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 Tamborini, R. 2012. “A Model of Intuitive Morality and Exemplars.” In Media and the Moral Mind, edited by R. Tamborini, 43–74. London, England: Routledge.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar], “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.

摘要

2016 年总统大选标志着一个以社交媒体为动力的专业和公民新闻的政治竞选新时代。尽管如此，纽约时报(NYT) 和华盛顿邮报等传统新闻机构在在线和离线环境中对选民产生了重大影响。在此背景下，本研究调查了《纽约时报》在 2016 年大选期间如何报道希拉里·克林顿和唐纳德·特朗普。借鉴道德心理学的丰富文献，特别是直觉道德模型和范例（MIME；Tamborini，2012 Tamborini, R. 2012 年。“直觉道德和榜样的典范。” 在媒体和道德心智中，R. Tamborini编辑，43 – 74。伦敦，英格兰：劳特利奇。[Crossref]  ，[Google Scholar]，“直觉道德和榜样的模型”。在媒体和道德头脑，由 R. Tamborini 编辑，43-74。英国伦敦：劳特利奇）。对 1,000 多个社会传播的纽约时报关于两位候选人的故事进行了计算机文本分析。调查结果显示，《纽约时报》的选举报道表现出一定程度的报道中立性，《纽约时报》在关键时间点的报道中使用道德术语可能促成了特朗普在 2016 年的最终胜利。