Content Analysis

1. Title of the study:

“A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan
Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy”

2. Proponent/ Researchers:
Stephen Farnsworth and Robert Lichter.

3. Statement of the Problem/ Sub-problems:

First, we identified what each story was about, topic. Next, we identified
the primary figure the story was focused around. Was it a particular candidate, a
group of candidates, or others? Third, we examined who was affected by what the
story was about, impact. Was it citizens? Politicians? Interest groups? Or a
combination? In addition to these measurements, the study also noted two other
features for each story. We considered what initiated the story, its trigger: Was it
something a candidate said or did? Something from a campaign surrogate? An
outsider? Or was the story initiated by journalistic enterprise? Finally, the study
measured the tone of each story. Within its frame, was the story predominantly
positive, negative or neutral about the candidates or their electoral prospects? In order
to fall into the positive or negative category, two-thirds or more of the assertions in a
story had to fall clearly on one side of that line or the other.

4. Assumption/ Hypothesis:
• Just five candidates have been the focus of more than half of all the coverage.
Hillary Clinton received the most (17% of stories), though she can thank the
overwhelming and largely negative attention of conservative talk radio hosts for
much of the edge in total volume. Barack Obama was next (14%), with
Republicans Giuliani, McCain, and Romney measurably behind (9% and 7% and
5% respectively). As for the rest of the pack, Elizabeth Edwards, a candidate
spouse, received more attention than 10 of them, and nearly as much as her
husband.

• Democrats generally got more coverage than Republicans, (49% of stories vs.
31%.) One reason was that major Democratic candidates began announcing their
candidacies a month earlier than key Republicans, but that alone does not fully
explain the discrepancy.

• Overall, Democrats also have received more positive coverage than Republicans
(35% of stories vs. 26%), while Republicans received more negative coverage
than Democrats (35% vs. 26%). For both parties, a plurality of stories, 39%, were
neutral or balanced.

• Most of that difference in tone, however, can be attributed to the friendly

coverage of Obama (47% positive) and the critical coverage of McCain (just 12%
 positive.) When those two candidates are removed from the field, the tone of
coverage for the two parties is virtually identical.

• There were also distinct coverage differences in different media. Newspapers

were more positive than other media about Democrats and more citizen-oriented
in framing stories. Talk radio was more negative about almost every candidate
than any other outlet. Network television was more focused than other media on
the personal backgrounds of candidates. For all sectors, however, strategy and
horse race were front and center.
5. Research Methods used:

Qualitative Method is the method that used.

6. Summary of the Findings/ Conclusions and Recommendations:

The 2004 PEJ study examined theme-based stories, rather than all topics of election
coverage. Even here, in a narrowed range of stories, politics accounted for more than half
of the coverage.
Another study that focused on the primary campaign season was of network evening
television coverage in 2004 conducted by Stephen Farnsworth and Robert Lichter. Their
work showed an even higher percentage, 77%, of the primary season election stories
were focused on horse race issues and only 18% were focused on policy issues. Stephen
J. Farnsworth and S. Robert Lichter. 2007. The Nightly News Nightmare: Television’s
Coverage of U.S. Presidential Elections, 1988-2004. 2d ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Marion R. Just, Ann N. Crigler, Dean E. Alger, Timothy E. Cook, Montague Kern, and
Darrell M. West 1996, Crosstalk: Citizens, Candidates and the Media in a Presidential
Campaign. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1996.

<http://www.journalism.org/node/8191 January 20, 2011>