![\"\"](\"https:\/\/assets.pewresearch.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/13\/legacy\/images\/image001_2.gif\")
<\/figure>\n<\/p>\n\n[1]<\/p>\n\n\n
The question for the press is this: How to cover a campaign so early, when so many candidates are competing in both parties so early, but only a limited number of citizens are paying close attention and there is still a long way to go until voting day?<\/p>\n\n
Does focusing on the game aspects of the campaign\u2014political tactics and strategy\u2014make the coverage more exciting and draw more people in to the news? Or does the \u201cgame frame\u201d appeal to a narrower news audience?<\/p>\n\n
Most citizens, whether they are following the campaign closely or not, have some clear ideas of the kind of coverage they prefer. In a new poll produced for this report by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, nearly eight-in-ten Americans (77%) say they want more coverage of \u201cthe candidates\u2019 positions on issues\u201d than they are getting. Just 17% say they want less coverage of candidates\u2019 positions.<\/p>\n\n
Smaller majorities also said they want to see more stories about second-tier candidates (55%), about debates (57%) and about sources of campaign money (55%). And another 55% was interested in more coverage of the personal backgrounds and experiences of the candidates.<\/p>\n\n
The public is more divided over stories about the where the candidates stand in the polls, the so-called horse race (42% want more stories about this topic, while 45% want less). These figures are similar to those from earlier elections.<\/p>\n\n
Those results, taken together with the findings of the PEJ-Shorenstein study of coverage, suggest the press and the public are not on the same page when it comes to priorities in campaign coverage. This disparity also indicates there is room for the press to calibrate its coverage differently to make it more useful and possibly more interesting to citizens.<\/p>\n\n
[2]<\/p>\n\n\n
What the Study Examined<\/strong><\/p>\n\n By analyzing the news of the campaign from January to May, we can see what kind of coverage the American media think the public wants and needs. The PEJ-Shorenstein study looked at five basic aspects of the stories.<\/p>\n\n First, we identified what each story was about, topic.<\/strong><\/em> Next, we identified the primary figure<\/em><\/strong> 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<\/strong><\/em>. Was it citizens? Politicians? Interest groups? Or a combination?<\/p>\n\n In addition to these measurements, the study also noted two other features for each story.<\/p>\n\n We considered what initiated the story, its trigger:<\/strong><\/em> Was it something a candidate said or did? Something from a campaign surrogate? An outsider? Or was the story initiated by journalistic enterprise?<\/p>\n\n Finally, the study measured the tone<\/strong><\/em> 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.<\/p>\n\n
\n