Guess What The New York Times is Saying… (Warning: Long Post)
Mihika G -
Hello or hello again! If you happened to stumble upon this, consider yourself lucky, because this might just be the most important post on my blog. Or if you’re a loyal fan, thanks for the support – you’re the reason I sit in coffee shops to analyze all these articles ☕️👩💻
But regardless of why you’re here, I’m happy to share that I have concluded analysis for the Kamala Harris section of the articles. The number of articles has decreased from the 175 I mentioned in my last post to 149, after removing a good chunk that were not actually full articles, but rather pages with voice or video essays and an attached text summary, which did not meet my preset guidelines for article selection.
Methodology
To clarify the overall methodology I used here, I annotated every single article I selected from July, using the quotes I had picked out and the additional article notes I had taken to identify the most commonly repeated words and/or phrases. From those, I chose the eight most commonly used to hold as keywords that I could search for in the articles from the remaining months (August through November).
- Energy
- Excited
- Emotion
- Enthusiasm
- Joy
- Meme
- Vibe
- Brand
Variations of these words were accepted. For example, energy/energized/energetic were all marked as the same word, or excited/excitement/exciting. Upon finding of a keyword, I would read that specific section to ensure that the word was being used in the way I was looking for. For instance, energy would have to refer to an abstract dynamic quality, as opposed to the power derived from physical or chemical resources. I would then skim the rest of the article to find other supporting statements, further evaluating the ratio of this bias to objective policy discussions, in order to identify if the bias was a major part of the article or not. If none of those keywords were present in the article, I conducted a manual search for other biased words that were not labelled as a keyword, noting them down.
To discuss the findings, I’ll split it up by month, then talk about the overall picture. I’ve also included a few key articles from each section to demonstrate the trends I discuss, so you can get a general idea of what I’m finding, without having to look at every single article I’ve sifted through.
JULY (26 articles)
The majority of articles were focused on things like Harris’s personality, brand and energy. Her policy positions were discussed, but portrayed as second in importance to her character and framing to the public. Some key articles:
- ‘A Fierce Capacity to Go Right After Trump’: Three Writers on Kamala Harris and the 2024 Shakeup This article specifically is a great example of the trend mentioned above – the content very briefly touches on her policy stances (at the surface level with no substantial analysis), but focuses heavily on her vibes and brand, and how such an energetic campaign guarantees a win.
- Harris vs. Trump Is Taking Shape. And Then There’s Vance. This article asserts that Harris “seem to be a particularly nice person,” separate from her policy stances.
AUGUST (64 articles)
Just around half the articles contained the repeated use of the marked keywords when discussing her validity as a candidate and her campaign overall. However, there is a clear shift from July, in the sense that there are significantly more articles that remain objective and critically examine her stances on key policy issues (large focus on the conflict in Gaza and her proposed economic code). Some key articles:
- Kamalanomics, Revealed: A Solid Center-Left Agenda This article introduces her idea for an economic system as “Kamalanomics,” which can be contrasted with “Trumponomics” or “Reaganomics,” which are commonly used to refer to Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan’s tax codes respectively, but make use of their last names rather than the first. Further, there is a NYT article specifically (analysis yet to be completed) that specifically writes on “Trumponomics.” The conditional shift in use of first versus last name could make a case for bias.
- Kamala Came to Slay This article, among others, puts a substantial focus on describing her clothing choices at events. The title also, I would argue, would fall under the category of questionable rhetoric, although with a positive intent.
SEPTEMBER (31 articles)
September demonstrates what I would call the biggest shift, in the sense that there is a significant increase in the number of articles that objectively discuss policy stances and zoom in on specific issues, and how the candidate(s) play into those situations. Around a third of the articles still display the repeated use of the biased keywords previously identified; however, there are also more articles that discuss Harris and Trump together, as a means of directly comparing the two and their past merits plus future plans.
- Kamala Harris’s Ideas About Patriotism This article focuses a great deal on Harris’s personality, and how that shapes her campaign, which is not inherently bad. However, the disproportionate focus on things like this, as opposed to her concrete action items, creates an imbalance in coverage.
- I Have Studied Social Mobility for Years. Here’s How Kamala Harris Can Build an ‘Opportunity Economy.’ This is an example of one of the more objective articles. In citing other studies and data, it created an analysis of what Harris must still do and how she can adapt to the socioeconomic state of America.
OCTOBER (26 articles)
This month shows a continuation in the trend observed in September, with bias persisting, but not as repeated as in previous months. There is an increase in articles that are skeptical about both candidates, making this known through data and facts about their past and projected plans.
- Reasons to Vote for Harris, Not Trump The article outlines, as seen in the title, reasons to vote for Harris over Trump. However, there is not one policy idea or issue mentioned. All the reasons outlines to cast a blue ballot are based on her campaign’s energy and the excitement. Although this article is in favor of Harris, it continues to fuel such media bias.
- I’ve Covered Politics for 50 Years. Here’s Why So Much Hinges on Electing Kamala Harris. By contrast, this article makes the case for Harris through discussion of policy and political history.
NOVEMBER (2 articles)
It’s difficult to make an objective assessment of the bias in November, because there were only 2 articles that met my guidelines (due to the cutoff date being November 5th). I could make the case that this is consistent with the trend I’ve seen, where the bias in coverage decreases by the month, and the articles in November didn’t demonstrate any biased language, However, again, due to there only being 2 articles, this could be erroneous.
Overall Conclusions
What I can claim through this section of the analysis is that there seems to be a large focus on things like Harris’s personality, image, and branding. Still, it is important to note that the frequency of this bias did decrease as the months passed, closer to Election Day, which could speak to the method behind this bias.
The biggest problem with this bias is that, through reading these articles, I have identified that on net, voters’ chief concern with Harris’s campaign was her lack of clarity in answers and gaps in policy stances. Thus, a media focus on her energy and vibe, although in a positive light, may harm her position, as it creates the idea that her campaign is solely based on this, and not on political merit.
Future Steps
This all still does not hold any significant weight without a comparison to the Trump side of the NYT. So after completing my analysis of those articles, I will be able to make final conclusions. If you’re still here after all of that, thank you so much – I know it’s a lot. But I look forward to sharing my future deductions with you. Until next time!
Comments:
All viewpoints are welcome but profane, threatening, disrespectful, or harassing comments will not be tolerated and are subject to moderation up to, and including, full deletion.