Horse-Race Journalism: Reporting the Polls in the 1976 Presidential Election

Reporting of public opinion polls conformed to a horse-race image of campaign reporting during the 1976 presidential election. Journalists avoided prediction, reported segments of the sample, selectively compared results, emphasized spectacles, questioned the validity of polling, made a few mistakes, and ignored certain data in their reporting. All these activities reinforced the image of elections as a sporting event. C. Anthony Broh is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Columbia University and a Research Associate in the Institute of Policy Sciences and Public Affairs at Duke University. Public Opinion Quarterly Vol. 44:514-529 ? 1980 by The Trustees of Columbia University Published by Elsevier North-Holland, Inc. 0033-362X/80/0044-514/$1.75 This content downloaded from 128.220.159.74 on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:06:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions HORSE-RACE JOURNALISM 515 strides at the quarter pole, lose momentum and slow down on the back stretch, or win by a nose because of a media blitz in the home stretch. The race is exciting to follow from beginning to end. For journalists, the horse-race metaphor provides a framework for analysis. A horse is judged not by its absolute speed or skill but in comparison to the speed of other horses, and especially by its wins and losses. Similarly, candidates are pushed to discuss other candidates; events are understood in a context of competition; and picking the winner becomes an important topic. The race-not the winner-is the story. The candidate's image, personality, staff relations, and strategy are the main foci of reporting. Furthermore, with the horse-race metaphor journalists can generate interest among voters, most of whom don't get the chance to observe the candidates in person. By reporting and interpreting events for the uninvolved electorate through an easily understood image, the mass media forge a vital link in a democracy between the people and their elected officials. Thus the seeming trivialization of one of America's greatest democratic phenomena ctually fosters the democratic process. However, the image of a horse race presents ome problems. Important issues of public policy may go unnoticed if the candidates agree on a position, and conversely, seemingly unimportant issues may receive undue attention because they fit the horse-race metaphor. For example, in 1976 Jimmy Carter's contradictory utterances about the resignation of FBI Director Clarence Kelly and his off-the-cuff statements in a Playboy magazine interview about adultery received great attention. These stories were not about issues of public policy; journalists perceived them in the framework of campaign strategy-the conduct of the race. However, they can affect he outcome. The Clarence Kelly "issue" may have influenced voters who thought Carter was "fuzzy on issues." Similarly, the Playboy interview may have adversely influenced voters who thought of Carter as a moral, Christian leader. But neither "issue" informed the voters about Carter's public policy concerns. Even the evaluation of the incumbent president's record is distorted by the horse-race metaphor. In 1976 the press presented Gerald Ford as a candidate prone to falls and spills, an image supported by a film clip of the president slipping on the stairs of Air Force One. When Ford described the people of Poland, Yugoslavia, and Rumania in the second televised debate as "free from Soviet domination," the gaffe reinforced the physical image of a stumbling, bumbling president. The statement was not consistent with Ford's two-year ecord in office; yet the story was newsworthy because it fit the horse-race metaphor. Thus the metaphor is both greatly beneficial and occasionally This content downloaded from 128.220.159.74 on Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:06:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions