As happens every four years, the American public is
subjected to a presidential election.
However, before the November election, we are subjected to at least a
year and a half of campaigning (first for the nomination and then the
presidency). With the campaign comes
nonstop media coverage of the candidates: their views on the issues, where they
are visiting, what scandalous things they have said or done in their past, and
most importantly polls and projections of who is going to come away the victor. The nomination process can be described as a
game of attrition, in which we watch the candidates battle it out until only
one remains standing. With the
nomination contests coming to an end June 14, we now know that this general election
season pits Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, against Hillary
Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee.
 |
| Hillary Clinton (D-NY) |
 |
| Donald Trump (R-NY) |
The media coverage of this election cycle has received a
fair amount of scrutiny from political scientists, media pundits, and the
candidates alike. This should be
expected as it happens every four years.
However, this year many scathing articles have discussed at length the
failings of the media and the shallow reporting done on the main news channels
and in the major newspapers. The New York Times ran an article
entitled “The Republican Horse Race Is Over, and Journalism Lost.” Huffington
Post wrote about “Why the Media Got it Wrong about Trump and Sanders
Phenomena” and Politico said “The
Media’s Trump Reckoning: ‘Everyone was Wrong’.”
Finally, even Vanity Fair
stated “The Media is Very Sorry for Getting Trump Wrong.” So, did the media “get it wrong?” Is the media the reason Donald Trump and
Hillary Clinton are the nominees? What
were the media outlets actually reporting on?
Looking at the data provided for us in Harvard’s Kennedy School of
Government’s Shorenstein Center on Media sheds some light on these
questions.
Much of the coverage focused on the horserace and not
issues. This too should have been
expected. Usually we see about 75% of
news reports focusing on who is ahead in the polls and who is on the verge of
dropping out while 25% of reports focus on the actual substance of what the
candidates stand for. This year, this
trend seems to play out once again. According
to the Shorenstein Center’s report, throughout the invisible primary (the year
leading up to the primaries) Hillary Clinton received the most issue coverage
with 28%. In contrast, her Democratic
opponent Bernie Sanders received 7% coverage on his issues. On the Republican side, 13% of the news
coverage of Trump was focused on issues, while Ted Cruz (Trump’s biggest
Republican competitor) received only 9% coverage of his issue positions.
In addition to the difference between horserace and issue
coverage is the difference between positive and negative coverage of the
candidates. According to the same
report, 84% of the issue-related coverage of Clinton was negative in tone,
while only 17% of Sanders’s coverage was negative. On the Republican side, we see that 43% of
Trump’s issue coverage was negative, compared with 32% negative for Cruz.
 |
| This Chart shows the Percentage of Total Media Coverage Each Candidate Received |
An arguably even bigger story from this the “free”
advertising candidates receive through media coverage, especially when it is
positive. As the chart above
demonstrates, Trump received the most media coverage of any Republican
candidate in the 2016 field.
Specifically, Trump receive 34% of the total media coverage of the
Republican contests. Jeb Bush, who
received the second most, only received 18% of the media coverage. Trump received more than two times as much
media coverage as Ted Cruz (Trump’s closest competitor), who received only 13%
of total media coverage. What this meant
for Trump is that he received roughly $55 million in “free” advertising from
this media coverage, compared with the $32.5 million in free advertising Cruz
received.
So, why did Trump receive so much free advertising? And why was it so favorable compared with his
competitors? The short answer is because
he was leading in the polls and thus winning the nomination contest. As the Shorenstein Center’s report reminds us,
covering the horserace means that journalists often phrase their articles in one of four ways: a candidate is "leading," "trailing," "gaining ground," or "losing ground." Trump started small but quickly rose in the polls. So, many articles were framed in a way to demonstrate that Trump was indeed "gaining ground" on his competitors and then that he was "leading" the pack of Republican contenders. What this tells us is that Trump received a lot of positive media coverage. He was rarely seen as "trailing" or "losing ground." While many people may remember the more controversial statements uttered by Trump on the campaign trail (think "Build a wall," deport Muslims, women are pigs), these statements did not make up the majority of Trump's coverage. The chart below depicts the news coverage Trump received.
 |
| This chart shows what the media focused on while covering Trump on the campaign trail |
So, Trump received a fair amount of positive media coverage
because 55% of media coverage focused on his activities, events, polls, and
projections. All of these would give
Trump positive coverage because he was ahead in the polls and looked poised to
win the nomination.
Now, what explains the negative coverage of Hillary
Clinton? After all, Clinton was seen as the
Democratic frontrunner from the very beginning of the nomination season. Bernie Sanders was seen as a long-shot
candidate compared to Clinton’s establishment background. So, by coming in a very close second place in
Iowa (49.9% to 49.6%) and soundly defeating Clinton in New Hampshire (60% to
38%) Sanders was suddenly seen as a viable contender and a number of news
reports covered Sanders as “gaining ground” on Clinton, while Clinton was
“losing ground” to Sanders. So, while
Clinton never fully lost the mantle of frontrunner, she did struggle to
maintain the air of inevitability that her candidacy had throughout the
invisible primary period. Because
expectations for Clinton were incredibly high, when she lost a contest it
reverberated through the media as a major blow to her campaign. In contrast, when Sanders won, the media
often focused on growing enthusiasm for his message or increasing angst towards,
and distrust of, the establishment.
So now that the presidential selection process has come to
an end and each party has selected a nominee, the focus has already shifted to
the general election. More specifically,
the media is currently speculating who each candidate will choose as their
running mate (Elizabeth Warren? Chris
Christie?). Will we see the same
patterns we saw in the nomination coverage play out in the general
election? Partially. The horserace coverage is already starting. As I write this blog post, depending on which
source you look at, Hillary Clinton is leading Trump by 5 points, 10 points, or
12 points. The horserace coverage will
continue until November and will likely increase as we get even closer. However, what will likely change is which
candidate receives positive coverage and which candidate receives negative
coverage. Whichever candidate is leading
in the polls will likely get the more positive coverage. Provided Clinton maintains her lead in the
polls, we could be in for a very different type of media environment from now
until November.
To keep up with the election, what the media is reporting,
or if you have general questions about the election, the History and Political
Science department welcome you to stop by!
We also encourage you to check out our courses in the Fall that are
election-focused: Seminar on the Presidency, Political Parties and Interest
Groups, and Media and Politics! All of
them should produce lively discussions all semester long!
