Pew study: Election coverage thus far light on policy, heavy on crap

posted at 12:02 pm on October 29, 2007 by Allahpundit

You’ll find the full-sized version of the front page screencap here, but I recommend skimming the version of the report at Journalism.org — especially the part on how different media sectors favor different parties. That’s the red meat section of this supermarket. Quick and dirty, how newspapers cover the race…

newsp.png

…versus how network news covers it…

netw.png

…versus the all-important cable news breakdown. Do you have any idea how favorable most of MSNBC’s coverage of Republicans must be to lead the field in that category notwithstanding Olbermann’s DNC Hour of Power every night? Whatever will O’Reilly do when he finds out?

cable2.png

There’s actually a bit of hidden nuance to these numbers. As you’ll see from the bar graph at the top of the media sectors page, the coverage thus far has been weighted overwhelmingly towards polls, fundraising, and other assorted horse-race crap, not policy issues. That means good news for Obama, whose fundraising machine earned him all sorts of positive buzz, and bad news for McCain, whose spendthriftiness earned him the opposite. Compare the numbers at the top of this page: Hillary and Rudy are almost even, notwithstanding Hillary’s huge lead in the polls (which is offset by the beating she’s taken on talk radio). It’s Obama almost singlehandedly pulling the overall positivity of the Democrats’ coverage up and McCain pulling the GOP’s down.

Scroll down a little further on that same page and you’ll find 77% of the public demanding more coverage of policy; compare that to this pie chart to see the gap in the electorate’s demand for, versus the media’s supply of, information useful to voters. Given how little time the GOP has spent talking about policy particulars — even by the measure of its own base — that disconnect is probably cutting in our favor at the moment.

Update: More tidbits from Pew:

# As for the rest of the pack, Elizabeth Edwards, a candidate spouse, received more attention than 10 of them, and nearly as much as her husband.

# Democrats generally got more coverage than Republicans, (49% of stories vs. 31%.) One reason was that major Democratic candidates began announcing their candidacies a month earlier than key Republicans, but that alone does not fully explain the discrepancy.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

They needed a study for THAT?!

ThackerAgency on October 29, 2007 at 12:10 PM

They needed a study for THAT?!

My thoughts exactly. Maybe they just made the numbers up, knowing no one would challenge the obvious. :-)

INC on October 29, 2007 at 12:29 PM

# Democrats generally got more coverage than Republicans, (49% of stories vs. 31%.) One reason was that major Democratic candidates began announcing their candidacies a month earlier than key Republicans, but that alone does not fully explain the discrepancy.

Gee, you think???

Rick on October 29, 2007 at 12:32 PM

Stating the obvious is now considered “in depth” study.

SouthernGent on October 29, 2007 at 12:33 PM

And interesting that Fox news overall was more balanced than all.

Topsecretk9 on October 29, 2007 at 12:37 PM

I’m just curious as to what the Dems think about this – given that they think the Media is against them. They will probably just see this as a skewed poll.

Rick on October 29, 2007 at 12:39 PM

You misspelled “Pheeewww”!!

landlines on October 29, 2007 at 1:23 PM

I’m not sure I want the MSM talking more about policy. Think about a typical MSM panel discussing illegal immigration. Even on Fox every single pundit is pro-amnesty.

Clark1 on October 29, 2007 at 1:24 PM

The Onion News Network beat them to this already I think.

Queasy on October 29, 2007 at 1:27 PM

When There’s No Life in the Party

Neither party is presenting a narrative, as the Roosevelts and Reagan did, that takes due note of America’s great strengths and achievements. Each seems to take the course, easier in a time of polarized politics, of lambasting the opposition. The Democrats suggest that all our troubles can be laid at the door of George W. Bush. The Republicans, noting Bush’s low job ratings, complain about the disasters that will ensue if Hillary Clinton is elected. All these may be defensible as campaign tactics. But it is not a pudding that can successfully govern.

MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 2:19 PM

Stating the obvious is now considered “in depth” study.

Only when a really colorful chart is included. That’s the “in depth” part.

highhopes on October 29, 2007 at 4:25 PM