Dear Rita Skeeter: 2020 election coverage needs to focus more on policy over controversy

Covering politics can be one of the hardest jobs for journalists — politics are inherently divisive in America, every word said about a politician is intensely scrutinized and journalists’ portrayal of political candidates can have a significant impact on the results of the election.

During the 2016 election, all of this was intensified to an unprecedented degree — the presidential candidates were more divisive than ever before and journalists’ daily hot takes on the smallest moments of each campaign were a significant driving force throughout the run-up.

The media failed Americans in 2016. Candidates’ appearances and scandals were at the forefront of news cycles, instead of the policies they’d implement if they were elected. Too much coverage focused on the horse race — who led polls, who didn’t — and too many predictions about who would win were made (of course, nearly everyone in the media was ultimately wrong about the election result). Journalists, in the name of objectivity, fell into the traps of “both sides” arguments.

The 2020 election cycle is upon us, and news media organizations need to make sure they don’t fall into the same traps they did while covering the 2016 election.

To start, news media organizations need to reform the tone and content of their coverage. According to the Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, 71% of news stories about the 2016 presidential nominees were negative — a result of a steady increase in negativity since at least 1960.

By covering elections as such, voters are no longer thinking about what candidate they want to see representing them in office — instead, they’re forced to consider which candidate they hate the most.

Journalists might say the negative coverage isn’t their fault — it’s the candidates’ personal problems and problems within their campaign. But that argument ignores the pattern of increasing negativity the Shorenstein Center found.

Negativity comes not from who the candidates are, but from the types of stories journalists choose to cover. The Shorenstein Center reported that in 2016, 42% of election stories focused on the horse race and 17% focused on controversies. Only 10% of election coverage was about candidates’ policy positions.

Controversies are usually inherently negative stories, and horse race coverage tends to focus on how campaign moves will (negatively) affect the respective candidates. If the news media shifted its focus toward policy stances instead, not only would the tone of coverage become more balanced, but it would also serve voters better.

The purpose of democracy is to give citizens the ability to select a candidate who will effect change in the areas citizens care most about. When candidates’ actual policy matters are reduced to the general views of the party they are affiliated with, voters are unable to decide who they’re voting for based on which candidate will actually address their needs as citizens. In 2016, the lack of policy coverage meant voters were largely making decisions based solely on party affiliation, the candidates’ personalities and the  controversies surrounding them.

When 2020 comes, the media needs to make a concerted effort to focus coverage on policy stances instead of horse race and controversy politics.Furthermore, journalists need to reframe their coverage of elections to avoid “both sides” journalism. Objectivity is one of the first cardinal rules taught to budding journalists — it’s the duty of journalists to report stories accurately and fairly.

But when it comes to elections, covering something “fairly” can be reduced to getting statements from each campaign, then presenting them together with equal weight.

Whenever President Donald Trump was embroiled in scandal during the 2016 election, his supporters would use “What about her emails?” as a defense — often equating major, consequential scandals to what should’ve been a relatively small controversy. Just because Trump and his allies brought it up so often, Clinton’s email scandal was blown out of proportion and reduced the amount of scrutiny Trump’s numerous scandals should have received from the media.

In 2020, the media needs to ensure that its coverage isn’t controlled by what candidates say, but rather focuses on keeping candidates independently accountable and prioritizing coverage of their policies.

2016 was a mistake for the news media and many lost trust in outlets they previously relied on; 2020 is an opportunity for journalists to rebuild that trust and redefine political reporting as trustworthy and informative.

Karan Nevatia is a sophomore writing about media ethics and literacy. His column, “Dear Rita Skeeter,” ran every other Thursday.