Thinking about the election? Staff writers Eve Bertrand, Alexis Hernandez Lopez, and Eira Prakash attended the final event in a series by the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) events of the election, in which three experts break down their perspectives on the media’s role in the 2024 presidential race. 

On Thursday, November 14, the Columbia Journalism School and the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) Institute of Global Politics collaborated on an event dedicated to breaking down the way media coverage played a role in the 2024 presidential election. Executive Editor of the Columbia Journalism Review Sewell Chan was joined by panelists Andrew Gelman, Garrett Haake, and Errin Haines. 

Columbia Interim President Katrina Armstrong opened the panel, discussing how “the events and the election [were] coming on the heels of a turbulent time for both us here at Columbia and in the world.” She emphasized our need to unite and move beyond political and other divisions. Keren Yarhi-Milo, Dean of SIPA, then took the stage, emphasizing the shift of worldview this election brings. 

Chan opened the conversation with a broad question about the “mainstream press” and how the panelists felt that it covered the election. The consensus from all three panelists was that the mainstream media did a much better job covering President-elect Donald Trump in this election season than in 2016. Haake, Senior Congressional Correspondent at NBC News, went so far to say that Trump was now probably the “most covered individual on the planet.” In a follow up, Chan asked about people’s lack of want to use mainstream news, referencing the popularity of personal echo chambers. To this, Haines, Editor-at-Large of The 19th News, emphasized the impact the pandemic had on news fatigue, saying that many people are simply tired of listening to the news and that mainstream sources did not do enough to track these people as they were leaving viewership. 

Chan then noted that among those who got their news primarily from newspapers or those who followed the news closely, Vice President Kamala Harris predominantly won, whereas among those who got their news primarily from YouTube or those who didn’t follow the news closely, Trump overwhelmingly won. Questioning whether Harris actually reached the right audiences, Haake supported the Harris campaign’s strategy, saying that they understood what types of audiences needed to be reached—whether that be young men on the “bro podcast circuit” or low-income voters in battleground states. Both Haake and Haines emphasized that despite knowing this, 107 days was simply not enough time for the campaign to cover all the groups they needed to. 

Next, the discussion shifted to consider the statistics surrounding polls generally. Chan asked Gelman, a Columbia professor of statistics and political science, if he felt that voting was predictable. Gelman believed that for the most part, campaign polls are much less variable than they were in the past, and that voters are generally rational. 

Chan followed up on Gelman’s answer, wondering whether low information voting, meaning those who vote without knowledge on the issues, was a predictable variable and if Gelman believed they were voting on a reasonable assessment of candidates. Gelman responded that voting on culture is not a low information voter; rather, evidence shows that those who are wealthier and more educated have more informed political stances and voters that voted on culture and social issues are predictable because they look at certain political issues. Haake added that voting on cultural reasons is not necessarily a low information practice and that people should not be quick to talk down on Trump voters. 

Haines then shifted the conversation to the historical significance of this election, noting that this was the first election post-overturn of Roe v. Wade and post-pandemic. She argued that the media and political campaigns did not anticipate the impact this would have on the election. Trump was criticized for how he handled the COVID-19 pandemic, so people cited that as a reason to not vote for him. 

Later, Chan asked the panelists whether the public has become too reliant on polling and if they believe that there may have been a polling error because Trump won all seven states. Gelman explained that polls are far more accurate now than in the past, and he noted that both the 2020 and 2024 polls were off by around two or three percentage points. He also expressed distaste for the proliferation in the number of polls today, saying that there are far too many polls conducted, which is not a good use of resources. 

Haines continuing the conversation, stated that polls point people in a direction that lets the media understand the voters. For instance, polls can guide the news by highlighting the issues that resonate most strongly with the public, allowing broadcasters to focus on key topics rather than trying to cover a broad range of issues. She added that polling allows for the perspective of marginalized communities to be better represented. Haines also explained that reporters attempt to look at polling responsibly to get an accurate picture of voters’ opinions to report on, noting that there was growing concern that bad faith actors are creating polls to aggregate polling. Haines explained that aggregate polling gathers organizations’ individual polls into a more digestible combination of results to have a broad picture of public opinion.

Chan wrapped up the panel discussion by asking panelists to reflect on how the press has become more transparent with their methodology for reporting. He noted that the press has become more transparent with their methodology for reporting. However, he articulated that more people are getting their information from sources that are not particularly engaged in reporting, reducing the relevance of the press’ increasing transparency. Chan then asked whether we are in a world of endless commentary and how we can respond to that challenge. 

Haines responded that “we cannot continue to be so precious about the method of delivery,” explaining that news sources need to reach people in places where they will listen. For example, vertical news coverage that viewers can watch the news on an app, and podcasts are more frequently interacted with and can better reach audiences of voters. Gelman presented the conservative perspective, arguing that conservatives felt unrepresented in current media so they developed their own. 

After the panel discussion, there was a student Q&A, with questions ranging from polling errors to the decreasing influence of traditional media. Controversially, one student asked whether the traditional media failed to connect with what was important for the average voter, leading to inaccurate predictions about the outcome of the election. Gelman and Haines rejected the idea, saying that the polls always indicated a close race. Haake agreed and said that voters who paid attention to mainstream news content had a good idea of the issues that were at stake in the election, but that it was impossible to know exactly how people would vote based on those issues.

Another student asked whether traditional liberal media would reflect on their possible partiality to the Democratic Party given the outcome of this election. Haake said that different news programs vary, but stated that “coverage of any politician should be oppositional, but not ideological.” Going forward, he stated that he wants to be able to report critically and evaluate Trump’s time in office while still being respectful of those who support him.

Picture of Panelists by Bwog Staff