Battleground States and Local Coverage of American Presidential Campaigns

• Author: Kerri Milita,John Barry Ryan
• Date: 01 March 2019
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912918781752
• Published date: 01 March 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912918781752

Political Research Quarterly

2019, Vol. 72(1) 104 –116

© 2018 University of Utah

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1065912918781752

journals.sagepub.com/home/prq

Article

“I don’t mean to be rude here,” began Vermont Senator

Bernie Sanders’s response to a New York Times reporter’s

question in the summer of 2015. “I am running for presi-

dent of the United States on serious issues, O.K.? Do you

have serious questions?”1 The reporter had asked him if

the media pay too much attention to Democratic frontrun-

ner Hillary Clinton’s hair. For those who dislike the

media’s coverage of campaigns, the exchange exempli-

fies how the media focus on unimportant matters. Media

outlets, critics argue, spend too little time on issues and

too much time on personalities, scandals, and polls.

Polls are at the heart of Thomas Patterson’s (1993)

famous critique of American presidential campaign cov-

erage in Out of Order and much of the criticism from

other sources (e.g., Brady and Johnston 1987; Broh 1980;

Fox, Koloen, and Sahin 2007). Modern campaign cover-

age is said to largely ignore policy issues to focus instead

on the “horserace”—who is ahead in the latest polls and

why (Searles, Ginn, and Nickens 2016; Sigelman and

Bullock 1991). The amount of horse race coverage may

have declined in recent years, but it is still the predomi-

nant campaign news frame in the United States according

to most research (Benoit, Stein, and Hansen 2005; Hallin

1992; Strömbäck and Dimitrova 2006). This lack of

attention to substance could explain why media con-

sumption often has minimal effects on voter knowledge

of the candidates and their positions on the issues (Brians

and Wattenberg 1996; Eveland and Hively 2009; Eveland

and Scheufele 2000; Patterson and McClure 1976;

Weaver and Drew 2001; but see Zhao and Chaffee 1995).

Previous works on the impact of media exposure typi-

cally include either a dummy variable measuring if an

individual reads a newspaper or a count of the frequency

with which one reads a newspaper. This approach implic-

itly assumes that all newspaper coverage is comparable in

the quantity and quality with which it covers candidates

and campaigns. Graber (2003) argues that such visions of

a monolithic media are, at best, oversimplified; and, at

worst, wholly misleading. With a presidential campaign,

this assumption appears sensible, as the presidential elec-

tion is a national event. Yet, even with declines in reader-

ship, local newspapers and their websites reach tens of

millions of Americans each year. Even if readers do not

think of newspapers as their first source for presidential

election news, about half of American National Election

Studies (ANES) respondents say they encounter cam-

paign coverage in local papers.

781752PRQXXX10.1177/1065912918781752Political Research QuarterlyMilita and Ryan

research-article2018

1Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA

2Stony Brook University, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:

John Barry Ryan, Department of Political Science, Stony Brook

University, Social and Behavioral Sciences N711, Stony Brook, NY

11794, USA.

Email: john.ryan@stonybrook.edu

Battleground States and Local Coverage

of American Presidential Campaigns

Kerri Milita1 and John Barry Ryan2

Abstract

Analyses of television news and major newspapers have led to the critique that “the media” ignore the issues in

campaigns, which could explain studies that show limited effects for media coverage on knowledge. These studies

overlook great variation in the quantity and quality of news coverage in local information environments. Using data

collected from local newspaper websites during the 2012 American presidential election, we show the quality and

quantity of local news campaign coverage differ substantially between battleground and nonbattleground states. In an

effort to differentiate themselves from other news outlets, newspapers in battleground states play up the local angle

(e.g., candidate visits), resulting in less attention to issues in their stories. These findings suggest the voters most

important to the election outcome (i.e., those in battleground states) may have less information on candidate issue

positions available within their local media market.

Keywords

presidential campaigns, local news, battleground states, Obama, Romney