Analysis of News Content: The California Recall Election

The Los Angeles Times and the New York Times both covered the California recall election extensively during the beginning of October 2003. The election was the first time a governor was ever recalled in that state, and only the second time in modern U.S. history. There was massive media coverage, and further study was pursued out of curiosity and interest. At first glance, both the LA Times and the NY Times covered the same stories in reputable ways typical of news organizations of their size and caliber. However, analyzing the two publications using Tankard's framing mechanisms reveals key differences between the two organizations, their styles of reporting, and their view of the issue at hand. Each newspaper used frames to show the same story in subtly different ways.

Five pairs of articles from October 2 through October 9 were gathered for analysis. Headlines and kickers, leads, selection of sources and quotes, and concluding statements of the articles show key differences between the two portrayals of the California recall election. Many discrepancies are evident when considering these framing mechanisms, and each will be examined closely. None of the two corresponding articles are exactly alike, and close investigation reveals what is behind their dissimilarities. Prior to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory, the LA Times displayed a not-so-subtle anti-Arnold sentiment. Once he won the election, their bias against him was greatly reduced and their reporting grew similar to that which the NY Times displayed all along: informative, constant, and unpartisan.

Many get their first impression of a newspaper article from its headline. The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times show consistent differences in the headlines during their election coverage. The LA Times’ long, drawn-out October 2 headline of “The Recall Campaign; Acting as if It’s in the Bag; Six days before the vote, Schwarzenegger touts a plan for his first 100 days in office. His governor-elect tone infuriates Davis aides,” has plenty of words, many of which are loaded with negative biases toward the Austrian-born actor and former body builder. Unlike the NY Times, which simply states “The California Recall: The Leading Republican Schwarzenegger Lays Out Agenda for the First 100 Days,” the California-based newspaper highlights an opinion of Arnold that hints at arrogance and an assumption of victory. With “Acting as if its in the Bag,” the LA Times is giving the impression that Schwarzenegger is behaving inappropriately, but it is the NY Times that points out that he is indeed the Republican front-runner. The NY Times also fails to mention Gray Davis, Schwarzenegger’s main opponent, in their headline. However, the LA Times does indeed mention his aides’ negative response to Arnold’s plans, reminding the public of Gray’s position and his following.

October 3 was an equally fiery day for recall headlines, as the LA Times boomed that “Schwarzenegger Tells Backers he ‘Behaved Badly’; He calls a Times report detailing sexual allegations by six women ‘trash politics.’ But he goes on to offer a general apology.’ Highlighting the Republican’s admittance of wrongdoing, the LA Times emphasizes his crude behavior and downplays his apology with “But” and detail of its “general” direction. In the NY Times, the concise headline blared “The California Recall: The Leading Republican: Sexual Accusations Prompt an Apology by Schwarzenegger.” Unlike their California counterpart, the NY Times includes the word “accusations” so as not to cement Schwarzenegger’s behavior as completely true in the mind of the reader. In addition, they do not include Arnold’s claim of “trash politics,” and instead mention his “prompted” apology, showing that he is indeed responding to the allegations in a political way rather than showing general concern. The LA Times takes the opportunity brought by the allegations to highlight Schwarzenegger’s flaws, while the New York Times gave a less biased headline.

The Los Angeles Times showed a shift in mentality once Schwarzenegger was elected Governor of California. Their headlines grew far less biased and gave a more fair representation of Arnold as Governor. For example, on October 8, the LA Times headline read “The Recall Election: Gov. Davis is Recalled; Schwarzenegger Wins; ‘I Will Not Fail You,’ The Republican Victor Promises.” This is a far cry from anti-Schwarzenegger headlines which ran only days before. In contrast, the NY Times ran a juicier headline for the same story, screaming “The California Recall; The Overview; Davis is Out, Schwarzenegger is In by Big Margins in California Recall.” It appears that the LA Times was downplaying its anti-Arnold attitude now that the Republican was Governor of the state in which they operated. The NY Times, on the other hand, played up to the human interest factor and boasted Davis’ ousting by the new politician with glee.

Leads at the beginning of each article sent a clear message not only about the story at hand, but also the views of the news source reporting it. The Los Angeles Times articles written prior to Schwarzenegger’s win were full of exciting, spicy language that highlighted the drama produced by the two lead campaigns, while the New York Times tended to begin their articles with a more balanced voice. On October 3, the LA Times highlighted that Schwarzenegger had admitted that he had indeed “behaved badly,” while the NY Times took the liberty of including that Arnold had admitted only “behave[ing] badly sometimes.” The New York paper took a more standard, fair approach and included more of Arnold’s quote. Only after Schwarzenegger’s victory did the Los Angeles Times lessen their printed biases of him. Terms like “all but declaring himself governor” (October 2) that hinted at arrogance were replaced by simple statements like “Schwarzenegger renewed his pledge not to raise taxes” (October 9). The leads supported the biases expressed in the LA Times headlines against Arnold prior to his election and their change of opinion once he was elected, while the New York Times continued to appear more balanced.

It is also important to note the selection of sources that each organization chose to use. Quotes from Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gray Davis, candidate Cruz Bustamante, fellow politicians, as well as female accusers of Schwarzenegger were prevalent in both papers. However, a major difference appeared in the articles that each organization published on October 8. The Los Angeles Times sprinkled their article with a number of politically involved individuals, including U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa (R) and Democratic Chairman Art Torres. Issa’s statement was very negative toward the LA Times, claiming that the newspaper was “a partisan against the recall, a partisan against Arnold Schwarzenegger. The people saw through it and rejected that.” The inclusion of this quote, which criticizes their own organization, is an attempt to finally appear fair and balanced now that Schwarzenegger has a place in California government. In addition to citing political leaders, the paper even included comments by a poll worker, clearly emphasizing the election’s effects on those actively involved with the campaign and interested in politics. The New York Times took a more casual approach, including observations and comments from regular citizens (a stay-at-home mom, a school administrator), Schwarzenegger, and Davis. This approach makes the election seem like an issue closer to the average reader and takes its importance out of the political sphere and into the homes of citizens. A clear shift in its anti-Arnold reporting, the sources that the Los Angeles Times chose to cite after Schwarzenegger’s victory attempted to end the unfairness that riddled their initial election reporting.

Finally, the concluding statements and paragraphs are important to mention; they are the organization’s final chance to leave an impression on the reader. Neither source offered a positive appraisal or opinion of Arnold Schwarzenegger until after his election. For example, on October 3, the LA Times article concluded with a quote from Maria Escobar, one of the women who posed a sexual allegation against Arnold. The final words are regarding his alleged inappropriate comments towards her and her response of “I’m infuriated.” Her anger towards the candidate rings loudly in the ears of the reader, who finish the article with a sour feeling towards Schwarzenegger. The piece then goes on to include Arnold Schwarzenegger’s response to the allegations, without any additional commentary. Letting his words stand on their own do not show Schwarzenegger in a positive light, as the topic is both a fiery one and his reply to it is far from articulate, reminding the reader that English is his second language.

Even the New York Times, which has been seemingly less biased than the LA Times concludes their article on the same day by stating that Davis campaign officials are denying involvement in the allegations. Those involved with Schwarzenegger’s campaign “criticize” Gray Davis about the allegations appearing so close to election day. The careful word choice of “criticized” has a negative connotation for Schwarzenegger’s side as it appears unwarranted, standing alone as the single descriptor of the reaction. As both papers state, none of the women were identified by Schwarzenegger’s campaign rivals, and to hint at Davis involvement is petty and trivial. However, on October 9, the LA Times praises Schwarzenegger’s “mostly positive campaign,” while the New York Times reveals that some Democrats are proposing a second recall, this time of Schwarzenegger. Out of the ten articles studied, two had neutral (neither negative nor positive) conclusions toward Schwarzenegger, seven were negative towards the Republican (either subtly or blatantly) and one was openly positive. As the one positive ending came from the Los Angeles Times after Schwarzenegger’s election, it was radical departure from their coverage just days before.

In looking at ten articles about the California recall election from two news sources over the course of eight days, it is clear that each newspaper had a different style of reporting and different biases and opinions went into writing each article. The Los Angeles Times had a clear anti-Schwarzenegger sentiment in their articles published prior to his victory while the New York Times remained far more impartial in their reporting. The language used by the LA Times and their not-so-subtle intertwining of negative adjectives, carefully selected quotations, and attempts to both hook the reader with equally vicious leads and closings do more than just spark anti-Arnold feelings; they make the paper’s bias inarguably clear. After Schwarzenegger’s win was official, only then did the Los Angeles Times alter their style of reporting. The impression the LA Times leaves is one of biased, judgmental reporting. A news source that is incapable of leaving opinions out of their news stories should at least be prepared to stand by their views. Rather, the Los Angeles Times changes their stance once the one who they oppose takes office. An editorial opposing Schwarzenegger has leaked onto their front page, yet they refuse to stand by it.

Based on the frames found in each publication, we can identify possible effects. Initial coverage in the LA Times was intended to convey a negative impression of the leading candidate Schwarzenegger. The effect is affective, intentional, short-term, and targeted at the group level, specifically California’s registered voters. Coverage in this paper was intended to create an eventual behavioral effect as voters go to the polls and opt to not vote for the well-known Republican. Much more positive coverage from the LA Times immediately following the election is the beginning of an affective, intentional, long-term effect meant for those same voters and the entire readership of the paper. Their writing attempts to show the Times as an unbiased source of news and starts a new, more positive chapter of coverage about the governor-elect. Ideally, the organization wishes for the public to also have a positive cognitive assessment of their news and make a behavioral decision to continually rely on them as a source of news.

Effects such as these are not equally experienced by all readers. Mitigating circumstances alter each individual’s perception of the news and contribute to the aggregate effect felt by society. Before even consuming news, people bring their own biases based on factors such as their socio-economic status and motivation for obtaining news. For example, a recently unemployed Republican would be more likely to have a favorable opinion of a leading GOP candidate promising improvements to the economy based his basic political views and desire to find work. The individual may pay attention to only a small set of issues in a given article pertaining and not retain information related to other issues deemed less important. His attention and information processing strategies shape the impression of the news he views. One’s orientations before, during, and after seeing a media message all form the effects left by that message.

The New York Times and Los Angeles Times coverage of the California recall election provides an excellent example of just how different the two news organizations can be when reporting on the same subject. Though they have the same resources and abilities when reporting, what they produced was of two different extremes. The clear bias of the Los Angeles Times shines through and diminishes their integrity as a news source, while the New York Times remains constant and trustworthy. Applying Tankard’s framing mechanisms reveals these differences and exposes more to the public than was ever intended.

Los Angeles Times, October 2, 2003 Thursday, Home Edition, Page 1, 2015 words, The State; THE RECALL CAMPAIGN; Acting as if It's in the Bag; Six days before the vote, Schwarzenegger touts a plan for his first 100 days in office. His governor-elect tone infuriates Davis aides., Joe Mathews and Gregg Jones, Times Staff Writers, SACRAMENTO

The New York Times, October 2, 2003, Thursday, Late Edition - Final, Section A; Page 28; Column 1; National Desk , 1292 words, THE CALIFORNIA RECALL: THE LEADING REPUBLICAN; Schwarzenegger Lays Out Agenda for First 100 Days, By CHARLIE LeDUFF , SACRAMENTO, Oct. 1

Los Angeles Times, October 3, 2003 Friday, Home Edition, Page 1, 2641 words, THE RECALL CAMPAIGN; Schwarzenegger Tells Backers He 'Behaved Badly'; He calls a Times report detailing sexual allegations by six women 'trash politics.' But he goes on to offer a general apology., Peter Nicholas, Carla Hall and Michael Finnegan, Times Staff Writers

The New York Times, October 3, 2003, Friday, Late Edition - Final Correction Appended, Section A; Page 1; Column 6; National Desk , 1335 words, THE CALIFORNIA RECALL: THE LEADING REPUBLICAN; Sexual Accusations Prompt an Apology By Schwarzenegger, By CHARLIE LeDUFF and DEAN E. MURPHY , SAN DIEGO, Oct. 2

Los Angeles Times, October 7, 2003 Tuesday, Home Edition, Page 1, 2021 words, THE RECALL CAMPAIGN; Recall Race Wraps Up in a Whirlwind; Candidates make their final appeals in the historic election on removing Gov. Davis. Officials across the state brace for heavy turnout., Michael Finnegan, Times Staff Writer

The New York Times, October 7, 2003, Tuesday, Late Edition - Final, Section A; Page 16; Column 4; National Desk, 1170 words, Final Campaign Day for the California Recall Effort Ends 11 Whirlwind Weeks, By DEAN E. MURPHY and CHARLIE LeDUFF, LOS ANGELES, Oct. 6

Los Angeles Times, October 8, 2003 Wednesday, Home Edition Correction Appended, Page 1, 2990 words, THE RECALL ELECTION; Gov. Davis Is Recalled; Schwarzenegger Wins; 'I Will Not Fail You,' the Republican Victor Promises, Michael Finnegan, Times Staff Writer

The New York Times, October 8, 2003, Wednesday, Late Edition - Final, Section A; Page 1; Column 6; National Desk, 1859 words, THE CALIFORNIA RECALL: THE OVERVIEW; DAVIS IS OUT, SCHWARZENEGGER IS IN BY BIG MARGINS IN CALIFORNIA RECALL, By JOHN M. BRODER, LOS ANGELES, Oct. 7

Los Angeles Times, October 9, 2003 Thursday, Home Edition, Page 1, 2531 words, The Recall Election; Schwarzenegger Reiterates Anti-Tax Theme and Will Ask Bush for Help; The governor-elect repeats his campaign pledges and says he will shelve his movie career. He is set to roll out his transition team today., Mark Z. Barabak, Times Staff Writer

The New York Times, October 9, 2003, Thursday, Late Edition - Final, Section A; Page 1; Column 6; National Desk , 1436 words, THE CALIFORNIA RECALL: THE OVERVIEW; SCHWARZENEGGER LAYS FOUNDATION FOR A TRANSITION, By DEAN E. MURPHY , LOS ANGELES, Oct. 8