Moralizing Campaign Coverage: A Computerized Textual Analysis of New York Times’ Reporting on Clinton and Trump During the 2016 Presidential Election

Abstract

ABSTRACT The 2016 presidential election marked a new era of political campaign featured by social media-powered professional and citizen journalism. Still, legacy news organizations such as the New York Times (NYT) and the Washington Post amassed significant influences among voters in both online and offline settings. Against this backdrop, this study examines how NYT covered Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump during the 2016 election. Drawing upon the rich literature in moral psychology, particularly the model of intuitive morality and exemplars (MIME; Tamborini, 2012, “A Model of Intuitive Morality and Exemplars.” In Media and the Moral Mind, edited by R. Tamborini, 43–74. London, England: Routledge). A computerized textual analysis of over 1,000 socially transmitted NYT stories regarding both candidates was performed. Findings show that the NYT’s election coverage displayed a certain level of coverage neutrality, and the use of moral terms in NYT’s coverage at critical time points might have contributed to Trump’s final victory in 2016.