John Sides’s recent blog inspires me to resurrect this note of mine from a couple years ago:
Paul Krugman writes,
The news media seem determined to destroy the republic:
In all, 63% of the campaign stories focused on political and tactical aspects of the campaign. That is nearly four times the number of stories about the personal backgrounds of the candidates (17%) or the candidates’ ideas and policy proposals (15%). And just 1% of stories examined the candidates’ records or past public performance, the study found.
And:
The press’ focus on fundraising, tactics and polling is even more evident if one looks at how stories were framed rather than the topic of the story. Just 12% of stories examined were presented in a way that explained how citizens might be affected by the election, while nearly nine-out-of-ten stories (86%) focused on matters that largely impacted only the parties and the candidates.
This has always bothered me too. One reason Gary and I did our research on why are American Presidential election campaign polls so variable when votes are so predictable was that we wanted to convince the news media to do more substantive stories and less polling. Our point was that general elections for president are generally determined by fundamental variables, not short-term news or bandwagon effects–things are different for primary elections, which have multiple candidates and are inherently unstable–and so this horse-race coverage was a waste of time.
Why, then?
Nonetheless, horse-race coverage persists. I don’t know whether it’s worse than before–the site linked to by Krugman does not have comparative time series data–but it’s still there. I’d also include the ridiculously-frequent polling as an example of this problem. Anyway, why is it still happening?
My theory, at least for the general election, is that most of the voters have already decided who they’re going to vote for–and even the ones who haven’t decided are often more predictable than they realize. Suppose, for example, that 40% have pretty much already decided they’ll vote for the Democrat, 40% will vote for the Republican, and the fight is over the remaining 20%–most of whom do not follow politics closely in any case. Now think of the audience for political news. 80% of the people don’t need to know the candidates’ positions–they’ve already decided their votes–but they’re intensely interested in the horse race: are “we” going to win or lose? The substantive coverage that Krugman and I might want is really just for 20% of the audience. So, from that perspective, it makes sense for the media to give people the horse race. (Yes, survey respondents say they want more of candidates position issues and less on which candidate is leading in the polls–but I don’t know that I believe people when they say this.)
That said, when talking about the primary elections, yeah, I think it would make sense for the media to report more on where the candidates stand on issues.
P.S. The histogram here should be a horizontal dotplot. Trying to read a colored plot with a key on the side–that’s bad news.
I don't know if there are enough people like me for it to matter, but personally…I love the horse-race coverage. I find reading about tactics/strategies/polling way more interesting than actually reading about the candidates themselves or their policies. I suppose you'd probably find a disproportionate amount of people like me reading this blog, but still I wonder if maybe a lot of others share the same feeling.
It seems pretty obvious to me. Personal backgrounds and policy positions don't change very frequently and don't compel daily updates. Once they're reported on, not much more can be added to the discussion. Campaign tactics change from day to day, so that's what's new, and that's what makes news.
I see two important reasons for this trend.
First, the horse race is more interesting for more people. It changes on a regular basis and is an easier frame to understand. Second, the horse race is easier to report in an "objective manner." Simply reporting the score and the tactics allows journalists to remain more objective. To use a baseball metaphor "will the manager change pitchers in this inning?" is a typical type of comment.
I think there is a substantial difference between horse race stories about political campaigns and horse race stories about health care reform. In a political campaign, there is, at least, a race to report on. Horse race reporting in political campaigns is usually just laziness; it's the easiest story to report.
What is the excuse for reporting on the 'horse race' around health care reform? The media has done a dismal job explaining differences between the alternative proposals (the public option, co-ops, etc.). Instead, it's played in to the hands of people who are spreading lies. I've seen way too many breathless articles wondering, "Are the death panel attacks working?"
You're a freakin' statistician. Do you know how boring it would be if people like you gave us our news? Do you know how rigid (and downright un-American) you sound when you tell us just how predictable we are? Jeez, listening to you is like…well, listening to a college professor. Who'd willingly do that if they didn't have to?
/sarcasm
Kevin, Brian, Todd, William: Good points all.
Daniel: Nobody's forcing anybody to read this blog, or for that matter Nate Silver's blog, which has a lot of statistical analysis. Statistics is a minority taste but some people like it. Regarding your other point, I don't think my role in doing research is to sound "American."
Andrew, please note that Daniel ended his comment with a sarcasm close tag. The opening tag was undoubtedly lost, and caused some confusion :)