Is Three A Crowd?

By Ann Jacob
aj180312@ohio.edu

Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson.
Photo Credit: Molly Riley, Getty Images

Does Gary Johnson ring a bell? Increasing so. Jill Stein? Probably not. The media typically chooses not to give coverage to third party candidates, even in presidential elections.

Gary Johnson "Aleppo" Confusion

Last week, Trump's trip to Mexico and campaigning in Phoenix took center stage on every news outlet, including CBS News. But despite last night's "Commander in Chief" forum, Gary Johnson hooked a homepage story on CBS. Titled "Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson: "What is Aleppo?", CBS focused on Johnson's slip during an interview with MSNBC's "Morning Joe" panelist Mike Barnicle.

Multiple media outlets covered the mess-up but it begs the question: Is Gary Johnson only getting attention for his mistakes? The news media has to focus on the the big issues, of course, but it begs the question of how much success or failure can come to a candidate due to a certain mistake. Nonetheless, if the quote, "There's no such thing as bad publicity," is true, CBS's coverage of Johnson's snafu could end up helping to shoot him into the spotlight.

Despite far less coverage for third party candidates, CBS News has been giving Gary Johnson some decent air time. Johnson and his running mate, Bill Weld appeared on CBS This Morning yesterday. An interesting note about this morning show piece was that before the candidates came on, anchor Norah O'Donnell had to give a brief overview of the parties goals. Sure, the majority of the American public knows the basics of the Democratic and Republican platforms and not much of others. However, if news outlets across the board gave equal coverage to third party candidates, there would be no need for explainers this close to November 8th.

"Commander in Chief" Forum

Last night's "Commander in Chief" forum garnered immense media and public attention. All major outlet's (minus MSNBC) dot coms lead story was about the forum. While CBS's top story, "Hillary Clinton: Donald Trump is a "gift for ISIS"" was eye catching, the story itself seems biased toward Clinton. Despite multiple outcries that moderator Matt Lauer was too soft on the two candidates, both Clinton and Trump still had major points that were not outlined in the article. The entire article focuses on Clinton's attacks and a few of her policies.

Coming from CBS, it was slightly surprised to only find one other article on the forum, talking about about both Trump's and Clinton's policies on war and the military. This story shed a more equal light on the candidates, yet still held a certain "entertainment value" that would be important for consumers not enveloped into this election. In addition, the stories video clip focused on Trump's attacks on Clinton which gave a better balance to CBS's top story.

Lastly, although Lauer roasted Clinton on her internet server, it was refreshing to not see that on CBS's front page considering the answers shed no new light on the subject. Whereas some may consider this another bias to Clinton, more may see this a sound editorial choice not to publish a story that has already been so regularly covered by the media.

A Brief History of Third-Parties and the Question of Proportional Coverage

Leander Edmiston
Le930612@ohio.edu


When I look up Jill Stein in the New York Times archives of the last seven days I get 23 results. Many of these mentions are hidden in stories about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, with headlines like “Clinton Says She Won't Go to Mexico Before Election Day.” When I look up Donald Trump in the same archive I get back over 360 results.

Despite our founding fathers advice the United States has never supported a three party system. The last independent presidential candidate to have a significant effect on the presidential election was Ross Perot in 1992, with 19 percent of the popular vote. Before him was George Wallace, the Governor of Alabama and popular segregationist who fed on racial fears; he garnered 13.5 percent of the popular vote and 46 electoral votes. The most significant third-party candidate was Teddy Roosevelt running for a third term in office. Roosevelt would amass 27.5 percent of the vote and 88 electoral votes. Those are the monuments of a relatively bare third-party history. Most third-party candidates don’t receive electoral votes, and in the last years candidates like Ralph Nader and Bob Barr have received less than one percent of the popular vote.

Average polling numbers for the four major candidates | realclearpolitics.com 

Today, Green and Libertarian party candidates Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are finding popularity among a growing number of voters who are unhappy with the leading candidates. Real Clear Politics, an aggregate of national election polls found the average popularity of Johnson nearly double from 4.5 percent in June to 8.6 percent in September. But that still doesn't meet the the required 15 percent laid out by the Commision on Presidential Debates (CPD) which would get Johnson on stage with Clinton and Trump in the first presidential debate this month.

In a recent op-ed by the Guardian Jill Stein feverishly calls into question the democracy of a two-party system and the ethical implications of an election run by private corporations like the CPD, which currently refuses to publish its funders or sponsors. Stein is responding to a recent Suffolk University/USA Today poll that showed 76 percent of voters want third-party candidates who are certified on a majority of ballots, like Stein and Johnson, at the national debate. However the CPD continues to bar alternative parties and even admitted in 1987 that they support the exclusion of third parties. Stein believes that the CPD created the 15 percent rule after Jesse Ventura narrowly won the governorship in Minnesota after polling 10 percent in 1998. Stein believes the 15 percent rules serves as an artificial barrier to stop any future upsets like Ventura’s.

If we’re to examine the third party's relationship with the media then it’s important we understand its history and standing among the American public. The Media and the CPD, which are closely linked, are ignoring 76 percent of voters who want a multi-partied election, the kind of election we haven’t seen in decades. Gary Johnson is polling at 8.4 percent, but when I look him up in the Wall Street Journal archives fewer than ten articles have mentioned him in the last seven days. The Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog, recently examined 1,713 stories about the 2016 election that ABC, CBS and NBC aired on their evening newscasts. The study found that Trump received 1,773 minutes of coverage, and Clinton received 1,020 minutes. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein received less than a minute of coverage - .03 percent of airtime.

 

If the mass media truly represents the political landscape then, in theory, shouldn’t political coverage of a candidate be proportional to their popularity with voters? Shouldn't the polls and coverage have some sort of correlation? Right now they don’t, but taking steps like The Guardian, and providing a platform for candidates like Jill Stein is the right way forward. If the mass media continues to refuse and misrepresent the public then we must begin popularizing alternative resources. So the next time you check the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal or even The Guardian pull up an independent new source like Common Dreams or The Blaze, who consistently feature third-party candidates alongside major candidates on its front page.

Fox News- Is Election Coverage Equal?

Stephen Olson

so070712@ohio.edu

Trump Foundation Seal

When most people hear the phrase “election bias” they mostly think of Donald Trump. This does not mean that people support Trump as a result of the media bias against him, but rather the constant news coverage of Trump can’t be denied or ignored. Many people also associate Fox news with a bias against Clinton, though like anything else, examples can be found that disprove the theory. One recent Fox News headline reads “Hillary Clinton and the undisputed media bias against her”

While Clinton is often times recognized as the candidate who works financial loopholes, there may be some evidence that Trump has been playing the same games. While Trump does not have a foundation near the size of Clintons, he does still have a foundation that is capable of doing some of the fraudulent actions that Clinton’s foundation was. Between September 1^st and 4^th the LexisNexis database found that the Trump Foundation was mentioned 20 times to the Clinton Foundation’s 680 times, 34 times the amount of coverage.

The Washington Post originally aired the story in March, leading many to wonder how Trump’s story could have picked up so little airtime when it seems Clinton’s Foundation is a daily discussion in the media. My belief is that Trump was able to avoid the media circus on his foundation due to the fact that he is constantly making news and in the spotlight daily, while Clinton seems to be missing-in-action and out of the spotlight for extended periods at times.

Being constant in the media can obviously hurt you as a candidate in a plethora of ways, but as Trump has proved time and time again before, owning the media circuits seems to have a large number of benefits. The media has a hard time digging into any of the more suspicious parts of Trump’s history, mainly because they are trying to keep up with the news he is putting out and creating daily.

The argument is that due to the fact that Clinton’s emails brought on no criminal changes, even after being investigated, so the story should be dropped. Nobody feels the press is easy on Trump, but many feel the press is ignoring their civil obligations by not deeper investigating Trump’s business and foundation record.

While most believe that if anything the press is out to get Trump, there are a select few of strong Clinton supporters who truly feel their candidate has been the victim in this election cycle, instead of the other way around. The feelings of remorse have even prompted a team of Clinton supports to come up with “The medias five rules against Hillary Clinton.” Rule #2 states “Every allegation, no matter how ludicrous, is believable until it can be proven completely false. And even then, it keeps a life of its own in the media conservative world. While Fox News may not be exactly “fair and balanced,” they were in this instance giving attention to the opinions of Hillary supporters.

If Looks Could Kill, We'd Have No Presidential Candidates

Zahara Pruitt
zaharapruitt@aol.com

This week has been a whirlwind for The Washington Post.

Presidential Candidate Donald Trump lifted the ban on media outlets whose coverage he thought was unfair. This ban, of course, was extended to the Washington Post. Media outlets such as BuzzFeed, the Huffington Post and Politico were included in this group. Trump told CNN that he lifted the ban because he figured "they can't treat me any worse."

This statement literally caused me to chuckle when I first saw it. Of all the reasons that Mr. Trump could've said to try and gain some rapport back with the media, he chose to say this. Statements like these by Presidential Candidate Trump seriously make me question what his PR team is doing. I'm not even a PR student; however, I can see clear as day what a good opportunity this was to change the dialogue from being THE MEDIA VS. TRUMP.

The Washington Post also jumped on board with several other news outlets in being very critical of journalist Matt Lauer in his 30 minute interview with Mr. Trump on prime time television Wednesday night.

However, they went about this approach in a different way. Instead of overtly criticizing Mr. Lauer, they mentioned the obstacles that all journalists who will work as a debate moderator this election season will have to overcome. These obstacles include, but are not limited to, having difficulty controlling the debate, making sure they are fact-checking are pointing candidates out when they are in fact lying and facilitating a meaningful debate without clashing with the candidates.

Lauer received a lot of criticism specifically for not calling out Mr. Trump when he said that he was "totally against the war in Iraq". Lauer did not press Mr. Trump at all on this even though much of the 30-minute conversation centered around Iraq and Mr. Trump was repetitive in asserting this claim. More of the interview can be seen here.


 The Washington Post also posted an interesting, lighter satirical piece about Hillary Clinton's wardrobe. The headline of the article reads "How Hillary Clinton can get that 'presidential look'". When I first saw this headline, I immediately though "oh gosh, here we go again with another piece criticizing the female presidential nominee's choice of outfits and not her policies", but upon actually clicking on the piece I was pleasantly surprised.

The piece is a satirical take on a comment that Mr. Trump made in an interview on Sept. 6 where he said "Well, I just don't think she has a presidential look, and you need a presidential look." The article looks at most of the US Presidents that we've had over time and points out things like "brushing all of you hair in the wrong direction" and "only having one tooth" being a necessity in order to achieving 'the presidential look' that is so necessary according to Mr. Trump.

The Washington Post also wrote a compelling piece this week about wording that Mr. Trump used to brag that he's used his money to buy off politicians before, "just not this time." I think that says a lot about Mr. Trump's somewhat shaky character and morals.

Once again, Washington Post coverage for the week leaned more in Trump's favor if you do believe the old saying that any press is good press. He dominated the front page of the website and the sheer number of articles that are being pushed by the Post are about Mr. Trump.

MSNBC: The Coverage Seems To Even Out

Jackie McCrea
jm059212@ohio.edu

Maybe it is because the race is getting closer, but the coverage MSNBC offered this week seems to be a bit more even on both sides.

 The traditionally liberal news outlet surprisingly released less stories bashing the Republican nominee, Donald Trump this week. In comparison to last week, this is a major change. In fact, in comparison to most liberal news outlets, MSNBC is practically leading the pack when it comes to evening out the coverage.

An explanation for this could be the release of the latest polls which projected Trump ahead of Clinton among those currently in the military or recently retired veterans.

 It is hard to spin a story one way or another when there are polls involved. However, the image (acquired from this article) still showed the democratic nominee pulling ahead overall. Of course, it makes sense that these polls would be put side by side, but surely a news site traditionally more conservative would not project Clinton ahead overall. Generally, polls are trustworthy, but it is important to notice that different news outlets provide different polls projecting the candidate they favor in the lead.

Still, for a news network traditionally on the democratic side, seeing this article was a bit surprising especially because other liberal news media outlets do not seem to be doing the same.

However, MSNBC also released an article backing Clinton among the military which explained that many army generals have thrown their support behind her. This article was much less thorough and only featured a quote from General Lloyd who claimed he "had a moral imperative to come forward and support Secretary Clinton."

Through MSNBC's homepage the coverage does appear to remain pretty level, offering coverage to both candidates and featuring few pieces that bashed either of them. Of course, when one takes the time to scroll through the top stories, some anti-Trump editorials will appear, but for the most part the homepage seemed to offer both candidates an even amount of space.

The videos below show each candidates point of view on major Commander-in Chief issues. One major thing missing from a lot of the latest news coverage has been the layout of each candidate's position on major issues. Luckily the article that contained the videos below did just this.

As previously discussed, Americans value the platforms of candidates and perk up when they actually get the chance to hear a candidate, uninterrupted, discussing their views. This week MSNBC did a much better job of presenting this side of the presidential race.

Most news media outlets tend to claim that they are unbiased, but most of us know that is never the case. This week it was refreshing to see both candidates represented and their points of view actually published. Sadly, many Americans may not even know either candidate's take on major issues because the media does not tend to focus on that. I have to commend MSNBC on their featured articles this week. Because the election is getting closer and heating up it is time to start focusing on the issues!

CNN: Explain That To Me

Justin Holbrock
jholbrock2@gmail.com

The world of American politics is complex. From the Constitution, to the Electoral College and the checks and balance system, democracy in the United States is far from simple.

Unfortunately, the complexity inherent in U.S. politics turns many citizens away because they don't understand how the system works and don't have time to learn the details on their own.

That brings me to the theme of this post — helping American voters understand this election. While trying to figure out what I wanted to write about, I noticed how fairly easy CNN Chief National Correspondent John King was making it to understand why the latest CNN/ORC poll showed Donald Trump topping Hillary Clinton 45 percent to 43 percent.

King, who was on Anderson Cooper 360° at the time, played a crucial role by explaining how the numbers came about.

He pointed out that the two candidates were so close in the poll for several reasons. One reason was that voters viewed Trump as a better candidate when it came to handling the economy with a 15 percent lead over Clinton is this category.

Another reason was the other 15 percent gap between Trump and Clinton on the topic of who voters think is more trustworthy and honest with Trump having 50 percent favor to Clinton's 35 percent.

Hillary Clinton and Senator Tim Kaine on the campaign's new charter plane in Cleveland on Monday. Photo credit: Sam Hodgson for the New York Times.

By pointing this out, King added another element to this CNN show, which is guilty of bringing on way too many guests at one time as I mentioned last week. He also did the viewers a favor by helping them understand the polling aspect of the general election.

A similar approach to explaining the poll was done by CNN Political Director David Chalian:

The insight King and Chalian provided was supported by CNN's online coverage, which delved even deeper into the numbers to help the audience be more informed.

The article goes into detail about which demographics favor Trump and which favor Clinton. An example used in the story is that independent voters give Trump a 20 percent edge while non-whites favor Clinton by a four-to-one margin.

While the article's goal was to show how the numbers played out and explain how Trump erased Clinton's lead, it also considered the broader picture. The article included the fact that 59 percent of voters expect to see Clinton win while only 34 percent think Trump has a better chance.

This important fact, placed strategically at the top of the article, is there to balance the reaction people may have when seeing Trump now leads Clinton after he trailed by eight percentage points following the two major party conventions.

What You Need To Know
A second area where I found CNN simplifying its coverage to benefit the viewer was by going to journalists out in the field. These reporters came on a show after hearing a candidate speak and highlighted what should be taken away from Clinton or Trump.

One example would be a reporter going live from North Carolina to summarize Trump's appearance by saying he focused on three things: national security, repealing ObamaCare and building the wall.

Meanwhile, the reporter who spent time on Clinton's plane brought up her biggest points, which were remarks on Trump ranging from his flawed national security plan to him not releasing his tax returns.

Be Careful Relying on One Source
While it's incredibly beneficial to the viewer to have CNN explain their poll both on television and online, it shouldn't be the only place people go for their information.

The CNN/ORC poll interviewed 1,001 Americans over the phone, which is what led to the results they found. Taking a closer look, though, shows the poll can be interpreted in different ways depending on what areas are being looked at and can also be skewed.

Parting Thoughts
CNN's effort to help the public understand the election through detailed analysis and simplistic yet comprehensive field reporting should be commended. But it should also be expanded upon. There are still too many people on one show at any given time and a return to simplicity is in the best interest of the people CNN serves.

It should also be noted polls that come from a news source should not be taken as gospel. Although polls from a source like CNN/ORC are reliable and provide helpful insight, they should be viewed knowing that there are many different ways to interpret what they mean and the final numbers are based on who was interviewed in the first place.

BBC concerned and confused about American election

By Derek Smith
ds599012@ohio.edu

Seeing a narrowing field due to recent polls, the BBC are starting to see the possibility of a Trump a more likely reality. The narrative has changed, it is no longer about Trump winning the election, but rather Clinton losing it.

The political struggle in America rings true in the United Kingdom, which recently separated from the European Union, where debate has exposed many similar issues in the isles. Shortly after the results of the Brexit poll were announced, Donald Trump began labeling himself as "Mr. Brexit" seeing a similarity between that movement and his own.

While the BBC tends to focus their coverage on Trump, much of this coverage is negative. While the BBC hasn't fully endorsed Clinton, the content on their election coverage would make it appear they are fearful of a Trump presidency. Articles attempt to understand where Trump's voter base comes from, what their desires are, and what it means for the American political process. 

It's clear to foreign observers that dissatisfaction with the status quo has led to candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump's surprising rise during this election, however the volume of dissatisfied voters has surprised them. The polling data, which has evened out recently, suggests that Clinton's vicotry is less of a sure thing than it was a few weeks ago. In an article the general feeling of this election is summed up in this sentence taken from a BBC article, "Whether this is a reflection of Mrs Clinton's weaknesses as a candidate or Mr Trump's unconventional appeal, the reality is the race could still tip towards the Republican if something breaks his way."

photo courtesy: Slate.com

Just looking back to Trump's Mexico visit, the BBC was amazed by not only the visit itself, but Trump's rally in Arizona later that day that was widely publicized. While the BBC thought that Trump was starting to cool his rhetoric, only to see his old character appear once he was back within the United States. 

Each time Trump does something to garner media attention, regardless how they feel about his statements, the BBC devotes coverage to him. Even when there is Clinton news, it often comes as a rebuttal to what Trump has said. Simply looking at one article, "Five Clinton nightmare election scenarios" the apparent perception of the election is that Clinton should win unless she messes it up for herself. 

His stances counter to the Republican norm has astounded reporters across the world, but for the BBC to have a man so unconventional at the helm of the most powerful nation in the world is a worrying thought. While the United Kingdom would like to view itself as independent from the world, they are heavily wrapped up in American affairs. Should he win the presidency Trump would effectively be shaping policy for not only his country, but those the America deals with, this would mean that British would have to learn how to negotiate the new world.  

This coupled with the fact that the BBC doesn't truly understand where his voter base is coming from, has made BBC coverage seemed confused on how to handle a candidate they brushed off as a fringe candidate during the primaries.