Precision Journalism and a Unique Perspective on Pre-Election Polling

In the fourth chapter of their book entitled “A Journalist’s Guide to Public Opinion Polls” Sheldon Gawiser and G. Evans Witt provide a brief description of the emergence of precision journalism. The shift to precision journalism began with the rapid growth of television news and the switch from fifteen to thirty minute newscasts. Television networks had expanded staffs, more financial resources, and a greater need for information. They soon became involved in competitions to count votes and call elections (Gawiser and Witt, 21). Newspapers joined in, and partnerships between major papers and television networks formed such as the CBS News/NYT poll were created (Gawiser and Witt, 21). Media outlets desired increasingly more information that was accurate and fit their interests. Journalists began to apply the methods of social science research (including data analysis) to coverage of elections and other events, and this shift was termed precision journalism (Gawiser and Witt, 28). Previously pollsters conducted surveys and the media reported based on the results, but now the media conducted its own polls (Gawiser and Witt 25).
Meyer provides a more in-depth investigation of precision journalism in “The Politics of Precision Journalism.” Meyer explains that precision journalism was a change in the quantitative information journalists handle that led to a qualitative shift in news coverage. Some have been concerned about the adverse effects of precision journalism such as invasions of privacy, and the author argues that journalists should practice self-restraint in order to avoid having their powers limited. Meyer points out the benefits of precision journalism and its uses. Precision journalism makes topics that were not available to journalistic investigation accessible to journalists. According to Meyer, “Precision journalism is at its best when it is sorting out the conflicts among special interest groups, measuring their support, and estimating their potential for having an effect.” The author states that American politics operates through the formation of temporary coalitions, and studying the process of their formation requires adequate polling techniques. A related application of precision journalism is measuring and predicting electoral behavior, which can be controversial.
The complaint that polls can affect the outcomes of elections caught my attention within the two readings. Meyer pointed out that early polls can make it hard for a relatively unknown challenger to find the backing necessary to compete with a better-known incumbent. Polls could also affect turnout because people may use them and their information about the closeness of the election to decide whether they should vote. Meyer argues that the effects of polls on voters and elections are not necessarily negative, and democracy is meant to exist in an information-rich environment. He made a very interesting point that pre-election and exit polls allow the electorate to communicate with itself and bring about consensus. I had never considered pre-election polls from this perspective although I had used polls in this way without realizing it. When I am unsure about which candidate I favor, looking at polls and seeing what other people think helps me solidify my own opinion.
A Pew Research Center for the People and the Press poll story conducted just before the 2008 presidential election provides an example of a pre-election poll. The story, entitled “Obama Leads McCain 52% to 46% in Campaign’s Final Days” revealed that Obama held a significant lead over McCain and explored what kind of people tended to favor Obama over McCain. Looking at the poll from the perspective of Meyer’s argument, the poll could be used as a means of communication within the electorate. Greater support for Obama than McCain could have cued even more voters to back Obama. The Pew Research Center poll reported that Obama held a wide advantage over McCain among people who had already voted (about 32% of all likely voters) and those who plan to vote before Election Day (7% of likely voters). This kind of information could be useful to people who had not voted yet, especially undecided voters. Knowing those who were voting early overwhelmingly favored Obama opposed to McCain could have had an effect on the electorate, but it is difficult to determine what kind of an effect it was. Perhaps it led more people to join Obama’s voting coalition, or maybe it convinced those leaning toward McCain that their candidate needed them to show up on Election Day. Regardless of the direction of the effect, it seems the Pew Research Center’s article provides the kind of information Meyer was referring to that can be used by the electorate to communicate with itself and build consensus.

Advertisement