A Cynical Press: Coverage of the 1996
Presidential Campaign
Sandra H. Dickson, Cynthia Hill, Cara Pilson and Suzanne Hanners
Department of Communication Arts
The University of West Florida
Pensacola, Florida 32514
Ph: (904)474-2834
Fax: (904)474-3153
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Running Head: A CYNICAL PRESS
Submitted to the Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication
Mass Communication and Society Division
March 28, 1997
A CYNICAL PRESS: COVERAGE OF THE 1996
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
Media scholars and critics have described press coverage of presidential
campaigns as increasingly negative and cynical in tone. Patterson (1994) in his
extensive quantitative analysis of Time and Newsweek coverage of presidential
candidates found during the 1960s "candidates received largely favorable news
coverage;" whereas "today, their coverage is mostly negative" (p. 20). In a
similar vein, the Annenberg Public Policy Center (1996) analyzed news coverage
of four presidential campaigns--1960, 1980, 1988 and 1992--and concluded: "Press
coverage suggests that campaign discourse is more negative than it actually is"
(p. 5). Likewise, Lichter and Noyes (1995) in their analysis of television news
coverage of presidential campaigns, observed that: "Likely winners are depicted
as dangerous manipulators of an unwary public, while likely losers are dismissed
as incompetent bumblers" (p. 168).
Moreover, Patterson (1994) found public opinion polls since the 60s reveal
voter attitudes toward presidential candidates have been largely lockstep with
news coverage; in other words, as the press portrayal of candidates became more
negative and cynical so too did public opinion. Gordon contends that considering
the cynical tone of press coverage it's not surprising a "self-fulfilling
prophecy has taken place: The public has little trust in government.
Ironically, the public also has little trust in media (Gordon, 1995)."
A Cynical Press
By examining the degree to which "cynicism" is found in sample CBS and
Washington Post news reports on the 1996 presidential campaign, this study may
shed light on the nature of press cynicism and its implications for the
political process. Fallows (1996) suggests this preoccupation with "the cynical
game of politics threatens public life itself, by implying day after day that
the political sphere is mainly an area in which ambitious politicians struggle
for dominance, rather than a structure in which citizens can deal with worrisome
collective problems (p. 31)." A chorus of other scholars have echoed the same
theme (e.g., Bennett, 1982; Entman, 1989; Rosen, 1992; Adatto, 1993; Graber,
1987 & 1992; Hallin, 1992 & 1994; Patterson, 1994 ; Gordon, 1995; Lichter &
Noyes, 1995; Schudson, 1995)
In measuring cynicism, this study focused on two elite news organizations:
CBS and the Washington Post. Media critics and scholars have suggested
television news is more susceptible to cynicism than the printed press because
of the networks' heavy reliance on the contrived "events" that a campaign
produces. (e.g., Robinson, 1976; Ewen, 1988; Taylor, 1990; Auletta, 1992;
Adatto, 1993; Hallin, 1994; Fallows, 1996). Furthermore, television news was
selected for analysis because the majority of American voters rely on television
for their political news (The Freedom Forum Media Studies Center, 1996, p. 6).
The Washington Post was selected for two reasons: (1) to see what cynicism
A Cynical Press
exists in a preeminent print source for presidential campaign news and (2) in
order to gain insight into
what differences, if any, may exist between print and television media. In
regard to the latter, Sigelman and Bullock (1991) argue those media critics who
hold television news as more culpable in defective political coverage than
newspapers are overlooking a significant body of research suggesting there is
little difference in print and broadcast portrayal of political campaigns.
Indeed studies by Patterson (1976), Graber (1980) and Robinson and Sheehan
(1983) support the claim that broadcast and print media cover campaigns in very
similar fashions. A study of recent campaign coverage also suggests this to be
the case (Annenberg Public Policy Center, 1996). However, none of these studies
specifically measured the construct of cynicism.
What is Press Cynicism?
Symptoms of press cynicism may be found in what Carey (1986) describes as
American journalism's preoccupation with explaining the motives of political
actors. In his words: "Motive explanations end up portraying a world in which
people are driven by desires no more complicated than greed" (pp. 180-81).
Carey's concept of "motive explanations" is a useful lens through which to view
cynicism, primarily because it enables us to distinguish cynical from skeptical
reporting and posit why the latter is to be preferred.[1]
Skeptical reporting is grounded in realism and stands in
A Cynical Press
marked contrast to cynical coverage. Coffey (1996) notes skepticism questions
authority "but doesn't deny that an elected official can act from authentic
statesmanship" (p. 7). On the other hand, when journalists reduce all official
actions chiefly to self interest, they employ the language of cynicism. As
Stiver notes: "Cynicism makes things worse than they are in that it makes
permanent the current condition, leaving us with no hope of transcending it"
(1994, p. 13). Ettema and Glasser (1994) see journalism's use of irony,
characterized in part by language which exposes the discrepancy between what
public officials say and what they do or between image and reality, as likely to
evolve into a cynical approach which offers no possibility of improving the
political process.
Cynicism, unlike skepticism, chiefly depicts a candidate's actions as
opportunistic and nothing more than a transparent ploy to garner votes.
Reporters' cynicism, according to Fallows
(1996), contributes to a sense of hopelessness among voters. In his words:
Mainstream journalism has fallen into the habit of
portraying public life in America as a race to the bottom,
in which one group of conniving, insincere politicians
ceaselessly tries to outmaneuver another. The great
problem for American democracy in the 1990s is that
people barely trust elected leaders or the entire
legislative system to accomplish anything of value (p. 7).
A Cynical Press Press cynicism, as defined in this study, is
exhibited in motive explanations as well as in political coverage which is very
negative in tone and adopts what Patterson (1994) calls a "game" rather than
"policy" schema. The game schema, according to Patterson, is one in which
"candidates are continually adjusting to the dynamics of the race and their
position in it. Since it can almost always be assumed that the candidates are
driven by a desire to win, their actions can hence be interpreted as an effort
to acquire votes (pp. 60-61)." News coverage characterized by these three
factors may, according to Hallin (1994), discourage the public from any
political involvement.
Causes of Cynicism
Taylor (1990) suggests that because of the corrupt political policies and
actions of the '60s and '70s, Americans became more cynical and television
played an important role in their transformation. He observes that "television
delivered the news about these policies in a medium--and to a unique new mass
audience--where cynicism and anti-institutionalism tend to flourish" (p. 246).
Adatto (1993) describes the paradox
of television journalism when it comes to political reporting: a need to
perpetuate entertaining images and a need to destroy them. In describing 1988
campaign coverage she observes:
On the one hand, the growing entertainment orientation of
network news compelled reporters and producers to get the
A Cynical Press
best possible picture, even if this made them accomplices
in artifice; on the other hand, the traditional documentary
ambition of television journalism compelled them to puncture
the picture, to expose the image as an image (p. 3).
Levy (1981) notes when journalists, print or broadcast, are
forced because of competition values to cover contrived events,
such as political campaigns, a phenomenon called "disdained news"
results. In his words:
Disdained news departs from 'objective' news in that
disdained stories frequently contain editorially
judgmental words or phrases which clearly suggest the
journalist's point of view about the tainted phenomenon (p.
28).
In essence, these scholars and others suggest that
journalists are dependent on political "pseudo-events" or images
for their news reports but resentful of their reliance on what
they know to be manipulative images (Boorstin, 1971). Not
surprisingly, this kind of symbiotic relationship might breed
cynical reporters. As Rosen (1992) notes: "Resenting their
regular manipulation by politicians and handlers, journalists
strike back when they can, trying to humble the people they must
otherwise beg for news" (p. 17).
Numerous studies have analyzed the role of the press in the
political process and how the relationship between reporters and
politicians can lead to cynicism. For example, Adatto's (1993)
A Cynical Press
comparison of campaign reporting of the 1968 and 1988 elections
revealed the degree to which television journalism has become
increasingly driven by images and the ensuing negative
consequences. According to Adatto:
Those responsible for network coverage in the 1960's
maintain that it was different in their day. When
television pictures functioned more as documents than
as visually compelling images, there was less need for
complicity with the campaigns, and also less need to
puncture the pictures (p. 90).
However, the thrust of her research is broad in nature. It
focuses on the techniques and consequences of image
manipulation rather than the specific phenomenon of press
cynicism. Indeed, much of the research concerning press coverage
of presidential campaigns has described (or deduced) cynicism
largely through analyses of the amounts of "good" and "bad" press
each candidate receives and through examination of the paradigm
shift from objective to mediated or more interpretive
journalism.[2]
Although the amount of "good" and "bad" press can be used
as one measure of cynicism, this categorization alone is so
broad it offers only partial insight into this construct.
Whereas one might argue that all cynical statements
are negative, one could not contend that all negative statements
are cynical in nature. For example, it is surely a negative
A Cynical Press
statement or "spin" if a reporter states that many Americans
perceive President Bill Clinton as having an incoherent foreign
policy. It is not, however, a cynical statement or one that
questions his motives or labels his actions as self-serving.
However, three studies are noteworthy for their attempts to
tap the construct of cynicism in network news coverage of
presidential campaigns. First, Clancey and Robinson's (1985)
quantitative analysis of network coverage of the 1984
presidential campaign defined "spin" in a manner which yielded
insight into the cynical tone of the press. In their words,
spin is:
the way the correspondent interprets or embellishes the
facts in a story. Spin involves tone, the part of the
reporting that extends beyond hard news. On October 12, for example, Ronald
Reagan's train trip through western Ohio was hard news. But when Dan Rather
chose to label the ride "a
photo-opportunity train trip, chock full of symbolism
and trading on Harry Truman's old turf," Rather added
"spin" (p. 28).
Their findings suggested the networks used "only a little
innuendo and, when they did, they used it "justifiably" (p. 39).
However, Graber's content analysis of 1984 television
presidential campaign coverage found in straight news stories "a
considerable evidence of various kinds of editorializing spin,"
and "the thrust was predominantly negative" (1987). A later
A Cynical Press
study by Patterson (1994) echoed the sentiment that cynicism was reflected in
journalists' metamorphosis from "silent skeptics" to "vocal cynics" (p. 79).
Patterson argues this change was
characterized by journalists' adoption of the game schema in political
reporting, that is, the theory that "candidates did not merely seek to win; they
would do anything to win. Their motives were suspect, their images false, their
promises empty" (p. 79). Journalists' cynicism, according to Patterson, was
also found in their increasing penchant for interpretive reporting rather than
straight descriptive reporting. In his analysis of New York Times front-page
election stories from 1960 to 1992, he found that the percentage of interpretive
stories jumped from 8% to 80% (p. 82).
However, despite the contribution of these studies to
understanding press cynicism, their methodologies encompassed
news reporting which might be negative in tone and interpretive
in nature, but which did not necessarily impugn a candidate's
motives as self-serving or opportunistic. The latter difference
is important because it better enables us to distinguish
skeptical reporting from cynical journalism.
This case study of press coverage of the 1996 presidential
campaign attempts to offer an index to cynicism or a more precise
description of cynical reporting--one that characterizes this
phenomenon as something more than just "negative" or
"interpretive" press. The index to cynicism used in this
A Cynical Press
analysis is comprised of three distinct measurements: story
schema, tone and candidate motives.
METHOD
Several research questions guided this study:
(1) Will CBS and Washington Post coverage of the 1996 presidential campaign
frame stories largely within a "game" rather than policy" schema," that is, as
"a candidate's efforts to woo the voters" (Patterson, p.11, 1994)?
(2) To what extent will the sample stories be positive, negative or objective in
tone toward a particular campaign?
(3) When the sample news organizations attribute motive to a candidate, will
they likely view it as self-serving rather than not self-serving or a mixed
motive?
(4) Will the ratio of self-serving motive statements to non-self
serving or mixed be greater in the CBS sample than in the Washington Post
coverage?
Sample coverage included all campaign news stories (excluding editorials and
commentaries) of the two news organizations from September 2-November 4. In the
case of the CBS newscasts, the prime-time programs served as the basis for the
analysis. This time period was selected because it begins with the traditional
kick-off date for the general election campaign and concludes with election day.
Furthermore, by this point in time the presidential field is winnowed to only
two contenders and reporters are likely to be very familiar, if not jaded, with
the candidate's campaign. The sample total of 332 weekday stories included the
following: CBS, 103 and the Washington Post, 229. Four independent coders
conducted pilot studies until acceptable reliability was achieved.[3]
A Cynical Press
The content categories used for this analysis were based partly on previous
frameworks for measuring political coverage;
i.e., particularly that of Patterson's (1994) and Clancey and Robinson's (1985).
The categories were as follows:
Story Schema-Each sample news story was categorized according to whether its
chief schema was Game, Policy or Other. Game stories were those primarily about
how well the candidate is playing the election "game," that is, strategies he is
using to win and the likelihood of his success. Policies may be mentioned or
discussed but only within the context of how they may increase or decrease the
candidate's popularity or chance of winning. Policy stories were largely about
proposed or existing domestic or foreign policies (e.g., the flat tax or school
prayer) or social, economic or leadership issues. They were not primarily about
the candidate's strategies for winning or the likelihood of the candidate
winning. Stories in this category gave more than a brief mention of proposed or
existing policies; they discussed specific aspects of a policy. The third
category, Other, included those stories which did not focus on either policy or
the game. For example, a story simply describing the time and place of an
upcoming debate would fall into this category.
Tone toward Campaign-Stories were categorized according to whether they were
primarily Positive, Negative or Objective toward the campaign of Bill Clinton or
Bob Dole.
Motive Statements-This category involved two levels of
A Cynical Press
coding. First, the coders recorded all statements which contained explicit or
strongly implied comments regarding a candidate's motives or reasons behind a
particular proposal or
action. Likewise, the source and target of each motive statement was noted,
e.g., a CBS reporter impugning the motives of Clinton.
Then the coders categorized the motive statements according to whether they were
self-serving, not self-serving or mixed. Self-serving statements were those
which stated or strongly suggested the candidate's actions were motivated by his
attempt to win votes. The category of Mixed Motive included those statements
which stated or strongly suggested the candidate had additional motives besides
self-serving ones.
FINDINGS
Game v. Policy Schema
Of the sample 332 news stories, the overwhelming majority focused on how
the presidential candidates play the political "game." In fact, CBS and the
Washington Post were more than three times as likely to organize a story around
a candidate's attempts to woo voters than around a policy position or some other
topic. Of the two news organizations, the Washington Post had the
greatest percentage of stories, or 72%, categorized as "game." However, there
were no significant differences between the two news organizations in regard to
story schema.
A Cynical Press
_________________________
Insert Table 1 about here
_________________________
Tone of Coverage
Although the majority of sample stories from CBS and the Washington Post
were classified as objective in tone, both news
organizations devoted greater negative coverage to incumbent Bill Clinton than
to Republican challenger Bob Dole. Furthermore, CBS was more negative toward
President Clinton (40%) than the Washington Post (32%). In fact, CBS reporters
were almost twice as likely to cast a story about President Clinton in
unflattering terms as they were a story about Senator Bob Dole. Even though CBS
was more negative than the Washington Post toward President Clinton, there were
no significant differences between the two news samples in regard to the tone of
their coverage.
______________________________
Insert Tables 2 & 3 about here
______________________________
Self-Serving v. Not Self-Serving Motives
The total sample of 332 news stories included 812 motive statements or
descriptions of a candidate's reasons or motives for a particular position or
action. The 103 CBS reports
included 167 motive statements or about 1.5 motive statements per brief story.
The 229 Washington Post stories had 645 motive statements or about 2.8 motive
statements per article. The greater number of motive statements in the
Washington Post is to A Cynical Press
be expected considering the longer length of print v. broadcast stories.
_________________________
Insert Table 4 about here
_________________________
In the sample stories of both news organizations,
journalists were considerably more likely to frame a candidate's
motives as self-serving rather than not self-serving or mixed.
Furthermore, there were significant differences between CBS and
the Washington Post--the latter having a greater tendency to
depict a candidate's motives as self serving. In the case of CBS, motive
statements were 12 times more likely to be categorized as self-serving than not;
whereas, in the Washington Post, motive statements were 18 times more likely to
be classified as self-serving than any of the other two categories.
Listed below are sample motive statements concerning the
Clinton and Dole campaigns:
CBS reporter: "There's no question why the Pentagon is being deliberately vague
about what it plans to do next in Bosnia. With five weeks left before the
election, the Clinton administration does not want to be seen as reneging on its
pledge to get out of Bosnia by the end of the year."
CBS reporter: "With problems selling his own campaign promises, like a 15% tax
cut, the Dole strategy: to go for what he
considers the president's jugular, character."
A Cynical Press
WP reporter: "Clinton flew to Arizona to exploit what polls have
shown is a GOP weakness: fear among senior citizens that the GOP
budget-cutting proposals would damage the Medicare health care program."
WP reporter: "The Dole campaign has seized on crime and teenage drug use as
defining issues. Polls show that Americans are
anxious about both issues, and they also show that many voters do not believe
that Dole can balance the budget while cutting taxes."
_________________________
Insert Table 5 about here
_________________________
The majority of all motive statements--self-serving or
not--targeted the incumbent Bill Clinton. However, there were significant
differences between the two news organizations. The Washington Post was more
equitable than CBS in terms of attributing motives to the two candidates. The
Washington Post devoted only six percent more of its motive statements to
Clinton than Dole, whereas CBS devoted 21% more.
_________________________
Insert Table 6 about here
_________________________
Source of the Motive Statements
In the total sample of 332 news stories, reporters were the source for the
great majority of motive statements; 84% for CBS
A Cynical Press
and 83% for the Post. Moreover, both news organizations relied in almost equal
amounts (13% and 12% respectively) on the
candidates or their representatives for motive statements. There were no
significant differences between CBS and the Washington Post in regard to the
source of motive statements.
DISCUSSION
The findings suggest CBS and the Washington Post offered campaign coverage
which was cynical in nature. Three factors suggest this to be the case: (1) the
news organizations overwhelmingly used a "game" rather than "policy" schema in
campaign coverage; (2) the news sample, while chiefly objective in tone,
contained few stories which were positive and a high percentage which were
negative--the latter was especially true of those stories pertaining to
President Clinton; and, perhaps most
importantly, (3) when motives were attributed to the candidates, they were
almost exclusively categorized as self-serving and more often than not the
reporter served as the source for the motive
statement.
In regard to the first factor, or that of "game" schema, the finding that CBS
and the Post organized the great majority (66% and 72% respectively) of their
stories around a candidate's strategy to win votes supports previous research by
Patterson (1994). In the same vein, the Annenberg study of campaign discourse
from 1960 to 1992 also found horse race or strategy
A Cynical Press
coverage to be the dominant organizational structure for news (1996, p. 4).
This preoccupation with strategy or the horse race is based, according to
Patterson, on the prevailing assumption that "candidates are driven by desire to
win, their actions can hence be interpreted as an effort to acquire voters" (p.
59). A working assumption or "theory" like the one Patterson describes
determines the lens through which a journalist views an event (such as a
political campaign). According to Stocking and Gross (1989), when journalists
are familiar with an event, they "use well-entrenched theories that prevent them
from seeing current events in new or different ways, even when this may be
warranted" (p. 23). Media critics like Fallows (1996) contend that journalists,
by operating from the theory that all candidates are conniving, produce news
coverage "which aggravates today's prevailing despair and cynicism about public
life" (p. 65).
The findings concerning the tone of coverage--positive, negative or
objective--must be interpreted judiciously and as only one of several
contributing factors to cynical coverage.
After all, the majority of sample stories were classified as objective in tone
and, secondly, some story content for example, scandal) is by its nature
negative and journalists would be remiss not to say so. However, as Hallin
(1992) notes in his analysis of television news coverage from 1968 to 1988,
election
coverage has become more negative in tone. Other scholars as well have
documented this trend toward more negative campaign coverage A Cynical
Press
(e.g., Graber, 1987 and Patterson, 1994). Certainly this increase could be
argued as justifiable to some extent in light of candidates' increasing reliance
on consultants and spin
doctors. However, the phenomenon of increasing negativity in campaign stories
coupled with this study's finding of greater negativity toward the incumbent
Clinton than the challenger Dole supports the notion of a cynical press. In the
case of CBS, the sample stories were twice as likely to be negative toward
Clinton than Dole. If, as scholars argue, the press operates from the assumption
that politicians operate only from expediency, not surprisingly, the incumbent
bears the brunt of reporters' wrath. The incumbent has more actions, more
policies for reporters to scrutinize and to attribute to ambition or
self-interest. Previous research documents this tendency of journalism,
particularly television, to treat the incumbent more negatively.[4]
Although the Washington Post was more negative toward Clinton than Dole, the
disparity between the two candidates was much less than that of CBS. Perhaps
this is a consequence of the Post following congress more closely than the
television networks and, as a consequence, being more familiar with Dole's
record. However, additional studies comparing the print and broadcast news
media are necessary to adequately interpret the importance of this finding.
The most significant findings in regard to cynicism relate to the frequency,
type, target and source of motive statements.
A Cynical Press
Each of the 332, CBS and Washington Post stories contained at least one or more
(1.5 and 2.8 respectively) motive statements or descriptions of a candidate's
reasons or motives for a particular position or action. Even more significant
was the fact that these motive statements were overwhelmingly framed as
self-serving--86% for CBS and 93% for the Washington Post. Moreover, more
motive statements targeted Clinton rather than Dole and reporters accounted for
more than 80% of all motive statements in the sample.
When campaign coverage is examined in light of this study's framework of
cynicism--that is, game schema, tone and motive statements--the findings support
the contention of those scholars and media critics who claim that political
reporting is much less than it could or should be. In Patterson's words:
The press sends the wrong message. Its claim that
candidates make promises in order to win votes is
true, but that is only part of the truth. They
make them, and work to keep them. What journalists
fail to take into account is the constraints
affecting these commitments (1994, p. 14).
Indeed, as Patterson points out, previous studies encompassing seven
presidencies have found "presidents keep the promises they make as candidates
(1994, p. 11).[5]
One other finding of the present study worth noting is newspapers--at least the
Washington Post--are no less cynical
A Cynical Press
than television news, a notion which runs counter to much of the prevailing
wisdom concerning press coverage of political campaigns. In fact, there was a
significant difference between
the Washington Post and CBS in regard to type of motive statements--the former
being more likely than the latter to label a candidate's motive self serving.
Many scholars and critics have described television as being most susceptible to
cynicism because of its reliance on images--images that the campaigns
orchestrate and manipulate (for example, Adatto, 1993 and Taylor, 1990). In
other words, television reporters resent the degree to which they must rely on
images and strike back by exposing the artifice of politicians. However, this
study found that there was no discernable pattern suggesting that CBS was more
cynical in its campaign coverage than the Washington Post.
CONCLUSIONS
In addition to the caveats already mentioned, several others should be
noted. Although the bulk of sample stories portrayed the campaign as a
strategic game, and the reports included more than one motive statement per
study and the great majority of those depicted the candidates as self-serving,
this study did not measure the impact of these phenomena on viewers and readers.
The best indicator we have of audience impact is the work of Patterson (1994)
which correlates the negative tone of election coverage with public confidence
in presidential
A Cynical Press
candidates. Based upon his analysis of news coverage and public opinion polling
since the 1960s, Patterson (1994) notes: "Yet there can be no doubt that the
change in the tone of election coverage has contributed to the decline in the
public's confidence in those who seek the presidency" (p. 23). Additional
studies measuring the direct impact on an audience would add insight into the
effects of press cynicism on viewers and readers.
Moreover, to date longitudinal studies have tapped the more general measure
of press negativity. Research into the more precise construct of cynicism--or
the depiction of candidates' motives as self-serving--needs to be conducted
within a historical framework. It would be particularly interesting to see
if--as some media critics and scholars contend--the press became more cynical
following Vietnam and Watergate.
Finally, research needs to be conducted to determine the degree to which
journalists condemn the campaign process but fail to offer viable solutions to
the problems they have described.
Journalism, when it does not do the latter, may play the role of nihilist in a
democratic society--of never rebuilding what it has torn down. As Stivers
(1994)observes:
There are always three positions one can take toward
life: cynicism, idealism, and realism. Cynicism makes
things worse than they are in that it makes permanent
the current condition, leaving us with no hope of
A Cynical Press
transcending it. Idealism refuses to confront reality
as it is but overlays it with sentimentality. What cynicism
and idealism share in common is an acceptance of reality
as it is but with a bad conscience. The cynic masquerades
as a realist; the idealist pretends to be hopeful (p. 13).
Surely journalism, in order to foster political dialogue and an inclusive rather
than exclusive political process, needs to approach presidential campaigns
within a realistic rather than cynical framework.
References
Adatto, Kiku. (1993). Picture perfect. New York: Basic Books.
Annenberg Public Policy Center. (1996). Assessing the Quality of Campaign
Discourse--1960, 1980, 1988, and 1992. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:
Annenberg Public Policy Center.
Auletta, Ken. (1992, November). Loathe the media. Esquire, pp. 107, 112,
177-181.
Bennett, W. Lance. (1992). The governing crisis: media, money and marketing
in American elections. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Boorstin, Daniel. (1971). The image: a guide to pseudo-events in
America. New York: Atheneum.
Carey, James. (1986). The dark continent of American journalism. In R.K.
Manoff and M. Schudson (Eds.), Reading the news (pp. 146-196). New York:
Pantheon Books.
Clancey, Maura & Robinson, Michael. (1985). General election coverage,
part I. In Robinson, M. & Ranney, A. (Eds.), The mass media in campaign '84
(pp. 27-33). Washington, DC: American
Enterprise Institute.
Coffey, Shelby. (1994, November). You do believe the press, don't you?
newsroom notes on sensationalism, cynicism, subjectivity and survival.
Arlington, VA: The Freedom Forum.
Entman, Robert. (1989). Democracy without citizens: media and the decay of
American politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ettema, James S. & Glasser, Theordore L. (1994). The irony in-- and
of--journalism: a case study in the moral language of liberal
democracy. Journal of Communication, 44, 5-28.
Ewen, Stuart. (1988). All consuming images. New York: Basic Books.
Fallows, James. (1996). Breaking the news. New York: Pantheon Books.
Gordon, Margaret T. (1995). Journalists--Professionals in a Market
Culture. Media Studies Journal, 9, 149-153.
Graber, Doris A. Kind pictures and harsh words: how television presents
the candidates. In Kay Lehman Schlozman (Ed.), Elections in America
(pp. 115-142). Boston: Allen & Unwin, Inc., 1987.
Graber, Doris A. (1992). News and democracy: are their paths diverging?
Third Annual Roy W. Howard Lecture. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana
University.
Hallin, Daniel C. (1994). We keep America on top of the world. London:
Routledge.
Hallin, Daniel C. (1992). Sound bite news: Television coverage of elections,
1968-88. Journal of Communication, 42, 5-24.
Levy, Mark (1981). Disdaining the news. Journal of Communication, 31, 24-31.
Lichter, S. Robert & Noyes, Richard E. (1995) Good intentions make bad
news: why Americans hate campaign journalism. London: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers.
Nimmo, Dan and Combs, James E. (1983). Mediated political realities.
New York: Longman.
Patterson, Thomas. (1994). Out of order. New York: First Vintage Books
Edition.
Robinson, Michael. (1976). Public affairs television and the growth of
political malaise: the case of 'The Selling of the Pentagon.' The American
Political Science Review, 70, 409-432.
Robinson, Michael J. & Sheehan, Margaret A. (1983). Over the wire and on TV:
CBS and UPI in campaign '80. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Rosen, Jay. (1992). Politics, vision, and the press: toward a public
agenda for journalism. In Rosen, Jay & Taylor, Paul. The new news v. the old
news: the press and politics in the 1990s.
(pp. 3-36). New York: Twentieth Century Fund, Inc.
Stivers, Richard. (1994). The culture of cynicism: American morality in
decline. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Schudson, Michael. (1995). Creating public knowledge. Media Studies
Journal, 9, 27-32.
Sigelman, Lee & Bullock, David. (1991). Candidates, issues, horse races, and
hoopla: presidential campaign coverage, 1988-1988.
American Politics Quarterly, 19, 5-32.
Stocking, Holly S. & Goss, Paget H. (1989). How do journalists think?
Bloomington, Indiana: Eric Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication
Skills.
Eric Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills
Taylor, Paul. (1990). See how they run. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
The Freedom Forum Media Studies Center. (1996, April). The Media
& Campaign 96 Briefing, pp. 6.
A CYNICAL PRESS: COVERAGE OF THE 1996 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
ABSTRACT
An analysis of 332 CBS and Washington Post stories on the 1996 presidential
campaign revealed coverage which was cynical in nature. Three factors suggest
this to be the case: (1) the news organizations used overwhelmingly a "game"
rather than "policy" schema in campaign coverage; (2) the sample, while chiefly
objective in tone, contained few positive stories and a high percentage which
were negative; and, perhaps most importantly, (3) when motives were attributed
to the candidates, they were almost exclusively categorized as self-serving and
more often than not the reporter served as the source for the motive statement.
Table 1
Story Schema
STORY
SCHEMA
CBS
n = 103
WPa
n = 229
TOTAL
N = 332
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Game
68
66
165
72
233
70
Policy
18
17
46
20
64
19
Other
17
17
18
8
35
11
TOTAL
103
100
229
100
332
100
aWashington Post
X2 (2, N = 332) = 5.52, NS
Table 2
Tone of Clinton Campaign Coveragea
TONE
CBS
n = 84
WPb
n = 225
TOTAL
n = 309
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Positive
9
11
22
10
31
10
Negative
34
40
71
32
105
34
Objective
41
49
132
59
173
56
TOTAL
84
225
225
101c
309
100
aTotal CBS and Washington Post sample included 332 stories; however, only 308
pertained to the Clinton campaign.
bWashington Post
cBecause of rounding, the total percentage is greater than 100.
X2 (2, N = 309) = 2.15, NS
Table 3
Tone of Dole Campaign Coveragea
TONE
CBS
n = 78
WPb
n = 209
TOTAL
n = 287
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Positive
7
9
10
5
17
6
Negative
18
23
60
29
78
27
Objective
53
68
139
67
192
67
TOTAL
78
100
209
101c
287
100
aTotal CBS and Washington Post sample included 332 stories; however, only 308
pertained to the Dole campaign.
bWashington Post
cBecause of rounding, the total percentage is greater than 100.
X2 (2, N = 287) = 2.35, NS
Table 4
Frequency and Type of Motive Statements
TYPE
CBS
n = 167
WPa
n = 645
TOTAL
n = 812b
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Self-serving
144
86
598
93
742
91
Not self-serving
12
7
33
5
45
6
Mixed motives
11
7
14
2
25
3
TOTAL
167
100
645
100
812
100
aWashington Post
bTotal number of motive statements contained in the 332 sample stories.
X2 (2, N = 812) = 10.05, p<.01
Table 5
Target of Motive Statements
TARGET
CBS
n = 167
WPa
n = 645
TOTAL
n = 812b
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Clinton campaign
96
57
332
51
428
53
Dole campaign
60
36
285
44
345
42
Both campaigns
11
7
28
4
39
5
TOTAL
167
100
645
99
812
100
aWashington Post
bTotal number of motive statements contained in the 332 sample stories.
X2 (2, N = 812) = 4.44, p<.05
Table 6
Source of Motive Statements
SOURCE
CBS
N = 167
WPa
n = 645
TOTAL
n = 812b
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Reporter
140
84
537
83
677
83
Candidate
22
13
78
12
100
12
Politician
2
1
7
1
9
1
Expert
2
1
8
1
10
1
Other
1
.5
15
2
16
2
TOTAL
167
99c
645
99
812
99
aWashington Post
bTotal number of motive statements contained in the 332 sample stories.
cBecause of rounding, the total percentage is less than 100.
X2 (4, N = 812) = 2.20, NS
[1] For a more complete description of what Carey (1986) calls a "motive
explanation," see "The Dark Continent of Journalism." In
R.K. Manoff and M. Schudson (Eds.), Reading the news (pp. 146-196. New
York:Pantheon Books.
[2] For a discussion of the role television plays in creating and mediating
social and political realities, see Nimmo, Dan & Combs, James E. (1983).
Mediated political realities. New York: Longman.
[3] The intercoder reliability results were .75 and above for category
reliability calculated using Scott's Pi; .90 and above for calculations using
Holsti's formula. See Krippendorff, Klaus. (1981) Content analysis: an
introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage.
[4] Entman (1989) contends this kind of negative coverage of the incumbent is
a consequence of "popularity bias." In his words: "According to popularity
bias, presidents should enjoy public esteem. When journalists believe a
president is unpopular, relatively negative news tends to arise" (p. 46).
[5] For example, Patterson cites the following two studies: Pomper, Gerald &
Lederman, Susan. (1976). Elections in America. New York: Dodd & Mead and
Krukones, Michael G. (1984). Promises and performance: presidential campaigns as
policy predictors. Lanham, Md: University Press of America.
|
