scholarly journals Horse-race coverage (Election Campaign Coverage)

10.34778/2e ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie Leidecker-Sandmann
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
News Coverage ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
News Story ◽  
Election Campaign ◽  
Horse Race ◽  
Election Coverage ◽  
Opinion Polls

The term horse-race coverage refers to one of the most prominent types of election coverage (e.g., Schmuck et al., 2017) that strongly focuses on winners and losers (who is ahead?). Typically, it is related to opinion polls and/or election outcomes. Quite often also “a language of war or games to describe the campaign” (Aalberg et al., 2012, p. 167) is involved in this kind of news stories, although – in a narrow sense – this aspect does not seem to be an essential part of the concept of horse-race coverage (e.g., Banducci & Hanretty, 2014). Regarding the conceptual definitions, a development in the terminology may be noticed: “The original horse race news became part of the game frame which was later discussed as part of the strategy frame.” (Aalberg et al., 2012, p. 166) In other words, the term ‘game frame’ is sometimes used synonymously with ‘horse-race’ coverage (although some scholars discuss whether these concepts can actually be used synonymously; e.g., Banducci & Hanretty, 2014; de Vreese 2005; Valentino et al., 2001). Field of application/theoretical foundation: Horse-race coverage is a very popular concept that is analyzed in research on the media coverage of politics, especially in times of elections and election campaigns. References/combination with other methods of data collection: The analysis of horse-race coverage may be combined or compared with opinion polls and election outcomes. Furthermore, experimental studies that analyze potential effects of the horse-race coverage on recipients (e.g., political cynicism) exist (e.g., Lavrakas et al., 1991; Valentino et al., 2001). Example: Although often analyzed, the operationalization of horse-race coverage in quantitative content analyses differs. Aalberg et al. (2012) review existing concepts and operationalizations and provide a set of coding instructions, which are cited below.   Coding instructions (direct quotation) by Aalberg et al. (2012, p. 177): Game frame [respectively horse-race coverage] Does the story deal with opinion polls and politicians’ or parties’ standing in the polls? This variable has two codes: 0 = no, 1 = yes. Coders should type 1 if the news story at least once mentions opinion polls and the standing of political parties or individual candidates in these. Coders should also type 1 if the news story includes references to generic ‘polls’ or ‘the opinion’ and the standing of political parties or candidates according to ‘polls’ or ‘the opinion’. Otherwise coders should type 0. Does the story deal with politicians, parties or other actors in relation to potential election outcomes and/or coalitions/government formation? This variable has two codes: 0 = no, 1 = yes. Coders should type 1 if the news story reports or speculates about election results or government/coalition formations. Otherwise coders should type 0. Does the story deal with politicians, parties or other actors winning or losing (elections, debates or in general)? This variable has two codes: 0 = no, 1 = yes. Coders should type 1 if the news story at least once refers to whether politicians, parties or other actors are winning or losing with respect to elections, debates or in general. Otherwise coders should type 0. Does the story make use of a language of sports or war? This variable has two codes: 0 = no, 1 = yes. Coders should type 1 if the news story at least once makes use of a language of sports and war, such as battle, competition, winning, or fight. Only exempted expression is ‘campaign’. Otherwise coders should type 0.   References Aalberg, T., Strömbäck, J., & de Vreese, C.H. (2012). The framing of politics as strategy and game: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13(2), 162-178. Banducci, S., & Hanretty, C. (2014). Comparative determinants of horse-race coverage. European Political Science Review, 6(4), 621-640. de Vreese C.H. (2005). The Spiral of Cynicism reconsidered. European Journal of Communication, 20(3), 283–301. Lavrakas, P.J., Holley, J.K., & Miller, P.V. (1991). Public reactions to polling news during the 1988 presidential election campaign. In P.J. Lavrakas, & J.K. Holley (Eds.). Polling and presidential election coverage (pp. 151-183). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Schmuck, D., Heiss, R., Matthes, J., Engesser, S., & Esser, F. (2017). Antecedents of strategic game framing in political news coverage. Journalism, 18(8), 937-955. Valentino, N.A., Beckmann, M.N., & Buhr, T.A. (2001). A spiral of cynicism for some: The contingent effects of campaign news frames on participation and confidence in government. Political Communication, 18(4), 347–367.

Elite Cues, News Coverage, and Partisan Support for Compromise

2016 ◽  
Vol 94 (3) ◽  
pp. 862-882 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan McLaughlin ◽  
Douglas M. McLeod ◽  
Catasha Davis ◽  
Mallory Perryman ◽  
Kwansik Mun
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
News Coverage ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
The United States ◽  
News Story ◽  
Group Norms ◽  
Group Leaders ◽  
Categorization Theory

In accordance with self-categorization theory, this study predicts that because elite cues affect partisans’ perceptions of group norms, news coverage of political gridlock should influence partisans’ willingness to endorse compromise. Results of two experimental studies, where Republican and Democratic samples read a news story in which group leaders were either willing or unwilling to compromise, largely support our expectations. However, we also find evidence that willingness to compromise can depend on the specific issue context, as well as pre-existing attitudes. These results further our understanding of how media coverage affects the functioning of democracy in the United States.

Who's in the Game? The Framing of Election 2000 by The Globe and Mail and The National Post

2004 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Trimble ◽  
Shannon Sampert
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
English Language ◽  
Election Campaign ◽  
Citizen Engagement ◽  
Horse Race ◽  
Campaign Strategies ◽  
Federal Election ◽  
Election Coverage ◽  
Issue Emphasis

This paper reports the results of a content analysis of election–related headlines in Canada's two English–language national newspapers, The Globe and Mail and The National Post, over the course of the 36–day 2000 federal election campaign. We found that the two national newspapers' headlines revealed differences in issue emphasis, leader portrayals and party assessment. Yet both newspapers embraced a game frame for election coverage–by focusing on the horse–race, leader personalities and campaign strategies–to the neglect of campaign issues and ideological distinctions between parties. These findings suggest that media game framing can result in troublesome consequences for constructive citizen engagement in election activities.

But her emails! How journalistic preferences shaped election coverage in 2016

Journalism ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (8) ◽  
pp. 1052-1069 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen Searles ◽  
Kevin K Banda
Keyword(s):  
News Coverage ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Unique Case ◽  
News Values ◽  
Horse Race ◽  
News Stories ◽  
Cable Networks ◽  
The Us ◽  
Election Coverage ◽  
Relative Utility

While existing work explains how journalists use news values to select some stories over others, we know little about how stories that meet newsworthiness criteria are prioritized. Once stories are deemed newsworthy, how do journalists calculate their relative utility? Such an ordering of preferences is important as higher ranked stories receive more media attention. To better understand how stories are ordered once they are selected, we propose a model for rational journalistic preferences which describes how journalists rank stories by making cost-benefit analyses. When faced with competing newsworthy stories, such as in an election context, the model can generate expectations regarding news coverage patterns. To illustrate model utility, we draw on a unique case – the US 2016 presidential election – to explain how reporters order newsworthy stories (e.g. scandal and the horse race) by observing changes in the volume. Our content data captures coverage featuring Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump on major broadcast and cable networks over 31  weeks. We find that the rational journalistic preference model explains the imbalance of scandal coverage between the two candidates and the dominance of horse race coverage. In 2016, such preferences may have inadvertently contributed to a balance of news stories that favored Trump.

Russia’s Hybrid War on the West

2019 ◽  
pp. 8-46
Author(s):  
Mitchell A. Orenstein
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Democratic Governance ◽  
Election Campaign ◽  
The West ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Presidential Election ◽  
Hybrid War ◽  
Presidential Election Campaign

Russia’s hybrid war on the West started in 2007, but was only widely recognized in the West after President Putin’s return to the presidency of Russia in 2012, Russia’s invasion of Crimea in 2014, and its meddling in the US presidential election campaign in 2016. For five years, Western leaders failed to recognize or to believe that Russia was engaged in an all-out struggle to undermine Western institutions through funding extremist, anti-EU, and anti-NATO political parties, spreading disinformation and propaganda, hacking and releasing information, and using a wide variety of covert means to influence elections and undermine democratic governance. Since the very existence of this hybrid war has been questioned and politicized, this chapter lays out the basics and addresses the question of what led Russia to launch its hybrid war on the West.

The Approach of British Political Parties to a Defence Role for the European Community

1992 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 299-310 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Keohane
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
European Community ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
General Election ◽  
Election Campaign ◽  
Defence Sector ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Public Opinion Polls ◽  
Opinion Polls

THE ISSUES OF DEFENCE AND EUROPE DID NOT PLAY A prominent part in the UK general election campaign of March-April 1992. One of the reasons was that public opinion polls throughout the campaign indicated consistently that domestic issues came first with the electorate. Secondly, with the disappearance of the Soviet threat and the restoration of consensus between the parties on nuclear weapons, defence was not a sufficiently contentious subject for it to be a central topic in the campaign. It was no surprise, however, that the Conservative Manifesto claimed that defence would not be safe in the hands of the opposition parties and that their policies would result in huge job losses in the defence sector.

Everybody Follows the Crowd?

2017 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Magdalena Obermaier ◽  
Thomas Koch ◽  
Christian Baden
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Design ◽  
News Coverage ◽  
Personal Characteristics ◽  
Election Campaigns ◽  
Bandwagon Effect ◽  
Political News ◽  
Election Results ◽  
Opinion Polls ◽  
Electoral Preferences

Abstract. Opinion polls are a well-established part of political news coverage, especially during election campaigns. At the same time, there has been controversial debate over the possible influences of such polls on voters’ electoral choices. The most prominent influence discussed is the bandwagon effect: It states that voters tend to support the expected winner of an upcoming election, and use polls to determine who the likely winner will be. This study investigated the mechanisms underlying the effect. In addition, we inquired into the role of past electoral performances of a candidate and analyzed how these (as well as polls) are used as heuristic cues for the assessment of a candidate’s personal characteristics. Using an experimental design, we found that both polls and past election results influence participants’ expectations regarding which candidate will succeed. Moreover, higher competence was attributed to a candidate, if recipients believe that the majority of voters favor that candidate. Through this attribution of competence, both information about prior elections and current polls shaped voters’ electoral preferences.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document