The Role of Media in Choosing Our Candidates for National Office: Student Projects

Ask The Candidates

"I asked some (1992) candidates . . . questions about the media. All of the candidates I asked said it (the media) was an enormous factor in (their campaigns). They all said that the media either helped win or lose their election. I also asked them if they were well represented. The candidates whose election was big, said yes that they had a lot of coverage, while (candidates for) the smaller and not as meaningful to as many people elections, said there was little or no coverage.

Another question I asked the candidates was whether or not they thought a certain group or party was favored and received more ink. . . When asking a Republican he would say the Democrats received a lot more print and that the Republicans were not as well represented. But when I asked Democrats, they would say that the Republicans were better represented and got a lot more ink. So they (contradicted) one another.

A question I also asked the candidates, was whether or not they thought the incumbents received better coverage. They all seemed to agree that incumbents had more ink, because they were always in the news, but sometime it hurt them if it (the coverage) upset people.

A big question I asked them was, if they thought the media was fair to them or if it brought out only the bad things? Some of them thought the media did a good job. Most of the ones who thought this were the candidates running for the first time, while others said the media was always saying bad things, or finding fault. . . . Most of the time it was the incumbent who thought this. I think they do that because we are always watching them because they are in office and are the center of attention.

I also decided to get the view of the media. I wanted to find out who they decided to cover or how they decided to cover the candidates.

I first asked how they decide who to cover. They said that they try to cover all the candidates and to not cover one more than another. They don't decide by party or by who is favored or by who the incumbent is, although the incumbents often get more ink because he or she is making the news. . .

I also asked, how often . . .a candidate (was covered). They (the media) said they cover happenings of the incumbent all year round, but only the challenger is covered right before election time.

I asked why it is that the media is accused of covering one candidate more than another. They said that a lot of people say that, but most of the time it's just an excuse as to why the person lost. The media gets blamed for all kinds of things that happen; usually the bad.

I think the media (plays) a very important role in the election. In fact, I think they are the reason that a lot of candidates win." WI

"After contacting a couple of local officeholders and combining their opinions with my own, I have come to the conclusion that there is a problem with the role the media is playing. My two contacts, Ron Volesky and Pat Haley, both agreed that the media really does spend too much time trying to dig up dirt." SD

"Bob Packwood, Senator in Oregon, is now going through a sexual harassment scandal. I called Nancy Peterson, a state representative in Oregon, and asked her about invasion of privacy and exploitation. She said that any candidate running for office should expect to have an invasion of privacy." OR

"Locally, Rhea Jezer, defeated by Jim Walsh for the Congressional seat in this district, when asked if she thought she received equal media time stated that 'the incumbent always has an edge while a contender has a harder time.' Scott Byerel, political correspondent for Channel 9 news, when asked the same question said, 'For the most part candidates received equal media distribution though some reporters tend to lean a bit to the left.'" NY

"In an interview that I had with a past senate candidate, Richard A. Stokes, I gathered that not all information gained by the media is shared with the public. He said that, during his campaign, he felt that the press only covered and printed what they wanted to. . .

Mr. Stokes stated that one of his campaign speeches was covered by the media yet never was shared with the public. He also claimed that, in a newspaper article, some of his statements had been altered. He said the statements were similar, but they had been tampered with enough to receive new meanings. . .

According to Mr. Stokes, some candidates have relatives or close friends who are members of boards that help to make the media's decisions on what to cover and what to share with the public. These people have enough power to pull coverage of their friend's or relative's opponent. . .

There is a large possibility that the media is biased. I came to this conclusion after interviewing four people over the age of 30 and by reading much information about the candidates for Congress from my area since 1985. After finding all of the candidates who ran for Congress since 1985, I constructed a survey. I listed all of the candidates' names and asked what, if anything, could be remembered about them. I was rather shocked to find out that only the winning candidates were remembered. The losing candidates from the most recent election were, in most cases forgotten.

This piece of information aroused my curiosity. I wondered why these losing candidates were so easily forgotten. Weren't their campaigns covered by the media? I wish I could answer this question. After skimming through many newspapers that were published around election time, I gathered that very little or no information was available to the public about these candidates. It is no wonder that all the candidates elected to Congress from my area have already been elected to Congress at least once before.

I tried contacting a local newspaper to ask them how they chose which stories to cover and why did some of the candidates have little or no coverage, but I was unable to reach anyone who could answer my questions. I did some more searching, but was not fortunate enough to find an answer. . .

I did, however, find. . . (a letter 'to the editor' accusing the media of bias). . . I concluded from my survey that others agreed with this man's accusations. Many of them stated that they wished they knew more about the candidate." PA

"While getting research for this paper I had to contact some of the local candidates. During my brief interviews with the candidates they all said the same thing. The media plays a big role, a bigger role in the national elections but they still played a part in their races.

The media has a funny way of changing words around to make it seem more interesting for the public. The candidates said that they granted all interviews requested by the media but saw why a candidate running for a national office would decline some members of the media. . .

As I found out by talking with some members in the media, getting an interview can be very difficult if it is with a controversial candidate. If a reporter is lucky enough to get an interview with one of the national candidates, they rarely tell you anything the media doesn't already know. This reaction by the candidate is one of fear. If he gave an open-hearted interview he would read about it in the paper the next day. Some of this information would be what the candidate thought would stay between him and the reporter." OR

"On November 13, 1992 I interviewed Missouri Congressman Mel Hancock regarding his personal media views. . . . The media knows scandal sells, according to Congressman Hancock. He said that 'a candidate should publicize his own campaign and not worry about publicizing his opponent's campaign.'" MO