OUR PATHETIC POLITICAL PRESS...A new study by Harvard University's Shorenstein Center and the Project for Excellence in Journalism measured media coverage of the presidential race thus far.
The results aren't pretty for our profession. When combining TV, radio and print, the study found that the media "offered Americans relatively little information about
records or what they would do if elected."
Discussions of political tactics, such as polling and fundraising, took up an astounding 63 percent of coverage, followed by "personal topics" like marriage and personal health, at 17 percent.
Domestic policy and foreign policy, by comparison, accounted for just 7 percent of political coverage, respectively. And the candidates records? A mere percent.
In the midst of two wars, a melting planet and a turbulent economy, the press chooses to obsess about expensive haircuts, cackling laughs, political spouses and an endless stream of polls. Now, obviously where a candidate gets their money and how they're faring in key primary states deserves coverage. But it's difficult to see how John Edwards's hair matters more than his plan to end the war or pass universal healthcare.
Rarely have I seen such a glaring indictment of how most of the media covers politics (we are the humble exception!). Cable news actually covered foreign and domestic policy more than newspapers, albeit still sparingly.
Another lesson from the study: politicians matter, people don't. "Just 12% of stories examined were presented in a way that explained how citizens might be affected by the election," the study noted, "while nearly nine-out-of-ten stories (86%) focused on matters that largely impacted only the parties and the candidates."
And we wonder why half of America doesn't vote.
Posted by Ari Berman at 10/30/2007 @ 11:48am
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=247041
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
