COVID-19 and its Influence on the Election

One widely covered topic has been the increase in mail-in voting. Although voting may not be any less safe than going to the supermarket, COVID-19 has presented an unusual safety concern for in-person voting, and citizens should not have to choose between their health and voting. Therefore, forecasters expect more people to vote by mail this year than otherwise would. There have been concerns about the Postal Service’s ability to handle this uptick in mail-in voting. The Postal Service has become a victim of political polarization: many liberal articles, including ones from the New York Times, condemned Donald Trump and his appointee Postmaster General Louis DeJoy for mail delays and reluctance to fund the Postal Service, while many conservative articles claimed that the Postal Service will be able to handle the mail-in ballots without more funding. Although many articles seemed opinionated and driven to advance a certain narrative, these articles were still based on facts; one could distinguish the facts from the opinions. Also, some articles from Politico and NPR gave straightforward depictions of the status quo regarding the Postal Service’s ability to handle mail-in voting. The articles about mail-in voting referenced election experts, health experts, relevant elected officials, and politicians. However, some articles also had too many instances of citing non-experts who wanted to prove the reason that one side was right.

Another main topic that the media covered extensively in regards to COVID-19 were treatments for the virus and their effects on the election. Apart from the updates on the infection rate and death toll in America, one of the most common narratives that the media explored was Trump’s influence on health and medical experts. Two main treatment options that have been discussed by the media in both positive and negative contexts are hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma. Both treatments were brought forward by Donald Trump as groundbreaking advancements. While liberal sources repeatedly discredited these treatments as dangerous and unlikely to help, conservative authors highlighted these developments as Trump’s successes. The media’s coverage on COVID-19 treatment in the context of the election focuses too much on what the candidates are saying about the developments rather than what health experts say. Authors should be quoting the candidates to inform the public on their individual plans for handling the spread of COVID-19 as president rather than their interpretation of the science behind a vaccine or treatment. The media’s overall partisan approach during the election has made it difficult to discover reliable information from scientists on COVID-19 treatment.