The Media, the Campaign, and the Message

Abstract

This article examines the 1996 press releases issued by Republican presidential nominee candidates during the invisible primary and the subsequent stories generated by these press releases in newspapers. We systematically examine how campaigns structure their messages, which messages are transmitted by the press to the voting public, and what factors influence the transmission of the campaign's message. We find that campaign organizations disseminate a variety of messages to the media. Our analysis demonstrates that national media organizations are most receptive to informative (logistical) messages disseminated by candidates who are at the head of the field and most hostile to substantive (issue-oriented) messages regardless of their campaign of origin. By contrast, the state press is most open to substantive messages issued by lower-tier candidates. It appears from our results that the media, more than the campaign, bear the responsibility for the emphasis on the horse race.We focus our analysis on the role of both media norms and routines and the campaign process itself in shaping the campaign information environment. Determining which campaign messages are more likely to reach the public through the news media provides insight into the effect each of these institutions has on the election process; specifically we should arrive at a better understanding of how campaigns and news organizations interact to structure the campaign agenda. In the next section we discuss the theoretical underpinnings and research pertaining to the nature of campaign messages, media norms and routines, and the interplay between them. Theory and Evidence The Invisible PrimaryThe collapse of the primary season has made the invisible primary 2 an increasingly critical period for campaigns. It

The Tea Party Movement, Framing, and the US Media

“…With the onset of the primary elections, however, media slid into horse-race mode: election coverage concentrating on who is ahead in the race for votes and money while largely ignoring issues and policies (Flowers et al, 2003), which Lawrence (2010) calls the 'game frame'. Eventually, the media grew overwhelmingly reliant on the Election Impact Frame, relegating the frame contest to background noise.…”

What’s in a Name? Coverage of Senator Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic Primary

“…To examine other factors that may affect how newspeople name the candidates, we also provide the following ancillary hypotheses. First, previous literature has shown that a candidate's coverage is partially dependent on his or her electability and standing in polls (Flowers, Haynes, and Crespin 2003;Ridout 1993;John 1989). Candidates who poll well garner better coverage than candidates who poll poorly and have little chance of winning.…”

Tell Us How You Feel: Emotional Appeals for Votes in Presidential Primaries

“…While the political psychology literature makes clear the powerful role that emotional appeals can play on a variety of forms of mass political behavior and public opinion, scholars of campaign communication have been slow to fully appreciate their influence. Instead, attention has more often gone to the candidates' issue agendas (Conway et al, 2015;Conway-Silva et al, 2018;Flowers et al, 2003;Hayes, 2010;Hayes & Lawless, 2016;Scott, 2021aScott, , 2021bVavreck, 2009), tone (Payne & Baukus, 1988;West, 2010), traits (Seifert, 2012), appeals to American values (Hart, 2000), and attacks on rivals (Benoit, 2007;Benoit & Rill, 2012). While these subjects are undoubtedly important, the content of candidates' emotional agendas has been relatively underevaluated (but see Borah, 2016;Brader, 2006;Jerit, 2004;Ridout & Searles, 2011).…”