






































Microsoft Word - journal commonwealth 2007 FINAL 0307.doc


 

 45 

What’s Local about Local Television News? An 
Analysis of 2004 Election Coverage by Philadelphia’s 

Local Television Stations 
 

Matthew Hale 
Seton Hall University 

 
Because capturing and analyzing local television news 

broadcasts is difficult, most research on campaign coverage by 
local television stations centers on a single candidate race and a 
limited number of news broadcasts. This article expands existing 
research by examining all prime time election coverage by 
Philadelphia’s four network affiliates in the final 30 days of the 
2004 campaign. These stations virtually abandoned coverage of 
local and statewide races in favor of the presidential contest. Most 
coverage focused on campaign strategy rather than issues, but 
there is little evidence of direct bias favoring either Democrats or 
Republicans. Although stations generally ignored nonpresidential 
elections, they gave a fair amount of coverage to the mechanics of 
voting, which may provide voters with valuable locally based 
election information. 

 
Political communication scholars are divided, often bitterly, 

over the potential effects of television news on citizen engagement, 
knowledge, turnout, and voting behavior. For many years, the 
groundbreaking work of Patterson and McClure (1976) held sway 
and the conventional wisdom was that television news had virtually 
no effect on voters. More recently, the strength of this minimal 
affects position has declined and a host of empirical studies have 
suggested that the media can influence citizen attitudes and 
behavior (Ansolabehere and Iyengar, 1995; Entman, 1992; Finkel 
and Geer 1998; Gilliam and Iyengar, 2000; Goldstein and Freedman 
2002; Graber 1997 and 2001; Iyengar and Kinder 1987; Just, 
Crigler, Alger, Cook, Kern, and West 1996; Shaw 1999; Valentino 
1999; Wattenberg and Brians 1999). Much of this work is based on 
studies of network news broadcasts. This focus is primarily one of 
expedience. Since network news airs once a night and can be 
captured in any part of the country, it is simply easier for scholars to 
analyze network news instead of local TV news. 



 

 46  

Scholars are beginning to recognize the importance of local TV 
news. For example, Althaus, Nardulli, and Shaw (2002, 2) bluntly 
state, “Studies of the elite national news media ignore the simple 
fact that local news broadcasts are now the average citizen’s 
primary source of information about presidential campaigns.” This 
contention is supported by several surveys from the Pew Center 
indicating the centrality of local news as a trusted information 
source.1 Snider (2000) highlights the importance of local news with 
his contention that an archive of local news would be a public good 
and, as such, Congress should mandate the creation of a national 
archive of local news programs similar to Vanderbilt University’s 
archive of national news programs. 

Since Congress has not done so, researchers interested in local 
news and campaigns are forced to limit what local news content 
they capture and analyze. This happens in at least three ways. First, 
researchers concentrate on a single, often presidential, election 
(Bartels 1988; Beck, Dalton, Greene, and Huckfeldt 2002; Finkel 
and Geer 1998; Iyengar and Kinder 1987; Shaw 1999, Just et al. 
1996). Second, the few researchers (Carter, Fico, and McCabe, 
2002; Just et al. 1999) who attempt to examine multiple races are 
forced to limit their research to single news broadcasts (e.g. the 5:00 
p.m. broadcast but not the 11:00 p.m. broadcast). Third, researchers 
completely ignore stories that focus on the process of the election 
(e.g. voter registration deadlines and locations of polling places). 
These “voter information” stories are comparatively prevalent on 
local news broadcasts. All these strategies present methodological 
problems. 

Over 40 years ago, Bernard Cohen argued that the media do not 
tell us what to think; they tell us what to think about. Following 
Cohen, it is reasonable to suggest that comparative balance or 
imbalance in the quantity of coverage about different elections 
signals voters about the comparative worth of those elections. For 
example, a lack of coverage about one U.S. House race tells voters 
that they do not need to think about it, just as blanket coverage of 
another U.S. House race signals voters to pay attention to this one. 
Research focusing on a single race cannot speak to this fundamental 
point. 

In addition, focusing on a single race assumes that the 
qualitative aspects of news coverage, such as bias, are uniform 
across elections. Yet there is no reason to believe that a television 



 

 47 

news organization will act with this type of consistency. It is clearly 
possible that a local television station may favor a Democrat in a 
U.S. Senate race and favor a Republican in the Presidential race. 
Again, research focusing on a single race can not address this point. 

It is not surprising that research on local television news centers 
on candidates; that is, after all, what research on network news 
does. This focus, however, ignores stories about the process and 
mechanics of the election itself, stories that are in fact more likely 
to occur on local television stations than on network news (Kaplan, 
Goldstein, and Hale 2004). In addition to being more prevalent on 
local news than national news, these “voter information” stories 
often provide voters with information directly relevant to the 
situation they will face when they go to the polls. For example, 
local television stations can report on local voter registration 
deadlines, polling place locations, and the time and place of local 
events related to the upcoming election—stories that network news 
does not report. In addition, local news can report on specific and 
local instances of voting irregularities or potential difficulties in the 
local voting process in a way than network news cannot. 

As a result, there is no reason to believe that these voter 
information stories are irrelevant and without influence on voters’ 
perceptions of the election. In fact, it seems reasonable to suggest 
that a story highlighting a local nonpartisan voter information 
forum might leave voters with a generally positive view of the 
election and their ability to participate in it. Conversely, a story 
highlighting acrimonious lawsuits over the implementation of 
electronic voting machines might leave voters with a more negative 
impression. Just as the balance in the quantity of coverage about 
individual elections may signal voters about which elections are 
important, the balance in noncandidate stories may help signal 
voters about the value of participating in the election at all. 

The first goal of this article is to provide a more complete 
picture of election news coverage by examining news coverage of 
all races and all election related stories across multiple news 
broadcasts. The key research questions include: what is the 
quantitative balance of coverage across multiple races? Are there 
qualitative differences in coverage of different races? What types of 
noncandidate election stories exist, and how might these stories 
influence voter’s opinions of the election? 



 

 48  

Obviously, the answers to these questions are largely 
descriptive. Even so, they are important because they further our 
understanding of how voters within a media market actually 
experience election news coverage. For example, it seems 
reasonable to suggest that voters watch entire (if not multiple) 
newscasts every night and not (as researchers generally do) single 
stories about one election. As a result, voters experience one part of 
election coverage (e.g. presidential election stories) not in a vacuum 
but in connection with other parts of election coverage (e.g. stories 
about other races and about the electoral process generally). By 
describing how the different “parts” of an election are covered in 
relation to each other, we are better able to understand how voters 
experience (and perhaps understand) both the parts of an election 
and the election as a whole. 

 

The Philadelphia Media Market: Size and Competition 
 

The Philadelphia media market provides an interesting case 
study because in 2004 it was an example of a large media market 
with many competitive elections. This combination is significant 
because the size of the Philadelphia market would suggest that 
presidential coverage would be much more prevalent than coverage 
of local elections. Yet, the number of competitive down-ballot races 
in the Philadelphia market would suggest that coverage between 
presidential and nonpresidential elections would be more balanced. 
Examining election coverage in Philadelphia helps inform our 
understanding of the relationship between these two variables. 

 
The Size of the Philadelphia Media Market  

 
The Philadelphia media market is the fourth largest media 

market in the country. It reaches across 18 counties and three states. 
Eight of the 18 counties are in New Jersey (Atlantic, Burlington, 
Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer, and Salem). 
Eight of the counties are in Pennsylvania (Berks, Bucks, Chester, 
Delaware, Lehigh, Montgomery, Northampton, and Philadelphia). 
Two of the counties are in Delaware (Kent and New Castle). 
Because of its size and cross state reach, the TV stations in 
Philadelphia generally have more elections to cover than almost any 



 

 49 

market in the country.3 In addition to the 2004 presidential race, 
voters in the Philadelphia DMA participated in more than 155 
nonpresidential races. These included one U.S. Senate races, six 
other statewide offices, 15 Congressional races, 19 state senate 
races, and 113 state assembly races.4 This total does not include the 
hundreds of local races for city councils, mayors, and law 
enforcement officers in the 18 counties. 

Researchers have been unable to make comparisons between 
local news reports in multiple markets. Nonetheless, it is reasonable 
to speculate that larger media markets may provide less coverage of 
local elections than do smaller markets inasmuch as the percentage 
of a station’s viewers that can vote in a particular race is higher in a 
small market than in a large market. However, ownership and 
operation of all the affiliate stations in large markets by the major 
media companies (ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC) may also contribute 
to a lack of coverage of local elections because reporters at these 
stations are more directly linked to, or perhaps identify more with, 
national journalists. Consequently, coverage of the presidential race 
and perhaps the U.S. Senate race can be expected to dominate 
election news coverage on Philadelphia’s television stations. 

 
Electoral Competitiveness in Philadelphia 

 
Clearly market size is not the only factor in determining what 

gets covered. A second variable is the presence of competitive 
elections. Philadelphia is an interesting case study in 2004 because 
in comparison to most places in the country, a number of races in 
the Philadelphia area were thought to be competitive or at least 
interesting. Pennsylvania was considered to be a crucial swing state 
in the presidential election, and towards the end of the election there 
was indication that New Jersey too might be competitive in the 
presidential race. The Pennsylvania Senate race was characterized 
by the Cook Political Report5 as “leaning Republican,” indicating 
some degree of competitiveness. Voters in the Philadelphia DMA 
cast ballots in six other statewide races.6 Of these, four were open 
seat races, which are generally characterized as less certain than 
elections with incumbents. In addition, three of the 15 U.S. House 
races7 held in the DMA were thought to be at least somewhat 
competitive.8 Given that a total of just 24 U.S. House races were 
characterized as even marginally competitive in 2004,9 the 



 

 50  

Philadelphia DMA accounted for 13% of all U.S. House races 
characterized as leaning Democratic or Republican in the country. 
While this may be a comment on the lack of competitiveness in 
U.S. House races in general, it does suggest that in comparison with 
other media markets, Philadelphia has its share of interesting U.S. 
House races. Given that local television station managers and news 
directors routinely argue that elections would receive more 
coverage if more of them were competitive, it would seem 
reasonable to expect that Philadelphia might provide a significant 
amount of coverage to nonpresidential elections. 

In short, the Philadelphia media market is interesting because 
we have two competing hypotheses about how the city’s stations 
might balance their election coverage between presidential and 
nonpresidential elections. Discovering which one is correct is the 
second goal of this article.  

 
Methodology 

 
This article is based on a larger study of 44 stations in 11 media 

markets2 conducted by the Norman Lear Center at the University of 
Southern California and the NewsLab at the University of 
Wisconsin. While the 11 media markets in the full study were not 
randomly selected, they account for 23% of all television viewers in 
the country. In addition, the 11 markets are geographically diverse 
and somewhat politically diverse. There is also variation in the level 
of electoral competitiveness within the 11 markets at both the 
presidential and down-ballot levels. The full study examined over 
8,000 hours of news coverage and almost 7,000 news stories, 
making it one of the largest studies of local television news ever 
conducted. 

 The ability to capture and analyze election coverage across 
multiple races and broadcasts is made possible by the unique media 
capture and management system created at Wisconsin’s NewsLab. 
The process is divided into four distinct phases: capture, clipping, 
coding, and archiving. In each market, computer servers capture 
entire news broadcasts and transmit the content electronically to the 
University of Wisconsin. Once they arrive in Wisconsin, broadcasts 
are clipped into individual news stories and coded for primary focus 
(elections, crime, health, foreign policy, etc.). Election stories are 
then sent to individual computer work stations for coding. Highly 



 

 51 

trained coders watch and code each election story directly on a 
computer screen. Specially designed software prevents errors in 
logical consistency. For example, if a coder says the story concerns 
only a gubernatorial race but enters the name of a U.S. Senate 
candidate into a soundbite field, the story is automatically returned 
to a supervisor to check and correct any errors. When coding is 
complete, the stories are automatically sent to a digital archive 
available at www.localnewsarchive.org. Users of the archive can 
search the video database on a host of items including keywords, 
story subject, station, market, and date aired.  

This article is based on a detailed analysis of the 580 election 
news stories aired by the Philadelphia affiliates of the four major 
networks (CBS, NBC, ABC, and Fox). As in the larger study, all 
stories aired during prime time (5:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.) between 
October 4 and November 1, 2004. All stories in Philadelphia were 
examined by three trained coders. Intercoder reliability was 
measured using Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach 1951) and was greater 
than .83 on all but one variable; and in the case of primary story, 
focus was above .90. The one exception was the variable called the 
“average campaign manager score,” which is described in a later 
section. The initial reliability measure indicated an intercoder 
agreement of .77. Although some scholars find this acceptable 
(Nunnally 1978), other argue that intercoder agreement should be 
greater than .80 (Krippendorff 1978, Tinsley and Weiss 2000). To 
err on the side of caution, a project supervisor reviewed all stories 
where the three coders were less than unanimous and made a final 
determination, thus insuring adequate reliability on all measures. 
Basic descriptive elements of each story—such as date aired, 
station, and story length—are automatically determined during the 
clipping process described above, so reliability measures are not 
necessary on these variables. 

 
Comparing Philadelphia 

 
The first step is to compare the Philadelphia media market with 

the 10 other markets in the larger Lear Center Study. The results 
show in most respects that the stations in Philadelphia covered the 
2004 election somewhat differently than the other stations in the 
larger study. For example, the Philadelphia stations covered the 
election a bit more frequently than did the other 10 markets. Seven 



 

 52  

out of 10 broadcasts captured in Philadelphia contained at least one 
election related story compared with slightly more than six out of 
10 in the other markets studied.10 One possible explanation for this 
difference is that stories in Philadelphia were on average 13 seconds 
shorter than stories in the other markets. The Philadelphia stations 
aired more stories about the presidential race and fewer stories 
about local races than did the other markets. In addition, 
Philadelphia stations gave significantly more attention to campaign 
strategy and the “horserace” and less attention to campaign issues 
than did the other markets. The stories on Philadelphia stations 
included a candidate soundbite somewhat less frequently than did 
the stations in the other markets, but the difference was not 
statistically significant. There was no difference between 
Philadelphia and the other markets in the average length of a 
candidate soundbite. Table 1 contains these results.  

 
 

Table 1 

Overview of  2004 Election Coverage 

Study Sample (all newscasts at 
5:00 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. aired 
between October 4 and November 
1, 2004) 

10 
Markets* 

Philadelphia 

Number of local television 
stations 

40 4 

Total hours of news programming 8,070 596 

Total number of local news 
broadcasts 

4,035 298 

Total number of campaign stories  6,441 580 



 

 53 

*The 10 markets include New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, Miami, Tampa, 
Orlando, Denver, Seattle, Des Moines, and Dayton (Ohio) 

 
 

Comparing Elections: Quantitative Disparities  
in Race Coverage 

 
Given the importance of the office and the overall 

competitiveness of the race, it is not surprising that presidential 
coverage trumped coverage of local and even statewide races in all 
11 markets studied in 2004. That Pennsylvania was considered a 
crucial swing state caused both presidential candidates to spend a 
great deal of time in the state, and specifically in Philadelphia, so it 
is not surprising that the presidential race received a great deal of 
coverage by Philadelphia’s stations.  

These facts, however, do not make the dominance of the 
presidential race in Philadelphia any less striking, especially given 
the presence of other competitive races in the market. For example, 
not only did the Philadelphia stations devote significantly more of 
their stories to the presidential race than did stations in the other 10 
markets, but they also devoted significantly more of their election 
coverage to the presidential race than did stations in other 
presidential battleground states (Dayton, Ohio; Des Moines, Iowa; 
and Miami, Orlando, and Tampa in Florida). Presidential stories 
made up 59% of the stories in these five markets compared to 76% 
of the stories in Philadelphia.11 

Overall, the Philadelphia stations aired a total of just 30 stories 
focused on nonpresidential candidates. Of these, 16 focused on the 
U.S. Senate race,12 and just 11 stories focused exclusively on U.S. 

Variables 10 Markets* Philadelphia t test 

Percentage of 
broadcasts with 
at least one 
campaign story 

63% 70% T= 2.45 (347), 
p=.014 

Average length 
of a campaign 
story 

87 seconds 75 seconds T= 4.48 (702), 
p=.000 

Percentage of 
stories about 
the presidential 
race 

60% 76% T= 8.59 (722), 
p=.000 



 

 54  

House races.13 The remaining stories focusing on nonpresidential 
candidates included a single story about the Attorney General race, 
one story about the Delaware gubernatorial race, and one story 
featuring a state senate candidate who was only marginally related 
to the election.  

One way to put these results in perspective is to compare the 
total amount of news time captured with how much of it focused on 
these races. Out of almost 600 hours of news time captured, a total 
of slightly more than 13 minutes of coverage focused on the U.S. 
Senate race and just 12 and a half minutes focused on any U.S. 
House race. The total amount of air time devoted to all 
nonpresidential candidates was just 28 minutes and 24 seconds. In 
comparison, Philadelphia’s stations devoted a total of nine hours 
and 45 minutes of election coverage to the presidential race. This 
means that presidential candidates received 95% of all the candidate 
centered air time on Philadelphia’s stations.  

In addition, presidential candidates received 90% of all 
candidate soundbite time aired by Philadelphia’s stations. While 
this is still dominant, it is slightly less than the overall percentage of 
air time devoted to presidential candidates, suggesting a slight 
tendency on the part of Philadelphia’s stations to show 
nonpresidential candidates speaking more often than presidential 
candidates. Even so, the difference in soundbite time remains 
staggering. Presidential candidates were given a total of one hour 
and 47 seconds of speaking time, compared to a total of seven 
minutes and nine seconds of speaking time for all nonpresidential 
candidates.  

Overall, these results suggest that a typical voter would have to 
be fairly vigilant to see, let alone learn, anything about a 
nonpresidential election by watching Philadelphia’s local television 
news. Clearly, one of the strongest signals sent to voters by 
Philadelphia television stations was that the presidential election 
was the only thing that mattered, or to paraphrase Cohen, the only 
candidates to “think about” were those running for president. Table 
2A contains these results.  

 
 
 
 



 

 55 

Table 2A 
Quantity of Presidential and Nonpresidential Coverage in 

Philadelphia 
 Presidential election 

stories (n=440) 
Nonpresidential 

election stories (n=30) 
Quantity of Coverage 
Total air time  9 hours, 45 minutes 28 minutes, 24 seconds 
Percentage of 
candidate centered air 
time 

95% 5% 

Candidate Soundbites  
Total soundbite time 1 hour, 47 seconds 7 minutes, 9 seconds 
Percentage of all 
candidate speaking 
time 

90%  10% 

Average length of a 
candidate soundbite  

12 seconds 11 seconds 

 

Comparing Elections: Qualitative Similarities 
in Race Coverage 

 
It is fairly clear from the previous section that Philadelphia 

stations all but ignored nonpresidential races. The next section 
compares how the stations covered presidential and nonpresidential 
races. This is important in part because in our 11 market analysis 
we found that stories about local races were longer, contained 
longer soundbites, and were more likely to focus on issues than on 
stories about presidential candidates.14 Given that many media 
reform advocates15 argue that longer news stories featuring 
candidates talking about issues are the qualitative improvements 
necessary in news coverage, it is reasonable to suggest that stories 
about nonpresidential races were qualitatively superior to stories 
about presidential races.  

In Philadelphia the comparison is at best mixed. The average 
length of a presidential story in Philadelphia was 80 seconds while 
the average length of a nonpresidential story was just 57 seconds. 
While this appears to be a large difference, it was not statistically 
significant (p=.060). The results, however, show no significant 
differences between Philadelphia’s presidential and nonpresidential 
stories in terms of average soundbite length or percentage of stories 



 

 56  

focusing on strategy or issues. These results, therefore, show that 
unlike other markets in the larger study, there is not a clear pattern 
of providing qualitatively superior coverage of nonpresidential 
elections in Philadelphia. Table 2B contains these results. 

 
 

Table 2B 
“Quality” of Presidential and Nonpresidential 

Coverage in Philadelphia 
“Quality” of 

coverage 
 

Presidential 
election 
stories 

(n=440) 

Nonpresidential 
election stories 

(n=30) 

Significance 

Average length 
of a story 80 seconds 57 seconds t= 1.88 (468), 

p=.060 
Average length 
of a candidate 

soundbite 
12 seconds 11 seconds t= 1.06(348), 

p=.287 

Percentage of 
stories about 
strategy or 
horserace 

74% 70% t= .435 (468), 
p=.664 

Percentage of 
stories about 

issues 
18% 23% t=.668 (468), 

p=.505 

 
 

Comparing Candidates: Visibility and Treatment of the 
Presidential Candidates 

 
This section explores the data to see if there is an overall pattern 

of bias toward one party or individual candidate. We look at these 
bias questions from two perspectives: visibility and treatment of the 
candidates. These are explained below.  

Before turning to the results, however, some clarifications are 
important. First, because the presidential race dominated coverage, 
the focus is on comparing the major presidential and vice 
presidential candidates. The results generally hold for the U.S. 
Senate and all U.S. House races too. Appendix A contains an 
overview of the results for these down-ballot races. Second, the 
results do not include stories about third party presidential 



 

 57 

candidate Ralph Nader because coverage of Nader was almost 
nonexistent. Appendix B contains comparisons between coverage 
of Nader and his major party counterparts, and they show 
significant differences in how Nader was covered by Philadelphia 
stations. Third, because the findings are remarkably consistent 
across individual stations, the results are presented at the market 
rather than the station level. Appendix C contains the results for the 
individual stations. 

 
Comparing Candidates: Visibility of Candidates on the News 

 
The first set of measures focus on the visibility of each 

candidate on the news in comparison to his counterpart(s). The 
rationale for these measures is similar to one used with paid 
campaign advertising, namely more is better. If, for example, John 
Kerry appears on the news much more often than George Bush, 
voters, at the very least, receive more exposure to Kerry than they 
do to Bush.  

These “visibility” results are presented in two ways. First, Table 
3 reports the total amount of air time and soundbite time each 
candidate received over the 30 day study period. The results show 
very few differences between the major party candidates on these 
aggregated totals. For example, out of more than eight hours of 
coverage focused on the two presidential candidates, the difference 
in air time was less than five minutes. 

 
Table 3A  Quantity of Coverage by Candidate 

Candidate Total 
number 
of stories 
featuring 
candidat

e 

Total 
time of 
stories 

Total 
number of 
candidate 
soundbite

s 

Total 
amount 

of 
soundbite 

time 

George Bush (R) 357 4 hrs,  
13 mins 135 27 mins,   

23 secs 

John Kerry (D) 351 4 hrs,  
18 mins 111 22 mins,   

12 secs  

Dick Cheney (R) 60 28 mins 30 4 mins,    
33 secs  

John Edwards (D) 60 30 mins 31 6 mins,    
15 secs  



 

 58  

Next, the aggregated results are broken down to the story level, 
and we calculate the average percentage of each story that was 
devoted to each candidate and the average number of seconds each 
candidate appears in a story. As shown in Table 3B, there were no 
significant differences between major party candidates on either 
variable. 

 
Table 3B 

Comparing Candidate Visibility in Stories 
Average Percentage of a Story Devoted to Candidate 

 N Mean S
D 

Significance 

George 
Bush 

357 .53 .239 

John  
Kerry 

351 .51 .238 
t=1.35 (706), 

p=.177 

Dick 
Cheney 

60 .33 .235 

John 
Edwards 

60 .29 .210 
t=.846 (118), 

p=.399 

Average Number of Seconds Candidate Appeared in a Story 
 N Mean SD Significance  
George 
Bush 

357 42.6 33.11 

John  
Kerry 

351 44.1 39.61 
t= .550 (706),     

p=.583 

Average Number of Seconds Candidate Appeared in a Story 
 N Mean SD Significance  
Dick 
Cheney 

60 28.4 25.91 

John 
Edwards 

60 29.5 31.04 
t= .223(118), 

p=.824 

 
Comparing Candidates: Treatment of Candidates 

The previous tables indicate that the major party presidential 
candidates were given virtually the same amount of air time by 
Philadelphia stations. While the quantity of coverage given each 
candidate is one indication of bias, it does not address the 
possibility of other qualitative differences in candidate coverage. 
For example, it is possible that a candidate embroiled in a scandal 
might actually receive more coverage than his opponent even 



 

 59 

though the quantitative advantage may actually hurt the candidate’s 
chances. Two different measures are used to examine the 
“treatment” of the presidential candidates by the news in 
Philadelphia.  

First, coders recorded how often a candidate was criticized by 
someone else in each story. For each story, coders recorded 
instances of a candidate being critiqued by a reporter, another 
candidate, a campaign staffer, an ordinary citizen, or some other 
person. By aggregating each criticism category, it is possible to 
discover the total number of times each candidate faced some form 
of criticism and the percentage of stories in which each candidate 
received some form of criticism. If one candidate faced significantly 
more criticism than another, it is possible some partisan bias exists.  

Second, coders were asked to play the role of a campaign 
manager by saying for each story whether or not they would be 
unsatisfied, neutral or satisfied with how their candidate was 
portrayed. A score of one equals unsatisfied, two equals neutral, 
and three equals satisfied. Averaging these scores creates a 
composite measure of story satisfaction where the higher the score 
the more satisfied a hypothetical campaign manager would be with 
the story. If one candidate receives a higher overall satisfaction 
score than his opponent, it is possible some bias exists.  

Although these two measures are related, they are actually 
designed to detect different aspects of candidate treatment. The 
campaign manager question looks at the story as a whole, while the 
criticism question looks for instances within a story where a 
candidate receives criticism. This means that it is possible for a 
story to be coded as favorable toward one candidate by a “campaign 
manager” even if it includes some criticism of the candidate in the 
story. For example, a story might focus almost entirely on the 
enthusiastic support George Bush received at a campaign rally, then 
at the very end the story it may show a single soundbite from 
someone representing the small group of protesters that also 
attended the rally. This story would be coded as favorable toward 
Bush, but it also would be counted as an instance of him receiving 
criticism. The reverse is also true; a story can be coded as 
unfavorable toward a candidate but not necessarily contain direct 
criticism. For instance, a story might simply report that John Kerry 
was slipping in the polls but do so without any direct criticism of 



 

 60  

him or his campaign by a third party. This story would be coded as 
unfavorable toward Kerry but it would not be counted as an 
example of the story containing criticism.  

The results of both measures are reported in Table 4. Once 
again they show little evidence of direct favoritism among the 
major party candidates. None of the comparisons indicate a 
statistically significant difference between the major party 
candidates on the campaign manager satisfaction question. The 
results do suggest, however, that Vice President Dick Cheney 
received more criticism than his rival, John Edwards. Vice 
President Cheney received some form of criticism in 15% of the 
stories he appeared in compared to just 5% of the stories that 
Edwards appeared in, although the difference was not statistically 
significant at the .05 level (p=.069). 

 
 

Table 4:  
Comparing Candidate Treatment in Stories 

Percentage of stories where candidate faced criticism 
 N Mean SD Significance 

George Bush 357 28% .448 t=.133 (706), p=.910  
John Kerry 351 27% .446  
Dick Cheney 60 15% .360 t=1.836 (118), p=.069 
John Edwards 60 5% .219  

Average Campaign Manager Score 
 N Mean SD Significance  
George Bush 357 2.10 .555 t= .774 (706), p=.439 
John Kerry 351 2.13 .581  
Dick Cheney 60 2.08 .497 t=1.094 (118),p=.276 
John Edwards 60 2.18 .504  

 

Voting Issue Stories 

To this point the focus has been on stories about candidates, 
particularly presidential candidates. Election coverage on local 



 

 61 

television news, however, is not limited to candidate focused 
stories. For example, stories report on voter registration deadlines 
and provide information on various ways of voting, such as by 
absentee ballot. Other stories focus on the process of setting up the 
election and the mechanics of the voting process. Still others report 
on efforts by celebrities to get people to the polls. Many stories also 
focus on allegations of voting irregularities, fraud, or election 
scams.  

In Philadelphia, a total of 99 stories (17% of all stories) were 
these types of “voter information” stories. This is actually a sizable 
amount, more than three times the number of stories about all of 
Philadelphia’s nonpresidential candidates combined. Even so, 
Philadelphia actually aired these stories somewhat less frequently 
than the other 10 markets in the study.16 That these stories appear to 
be quite prevalent is, by itself, an interesting finding. The key 
question, however, is how might these stories influence voters? 
Since there is no literature on this topic, the following section 
reports the results of a closer examination of the 99 voter 
information stories that was conducted by the author. The goal is to 
propose a categorization scheme for thinking about these stories in 
a systematic way and begin to address the effects question posed 
above. 

For each story the three coders wrote a detailed headline about 
the main point of the story. The author reviewed these headlines 
and made an initial categorization of each coder’s headlines. The 
initial categories were developed based on the review of the 
headlines. For instance, the presence of headlines containing the 
words “kids, children, schools and voting,” led to the creation of a 
“kids and voting category.” Similarly, headlines containing the 
words “fraud, scam, illegal, lawsuits,” led to the creation of a “fraud 
category.” If the initial categorization by the author “fit” for all 
three coders, the story was not reviewed. This occurred in 88 of the 
99 stories. In the remaining 11 stories, the initial categorization by 
the author did not clearly fit with all of the coders or the author was 
unable to make a clear categorization based on the headlines. In 
these 11 cases, the story was reviewed by the author.  

This review process led to the realization that a few of the 
initial categorizations were too broad because it seemed reasonable 
that stories within a single category might have different effects on 
voters. For example, stories about expectations of a record voter 



 

 62  

turnout could have a positive influence on voters since they focused 
on the importance other people are placing on the election. By 
contrast, other stories about voter turnout focused on how people 
were likely to have to wait for hours in order to cast ballots. These 
might have a negative influence on voters since it is possible a voter 
might decide that voting was not worth the time and effort. For this 
reason, additional categories were created and all stories in each 
initial category were re-examined by the author. 

With this process complete, all the story categories were then 
grouped into positive, neutral, and negative categories based on 
how the story might affect voters’ perceptions of the election. For 
instance, positive stories generally cast the election process as valid, 
worthy of the viewer’s attention, helpful to viewers in 
understanding the process of the election, or focused on the election 
as a “civic” function. The neutral category includes stories likely to 
have little impact on voters one way or another, such as those 
advertising a station’s upcoming election night coverage or those 
about Election Day weather. The negative category contains stories 
that generally question the validity of the election process or focus 
primarily on difficulties or obstacles voters are likely to face should 
they attempt to vote. The neutral category also includes stories that 
focus on the efforts by nonprofit groups or election officials to help 
overcome potential problems in the election. These stories contain 
both positive (a group working to solve potential problems) and 
negative (the potential problem itself). These stories were the only 
consistent case of story category containing both positive and 
negative components. In the few cases (less than five stories) where 
a different story topic included both positive and negative aspects, 
the aspect that was presented first in the story was chosen.  

Table 5 shows that the majority of these stories most likely 
provide voters with information helpful to voting and portray the 
election process in a positive light. Even so, 29 of the 99 stories 
focused on subjects that may cast some doubt on the validity of the 
election process and the value of participating in it. 

 
 



 

 63 

 
Table 5: Voting Issue Stories 

Type of Voting Issue Story % of all voting issue 
stories (n=99) 

“Positive” stories 
Voter Registration  7 
Celebrities to increase voter turnout  11 
Absentee ballot  positive 1 
Voter Turnout positive 3 
Kids and voting 3 
Methods and Mechanics of voting 25 

Total positive stories 50 
 

“Neutral” stories 
“Advertisements” about a station’s 
election coverage 10 

Election day weather forecasts 2 
Citizen group involvement with 
election 8 

Total neutral stories 20 
 

“Negative” Stories 
Absentee ballots negative 4 
Voter Turnout  negative 3 
The potential for disruption of 
elections by terrorism 4 

Fraud, Scams, pending lawsuits  18 
Total negative stories 29 

 
Conclusion 

 
The first goal of this study was to expand existing research 

concerning local television and elections by focusing on multiple 
races across multiple stations and news broadcasts. The results 
show that in Philadelphia the only type of election story that 
received significant coverage were those about the Presidential race. 
It does not seem too much of an exaggeration to suggest that a 
typical voter would be hard pressed to learn anything about down-
ballot races from watching local news in Philadelphia. 



 

 64  

Furthermore, these results show that for candidates in 
Philadelphia’s down-ballot races, getting publicity on local 
television news was not a viable option. As a result, these 
candidates would seem to have few alternatives but to turn to paid 
advertising or possibly other media venues like radio and local 
newspapers to garner publicity for their campaigns. Reliance on 
paid advertising requires candidates to raise enormous amount of 
money, which according to campaign finance reform advocates is a 
fundamental problem with American democracy. It is also 
important to remember that one of the cornerstones of FCC 
licensing of local television stations is a commitment to “localism,” 
which at least in terms of election coverage seems defined by 
coverage of down-ballot races.  

If Philadelphia’s stations failed the “localism” test, they clearly 
passed another important measure of journalistic quality. This 
article shows that the stations were very balanced in the amount and 
type of coverage they gave to the major party candidates. While the 
results presented here focus on the presidential race, they generally 
held across all elections and even across individual stations. These 
results can be interpreted in different ways. First, perhaps a lack of 
overt bias is a conscious choice by news directors and reporters who 
work hard to provide fair and balanced coverage. Second, perhaps 
the lack of bias is driven by time and money constraints faced by 
news directors and reporters. It is certainly easier and cheaper to 
attend two candidate events and “roll tape” than it is to engage in 
hard-hitting investigative journalism of even one candidate. It is 
difficult (but not impossible) for the former to be bias, while it is 
likely that the latter would include some overtly positive or negative 
framing of candidates. 

Third, perhaps the lack of bias actually has little to do with the 
stations themselves and more to do with the highly disciplined and 
to some extent programmed nature of political candidates today. 
Successful candidates often provide voters and television stations 
with little substantive information, preferring instead to speak in 
bland generalities. It is clearly more difficult for reporters to 
critique candidate statements that do not say anything than to 
critique even quasi-controversial statements from candidates. 
Finally, it is important to note that to some extent this article 
equates equality with lack of bias. The abilities or behaviors (past or 



 

 65 

present) of the candidates are not factored into the bias equation, 
but perhaps future research should do so.  

Clearly this work needs to be expanded to more media markets, 
a process currently underway by the author using data from the 
larger Lear Center study. Future research should also examine off-
year elections to see how the lack of a presidential race changes the 
quantity and nature of election coverage on local television news. 

 
A Closer Look at Election Competitiveness in Philadelphia 

 
The second goal of this article was to compare two seemingly 

reasonable hypotheses about how Philadelphia’s television stations 
might balance coverage between presidential and nonpresidential 
elections. One hypothesis was that the presence of competitive 
down-ballot races would in a sense balance the coverage 
Philadelphia’s television stations provided to presidential and 
nonpresidential races. Obviously this hypothesis is not supported by 
the data. 

In fact, a closer look at the competitiveness of elections within 
the media market actually shows how unimportant competitiveness 
was in what Philadelphia stations decided to cover. According to 
vote totals gathered from the Secretary of State in Pennsylvania and 
the Division of Elections in New Jersey and Delaware,17 the eight 
Pennsylvania counties made up 66% of all the 2004 votes cast in 
the Philadelphia media market. President Bush lost these eight 
counties by a 21 point margin and lost the entire media market by 
an 18 point margin. This was driven in part by President Bush’s 
loss of the most populous county in the market (Philadelphia) by a 
60 point margin. In fact, only four counties in the market (Bucks, 
Chester, Lehigh, and Northampton) were decided by less than five 
percentage points. So while Pennsylvania as a whole was 
competitive in the presidential race, it is possible that Philadelphia 
as a media market was not. 

At the same time, the opposite was true for other races in the 
Philadelphia market. Prior to the election, the Pennsylvania Senate 
race was characterized by the Cook Political Report18 as “leaning 
Republican,” indicating at least some degree of competitiveness. 
While statewide the election did not turn out to be close, it was 
fairly close in the counties making up the Philadelphia media 
market. Senator Arlen Specter beat Democrat Joe Hoeffel handily 



 

 66  

statewide (52% to 43%), but in the Pennsylvania counties in the 
Philadelphia market, Hoeffel actually won the vote by three 
percentage points.19 Despite the level of within market 
competitiveness, a total of just 16 stories focused on the U.S. Senate 
race.  

In addition, three (PA 6th, 8th and 13th) of the 15 of U.S. House 
races20 held within the market were thought to be at least somewhat 
competitive prior to the election.21 It is true that only the 6th district 
contest remained competitive on Election Day with Republican Jim 
Gerlach winning over Democrat Lois Murphy by just three 
percentage points. Even so, that only 11 out of almost 600 election 
stories focused on a U.S. House race is a telling example of how 
unimportant these races were viewed by Philadelphia’s local 
television stations. While the low number of stories about U.S. 
House races makes “more” or “less” a relative concept, it seems that 
electoral competitiveness did not drive coverage of U.S. House 
races. Candidates in the competitive 6th district appeared in just two 
stories while candidates in the 8th appeared in six stories and 13th 
district candidates appeared in nine stories even though those two 
contests were not competitive. 

Obviously, additional research using more markets and in off-
year elections is necessary before definitive conclusion can be 
made. Still, the finding that within-market electoral competitiveness 
was essentially unimportant in driving Philadelphia’s stations to 
cover down-ballot races is important. This is especially true given 
the repeated claims by broadcasters that lack of competitive down-
ballot elections is one reason stations fail to cover them.22 

 
A Closer Look at Market Size and Ownership 

 
This article’s second hypothesis was that presidential coverage 

would dominate in Philadelphia because it is a large market 
(making coverage of local races difficult) and because all the 
stations in the sample are owned by one of the four major media 
conglomerates (making coverage of local races less interesting to 
nationally centered reporters). Clearly, presidential coverage 
dominated coverage in Philadelphia; and while far from definitive, 
the results suggest that perhaps market size and ownership may 
have played a role in this outcome. 



 

 67 

We can see the pattern when we compare the balance in 
Philadelphia with the balance in the five markets in the larger Lear 
Center study that were also in what were considered to be 
presidential battleground states (Dayton, Ohio; Des Moines, Iowa; 
and Miami, Orlando, and Tampa in Florida). Fifty-nine percent of 
the stories in these five markets focused on the presidential race, an 
almost identical percentage to the breakdown in all 10 non-
Philadelphia markets in the larger Lear Center study. In contrast, 
76% of the stories in Philadelphia focused on the presidential race. 
Obviously, Philadelphia is significantly larger in size than these five 
markets, perhaps making coverage of any one local race more 
difficult. In addition, Philadelphia is the only one of these markets 
where all four stations are owned and operated by one of the big 
four media companies (ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC). As a result, 
perhaps Philadelphia’s reporters and anchors feel more pressure to 
appear that they are covering elections as network or national 
journalists might. This contention is supported by the fact the two 
other “large” markets in the Lear Center study (New York and Los 
Angeles) also devoted more than 70% of their stories to the 
presidential election.23 

If larger markets are more likely to focus on top of the ticket 
races, this tendency might have been reinforced in Philadelphia by 
the demographic characteristics of four nearby counties where the 
presidential race was close (Bucks, Chester, Lehigh, and 
Northampton). All four counties have higher median family 
incomes and levels of education than more populous Philadelphia.24 
The demographic makeup of these counties is likely more attractive 
to advertisers and hence television stations than is the demographic 
makeup of Philadelphia. But because education and affluence are 
positively related to watching local television news,25 it is also 
possible that more local news viewers may live in the four smaller 
counties where the presidential race was highly competitive than in 
the rest of the market where the race was not competitive. In either 
case, it possible that television stations target their election 
coverage not to their entire media market but to selected segments 
of it. Although more sophisticated analysis beyond a single market 
is needed, the results from Philadelphia reveal a rich avenue for 
future research. 

 
 



 

 68  

What’s Local about Local News? 
 
Perhaps the only answer to the question posed in the title of this 

article is that while Philadelphia’s local television stations ignore 
local candidates, they do provide a sizable number of local voter 
information stories. More stories aired in Philadelphia about the 
mechanics and procedures of voting (25) than about either the U.S. 
Senate race (16) or all U.S. House races combined (11). In addition, 
half of the voting issues stories were framed in ways that might 
signal voters that participating in elections has some intrinsic value. 
This suggests that Philadelphia’s local television stations have not 
completely abandoned the media’s role as facilitator or at least 
advertiser of civic life, even if they have discarded any interest in 
critiquing or assessing local candidates. The Philadelphia results, 
which were even more pronounced in the other markets in the larger 
Lear Center study, suggest that this may be a new and important 
area for future research. Examining these noncandidate stories 
across a larger number of markets is a necessary first step in 
determining whether other markets cover voter information stories 
in ways similar to Philadelphia. If the pattern recurs, the stories 
should be examined in more detail to discover how they may 
influence citizens’ beliefs about the validity of the electoral process. 

 
 

Appendix A: 
Overview of Candidate Visibility in U.S. Senate  

and U.S House Races 
 
The lack of stories about U.S. Senate and U.S. House 

candidates makes statistical comparisons problematic. As a result, 
Appendix A simply reports the aggregate totals for each race. They 
clearly show that the amount of time devoted to candidates running 
for the same office was virtually identical in all races. 

 



 

 69 

 
Candidate Total 

stories 
candidate 
appeared 

in 

Total 
time 

stories 
focused 

on 

Average 
percentage 

of story 
that 

focused on 
candidate 

Total 
amount 

of 
soundbite 

time 

Average 
length of 
candidate 
soundbite 

U.S. Senate 
Arlen  
Specter (R) 24 7 mins, 

36 secs 39% 93 secs 12 secs 

Joseph  
Hoeffel (D) 22 6 mins, 

38 secs 35% 94 secs 12 secs 

James 
Clymer (I) 7 1 min 33% 20 secs 20 secs 

Betsy 
Summers (I) 5 51 secs 17% 17 secs 17 secs 

U.S. House (6th) 
Jim 
Gerlach (R) 2 1 min, 

15 secs 63% 22 secs 7 secs 

Lois  
Murphy (D) 
 

2 1 min,   
5 secs 38% 25 secs 8 secs 

U.S. House (8th)  
Mike 
Fitzpatrick (R)  6 1 min, 

48 secs 34% 14 secs 14 secs 

Virginia 
Schrader (D)  5 2 mins, 

55 secs 41% 38 secs 10 secs 

U.S. House (13th)  
Allyson 
Schwartz (D)  9 1 min, 

56 secs 26% 24 secs 8 secs 

John 
McDermott (Con)  4 30 secs 24% 0 0 

Chuck  
Moulton (Lib)  4 30 secs 24% 0 0 

U.S. House (15th)  
Charles 
Dent (R)  
  

1 1 min,   
3 secs 50% 16 secs 8 secs 

Joe 
Driscoll (D)  
  

1 1 min,   
3 secs 50% 16 secs 8 secs 

 
Appendix B 

Ralph Nader Comparisons 

Ralph Nader did not appear on the Pennsylvania ballot in 2004. 
So it is not surprising that he received less coverage than the two 
major party candidates. The difference, however, is quite dramatic. 
Nader appeared in 34 stories compared with over 350 for both Bush 
and Kerry. Nader received a total of 17 minutes of air time 



 

 70  

compared with over four hours for both Bush and Kerry. Nader 
spoke in three soundbites for a total of 24 secs. In comparison, both 
Bush and Kerry were shown speaking over 100 times for more than 
20 minutes each. 

 
In addition to these vast differences in the quantity of air time, 

Philadelphia’s stations covered Nader in qualitatively different 
ways. Most of Nader’s stories focused on his difficulties getting on 
the ballot. In many respects this explains the results. Stories about 
Nader’s attempt to get on the ballot were much more likely to focus 
exclusively on Nader than were “regular” stories about Bush and 
Kerry. This helps explain why a higher percentage of the overall 
story time was on average higher for Nader (.61) than it was for 
either Bush (.53) or Kerry (.51). In addition, these stories were more 
likely to be shorter, consist of straight news reporting, and because 
Nader failed to get on the Pennsylvania ballot to be unfavorable 
toward Nader. This helps explain why Nader received less air time 
per story and less criticism but more unfavorable coverage than the 
other candidates. 

 
 
 

Average Percentage of a Story Devoted to Candidate   
 N Mean SD Significance  
Ralph 
Nader 34 .61 .398 

George 
Bush 357 .53 .239 

 t=1.714(389), p=.087 

Ralph 
Nader 34 .61 .398 

John 
Kerry 351 .51 .239 

t=2.245(383),p=.025 

Average Number of Secs Each Candidate Appeared in a Story 
 N Mean SD Significance  
Ralph 
 Nader 34 28.1 29.92 

George 
 Bush 357 42.6 33.11 

t= -2.470(389),p=.014 

Ralph 
Nader 34 28.1 29.92 

John 
 Kerry 351 44.1 39.61 

t= -2.302(383),p=.022 



 

 71 

Percentage of Stories Where Candidate Faced Criticism 
 N Mean SD Significance  
Ralph 
Nader 34 .09 .287 

George 
 Bush 357 .28 .448 

t= -2.411 (389), p=.016 

Ralph  
Nader 34 .09 .287 

John 
Kerry 351 .27 .446 

t= -2.371 (383), p=.018 

Average Campaign Manager Score 
 N Mean SD Significance  
Ralph 
Nader 34 1.50 .615 

George 
Bush 357 2.10 .555 

t=-5.948(389),p=.000 

Ralph 
Nader 34 1.50 .615 

John 
Kerry 351 2.13 .581 

t=-6.020(383), p=.000 

 
Appendix C 

Individual Station Comparisons 

The limited difference in how stations covered the presidential 
race is by itself an interesting finding. The data below show the 
percentage of presidential candidate appearances that each station 
devoted to each candidate. 

 

Station Bush 
% (n) 

Kerry 
% (n) 

Nader 
% (n) 

Cheney 
% (n) 

Edwards 
% (n) 

ABC 
(n=333) 

40.2 
(134) 

40.2 
(134) 

6.0   
(20) 

6.9    
(23) 

6.6      
(22) 

CBS 
(n=206) 

41.7  
(86) 

40.3  
(83) 

3.4     
(7) 

7.8    
(16) 

6.8      
(14) 

Fox    
(n=27) 

40.7  
(11) 

37.0  
(10) 

0.0     
(0) 

11.1    
(3) 

11.1      
(3) 

NBC 
(n=296) 

42.6 
(126) 

41.9 
(124) 

2.4     
(7) 

6.1    
(18) 

7.1      
(21) 



 

 72  

On the more qualitative variables, the results again show almost 
no differences in how each station treated each candidate. On the 
ABC station in Philadelphia none of the comparisons proved 
significant. On the CBS station, Dick Cheney had a significantly 
higher percentage of story time devoted to him than John Edwards 
did (t=2.726 (28), p=.011). None of the other CBS comparisons 
were significant. Because of the small number of stories aired by 
the Fox station, only presidential comparisons are possible. The 
only comparison that proved even marginally significant 
statistically was that George Bush had a lower campaign manager 
score than did John Kerry (t= -1.832(19), p=.083) on the Fox 
station. Similarly, the only even marginally significant difference 
on the NBC station was that John Edwards received a higher 
campaign manager score than did Dick Cheney (t= -1.874 (37), 
p=.069). Because of the small number of stories featuring Ralph 
Nader, comparisons are made only between the major party 
candidates. 

 
 

ABC Stories 
 

Average Percentage of a Story Devoted to Candidate 
 N Mean SD Significance  

George Bush 134 .51 .228 
John Kerry 134 .47 .222 

t=1.592 (266), 
p=.113 

Dick Cheney 23 .29 .207 
John Edwards 22 .31 .220 

t=-.388 (43), 
p=.700 

Average Number of Secs Each Candidate Appeared in a Story 
 N Mean SD Significance  
George Bush 134 42.1 34.15 
John Kerry 134 42.3 44.52 

t= -.053 (266), 
p=.958 

Dick Cheney 23 32.2 31.75 
John Edwards 22 34.1 39.44 

t= -.185 (43), 
p=.855 

Percentage of Stories Where Candidate Faced Criticism 
 N Mean SD Significance  
George Bush 134 .32 .468 
John Kerry 134 .34 .474 

t= -.259 (266), 
p=.796 

Dick Cheney 23 .26 .448 
John Edwards 22 .09 .294 

t=1.495 (43), 
p=.142 



 

 73 

Average Campaign Manager Score 
 N Mean SD Significance  
George Bush 134 2.08 .476 
John Kerry 134 2.09 .527 

t=-.122 (266), 
p=.903 

Dick Cheney 23 2.00 .522 
John Edwards 22 2.14 .468 

t= -.921(43), 
p=.362 

 
 

CBS Stories 
 

Average Percentage of a Story Devoted to Candidate   
 N Mean SD Significance 
George Bush 86 .53 .263 
John Kerry 83 .55 .241 

t= -.346 (167), 
p=.729 

Dick Cheney 16 .48 .304 
John Edwards 14 .24 .180 

t=2.726 (28), 
p=.011 

Average Number of Secs Each Candidate Appeared in a Story 
 N Mean SD Significance 
George Bush 86 46.6 36.35 
John Kerry 83 51.9 42.11 

t= -.868(167), 
p=.387 

Dick Cheney 16 27.3 19.15 
John Edwards 14 24.7 33.93 

t=.261 (28), 
p=.796 

Percentage of Stories Where Candidate Faced Criticism 
 N Mean SD Significance 
George Bush 86 .28 .451 
John Kerry 83 .27 .444 

t=.203 (167), 
p=.839 

Dick Cheney 16 .06 .250 
John Edwards 14 .07 .267 

t= -.095 (28), 
p=.925 

Average Campaign Manager Score 
 N Mean SD Significance 
George Bush 86 2.17 .723 
John Kerry 83 2.20 .712 

t= -.275 (167), 
p=.783 

Dick Cheney 16 2.38 .500 
John Edwards 14 2.29 .726 

t=.396 (28),  
p=.796 

 
FOX Stories26 

 
Average Percentage of a Story Devoted to Candidate   

 N Mean SD Significance  
George Bush 11 .52 .260 
John Kerry 10 .49 .251 

t=.293 (19),  
p=.773 



 

 74  

Average Number of Secs Each Candidate Appeared in a Story 
 N Mean SD Significance  
George Bush 11 57.6 40.44 
John Kerry 10 59.3 36.13 

t= -.099 (19), 
p=.922 

Percentage of Stories Where Candidate Faced Criticism 
 N Mean SD Significance  
George Bush 11 .09 .301 
John Kerry 10 .10 .316 

t= -.067 (19), 
p=.947 

Average Campaign Manager Score 
 N Mean SD Significance  
George Bush 86 1.91 .302 
John Kerry 83 2.20 .422 

t= -1.832 (19), 
p=.083 

 
NBC stories 

 
Average Percentage of a Story Devoted to Candidate   

 N Mean SD Significance  
George Bush 126 .55 .234 
John Kerry 124 .52 .249 

t=.896 (248), 
p=.371 

Dick Cheney 18 .26 .133 
John Edwards 21 .33 .220 

t= -1.290 (37), 
p=.205 

Average Number of Secs Each Candidate Appeared in a Story 
 N Mean SD Significance  
George Bush 126 39.19 28.45 
John Kerry 124 39.70 31.00 

t= -.135 (248), 
p=.893 

Dick Cheney 18 26.1 25.45 
John Edwards 21 28.5 19.92 

t= -.335 (37), 
p=.739 

Percentage of Stories Where Candidate Faced Criticism 
 N Mean SD Significance  
George Bush 126 .25 .432 
John Kerry 124 .23 .419 

t=.375 (248), 
p=.708 

Dick Cheney 18 .11 .323 
John Edwards 21 .00 .000 

t=1.578 (37), 
p=.123 

Average Campaign Manager Score 
 N Mean SD Significance  
George Bush 126 2.08 .515 
John Kerry 124 2.12 .550 

t= -.617 (248), 
p=.538 

Dick Cheney 18 1.94 .416 
John Edwards 21 2.19 .402 

t= -1.874 (37), 
p=.069 

 
 
 



 

 75 

Notes 

1. Pew Center for the People and the Press Survey Reports, “News 
Audiences Increasingly Politicized: Online News Audience Larger, More Diverse” 
(June 8, 2004); “Public More Critical of Press, But Goodwill Persists” (June 26, 
2005); “Voters Impressed with Campaign: But News Coverage Gets Lukewarm 
Ratings” (October 24, 2004). See http://people press.org. 

2. The 11 markets studied were New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, 
Dallas, Miami, Tampa, Orlando, Denver, Seattle, Des Moines, and Dayton (Ohio). 
The results of the full study are available at www.localnewsarchive.org.  

3. The New York Media market also covers three states: New York, New 
Jersey, and Connecticut. 

4. The number of elections was calculated based on data from the Secretary 
of State in Pennsylvania (http://www.dos.state.pa.us/dos/site/default.asp) and the 
Division of Elections in New Jersey http://www.state.nj.us/lps/elections/ 
electionshome.html and Delaware http://www.state.de.us/election/archive/ 
elect04/2004_electionindex.shtml. 

5. http://www.cookpolitical.com October 29, 2004. 
6. Pennsylvania voters had races for Attorney General, Auditor, and State 

Treasurer. Delaware had races for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Insurance 
Commissioner. The Attorney General, Auditor, and State Treasurer races in 
Pennsylvania and the Insurance Commissioner in Delaware were all open seats. 

7. Philadelphia DMA voters participated in 16 federal legislative elections, 
10 in Pennsylvania, five in New Jersey, and one in Delaware. 

8. According to the Cook Political Report for October 26, 2004, the 6th and 
8th Pennsylvania Congressional district were also classified as “leaning” 
Republican. The 13th district in Pennsylvania was classified as leaning Democratic. 

9. Cook Political Report, October 29, 2004. http://www.cookpolitical.com  
10. Much of this pattern was driven by the NBC and ABC affiliates in 

Philadelphia, which were both in the top 15 of the 44 station sample in terms of 
total number of stories aired. In comparison, the FOX affiliate aired a total of just 
21 election stories, the lowest number among the 44 stations studied. The CBS 
affiliate was average in terms of the number of stories aired, in part because it airs 
an evening news program at 4:00 p.m. outside the time period captured. 

11. t= 7.57(4029), p=.000 
12. An additional nine stories included a U.S. Senate candidate with other 

candidates, so at best the four stations aired a total of 25 stories about the U.S. 
senate race. Of these 25 stories, 19 (or 76%) focused on strategy or horserace and 
four stories (16%) focused on issues. Sixteen of the 25 stories (60%) aired during 
the final week and eight (32%) aired on the day before the election. 

13. An additional seven stories mentioned U.S. House candidates either with 
candidates for other offices or while discussing noncampaign-related activities. 
This means at best a total of 18 stories aired featuring a U.S. House candidate. Of 
these 18 stories, 14 focused on strategy/horserace, one focused on issues, and three 
were coded as “other.” Fifty percent of these stories aired in the final week of the 
campaign. 

14. In the larger report the comparisons described above did not include U.S. 
senate races or other statewide races. Because the number of nonpresidential 



 

 76  

election stories in Philadelphia is so small, the U.S. Senate and statewide races are 
included together. 

15. See http://freepress.net/conference/. Also see the recommendations of 
the so-called Gore Commission at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/pubintadvcom/ 
pubint.htm. 

16. Voting issue stories made up 22% of the stories in the other markets. The 
difference between Philadelphia and the other 10 markets in the quantity of voting 
issues stories was statistically significant (t= 2.547 (7019), p=.011. 

17. For Pennsylvania see 
http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionReturns. For New Jersey see http:// 
www.state.nj.us/lps/elections/electionshome.html. For Delaware see http://www. 
state.de.us/election/archive/elect04/2004_election_index.shtml. 

18. http://www.cookpolitical.com October 29, 2004. 
19. See http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionReturns. 
20. Philadelphia DMA voters participated in 15 U.S. House elections, nine 

in Pennsylvania, five in New Jersey and one in Delaware. 
21. According to the October 26, 2004, Cook Political Report, the 6th and 8th 

Pennsylvania Congressional district were classified as “leaning” Republican. The 
13th district in Pennsylvania was classified as leaning Democratic. 

22. See the National Association of Broadcaster’s “Free Air Time” 
newsletter available at http://www.nab.org. 

23. As in Philadelphia, all the stations in New York and Los Angeles are 
owned and operated by one of the four major media companies. In the New York 
market 76% of the stories were about the presidential race, and in Los Angeles 
74% of the stories were about the presidential race. 

24. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the median family income in these 
counties was: Bucks $68,727; Chester $76,916; Lehigh $53,147; Northampton 
$53,955; and Philadelphia $37,036. The percentage of people with at least a B.A. 
degree was: Bucks 31.2%; Chester 42.5%; Lehigh 23.3%; Northampton 21.2%, 
and Philadelphia 17.9%. 

25. See http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2006/. 
26. The FOX station only aired three stories on the vice presidential 

candidates making statistical comparisons meaningless. The low number of stories 
about presidential candidates requires that even these results be viewed with 
caution. 

 
References 

 
Althaus, S.L.; Nardulli, P.F.; and Shaw, D.R. 2002. “Candidate Appearances in 

Presidential Elections, 1972–2000.” Political Communication 19: 49–72. 
Ansolabehere, S., and Iyengar, S. 1995. Going Negative: How Political Ads Shrink 

and Polarize the Electorate. New York: Free Press. 
Bartels, L.M. 1988. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. 

Princeton: Princeton University Press. 
Beck, P.A.; Dalton, R.J.; Greene, S.; and Huckfeldt, R. 2002. “The Social Calculus 

of Voting: Interpersonal, Media, and Organizational Influences on 
Presidential Choices.” American Political Science Review 96: 57–73. 



 

 77 

Carter, S.; Fico, F.; and McCabe, J.A. 2002. “Partisan and Structural Balance in 
Local Television News Coverage.” Journalism and Mass Communication 
Quarterly 79 (1): 41–53. 

Cronbach, L. J. 1951. “Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests.” 
Psychometrika 16: 297–334. 

Entman, R.M. 1992. “How the Media Affect what People Think: An Information 
Processing Approach.” Journal of Politics 51: 347–370. 

Finkel, S. E., and Geer, J.G. 1998. “A Spot Check: Casting Doubt on the 
Demobilizing Effect of Attack Advertising.” American Journal of Political 
Science 42: 573–595. 

Gilliam, F.D., and Iyengar, S. 2000. “Prime Suspects: The Influence of Local 
Television News on the Viewing Public.” American Journal of Political 
Science 44: 560–573. 

Goldstein, K., and Freedman, P. 2002. Campaign Advertising and Voter Turnout: 
New Evidence for a Stimulation Effect. Journal of Politics 64: 721–740. 

Graber, D.A. 1997. Mass Media and American Politics. 5th ed. Washington, D.C.: 
CQ Press. 

________. 2001. Processing Politics: Learning from Television in the Internet 
Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Iyengar, S., and Kinder, D. 1987. News That Matters. Chicago: University of 
Chicago Press. 

Just, M.; Crigler, A.; and Buhr, T. 1999. “Voice, Substance, and Cynicism in 
Presidential Campaign Media.” Political Communication 16 (1): 25–44 

________; Crigler, A.; Alger, D; Cook, T.; Kern, M; and West, D. 1996. 
Crosstalk: Citizens, Candidates, and the Media in a Presidential Campaign. 
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Kaplan, M.; Goldstein, K.; and Hale, M. (2004) “Local News Coverage of the 
2004 Campaigns: An Analysis of Nightly Broadcasts in 11 Markets.” 
University of Southern California Norman Lear Center. 
www.localnewsarchive.org.   

Krippendorff, K. 1978. “Reliability of Binary Attribute Data.” Biometrics 34: 142–
144. 

Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill.  
Patterson, T.E.; and McClure, R. 1976. The Unseeing Eye: The Myth of Television 

Power in National Politics. New York: Putnam. 
Shaw, D. 1999. “The Effect of TV Ads and Candidate Appearances on Statewide 

Presidential Votes, 1988–1996.” American Political Science Review 93: 345–
361. 

Snider, J. 2000. “Local Television News Archives as a Public Good.” Harvard 
International Journal of Press and Politics. 5 (2): 111-118. 

Tinsley, H. E. A., and Weiss, D. J. 2000. “Interrater Reliability and Agreement.” 
In Handbook of Applied Multivariate Statistics and Mathematical Modeling, 
eds. H. E. A. Tinsley and S. D. Brown. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 

Valentino, N.A. 1999. “Crime News and the Priming of Racial Attitudes During 
Evaluations of the President.” Public Opinion Quarterly 60 (4): 515–541. 

Wattenberg, M.P., and Brians, C.L. 1999. “Negative Campaign Advertising: 
Demobilizer or Mobilizer?” American Political Science Review 93: 891–899. 


