From the data, it actually seems the non horse-race coverage is quite neutral in that neither Obama nor Romney gained a clear advantage in the coverage (August 27-October 21).

"Throughout the eight-week period studied, a good deal of the difference in treatment of the two contenders is related to who was perceived to be ahead in the race. When horse-race stories-those focused on strategy, tactics and the polls-are taken out of the analysis, and one looks at those framed around the candidates' policy ideas, biographies and records, the distinctions in the tone of media coverage between the two nominees vanish. With horse-race stories removed, 15% of campaign stories about Obama were positive, 32% were negative and 53% were mixed. For Romney it was 14% positive, 32% negative and 55% mixed."

As you said, it will be interesting to see the full report though. I was kind of wondering how they coded for positive/negative/mixed tone. There's almost always some disceprancy in these coding schemes (one coder says its positive while another says its negative).

I mean I know it's about average... however what i wonder is... was the horse race stuff the only modifier?  Or did it balance out because the race shifted.  If you get what i'm saying..

Do you mean there might have beeen other non-horse race coverage affecting the tone? .

This is definitely possible, but how do you quantify something like tone?

Don't get me wrong, Fox News is a safe haven for conservative-minded citizens and MSNBC is a refuge for liberal-leaning citizens, and both spend an ugly amount of time participating in the political process instead of reporting on it. But how do you measure tone?

Also, it's possible that the high number of "negative" or "positive" stories corresponds to the actual frequency of positive and negative actions and reactions on the campaign trail.

Well what i mean is... I wonder if you adjusted for horse race coverage, if the numbers would be a "straight line".

Or when Obama was up if he received additional poisitive coverage that wasn't horse race related, and now after the first debate and things have shifted, did he receive additional negative coverage.  With the results between Obama and Romney balancing because of the debate change.

Essentially, you have researchers who read/watch news stories, and they then code the stories as having a positive, negative, or mixed tone for each candidate. They usually do it by counting the number of positive and negative statements in each story, and then coding the story accordingly. Its hardly a fool-proof practice, but it can generate some meaningful conclusions.

As for your last statement, that is why they separate horse-race from non horse-race coverage.

Oh, I could see that being the case although I would expect it to be more neutral than the horse-race coverage. While there is limited data, there does seem to be a clear difference between the horse-race and non horse-race coverage.  If I had to guess, I think it would be a straighter line with some fluctuation about the mean.

Thanks for your response. Based on these statistics, it seems like this horse-race effect is quite common, and quite destructive to, and distracting from, substantive news coverage. Frankly, it appears to transform the news from a source of information into a source of entertainment.

What are your thoughts, GameOver?

I think the media likes to generate viewership, and the fact is that the day-to-day up and downs of the campaign trail are more exciting than the true story, which is that campaigns don't matter much. As to the destructive nature of horse-race journalism, I think its more of a symptom rather than the problem. The modern 24-hour news cycle tends to focus on a plethora of issues and addresses each one sparingly rather than focusing on in-depth analyses of a couple issues. You also see this with print media (declining budgets leads to less investigative journalism). Campaign coverage fits nicely into this cursory coverage and generates interest while doing it.

Well, that's my take on it. : )

Talking about media in elections.... looks like we're gearing up for 2016 campaigns, already. Fox News has already started talking 2016:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/04/as-2012-campaign-nears-finish-2016-lurks/

It's interesting that Presidents now have to spend their entire term in campaign mode, thanks to 24hr news, and the likes of social networking.