The bandwagoning media

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 8:17 PM Share

Pew has a report out on the media coverage of the four presidential and vice-presidential candidates, and discovers that John McCain has received the most negative coverage of the lot. Liberal media bias? More like bandwagoning behavior, according to Pew:

One question likely to be posed is whether these findings provide evidence that the news media are pro-Obama. Is there some element in these numbers that reflects a rooting by journalists for Obama and against McCain, unconscious or otherwise? The data do not provide conclusive answers. They do offer a strong suggestion that winning in politics begets winning coverage, thanks in part to the relentless tendency of the press to frame its coverage of national elections as running narratives about the relative position of the candidates in the polls and internal tactical maneuvering to alter those positions. Obama's coverage was negative in tone when he was dropping in the polls, and became positive when he began to rise, and it was just so for McCain as well. Nor are these numbers different than those we have seen before. Obama's numbers are similar to what we saw for John Kerry four years ago as he began rising in the polls, and McCain's numbers are almost identical to those recorded eight years ago for Democrat Al Gore.

What the findings also reveal is the reinforcing -- rather than press-generated -- effects of media. We see a repeating pattern here in which the press first offers a stenographic account of candidate rhetoric and behavior, while also on the watch for misstatements and gaffes. Then, in a secondary reaction, it measures the political impact of what it has reported. This is magnified in particular during presidential races by the prevalence of polling and especially daily tracking polls. While this echo effect exists in all press coverage, it is far more intense in presidential elections, with the explosion of daily tracking polls, state polls, poll aggregation websites and the 24-hour cable debate over their implications. Even coverage of the candidate's policy positions and rhetoric, our reading of these stories suggests, took on the cast of horse race coverage.

EXPLORE:MEDIASPHERE, POLITICS

(12)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

MEDIA BIAS: PRELUDE — THE OPPOSITE OF JIM BUNNING

8:57 PM ET

October 22, 2008

[...] wanted to talk about a

[...] wanted to talk about a Pew Report discussed by Dan Drezner (quick upward-mover on my favorite linkees list). He singles out a section that [...]

A.S.

9:14 PM ET

October 22, 2008

"They do offer a strong

"They do offer a strong suggestion that winning in politics begets winning coverage"

The causality is backwards. The more likely causality is that better media coverage begets winning in politics, not the other way around.

BARRY

9:43 PM ET

October 22, 2008

Or, of course, McCain is

Or, of course, McCain is runing as the representative of a party which has f*cked everything up for the past seven years, can't keep his words straight from day to day, and was only popular in 2000 because it was pre-W and he likkered up the journalists.

And can't figure out if he's running as "I've voted with Bush more than most Republicans" or "The Maverick".

ZATHRAS

9:51 PM ET

October 22, 2008

Does bandwagoning also happen

Does bandwagoning also happen in the blogosphere?

Maybe bandwagoning is the wrong word; "herdblogging" or something similar better captures the idea. Just for example, the Obama campaign chose right after getting the nomination that it was going to run a fairly conventional general election campaign focused on the other candidate, Sen. McCain, rather than on trying to define Sen. Obama by way of contrast with the incumbent Republican President. All across the left blogosphere, it's been all McCain all the time ever since; bloggers like Josh Marshall who have been writing about the Bush administration for years and barely noticing McCain, suddenly barely notice Bush. Or Obama, for that matter. The Democratic candidate barely rates a mention except in posts that discuss polling or that comment on McCain campaign statements that explicitly mention Obama.

Would this happen if McCain were doing better, or if he were running a different kind of campaign? Is herdblogging just a reflection of bloggers' tendency to mainly read and talk to people who already agree with them? Or is the left blogosphere merely doing what the right blogosphere did for much of the Bush administration, ringing changes on chords sounded by the leader and his spokesmen?

DARIAN

2:23 AM ET

October 23, 2008

Maybe the media ain't so

Maybe the media ain't so biased, and McCain is getting bad press because, oh, maybe his politics and ideas and campaign (and Palin too?) are bad? Maybe the press is actually getting it right when they portray him and his campaign in a negative light? Maybe, ya think?

JON S

2:35 AM ET

October 23, 2008

I've noticed a herd effect

I've noticed a herd effect with lead stories being quickly picked up by many outlets, which allows a lot of fake controversies and concocted lies to wind up in national headline news. That can be very annoying.

But, in regards to bias I agree with Barry that the McCain campaign has done a lot of inexplicably dumb things over the last month - moreso than the Obama campaign. If the media covers dumb things negatively, does that represent media bias or media fairness? Should CNN crowd out the headlines with McCain fluff pieces to avoid the perception of bias?

JUSTIN

11:24 AM ET

October 23, 2008

Yes, Darian, that's exactly

Yes, Darian, that's exactly what it is. Liberals are good and smart, and conservatives are evil and stupid. No bias here... move along.

DARIAN

9:12 PM ET

October 23, 2008

Justin - haha. But I was

Justin -

haha.

But I was not completely joking - maybe, just maybe, Mccain is running a really monumentally poor campaign, based on unpopular ideas, ridiculous appointments, and doing it all in spite of himself, and the media is calling him out on it?

ECONTECH » LINKS FOR 2008.10.23

10:40 PM ET

October 23, 2008

[...] The bandwagoning

[...] The bandwagoning mediaIf I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times: it is not media bias; it is media incompetence. [...]

JUSTIN

11:54 AM ET

October 24, 2008

I was not joking it all. The

I was not joking it all. The media isn't supposed to decide whether a campaign is being run poorly, has unpopular ideas, or is making ridiculous appointments. They are supposed to give us the information so that we can make those decisions.

To make the problem more clear, imagine that they had decided, for reasons that they don't have to give you, that they were simply not going to cover Obama at all. You could again assume that it's because they considered Obama's campaign to be run poorly, with unpopular ideas, and making ridiculous appointments, so they're just saving you the trouble of having to hear about it.

Would you still think that's ok?

JON S

10:50 PM ET

October 24, 2008

Justin, so long as the

Justin, so long as the information is accurate I don't really see the problem with the media doing both. If you think it is taking away your ability to make decisions by adopting a positive or negative tone, or by covering some things and ignoring others, then it's time to read the news more critically and diversify your sources.

JUSTIN

11:37 AM ET

October 27, 2008

I know this is a late comment

I know this is a late comment that probably won't be seen, but... Jon, I'm not worried about myself. I'm worried about the people that are either too lazy to diversify their sources, or are too naive to realize the bias that exists.