    |
|
Stories:
Going Negative
Going Negative
As the recent election conclusively demonstrated, presidential candidates are accomplished mudslingers. But a recent finding by an MU communications scholar suggests the most prolific disparagers may be working in journalism, not politics.
William Benoit, professor and editor of the prestigious Journal of Communication, headed the research. Along with doctoral students Glenn Hansen, Kevin Stein, Rebecca Verser and Sumana Chattopadhyay, Benoit analyzed the tone and content of coverage of the 2004 Democratic primary race appearing on four national television networks (ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC), in two national newspapers (New York Times and Washington Post) and in two regional papers (Union Leader in New Hampshire and the Post & Courier in South Carolina). They then compared the coverage to the candidates' comments about one another.
Some 50 percent of the statements in newspaper stories were classified as either negative or critical, the researchers discovered. The tally of disapproving stories on national television news was about the same. By contrast, the candidates themselves were relative models of civility: Just 21 percent of their television spots and 36 percent of their comments in the primary debates were deemed negative.
Sadly, Benoit fears the candidates' more positive tone is typically lost on potential voters. "I'm not sure most people draw a distinction between candidates' messages and the news," he says. That's a problem, he adds, because previous research suggests that when potential voters view campaigns as negative, they are less likely to vote.
The investigation also revealed what Benoit believes to be another serious flaw in elections coverage: journalists' tendency to interpret, rather than simply report, what candidates have to say. In the analyzed stories, only 26 percent of reported policy and position statements either quoted or paraphrased a candidate. "In order to make the best judgments, voters need to hear the candidates' own words more often," he says.
Finally, Benoit's analyses provide further confirmation of media's addiction to "horse race" coverage; that is, reporting on who's "leading" at any given moment, rather than more substantive questions related to the policy positions and the character of the people running for office.
Benoit and his team found that a whopping 66 percent of statements in news stories concerned the horse race, while just 22 percent focused on candidates' character and only 12 percent examined policy positions.
Benoit says his Web site is a good place to learn more: presidentialcampaign2004.coas.missouri.edu. "I want to help people make sense of the campaign process, what it is, what it looks like, how it works."
|
|
