Elections/Campaigns

 

So widespread was the feeling in media and political circles that Barack Obama was about to pair his Iowa victory with a big New Hampshire win that two of the nation’s most respected papers ran headlines all but predicting the triumph.

“Obama Carries Momentum to N.H,” declared the page 1 headline on a Jan. 8 Washington Post story, which mentioned Obama “anticipating a victory” in the first sentence. The front-page headline in the Jan 8. New York Times, above a photo of a pensive-looking Hillary Clinton, read “On Eve of Primary, Clinton’s Campaign Shows Stress.’’

Heading into the Feb. 8 election, most polls and many pundits were projecting a large victory, perhaps in double-digits, for Obama over Clinton—one that could conceivably cripple her campaign. And to the extent there was an 11th hour insider buzz on the Republican side, it was that Mitt Romney seemed to be closing the gap with John McCain.

Yet the conventional wisdom was flattened for a 10-count once the citizens of the “Live Free or Die” state actually cast their ballots. While the polls on the Republican side were accurate and McCain coasted to a reasonably comfortable win, Clinton stunned the political and media establishment with a narrow but decisive victory.

Within minutes, at least some of the pundit buzz turned away from understanding the voters to gazing at the media. “Why were the polls so wrong?” wondered Fox News Channel commentator Nina Easton, speaking for the stunned cable commentariat. “Clinton Victory Makes Fools of Doubters” read the headline atop the Politico.com post-mortem. Nothing captured the sense of the moment better than the Jan. 9 front-page banner headline on The Standard-Times of New Bedford, Massachusetts: “New Hampshire shocker”

If the press got the run-up to New Hampshire so wrong, how did they cover the aftermath? What were the leading narratives coming out of the first-in-the-nation primary?

To find out, PEJ examined 90 newspaper headlines, 30 top Google headlines online, coverage on the three main cable news networks and the broadcast network morning shows, and a major political web portal. And one message trumped all others.

• Upsets and comebacks were the dominant theme of the day. Slightly more than half the Jan. 9 newspaper headlines and sub headlines stressed those ideas. “The Night of Comebacks” read the succinct front-page headline on The Bakersfield Californian. The same message was heard loud and clear on the Jan. 9 edition of ABC’s Good Morning America where the primary results were summed up with the words, “The Comeback Kids…a shocker in New Hampshire.”

• The use of the word comeback to describe Clinton seemed obvious since some of the media appeared prepared to write her political obit only 24-hours earlier. But some coverage also noted how McCain had been written off, particularly early in the year when his campaign had been hobbled by money problems and staff turnover. A PEJ study of campaign journalism for the first five months of 2007 found that McCain had received the most negative coverage of any major candidate, with pessimistic stories outpacing positive ones by a 4-1 margin. “The man who was out of it last summer is now the winner of a primary and that will allow him to go forward,” said correspondent Kelly O’Donnell on MSBNC. "At 71, John McCain surges from his summer slump as comeback kid for Republicans,” declared Harry Smith on CBS’s Early Show.

• One theme that emerged in coverage after the Iowa caucus—the election being driven by the forces of populism and change—was supplanted by a more strategic message after the New Hampshire vote. Nearly one-fifth of newspaper headlines and sub headlines hit the idea that the Clinton and McCain victories had turned both primary battles into wide open affairs. “It’s a Horse Race” declared the Rocky Mountain News. “News Hampshire Resets Races” added The Kansas City Star.

• Although there were some clear losers in New Hampshire, most of the coverage emphasized the unlikely triumphs of the winners rather than the problems of the vanquished. Headlines like this one in the Cheyenne Wyoming Tribune-Eagle—“Primary Statements: N.H. Deals Wyoming winner Romney bitter defeat: favored Obama rejected in stunning setback”—were pretty few and far between. The consensus of the commentary was that Obama remains very much alive and that Romney will get at least one more chance to do battle in the Jan. 15 Michigan primary.

To get this snapshot of the first wave of media coverage and commentary coming out of New Hampshire, PEJ monitored election night coverage on the three cable news networks--CNN, the Fox News Channel, and MSNBC. The following morning, on Jan. 9, PEJ looked at coverage on the three broadcast network morning shows—NBC’s Today, ABC’s Good Morning America, and CBS’s Early Show. PEJ also looked at the headlines and sub headlines of U.S. daily papers posted on the Newseum Web site on Jan. 9. In addition, it looked a headlines posted on Google News on the morning of Jan. 9 and 17 stories posted on the Real Clear Politics site that same morning.

The sheer magnitude of the Clinton surprise had much of the media scrambling to make sense of things. Yes, there was the exit poll data that indicated how well Clinton did among women voters, those with incomes under $50,000 and among the elderly. There was evidence that some Independent voters expected to flock to Obama may have instead taken Republican ballots to vote for McCain.

But beyond the numbers, there was an almost desperate search for the dynamic that somehow changed the race. And here the evidence was far more scant than the guessing. Indeed, the prevalence on the air of analysts and talkers—as opposed to reporters who had spent their time with voters—seemed to have reinforced the surprise.

One oft-heard theory is that Clinton humanized herself during that Portsmouth New Hampshire event where she became emotional and teary-eyed while discussing the campaign.

“It’s the tears,” snapped Fox News commentator William Kristol on primary night, searching for an explanation for Clinton’s win. “Women were sorry for her and she won.” On Jan. 9, the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd devoted an entire column, headlined “Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?” to the episode. Dowd concluded that the display of vulnerability made Clinton “more appealing…particularly to women over 45.”

Another theory that surfaced is that the media’s predictions about an Obama win and the possible end of the Clinton campaign created a backlash among New Hampshire’s famously contrarian voters. A posting on the Nation online theorized that some Democrats simply didn’t want to “feel like they were endorsing this wholesale evisceration of the Clintons.” As the pithy Jan. 9 headline on the Chicago Sun-Times noted, New Hampshire voters essentially said “Not So Fast.”

But one point on which there was less disagreement was condemnation of the press. Though what to do about it was less obvious.

And one of the most striking moments came from one of the older media figures who was widely used Jan. 8. Appearing on MSNBC on election night, former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw suggested that the media might want to re-evaluate how they spend time on the air, in blogs and elsewhere.

When MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews lamented all the problems with the New Hampshire polls and said “we’re going to have go back…and figure out the methodology,” Brokaw said, “You know what I think we’re going to have to do?”

“Yes, sir?” responded Matthews.

“Wait for the voters to make their judgment,” Brokaw declared.

“Well what do we do then in the days before the ballot?” wondered Matthews. “We must stay home, I guess.”

“No, no we don’t stay home,” countered Brokaw. “There are reasons to analyze what they’re saying….There are a lot of issues that have not been fully explored during all this. But we don’t have to get the in the business of making judgments before the polls have closed. And trying to stampede, in effect, the process.’

As much of the shell-shocked coverage from New Hampshire made clear, the process taught the press a lesson.

Mark Jurkowitz for PEJ

As the results from Iowa rolled in Jan. 3, the cable analysts grew increasingly unequivocal and bold in their analysis.

“The lead here is Obama wins,” declared MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. “The second lead is Hillary loses.”

Over on the Fox News Channel, Des Moines Register political writer David Yepsen found the state’s voters to have sent an equally loud message, but he couched it in the context of theme. “Grassroots Americans in both political parties,” the soft-spoken Yepsen asserted, “are rendering some very populist verdicts.”

After a year of relentless coverage of the earliest-starting presidential race in American history, how did the news media respond to the phenomenon of actual voting in Iowa? What was the new media narrative?

A PEJ examination of 92 newspaper headlines, and the 30 top Google headlines online as well as the six cable and broadcast networks and a major political web portal found an unusually unequivocal message—though whether that narrative survives the Jan. 8 New Hampshire primary is another matter.

• With less than usual hedging, by and large, journalists treated the nine- and eight-point wins by Huckabee and Obama respectively as clear mandates with significant implications for the rest of the campaign. As commentator and newly minted New York Times columnist William Kristol said on the Fox News Channel on caucus night: “These are two very big results.”

• The main thematic narrative in the initial burst of coverage revolved around two ideas—change and surprise. About 20% of the newspaper headlines focused on those as a key element, but it was more common in the mix of television coverage. One glaring example was the Jan. 4 edition of NBC’s Today show. Co-host Meredith Vieira declared that “Iowa’s voters came out in record numbers last night and they spoke loud and clear. They want change in Washington.” That was quickly followed by Tim Russert’s observation that what happened in Iowa “is a tremor which could become an earthquake.” In short, there was no diminishing of the significance of the victories, even for Huckabee, a candidate who only days earlier was being scoffed at by the media for making amateur mistakes and discounted for lacking funding and organization nationally.

• The press was slightly more circumspect about the implications for the losers. The damage to Romney tended to be linked to his fate in the upcoming New Hampshire primary. As for Clinton, some of the media commentary suggested that it now was up to her to retool the message. Calls of her demise, however, were scarce—though not entirely absent.

• With unexpectedly clear winners, much of the media stuck to the roll call of results. That was particularly prevalent on the front pages of the Jan. 4 daily newspapers where the overwhelming majority of headlines focused primarily on the victors. “Iowa’s Big Winners: Obama, Huckabee” declared the The (Oklahoma City) Oklahoman. About a quarter of the headlines examined also stressed the travails of the losers such as this one in The Press Democrat of Santa Rosa California—“It’s Obama, Huckabee: Stunning Setbacks for Clinton, Romney Campaigns. Biden, Dodd Drop Out.”

In order to get a quick snapshot of that first wave of media interpretation (or “spin”) following the caucus results, PEJ monitored election night coverage on the three cable news networks, CNN, the Fox News Channel, and MSNBC. The following morning, on Jan. 4, PEJ looked at coverage on the three cable network morning shows as well as the three broadcast network morning shows—NBC’s Today, ABC’s Good Morning America, and CBS’s Early Show.

(By the morning of Jan. 4, the election results were battling for time with footage of Britney Spears being loaded into an ambulance). PEJ also included the headlines and sub headlines of U.S. daily papers posted on the Newseum Web site on Jan. 4. In addition, it looked at headlines posted on Google News on the morning of Jan. 4 and 17 stories posted on the Real Clear Politics site that same morning.

Certainly, the Iowa caucuses are uniquely positioned as a media event. As the first exercise in voting in a year-old campaign, there is plenty of pent-up anticipation waiting to be unleashed on the part of political journalists. And with the busy part of the caucus and primary calendar still weeks away, the Iowa results get a long look under a powerful lens. Even so, the decisiveness of the media commentary coming out of Iowa was striking.

On Jan. 4, MSNBC’s morning man Joe Scarborough declared flatly that the results were “devastating for the Clinton campaign.” On the Fox News Channel, Kristol not only called the night “a very disappointing result for Romney,” but ventured that it was now “more likely than not” that Obama would be the Democratic nominee.

Some of that can likely be chalked to cable’s demands for instant and confident punditry. But some of that same certainty was evident in the newspapers. In a column on the Wall Street Journal site, Peggy Noonan had one basic response to the Obama victory over Clinton: It was "huge.”

The themes of change and surprise were all over the coverage. “Iowans Embrace Mavericks,” read the Omaha World-Herald headline while the Rapid City (South Dakota) Journal said simply: “A Vote for Change: Huckabee, Obama win.”

On CNN’s Jan. 4 edition of American Morning, correspondent John King drove home the same point, asserting that “in sending [Huckabee and Obama] on to New Hampshire with this huge, fresh momentum, Iowa was sending a very clear message. Iowa’s verdict is change.”

On Good Morning America, the results were described as “a seismic shock out of Iowa,” with co-host Diane Sawyer wondering how long it will “take candidates to climb on the supersonic demand for change in America.”

ABC was not the only one to think in tectonic terms. The headline atop David Brooks’ Jan. 4 New York Times column—“The Two Earthquakes”—also seized on the theme of a dramatic shifting of political fault lines.

And while journalists were quick to anoint Obama and Huckabee as the big winners, many of them also recast the Romney and Clinton campaign in more dire terms.

“Romney is in trouble,” declared anchor Harry Smith on CBS’s Early Show. “A crushing loss in Iowa and behind now in New Hampshire.” The headline in the Union Leader in Manchester New Hampshire, noted that after the Iowa results, John McCain, Clinton and Romney would “fight for their political lives in New Hampshire on Tuesday.” Describing the Democrats’ results, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution headline stated that the “Illinois Senator breaks from pack, leaving Clinton in risky spot.”

On a day when no one was shy about picking winners, and to some lesser extent losers, the headline with perhaps the most direct contrast between victor and vanquished was in the Boston Herald, a former hometown paper of ex-Massachusetts Governor Romney.

Above a large head shot of Huckabee that accentuated his resemblance to the bumbling Marine sitcom character, Gomer Pyle, the tabloid headline read: “SHAZAM! ‘Gomer’ Huckabee whips Slick Mitt.” It was a baby boomer pop culture reference that reinforced the notion that even when people are casting votes in Iowa, in Boston, all politics is local.

Mark Jurkowitz and Dana Page for PEJ

Updated September 7, 2007

Now that he has formally announced his run for President, former Senator Fred Thompson can finally behave in all ways like a candidate. He can begin to plead for votes, advertise, engage in full-fledged fundraising, and more.

But in one realm of politics—the online world where the candidates are moving rapidly, voters are flocking, and federal regulations are struggling to catch up—the change may not be so dramatic. The biggest change in Thompson's Web campaign since the announcement is a change of the url address. Formerly www.imwithfred.com, the site's new address, www.fred08.com, demonstrates a clearer purpose. Another change is that before entering the site, visitors now face an initial invitation to "join" his campaign.

Even before Thompson officially entered the race, however, the Web site of the sometime lawyer/lobbyist/politician/actor already looked and functioned much the same as those of the 17 other presidential candidates who had announced. Some critics even complained he was taking advantage of loopholes in federal law.

A detailed content analysis of Thompson’s site on the eve of his entering the race found that it was already among the most sophisticated of anyone running, and still is. It exceeds all of his GOP rivals in interactivity and was notably active in fundraising. It also clearly tries to position him as a conservative heir to Ronald Reagan.

Only one item is notably absent—and perhaps as an actual candidate Thompson may feel this has to change: To date, Thompson’s site is the only one that does not reveal where he stands on any issues.

Through August, Thompson was, in the technical language of the Federal Election Commission, “testing the waters,” an official status that limits what a potential candidate can and cannot do.[1]

Election regulations exempt anyone “testing the waters” from certain disclosure requirements, which also limit their fundraising, bar them from calling themselves a candidate and restrict them from advertising on television, radio or in newspapers. But the law has yet to be updated to reflect the digital domain, and when it comes to advertising even exempts it.[2] Much of what is forbidden in the old media Thompson’s site was doing online.

Indeed, Thompson has relied heavily on the Internet as a megaphone to generate buzz, gain supporters, and raise money. How developed is his online campaign? How does his "non candidate" Web site compare with those of the declared candidates? How do you run for president online when federal rules limit you from doing so in the conventional world?

In June, PEJ examined the Web sites of the 19 officially declared candidates.[3] The last week of August, PEJ conducted the same study of Thompson’s site. The content analysis found several similarities, including a clear fundraising operation and several volunteer opportunities.[4] In addition to not using the word President, there was also something else conspicuously lacking from only his site: where he stands on any issues facing the country.

Like those of other candidates, Thompson’s site offers several ways for potential voters to engage with him online and learn of his latest appearances. He has a collection of Web videos that he even brands under the menu heading, “FredCast.” He also has a blog, the “Fred File,” which invites user comments, usually upwards of 100 per post, though you must be a “friend of Fred” to view or post comments. He also has an active “newsroom” with press releases from the campaign and a collection of mainstream news articles focusing on Thompson’s unofficial bid for the presidency.

No presidential candidate Web site in 2007 would be complete without offering supporters a chance to get involved. And the non-candidate Thompson is no exception. The site showcases a “Volunteer HQ” among the menu options, as well as a prominent invitation to “Make It Happen.” Here, Thompson encourages supporters to “Donate to Fred,” “Raise Funds,” “Tell a Friend,” “Host/Attend Parties” and “Spread the Word.”

It is these kinds of activities that critics argue evade the rules. Lane Hudson, known for helping publicize the e-mails from former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) in last year’s page scandal, has filed a formal complaint with the FEC.

Thompson accomplished his voter involvement activities online without ever explicitly stating that he is running for president or asking for votes. He didn’t have to. Instead, the site lets his online supporters do the campaigning for him by networking with each other.

Thompson’s site is also distinguished by the fact that he uses it to help citizens register to vote. In June, when PEJ analyzed the sites of the declared presidential candidates, only four of the then-19 candidate sites offered voter registration information. Not only does Thompson offer this practical feature, but he even devotes one of his ten menu tabs to it.

Overall, Thompson’s site excels at encouraging users and potential voters to participate in the campaign. Of the six ways a site might invite people to actively participate that PEJ identified in the June study, Thompson offers five of them. People can add their comments to the campaign blog, they can organize fundraisers for Thompson, host events or parties, register to vote and engage with Thompson on social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook. He does not, however, offer an opportunity for users to establish their own separate blogs on his site. Compared with the 19 candidate sites examined in June, these offerings put Thompson in the second-highest category of user participation. Sharing that seat with Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Bill Richardson, Thompson is the only Republican whose site was that user focused.[5]

 

Number of Opportunites to Engage and Participate onWeb sites

 

It is harder to tell how successful he has been at some of these engagement activities. As of the end of August, for instance, Thompson had attracted 5,100 My Space “friends” who had signed up to interact with his non-campaign and other supporters. That number would put him at the bottom of all the candidate sites examined, ahead of just Tom Tancredo, Mike Huckabee, and former candidate Jim Gilmore. By contrast, the top social networking candidate back in June, Barack Obama, had more than 100,000 “friends.”

In dollars raised, Thompson’s numbers online are better than his social networking tallies. According to IRS reports, Thompson raised $3.45 million in June, of which nearly a quarter ($772,000) was raised online. His home page has three different places for visitors to donate or contribute, which is about the same as other candidates. Again, the difference is that the other candidates have filed with the FEC and Thompson has not.

Thompson’s site is also similar to other candidates in that it features his personal story. Thompson’s biography is broken into four sections— “Growing Up,” “The Early Years,” “Legislation” and “Fred Today”—which taken together emphasize his leadership. The five most-frequently used words in his biography are Senate, committee, American, state and Tennessee.

But unlike the Republican candidates leading in the polls, Thompson does not shy away from using the word “conservative.” In June, we found that only four of the then-11 GOP candidates even mentioned the word, all together using it just eight times. Thompson’s site, in contrast, uses it repeatedly, four different times. He also leans on former president Ronald Reagan’s popularity twice to express the conservative icon’s positive influence on his politics.

But when it came to where he wanted to take the country if elected, Thompson’s site was really just “testing the waters” and with only one toe.

In the June study, all other candidates featured—usually across the main navigation bar—Web pages delineating their position on a host of issues. Most of the candidates highest in the early polls offered their stances on six to twelve different matters facing the country. And, all 19 candidates explained their views on the war in Iraq.

On the Thompson site, issues are non-existent. The only stance Thompson articulates at all is his take on the notion of federalism. And it is referred to not as an issue but rather as a “principle.”

This may be luxury that won’t last now that Thompson has entered the race. He will now campaign face-to-face with voters and interact with journalists, both of whom may want to know what he believes and proposes to do if elected. What is changing is that Thompson’s candidacy, and perhaps his Web site, can no longer offer the promise of the alternative candidate who has not yet fully entered the fray.

Candidates and the Issues

Fred Thompson (R)
former Senator, Tennessee
http://www.imwithfred.com/

Top 5 Words in Bio

Senate

Committee

American

State

Tennessee

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fred Thompson’s site, unlike the sites of the other 17 officially announced presidential candidates, is conspicuous in that it lacks one very important word.[6] It does not mention the word “president.” That is because he is not officially running for president, and is therefore prohibited by the Federal Election Commission from advertising himself as a candidate. In all other visible and practical features, his site looks just like a top-tier presidential candidate Web site, complete with a video section, blog, volunteer opportunities, a biography, news and even “I’m with Fred,” graphic icons to download.

 

Niki Woodard, PEJ