Candidates,Issues,Horse Races,and Hoopla

Abstract

The rise of television as Americans' primary news source has often been decried as a blight on representative democracy. In this article the authors outline three interpretations of media coverage of presidential campaigns. The authors dismiss the first of these (the "vast wasteland" interpretation) because it assumes, contrary to much existing evidence, that there is a fundamental difference between television and the print media in campaign coverage. The authors then undertake a content analysis of newspaper coverage of the presidential campaigns of 1888,1908, 1928, 1948, 1968, and 1988 as a test of the two remaining interpretations. According to the "videostyle" interpretation, television has revolutionized presidential campaigns and the way campaigns are covered. By contrast, the "the more things change ... " interpretation holds that, while television may have altered the style of presidential campaigns, it has not changed the substance of campaign coverage, which focused on hoopla and the horse race rather than on serious issues long before the arrival of television. The content analysis indicates some changes during the post-World-War-II era that are consistent with the "videostyle" interpretation, but over the full course of the last century these changes have been of quite a limited scope, consistent with the "the more things change ... " interpretation.