Issues and Democratic Primaries 2004

What Influences the News Coverage that Candidates Receive on Issues?
A Look at Jobs Coverage in the 2004 Presidential Election

Background

The field of political science has extensively studied the interrelations between the media and candidate, as well as the resulting issue coverage. These studies have reported a number of provocative and sound theories about candidates and media coverage that are particularly relevant to the findings of this paper.

Few would dispute the immense influence of the media in today’s politics. Indeed, once in the White House, the president will constantly keep the media in mind as policies develop (Cook 1998). Especially since the advent of the television and radio, the media has become the primary, if not the only, medium in which the politician reaches potential voters (McCombs & Shaw 1972). There are potential problems with the “agenda-setting effect,” however, when “the mass media set the agenda for each political campaign, influencing the salience of attitudes toward the political issues [sic]” (McCombs & Shaw 1972). Since Americans no longer have direct contact with the politicians and the media acts as an intermediary (Kahn 1996, as noted in “Who’s Talking?”), the importance of candidates getting across their desired message through the media is all the more vital. Bennett makes note of indexing, where the media determines the relevancy and sometimes the topic discussion the public will debate (Bennett 1994). The Democrats were able to use indexing to their advantage, convincing the media and subsequently the public the issue relevance of jobs.

Assuming the candidates have at least some control over the issue agenda, they can set and “pursue their policy and electoral goals” (Sellers 2000, 22, referencing Cook 1989). Sometimes merely getting the issue out is the battle itself and winning is having your issue discussed, as Sellers notes in an interview with one Democratic strategist (2000). Priming, or what people think about when evaluating a candidate, shows that “the most important part of the fight is deciding what it is about” (Just, et al. 1996, 5, agreeing with E. E. Schattschneider). The economy is a complex issue that the Democrats simplified into one factor: Jobs. It did not matter that the unemployment rate was not any higher than in Clinton’s first term. America was loosing jobs, and George W. Bush was responsible.

Certainly there are advantages to having one’s preferred issue in the news, including the public focus on the importance of the issue (Cook 1998). Similar to message unification efforts made by legislators for certain policy publicity (Hernson & Patterson 1995; Sinclair 1997 as noted by Sellers 2000), the 2004 Democratic presidential candidates appeared to echo the same complaint about the economy: the loss of jobs. By December the Democrats and analysts alike used the lack of job creation to criticize the state of the economy (CNN). Much to the chagrin of the Republicans, the political message of jobs had permeated into reporting, a danger to deliberation (Page 1996). While candidates criticized other aspects of Bush’s economic policy, namely tax cuts, jobs continually reappeared as a salient issue.

The effectiveness of the Democrats’ message may better be evaluated after the November elections, but the Democrats, no doubt with some media assistance, do appear to have framed the economic debate around the jobs issue. According to Robert Entman, “Framing entails selecting and highlighting some facets of events or issues, and making connections among them so as to promote a particular interpretation, evaluation, and/or solution [sic]” (Entman 2004, 417). Promoting a certain frame first can give candidates a key advantage in the discussion of the issue, even “constrain[ing] later choices” (Linsky, as noted in Cook 1998). There definitely are certain “advantages offered by posturing rather than deliberating” in modern politics (Heclo 2000, 34); namely having the issue of the economy be primarily discussed in terms of job creation and job loss.

A key component to the framing theory comes from selecting a “culturally resonant term” (Entman 2004, 417). Jobs appeared to strike a chord with many in the manufacturing sector, and a closed factory will more likely strongly affect voters than will statistics about the economy or arguments of economic theory. Democrats appear to have chosen wisely their topic of jobs, as many seem to still hold the outsourcing of jobs as there number one concern in the economy (“WH 2004, President Bush, The Economy, Iraq”). It is very possible the Democrats are playing to an under-represented portion of the populace (Brady & Fiorina 2000), since numbers of jobs lost are quite small when compared to the industry as a whole. Even so, the economy and citizen’s outlook of the economy has continued to play a role in presidential elections since World War II (Lynch 1999, Shah 1999). While Al Gore’s treatment of the economy did not cost him the election (Carter 2002), the economy is not in as good of shape as when Bush made his first White House run, and the Democrats have chosen jobs as a poignant term among voters to make them aware of economic woes.

In promoting any message, politicians should promote their view with sound facts that coincide with their private debates (Cook 1998). Sen. John Kerry, among others, persistently quoted a figure of 3 million jobs that had been lost since Bush took office. Actual numbers on job losses, particularly outsourcing, are fuzzy at best as companies constantly cut and create jobs (Hilsenrath 2004), but few figures approach Kerry’s 3 million, with many ranging from 1.5 to 2.44 million (Google Search). Even so, throughout the dates of this study the US Labor Department released job reports showing a loss in jobs or numbers well below predictions.

While the polls have shown an increased concern with the loss of jobs in America, politicians may not be as responsive to the public’s concern as one might believe. Jacobs and Shapiro (2000) investigate pandering, or doing what the voters want, and their conclusions are both striking and informative. One of the main challenges of explaining public opinion and its effects on politicians’ behavior is how political responsiveness changes over time (Jacobs & Shapiro 2000, 5). Politicians are not always responsive to their voters needs (Downs 1957, as noted in Jacobs & Shapiro 2000) or completely ignorant of their preferences (Ginsberg 1986, as noted in Jacobs & Shapiro 2000), as other studies have expressed. Instead of voters directly affecting politicians’ stance on an issue (Fishkin 1991), politicians only feign listening to voters while pursuing their own agenda (Jacobs & Shapiro 2000, 44). Through extensive polling, controlled press coverage and “priming” tactics – influencing what people think about when evaluating a candidate –, politicians “craft” their talk in order to change public opinion to fit more in line with their own views. These “crafted presentations” lead to a cycle of attacks were each side to the debate tries to win over the median voter. Only when elections are close do moderate policies come forth in answer to the centrist opinion, since there is not enough time to change public opinion. Since it is not close to election time, the jobs issue will remain salient and be the key line of attack for the Democrats despite other signs that the economy may be in recovery.

The 2004 Democratic primaries offer a unique opportunity to study all of these aspects of conveying a message to the public and receiving press coverage for one’s efforts. While outsourcing has been occurring for centuries, the focus on jobs going overseas possibly has never been at the height of a campaign as it is now. Have the Democrats, faced with a formidable Bush opponent in November 2004, been able to keep a unified message throughout the competitive primary? Did candidates continue to find space in the New York Times and Washington Post to espouse their view on the economy and America’s loss of jobs? Or has their message faltered, being buried under the other complexities of the economy (Leonhardt 2004)? Drawing upon the wealth of background knowledge, this paper will attempt to answer these questions and put previous political studies to the test in the crazy world of primary politics.

By Evans McGowan

© Davidson College, 2004, Department of Political Science, Davidson College, Davidson, NC 28035
Send comments, questions, and suggestions to Patrick Sellers
Created: 4/27/2004. Last updated: 5/2/2004.