In survey, journalism group gives election campaign coverage poor grades

COMMENTARY

Reporting is called too reactive and trivialized; seen as worst by far are cable, network and local TV

Nearly three of every four members of a national journalism group give the news media a grade of C or lower for coverage of the 2004 presidential election campaign. Large majorities, according to the report by the Committee of Concerned Journalists, feel reporting "has become sidetracked by trivial issues, has been too reactive and has focused too much on the inside baseball that doesn’t really matter to voters."

The 499 people taking part in the email survey from Oct. 8 to 15^th "give particularly low grades to television, be it local, cable or network," the report, released Oct. 19. 2004, stated. Here is how those taking part in the survey graded the various news media:

How CCJ Members Rate Campaign Coverage of Different Media
Grade	Newspapers	Online	Magazines	Cable	Network TV	Local TV	Radio
A	8%	15%	12%	5%	3%	3%	8%
B	50%	31%	33%	17%	13%	8%	22%
C	29%	22%	23%	22%	30%	19%	22%
D	10%	10%	9%	26%	31%	27%	19%
F	2%	2%	2%	18%	17%	29%	9%

NOTE: Figures may not add to 100 percent because survey respondents were given the option of indicating ‘Don’t Know’ for those media they were unable to grade.

Almost 9 in 10 (89 percent) agreed with a statement that coverage has been "too reactive with little digging below the surface." And 88% said coverage was "trivialized by undue emphasis or lazy coverage of such side issues as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Kitty Kelly’s book or the CBS ‘memo-gate.’"

The full report runs more than 50 pages. It includes findings, tables, methodology and a long string of volunteered comments.

Comments

Jump to bottom of list