Abstract
This study assessed the kinds of sources setting the story “agenda” in election news covering the 1998 governor's race in the nine largest Michigan dailies. The assertions of candidates or their partisan supporters were more likely than those of experts or other sources to dominate story leads and paragraphs. Sources included for their expertise on the “horse race” and issue aspects of the campaign were cited in only a third of the election stories, and their comments were usually placed far down in the stories. Statehouse bureau reporters were more likely than their newsroom-based and wire-service colleagues to write stories including experts. A substantial number of stories also contained unattributed “reporter leads.” Most of these leads were references to events or developments that could be verified by any reader. Other reporter leads contained interpretations that were substantiated in the stories. But about 5 percent of the stories were introduced by reporter leads that contained interpretations or conclusions that were not or could not be substantiated in stories. Statehouse bureau reporters were also more likely than wire service or newsroom reporters to write interpretative leads.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.