The news media in a democracy should facilitate and nurture a “marketplace of ideas” where the best policies and the best political candidates emerge from competition between ideas that arise from free and transparent public discourse. A strong case can be made that this year television news programs, where most voters look for campaign information, have done little to contribute to ideas articulated by the presidential candidates.

Research on the media’s role in past presidential campaigns shows that issue oriented coverage loses out to an overriding concern with which candidates are ahead and which are behind. The “horse race” and focus on public opinion polls reported almost every day permeate just about everything the press does in covering candidates and elections. This year is no different as the emphasis is more on the drama of the campaign than the substantive arguments offered by the candidates.

The “surprising” results of the New Hampshire Democratic Primary showed that journalists have little understanding of the limitations of polling such as tolerated error and the timing of interviews. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews was so upset about the failure of the polls to predict the New Hampshire race that he urged that they be investigated. However, he continues to discuss poll results on the nightly news programs—without polls what would he talk about? The discussion focuses on strategy and issues receive attention only when they advantage one candidate over another.

The media’s greatest influence is not to tell voters what to think, but what to think about. The media’s emphasis on poll results and strategy at the expense of issue information makes the candidates’ positions in the polls an important element in voter calculation in elections. Often a “bandwagon effect” produces an advantage for candidates who are among the early front runners. They receive a disproportionate share of media attention and usually win their party’s nomination. As the campaign unfolds voters often decide to choose a “likely winner.” There were so many candidates competing this year that the use of polls by the media resulted in the quick “winnowing out” of Senators Dodd and Biden and Governor Richardson whose issue positions would likely have been attractive to many voters.

Analysts often differentiate reporter issues from candidate issues. Candidates often try to articulate their positions on complex issues such as health care and tax reform—we have seen this in the debates. Reporters emphasize simple emotion-laden issues such as gay marriage and abortion rights or focus on image as when Hillary Clinton was asked why some people don’t think she is likable.

The big media is most interested in focusing on personality and generating conflict. The goal of big media after all is to attract viewers and readers to advertising and to maximize its profits. So what if Clinton, Edwards and Obama would prefer to have a sensible discussion of health care or tax reform? Who would watch? It is ironic that many studies show that despite the perceived negativity of many campaign ads produced in behalf of the candidates, they are more substantive than the information that we get from the news.