Since the 2016 presidential election cycle, the relationship between Republican politicians and journalists has been particularly tense. President Donald Trump branded terms like “fake news,” the “lying press,” and the “failing New York Times,” and later labeled the U.S. mainstream media the “enemy of the people.” Likewise, threats of violence against journalists are on the rise.

A fundamental schism seems to be forming between partisan politics and journalistic institutions. For example, in southwest Ohio in February 2024, the Hamilton County Republican Party chair asked Republican campaigns not to respond to a Cincinnati Enquirer election survey that included questions asking how candidates viewed Jan. 6 and if President Trump should hold office if convicted of a crime.

The campaign-journalist relationship is on the decline and there is a simple reason why: Campaigns do not need the press as much to reach voters.

The symbiosis of media relations

Many factors influence what the press covers, one being newsworthiness. Journalists assess what timely issues are of interest to the public and decide how to cover them. Thus, politics, especially elections, are highly newsworthy and covered extensively. Trends show that U.S. adults follow news about candidates as they want to know who is running, where they stand on issues, and which would best benefit voters.

At the same time, campaigns want to get their message out. They want to communicate who their candidates are, where they stand on the issues, and how they will best benefit the voters. So naturally, a symbiotic relationship has historically existed, as the press were the gatekeepers to the public’s hunger for information.

Campaigns refer to this as media relations, or the mutually beneficial relationship with the press. Recognizing the press has diminishing resources, campaigns offer reporters direct access to collect information, sources, and story ideas through news releases, press conferences, media kits, speeches, one-on-one interviews and social media. This is why networks like CNN or Fox News regularly display politicians’ tweets.

While these “information subsidies” make the news production process easier and more cost-efficient, they also increase the candidate’s exposure and the likelihood the campaign’s agenda will be reflected in news coverage. This increased exposure helps campaigns compete for public attention and better influence the discourse or narrative of the election, which academics refer to as agenda building.

This influence is observable at two levels. The first is issue salience, or mention. The more a campaign, for example, mentions an issue, the more the press covers that issue or the more voters tweet about it. The second is attribute salience, or overall tone. The more positively or negatively a campaign mentions an issue, the more positively or negatively the press reports on the issue or the public tweets about it. This is one way researchers quantify agenda-building influences, tracking the transfer of issues and attributes between campaign communications, press coverage, and public discourse.

But the digitalization of social life means campaigns across the political spectrum can now communicate with voters more directly. Thanks to social media, email listservs, robotexting, microtargeting advertisements, etc., campaigns do not need the press to the same extent as they once did as they can directly engage voters and bypass the press. As such, and supplementing the increasing polarization of the political spectrum, the campaign-journalist relationship is deteriorating.

Republican success in Florida

Research recently published in Journalism Studies suggests this deteriorating media relationship has reached new heights. Analyzing more than 250,000 data points from recent Florida elections, it is clear both Republican and Democratic campaigns are more independent from both the press and each other than ever before. The issues they talked about and the tone with which they talked about them were markedly distinct and unrelated.

Perhaps most interestingly, however, is the conclusion that this lack of media relations is actually working in Republican campaigns’ interests. The Republican campaigns more strongly influenced press coverage in terms of both issue mention and tone of mention more than Democrats, or the press’ impact on the campaigns.

This is likely happening for two reasons. First, as participants in an election, Republican campaigns are still just as newsworthy as before, and will continue to receive a share of coverage whether or not they cooperate with the press. Without effective media relations, the press relies even more on campaign information subsidies, increasing the diffusion of the campaign’s scripted rhetoric.

Second, overt efforts to not cooperate with the press are themselves newsworthy, triggering added press coverage. As was the case with the Cincinnati Enquirer, intentions to report on this lack of media relations actually rewarded the uncooperative campaigns, increasing the visibility of their candidates and agendas to voters.

Looking ahead to 2024 elections

What does this mean as we approach the 2024 general election? With President Trump’s presumptive nomination as the Republican candidate, it is likely his campaign will double down on demonizing the mainstream media.

Journalists and editors should be mindful of the fact that covering uncooperative campaigns may actually work to the campaign’s benefit. The trick is not to rely more on the information those campaigns put out, but rather focus on cooperative campaigns across the political spectrum.

Likewise, campaigns are most interested in reaching voters. The more the press can reinforce how their outlets are authentically reflecting genuine voices of the voting public, the more likely campaigns are to cooperate. With nearly half of U.S. adults saying they do not trust the mainstream media’s ability to report the news fairly and accurately, campaigns have diminishing incentives to want to work with the press.

At a broader level, democracies are healthiest when politicians and the press cooperate to serve the public. With the advent of artificial intelligence, online bots and trolls, and mass content automation, the reality of misinformation and disinformation by a host of foreign and unknown actors poses threats both to campaigns and the press. It is in their best interests to foster effective media relations to collaboratively foresee, expose and discredit information campaigns designed to sway elections.

Until such time as both conservative and liberal campaigns reestablish the mutuality of two-way relationships with the press, partisan politics and foreign interests will prevail to the detriment of American democracy.