears to hurt Clinton in Iowa is Iraq," said CNN polling director Keating Holland. "Caucus-goers think Obama can handle that issue better than Clinton. The reverse is true in New Hampshire -- although not by much. Twenty-seven percent said Clinton would best handle the war; 21 percent favored Obama.
In the terms of the horse race, not in the terms of what it is that the candidates are proposing or offering.
Second up, Huckabee (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/20/huckabee.iowa/index.html) in a story that could be about position and policy, but even it degenerates into horse race reporting-
Two polls out last week show Huckabee gaining ground -- second place in one and a statistical dead heat with front-runner Mitt Romney in another.
It is support from evangelicals like Whiting that is driving Huckabee's surge in Iowa, where Christian conservatives make up an estimated 40 percent of the GOP vote.
McCain (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/19/mccain.new.hampshire/index.html) gets similar treatment when addressing and actual issue, national security, in New Hampshire.
To win in the New Hampshire primary, McCain needs the support of the Independent voters who helped him win in 2000, many of whom are wary of his support of the Iraq war.
"Most Republicans support the war. Most Independents don't," CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider said. "Any gains McCain makes with Republicans on the war are likely to be negated by losses among Independents."
If he fails to strike that delicate balance the Arizona Republican may have to cash in his chips and go home in January.
Finally, we have a non-poll driven story about Firefighters criticizing Giuliani (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/20/giuliani.firefighters.ap/index.html), but it does have the link to the side about Giuliani's electability poll in Nevada... (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/16/nv.gop.poll/index.html)
Finally, yet another story on the Republican horse race (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/19/nh.gop.poll/index.html).
We have a blurb on a catfight, and a three to two ratio on the race vs. policy reporting, and even then, the policy is couched in terms of the horse race.
On to Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html), where they lead with Obama's drug comments to young voters (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312352,00.html). There'd be a comment here, except that at least it's not about polls or fund raising...in fact, polls are only mentioned in the 'context other information' section of the last paragraphs-
Obama, whose campaign was riding high Tuesday on the results of the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll that put him ahead of Hillary Clinton in early-voting Iowa, made the stop in Manchester to unveil his $18 billion education program.
...wait, why isn't the education program the story? Different issue, but worth noting.
In the headlines we get some fundraising reporting (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312366,00.html), a more detailed account of the cat fight (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312375,00.html), but then features a poll averages graphic prominently, no reading needed, just check the numbers.
In the YouDecide (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/youdecide2008/index.html) section theres the itenerary article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312373,00.html?sPage=fnc.politics/youdecide2008), and then the most sinister of the horse race articles, ones which jump both primaries and decide the actual Presidential race (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312270,00.html?sPage=fnc.politics/youdecide2008), this time Giuliani and Clinton...
Christ this is long...fuck it, you get the point. There are links if you want to prove me wrong (Fox actually does have a fair amount of 'policy' reporting, criticisms about their bias aside.)
So, does the media focus too much on the horse race and does that focus artificially create front runners or is the reporting simply following it, not leading it?
Or is it a case of tl,dr even though I bitched out after the second of my seven examples...