I maintain that the press ought to change the narrative structure of pre-primary, presidential campaign coverage from a "horse race" focused on winning polls (and cash) to the story of the effect of what each candidate's governance would be on citizens' lives. Certainly, this horse race coverage is important to a certain extent-how well the candidates are doing in the polls and in fundraising is news. However, to make such coverage the central focus of campaign coverage fails the ethical standards journalists set for themselves because the information it gives the public is not very useful for making informed decisions.

Journalism is the making of editorial choices. These choices will have some effect on the way the public views the candidates. If that is so, then the press ought to focus its attention on stories with a high degree of political utility. Fact-checking political advertisements and speeches, and covering issues of character and policy, certainly are steps in the right direction. But I argue the press must also change the protagonist of the political narrative. The press needs to tell a different story-the kind that would allow citizens to make choices based on an assessment of their own interests and values.

The press does cover such stories during political campaigns, but too often these are merely occasional features, added as spice to a stew of campaign contention, fundraising, and poll numbers. Every candidate for president has a record of governance. They may have worked in industry (e.g., Wilkie), the military (e.g., Eisenhower), education (e.g., Wilson) or state government (many)-but they still have made a record. However, stories told from the candidate's point of view tend to remain abstract regarding how governance could work, did work or failed to work.

I am specifically interested in press coverage of the nomination process from the candidates' announcements to the Iowa caucuses. I accept the argument by Barger and Barney (2004, p. 191) that the press has an obligation to "enable citizens, through timely access to information, to accumulate the power necessary...to control their own destinies." I also accept that journalists aspire to act ethically regarding the integrity of their output and the public they serve.

Recent scholarship on the effects of party election reforms in the 1970s demonstrates that the nomination process has stabilized and become a "stacked deck" in favor of a limited set of candidates before any convention votes are cast. The 2008 campaign, already well underway in early 2007 and featuring a much-revised (and earlier) set of primaries, may be different-but it isn't likely. Since the reforms fully took effect in 1980 the winner of the "invisible primary," as determined by polls prior to the convention or any state primary, has won the nomination most of the time. The press, however, covers the entire nomination and election process as an unstable event by creating an illusion of political drama in which almost any candidate may rise from the pack to win the nomination or the frontrunner may stumble on political mistakes and lose the nomination. This illusion of drama hides from citizens the fact that the process is stable and, therefore, limits voters' choices. This hardly helps them "to control their own destinies." By characterizing the process as unstable, I contend, the press contributes to its stability; thus, the press is complicit in limiting voter choice.

Continued...

Page 1 of 6 next >

Article Tools