New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is widely known as a potential candidate for the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. His up-front leadership style, bi-partisan approach, and get-it done spirit have brought him national recognition in recent years and launched him to the forefront of political prominence. Frequent appearances on cable TV and late night talk shows have contributed to a jump in popularity. His undeniably authentic personality and charisma shine during these appearances. Media image will continue to be critical in molding political beliefs and attitudes of voters towards potential candidates like Christie in anticipation of the 2016 election. That said, how does the media frame Chris Christie as a politician? Examination of Politico and the New York Time’s coverage of Christie illustrates his contrast from the political brinksmanship in Washington as popular figure with potential to draw people together.
In September and October news stories, Politico has covered Chris Christie as a Washington outsider with strong opinions about the government shutdown. In anticipation of the New Jersey gubernatorial election on November 5th, Governor Christie leads his opponent, Democrat state Senator Barbara Buono by over 20 points according to the most recent Quinnipiac and Rasmussen polls. It is also important to note that 58 New Jersey Democratic elected officials have endorsed Christie. His prominence as a popular governor has caused Politico to highlight him as a strong leader and popular persona with bi-partisan contrast to the mess in Washington. It can be argued that Politico has covered Christie with a more positive or neutral tone in recent months in comparison to the New York Times.
These stories effectively garner attention about Christie as politician and public figure with national prominence, yet they pay much less attention to any specific legislative outcomes or achievements in his term as the governor of New Jersey. As a recent news story from Politico indicates, his rise in national exposure could be attributed to his proximity to cable TV studios in Midtown Manhattan. In contrast, recent stories in The New York Times about Christie have focused on divisive political issues such as big money donors and gay marriage suggesting a more negative tone to New York Times coverage of the governor on contentious issues. A story on Christie’s involvement with The Republican Governors Association landed on the front page of the New York Times on September 17th. With the headline “Donors’ Funds Sidestep Law, Aiding Christie,” this article suggests that Christie has skirted around campaign finance laws, and although the article briefly touches on how his opponent has also “been lavishly backed by outside groups and unions,” the article clearly focuses on Christie as the defiant politician. According to an analysis, the Times suggest that these outside groups are crucial to Christie’s reelection and 2016 prospects. While this may be true, the Times fails to provide details on their “analysis” and therefore fails to provide a convincing argument, thus providing a divisive compilation of quotes and numbers.
It is clear that coverage of politics and public figures have enormous influence on public opinion. As Murray Edelman suggests in his paper titled Contestable Categories and Public Opinion, the media possess “remarkable power” in categorization and classification of political issues that are central to the benefit of certain groups. In relation to coverage of Chris Christie, it is no surprise that more positive coverage by sources like Politico benefit his popularity. On the other hand, articles in the New York Times highlight more divisive issues and create reluctance from readers towards the governor as a potential presidential candidate.
Through examination of coverage of Christie by Politico and the New York Times, it is clear that he has been characterized for his contrast from the political brinksmanship in Washington as popular figure with potential to draw people together. While the media clearly emphasizes Christie as an outsider to the political turmoil in Washington DC, this coverage raises additional questions. What role can the media play in producing a more educated electorate, rather than producing a popularity contest? How can we as citizens understand what is important: image or record?
Media & Politics 
Your post was really interesting–I haven’t been following Chris Christie very vigorously so I didn’t know much about him or the media coverage surrounding him. I wonder if the New York Times’ coverage would still seem as negative if other sources were focusing on the political issues rather than candidates’ personality. Where is the line between being educational and belligerently highlighting the controversial issues?
Very interesting blog post! To be honest, I don’t know much about Christie because I don’t follow him or the news that surrounds him as a political figure, but it’s intriguing to know the how the media covers politicians nowadays, specifically potential 2016 candidates.
In my opinion, I feel that there exist this strong tension between using media as a means to generate positive (negative) public views on a certain topic and using the media as a means to get the real “facts” out. In other words, there seems that news companies use media as a mechanism to achieve its specific goal of interests. For example, your mentioning of Politico seems to have this goal of creating positive “image” of Christie even though some of his views may be considered flawed or controversial.
It leaves me as a third-party viewer, who knows very little of such an issue, to remain skeptical and cautious of what I learn from the media. It also leaves the impression of asking viewers, what then is more important? And which news source should I trust?
Oh HEY fellow candidate-centered media research partner. You’re off to a great start so far. It’s interesting that on one hand there is this emergence of an image of ‘the man outside the madness of DC’ while at the same time Politico has been covering his proximity to the New York media market. Though he may be from outside DC, he is still very much from the east coast and has done a great job of using the media networks out there to his advantage to get a head start on cultivating a positive image.
In general, I would say Christie has effectively used the media to his advantage thus far in gearing up for his (still potential) campaign run. I would also add that there has been a strong ‘moderate’ message coming from the media regarding Christie’s politics – sometimes negatively framed on the right from his collaboration with Obama, and often positively framed on the left as a Republican candidate that Democrats would actually consider voting for.
Nevertheless, I still have an ‘all sauce and no spaghetti’ impression of Christie from my limited media exposure on him. I’d like to see more coverage of his actual career as a politician in New Jersey – and, like Hillary, I’m sure I’ll get plenty of that if and when he declares his candidacy. Roll out the research army teams, amiright?