U.S. Elections 2022: Language & Framing Guide

These terms are not necessarily interchangeable across the U.S. In some cases, it’s really a “rectangle-square” situation, in which all absentee voting is mail-in voting, but not vice versa. Use the correct vocabulary for your region so residents know which guidance to follow.

Provide a glossary of terms for your audience to link to in your coverage but also be sure to define (or gloss) these terms in the sentence where they are used, as not all audiences will see or visit a glossary link.

This is the appropriate adjectival form to describe an action or event that is in opposition to democracy. However, for some audiences it may bring to mind the democratic process rather than democracy as a form of government. It also might be read as “big D” Democrat. In some cases, then, “anti-democracy” may be more appropriate and to the point.

The phrase “casting doubt” means to sow uncertainty or mistrust about something. Without further context, the phrase may imply that this doubt is warranted or raised in good faith.

When a public figure baselessly, misleadingly, or against evidence to the contrary calls valid voting processes into question, “casting doubt” may be unnecessarily giving those statements the benefit of the doubt.

Of course, reporters may not be able to determine the intention of a public figure “casting doubt” on the validity of election results. They can, however, describe the impact of those statements. Sowing distrust among an electorate — especially in a way the speaker would benefit from — is proactively undermining the results of that election.

Consider these or similar substitutions:

• casts doubt on election results ⇒ undermines election results with baseless claims
• casts doubt on election results ⇒ denigrates trust in election results with misleading claims
• casts doubt on election results ⇒ against all evidence, Speaker X opposes valid election results

 

The typical denotation for this term is fundamentally unserious and even dismissive. However, it is often applied to the loose theories of mis- and disinformation surrounding QAnon and its followers, which, as a political phenomenon with serious real-world consequences, may not be appropriately described this way. One alternative, suggested by Buzzfeed News, is “collective delusion.”

Read more: How journalists should not cover an online conspiracy theory and How to cover politicians who promote conspiracy theories like QAnon

Being slow or late is the denotation of a “delay,” but the common connotation is that a delay is unnatural, occurring as a result of some external action. Thus, using “delay” to describe the expected pace of an event incorrectly associates it with intention or interference.

Consider these or similar substitutions:

• early voting delays election results ⇒ election results on track for longer counting process
• mail-in voting slows ballot count ⇒ mail-in voting means longer ballot count
• this year, expect late ballot counts ⇒ expect slower pace for election results

Like climate change denial, this is a misnomer for those who have access to information that supports one view but continue to support the opposing view instead for their own gain. We may not be able to certify the intent of those “denying” the results of an election, but we don’t have to ascribe intent in order to describe impact.

Where forms of “deny” imply that someone believes something to be untrue, the word “oppose” doesn’t try to ascertain beliefs and describes the impact of their statements instead.

Consider these or similar substitutions:

• election deniers ⇒ people opposing election results
• election denialism ⇒ opposition to certified election results
• denies results without evidence ⇒ opposes results against existing evidence
• refuse to accept the results ⇒ intend to oppose valid election results
• casting doubt on results ⇒ seeking to convince others to oppose results

Due to changes in voting processes made in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, an increase in mail-in voting may delay election results in close races past the timeline to which most Americans are accustomed. Using this term instead of “Election Day” appropriately sets expectations for audiences.

When accompanying the political endorsement of an Editorial Board, the words “Opinion:” or “Editorial Board:” should appear first in headlines. This way, it is clear that the endorsement does not come from the newspaper staff as a whole and that the clarification does not get cut off by metadata on social media posts. Confusion among audiences about these terms is well-established.

Avoid vague terms like “far right” and “far left” to describe extreme ends of the Democratic or Republican parties. These provide little context for audiences and additionally stoke partisanship. Instead, be precise in describing what views or policies push the subject in question outside of the mainstream.

A race cannot be “flipped,” “taken,” or “stolen” until the ballots are counted. Do not use this language to describe how the counting of mail or absentee ballots may affect final results in comparison to in-person, day-of voting. Implying that a race is decided by which votes are counted first equates when votes are counted with either legitimacy or illegitimacy. Instead, where needed, explain that the final result is unclear due to as-yet-uncounted ballots.

When reporting incomplete vote tallies, use these terms with extreme caution. If you aren’t able to confidently call a race, don’t use terms that imply result outcomes are certain. Instead, if current vote tallies are not yet definitive, explain why, note the number of uncounted ballots that remain, and emphasize that the race isn’t over until all ballots are counted.

Describing how the counting of all ballots will affect the results of an election as a “mirage” or “shift” in an attempt to prepare audiences for changing tallies is an admission that reporting on results is premature and should thus be avoided. Rather than try to explain to audiences why “results” may appear to change at all, explain why your newsroom cannot call a race, when it may do so, and how many votes are still uncounted.

When dealing with significant increases in mail-in voting, the number of precincts reporting — a typical and well-understood gauge for how “final” results are — is unlikely to be accurate or helpful in understanding how far the ballot count has to go. Use this phrase sparingly, and not without explanation for mail-in caveats.

If an election poll (or any poll, for that matter) truly needs its own headline, that headline should always start with “Poll:” and ideally “X Source Poll:” (as in “CNN Poll: Purple Party ahead”) to reinforce that the information which follows comes from a poll and is not a certainty.

Explain to your audience how your publication defines undecided voters when reporting in the aggregate and what definitions are being used when referencing polling (whether results are based on voting patterns or self-identification, etc.). Research shows “undecided voters” are not necessarily independent, moderate or non-partisan, though framing may assume them to be.

Knowing what we know about the realities of voter fraud (that it is much less common than those who fear monger about it say it is), the phrase should be used carefully and within this context. General comments from public figures about fear of voter fraud should never stand alone in a headline.

“Horse race” coverage of elections that focuses on “wins” and “losses” for either party are linked to audience distrust in politicians and news outlets, as well as to advantages for unusual or novel candidates. To report on elections from a pro-democracy lens, reporters should focus on what election results mean for voters’ lives and avoid “us-vs.-them” language. Reframe “wins” and “losses” as steps forward or backward for social movements and the people impacted by political decision-making.

Consider these or similar substitutions:

• win for X party ⇒ win for voters who support X
• loss for advocates ⇒ loss for those impacted by X policy
• attacks on voting process are a threat to X party’s majority ⇒ threat to democracy

This phrase, often used to denote a false or misleading statement made by a public figure, is only appropriate when no evidence both for and against the statement exists. If evidence exists that refutes their statement, then “without evidence” is inappropriate because it assumes the truth is unknowable. If one speaks without evidence to support their claims when refutations exist, “against evidence” may be more appropriate.