One of the best ways to experience Kentucky’s horse country is by attending a horse race. The thrill of feeling the earth shake beneath you as a mass of thundering hooves charges down the stretch is unmatched. The race is a spectacle of beauty and fashion, as well, with women in elegant hats and dresses and men in sharp suits and sport coats mingling among the grandstands.
But there’s another way to see the horse race: in news reports that focus on the who-will-win-and-lose aspects of political contests – what researchers call horse race reporting. It’s an approach that hurts voters, third-party candidates and the journalism industry itself, a growing body of research suggests.
The term “horse race” came into popular use in the 19th century, when it was used to describe close political contests. Since then, it’s been applied to everything from football games and presidential elections to high-profile court cases. While it’s a useful shorthand to describe an election or other contest that’s neck and neck, it’s also often used in ways that erode public trust in news media.
One example is the widespread practice of presenting polling data as odds that a candidate will win or lose, which experts call probabilistic forecasting. This type of reporting elevates the importance of who is likely to win or lose and downplays the role that policies play in the outcome, a growing body of research shows. It also discourages voting and leads to greater partisanship, especially among young people.
This style of horse race reporting has become especially prevalent in a new genre of political coverage: the “tight race” or nail-biter. It’s a common theme in TV news and online outlets such as FiveThirtyEight, The New York Times and HuffPost. This kind of news coverage gives an advantage to candidates with a clear path to victory and downplays those with significant weaknesses, such as third-party contenders or those who might win by a landslide. And it makes it harder for voters to distinguish between competing policy proposals.
A long list of problems plagues the horse racing industry, including high levels of drug use and a high risk of death for horses in training. Ownership turnover is high, and horses are sometimes sold (or “claimed”) several times in their careers. Many trainers have reputations for running good stables, but others have been accused of shady practices. The industry says it’s trying to clean things up, but it could take years before a unified set of rules is in place.
Some insiders blame the criticism of horse racing on coastal snobbery. They say it’s unfair to single out an industry that supports thousands of jobs and billions of dollars for rural America. Those who work in the horse business insist that they love their work and wouldn’t do it otherwise. But they also acknowledge that horse racing’s history includes more than its share of scalawags and cheats.