The Connors Forum Is Now the Connors Institute at Shippensburg University!
Plus: Michael A. Deas on "front-runners" and new Outrage Overload episodes.
The Connors Forum has now officially become the Connors Institute for Nonpartisan Research and Civic Engagement at Shippensburg University. You can visit us at ConnorsInstitute.org.
We will continue to be aggressively nonpartisan and continue working to disseminate high-quality, nonpartisan information to the American public around issues of societal well-being, democracy promotion, and news literacy through our podcasts (Utterly Moderate and Outrage Overload) and this newsletter.
We will also now begin onboarding research fellows to increase the research output at Connors, and begin holding events both on Shippensburg University’s campus and in the wider Shippensburg community.
One such event will take place on November 14th from 6:00 - 7:00 pm on campus in Stewart Hall, the “Interactive Inequality Experience,” where attendees will learn about their own personal poverty risk, the risk within their neighborhoods and communities, and more.
Dr. Charles E. Patterson, president of Shippensburg University, on the new Connors Institute:
“We are excited to welcome the Connors Institute for Nonpartisan Research and Civic Engagement at Shippensburg University. The work of the institute and Dr. Eppard are of great value to our students, faculty and staff, but more importantly to our collective society. With unprecedented political discourse and a great need for unbiased and evidence-based knowledge, the Connors Institute can provide a path forward for those seeking to see the return of civility within our democracy.”
We hope you not only continue to support our podcasts, Utterly Moderate and Outrage Overload, and this newsletter, but keep an eye out for our future research reports and community events!
When Declaring Early Front-Runners, the Media Should Use Caution
by Michael A. Deas
With few exceptions, most journalists and pundits frequently use phrases such as “the front-runner” and “a statistical dead heat” out of context while covering political campaigns like horse races. The casual usage of language deprives voters of the depth of knowledge they need to make informed decisions at the polls.
So far, this year’s coverage appears to be no different from the past.
For instance, when former President Donald Trump announced late last year that he will run again for the White House, most news organizations quickly anointed him as the 2024 Republican front-runner.
The problem with this reference is that Trump is not the front-runner per se, even though mainstream media tend to use poll data, name recognition, and fundraising records as yardsticks to determine the leading candidate.
But technically, it is premature to declare any candidate as the front-runner until voters begin casting their ballots in the caucuses and primaries. When describing political contenders as early front-runners, it is preferable to use qualifiers such as “presumptive,” “prospective,” “potential” or “appears to be,” to avoid confusion.
A Bandwagon Effect
The New York Times advises its journalists against using the expression carelessly because it can “influence an election by creating a bandwagon effect,” according to its style manual.
Given that voters normally take their cues from the media about potential outcomes, they may decide to skip the polls if they believe their candidates have a high chance of either winning or losing, according to researchers who wrote a paper on probabilistic forecasts published in The Journal of Politics.
David Greenberg, a professor of history and media studies at Rutgers University, stated on Boston’s WBUR that the polls are not “always wrong” but that they “are not always reliably right,” either.
Studies have shown that well-designed polls can yield accurate and useful information, but there are experts who question their validity, given that the typical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
According to the Pew Research Center, pollsters faced significant criticism after the 2020 general election.
The Washington, D.C.-based nonpartisan think tank reported that pre-election polls indicated, “Joe Biden would win, and he did but not by as large a margin or in as many states as polls led people to expect.”
As in previous races, in two notable contests held in the last 20 years, the media prematurely and repeatedly labeled one of the candidates as the “front-runner.”
Misguided Prognostications
Prior to the Democratic Iowa caucuses in 2004, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean was widely projected as the front-runner. However, he abruptly became an also-ran after losing unexpectedly to Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who later secured the party's presidential nomination.
Four years later in Iowa, a similar situation played out involving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton who was regarded as “the undisputed front-runner” before finishing third behind North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and first-term Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who would go on to become the Democratic nominee and eventual U.S. president.
In both instances, the national media outlets were wrong in their prognostications.
There are exceptions to the rule, however. In 2015, Clinton, the then-former U.S. secretary of state, was labeled as “the prohibitive” front-runner upon announcing her candidacy, and she kept that status through the primaries, earning a presidential run against Trump. Though she was the front-runner in the popular vote, that was not the case in the electoral vote that Trump won.
Additionally, other expressions such as “a statistical dead heat” are often misused during political coverage—when, in fact, the correct usage should be “neck and neck.” It must be noted that a contest only qualifies as a dead heat when it ends in a tie. In contrast, neck and neck refers to a close contest in which at least two contenders have an equal chance of winning.
An MSNBC clip from 2020 serves as one example of how the term was regularly misused by multiple media outlets during the presidential campaign.
Despite the news media’s crucial role in our democracy, the general public has growing and legitimate concerns about accuracy and thoroughness.
67% Cite Misinformation
The Pew Research Center’s Katerina Eva Matsa and Lee Rainie report that Americans' trust in the media continues to decline, with about two-thirds citing misinformation as the primary source of confusion and a threat to democracy.
“When we ask, ‘Do you trust the news media?’ And, a lot of people answered ‘no’ to that question,” Rainie said in a video explainer. “But then to unpack that idea, and Americans are equally comfortable sort of saying ‘Yes, I really like, and I really trust some sources but not others.’”
The Connors Institute offers a guide to trustworthy news sources to help people navigate the media environment.
To change the narrative from being seen as a source of confusion and mistrust, journalists must not throw out words and phrases randomly and thoughtlessly as the consequence undermines their credibility.
New Outrage Overload Episodes!
See information about this episode here.
See information about this episode here.