As the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary approaches, it’s all horse race all the time in the news media with an almost exclusive focus on “insider” coverage of campaign strategy and a fascination with who’s ahead and who’s behind in the polls. In fact, it seems there’s never been a time in 2007 where issues have taken primacy over the sports game of political coverage.
Over the past forty years, the rise in horse race journalism has been called the “quiet revolution” in U.S. election reporting. Coverage focusing on the “game schema” frames elections in terms of strategy and political success rose from 45% of stories sampled in 1960 to more than 80% of stories in 1992. In comparison, coverage focusing on “policy schema,” framing elections in terms of policy and leadership, dropped from 50% of coverage in 1960 to just 10% of coverage analyzed in 1992.
Horse race journalism is fueled in part by industry trends and organizational imperatives. In a hyper-competitive news environment with a 24 hour news cycle and tight budgets, reporting the complexity of elections and policy debates in terms of the strategic game is simply easier, more efficient, and considered better business practice.
In terms of horse race coverage of policy debates, other than failing to provide context and background for audiences, the strategy frame’s preferred “he said, she said” style leads to a false balance in the treatment of technical issues such as climate change or the teaching evolution, issues where there is clear expert consensus. Polling experts offer other reservations. Experts warn that over-reliance on horse race journalism and polling potentially undermines public trust in the accuracy and validity of polling.