Presidential candidates have criticized the press since the days of Thomas Jefferson, with claims of media bias for one party or another being a recurring campaign complaint. In focusing on the presidential campaigns of 1984 and 1988, this study provides a comprehensive analysis of media bias in two particular elections as well as for presidential campaigns in general. Stempel and Windhauser have collected more data than in any previous study, and they have included newspapers, network television news, and news magazines in their evaluation. Their thorough analysis of the content and slant of each item provides a clearcut picture of just what the media covered and how the coverage differed when an incumbent was not running.
The study is based on news items collected from 23 sources in the three media, covering the Labor Day through Election Day period of both campaigns. Seventeen elite newspapers, including the New York Times, Wall Street Jourbanal, Washington Post, and Chicago Tribune, had their election coverage analyzed, as did the three major television networks and the three general news magazines, Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report. Each news item was classified by which candidate it primarily concerned, whether it was favorable, unfavorable, or neutral, and what major issue the story dealt with. The findings are presented in three separate chapters that focus on the different media, with additional chapters offering analysis of newspaper editorials in the two campaigns and the results of a telephone survey on public attitudes toward coverage. A final chapter provides a concluding look at the press, politicians, and the public. This comprehensive study will be an important reference for courses in political science, jourbanalism, and American history, and a valuable addition to public and academic libraries.
