Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric, and David Gregory endorsing presidential candidates: Could it happen? Actually, it already is—though not quite in the way you might imagine.
For decades, scholars have studied and debated the impact of media, both paid and earned, on the decision-making of swing voters.
Earned media—i.e., news—is generally believed to have limited impact, because the types of broadcasts valued by swing voters are unlikely to contain the pointed messages that are more effective at moving minds. Media outlets delivering more one-sided messages, on the other hand—such as FOX News Channel or MSNBC—are watched mainly by people who already have made up their minds.
Meanwhile, paid media, or traditional campaign advertising, can be targeted at swing voters. But messages and messengers with particular partisan or other motives may not have the credibility to alter those voters’ decisions.
What happens, though, when swing voters are confronted by negative messages delivered by credible messengers?
The 2012 presidential contest is only now escalating to the general election phase, and already some of the best known brands in television journalism have starred in negative ads—including two of the most searing ads of the Republican primary and the opening salvo by a Republican “super PAC” against President Obama.
Like superimposed newspaper headlines, network news footage is a staple of campaign advertising. But the extensive early use is new, and it may signal unprecedented usage to come as political advertisers seek the Holy Grail: support of the undecided voters on whom the election is expected to turn.
The campaign of former Gov. Mitt Romney, now the presumptive GOP nominee, dropped two network news bombs on his lead primary opponents. The first ad, except for the requisite disclaimer, was entirely comprised of then-“NBC Nightly News” anchor Tom Brokaw opening the January 21, 1997, broadcast by reporting that Speaker Newt Gingrich’s House colleagues had, “by an overwhelming vote,” found him guilty of ethics violations. (Disclosure: As nonpartisan analysts who track campaign advertising, we work for nearly every organization named in this article.)
Shown 2,225 times in the five days leading up to the Florida primary, the “Brokaw ad” will be one of the most remembered of the 2012 campaign. Onetime frontrunner Gingrich lost the state to Romney by 14 points.
On April 9, 15 days before the Pennsylvania primary on which former Sen. Rick Santorum was staking his campaign, a new Romney campaign ad opened with the voiceover by then-“CBS Evening News” anchor Katie Couric reporting Santorum’s loss of his Senate seat on election night in 2006. National political correspondent Gloria Borger (now at CNN) remarked that Santorum lost “among Democrats and independents, women and men, young and old, blacks and whites, rich and poor.”
The ad aired 177 times that day. Had Santorum stayed in the race, it probably would have aired through the state’s April 24 vote.
As of April 25, 284 spots had been aired by 64 advertisers in the 2012 presidential race. Of that group, these two ads strike us as the most effective and potentially trend-setting. Video is far more impactful than superimposed newspaper headlines that viewers have to speed-read. And even in a contest where all the voters are of the same party, credible voices like Brokaw’s and Couric’s may break through where unfamiliar narrators who are paid to sound shocked, shocked! won’t. Their words—and they themselves—become the most influential endorsers the candidates could ever command.
We are not among those who bemoan negative advertising—so long as it is accurate, as the Romney commercials were. But these ads also strike us as among the most worrisome of this cycle, at least from the perspective of broadcast journalism.

The journalists featured in these ads have spent their careers building reputations for neutrality
That was joke .... right?
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Mon 30 Apr 2012 at 11:51 AM
Every time journalists call Mitt Romney "the presumptive GOP nominee" (as you did in this article) they are showing their bias. All of the mainstream media outlets are misreporting the number of delegates Romney has secured. When will we see CJR post an article about that?
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-27/politics/31419425_1_romney-delegates-delegate-total-ron-paul
#2 Posted by Jessica, CJR on Mon 30 Apr 2012 at 01:42 PM
Hello, Jessica—thanks for sending the link along.
Walter Shapiro, who also contributes to this blog, wrote about instances where news organizations do a disservice to voters by limiting coverage of candidates who are still in the race. The piece, "Why is the Press So Ready to Count Santorum Out?" is here:
http://www.cjr.org/swing_states_project/why_is_the_press_so_ready_to_c.php
#3 Posted by Brendan Fitzgerald, CJR on Mon 30 Apr 2012 at 04:15 PM
The first paragraph on the second page of the Walter Shapiro article briefly addresses the issue of delegate counts not being finalized, but I am talking about the media using numbers that are outright incorrect. Take a look at http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/scorecard/statebystate/r which was supposedly updated April 25. It says that Ron Paul has 7 delegates in Iowa and 9 in Minnesota. His actual delegate numbers as of April 24 are 14 and 20. And it's not just CNN. The New York Times, updated today, shows one delegate for Ron Paul in Iowa: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates.
#4 Posted by Jessica, CJR on Mon 30 Apr 2012 at 05:42 PM
Here is the NYT link again: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates - in my previous comment the period was somehow made part of the link address.
#5 Posted by Jessica, CJR on Mon 30 Apr 2012 at 05:54 PM
Here's a piece that talks about media political BS.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-to-spot-b.s.-political-story-in-under-10-seconds/
#1 was especially poignant (though the language may be a little rough for some viewers).
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 30 Apr 2012 at 09:09 PM
Yeah, Mittens is the presumptive GOP nominee, and there's no real question about that, nor no reason not to say so in any story. But you're welcome to keep fooling yourself if you wish.
#7 Posted by Scott, CJR on Tue 5 Jun 2012 at 03:31 PM