Skipping the Horse Race: Issues-Based Election Reporting

Leah Dajches: When you hear phrases like, "They're neck and neck," "So-and-so pulls ahead," or "The once frontrunner now lags behind," it might seem like you're watching a sporting event. But this type of verbiage has become all too common in elections reporting. Known as horse race coverage, this type of journalism focuses on polling data, campaign strategy, and public perception, instead of candidate policy. It reports endlessly on the odds of a candidate winning, rather than educating citizens about the stakes for governance if they win. Media scholars who have studied horse race reporting have found that it increases distrust in politicians and news outlets, can amplify inaccurate opinion poll data, and can ultimately contribute to an uninformed electorate. It's also been found to shortchange female candidates, who tend to focus on policy issues to build their credibility and her third-party candidates, who often are overlooked or ignored by newsrooms because their chances of winning are usually slim.

In other words, horse race election coverage can pose a real danger to democracy. But some news outlets are pushing back. What does it look like when journalists implement a style of reporting that focuses on issues important to citizens, instead of the agendas set by candidates?

Matt Jordan: To find out, we're going to talk with Elizabeth Estrada, Democracy Editor at Spotlight PA, and Scott Blanchard, Director of Journalism at WITF. With a passion for engagement and commitment to serving communities, Elizabeth Estrada connects voters with the information they need in order to confidently participate in our democracy. She helps shape the growth of Spotlight PA's service journalism around voting and elections, and general issues as they relate to state government. Previously, Elizabeth worked at WHYY's PlanPhilly as an Engagement Editor, where she reported positive stories through her original Feel-Good Friday series, launched the station's first ever bilingual series, and managed an opinion and essay section. As director of journalism, Scott works on things like newsroom strategy, culture, ethics and training. He also works with reporters on stories, and is deeply involved with WITF's community engagement efforts, and collaborations with other news organizations. Scott previously worked as an investigative and projects editor at the York Daily record, where he helped create a trauma awareness and peer support program. He was a 2013 Ochberg Fellow, receiving training at Columbia University in PTSD, science, self-help, and peer support. Both Elizabeth and Scott's teams are committed to avoiding horse race reporting, and centering democracy in their election coverage. Elizabeth and Scott, welcome to News Over Noise.

Elizabeth Estrada: Thanks for having us.

Scott Blanchard: Thank you.

Matt Jordan: So, what are the challenges that you see coming in the 2024 election? And how does the shift in coverage that both of your news organizations have articulated address these challenges? Scott?

Scott Blanchard: I think the challenges, or one of the major challenges that we still face, is the belief in the minds of a lot of people that something happened in 2020, that didn't happen. And that there's something fundamentally wrong with the electoral system, and with the integrity of the election system. I don't think anyone would ever say that a system like that couldn't be improved, and maybe shouldn't be improved in certain ways. But I think news organizations are challenged to report contextually and factually as often as we possibly can about what the actual situation is. And not trying to report on the idea that in some certain situations, 2 plus 2 could equal 5. Because it doesn't. So, I think that's a big challenge for us. And then for the second part of your question, I think, what we are trying to do at WITF, is to focus on reporting facts and reporting context, doing accountability reporting to let people know what the facts are, to arm them with facts, essentially, so that they know that their vote's going to count, and they have information that they can use to refute or turn back or debunk misinformation and disinformation around the election. And then we're going to be as transparent as we possibly can about how we're doing that, so people understand our process, and they can question us. We can talk about it. We'll be open about what we do, and how we do it. And we hope that gives people a greater sense of confidence in the information that we're reporting.

Elizabeth Estrada: Yeah, I second all of that. I think that, fundamentally, there's a lot of mistrust, which really has been building up since 2016, probably since before then. But we really saw an explosion in 2016 and 2020. And I think that just like in those election years, we're seeing misinformation be something that a lot of voters are having to navigate, and really tackle and deal with. And so, at Spotlight PA, we're really hoping to help people navigate those issues. We've been publishing an Election 101 Prebunking series, where we're taking things like voting machines, mail ballots, all these different things that tend to come up year after year, that people have questions about, that people are confused about, and where there's a lot of false information about. And we're trying to break it down clearly so that people can be informed with the facts and the truth, and really an understanding about how these systems work. I think, like Scott said, there is mistrust also in our electoral administration and systems, and how things function, and how people believe them to function. So, we hope that by sharing information about how these things work, it can alleviate some of that confusion. I also think that a challenge that is a little bit harder to navigate is really the mistrust that a lot of people have in news, in general. I'm sure that you all experience this. I think that even when news outlets are reporting the facts, and trying to get them out there for people, it's hard if you're hitting a wall where people are just like, well, I'm dismissing this outlet because you're seen as liberal, you're seen as conservative. And so, getting through that is really challenging. And honestly, I think something that so many different outlets, regardless of how you position yourself in the media ecosystem, I think all different kinds of outlets are experiencing that. And at Spotlight PA, that's why we really like to be up front with the fact that we are independent. We are nonpartisan. We don't endorse any candidates. And we really are just trying to lay out the information for people, so that they can do with it what they will to inform their choices when they are at the polling place and when they're filling out their mail ballots. But there's a lot going on this year. And I think that we're really only starting to scrape the surface with what Scott and I just shared.

Leah Dajches: And it's a big year. It's a big election year. And we're already preparing for the News Literacy Initiative. And something we've talked a lot about is horse race coverage, or horse race journalism. And I've noticed, both WITF and Spotlight PA have a response to how you're going to handle, or not, horse race coverage for this upcoming election year. Can y'all tell us a little bit more about what is horse race coverage, and your strategy against it?

Elizabeth Estrada: Horse race coverage is essentially, the way that I see it, pretty superficial day-to-day coverage. It's kind of like, where the candidates stop this week, what they said about this other candidate, what the polls are saying, what public perception is, rather than really digging into the issues where candidates stand, how they are really similar or different from one another. Really providing that value to the electorate so that they can be informed about the candidates that they're having to choose between. As far as where Spotlight PA stands on it, we're not doing it. There are many different outlets who are taking that on. And if people are interested in that, and following that coverage, it's out there. It's easily accessible. What we are really trying to do is a few things. We have a few goals, a few pillars for this upcoming election, that's really guiding our coverage, our projects that we're working on, and the resources and tools that we're putting out there to help voters. The first is really connecting the stakes of this election to Pennsylvanians, and how it will impact their lives, why they should care. The other, which we talked about a little bit earlier, is explaining these election systems, how they work, what people should know about them. And then thirdly is combating the misinformation, which I think is the biggest challenge, but really trying to put things out there that clarify and contextualize, and share the facts about certain issues that tend to come up time and time again. So that's what we're doing. We can talk a little bit about the specific projects later on, I'm sure. But as far as horse race coverage, we're not doing it. If people want it, they will, probably-- they don't even have to go far to find it. It will find them. But we're really focused on getting voters the information, having that really voter-centric approach, and filling the gaps that horse race coverage really does not get to at all.

Scott Blanchard: Yeah. Just to add to that from our perspective, I think, and of course, co-sign everything Elizabeth said. But from our perspective, I think of horse race coverage as framing everything in terms of who's leading, almost like it's a sporting event, as though it's the fourth inning, and so and so is ahead, and they could get caught, and all of that kind of stuff. And who has the momentum. Who said this, that blunted their momentum or whatever. And so, it's framing everything like that, instead of framing it around really deep looks at issues or connecting with people. We're doing a lot of community engagement work where we're basically telling people, we're trying to build our election coverage off of what you're telling us you want us to be talking to the candidates about. So, elevate the voters, and decenter the candidates, is a way of thinking about it. And so, we really want to get at that ground level, and stop allowing the candidates to drive the narrative. And like Elizabeth was talking about, this candidate said that thing about this person, and then they responded this way. That's not doing anyone any good, really. It's not getting into the issues. And it's also not-- the other thing, one other thing that we're trying to do at WITF, is pay attention to what we call democracy framing, which is really looking at stories about elections, and voting, and administration, and so forth, in terms of what does this mean to what we have witnessed as attacks on the electoral system in 2020, and the aftermath of the 2020 election. And so, all of these things have this deep context. And they're not coming out of nowhere. And so, when you hear about a legislator proposing some kind of a change to the electoral system, we want to look at that, and say, well, how does this relate back to what happened in 2020, during the election, after the election through January 6, and really then beyond. And how does that fit into this narrative of particular actors attempting to really undermine the system or dismantle it, really. So that democracy framing is important to us as well.

Matt Jordan: Scott, I was wondering how your approach addresses the problem of political parties setting agendas that are anti-democratic? I mean, there's been a long debate in America about the problems of factionalism and democracy. And one of the things that horse race coverage often does is focuses the coverage on what the partisans say, instead of what people want. How are you flipping the tables on that scenario?

Scott Blanchard: By doing the community engagement that I talked about, in a number of ways, that ranges from-- we have texting clubs. We do small group listening sessions. We do larger group listening sessions, where we're putting on a deliberative forum with some partners in Lancaster, this weekend. It's not a public event, but it's an event to bring a demographically representative group of people together to discuss issues about why, in this case, why isn't democracy working the way you think it should work, or would like it to work? And to get at that. So those community engagement efforts are what are giving us the information that we can take, and then say, well, this is something that people are concerned about. So, let's build a story out around this. So, by doing that, we are attempting to build our coverage in a way that means we don't have to go to the candidates to get a quote for x, y or z. And we don't have to wait for a news release. And we don't have to wait for a policy proposal or respond to that. And certainly, as Elizabeth was saying, we don't have to look at a poll, or we don't have to look at those kinds of day-to-day things. What we're trying to get at is to do the stories that matter to people on the ground, with the issues that they see when they walk out their front door every day to go to work or school, or whatever. So that's how we're trying to flip it.

Leah Dajches: Yeah. And Elizabeth, I saw, on Spotlight PA, y'all are also really putting the citizens and the voters first. Are you doing similar practices to WITF, in order to do so?

Elizabeth Estrada: Yeah, I think that our approach is a little bit different. We're really trying to fill the void for a lot of the information that doesn't exist out there. So, our focus is mainly statewide elections. So, for example, for the row offices, we have done a bunch of different guides for attorney general, for auditor, general, for treasurer. Knowing that information regarding the presidential election, people can find. For the US Senate, there's two candidates, one democrat, one republican. We're going to continue reporting on that throughout the year. But we're really trying to fill the voids in information when it comes to the specific candidates, especially for the primary, when, for the attorney general election, there's five Democrats, and I think two Republicans. How are you supposed to choose if you don't even know who these people are, or you don't even know what an attorney general does, and what they're responsible for. So, we're really starting on a 1 on 1 level in that sense, around engagement. We are lucky to have a really engaged audience. And so, they let us know what they're thinking about, what's going on in their counties and their communities. They let us know feedback, whether it's constructive or positive, about what we put out there. And then, of course, we have our government team, our reporters on the ground, who are really observing and absorbing what people are talking about, what's missing. And using that to inform a lot of our guides, specifically, in terms of what's missing.

I heard this question. I was curious about that. Like, we should investigate that. What is an electronic poll book? Why should people know about this? And curating some of that around that. But also taking a look at what are the things that come up election cycle after election cycle, especially when it comes to misinformation that people can be easily misinformed by? And trying to just break that down and have it out there for voters. We're doing some engagement for the primary, and also throughout the year, to reach Spanish-speaking and Latino communities in Pennsylvania, which have grown tremendously over the past 10 years. So, I'm working really rigorously on developing different partnerships across the state to ensure that the content that we're putting out there in Spanish, is getting into the hands of people who need it, who are looking for it, and who could use it.

And so, our engagement efforts, I think, are a little bit more specific, because we're really trying to ensure that people who have historically lacked access to information have it this time around.

Matt Jordan: I'm interested. Both of your news orgs have used language that echoes the citizens' agenda model for your coverage. And I'm assuming that's intentional. And do you see this as part of a larger trend that you're trying to help foster?

Scott Blanchard: Do we see it as a trend that we're trying to encourage others to follow, is that your-

Matt Jordan: For example, just last week, there were 40 news organizations in Colorado, that all signed on. And these are news organizations that often compete with one another. And they created this thing called Voters' Voices, where they're all sending out the same survey, and using the same data set in order to create what the citizens' agenda is, that they're going to, you know, pose questions to politicians with. So, again, one of the things the citizens' agenda does is it flips the tables. Instead of the candidates setting the agendas with the issues that they have focus grouped, and that work. Really well for them, it flips the tables by making them respond to voters' issues. So, again, it just seems like this is something that is starting to pick up steam. And I'm wondering if that was one of the reasons why both of your news orgs tried it this year?

Scott Blanchard: For us, I would say, we came to it in a different way. We've been involved with an organization called America Amplified, which is a grant funded public media collaboration, dedicated to engagement and listening and communities. And then we've also been in a fellowship with some other stations about democracy and elections coverage. And I think the focus of those efforts has been to listen to people and stop thinking that you know what all the stories are. And listen to people and respond. In that way, you can make your elections coverage more relevant and authentic. And then was just last week at a gathering of news organizations, and some non-news organizations, put on by the American Press Institute, which was dedicated to elevating election coverage. And there was a lot of talk about this kind of, if not literally, citizens' agenda, this kind of coverage about taking the narrative away from the pundits, and on the elected officials, and putting it in the hands of people. So, I think there's definitely a groundswell among news organizations to do this. I think we came to it in a little bit of a different way. But I definitely see that out there. I don't know, Elizabeth, maybe you see the same?

Elizabeth Estrada: Yeah. I mean, I think, for us, it's a little-- we're statewide. So, I think it's a little more challenging, but also there's some freedom in a sense. Because we're covering the whole state. And so, we have more people to hear from. I think that it's really a balance for us in terms of we receive and respond to pretty much every tip, every piece of feedback, every note that we receive. We're a small team, and we're able to do that. But I think it's a balance. And I think overall, though, what you're mentioning, Matt, are around the trend of newsrooms really tuning into communities. I think that's long overdue. And I think it indicates several things. I feel like, in a way, it's a response, the exhaustion that perhaps audiences have felt, where especially marginalized communities have felt around being ignored when it comes to certain issues. I think that's a way to remedy that and build relationships with your audiences and your communities that is meaningful, and that is built on trust. And so, I think that's emerging from so many different things that have happened over the past few years. But I think, especially when it comes to election coverage, and if that coverage happens to be of the horse race type, which only exacerbates partisanship, and offers little value to people. I think that something just had to happen. Something had to change. Something had to shift. And so that is an approach that I think is useful and helpful. Because then you, as the newsroom, are able to provide exactly what people are looking for. And then you can become a source of information for the questions that people have, and the kind of stories that they're looking for. But it's always that kind of balance. Because I think, at the end of the day, sometimes there are just things that will be reported on that maybe people aren't thinking about, or that people didn't necessarily have questions about, but that fills a gap and a void. Or just something that happened that needed to be put out there. But I think, for us, it's more of a balance because of our mission to cover statewide elections. And I that's a little bit different than when you are more regionally focused newsroom.

Matt Jordan: Elizabeth, I was wondering if I could follow up on that? You say you're statewide. And you're also multilingual. So how would you deal with the context for these stories? Because one of the things you want to do is provide context that helps the citizens of each particular local democracy understand issues. So, what would the difference be in your coverage between, say, the State College beat Office, and, say, your bilingual news coverage? What would be maybe an example of how the context would be different for each?

Elizabeth Estrada: Sure. So, I don't work in the State College team. So, I will answer that a little bit more broadly. I don't to misrepresent anything or have them come after me. But I think that the State College team, they are working within a very specific community that spans across different counties. And so, the audience is very specific, very regionally focused, not necessarily hyperlocal, but spanning some localism because it's concentrating on one specific thing in a specific area. And so, the audience is very deeply and clearly affected by things. Whereas, for, let's say, the election, I think that sometimes people can feel like-- for example, last year, with the judicial elections in Pennsylvania for the Supreme Court, Superior and Commonwealth courts. It's like, well, what do I care about a judge on Commonwealth court? Like, how is that going to affect me? So that connection is a little bit less clear. And I think that whereas the State College team, of course, they're contextualizing their stories. But the context may be more clear to somebody who lives in that area, or works at one of the schools, things like that. Whereas, for the election, we're really speaking to the whole state. And people in different counties and different parts of the state feel differently. Their voter turnout may be differently. They may tend to vote more conservatively or more liberally. The demographic makeup is different. When you look at places like Allentown, and Redding, parts of Philly, there's more of a Spanish-speaking population there. So, there's all these different nuances and factors to take into consideration. But overall, I think that the goal for our election content, whether it's in English or Spanish, is provide the information, and ensure that we're starting from ground zero. So, I think in our reporting and our guides, we really try to assume that people don't know anything, in a way, and explain everything from scratch. Because I think that what can happen when we're talking about certain elections for certain roles and things like that, there can be some assumptions about information that may be known, that if maybe you are a new voter, maybe you're new to the state, or maybe you just don't know what this role is responsible for. You should be able to go to a resource and get all the information, and not necessarily have to navigate outside of that to answer more questions. We're trying to answer all the questions. So, I think that other areas and beats of Spotlight PA differ in that way. Because when you're reporting on a specific community or county, there's definitely some assumed knowledge there in some sense, but it's still being contextualized. Whereas, for the statewide election political coverage, we're really speaking to everybody. And that approach is a little bit different.

Leah Dajches: So, I guess, Scott, maybe I'll pose the next question to you then. Because I'm really interested about horse race journalism and horse race coverage. Because I've never really heard that phrase until recently. And what's interesting to me is that research shows that horse race coverage doesn't actually benefit the candidate, but it also doesn't benefit citizens. So, I'm wondering, who wins with that format of coverage of reporting?

Scott Blanchard: The news organization that's trying to get clicks on its website. I mean, that's why. I mean, because if you put a story on your website that says, candidate A leads candidate B by 5 percentage points, people are going to click on it. And then two weeks later, if you have another story that says candidate B is closing in on candidate A, and only trails by 3 percentage points, people are going to click on it. We're wired that way. I mean, we want that kind of a pulse to happen. And so, news organizations know that. We all know what people will click on OK. And so, then it becomes a decision of, are you going to do that? Or are you going to do something different that you think will better inform people, better represent people of all communities, as Elizabeth has been talking about. And especially people who have not traditionally had a voice in news organizations. Are you going to do that?

And news organizations can make that decision. Don't have to publish poll stories about who's leading, and who's closing, or whatever it is. You do not have to do that. And I mean, if there's one thing I wish-- and I love the fact that, just listening to Elizabeth talk about Spotlight's take on this stuff. And I know what we're trying to do. And I wish that many, many other news organizations would just look at themselves, and say, what do we really want to do that could be effective for the people who live in our area? Not our audience, but the people who live in the area that we serve. And let's do those things. And let's not worry about the other stuff. Or let's actively turn the other stuff away.

Elizabeth Estrada: Yeah. But that's so much more work. And that's harder, and more difficult and challenging, right? That takes strategizing and planning, and building trust, and doing outreach. And so, it's easier to publish an article that is about who's leading who, rather than try to organize something for people who live in your area, the communities that you're in, that you ideally want to serve. And ask them, what questions do you have? What do you want to see? That's the harder task. And so, I think, Leah, like you asked, who wins? I think it's really, like, who loses? There's so many more people that end up losing than winning when you publish that kind of horse race coverage, or at least one that's exclusively what you're publishing.

Matt Jordan: One of the things that we know from research about national partisan news organizations, which are increasing like mushrooms, is that they tend to set agendas for the nation, right? And one of the things that people have identified with the drying up of local news is that those rich local contexts have been replaced by these national agendas. So, I'm wondering, how do you deal with this, for both of you, when you're talking with local people, and you hear the agendas of national partisan news orgs seep into those conversations? Do you push back on those things? For example, if you're in a town like Chambersburg, and they're talking about what's going on at the border. Do you try to find another story? I mean, how do you deal with these very partisan agendas that are set by national media?

Scott Blanchard: We actually did that on a story when Trump came to speak in Harrisburg at the NRA event. And we knew that when we went there to talk to people, we would get people talking about the national agenda. So, we had a meeting beforehand to talk about, if you get that, try to get to the next level question of the border is an issue. Well, how is that affecting what you encounter in your daily life, in your town, in your neighborhood? And try to get down to that ground level. And if there's something there, then there's something there. But we had a little bit of success in moving people off. Well, in my town, it's really, you know, X. And it wasn't the border, or the major issue, the major talking point of a political party. So, I think that's one way. I mean, that's one way. And we'll keep trying to do that, whether it's a republican or democratic candidate coming in, or whatever. We'll try to keep approaching stories like that. So that's one way to go about it.

Elizabeth Estrada: I think this is a little bit more difficult for me to answer because I'm not on the ground, and because I manage our democracy initiative, and exclusively focus on voter resources. I'm not necessarily navigating this, I imagine, to the same extent that our reporters are. So, I don't really feel like I can properly answer this question. But I feel like I imagine similar to what Scott said. They're rerouting the conversation back to focus on Pennsylvania, or the local area that they're in, and trying to do that.

Matt Jordan: Both of you have said that you're trying very hard to counter the misinformation that a lot of partisans try to, how shall I say, propagate in the news media ecosystem. So, what are your strategies for dealing with bad faith communicators who keep repeating things that have been debunked many, many times?

Elizabeth Estrada: I mean, in our stories, from what I've seen, it's like, OK, we'll quote them, and just say, despite them saying this, this is not what happened. And they repeat it. And so, we keep repeating what happened, or the facts. And linking to previous reporting. For example, we recently published an everything you need to for the April 23 election guide. And so, it breaks down all the candidates that you're going to see on your ballot if you're in Pennsylvania. And so, obviously, we're covering president. We're not doing specific guides for the presidential election, but we're listing out people. And it's like, you kind of have to summarize. It's like, yeah, Trump claimed fraud in the 2020 election, and encouraged supporters to hit up the Capitol. And that's what happened. And you have to contextualize that. And it's like, this is what he claims. And also, like this is what was found, that those claims are unsubstantiated. And it's unfortunate because we keep doing that, and I think it's important. I think it's kind of irresponsible to just share a claim like that, or a quote without contextualizing it, and without sharing anything else, because I think that can perpetuate the problem. But when we contextualize things, sometimes that makes people unhappy. And so, after that went up, I did receive a not happy email from somebody who was disappointed by the fact that we put that out there. And as a result, said that we actually are not nonpartisan, that we clearly have an agenda. And if that's the cost of putting out the facts, and the reporting, then that's just an unfortunate symptom that we have to deal with. But that's kind of what we've been doing.

Scott Blanchard: Yeah, I think the big thing is context. And I think what the phrase-- Matt, you probably heard of it, the phrase "truth sandwich," is what Elizabeth is describing. But you state a fact, and then you say what the bad faith actor says about it. And then you state another fact, or the same fact in a different way, and you bracket the misinformation or the bad information with facts.

So, you're doing everything you can to send a clear signal to the reader that this person doesn't know what they're talking about, or they are acting in bad faith. They're telling you something they know isn't true. So, context is a big deal. And you're probably aware that we have had, since the end of January '21, an accountability policy, where when we air or publish a story that quotes a lawmaker who had taken one of four actions in support of the election fraud lie in 2020. We will add that information. It'll be in what we call a breakout box online, or it will be what we call a host tag on radio, something that the listener will hear the host say, as part of our accountability policy, we'll note that representative so-and-so took this action in 2020, that supported the election fraud lie, which led to the attack on the US Capitol. And so that's a way to keep that information out there, and make sure that people understand, again, the roots of all this go back. These things that we're hearing about today, and reporting on today, in terms of elections and voting, and election administration and all that. They're not coming out of nowhere. They're coming out of a very specific place. And you can connect the dots all the way back.

And so, we want to do as much of that as we can. But outside of that, I think it is very much what Elizabeth said, which is, add as much context as you possibly can. And the other thing I would say is that, again, just to go back to what I said at the top. I mean, we're not obligated to quote somebody saying 2 plus 2 equals 5. If we know that that's not true, we don't have to report that the sun rises in the west. We should report facts. And so, we can use that news judgment, and awareness, and facts to guide what we publish. And if we're dealing with somebody face-to-face, or on the phone, or whatever, a source who is saying something that is misinformation, or that we know is incorrect, we should be challenging that. Our reporters should be challenging that in the moment. No, that's not factually correct. What is the point you're trying to make here? And try to get away from the misinformation, but toward where the person is really coming from. And maybe by doing that, you can get some valuable information for a story that can inform people, and help people figure out the lay of the land, or a certain candidate's position on something, such as that.

Matt Jordan: One of the things that people talk about in relation to why news orgs do this type of thing, where they just let people talk, and don't really correct them, is access. And in a lot of political journalism, access plays a big role. And so, they want to keep their primary definers, and their people who are the insiders, they want to keep them happy. Have you had blowback to doing accountability journalism since 2021 at WITF, where people won't talk to you anymore?

Scott Blanchard: Yes. I mean, yes, there are some republican lawmakers who will not talk to us. I would put Scott Perry, Representative Scott Perry is definitely in that group. Although, at this point, Scott Perry might not talk to any media outlet that he doesn't consider to be favorable toward him, because he had a central role, the evidence shows, in Trump's attempt to stay in power. So, I'm not sure if he's talking to anybody. But I know that he is one who has not-- we've reached out multiple times, and he has not returned our calls. And then there are state republican legislators who won't return our calls. And we just have to figure out other ways to get information, or to get-- it's not that we're in the business of just getting quotes or whatever. But just find other ways to talk to people who will engage with us.

Leah Dajches: Something that I really appreciate and enjoy about both WITF and Spotlight PA's approach to this election cycle is putting that citizen first, listening to citizens. And something that we really strive to do is give agency, autonomy, news literacy skills to our listeners. And so, what tips or advice do you have for listeners as they prepare for what is going to be a big election year, but also going to be, I think, very messy? There's going to be a lot to wade through. What tips and advice do you have?

Elizabeth Estrada: Oh, my. Well, you can visit WITF, listen to ITF. Visit spotlightpa.org for information you can trust on elections. But furthermore, I think that, think like a reporter, and be a little skeptical. I think, if we all approach the information that we come across, which, nowadays, we aren't even necessarily searching for. It's finding us. Because it's targeting us. It's coming up on our news feeds, on social media. And so, if you find something, just take a moment, like, what is the source? Who wrote this? Can I verify this? Has this been reported elsewhere? I think that social media has really altered, to some extent, the way that we process information. And I feel like, for so many of us, even those of us who are journalists, and work in news, I think it's easy. Because it's made to look so real and so factual. It's so easy to believe. And I think, when that happens, just retrain ourselves to just say, hold on, what is this? Like, what is this new source? Can I find out more information about that? Just simple things like that. And that's if you're just randomly scrolling about, and information come to you. But I think you can also be proactive, and seek information from trusted sources, like your local NPR affiliate station. There's spotlightpa.org for more statewide issues. Really credible, reliable news sources, they exist all over in Pennsylvania, across the country. And start there for regular news consumption and information.

You can subscribe to newsletters. You can listen to the radio. There are TV shows. But I think when you're just randomly coming across something that you've never heard about before, or maybe the information is really sensationalized, and it feels kind of like, hmm, is this true? Like, did this really happen? Think like a reporter and ask a few questions. And try to figure out like, can you verify this information? And if you can't, then maybe it's not real. I can't remember the statistic. But I went to this convening at the end of last year around democracy. And there's, I believe, more AI-generated fake news websites than there are real actual news organization websites out there now. And that is super concerning. That is super troubling. And that means that, unfortunately, the onus is on us as individuals to sift through some of that stuff and try to figure out the tools that will work for us, so that we don't fall for the misinformation that's out there. Because it's targeting us. And so, it's doing what it's supposed to be doing, and it's up to us to ask some questions, and try to think more critically about what we are finding online.

Scott Blanchard: Yeah. To Elizabeth's point, when people are putting out misinformation or disinformation, they know what they're doing. And they are playing on the human tendency to believe what you already believe, or what you really want to be true. And once you know that, once you know that they're coming after you in that way, it helps you do what Elizabeth is talking about, which is, take a step back, and go, hang on, hang on, hang on. I need to check this out. Because it's got me really excited when I read it, because it against the candidate that I don't like. But I need to check this out. And then crucially, Spotlight is not putting out misinformation. And beyond that, they're working as hard as they possibly can to put out correct, factual, truthful, reliable information. Same with us. There are other news organizations that are doing that. To Elizabeth's point, you can read Spotlight, ITF, other public media, other news organizations across the state, and check their stuff out. And it will check out. And information from sites that are trafficking in misinformation will not check out. And you can do some of that work. It does take work. I mean, it's not the quick fix that we all like to have. But you can do that work. And you can assess the credibility of the news source. And once you do that, once you know that people are trying to play you, and that you can go to credible news sites to get real information, that's a good part of the battle right there.

Matt Jordan: You both are, in your statements, dedicated yourself to pro-democracy coverage. And I was wondering, Elizabeth mentioned something that they're trying a Spotlight PA Prebunking. And that strikes me as something really interesting, because what we know about misinformation is that, once it's out, it's hard to clean up. But prebunking seems like a really interesting idea. So, I was wondering if there are any anti-democracy narratives, or stories, or angles that you both see circulating out there in the news that we could pre-bunk before people encounter them.

Scott Blanchard: Elizabeth, you want to take that first?

Elizabeth Estrada: I'm thinking over here. I'm thinking.

Scott Blanchard: There are a lot, I think.

Elizabeth Estrada: I mean, I think the first thing that comes to mind is voting by mail, or mail ballots. I think that's a popular one. They are safe and secure to use. And in Pennsylvania, you have the right to vote that way, if you want to. I think the narrative around them not being secure, not being safe, being potentially fraudulent, I think is very anti-democratic. Because that's the way that so many people across the state are able to vote. We have people with disabilities, we have seniors, or we just have people who have busy lives. And maybe that's the most accessible and convenient way for them to vote.

And so, I would say, that's a narrative that really isn't helpful, especially when it's legal in Pennsylvania for us to vote that way. I think this is a really tough question. So that's what comes to mind immediately. But I think, kind of what we were talking about earlier around, horse race coverage. All of that framing, and all that narrative around, just who's leading this and that. I think that can influence, sometimes-- well, this person's already in the lead. Especially for something like, let's say, in the primary. I'm just going to vote for them because they're already in it. They're going to win it. I don't think that's fair. I think there are resources out there, I think, especially for the upcoming row office elections, for attorney general, auditor general and treasurer, that we worked really hard to put information out there, for the candidates who are running. And so, I would say to people, in general, try to mute that kind of coverage. And try to figure out for yourself, who it is that aligns best with your values, and who you really want to vote for. Because that's your right to be able to vote for whoever it is that you want, regardless of who the polls are saying in the lead. That's what comes to mind. Scott, I'm interested to know. I feel like you're going to answer this very eloquently and share something perhaps more nuanced. But that's what I could think of.

Scott Blanchard: I don't think so. I mean, the one thing I thought of was we just recently had-- you probably saw this, too, Elizabeth, but a news release came over from a republican state legislator who, six paragraphs long about concerns about election integrity, and responding to all these concerns, and trying to raise people's confidence in elections. And literally speaking, polling does show that there are people who question the integrity of elections. But if you look into that issue, again, it has its roots in 2020, before the election, when then-president Trump was starting to spin the wheel on the election fraud lie, starting to talk about a rigged election, starting to talk about how mail ballots were subject to fraud, which really not. The evidence shows us that. So, all of that led to-- There's not a widespread, free-floating anxiety about whether our elections are trustworthy or not. There's a very specific set of people who are propagating that to keep their base engaged with that idea, so that they can use that to political advantage, whether that's a piece of legislation, or an election, or what have you.

And so, I think once you really look into that idea, you'll just hear republican legislators talk about, we need to restore confidence in our elections. Pennsylvanians don't trust our elections. We don't have election integrity. They're talking about a very specific thing. They're not talking about a widespread feeling that has any basis in fact. Because there is no basis in fact, for any of that to exist.

And again, I'll say again, it's not like the system can't-- any system can be improved and built upon. You always want to be looking at that as a society. But that very specific narrative, you talk about an anti-democratic narrative that exists, that shouldn't exist, or that we can try to-- it's out there now, so it's hard to prebunk it. But that we can push back on. I think that's a big one.

Leah Dajches: This is all so important for us, for our listeners, as we head into this election year. And so, I want to thank you both for joining us today.

Elizabeth Estrada: This was great. Thanks so much for having us.

Scott Blanchard: Thank you. Fun to be here.

Matt Jordan: That was a really interesting conversation, Leah. So, what are some things that you think are worth chewing on a little bit?

Leah Dajches: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, the first thing that's worth chewing on is just the idea of horse race coverage. But something I really liked that Elizabeth quoted, that's akin to that thinking about how can we combat against that, was her quote, "think like a reporter, and be a little skeptical." And I love that in the context of news literacy. But I also think it's so applicable when we're encountering any media, whether it's who's Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce going to be endorsing? Or who's in the lead on the election? I think that's a really helpful mantra to think about as we are faced with so much information this election cycle. Matt, what have you been thinking about?

Matt Jordan: Well, I find it really inspiring in a way. People have been criticizing bad political coverage for a while, whether it's the horse race, who's ahead in the polls, or whether it's things like game or conflict framing that make all issues about who is it a win for, who is it a loss for. And to see both of these news organizations use something like the citizens' agenda model to flip the tables on the partisan communicators, and to put the interests of the citizens first, is something that gives me a lot of hope.

Leah Dajches: That's it for this episode of News Over Noise. Our guests were Elizabeth Estrada, Democracy Editor at Spotlight PA, and Scott Blanchard, Director of Journalism at WITF. To learn more, visit newsovernoise.org. I'm Leah Dajches.

Matt Jordan: And I'm Matt Jordan.

Leah Dajches: Until next time, stay well and well-informed.

Matt Jordan: News Over Noise is produced by the Penn State Donald P. Bellisario College of Communications and WPSU. This program has been funded by the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost at Penn State and is part of the Penn State News Literacy initiative.

[END OF TRANSCRIPT]