Going negative may be the safest bet in political campaigning. Our cross-national study across ten European countries finds that journalists are far more critical of self-promotional political messages—especially those focused on personal traits—than of attacks on opponents. While it is already demonstrated that negative campaigning grabs more media attention, we show that it is also less likely to be reframed critically by journalists, allowing such messages to reach voters with minimal distortion. Interestingly, it’s not who says it that matters most—whether from government, opposition, populist or mainstream actors—but the type of message itself that shapes media response.
Bene, M., & Farkas, X. (2025). Go negative to be on the safe side! A 10-country investigation of the link between journalists’ negative framing and political actors’ strategic communication. Journalism,https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849251344751
In political campaigns, a large portion of campaign messages reach people through media coverage. However, journalists are not neutral conduits of politicians’ messages: in many cases, they present these statements through a strongly critical lens. This can significantly shape how voters perceive political actors, as the message may reach them with a very different meaning than what was originally intended. That’s why it is a crucial question: what types of campaign messages are more likely to be criticized—or left untouched—by the media?
In this cross-national study, Márton Bene and Xénia Farkas seek to answer precisely that question. Covering 16 national election campaigns in 10 European countries, using the second wave of the Comparative Campaign Dynamics dataset, they analyzed over 5,700 newspaper articles to uncover how different campaign messages are framed by journalists—and what this means for political actors trying to reach voters through the media.
What Do Politicians Say—and About Whom?
The study distinguishes six types of campaign messages, categorized along two key dimensions:
- What is being said? Does the message focus on policy issues, personality traits (like honesty or competence), or a mix of the two?
- Who is being talked about? Is the politician talking about themselves or attacking others?
Most campaign messages can be classified into one of these six categories, which naturally raises the question: is there any consistent pattern in how journalists respond to each strategy?
When Self-Praise Backfires, but Attacks Go Unchallenged
One of the study’s most striking findings is that journalists are more likely to frame self-promotional statements negatively—especially when politicians talk about their own character traits. In contrast, journalists often report attacks on opponents neutrally, simply quoting the message without adding judgment.
In other words, when politicians take on the role of the critic, journalists step aside. But when politicians praise themselves, journalists step in to question their claims. It seems the media prefers to act as a “devil’s advocate” only when no one else is doing the job.
An additional question in the study was whether the source of the message matters—do journalists react differently to government vs. opposition parties, or to populist vs. mainstream actors?
Surprisingly, the study finds that the type of message matters far more than who says it. Negative attacks on opponents are framed neutrally regardless of whether they come from populists or traditional parties, from those in power or the opposition.
That said, governing parties and populists do tend to receive more overall negative coverage—but not because of the specific types of statements they make. Journalists appear to have a general skepticism toward these actors, but their reactions to particular message styles are largely consistent.
So What Does This All Mean for Campaign Strategy?
The study confirms that negative campaigning is not just louder—it’s also safer. Not only are attack messages more likely to get media coverage (as previous research has shown), they are also less likely to be reinterpreted critically by journalists. That makes negative messaging a double win for political actors seeking media visibility and control over their narrative.
On the flip side, self-promotion—especially when it focuses on a politician’s personal traits—can backfire in the media. Journalists are quick to scrutinize self-assessments, which may undermine the very image politicians are trying to project. This presents a real challenge to today’s highly personalized style of political communication: even if voters respond well to such messages, the media reception can pose serious risks.