Covering candidates

Nancy Cook of San Pedro writes: "I'd like more info about Biden, Edwards and Richardson, PLEASE! Clinton, Obama and Giuliani are at the top of the polls because they are the only ones people ever hear about."

Readers seeking more coverage of certain candidates might have missed stories that The Times has published -- for instance, in this case, there have been front-page pieces on Edwards, Richardson and Biden as as well coverage in a number of other news articles -- but readers are right that more coverage is given to those who are front-runners in any race.

It's one of the concerns raised often during campaigns. So often, in fact, that it's a part of the FAQs on this page (see right rail).

In a follow-up note, Cook added: "When the press focuses on candidates who have raised the most money, etc., it’s contributing to a vicious cycle.  Those candidates with more money, who are higher in the polls, etc., get more press. As they get more press, they are perceived as having a better chance of winning so they naturally receive more endorsements and donations from individuals, lobbyists and corporations. People want to vote for a winner so they pick a likely winner when polled. All this ensures that the same candidates receive even more press. And so it goes."

National editor Scott Kraft addresses the reader's concerns: "Part of our job as editors is to make choices, and weigh the relative importance of news. We wish we could write everything and cover everything, but, unfortunately, we can't possibly do that. I would argue that candidates who are not at the top of the polls in Iowa or New Hampshire are not doing poorly because the L.A. Times isn't writing about them. In that kind of environment, at least in the primaries, voters are making their decisions based on face-to-face looks at the candidates. I don't think stories in the L.A. Times or the N.Y. Times affect their decisions, and my impression is that all the candidates receive pretty complete coverage in the local press there."

From the FAQs:

Why don't you give equal coverage to each candidate during elections?

Editors don't frame their campaign coverage quite that way. Rather, the newspaper sees its role as helping readers by focusing more on the candidates who have a realistic chance of being elected. They try to give more coverage to the candidates who seem to have significant support -- by virtue of the money they've raised, the endorsements they have, how they do in the polls, and their past political experience. If a third-party candidate is likely to be a major factor in the race, editors focus on him or her, too. Readers often point out the Catch-22: without much coverage, lesser-known candidates stay that way. But editors try to meet the basic obligation of reporting fully on those who might be our elected officials.