By Mike Lucas, Rutgers Office of Communications 

In an age of real-time coverage and social media reaction to an ever-morphing news cycle, there’s little doubt media can make an impact on elections.

Lauren Feldman, a professor of journalism and media studies with the Rutgers School of Communication and Information, studies the effects of media in political, scientific and environmental contexts and is the co-author of A Comedian and An Activist Walk into a Bar: The Serious Role of Comedy in Social Justice.

Feldman discusses how media can affect perception and behavior ahead of an election.

RT: How does media coverage of candidates affect public perception and voter behavior? 
LF: Media coverage of candidates can affect public perceptions and voter behavior in many ways, as media are a key way that people learn about the candidates and the issues that are at stake.  

One common type of election news that can have adverse effects on voters is “horse race” or “game frame” coverage – i.e., news stories that focus on who is ahead or behind in the race, based on things like poll results, debate performance and fundraising. Research has found that horse-race coverage, while easy for journalists to produce and entertaining to audiences, can foster public cynicism and mistrust of the candidates and political process. This is because horse-race coverage portrays candidates as self-interested and primarily concerned with winning and losing rather than serving the public.  
 
By projecting who is likely to win, horse-race coverage can also reduce voter turnout if people think their vote doesn’t matter. Horse-race coverage also often lacks information about the issues most relevant to people’s lives and that could help them make informed decisions about the candidates.  

RU: In what ways can biased reporting sway the outcome of an election? 
LF: It is impossible to pin the outcome of an election on any one source of influence. That said, there are many potential sources of “bias” in media coverage of elections.  

For example, news media might give a particular candidate more coverage than others or use a more critical tone when covering certain candidates. News coverage also might disproportionately focus on policy issues or campaign events that benefit one party or candidate more than the other. In some cases, the media’s efforts to maintain balance can create false equivalencies where two candidates’ missteps are treated equally, even if one behaves more egregiously than the other. 

All of these factors can influence voters’ perceptions of the candidates. And of course, today’s media environment includes partisan news outlets, such as Fox News and MSNBC, that present a distinct political viewpoint. Although research on the effects of partisan news has found mixed results, there is some evidence that partisan news can shift people’s opinions about the candidates – especially by increasing negative opinions about the opposing party's candidate – and motivate political participation.  

In an ideal world, ethics would be front and center in media outlets’ coverage of elections. The role of the press is to serve the public interest. Thus, news organizations should keep that in mind and consider whether the content they are publishing and posting can help voters make a more informed decision or whether it is simply designed to draw attention and clicks.  

How do social media platforms contribute to the spread of political misinformation?
LF: Misinformation is not unique to social media. However, social media platforms can amplify misinformation and allow it to spread more widely and rapidly.  

The incentives of social media platforms, which are designed to maximize attention and engagement, also facilitate the spread of misinformation. Misleading content, especially when it has a partisan element, is often very effective at activating people’s emotions and getting them to “like” or share the content. This both increases the spread of the original misleading content due to social media algorithms that boost the visibility of engaging posts and motivates people to post misleading content in the future, with the hopes of getting others to engage with it.  

Social media platforms also have weak guardrails for deterring misinformation – platform rules restricting misinformation are inconsistent, and content moderation and fact-checking can be difficult to implement effectively. While misinformation is a concern, there is encouraging evidence that shows that visits to misinformation websites comprise only a tiny fraction of people’s overall media consumption. 

What role does the media play in setting the political agenda during an election campaign?
LF: Research on the media’s agenda-setting role goes back decades. By choosing to cover certain issues or events over others, the news media can elevate those issues in the public’s mind, which then makes those issues front and center as people decide who to vote for.  

For example, if the media extensively cover the candidates’ stances on immigration or abortion, the public will see these issues as more important and will be primed to consider the candidates’ stances on these issues, more so than other factors, when deciding how to vote.  

Research on the media’s agenda-setting role goes back decades. By choosing to cover certain issues or events over others, the news media can elevate those issues in the public’s mind, which then makes those issues front and center as people decide who to vote for.  

What impact do political ads have on voter decisions? 
LF: Research on political advertising suggests that ads can have various effects on voters. For example, they can increase knowledge about the candidates. They can persuade voters to support a particular candidate, although the persuasiveness of campaign advertising depends on many factors. Advertising can also help motivate a candidate’s supporters to turn out to the polls.  

Most of what is known about the influence of political advertising is based on television advertising. Political advertising is becoming more complex and harder to track in the digital media environment, as ads can be finely targeted to voters based on demographic and even psychographic characteristics.  

What are the ethical considerations for media outlets when covering elections?
LF: In an ideal world, ethics would be front and center in media outlets’ coverage of elections. The role of the press is to serve the public interest. Thus, news organizations should keep that in mind and consider whether the content they are publishing and posting can help voters make a more informed decision or whether it is simply designed to draw attention and clicks.  

It’s also important that news organizations don’t simply serve as a public relations tool for the candidates and that they appropriately scrutinize candidates and their policy positions. 

Learn more about the Journalism and Media Studies major on the Rutgers School of Communication and Information website. 

This story originally ran in Rutgers Today on October 1, 2024.

Photo: Courtesy of Lauren Feldman