The difference is that to a much greater degree, political writers are participants in the race they’re covering—one way they might “have a great story to cover” is to do what they can “to keep the story going.” The analogy’s not perfect, but it’s sort of like having an umpire with an incentive to keep the underdog close.
Not every political correspondent has been so willing to acknowledge that the press corps has this bias. When, in a recent podcast, Slate editor David Plotz said that political reporters entertain “Rube Goldberg fantasies” about how long-shot candidates still have a chance because “they want there to be something interesting in the spring,” his colleague John Dickerson called the claim “wrong” and “offensive,” and said campaign reporters were—sticking to that sports metaphor—calling the plays as they came, not cheering them along.
But there’s at least some evidence to the contrary. Heilemann cites an analysis from the Center for Media and Public Affairs, which found that Romney received “markedly more negative” coverage “in the ten days leading up to the New Hampshire primary, when the post-Iowa sense of Romney’s inevitability kicked in.”
And anecdotally, while in Iowa I was struck by how readily the media latched onto the story of the “Santorum surge,” which was declared when that underdog candidate was polling in third place. (In that case, at least, the storyline was vindicated—though it’s hard to know how Santorum would have fared in Iowa without the media’s eager attention.)
Or consider this headline from the Los Angeles Times, which practically pleads with readers not to lose interest after Romney’s resounding Florida victory: “Mitt Romney’s Florida win won’t seal race: Despite his landslide victory, the battle for enough delegates to secure the Republican presidential nomination could run for weeks or months.”
(Politico, typically, covers every angle here: a media piece noting the press’s need for drama, a straight news piece that hammers home Romney’s inevitable win, and an analysis piece that argues that the next month is “uncharted territory” and “conservatives are still resisting Romney.” Even Mitt Romney’s inevitability, it seems, flip-flops. Update: Also, this.)
When CJR contributor Brendan Nyhan grappled with this subject after Iowa, he urged reporters to recognize their role in creating campaign “momentum.” Similarly, during the Santorum surge, I argued that the press should exercise “some self-awareness and restraint.”
If Milbank, Heilemann, Lizza et al are any indication, we have plenty of recognition and self-awareness in the press. Now how about that restraint?

Of course, it's a lot easier for them to just root for the story when it's the Republican primaries they're covering. They've got no dog in that fight.
#1 Posted by Tom T., CJR on Fri 3 Feb 2012 at 11:49 AM
In terms of promoting a long, rancorous primary, much credit goes to Newsmax, which has been in the tank for Gingrich since early January:
http://saltyeggs.com/newsmax-makes-its-move/
#2 Posted by TF, CJR on Tue 7 Feb 2012 at 11:31 AM
It was the same four years ago. It became obvious by mid-March that Obama would win enough delegates for the nomination, but the media kept Hillary alive until June.
The news operations know that the Presidential election season only comes once every four years and they try to max interest, and revenues, from the contest.
#3 Posted by Chuck Miller, CJR on Tue 7 Feb 2012 at 01:18 PM
Erika,
It's taken you how long to figure this one out? The little boys and girls in the Georgetown Hamptons Cocktail Club want to keep this mindless foolishness going forever. It's simple, boring, requires little effort, and placates the American Idol masses. You don't actually expect the Georgetown Hamptons Cocktail Club to discuss macroeconomics, taxation, income disparity (from which they so richly benefit), and public policy, do you?
Next, you'll offer insight on the lack of journalism and overall importance of Amstrong Cooper's nationalization of local murder stories involving mothers killing children, fathers killing children, mothers killing fathers, fathers killing mothers, children killing mothers and/or fathers, and all of them white as rice. Oh, I forgot: Cooper's from the Whitney klan. You'll kiss his butt, not give it, and his CNN producers, the ass kicking they so richly deserve.
Or write about how Erin Burnett brings countless Conservatives on her "show" to talk Conservative economic policy without mentioning her personal history and her fiancee's employment in these areas. Again, Erin's a "protected" member of the klan and must never get the ethical smackdown she so richly deserves.
You, and the CJR bosses, really make me sick.
#4 Posted by Mark, CJR on Tue 7 Feb 2012 at 04:22 PM
Political coverage is now indistinguisable from sports or Oscar coverage. Since when is a presidential candidate supposed to provide entertainment -- to give Chris Matthews gets a tingle or Rich Lowry starbursts? When did the primaries become American Idol auditions? When did journalists start openly begging for a sideshow, a candidate's qualifications and suitability for office be damned. Why don't we skip the serious business of finding the most qualified person to lead the free world and draft a pro wrestler instead? President Camacho! Woof, woof, woof.
#5 Posted by S. Marie, CJR on Tue 7 Feb 2012 at 07:24 PM