This page, created by Matt Garfield, is part of an undergraduate assignment at Davidson College.
| Works Cited | Printer
Friendly Version
|
Printer Friendly Version
Matt Garfield
POL 467/Dr. Sellers
May 2004
Research Paper: The Influence of Newspaper Endorsements on Media Coverage
I. Introduction
The date was January 29, 2004, and the site was a conference
room at a community college in Columbia, South Carolina. Senator John Kerry
had come here five days before that state’s Democratic presidential
primary to engage in an age-old political tradition that dates back to the
earliest days of elections. Kerry was here to announce that his campaign
had received the endorsement of a high-profile U.S. Congressman named Jim
Clyburn, in hopes that it would give his already-surging candidacy a boost
among voters in the next week’s primary (CNN.com, Feb. 3, 2004).
Senator John Edwards similarly sought to use a high-profile
endorsement to benefit his primary campaign. Shortly before the Iowa caucuses
on January 19, the North Carolinian picked up the endorsement of Iowa’s
largest newspaper, the Des Moines Register. Edwards made sure to mention
it prominently in television ads and in every stump speech he gave over ensuing
days. The ploy worked; Edwards rode the momentum created by the endorsement
to a surprising second place finish behind Kerry in Iowa.
Kerry and Edwards offer two of the most recent example of how
political candidates seek to use endorsements to garner media coverage—and
ultimately seek to parlay them into more votes. In the words of Democratic
consultant Donna Brazile, endorsements “help validate a candidate who
is surging and help give a candidate momentum when they are foundering (CNN.com,
Feb. 3, 2004).” Or as Norman J. Ornstein, a scholar at the American
Enterprise Institute, said, “An endorsement brings legitimacy to a
campaign (Martinez 1, 2003).”
Endorsements come from a variety of sources. As Kerry showed
in South Carolina, they often come from politicians who are well-known in
a particular town, state or region. However, endorsements can also come from
celebrities, and print and television media outlets. This paper will focus
specifically on newspapers and seek to specify the degree to which endorsements
given by newspaper editorial boards affected coverage levels between September
1, 2003 and March 3, 2004, during the 2004 Democratic presidential primary
race between Senators John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, Representative
Dick Gephardt, Governor Howard Dean and General Wesley Clark. The research
findings outlined in this paper are derived from coverage levels in six newspapers:
The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Dubuque (IA) Telegraph Herald, Manchester
(N.H.) Union Leader, and the Charleston (S.C.) Post & Courier.
It is important to describe the process that newspapers typically
follow in publishing political endorsements. First it must be noted that
they are produced by editorial writers that work independently from news
reporters. The Society of Professional Journalists maintains a code of ethics
that requires journalists to “distinguish between advocacy and news
reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent
fact or context (Brown 1, 2002).” The endorsements usually appear on
opinion pages, so it is clear to readers that they are opinion pieces rather
than news articles. They usually run unsigned, indicating that they represent
the consensus of the newspaper’s editorial board, a panel commonly
comprised of editorial writers, the editor-in-chief and the publisher. Typically,
this panel will conduct lengthy in-person interviews with each of the candidates,
and then deliberate before reaching a consensus. The endorsements normally
appear up to one week before voting day, so that readers have adequate time
to consider the information before reaching their decisions.
Newspaper experts generally believe that editorial endorsements influence voters, but they disagree on how much. The consensus is that their endorsements are more powerful in local and state political races, but there is disagreement over whether they exert any influence in presidential elections. Some experts believe certain newspaper endorsements can even hurt a candidate’s chances rather than enhance them. Such an editorial is referred to as a “kiss of death (Giobbe 2, 1996).” One editorial page editor, Bob Kittle of the San Diego Union-Tribune, says that “newspaper endorsements are just one more voice in the debate.” Another, Ted Burrows of the Stuart (Fla.) News, says, “We think we have some effect. People write or call us to say thank you, or, to holler at us, but one way or another, people do take notice (Giobbe 1, 1996).”
II. Literature Review
There is a significant amount of past research into the effects
of campaign endorsements, much of it coming in the form of case studies examining
particular election cycles. Most of this research, however, focuses on how
much endorsements affect election outcomes, rather than how much they affect
media coverage levels. In that regard, this paper can break new ground by
looking at the relationship between endorsements and levels of media coverage.
David Myers concluded in a 1991 study that most newspapers
are suffering declining circulation numbers, and therefore the influence
they exert on politics has lessened. He found that a relatively small proportion
of readers pay close attention to the editorial pages, but those who do read
them are more likely to be high-profile community leaders who can carry the
message to the broader community (Pulliam 7, 2004).
Robert Erikson published a landmark study of the 1964 presidential
election, finding that in 223 counties in the northern United States, an
endorsement from a local newspaper resulted in a gain of five percentage
points on average for Lyndon Johnson. However, if two newspapers in the same
county endorsed different candidates, Johnson lost votes to his opponent,
Barry Goldwater (Erikson 215, 1976). Erikson used multiple regression analysis
to illustrate a positive relationship between endorsements and voting decisions
(Erikson 212, 1976). He concluded that newspaper endorsements exert influence
to a “small but significant” extent. “Newspaper readers
are rarely allowed to be selective because circulation monopolies generally
provide newspapers with captive audiences in their local market areas,” he
wrote. Erikson found that even people who did not read newspapers “may
receive voting cues from others who do (Erikson 223, 1976).”
Political scientist Tim Counts studied the role of endorsements
on presidential votes, taking the following variables into account: 1) party
registration, 2) percentage of residents who own the home in which they reside,
3) population per square mile, 4) population change and 5) editorial endorsements.
He looked specifically at the 1948 and 1960 elections in which most newspapers
endorsed the Republican candidates, who were each ultimately defeated by
Democrats. He concluded that home ownership and population changes play a
significant role in influencing voters’ decisions, while newspapers
are not likely to exert any influence (Counts 647, 1985).
Byron St. Dizier conducted a 1985 experiment that is believed
to be “the first setting under which endorsements and party identifications
were tested solely against one another (St. Dizier 594, 1985).” He
concluded that “newspaper endorsements have more impact than political
party affiliation when information about a candidate is minimal (King 3,
1997).”
Robert Hurd and Michael Singletary focused on the 1980 presidential
vote, finding that voters were not significantly influenced by newspaper
endorsements in that election. Instead, there was a stronger correlation
to variables such as “strength of partisanship, education and the number
of articles read about the campaign (Hurd and Singletary 337, 1984).”
Cecilie Gaziano conducted research on the effects of newspaper
ownership on endorsement choices. She argued in a 1989 study that chain-owned
newspapers tended to be “homogenous in endorsement patterns (Gaziano
844, 1989).” Contrary to previous popular opinion, she found that owners
of larger newspapers exerted less editorial control than those at smaller
newspapers. In examining the 1976 and 1980 presidential elections, Gaziano
concluded that newspapers endorsing Republican candidates tended to be in
markets with “two newspapers under the same ownership.” In 1984
and 1988, newspapers with no competition were most likely to back the Republican
nominee. Finally, in every year except 1980, newspapers endorsing the Democratic
nominee were usually in “two-paper or multi-paper markets (Gaziano
844, 1989).”
Kenneth Rystrom examined 51 California newspapers over a 10-year
period and found that chain-owned newspapers tended to be slightly more liberal
in ideology than their independently owned counterparts, but that endorsements
in state-wide races from both types did not significantly influence voting
results (Rystrom 451, 1987).
Daniel Pulliam of Butler University examined Congressional
endorsements given by nine newspapers in Indiana, also seeking to determine
the role that newspaper ownership plays in endorsement decisions. Pulliam
found that locally owned newspapers are more likely to endorse “based
upon the ownership’s perspective on the issue,” while corporately
owned newspapers are more likely to choose based on “tradition, rather
than ideology.” He found that some newspapers choose not to make endorsements
at all, citing a desire to maintain credibility and foster a healthy relationship
in the community (Pulliam 48, 2004).
Journalism professor Peter Clarke conducted a national study
of press coverage and editorials in Congressional races, and found that newspapers
tend to show much more affection toward incumbent candidates than challengers,
on both their editorial and news pages (King 2, 1997). Clarke, however, did
not include presidential races in the scope of his research.
A 1996 survey conducted by Editor & Publisher Magazine
found that an increasing number of newspapers are choosing not to make endorsements.
The study found that 69.9% of responding newspapers, or 415, adhered to a “no-endorsement” policy,
up from 67% in 1992. By comparison, an Editor & Publisher poll taken
in 1940 found that only 13.4% of newspapers remained neutral in presidential
races (Jones 1, 1996).
Studies also indicate that newspapers with larger circulations are more likely
to make endorsements than those with smaller circulations. A 2000 survey conducted
by Editor & Publisher found that 50% of newspapers with circulations less
than 20,000 said they would endorse candidates. The percentage rose to 80%
for newspapers with circulations greater than 20,000 (Pulliam 14, 2004).
Why are newspaper endorsements on the decline? Editor & Publisher
put this question to leading newspaper editors across the nation, and received
a variety of responses. Bill Kovach, curator of the Nieman Foundation for
Journalism, said that because of an increase in chain ownership nationwide,
there are fewer U.S. cities with more than one major daily newspaper. Because
of this lack of competition, newspapers see less sense in making political
endorsements, said Kovach. “If we are the only voice in town, maybe
we shouldn’t be on the editorial pages,” he said (Jones 1, 1996).
Other editors, including Andy Stone, editor of the Aspen (Colo.) Times, believe
that taking sides in national elections does not serve the interests of their
readers. “As a local paper, we feel our area of expertise, and where
we have any credibility at all, is in the local arena, so it’s important
to limit our endorsements to that area,” said Stone. Other editors
say their newspapers remain neutral in order to avoid being viewed as biased,
thus alienating many readers. “We don’t want an outright endorsement
to affect how people read our paper,” said Charles Broadwell, editor
of the Fayetteville (N.C.) Observer (Jones 2, 1996).
Some editors disagree with this line of reasoning, arguing
that newspapers show a lack of courage when they avoid taking public stands
on elections. “You have to be a bold voice and let people know where
you stand,” said Sig Gissler, former editor of the Milwaukee Journal.
Newspapers “give their opinion all the time. What makes (the presidential
election) so special? Remaining vigorous in the community is to speak out
on things that are important (Jones 2,3, 1996).”
Contrary to popular opinion, Editor & Publisher found that historically, newspapers that choose to make endorsements overwhelmingly support Republican candidates. However, the four terms served by President Franklin D. Roosevelt illustrate that this trend has not always had a positive effect on voters. Roosevelt never won the support of a majority of newspapers, and in 1944, 60% of newspapers backed his opponent, Thomas Dewey. Similarly, John F. Kennedy won the presidency in 1960 with endorsements only from 16.4% of newspapers, while opponent Richard Nixon had 57.7% (Jones 1, 1996).
III. Expectations
This paper hypothesizes that newspaper editorial endorsements
are positively related to media coverage, but the real question is to what
extent the relationship exists. Does an endorsement guarantee an increase
in coverage over ensuing days? How powerful is the link between the two?
These are the relevant questions this paper seeks to answer definitively
through analyzing coverage in five newspapers.
This paper predicts that two variables will be significant for all candidates: the number of candidates in the race when observations are made, and the total circulation size of the newspapers that provide coverage to the candidates.
IV. Data
This paper uses the statistical analysis program Stata to track
media coverage levels in the days and weeks following newspaper endorsements
between Sept. 1, 2003 and March 3, 2004. The paper relies on the online search
engine Lexis Nexis to track the number of news articles about candidates
that ran in the newspapers under consideration. The hope is that Stata will
determine the strength of the relationship between endorsements and coverage
given to the Democratic candidates during the primary season.
It is first necessary to note the daily circulations, or number
of subscribers, of the five newspapers under consideration, to get an idea
of how many voters are potentially affected by campaign media coverage. Together,
these newspapers reach 2,333,553 readers and potential voters.
Even a cursory glance at this endorsements list reveals that
endorsements are positively related to polling results. The list shows that
Kerry received the most endorsements, and he of course went on to secure
wins in a majority of the primaries, including Iowa and New Hampshire. The
list shows that Edwards has nearly as many endorsements as Kerry, and he
finished as Kerry’s closest challenger in the primaries.
This paper will now examine coverage levels for the individual
candidates. The basic regression model (Table I) includes the following independent
variables: newspaper, circulation size of newspaper, days of the week, number
of candidates in the race, and the number of days in the data set (between
Sept. 1, 2003 and March 3, 2004). It excludes the days after the candidate
has dropped out. The command used to create regression models for each candidate
is as follows: “reg namenp endpapname endpapcname monday tuesday wednesday
thursday friday saturday candsnum obsnum if candsname= =1.”
To gain an idea of how many total articles each individual
candidate received mentioning his endorsements, this paper includes a frequency
test (Table II). The test was created by using the following command: “tab
namenpe.”
To provide statistical significance of days of the week, this
paper provides a days-of-week table (Table III), using Sunday as the baseline.
The day-of-week variable is potentially important because it can explain
whether candidates will be more likely to receive increased coverage at certain
points in the week.
For all candidates other than Gephardt and Clark, the regression model found that coverage of endorsements increased as candidates dropped out of the race. Therefore, the paper also provides a table tracking newspaper coverage as compared to the number of candidates in the race (Table IV).
Gen. Wesley Clark
On day 36 of the model, or Oct. 6, 2003, Clark received 2.36
newspaper articles. On day 130, or Jan. 8, 2004, his coverage increased to
5.18 articles. As is the case for all the candidates, this increase is not
surprising, considering that media coverage of the Democratic candidates
increases dramatically as the primaries approach.
The model found no significance between Clark’s coverage
and the number of candidates in the race. There were 157 days in which Clark’s
endorsements received no mention at all, and 21 days when his endorsements
received one article. There were seven days in which he received more than
one article. This finding indicates that Clark’s endorsements did not
exert very much influence on his media coverage. Considering that his endorsements
came from small community newspapers such as the Lawton Constitution and
the Norman Transcript, perhaps this result is not surprising.
Only the Monday variable proved significant for Clark. On Mondays, he was likely to receive 6.11 articles, while on all other days, he was likely to receive 2.63 articles. The potential significance of the Monday variable will be discussed later in the paper.
Governor Howard Dean
On day 36 of the model, or Oct. 6, 2003, Dean received 1.3
articles. On day 136, or Jan. 14, his coverage increased to 4.3 articles,
which is significantly less than Clark, Kerry and Edwards. This small increase
is unusual, because Dean’s campaign garnered a great deal of attention
because of his status as a “Washington outsider,” his opposition
to the Iraq war, and his online fundraising prowess.
There were 130 days in which Dean received no articles mentioning
endorsements, and 35 days in which he received one. There were nine days
in which he received more than one article. As was noted, Dean did not receive
any newspaper endorsements, so the low coverage level is not surprising.
The Monday variable was significant for Dean, with the model showing that Dean
was likely to receive 9.27 articles on Mondays, compared with an average of
.22 articles on all other days.
The number of candidates in the race was also significant for
Dean. With all six candidates in contention, he was likely to receive 3.54
articles. Interestingly, by the time he dropped out with two other candidates
still remaining, that number became negative, dipping to -3.9 articles.
These findings perhaps reflect the trajectory followed by Dean’s candidacy.
He garnered a great deal of attention early in the race, but then lost his “front
runner” status to Kerry when he lost Iowa and New Hampshire. He was virtually
an afterthought by the time he dropped out of the race on Feb. 18.
Sen. John Edwards
On day 39 of the model, or Oct. 9, Edwards received 4.4 articles.
On day 147, or Jan. 25, his coverage increased to 12 articles. This is a
fairly dramatic increase, and it is not surprising in light of the fact that
Edwards picked up the endorsement of the Des Moines Register on Jan. 10.
The backing of Iowa’s largest newspaper gave Edwards a significant
boost, not only in the polls but also in media coverage, as the model indicates.
Edwards’ coverage also increased as the number of candidates in the race
decreased, but by a narrow margin, the model found this relationship to be
insignificant, with a p-value of .02. When only Kerry and Edwards remained,
Edwards received 12 articles, compared to eight when there were six candidates.
There were 153 days in which Edwards received no coverage that
mentioned endorsements, and 20 days in which he received one article. There
were 12 days in which Edwards received more than one article. This low frequency
of articles is somewhat surprising, considering that Edwards won the backing
not only of the Des Moines Register, but also other large newspapers such
as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and the Cincinnati Enquirer. It is difficult
to explain why, with these high-profile endorsements, Edwards did not garner
more coverage. Perhaps it is in part due to the fact that since Edwards’ candidacy
caught fire just as Kerry assumed the lead in the race, Edwards was overshadowed
by Kerry in regards to media coverage. Still, it would be expected that both
candidates would receive increased coverage, so the low coverage level remains
puzzling.
The Monday and Thursday variables were each significant for Edwards. On Mondays, Edwards was likely to have 11.34 articles, while on Thursdays, he was likely to get 9.5 articles. On all other days he was likely to garner only 6.06.
Sen. John Kerry
On day 40 of the model, or Oct. 10, Kerry received eight articles.
On day 148, or Jan. 26, Kerry’s coverage rose dramatically to 17.73
articles. This result is not surprising, considering Kerry scored a convincing
victory in the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 19, and by that point had become the
clear “front runner” in the race.
There were only two days in which Kerry did not receive an
article mentioning endorsements. There were 175 days in which Kerry received
more than one article mentioning endorsements. In fact, the frequency table
shows that Kerry, on average, received about eight articles per day mentioning
endorsements. This result is not particularly surprising, considering than
Kerry garnered more newspaper endorsements than any other candidate. In addition,
Kerry maintained “front runner” status beginning with his win
in the Iowa caucuses. These two factors account for the large amount of coverage
devoted to Kerry’s candidacy.
The regression model shows several significant variables for
Kerry, including the newspaper, the total circulation size, number of candidates,
and number of observations.
Kerry was the only candidate for which the variables of newspaper
and total circulation size proved significant, in fact to the 99.9% level.
Mondays also proved significant for Kerry. On Mondays, Kerry was likely to
receive 17.42 articles, while on all other days, he was likely to receive 10.91
articles.
For Kerry, there is highly significant correlation between “total
newspaper circulation” and the dependent variable of total coverage.
Perhaps as Kerry’s electoral successes continued, and he garnered an
increasing number of newspaper endorsements, he received more coverage in
newspapers.
It is important to note that the majority of Kerry’s
endorsements came from major metropolitan newspapers such as the Baltimore
Sun and the St. Paul Pioneer Press, rather than smaller community newspapers
like those that endorsed Clark and Lieberman. As the model indicates in Kerry’s
case, endorsements from large newspapers are more likely to garner more articles
in other newspapers, thus exerting a greater impact on a candidate’s
overall media coverage levels.
As with all other candidates other than Gephardt and Clark, the model indicates that coverage of Kerry increased as his opponents dropped out of the race. With all six candidates in contention, Kerry was likely to receive 11.46 articles. When only he and Edwards remained, the number increased to 20.54 articles. When Kerry became the lone Democratic candidate, it increased further, to 22.81 articles.
Rep. Dick Gephardt
On day 31 of the model, or Oct. 1, Gephardt received 2.95 articles.
On day 113, or Dec. 22, his coverage increased to 7.87 articles. However,
since Gephardt received no newspaper endorsements in this paper’s model,
it must be said that his coverage levels were unrelated to endorsements.
In addition, since Gephardt was the first of the six candidates to drop out
of the race, it obviously cannot be said that coverage increased as the number
of candidates decreased.
The Monday variable proved significant for Gephardt as well.
On Mondays, Gephardt was likely to receive 7.55 articles, while on all other
days, he likely received 5.31 articles.
Gephardt’s candidacy never garnered a great deal of attention, because many experts and voters viewed him as a “Washington insider” who would not provide the party with a fresh face and fresh ideas. He also suffered because many of the trade unions which he counted on for support instead chose to endorse Dean. In part because many newspapers did not view him as an “electable” candidate, he received no editorial endorsements. In light of these facts, Gephardt’s low coverage levels are not surprising.
Sen. Joe Lieberman
On day 34, or Oct. 4, of the model, Lieberman received 4.48
articles. On day 124, or Jan. 2, his coverage increased to 7.18 articles.
The model indicates that the number of candidates in the race
had a significant bearing on Lieberman’s coverage. With all six candidates
in the race, he received five articles, while his coverage increased steadily
after Dean and Gephardt dropped out.
There were 162 days in which Lieberman received no coverage
of his endorsements, and only 19 days in which he garnered one article. There
were 23 days in which he received more than one article.
The Monday and Thursday variables were significant for Lieberman,
as the model showed that on Mondays, he was likely to receive 7.65 articles,
and 6.7 on Thursdays. On all other days, he was likely to receive 4.7 articles.
Lieberman’s campaign may be remembered as the most unsuccessful of the six. He began as a “front runner” because of the fact that he was Al Gore’s vice presidential running mate in 2000, but Lieberman was never able to get his candidacy off the ground, largely because he was viewed by many as being too conservative. He won the backing of a handful of newspapers, including The (S.C.) State, The Greenville News and The Arizona Republic. However, as the data indicates, these endorsements did not provide a great deal of momentum to Lieberman’s campaign.
V. Interpreting the Data
Ranking the candidates’ results in the frequency test
is useful because it provides a general idea of how much newspaper coverage
of endorsements they received in total. The frequency results did not always
correlate to the number of endorsements given to a candidate, perhaps indicating
a weakness in the model.
Why did the model find that coverage increased as the number
of candidates in the race declined? The answer to this question is perhaps
obvious. With fewer candidates in the race, newspapers naturally had fewer
opportunities to write about candidates other than those remaining. With
the same amount of space to fill, it is not surprising that coverage of the
remaining candidates increased. Also, as the primaries approached and captured
greater public attention across the country, the amount of total coverage
of the race in general increased.
This paper is unable to provide conclusive evidence that newspaper
endorsements alone cause more media coverage. Other variables, such as the
number of candidates in the race and the day of the week, also play important
roles in determining media coverage.
Another potential pitfall in the research used in this paper
is the search engine Lexis Nexis. It is possible that a candidate’s
name could appear in a headline or article that also included the word “endorsement,” but
this article could be entirely about another candidate or issue. As a result,
the research could have falsely assumed that a candidate received an “endorsement
article” that he did not deserve, thus skewing the data.
An additional shortcoming is that some newspaper endorsements may have been omitted. The research used in this paper relied on press releases found on each individual candidate’s Web sites, and it is possible that those sites left out certain endorsements. Some campaigns emphasize keeping their Web sites up to date more than others, and it is possible that endorsements from smaller newspapers did not trigger press releases.
VI. Conclusions
There are several ways that future research could build upon
the findings of this paper. It would be useful to explore why Mondays were
the only day of the week that proved significant for all six candidates.
Certain newspapers choose to run their endorsement editorials in their Sunday
editions, so perhaps on the next day, other newspapers run articles about
those editorials. However, the endorsements included in this paper’s
research appeared on a variety of days.
Future research could also examine the influence of Internet-based
coverage, on popular opinion sites such as Slate.com and high-profile news
sites such as CNN.com. Studies show that an increasing number of voters get
their news from online sources, so a study looking specifically at Internet
media outlets and their impact on endorsement coverage could prove highly
useful.
It would also be interesting to explore the correlation between newspaper endorsements
and coverage levels on television news outlets. How often do television news
programs run stories that mention newspaper endorsements, and do these stories
exert any influence on the outcome of a race? These questions could be addressed
in future studies.
This paper cannot definitively conclude that editorial endorsements
alone contributed to an increase in newspaper coverage for individual candidates
in the 2004 Democratic primaries. As noted, there are a litany of other factors
that also play a role and could influence the statistical findings presented
in the paper. The conclusions this paper can make with certainty are that
candidates’ coverage levels are dependent on the number of candidates
in the race and the number of days included in the study. In the case of
John Kerry, there is a significant correlation between newspaper coverage
and total circulation size, perhaps providing evidence that Kerry’s
success was due in part to the endorsements coverage he received.
It will be interesting to observe whether newspaper endorsements continue to decline in future elections, on the local, state and national levels. It will also be useful to examine whether this decline gives greater weight to those brave newspapers that still choose to formally support a particular candidate. Hopefully in 10 or 20 years, researchers can compare the findings of papers like this one to current trends, and find out how the evolving nature of newspaper endorsements has changed the political landscape in America.
© Davidson College, 2004, Department of Political
Science, Davidson College, Davidson, NC 28035
Send comments, questions, and suggestions to Dr.
Patrick Sellers, Professor of Political Science.
Created: 4/29/2004. Last updated: 5/03/2004.