The Media and the 2004 Presidential Election

For several months leading up to Election Day, the candidates for president compete with each other, utilizing every outlet at their fingertips such as the media, grassroots volunteers and advisors, in order to reach the common goal of every campaign, as claimed in classroom discussion: building a winning coalition. During the 2004 United States presidential election, the relationship between the campaigns and the media was studied via content analysis. It was found that the coverage of the campaign lacked the intensity to encourage voters and provide them with the information necessary to make an informed voting decision. Several factors contributed to this assumption, including the negativity of the campaigns themselves and the coverage of them, as well as a misinterpretation of the media's primary role of information giving.

A coalition consists of supporters of a political party that will help lead the candidates for the Oval Office to victory. For example, since 1932, the Democratic Party can count among its supporters (and therefore, can count them as a member of their coalition) labor unions, environmentalists, gay rights activists and African Americans, as according to classroom discussion. Since the last political realignment in history, when the dominance of the traditional political parties of the past declined, the purpose of every campaign is to put together a winning coalition and build a majority. You do this based on factors such as issue stance, to gain loyalty and support for your party and candidates.

What happens in campaigns and presidential elections has changed throughout history. Originally, issues didn't play a role in the voting in early presidential elections. Traditionally, citizens (meaning males) voted as their fathers did. Before the Australian ballot was introduced in the United States in 1911, every voter elected a straight ticket. Voters told the volunteers at the polls their political affiliation, and were given a ballot based on what they told them, as given in Crotty, William and Jackson's "The Politics of Presidential Selection." This "automatic" identification with political parties didn't leave much room for issues to play a role.

After the death of the political party, issue positions and their intensity began to shape the mood of every campaign and election. The primary source of information concerning the issues is the media. Whether print or broadcast, the media hold a great deal of power in shaping what potential voters deem important in a campaign. The relationship between the media and politicians is a fascinating one. Each entity cannot exist without the other. Politicians cannot get their stances on issues and their plans for the future out to the public without reporters. Reporters, in turn, cannot do their jobs without the often controversial actions and statements of the politicians, which will get their pieces depicted on page one or played as the leading story on the television news. In these ways, reporters and politicians rely on each other.

The media interact with presidential campaigns by following the actions and statements of the candidates extremely closely. The reporters follow the candidates around the country, providing stories on their every speech and policy outline, as well as what the candidates do in their personal time. The media report on everything ranging from where the candidate has been and will be to how the candidate looked during a particular event, to the candidates' past records and plans for their future administrations, if elected. I try to believe that the media do this in order to give potential voters every possible factor to consider when casting their votes. This is how I maintain respect for the journalism profession. However, the media fell drastically short in the 2004 election and failed to use this enormous power they have.

As I understand it, those in journalism as a profession hold public service jobs. At the heart of their career, they are responsible to the public at large and are supposed to provide the public with up-to-the-minute news and feature stories about things the public needs to know about, things they can use to influence their lives and society. Above all else, they are to do this in a responsible, ethical and unbiased (as much as they can be) manner. If the media were doing their job as I see it, the majority of the stories covering the campaign season would show a neutral depiction of the campaign with an overwhelming amount of useful information for the readers. The media fell short in these areas and thus failed to do their job.

In an unpublished content analysis conducted by students of Park University's CA450: Media and the Presidential Election class, the coverage of the campaign in local newspaper the Kansas City Star was analyzed. From Labor Day until the week before the election, students coded the A and the Metropolitan sections for coverage of the election, looking for the focus of each story and whether the focus was presented in a positive, negative, or neutral manner, as well as specific details of the piece, and then determining whether the subjects presented therein were merely mentioned, covered substantially, or if they provided useful information for the reader. It was found that both the 2004 campaign and the media coverage of it were overwhelmingly negative.

In stories where the focus was determined to be President George W. Bush and issues or policy related to governing, 38 of the stories were deemed negative by the students conducting the analysis, compared to four showing a positive depiction and three giving a neutral story. The pattern followed Bush when it came to personality traits being the focus of the story: 20 stories in which the tone was negative, compared to two positive stories and one neutral. What was the media doing? They were following the consensus that's been around for decades and that is being ingrained in many journalism students attending major journalism schools around the country: sex sells. This is a general phrase that characterizes what causes readers to pick up a newspaper and whether or not a reporter's piece will make it onto page one. According to Graber, it includes sex, scandal, conflict, controversy, and disaster. Without these elements, it is believed in the journalism world that a story will go unread. The media looks for these elements when covering a presidential campaign and thus sets the tone for much of the negative campaign coverage. The negative connotations of the stories coded for content analysis implies conflict and controversy.

Important issues of the 2004 election were coded for this content analysis, ranging from abortion and the economy to terrorism and the war in Iraq. Out of the 655 total cumulative times any of these issues were included in an election story, they were merely mentioned 317 times and were given substantial coverage 289 times. However, the information on an issue was deemed to be useful by the students a mere 49 times. If the coverage of an issue is not deemed useful, then why is it included in a story? I myself cannot answer this question. The only possible answer for the question is that the writers were working on deadline and wrote to fill space, thus resulting in campaign coverage that merely scratched the surface and gave no real depth of information.

The results of the content analysis caused me to pose many questions to myself. How do the campaigns and the media interact to produce such negative coverage? Is it the campaigns themselves that are so negative, or are they just depicted that way by the media because the media think that is what sells? Or do the campaigns become negative as a result of the negative coverage? In the 2004 election, it was both the campaigns and the coverage that were negative. The candidates engaged in negative television ads and mudslinging from the beginning in order to paint their opponents in a negative light. Bush was trying to portray Democratic candidate Senator John Kerry as a "flip-flopper" on the issues, and Kerry in turn tried to depict Bush as a president who failed the American people. The candidates should have kept the finger-pointing to a minimum and instead engaged in clear discussion of policy plans so that a voter could make a more informed decision knowing what to expect after the election. It is no wonder the content analysis showed such utterly negative coverage of the election. If the nature of media coverage of elections is going to change, it is the nature of the campaigns themselves that must change first.

The agenda-setting theory of the mass media as given by McCombs attempts to explain the power of the media. It says the media cannot tell you what to think, but can tell you what to think about. This theory is supported by several studies, an example of which shows that among those people who pay most attention to the media and were told to give a list of current important issues and priorities of the nation, their lists were similar to those of the media.
According to the content analysis study, the number one issue covered substantially out of all the stories included was the war in Iraq, followed by terrorism and the economy. In the "Latest polling trends to consider before the votes are cast" story that ran in the Oct. 29, 2004 issue of the Park University Stylus, the Friday before the election, the latest Gallup Poll results showed that 23 percent of people said the war in Iraq was the most important issue facing the country, followed by the economy at 21 percent, and terrorism at 16 percent. The content analysis and Gallup Poll results are similar and show that the priorities of the media were similar to those of the public, thereby suggesting the role of agenda setting.

However, it is difficult for me to explain the outcome of the election based on the agenda-setting theory. The theory says that media coverage tells you what to think about. Based on information provided above, it is said that the media told readers to think about the war in Iraq, terrorism and the economy when thinking about the election. However, in a Nov. 5, 2004 story from the Gallup News Service titled "How Americans Voted: Bush owes victory to support from conservative-leaning groups," it is said that Bush's "victory over John Kerry was led by strong support among groups that tend to be politically conservative...married voters, churchgoers."

The content analysis showed that substantial coverage of religion increased in the final weeks leading to the election. (Under the category of religion falls the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage, typically thought of as "valence issues.") Class discussion of schema theory told us that as coverage of religious issues increased close to the election and as the coverage of Iraq, terrorism and the economy trailed off, the issues that would most influence a voter's decision would be the ones that were most reinforced to them most recently and thus were at the "top" of their schema; in this case, the moral ones. If Bush owes his victory to these conservative voters whose schema portrayed these religious issues as important, then the agenda-setting theory does not apply to the 2004 presidential election. Obviously, Bush doesn't owe his victory to these people alone. He has a strong core group of supporters who agreed with him on the issues of Iraq, the economy and terrorism, the three issues the media told readers to think about. However, this is an example that raises questions about the role of agenda setting in this particular election and shows the role that schema theory played.

If I were able to, I would change the content analysis to include examination of broadcast media. I would take a local
news channel and using the evening news, I would analyze it in the same manner the Kansas City Star was analyzed. I think the emergence of broadcast media as a primary way the public obtains information could explain the coverage and outcome of the election more thoroughly. I would also extend the length of time utilized for this study, ranging from the first primaries to the day of the election.
Obviously, for the class's purposes this was impossible, but I think it would broaden the depth of the analysis and perhaps answer some of the questions I have raised in this paper, especially the "hole" I poked in the role of the agenda-setting theory in this election.

In an idealistic world, a presidential campaign and the media coverage of it would encourage citizenship. The campaign would encourage a love of country, a critical analysis of important issues facing the country, and a desire to learn more about politics and the United States' system of government and how it works. The coverage of the campaign would provide answers and outlets for these things. However, in reality, the 2004 campaign and media coverage did not encourage citizenship; or at least, good citizenship. If anything, it would encourage bad citizenship.
The huge amount of negative campaigning and coverage did not set the best example for the American public. To me, good citizenship is not only about being an informed voter who can think critically about issues and make reasoned judgments as a result. Good citizenship is also about people learning to live and work together in a positive manner, about people respecting the differences of others and embracing tolerance for the good of the country. If our country's leaders and the media cannot set this example for the American people, then who will? The mudslinging and personal attacks the candidates threw into the campaign only caused more negative feelings among its spectators. A government and its leaders filter into every aspect of everyday life, and negative portrayals of them will filter these bad feelings into every corner of America.

The issues offered by the candidates and covered by the campaigns should be considered important, and should offer clear differences in the candidates so that voters can make a more informed choice. I think the issues of this particular election were definitely important and are considered the most critical facing the nation today; however, I don't think they were covered with enough depth and urgency in order to positively influence voters and citizens. When referring to the content analysis, one can see that the coverage of the three prevalent issues contained in the stories was not consistent. The coverage for both terrorism and the war in Iraq trailed off in the last few weeks leading to Election Day. Economic issues were the most consistently covered at the beginning and end of the study, but coverage of them decreased during the middle part. My analysis of agenda-setting theory, when it comes to these three issues, showed that the media did, in fact, tell the public what to think about for this election. However, they failed to do their job by not offering consistent, in-depth coverage of these issues to more greatly inform the readers. The media did not present the issues in a way to effectively encourage good citizenship.

Based on the campaigns and their media coverage, I can think of a reason for 95 million eligible citizens not to vote in the 2004 presidential election. The negative nature of the campaigns as produced by the negative television ads and comments spoken by the candidates, and the failure of the media to effectively cover the issues consistently and provide useful information for the readers so that they could make a more informed decision both discouraged voting.

Take a typical, uninformed, middle-class worker who has a high school diploma as an example. They haven't been taught about the agenda-setting power of the mass media or the nature of campaigns. They haven't been taught to look beyond the media coverage to find the real issues and the stances of the candidates on the issues. In 2004, all they saw were negative television ads and horrific accusations by the candidates being played out in the media. They weren't truly informed of the issues because the media didn't do their job to cover the issues with any level of intensity or simplicity. In their eyes, they saw two men pointing fingers and talking about how their opponent was unfit for office. Based on all of this, they were not taught the importance of making an informed voting decision on Nov. 2, and decided to skip the election altogether. I think for someone unlike me, a college student who studied the campaigns and media coverage in-depth and with some genuine interest, it could have been very easy not to vote in the election.

Based on the 2004 presidential election and our class' extensive discussion on the idea of citizenship, I believe that voting plays an important role in the lives of citizens. It is their most powerful voice on what happens in government, and if an eligible citizen doesn't vote, I don't think they have a right to complain at all about their leaders. However, I don't think voting should be considered a qualification of good citizenship, mainly because becoming a truly informed voter and thereby a good citizen is not possible. In the lives of modern-day Americans, becoming informed takes a lot of time that most aren't willing to give up. Also, until the media take advantage of their power and use it to empower readers and viewers, the knowledge and information required to become informed will not be available to the public.

Works Cited
Classroom discussion, CA 450, The Media and the Presidential Election. Park University,
Fall 2004.
Unpublished content analysis, CA 450, The Media and the Presidential Election. Park
University, Fall 2004.
Crotty, William and Jackson, John S. III. "The Politics of Presidential Selection,"
Second edition. Longman, 2001.
Gallup News Service, "How Americans Voted: Bush owes victory to support
from conservative-leaning groups." Nov. 5, 2004.
Graber, Doris A. "Mass Media and American Politics." Congressional Quarterly,
Nov. 2001
McCombs, Maxwell. "The Agenda-Setting Role of the Mass Media in the Shaping of
Public Opinion."
Park University Stylus. "Latest polling trends to consider before the votes are cast."
Oct. 29, 2004.