Vote-counting (Image courtesy of Yonhap)
SEOUL, Apr. 11 (Korea Bizwire) – With this year’s election season bringing a deluge of public opinion poll reports, a recent study has uncovered that South Korean voters do not hold an entirely negative view of the oft-criticized “horse race-style” coverage, contrary to popular belief.
However, the research, published in the Korea Association for Broadcasting and Telecommunication Studies on April 10, indicated that voters prefer reporting methods that explain the trends in approval ratings and provide accompanying analysis, rather than simply presenting poll results.
The study, titled “What Kind of Election Poll Coverage Do Voters Want?” by Cha Yuri of the Sogang University Media Convergence Research Institute and her colleagues, found that voters favored the “explanation and interpretation of approval rating changes” style the most, scoring 3.62 out of 5 points.
Following this, the “comparison of approval ratings–horse race style” received 3.5 points, the “candidate emphasis–horse race style” garnered 3.12 points, and the “explanation of approval rating significance–interpretation style” scored 3.07 points.
The researchers explained that they utilized an online survey of 1,304 voters during the 20th South Korean presidential election in 2022 for this study.
They defined “horse race-style” reporting as coverage focused on predicting voter turnout, competitive regions, leading contenders, election strategies, candidate activities, campaign funds, and political support, rather than delving into issues, policies, or candidates’ political backgrounds and characteristics.
The “interpretation style,” on the other hand, refers to reporting grounded in factual evidence and logical reasoning, with the purpose of interpreting poll results for the benefit of voters, distinguishing it from concepts like “pundit journalism” or “pollocracy,” where the aim is to aid candidates’ election campaigns.
The researchers categorized horse race-style reporting into “approval rating comparison” and “candidate emphasis” subtypes, while interpretive reporting included “explanation of approval rating changes” and “explanation of approval rating significance” subtypes.
Interestingly, the study found that voters tended to dislike “result-oriented” reporting styles, regardless of whether they fell under the horse race or interpretive categories.
Moreover, the researchers noted that voters, who could easily find themselves in a top-down asymmetric relationship, did not unconditionally view the commonly criticized horse race-style reporting as negative, contrary to expectations.
The authors further elaborated, “This study not only confirms that voters in the digital age are ‘active receivers’ who actively respond to established news but also suggests empirical evidence that they can become ‘active participants’ who demand the news they want, influencing its supply.”
M. H. Lee (mhlee@koreabizwire.com)
