‘It is insanely complicated’ – How national and local reporters covered Nebraska’s competing abortion measures: A qualitative analysis

Ethically, journalists aspire to report in an unbiased manner. However, this study raises questions about whether ‘unbiased’ should be the primary journalistic standard if it means that the media may avoid asking difficult questions. In this qualitative study, we examine two competing abortion initiatives in Nebraska, analyzing social media posts and news stories shared on X during the 2024 presidential election. Using the concept of news values of controversial political issues during a landmark presidential campaign, we explore how journalists explained the initiatives and, perhaps more importantly, what they omitted from their stories. Using Saldaña’s method for contextual analysis, we uncovered two themes focusing on power via financial largesse and nuanced conflict surrounding the ballot initiatives. While journalists acted as translators, gatekeepers, and sometimes amplifiers, highlighting their power in shaping democratic ideals, they primarily adhered to traditional news values. The resulting coverage from traditional journalists was sterile and lacked the nuance needed for audiences to understand the initiatives. Non-traditional journalists did not hesitate to use terms that were incendiary, yet familiar to many audiences, creating additional conflict.