The Nevada Senate race is plagued with many of the same attitudes I highlighted earlier in my analysis of the small Minnesotan town that didn’t care about the election because they were too upset with both candidates. Does extensive coverage of voter apathy in a midterm election accurately portray the attitudes of the nation and serve its citizens well? Or does coverage like the New York Times article that I will be talking about simply generate more voter apathy, feeding vicious cycle of isolated voter frustration that turns into a nationwide apathy because of its media coverage? Is there ever a time where honest, accurate news coverage can actually discourage or preclude voters from participating in our democratic system?
The article describes the congressional district under examination as “the most populous in Nevada and the most contested in this state’s contentious Senate Race.” Like the Minnesota article, the journalist identifies this area as one where “the battle for the country’s direction is being waged”. While proclaiming one district’s importance in such a way is overly dramatic, it also serves to frame the apathy problem in Nevada as an issue extending to all areas of the country and affecting the midterms on a national level.
The article presents the candidates in the context of their state and their race, explaining that they are ideologicially very different but neither is a favorite among the people. It goes on to mention Harry Reid, and then lambaste the Tea Party candidate. By the end of the article, the reader sees Reid as a somewhat inadequate choice, but sees Angler as a monster, a psychopath who shouldn’t be elected into office.
In contrast to the Boehner story, this article is fraught with bias. However, in the end, the story seems to sum up why at least some voters will be staying home this election season.