When it comes to US presidential politics, the US news media love front-runners. But the media also seem to hate them, too.
Within the first five months of the presidential contest, the media effectively had reduced the field to five candidates, even though there were 17 mainstream Democrats and Republicans, a study of political coverage found.
But the tone of the coverage for the top two front-runners -- Democrat Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani -- was hardly friendly.
Nearly four out of 10 stories were negative, more than three out of 10 were neutral and only three were positive.
hidebound
The study released by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy also portrays the political press as a hidebound institution that is out of touch with the desires of citizens.
It found that stories focused more on fundraising and polls than on where candidates stood on the issues, despite a public demand for more attention to the policies, views and records of the candidates.
The public's attention to campaign news is higher now than it was at similar points in the past two elections.
But according to the study, that interest is only shared by less than one in four people.
Of the five candidates -- Democrats Clinton and Senator Barack Obama and Republicans Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Senator John McCain -- received more than half the coverage.
Elizabeth Edwards, the cancer-stricken wife of Democrat John Edwards, received almost as much media attention as her husband.
According to the study, Democrats got more coverage -- and more positive ink and airtime -- than Republicans.
The study said that Obama enjoyed the friendliest coverage of the presidential field; McCain endured the most negative.
That was due in part to the media's focus on fundraising. Obama raised more than expected and McCain raised less.
The report is the most thorough analysis yet of media coverage of next year's US presidential campaign and offers both a sober evaluation as well as a dash of guidance on how to improve.
missing the point
But the report's authors are not necessarily optimistic. They note that a study of the presidential election in 2000 reached similar conclusions.
They argue that this election could represent a generational struggle in both of the parties, but say that early media coverage failed to capture that fundamental tension.
"If American politics is changing, the style and approach of the American press does not appear to be changing with it," the authors concluded.
Director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism Tom Rosenstiel said journalists face a conundrum: In a campaign that started as early as this one, why spend resources in a detailed analysis of candidates views and stances when the public is not that engaged?
Or is the public not engaged because the media is focusing on tactics and insider stories that don't affect readers, viewers and listeners?
The report analyzed 1,742 articles about the presidential contest that appeared from January through May in 48 news outlets including print, online, network TV, cable and radio news and talk shows.
RSS