: Stable process = lack of choice…
Yesterday I discussed the political stability of the presidential primary process. A stable process is a predictable process. And, as Prof. William G. Mayer has demonstrated, the leader in the last poll before the Iowa caucuses will be the winner of the nomination.
The press covers this process as if it were unstable, i.e. as if the outcome were in doubt. I maintain this is an example of the narrative bias of journalism, a bias that dictates that “stories” be covered as human dramas and master narratives be constructed to frame issues and situations.
On the surface, it seems the press should not portray a stable process as an unstable process merely because such framing does not conform to the facts. But narrative bias blinds the press to the bigger issue: The stability of the process robs voters of any real choice.
How did the process become stable? There are many “correct” answers to that question, but I want to focus on the role of the press. Despite coverage that portrays instability, the press stabilizes the process by: 1) deciding which candidates are viable, 2) creating or adopting master narratives for each candidate, 3) conducting polls and writing “stories” that encourage voters to adopt numbers 1 and 2.
In this series:
Who wins and when…
Long, hot summer…
The Search for drama…
