Category: Government / Topics: Bias, Distortion • Government • Information Management • Media • Opinion research • Perception • Statistics
by Stu Johnson
Posted: September 246, 2016
How the media prioritize stories about the presidential race…
One day I caught a few minutes of a TV panel discussing the presidential campaign (one can hardly avoid that!) They lamented that Donald Trump’s policy speech one night was overshadowed by the announcement of changes in his campaign team announced the next morning. . . . then they proceeded to focus on the “process” and completely ignored the policy! That got me to thinking about the priorities of election coverage, an issue I have addressed several times, particularly in relation to the use of poll results. See the links at the end of the article for several blogs about polling—it’s impact and an overview of understanding polling techniques—and some observations about bias.
That leads me to suggest five elements, in a rough order of priority, that describe (and may well predict) the kind of coverage of the election we can expect —primarily from television and social media, but also in newspapers (especially on the first page or two of section one).
Polling
Pouncing
Problems
Process
Policy
Not listed as a priority, but important nonetheless, is the role of pundits (to maintain the alliteration!). While a “straight” report can be biased, pundits often are selected precisely because of their bias. They enter the picture at every level, some as hosts/commentators, others as proponents for one or both candidates. To provide a “balanced” view, we typically hear from hardliners from both camps, too often ending in shouting matches over polar opposite viewpoints. Once again, conflict and energy is more important than substance.
In a mystery novel I read recently, the investigation of one crime leads the main character to a retired professor who has written the supposedly definitive history of an incident about which there has been much conflict. When asked about his work, which attempts to correct the popular “myth” about the event, the professor rhetorically asks whether the job of a historian is to illuminate or condemn. It seems to me that as far as election coverage is concerned we could use a lot more illumination.
Often, more important to public perception of the actual story, whether print or video, is the headline attached to it. Many more people will see a headline (and any picture associated with it) than expose themselves to the story.
Since the week of the Republican convention, I have been randomly checking the headlines on Xfinity’s (Comcast) home page to see what kind of coverage each candidate is getting. Next week, I will compare those stories to the priorities suggested in this post.
Previous blogs on related topics (most recent first):
Search all articles by Stu Johnson
Stu Johnson is owner of Stuart Johnson & Associates, a communications consultancy in Wheaton, Illinois focused on "making information make sense."
• E-mail the author (moc.setaicossajs@uts*)* For web-based email, you may need to copy and paste the address yourself.
Posted: September 246, 2016 Accessed 1,831 times
Go to the list of most recent InfoMatters Blogs
Search InfoMatters (You can expand the search to the entire site)
Category: Government / Topics: Bias, Distortion • Government • Information Management • Media • Opinion research • Perception • Statistics
by Stu Johnson
Posted: September 246, 2016
How the media prioritize stories about the presidential race…
One day I caught a few minutes of a TV panel discussing the presidential campaign (one can hardly avoid that!) They lamented that Donald Trump’s policy speech one night was overshadowed by the announcement of changes in his campaign team announced the next morning. . . . then they proceeded to focus on the “process” and completely ignored the policy! That got me to thinking about the priorities of election coverage, an issue I have addressed several times, particularly in relation to the use of poll results. See the links at the end of the article for several blogs about polling—it’s impact and an overview of understanding polling techniques—and some observations about bias.
That leads me to suggest five elements, in a rough order of priority, that describe (and may well predict) the kind of coverage of the election we can expect —primarily from television and social media, but also in newspapers (especially on the first page or two of section one).
Polling
Pouncing
Problems
Process
Policy
Not listed as a priority, but important nonetheless, is the role of pundits (to maintain the alliteration!). While a “straight” report can be biased, pundits often are selected precisely because of their bias. They enter the picture at every level, some as hosts/commentators, others as proponents for one or both candidates. To provide a “balanced” view, we typically hear from hardliners from both camps, too often ending in shouting matches over polar opposite viewpoints. Once again, conflict and energy is more important than substance.
In a mystery novel I read recently, the investigation of one crime leads the main character to a retired professor who has written the supposedly definitive history of an incident about which there has been much conflict. When asked about his work, which attempts to correct the popular “myth” about the event, the professor rhetorically asks whether the job of a historian is to illuminate or condemn. It seems to me that as far as election coverage is concerned we could use a lot more illumination.
Often, more important to public perception of the actual story, whether print or video, is the headline attached to it. Many more people will see a headline (and any picture associated with it) than expose themselves to the story.
Since the week of the Republican convention, I have been randomly checking the headlines on Xfinity’s (Comcast) home page to see what kind of coverage each candidate is getting. Next week, I will compare those stories to the priorities suggested in this post.
Previous blogs on related topics (most recent first):
Search all articles by Stu Johnson
Stu Johnson is owner of Stuart Johnson & Associates, a communications consultancy in Wheaton, Illinois focused on "making information make sense."
• E-mail the author (moc.setaicossajs@uts*)* For web-based email, you may need to copy and paste the address yourself.
Posted: September 246, 2016 Accessed 1,832 times
Go to the list of most recent InfoMatters Blogs
Search InfoMatters (You can expand the search to the entire site)
Category: Government / Topics: Bias, Distortion • Government • Information Management • Media • Opinion research • Perception • Statistics
by Stu Johnson
Posted: September 246, 2016
How the media prioritize stories about the presidential race…
One day I caught a few minutes of a TV panel discussing the presidential campaign (one can hardly avoid that!) They lamented that Donald Trump’s policy speech one night was overshadowed by the announcement of changes in his campaign team announced the next morning. . . . then they proceeded to focus on the “process” and completely ignored the policy! That got me to thinking about the priorities of election coverage, an issue I have addressed several times, particularly in relation to the use of poll results. See the links at the end of the article for several blogs about polling—it’s impact and an overview of understanding polling techniques—and some observations about bias.
That leads me to suggest five elements, in a rough order of priority, that describe (and may well predict) the kind of coverage of the election we can expect —primarily from television and social media, but also in newspapers (especially on the first page or two of section one).
Polling
Pouncing
Problems
Process
Policy
Not listed as a priority, but important nonetheless, is the role of pundits (to maintain the alliteration!). While a “straight” report can be biased, pundits often are selected precisely because of their bias. They enter the picture at every level, some as hosts/commentators, others as proponents for one or both candidates. To provide a “balanced” view, we typically hear from hardliners from both camps, too often ending in shouting matches over polar opposite viewpoints. Once again, conflict and energy is more important than substance.
In a mystery novel I read recently, the investigation of one crime leads the main character to a retired professor who has written the supposedly definitive history of an incident about which there has been much conflict. When asked about his work, which attempts to correct the popular “myth” about the event, the professor rhetorically asks whether the job of a historian is to illuminate or condemn. It seems to me that as far as election coverage is concerned we could use a lot more illumination.
Often, more important to public perception of the actual story, whether print or video, is the headline attached to it. Many more people will see a headline (and any picture associated with it) than expose themselves to the story.
Since the week of the Republican convention, I have been randomly checking the headlines on Xfinity’s (Comcast) home page to see what kind of coverage each candidate is getting. Next week, I will compare those stories to the priorities suggested in this post.
Previous blogs on related topics (most recent first):
Search all articles by Stu Johnson
Stu Johnson is owner of Stuart Johnson & Associates, a communications consultancy in Wheaton, Illinois focused on "making information make sense."
• E-mail the author (moc.setaicossajs@uts*)* For web-based email, you may need to copy and paste the address yourself.
Posted: September 246, 2016 Accessed 1,833 times
Go to the list of most recent InfoMatters Blogs
Search InfoMatters (You can expand the search to the entire site)