Why Elections Are Bad News

Abstract

Beginning in 1992, news organizations adopted a more assertive posture in covering presidential elections in order to raise the level of campaign discourse. This article assesses the impact of this change in professional norms by comparing network television news coverage of the 1996 Republican presidential primaries with the speeches and paid advertisements of the candidates. A content analysis is applied to both the media and candidate messages with regard to such characteristics as the topics and issues that were addressed, the context in which policy issues were framed, and the evaluative tone of the campaign debate. We conclude that rather than raising the tone of public discourse, the media coverage contributed to the negativism and lack of substance for which the campaign was criticized. These findings raise questions about the effectiveness of reporting practices that were intended to benefit voters by assigning the media a more active role in the campaign process.