{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023872679045092837, 'fraction_numerical': 0.032714412024756855, 'mean_word_length': 5.1521739130434785, '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}}
Inaccuracies in Media Coverage of the 1996 and 2000 Presidential Debates

This study compared data from content analysis of the 1996 and 2000 presidential debates with news coverage of those debates. Debates and news coverage were content analyzed for functions (acclaims or self-praise, attacks or criticism, and defenses or refutations of attacks) and topics (policy and character). In both campaigns the news coverage over-represented attacks and defenses but under-represented acclaims. In 1996, the news stories stressed character more than did the debates (and policy less than the debates), but in 2000 the news coverage accurately reflected the proportion of policy and character in the debates themselves. The study of 1996 found scant reporting of the debates in evening television news, compared with newspapers. The 2000 study found that there were more reports of Gore's than Bush's remarks. Finally, the average newspaper story in 2000 only reported 7% of what the candidates said in a debate. Clearly, voters cannot expect to obtain an accurate or complete representation of presidential debates from media coverage.