The Nightly News Nightmare: Media Coverage of U.S. Presidential Elections, 1988-2008
The whole media world is changing dramatically, but the problems stay the same-too much horserace and bias, too little substance and policy. Our national news watchdogs, Steve Farnsworth and Bob Lichter, use bark and bite to show us the truth. (Larry J. Sabato, University of Virginia)Praise for Second Edition: Farnsworth and Lichter conclude that their data point to a devastating failure on the part of major television networks' news programs on every dimension analyzed. The networks have limited candidates to eight-second sound bites, reduced the quality and quantity of election coverage, and thus shortchanged the candidates and the voters. Recommended [for] lower-division undergraduates through faculty and professionals. (CHOICE)Praise for Second Edition: No one has more interesting, high-quality data on media content than the Center for Media and Public Affairs. Now, Farnsworth and Lichter use almost twenty years' worth of that data to provide a fascinating picture of how American television has covered the last five presidential elections. Of all the contemporary books on media and presidential elections, this is the best of them. (William G. Mayer, editor of The Making of the Presidential Candidates 2004)Farnsworth and Lichter’s update of their now-classic tome on media coverage of campaigns is another tour de force. Their inclusion of the 2008 presidential campaign, a singularly significant campaign in terms of media role, particularly in the context of recent presidential campaigns, documents the dramatic shifts in media role over the past 20 years. They offer a gold mine of data for political scientists studying media electoral trends. They also provide a compelling argument for traditional media reform, particularly as traditional news organizations meet the challenge of the Internet. (Richard Davis, Brigham Young University)Praise for Second Edition: This book is a powerful reminder that network news coverage of presidential elections remains shockingly inadequate and inaccurate. The authors' evidence from content analysis leaves no doubt about their alarming conclusions. Read it and weep, and press for reforms! (Doris A. Graber, University of Illinois at Chicago)