What Influences the News
Coverage that Candidates Receive on Issues?
A Look at Health Care Coverage in the 2004 Presidential
Election
Conclusions
Introduction | Background | Expectations | Data | Results | Conclusions
-Howard Dean was able to influence media coverage of his health care policy by issusing press releases. No other candidate was able to do so
-As the number of candidates in the race dropped, each remaining candidate enjoyed an increase in coverage due to his relative sucess and the more concentrated focus from the media (as there were fewer candidates to cover)
-As the Iowa caucuses approached, every candidate enjoyed a significant increase in media coverage, except for John Edwards.
-After suffering defeat in the South Carolina primary, John Kerry and Howard Dean both saw double digit drops in media coverage.
-Due perhaps to the news cycle, Dean, Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt
enjoyed significant coverage increases in the Tuesday print editions of the
Times and Post.
So what conclusions can we reach from these trends? The first
question to consider is how the tendencies of coverage shown by the Times
and Post reflect the
media’s general role in the political landscape. It is not overtly
apparent through this case study that stronger media coverage in the
realm of domestic policy necessarily leads to political success (Howard
Dean
enjoyed the most responsive and thorough coverage of his health care
initiatives by the Times and Post, yet fell well short of victory in
Iowa, New Hampshire
and South Carolina). Indeed, it is a healthy democratic sign that the
public did not simply select the candidate who was able to regularly
elicit positive
coverage from the most powerful print media outlets in the country through
his campaign efforts.
The second primary conclusion that can be drawn from this case
study is that the media is a sovereign institution that wields considerable
resources and
influence in the political realm, but that they are ultimately a mechanism
for connecting the politicians with the people. In the fall of 2003 and winter
2004, they often publicized the policy initiatives of the front-running Howard
Dean, more directly connecting his message with the voting public than his
rivals. However, due to a number of factors, the voters eventually rejected
Dean for a candidate (Kerry) who had less initial success getting his message
on health care reform directly to the voting public. It is important to note
that Dean’s success in disseminating his health care policy directly
to the public does not necessarily equate to media favoritism on his part.
To be sure, the media (even the Times and Post) consistently made news of his
questionable comments and his meltdown after the Iowa loss was played and discussed
ad nauseum by media types around the country. However we can see a clear example
of his message on health care being relayed rather cleanly by the media to
the public, and the public not responding to this message.
So what should be made of all this information? What is the appropriate manner
in which this three way give and take (consisting of the campaigning politicians,
the
voting public, and the reporting media) should take place? Perhaps this question
is too broad to be posed within the confines of this paper. However one can
safely say that a balanced interaction involving real solutions to our problems
from the leadership, careful and thoughtful decision making from the voting
electorate, and fair and dispassionate coverage from the media, will lead to
more successful policies and a stronger government.
Introduction | Background | Expectations | Data | Results |
Conclusions
By Phil Grant
© 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.