Explosive news Events: the same-sex marriage issue suring the 2003-2004 Democratic Presidential Primary

Written By: Jack Hubbard

Introduction

The role of the media in covering political primaries and elections has long been the focus of many papers, dissertations and lectures. Should the media be setting agendas, simply reporting the statements of candidates, or maybe a combination of the two? While this question is incredibly important question, it is first necessary to determine the current relationship between candidates and the media. What tools of influence do candidates hold that empower them to shape media coverage and how effective are they? Ultimately, what actor is more powerful and how do they use their power and influence? These are the questions that were raised during the initial stages of this academic research project, and can be applied to any issue and any candidate. An examination of how candidates attempt to gain coverage on an issue and the media’s response to those attempts was the way in which we set out to understand this complicated relationship. Each student chose an issue, and this paper examines the interactions between the media and those candidates in the Democratic presidential primary.

Gay marriage was chosen because it has proven to be one of the most important sleeper issues in the current battle for the White House. This new wedge issue has been the topic of one news broadcast after another and has left many politicians seeking refuge from the shrapnel and fallout generated by this political bombshell. In past elections gay rights has been a minor issue in American politics, but the November Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage substantially raised the stakes. The status quo had been up heaved and politicians faced a new challenge, how to deal with the gay marriage in a manner that would not jeopardize their chances at the White House in 2004.

The following research model analyzes the issue specific coverage candidates in the Democratic Primary received from the New York Times and the Washington Post from September 1st through March 3rd. The model focuses on the top six most viable candidates: Joe Lieberman, Wesley Clark, Howard Dean John Edwards, Richard Gephardt, and John Kerry. The goal of the research is an attempt to uncover the causes of fluctuations in the coverage that a candidate receives on the issue of gay marriage. The possible explanatory variables used were candidate’s press releases, the days of the week, the President’s State of the Union Address, the Massachusetts’s Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, the number of days left in the primary, the debates held between the candidates, and the number of candidates remaining in the race for the nomination. The quantities and dates of press releases and media coverage were gathered and quantified so that the relationships between the possible explanatory variables and the amount of coverage could be compared and statistically analyzed.

Background Literature

Influence of the Press
Many different theories exist explaining the power of the media and their potential to skew or influence what and who gets the most coverage on a specific day. Many academics ascribe themselves to the framing theory that is eloquently described in the White House Project as, “what media communication scholars call an agenda setting effect in that they designate certain issues as important and others as secondary and unimportant” (White House Project, 2001). In support of this school of though, journalists, editors and media moguls fundamentally do maintain the ability to set an agenda for candidates and the American public. The Project further argues that “the press plays a major role in suggesting important topics for audiences to think about and for how long to think about them” (White House Project, 2001). Through slanted and selective coverage of stories, the press is more than capable of subtly setting the agenda of the country. They have in their hands the capability to decide what stories should air and for how long. This argument is at the root of liberal’s concerns about Fox News and conservative’s argument against CNN. Livingston and Bennett refer to the press as a “gatekeeper” that has the power to act in a gate like a regulatory manner in determining what makes the final cut and what stays in the editing room (Livingston and Bennet). Basically, media elites screen and select all news stories before they fall into the hands of the ordinary public. However, having the ability to shape and mold the national agenda is not irrefutable evidence that indicts media outlets on the charge of agenda setting. The question arises; have any scholars or pundits found irrefutable evidence of agenda setting?

The White House Project goes on to claim that it has found such definitive evidence. The study catalogued the number of women compared to men who were guests on Sunday political talk shows. The results suggest that women are seriously underrepresented and are not given the same number of appearances when compared to those of men. Women do not even meet the already low percentage of women holding elected positions. According to the author, the media’s choice of guests has the power “to confer power and authority upon those chosen as speakers on national issues” (White House Project). The Project concludes that agenda setting does take place, inflicting serious damage on the image of women. By reaffirming the stereotype that men have more expertise and authority in politics, a self fulfilling prophecy is born and women are left at a huge disadvantage when trying to further involve themselves in national affairs.

The White House Project’s method of study and conclusions stand the test of scrutiny. Little doubt remains that women are underrepresented on Sunday political talk shows. Problems arise however when people begin making implications and causal claims with that information. Some would argue that the lack of representation is a mere unintentional coincidence. Others claim that a conscious effort exists among males to protect the male dominated status quo. These conclusions are all irrelevant for this research project. Instead, the reader should note that it has been established that the media is very powerful and does in some ways manipulate or skew reality. The White House Project does not satisfy the question; do media elites attempt to set the agenda in elections and primaries and if so, how successful are they?

Influence of Government Officials
Some stand in staunch opposition to the argument that the press has incredible amounts of power in setting the agenda. In fact, some like Lance Bennett claim that the media is the one who is left practically powerless. According to this indexing school of thought, rather than setting the agenda, the media end up falling right into the hands of government and reaffirm the government’s agenda. Reporters tend to rely on regular news beats and government sources, hence becoming the tools of government. Bennett uses the example of the Iran-Contra scandal and concludes that “the media seemed content to allow the government to investigate itself, assess the importance of the problem, define the solution, and pronounce the denouement of the story” (Bennett). In the eyes of Bennett and his followers, a press founded on an indexing mentality disregards public opinion and allows for government manipulation. His proposed solution is more independent journalism that holds the government in check and ends what he would call a viscous cycle of manipulation (Bennett).

John Zaller and Dennis Chiu conducted a study during the Cold War whereby they gauged and quantified the angles and views which the media and Congress held. There results proved to be very significant, uncovering a direct correlation between the two (Zaller and Chiu). They claim to have found irrefutable evidence that government officials are successful in creating and perpetuating a cycle of media indexing.

The arguments made by advocates of indexing have validity, especially when in regards to foreign policy, national crises, and a highly staffed and powerful White House. By their nature such circumstances lend themselves to government manipulation. When dealing with actions overseas and imminent threats it seems to be the trend that government officials have significantly more control in filtering and shaping press coverage due to the secrecy and importance of the subjects. Yet it remains to be seen whether they have as much sway when dealing with domestic social issues like gay marriage. Moreover, the Whitehouse and Congress are entire political entities that often coordinate their message very effectively (Sellers), while a candidate in a primary is only one man or woman. Despite all of the arguments made from those who subscribe to the indexing school of though, it remains unclear if a primary candidate has that same power and authority in setting the news agenda during the Presidential primaries on an issue as unique as gay marriage.

Influence of Events
Some scholars have looked beyond the traditional roles of government officials and shifted their attention toward outside events that are not caused by the media or government officials. John Zaller coined the burglar alarm media frenzy theory and warns of the trend toward soft news. Yet, Zallar makes the case that when outrageous events do occur, the media descend with such fury and intensity that they inform the public at nausea and hold parties accountable (Zaller). However, Zaller only mentions scandal and soft driven news stories in reference to media frenzies. Zaller goes wrong by not extending his argument to other ways in which events make news that are not necessarily laced in scandal. Unexpected court rulings similar to the one in Massachusetts seemed to cause a media frenzy despite the lack of scandal. Perhaps there is another category for events caused by the judicial branch’s interpretations of the law. These interpretations are certainly outside the control of the media and government officials. Especially with the presence of judicial activism, these decisions have the power and potential to cause media frenzies as well.

Expectations

Before the gathering and analyzing of the data, there were certainly expectations and hypothesizes held in regard to the possible outcomes of the study. From following politics very closely and reading multiple articles on the relationship between media and politicians, I believed I knew exactly what would result from this study.

First, the number and timing of press releases would be very significant in accounting for the total coverage a candidate gets on the issue of gay marriage. Similar to the indexing model, candidates could manage and control their media coverage by staging press releases at their desired time. It was believed that press releases were incredibly powerful tools that guided the media in the direction that a candidate desired. In other words, the candidates with the most press releases would get the most coverage and those with lower amounts of press releases would get even less coverage.
Second, while politicians do have considerable control through the use of press releases, there are outside developments that force them to react. Hence, I believed that the State of the Union Address would play a huge role in determining how many press releases were written and how much coverage the overall issue would get. The President used the speech to advocate an amendment to the constitution that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. I was convinced that the State of the Union be the most significant variable in this study, and would cause a plethora of press releases, in turn giving candidates more coverage in the press.

In a similar fashion the Massachusetts Supreme Court gay marriage decision would create a similar spike in press releases and coverage. News stories on the decision were simply too vast for candidates to ignore the issue. They would seek to define their positions early so that they might gain press coverage on the issue.

Third, the number of candidates and days remaining in the race would affect the amount of coverage the more successful candidate received. As competitors dropped out, the focus of coverage would adjust to a smaller field and the few remaining would get larger amounts of coverage on all issues including gay marriage. This means that John Edwards and John Kerry would be the recipients of enormous spikes in coverage after Howard Dean’s self inflicted destruction and the narrowing of the field as Gephardt and others dropped out.

Finally, I anticipated that a general news cycle would be uncovered where candidates received more coverage on certain days of the week. On certain day candidates would be more likely to release press statements and the press would be more likely to cover them.

These predictions were the beliefs held before the study and it will become apparent that many of them were incorrect or at least incomplete.

Data

Information was collected and run through regression tests to determine the various relationships between variables. Regression is the process of determining which independent variables explain the dependent variable (the amount of coverage a candidate receives on the issue of gay marriage) and to what degree they do so. This statistical process also uncovers the nature of the relationship between the variables. There are three possible relationships that can exist: positive, negative, and none. In the case of a positive relationship the two variables act in unison, when one goes up or down the other follows in a similar fashion. A negative relationship occurs when the two variables move in opposite directions. When one variable goes down, the other goes up and when one goes up the other goes down. The final possible relationship is actually none at all. There is no relationship when no trends are seen between the two existing variables.

The model used seeks to explain the coverage of candidates on the issue of gay marriage. The following variables were tested in an effort to uncover possible influences or cause of the fluctuations in coverage: candidate’s press releases, the days of the week, the State of the Union Address, the Massachusetts ruling on same-sex marriage, the number of days remaining in the race, debates, and the number of candidates remaining in the race.
The variables were first run on candidate Joe Lieberman and none of the variables proved significant with the exception of the debates held by the media during the primary. The debates had a positive relationship with the amount of coverage Lieberman received on gay marriage. This implies that when there were debates, the coverage of Lieberman increased and when there were not debates his coverage fell. Also note that the number of press releases and the date of the Massachusetts Court ruling are perfectly correlated. This means that Lieberman had only one press release on gay marriage throughout the entire span of observation. That one press release happened to occur on the very same day of the Massachusetts Court ruling. Other than that there were no other variables that helped in explaining Lieberman’s same-sex marriage news coverage.

Wesley Clark also had only one variable that proved significant in explaining the amount of press coverage he received on the issue. The variable representing two days after the Massachusetts gay marriage ruling proved significant in explaining the dependent variable. The press coverage and the date had a positive relationship meaning that on that day, Clark received more coverage. However, upon further examination one discovers that the day of the court ruling is perfectly correlated with the press releases. This suggests that Clark also only drafted one press release throughout the entire period of observation. Note that Clark received increased amounts of coverage two days later. It is basically impossible to determine whether this coverage was caused by his press release or the gay marriage ruling itself.

In the case of Howard Dean, Monday helped explain the amount coverage he received on same-sex marriages. More important, two days after the Massachusetts Supreme Court gay marriage ruling also proves highly significant in understanding the amount of press coverage he received. Again, the court ruling seems significant in creating press coverage for candidates on this issue.

Also significant is the number of days remaining in the primary. This relationship is a positive one, suggesting that as the days passed, Dean’s coverage increased. Lastly, for the second time debates have proven to be important in accounting for the amount of coverage a candidate received. This relationship is again positive; meaning that with debates came more coverage on the issue.

The model for John Edwards had only one explanatory variable that proves relevant. The number of candidates in the race had a negative relationship with the amount of coverage Edwards obtained. As the number of candidates dwindled, Edwards gained momentum in his news coverage on gay marriage.

There was not a single significant explanatory variable in this research model when applied to Richard Gephardt.
John Kerry’s coverage increased in a similar fashion to John Edward’s coverage. As candidates dropped out of the race, Kerry’s coverage on same-sex marriage increased due to the two variables’ negative relationship.

Interpetations of Results

Effectiveness of Press Releases?
This study has indicated that press releases play an insignificant role in effecting the amount of coverage a candidate receives on the issue of gay marriage. However, this is not to say that candidates do not use them in attempting to shape their news coverage. The original hypothesis of this paper was partially upheld, insofar as candidates do use the press releases. The hypothesis went wrong when it stressed the effectiveness that these releases would have in increasing coverage. General Wesley Clark submitted a press release to the media the exact day of the gay marriage ruling. His motivation may have been to gain media attention and take ownership of an issue that other candidates seemed to be shying away from. The other possibility is that Clark was a relatively undefined candidate who did not have a voting record, so it was necessary to go on record in order that the public could see his position on the issue. Two days after that release, Clark saw an increase in his coverage on this issue. At first it appears as if the press release was effective in earning media coverage on the issue, however, since it is perfectly correlated with the press releases variable it is impossible to ascertain which caused the spike. The ruling itself may have been responsible for Clark’s spike or it may have been the press release. Without a clear statistical relationship that proves such a causal link, Clark’s increase in coverage cannot be explained with statistical accuracy. Joseph Lieberman also submitted a press release to the media, mimicking Clark’s tactic, but did not receive any increase in coverage. This does partially suggest that a press release alone may not be enough to gain increase in coverage.

Both Clark and Lieberman employed press releases in an attempt to achieve some goal or purpose. What that goal was remains to be seen, but it is clear that we cannot conclude that they were successful in gaining increased coverage. More importantly, this is evidence that some candidates do attempt to manipulate coverage through the means of press releases.

However the failure of these releases may have had more to do with their content than the actually medium of communication. The issue of gay marriage has proven to be a tumultuous wedge issue for Democrats. Polls have been stable for the past year indicating that the nation is divided. According to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll Republicans an edge. The poll found that 59% of those surveyed believed gay marriage should be illegal while only 38% believe it should be legalized. As a result, Democratic press releases are a far cry from exciting newsmakers. Instead, these releases were rather dry statements that skirt the issue and try to find some middle ground that does not jeopardize their liberal base, yet also does not alienate moderate swing voters who may determine the next election. Gay marriage is certainly a sticky issue for Democrats, and their lackluster press releases may be partially responsible for their less than stellar results.

Media Coercion
One of the most important results in this model was the significance that debates played in determining how much gay marriage coverage a candidate received. The importance and significance of these debates was grossly underestimated in the expectations section to the point that it was not even mentioned. In the cases of Joe Lieberman and Howard Dean, press-organized debates produced increased amounts of coverage for the candidates. Regression tests confirm that these debates were responsible for the increased coverage that these candidates received on same-sex marriage. The media has complete control over candidates when they are place in debate formats. Candidates are left helpless and are coerced into answering tough questions on issues that they do not regularly speak on, i.e. gay marriage. The incredibly low number of press releases on this topic shows how hesitant many of the candidates were in dealing with this hot button issue (See Table II attached at end of document). Moreover, after examining the press releases, they are all rather moderate and non-controversial. However, the media puts politicians to the test in debates, asking loaded questions and demanding statements and positions on the tough issues. It appears that they were successful in getting Joe Lieberman and Howard Dean to speak on the issue, and as a result they received increased coverage. These results support scholars in framing school of thought, who often warn of the incredible power the media holds in setting the agenda. But we will soon find out that there was still another variable that had a leg up on the power of the media.

Miscellaneous Results
Throughout the model, results arose that simply explained and confirmed the trends that were going on in the primary race. First, John Edward’s and John Kerry’s total coverage increased as the number of competitors in the field dwindled. The results matched up perfectly with the original hypothesis that as the number of opponents decreased, the survivors would reap the benefits. This is consistent with the very well publicized implosion of Howard Dean’s campaign. The destruction of the frontrunner opened the window of opportunity for Edwards and Kerry who were quickly dubbed the most electable and viable candidates to take on George Bush. As candidates withdraw from the race, it is logical that the press would refocus their attention to the slug fest between the top two contenders. This is exactly what happened, and eventually the press was dominated by Kerry vs. Edwards’s stories.

Another more perplexing discovery was that while the days passed by in the primary, Dean seemed to get more press coverage. Initially this seems inconsistent with what one would have expected after his “I have a Scream” moment. One would think that as he dropped in the polls, the press would focus less on Governor Dean. In fact the opposite was proven in this study. Looking closely at the motivations and mindset of the media, this relationship becomes more understandable. After the Dean explosion the media descended upon him hoping that more outrageous scenes would emerge. The media had a marked man, and followed him around hoping for a repeat of his past performance. The press loved the grouchy and fiery Dean and so did many viewers. Ultimately, reporting relies on audiences and their ability to please their customers. Naturally, the media increased its coverage of Governor Dean, praying that another outburst would soon follow.

Finally, two expectations made prior to the study did not hold true. First, no news cycle emerged out of the press releases variable or the coverage variable. Only Monday prove significant in the case of Governor Dean. One significant Monday is a far cry from the existence of a news cycle. It appears that no news cycle existed during the period of observation for the issue of gay marriage.

The second and most shocking inaccurate expectation was the belief that the State of the Union address would be very significant in accounting for the amount of coverage candidates received on gay marriage. In fact, neither the day of or the day after proved at all significant despite the fact that the President advocated an amendment to the constitution to stop the marriages of gay couples. A possible explanation why this expectation gone wrong, is that the President and his administration became the focus of media attention since they went on the offense. Moreover, Democrats many have been strategically waiting until they were able to determine how the President’s Amendment was received by the media and the American public. In fact, it would be greatly in their interests to hold off, because if the proposal produced negative reactions, they could simply sit back and watch the President flounder without appearing as overly aggressive.

Theory of Explosive Events
A combination of these results and the power of well reasoned argument have led the author to the creation of the theory of “explosive news events”. John Zallar makes the argument for media frenzies and event driven news, but basically classifies such stories as those involving scandal or catastrophe. Certainly 9/11 and the Murphy Brown vs. Dan Quayle incident sparked increased news coverage (Zallar). However, Zallar does not go far enough in defining what these events are. Powerful event driven news need not be anything as outrageous as the previously mentioned examples. The term “explosive news events” will be defined as any events that are not created, packaged, and sold by either the media or politicians. These news stories originate outside the realm of these traditional actors, and they shake society or challenge traditional societal norms and the status quo. Explosive news events transcend the traditional arguments of framing and indexing because they themselves are so powerful they force politicians and the press to react. Many scholars skip this important step and directly examine how politicians and the media attempt to manipulate and use these events. Yet, it is these events that actually do the shaping. Explosive news events are the ultimate force in this equation, leaving both the media and politicians scrambling to address the issue.

With the case of gay marriage we see that this issue was always a campaign issue and occasionally made the newspaper pages, but was never at the forefront of political discussion and debate in national elections. It was not until the explosive Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that candidates and media elites dedicated entire days to dealing with the issue of same-sex marriage. The decision certainly threatened and undermined the status quo; something the media were unable to ignore. Moreover, politicians were coerced into addressing the issue in their own separate ways. We saw how Joe Lieberman and Wesley Clark submitted press releases to the media on the very day of this ruling.

Joe Lieberman and Wesley Clark were not the only ones reacting. Newspapers and television news programs focused on new legalization of homosexual marriages. This intense media frenzy had a trickle down effect when candidates entered the realm of debates, where the spheres of influence of candidates and those of the press overlap. Nearly all of the candidates were asked questions about gay marriage. While there certainly were attempts of manipulation between candidates and the media, ultimately the real influence and power was held by and originated with the event itself.
The explosive court ruling not only forced dialogue from the media and Democratic candidates, but it also caused a strong reaction and backlash from the White House. A President who was silent on gay rights issues during the compassionate campaign in the last election became a bible thumping opponent of gay marriage. This event transformed a White House that initially chose not to play with political fire, into an aggressive pyromaniac. The President became the spokesman for family values and right wing religious groups all over the country. The administration went so far as to advocate a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between a man and women despite the fact that Vice President Dick Cheney’s own daughter was an open lesbian. It was clear that the real power laid in the hands of the event itself, rather than the multitude of actors that were simply being forced to react to it.

Conclusion

Scholars have spent years attempting to determine who had the upper hand in the battle for influence, the media or politicians. This study had found that on the topic of gay marriage both actors attempted to manipulate the other. Some candidates chose to use press releases as a political tool. Yet their success in gaining coverage through such means still remains a mystery if not doubtful. Indexing is simply much more difficult to pull off when at the minor level of a primary candidate. Entire political parties and government institutions have far more ability to do so than any one primary candidate.
The media also wield their influence and power when holding televised debates. This was confirmed by the significant relationship that was discovered between two of the candidate’s coverage and the debates. During debates media metaphorically have the candidates lined up in front of a firing squad while they fire one question after another at them. By no means are the candidates powerless, for they still have the ability to craftily answer questions, but one mistake or slip up could spell certain defeat.

However, the reality is that something else is responsible for this battle for influence. Often times these explosive news events are at the center of these debates and press releases. The two traditional actors are sometimes deemed irrelevant and become pawns being controlled and affected by explosive news events. If the debate is meant to focus on influence, then what else has caused the media to go into a coverage frenzy, gotten candidates to draft and release press releases, and was responsible for having the President use his State of the Union address to advocate an amendment to the most important document within the United States? The answer of course is the explosive news event of the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. These explosive news events are so incredibly powerful that they have the potential to influence all of the previous mentioned actors and possibly even more.

If scholars wish to truly understand what ultimately influences what, I would suggest that instead of only looking at politicians and journalist, they ought to expand their search. Explosive news events are perhaps the most powerful and influential players in the game of politics. Understanding how they arise and how they are dealt with is the key to explaining these influences from the top down.

Appendix

Bibliography

Bennett, W. Lance. 1990. “Towards a Theory of Press-State Relations in the United States.” Journal of Communication. 40 (2): 103-125.

Conroy, Shelley. “Examining Two Theories of the Media-Government Relationship.”

Livingston, Steven and W. Lance Bennett. 2003. “Gatekeeping, Indexing, and Live-Event News: Is Technology Altering the Construction of News?” Political Communication. 20: 363-380.

Sellers, Patrick. “Manipulating the Message in the U.S. Congress.” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. Winter 2000. 22-31.

Sellers, Patrick J. 1998. “Strategy and Background in Congressional Campaigns.” The American Political Science Review 92 (1): 159-71.

“Who’s Talking?” The White House Project. Dec. 2001.

Zaller, John. "A New Standard of News Quality: Burglar Alarms for the Monitorial Citizen", 2003.

Zaller, John. Dennis Chiu."Governments Little Helper, US Press Coverage of Foreign Policy Crises 1946-1999."