Issue Coverage by the Media

THE PRESS OFTEN spends more time covering the horse race aspects of a campaign than the issues. The results of several content analyses of actual coverage show substantial variation in the amount of issue coverage depending on how issues were defined, during what time frame of the election the sample of press coverage was taken, the medium (newspaper vs. television), year, and specific outlet. Most recent analyses conclude that issues make up a smaller proportion of articles than other types of information. Press coverage of campaigns is often sorted into three different categories: horse race coverage focuses on who is ahead or behind, or on the strategy considerations of the candidates; character coverage focuses on the experience, personality, or qualifications of the candidate; issue coverage concentrates on the policy positions or legislative agenda of the candidates.

Most studies of issue coverage examine issues in the context of presidential campaigns. One problem is that researchers define and measure issue coverage in different ways. Estimates of issue coverage range from a low of about 20 percent of articles (when issues are defined narrowly and only the major theme of articles is examined) to a high of about 70 percent of articles (when single references to an issue in an article are counted). However, even within this range, there are wide variations among years, specific outlets, and media. Long-term analyses shows increasing issue coverage between 1888 and 1948, and decreasing issue coverage between 1948 and 1994.

Regardless of how frequently issues are covered, there is some evidence that issue treatments are often superficial. One study found less than five percent of references to issues were substantive (that is, including details and policy implications). Some analyses suggest that newspapers tend to give more press coverage to issues than do broadcast outlets, and networks give issues more attention than do local news.

Television news has also been found to report on a more limited range of issues and cover them more superficially than newspapers. One study found that issues that are difficult to describe, complex, or lacking in novelty (such as poverty) garnered less press attention than more event-oriented issues, for example, war issues. Women candidates get less issue coverage when compared with men.

One study, unusual because it was done on Senate races and not presidential races, found that about 28 percent of the coverage was about issues. Hotly contested Senate races received more issue coverage than non-competitive races. Candidates running for open seats received the most issue coverage, and challengers the least. Larger newspapers were also more likely to give more space to issues.

Newspapers tend to give more press coverage to issues than do broadcast outlets or local news.

Many social scientists point to the rise of horse race reporting in the last 60 years as the cause for the decline in issue reporting. News outlets are more likely to sponsor opinion polling today than in the past, and, as a result, give more column inches to horse race coverage at the expense of issues.

Moreover, as political power has passed from parties to the candidates, candidates have taken on more responsibility for campaign strategies, with the result being that reporting about such strategies has become more relevant to understanding the candidate. Interpretive reporting, which is more common today that in past, relies more on “why” than “what,” and is more conducive to strategic coverage than it is to issue coverage.

...