TV 'news' BAD FOR DEMOCRACY... TV execs focus coverage on SCANDAL, HYPE, and horse-race, vs substantive discussion of the issues. Duh

<< The public wants a different kind of television election coverage. A recent study by the Pew Research Center found that 80 percent of Americans want more coverage of where candidates stand on issues and more coverage of lesser-known candidates. This is not likely to happen soon. It is easier and cheaper to cover elections with a template that tells us where a particular prominent candidate is, which celebrity appeared with the candidate, the latest poll numbers, and who feels momentum. It is more sensational to show and analyze Hillary Clinton’s teary eyes than detail her policy initiatives. >>


TV news bad for democracy
Jeffrey M. McCall
Greencastle, Ind.
January 20, 2008
http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_mccall20_01-20-08_GT84OCD_v17.2b1176b.html

AT THIS TIME last year, Michael Copps, a member of the Federal Communications Commission, told a media-reform conference that the broadcast media should do more to strengthen our democracy. He criticized the television news industry for giving the public “too much baloney passed off as news.” Sadly, the evidence since that speech indicates that Commissioner Copps’s critique remains quite valid. From superficial coverage of elections to hyped-up coverage of celebrity scandals, the broadcast news industry continues to give the citizenry a news agenda that degrades the conversation of democracy.

Recent studies clearly indicate the public’s disappointment with coverage of the presidential campaign. A report released late last fall from the Harvard Center for Public Leadership said that about two-thirds of the public does not trust the media’s campaign coverage. Sixty percent of those polled said the reporting is biased, and 88 percent said the campaign coverage focused on trivial issues.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs analyzed 481 election stories aired October through December on the evening news shows of ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox News Channel. The CMPA study showed that more stories were aired about the candidates’ campaign strategies than about candidate policy positions. Over a third of all stories focused on polling and the horse-race angle of the campaign.

The public wants a different kind of television election coverage. A recent study by the Pew Research Center found that 80 percent of Americans want more coverage of where candidates stand on issues and more coverage of lesser-known candidates. This is not likely to happen soon. It is easier and cheaper to cover elections with a template that tells us where a particular prominent candidate is, which celebrity appeared with the candidate, the latest poll numbers, and who feels momentum. It is more sensational to show and analyze Hillary Clinton’s teary eyes than detail her policy initiatives.
(continued at_ http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_mccall20_01-20-08_GT84OCD_v17.2b1176b.html