The media both writes the story of presidential primaries, influencing
outcomes, as well as, in reaction to surprises to the storyline' it has
been telling, writes a new story, reeling from the aftermath of a surprise
turn' in the primary road after Iowa or Super Tuesday. At first, Howard
Dean was the supposed anointed king of the Democratic primary, chosen by
young, hopeful anti-war Democrats in reaction to President Bush. However,
when Dean's support proved lackluster in early and crucial primary races,
Dean began to get more negative publicity, particularly in terms of his
more irrational-seeming moments of raving on the stump. The media began to
sound the death-knell of his campaign, right along with late night comics.
Soon Senator John Kerry became the anointed son in Deans' stead,
despite strong showings from Jonathan Edwards. The media admitted it was
surprised at the latter's success. Electability, it stated, was key for
Democrats this year, rather than ideological conformity. But this does not
mean that the media necessarily functions as a purely reactive force.
Edwards withdrew from the race after the media began to stress that all his
continued action for his own campaign could do was to draw support away
from Kerry and create further divisiveness within the Democratic fold.
Races were read as make or break' races for Dean, and then for Edwards,
respectively. When these candidates' support networks proved not to be
immediately strong enough, they were forced to withdraw.
The media writes either/or tales of success or failure for candidates.
Thus, although the media does not necessarily write the whole story of
presidential primaries, it seems to be able to considerably speed up the
tale, making the nominee a given' far sooner in the process than was
typical of less televised times. A candidate with less support might be
less apt to withdraw s...