Narratives of a race: how the media judged a presidential debate

The first debate in 2008 was a turning point in the presidential electioncampaign: a race that was close before the debate turned decisively inObama’s favor following it. This article explores how the media reachedtheir verdict that “Obama won.” We examine two aspects of this problem:how, in practice, the media reached this verdict and whether they madethe right decision from a normative standpoint. Based on content analysisof debate transcripts, we argue that the media interpreted the debate bysynthesizing three pre-debate narratives in roughly equal proportions.Crucially, two of these narratives favored Obama. We also find that the“Obama won” verdict was consistent with what we might expect had thedebate been judged by a public-spirited umpire.