Americans: Campaign Coverage 'Untrustworthy'

Editor and Publisher reports that, according to a new Harvard University study, a great majority of Americans feel that they can't trust press coverage of the presidential campaign, and that the press focuses on trivial issues. The results are part of a larger study on confidence in leadership.

After reading the report, and some of the other survey results, I have come to the conclusion that the American People are at once right, and not being honest with themselves. Let's dig into this a bit more after this related report from The Onion.


Poll: Mitt Romney Is Candidate Most Voters Want To Get Into Bar Fight WithIronically, the article about the study kind of proves the study's point. The piece highlights some "sexy" stats from a much longer report, and eschews the context that gives the report it's substance.

First of all, let's take a look at some of the numbers that reflect Americans' dissatisfaction.

• 64% of Americans say they do not trust the news media's campaign coverage.
• 88% somewhat or strongly agree that the news media focuses too much on trivial rather than important issues.
• 84% believe the news media has too much influence on voters' decisions.

OK, that tells us what people say they don't want. The study goes on to detail the types of coverage that they do want. I'll just give you the leading, and most hilarious, statistic. 92% of Americans say they most want to see coverage of "Specific policy plans for the future". Huh. Really. So, what policy plans are discussed in this month's Most Viewed News and Politics clip on Youtube? If you don't get The Youtube, it's a detailed examination of how the McCain campaign can "beat the bitch." And has Nielsen been horribly underreporting the ratings for C-Span 5 (The Cinco!)

How about the #2 clip this month? Some wonky dissertation on reducing dependence on foreign oil? Nah, it's Chuck (Norris) and Huck!

Americans also said they least wanted to see coverage of negative political ads and "Gotcha!" moments. Which is , I suppose, why the most popular piece on ThePolitical Machine is my pal, David Knowles', piece on...Republican Tom Tancredo's scare ad. Of course, I, personally, avoid this type of coverage at all times.

Now, I could bore you with a nuanced analysis of how it's not really the public's fault, and how FCC regulations have changed and affected the types of coverage you get, but that's just what you want, isn't it? Isn't it? Substance junkies!

The truth is, as usual, somewhere in the middle. Most people naturally gravitate toward that which entertains, but also would like to be well-informed. When asked, nobody's going to say, "Well, actually, I prefer crap!" Problem is, while it's possible to be entertaining and funny while making a substantial point (The Onion video is a great example), it's also really hard to do. Since "boring" is a much bigger deal-breaker than "fluff", the media cranks out the marshmallows. This phenomenon is aggravated by the fact that news divisions are expected to make a profit instead of just providing a public service.

The rest of the study is studded with gems like this: while 77% of Americans feel there is a crisis of leadership in America, and we already know they think campaign coverage is crap, 76% of Americans believe the next president will be a good leader.

Also, in a landslide, 66% of Republican women said that they did not believe America would be better off with more women in leadership positions.

I encourage you to read the whole report. To me, it paints a picture of an electorate that has trouble reconciling what it hopes with what it knows. Plus, we've learned that the report is having an affair with this article.