The media & voting

Bryan Appleyard says: "newspapers do not swing voters, rather voters choose newspapers that reflect their views."
Instinctively, I agree. I've often thought writing for a newspaper is like wetting your pants - it feels hot to you, but not to anyone else.
There is, however, one piece of evidence to the contrary. In the late 90s, Fox News began to spread across the US. By comparing voting behaviour in towns with access to it to similar towns without access, economists could see whether the media affected voters. And this paper found that they did:

We find a significant effect of the introduction of Fox News on the vote share in Presidential elections between 1996 and 2000. Republicans gained 0.4 to 0.7 percentage points in the towns which broadcast Fox News. Fox News also affected the Republican vote share in the Senate and voter turnout. Our estimates imply that Fox News convinced 3 to 28 percent of its viewers to vote Republican, depending on the audience measure.

This effect might be only temporary, however. And as TV is a more powerful medium than dead trees, it gives us an upper limit to the likely influence of the latter.
Bryan suggests politicians court the press not to persuade voters, but to keep the lid on nasty stories. I suspect there's another reason. Politicians regard the media the same way D-list celebs, such as Heather Mills, do; newspapers create their identity, and it's only the press that validate (or not) their sense of who they are.

Comments

[JW]

I think perhaps it may also be the fact that with exposure to a well reasoned argument people who are on the fence about issues my be swayed to one side or the other. That was the case with Fox news IMHO.

[Bob B]

"I've often thought writing for a newspaper is like wetting your pants - it feels hot to you, but not to anyone else."

I believe the complete quotation and attribution is:

"Did you ever think that making a [political] speech on economics is a lot like pissing down your leg? It seems hot to you, but it never does to anyone else."
US President Lyndon Johnson
http://workinghumor.com/quotes/lyndon_johnson.shtml#

[Bryan Appleyard]

Thanks, Chris.I think the Fox example is interesting but not quite a counter-example. America with its city rather than national newspapers is a different environment and TV, as you indicate, is a different kind of force. I think the creating identity point is an extension of mine about nasty stories and I am sure you are right. The press is a fairground mirror and they are constantly trying to fix what they see as distortions.

[kinglear]

Do you mean to tell me you don't think it woz the Sun wot won it??

[dearieme]

What on earth has happened to your font?

[Paulie]

We both seem to have posted on this at about the same time. I've drawn different conclusions though...

http://nevertrustahippy.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-politicians-court-journalists.html

[Ken Houghton]

Bryan Appleyard appears to be of the delusion that there are mulitple choices of newspaper, and that there is a spectrum of perspective in those newspapers.

Those of us who grew up in the Midwest know better, and I would presume the areas outside of London/Birmingham/Manchester would be similar.

Now, if he (or/and Mr. Kettle) wishes to argue that the sole purpose of being appealing to newspapers is that they are used as proxies in a nationwide discussion--and that the nation ignores the large majority of its newspapers--that would not be unreasonable.

But it would also note that the issue is not the newspaper, but the general discussion, and make an attempt to mollycoddle a paper than hasn't been relevant since at least Hilda the Hippo (ca. 1990), and probably since "Paperback Writer," look even more preposterous than it is.

[chris]

Bob B - of course, I was quoting LBJ. This blog is both good and original, but the original bits aren't good, and the good bits aren't original.