It’s Time To Look the Horse-Race in the Mouth

As the 2020 presidential primaries creep ever closer, it seems like a swarm of journalists appear ready to condemn the offenses domestic media outlets will apparently recycle from their coverage of the 2016 presidential race, while others bare their joy and excitement at the sound of the political starting pistol. 

For all this diversity of opinion, horse-race coverage on candidate’s likeability and gaffe-capacity seem to steer political discussion, whereas their policy proficiency and political literacy occupy a backseat. Bar graphs and roundtable speculation may appear glamorously informative or as a necessary use of journalistic access, but the oversaturation of these practices diminishes the integrity of news reporting and damages the democratic methods of election as a whole.

I wouldn’t dream of denying news outlets the adrenaline rush accompanied by a close watch of public opinion trends. However, the supposition of Politico’s senior media writer, Jack Shafer, that without horse-race reporting, “coverage would come to an endless series of policy white pages that nobody reads” is a rather vilified approach to the value of political discourse (2019). This attitude is precisely why coverage so rarely denies the drama of controversy and instead shuns the relevancy of policy proposals.

Regardless of who you believe should have been sworn in January of 2017, the election coverage the year prior was substantive in everything but substance. An analysis conducted by the Columbia Journalism Review’s Duncan J. Watts and David M. Rothschild reveals that “only five out of 150 front-page articles that The New York Times ran over the last, most critical months of the election, attempted to compare the candidate’s policies, while only 10 described the policies of either candidate in any detail” (2017). 

This is an appalling deficit. It feels as though pundits and journalism elites spend their waking hours enraged because of America’s low voter efficacy, yet neglect their responsibility to perpetuate and heighten quality debate amongst voters. 

Horse-race coverage ironically reduces readers to spectators. Without legitimate policy coverage, we’re left to regurgitate the projections made by political talking-heads. Rather than giving voters the opportunity to improve their understanding of legislative nuances or candidates’ policy proposals, horse-race journalism leaves us standing in an indiscernible tide of public opinion polling and pundit speculation.

As entertaining as it is to see Joe Biden let [Freudian] slip that “poor kids” are just as bright and talented as “white kids,” candidate faux pas don’t deserve to monopolize print space that could be used to help millennials decide which candidate can support an economy or run a country. 

Institutions that tout a commitment to informing the public, or champion phrases like “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” shoulder the responsibility of clearing the dust partisan commentators inevitably stir up when the race begins, and the articles they print should reflect that acceptance.

Having little but candidates’ most laughable moments, controversial statements or national likeability to decide who might be most qualified to balance the gradation of holding a public office is absurd satire. Democratic elections require an informed public, and horse-race journalism only serves to perpetuate the idea that the details don’t matter, that the office of the presidency only requires a newsworthy personality and a grandiose sense of self-importance.

So, as we get closer to 2020’s Iowa caucus, we’re cracking open our refreshments and listening for the loudspeaker to tell us who to watch for. Press editors are brushing off their running shoes and gearing up for a race that is riding a tumultuous wave of public discourse brought on by the political paradigm shifts of 2016. But despite the inevitable excitement we all feel, it may be in our collective best interest to ignore the white noise and to practice some restraint when the first shot rings out across the nation in February.

Taelor Candiloro is an undergraduate transfer to the Anthropology department at USU focusing her study on American ways of constructing meaning. Her desire to travel has led her to live in four states over the past three years, and allowed her to expand her understanding of American communities. Her interests include writing about and researching politics, public policy, the American identity and studies in the humanities.