Carol in her garden 
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Archives
Interesting Links
Categories
Carol’s Garden
Some Family Pictures from my Photo Site
Click on the picture to go directly to the web site.
More on Fair Media Coverage… What is it?
I left my last post somewhat up in the air. What is the best coverage an idealistic unbiased news reporting organization should use to present news about candidates? How much coverage should they give each candidate?
It seems that just giving everyone equal coverage would be wrong because it promotes marginal candidates. But giving coverage based primarily on current popularity would also be wrong.
As I mentioned before, what we really want is:
Media coverage that does not alter public opinion
except through the information the candidates
themselves present in one way or another.
That’s easy to say, but how can be accomplished.
Most likely this approach might involve using public opinion surveys (previous election results in the case of primary elections) to determine the amount of coverage but delaying the implementation of each revised coverage percentage for perhaps a 10 to 14 days, or until the next major event election event. Ideally this delay time should allow be long enough to allow anything a candidate does and says to be fully absorbed into the public awareness.
In this way candidates would be given a chance to prove their viability before their coverage is lowered.
Of course the forgoing argument assumes that the public’s view of a candidate is not based only on the amount of media coverage …. but on what the candidate actually says and does.
Another problem to ponder… if you agree with the above. If there are only two candidates we seem to assume that the coverage should be 50-50. Then why with, say four, candidates shouldn’t we give each 25% of total coverage…. even if their popularities were very different.
So… maybe equal coverage for all candidates really the better approach? Or is this approach reserved for the one on one election (which may not always be one on one).
OR…. should the news media deliberately try to level the playing field?!
AND… What about all that opinion that entertains us…. more later??
Interconnections – Media Coverage and Candidate Success: What is the Ideal Approach?
While I was sleeping…. I was thinking about the relationship between news coverage and presidential candidate popularity. It is easy to imagine that the popularity of a candidate is directly related to the amount of media coverage that each receives.
But that is not correct. We know, for example, that candidates who have had previous TV coverage (Hillary Clinton, Fred Thompson) are not automatically the front runners compared to those with less previous media coverage like Barak Obama. Oh, but wait! They probably are more popular than they would otherwise be without that coverage.
I think we can assume that media coverage makes candidates more visible than they would otherwise be without this coverage …pretty obvious.
Of course then there is the issue of what kind of coverage is provided. Is this media coverage positive, negative, or neutral?
So there is a difference between simple media exposure and media exposure that directly influences opinion. These two influences can be difficult to separate. In fact, the same media exposure event may produce different opinions in different people.
For the sake of argument let’s think about what an idealistic media outlet should do to provide fair news coverage for presidential candidates. Let’s further assume that the coverage overall will be neutral — and that is, both positive, neutral, and negative aspects of each candidate will be perfectly presented.
So… the only issue under discussion here is: Ideally how should media coverage be allocated to the many candidates?
Everyone’s first impression is that the best approach would be to give all candidates equal media exposure. Is that really the best option? Equal coverage for minority candidates immediately enhances their standing beyond what would otherwise be. This requires us to rethink what we mean by ideal coverage.
What is ideal coverage anyway? Surely, ideal coverage will present candidates as they exist in the real world without altering their popularity. This means that media exposure should not alter the standing of the candidates, it should merely report the news. But we know this is not the case. Media exposure is what candidates need to stay in the race because it will alter the race.
Ideally, factors outside the media, what the candidates actually think, what they say, what they have done in the past, their policies…. these are the things that should determine a candidate’s popularity. Separating media coverage from these things is impossible, because the media coverage is about these things. But ideal media coverage would allow these things, and the candidates, to speak for themselves.
But this still does not answer the question of how much coverage should be given to each candidate. If all candidates are given equal coverage, the very act of providing that coverage to minority candidates makes them appear more important than they would otherwise seem.
Many might agree that this is the ideal role of the media — to level the playing field, not to promote certain candidates. But presenting all candidates equally may defeat this very idea. It does not really level the playing field but rather it promotes candidates who are doing less well in the polls by giving them more coverage.
So what is the fair media outlet to do?
