{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017128874388254486, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.424083769633508, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Rule of Product Substitution in Presidential Campaign News

This article develops a model of the relationship between candidates, journalists, and citizens in the game of media politics. For politicians, the goal is to gain public support by using reporters to get their story out, while, for reporters, the goal is to do stories that increase market share while emphasizing the independent and significant voice of journalists. These goals conflict with one another, leading the two groups into a turf war for control of political communication. The article proposes the rule of product substitution to explain how this struggle plays out in the context of presidential election campaigns. The rule asserts that reporters react to candidates' attempts at news management by creating alternative forms of news—most of it negative—that they can market to the public in place of candidate-supplied information, thereby vindicating journalistic voice. The article shows that, consistent with this rule, candidates who try to control their media images through aggressive news management suffer more frequent press criticism, even after controlling for the media negativity that may initially cause aggressive news management.