Hart surged after his victory in New Hampshire. But he also jumped - a a bit after his distant second place showing in the Iowa caucuses second place showing that lead to more exposure, and then, to more support. "Early Bird Journalism" - "Surprise journalism" is a possibility. "Early bird journalism" is a certainty. Even if there is no surprise candidacy hence no "surprise journalism" it is without question that the news media will give disproportionate attention to the early (earliest) phases of the process. - No matter how important the last few primaries are, no single primary in June ever attracts the attention the first caucus or primary attracts five or six months beforehand. Part of that has little to do with the media per se. New Hampshire is the first primary and is the only primary taking place that special day. On Super Tuesday in June the "old" Super Tuesday - as many as eight states may be holding primaries within that 24-hour period. So New Hampshire oets more coverage simply because it has no direct "competition" on its own primary day. But part, too, is the media's commitment to "early bird journalism," hyping whatever comes first (early) in the process. In 1976, for example, I found that New Hampshire received twice as much covergae as Massachusetts, twice as much coverage as Florida, and three times as much attention as New York. All three were, in reality, important primaries, but New Hampshire came first and that meant more "newsworthiness," even in absolute terms. More remarkable, perhaps, are the figures when one factors in the actual vote in these states. In 1976, for example, New Hampshire Democrats received 170 times as much network news attention per vote as Democrats voting in the state of New York. In 1980 we have similar figures for all the primary states (plus Iowa) and the case is crystal clear: the earlier the caucus or primary, the greater the news worthiness of the state and the greater the attention for each individual voter. In 1980, each New Hampshire voter got 50 times as much network coverage as each voter in California, 60 times more than each voter in New Jersey. Iowa did even better than New Hampshire. FIGURE THREE Three things need to be said about "early bird journalism." First, it makes some real sense for the media to give greater attention to the early states, and, of course, the states that vote "alone." Second, the candidates are "worse" than the journalists in starting early and camping out in the early states. I've had to change my mind about this over the years: The media are, in comparison, less quilty of hyping the early states than the candidates all the candidates. 80 Third, although "early bird journalism" is presently a certainty, it is also easily remedied. Political leaders and parties have it very much within their power to cope with -- neutralize - the impact of "early bird" reporting. Indeed, regional primaries or a national primary day could change the system quickly and substantially. Nevertheless, as it stands now, "early bird journalism" is a reality and it is a major factor in nominations politics. Gary Hart's case is as much a story of "early bird journalism" as anything else. Until Super Tuesday the new Super Tuesday Hart profitted from winning more of the "early bird" states, even though the vote totals were meagre. "Compensatory Journalism" "Early bird journalism" and "surprise journalism" have their critics. But neither practice is as controversial as "compensatory journalism," the tendency by the news media to treat front-runners more critically, challengers less critically, and emerging front-rummers most critically of all. In 1980 and in 1994 we found incumbents and front-runners getting a "tougher press." And "surprise" candidates did particularly badly, not at first, but as soon as the "surprise" candidate became the new front-runner. In 1934, a less than systematic review of Gary Hart's press a week after his voctory in New Hampshire shows that his press coverage became increasingly more negative as he surged in the polls. In 1980 we observed very closely the same pattern in press coverage of John Anderson. This last figure shows how Anderson's press tone shifted on CBS from very positive to very negative in two months' time, as Anderson emerged as the "surprise" candidate. What seemingly happened to Hart in 1994 did in fact happen to Anderson in 1980. FIGURE FOUR Our research also shows that Ted Kennedy was, like Anderson, very much subject to "compensatory" reporting. Doing badly in the press when he was doing well in the polls, Kennedy's case suggested that "compensatory journalism" exists for Democrats as well as Republicans. And Kennedy's press improved when it was clear that he could not win the nomination compensation again. - Four things ought to be said about "compensatory journalism:" first, the news media know full well that they do this sort of thing, indeed |