One of the question marks of the 1992 presidential campaign was how television would cover it. After the debacle of campaign coverage in 1988, television vowed to do better. At issue was the amount of substantive information vs. the time spent on the horse race, strategy, and campaign events.

Campaign coverage is important because of the role of information in democratic choice. Essential to democratic participation is the opportunity to choose among alternatives. Given alternatives, citizens can say “yes” or “no,” thereby giving consent to the policies which best represent their interests (Schattschneider 1975, 138). Schattschneider also emphasized that the alternatives must be relevant to voters' concerns. Unfortunately, television coverage of elections does not emphasize information about public issues.

Another important aspect of campaign coverage is its potential effect on election outcomes: public opinion is shaped by the tone, quantity, and content of the candidates' coverage.

Questions about the political effects of news, the nature of campaign information, and the relationship between democracy and information provide an interesting framework to examine campaign communication in 1992. Did television news offer voters adequate issue information? How did talk shows compare to news in terms of information? Finally, what impact, if any, did the two formats have on the outcome of the election?

This paper will examine Bill Clinton's news coverage and talk show appearances from June 2 to July 22.