The Effects of Horse Race Reporting on the 2020 Election

Horse racing is a sport steeped in tradition and elegance. But behind the romance of fancy outfits and mint julips lies a world of injuries, drug abuse, gruesome breakdowns, and slaughter. The equine athletes are forced to push themselves far beyond their physical limits, and they endure a spiral of cocktail-like drugs meant to mask their injuries and artificially boost performance. As a result, many horses—like Eight Belles and Black Caviar—will break their legs or suffer from the ailment known as exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage (EIPH), which causes severe bleeding in the lungs. Many are started on their rigorous training regimens at an extremely young age—as early as two or three years old—which inflicts a lot of stress on their developing bones and ligaments.

Even so, it’s hard for people to resist the allure of a horse race. The sport has captivated crowds for centuries and continues to do so, drawing millions of fans to the grandstands to watch their favorite horse run. Many are even willing to take a risk and bet on the underdog, hoping that they will win and earn some much-needed cash.

When newsrooms cover elections like a horse race by focusing on who’s ahead or behind in polls and predictions—what’s been called “horse race coverage”—voters, candidates, and the news industry itself suffer, according to research. The problem is particularly acute when newsrooms use a form of polling data called probabilistic forecasting, which presents poll results as the likelihood that a candidate will win or lose.

As the 2020 election approaches, scholars have studied the effects of this type of strategic news coverage, and they’ve found that it elevates voters’ cynicism of politics and can discourage voting. One key factor is that the style of horse race reporting encourages people to skip elections when they have a high probability of losing. It also makes people more likely to see third-party political candidates as a nuisance and less likely to vote for them, which can make them cynical about the democratic process as a whole.

Despite the growing number of studies showing that this style of coverage harms voters and other stakeholders, it’s unlikely that journalists will stop covering elections as a competitive game. But it is possible to reduce the negative impact of horse race reporting, and two scholars offer some suggestions for how to do so.

Horse racing is a sport steeped in tradition and elegance. But behind the romance of fancy outfits and mint julips lies a world of injuries, drug abuse, gruesome breakdowns, and slaughter. The equine athletes are forced to push themselves far beyond their physical limits, and they endure a spiral of cocktail-like drugs meant to mask their injuries and artificially boost performance. As a result, many horses—like Eight Belles and Black Caviar—will break their legs or suffer from the ailment known as exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage (EIPH), which causes severe bleeding in the lungs. Many are started on their rigorous training regimens at an extremely young age—as early as two or three years old—which inflicts a lot of stress on their developing bones and ligaments. Even so, it’s hard for people to resist the allure of a horse race. The sport has captivated crowds for centuries and continues to do so, drawing millions of fans to the grandstands to watch their favorite horse run. Many are even willing to take a risk and bet on the underdog, hoping that they will win and earn some much-needed cash. When newsrooms cover elections like a horse race by focusing on who’s ahead or behind in polls and predictions—what’s been called “horse race coverage”—voters, candidates, and the news industry itself suffer, according to research. The problem is particularly acute when newsrooms use a form of polling data called probabilistic forecasting, which presents poll results as the likelihood that a candidate will win or lose. As the 2020 election approaches, scholars have studied the effects of this type of strategic news coverage, and they’ve found that it elevates voters’ cynicism of politics and can discourage voting. One key factor is that the style of horse race reporting encourages people to skip elections when they have a high probability of losing. It also makes people more likely to see third-party political candidates as a nuisance and less likely to vote for them, which can make them cynical about the democratic process as a whole. Despite the growing number of studies showing that this style of coverage harms voters and other stakeholders, it’s unlikely that journalists will stop covering elections as a competitive game. But it is possible to reduce the negative impact of horse race reporting, and two scholars offer some suggestions for how to do so.