|
|
A WORRIED PUBLIC TUNES IN
The
Press Shines at a Dark Moment
BY
ANDREW KOHUT
 The
American public's strongly positive reaction to news coverage
of the events of September 11 and the subsequent war on terrorism
here and abroad reflects a number of important lessons learned
over the years about the relationship between the people and the
press. First and foremost, it shows that the public's need to
know trumps everything else. It not only drives public attentiveness
to the news, it also shapes evaluations of media performance.
A number of signs in the Pew Research Center surveys taken after
September 11 point to a clear link between liking the coverage
and needing the content. When the 85 percent of PRC respondents
who rated terrorism coverage excellent or good in early October
were asked why, "timeliness," "comprehensiveness,"
and "informativeness" were the reasons most often volunteered.
This same survey showed that people who were most worried about
the prospects of more terrorism were more positive about the quality
of the news coverage than those who were less worried. (See chart
1). In that same vein, our polling also found that as the public's
worries and fears declined over the course of the autumn, so did
extremely positive ratings of the press's terrorism coverage (see
chart 2).
But need-to-know alone does not explain people's positive view
of news media performance. Lack of widespread disagreement about
public policy, and low partisanship since September 11, undoubtedly
play supporting roles in citizens' liking the way the media handled
the story. Few respondents, if any, fault coverage of the terrorist
attacks for being biased, too negative, or too sensational. Those
are usually the predominant criticisms of the press in ordinary
times. Also, surprisingly, our polling did not find the usual
partisan pattern in opinions about media bias. Republicans were
not more critical than others. They were, in fact, more positive
than Democrats in two out of three of our post-September 11 surveys.
Reactions to the coverage also underscore the fact that when there
is real news, as opposed to media-fueled national melodramas,
there can't be too much of it from the public's point of view.
Two and a half weeks after the attacks, 63 percent still felt
the amount of coverage was appropriate, while only 32 percent
believed the story was being over-covered. This is a very unusual
response to a story that gets wall-to-wall treatment. Had this
question been asked only a few months earlier about Chandra Levy
and Congressman Gary Condit, there is little doubt that most survey
participants would have complained about too much coverage of
a story -- just as they had about the endless reporting on the
deaths of John F. Kennedy Jr. and Princess Diana, the Clinton-Lewinski
scandal, and the O.J. Simpson trial.
At the same time, even in a crisis, the public is quick to criticize
when the press steps over the line. A nationwide Fox news poll
of Oct 17-18 found a 56 percent majority believing that news organizations
were over-hyping coverage of anthrax cases, compared to 35 percent
who saw them as acting responsibly.
More broadly, surveys of reactions to the coverage further discredit
"shoot the messenger" explanations of why the public
has not liked press coverage in recent years. Fully 77 percent
of Pew's respondents in a survey conducted just after the attacks
said that the coverage frightened them; 92 percent said it saddened
them, and 45 percent said it tired them out. Yet these were the
same people who for the most part had only good things to say
about the quality of the news coverage.
Pew's surveys over this period also reinforced our findings about
the growing primacy of cable news. With all news formats covering
the same story, cable news won the largest audience and earned
the most credit. Nine in ten Americans in a survey conducted days
after the September attacks said they got most of their news from
television . But a 45 percent plurality cited cable TV versus
30 percent for network TV and 17 percent for local TV. Just 11
percent cited newspapers, 14 percent radio, and 5 percent the
Internet. When asked who did the best job of reporting the story,
cable news networks, led by CNN, were cited by 42 percent while
broadcast networks, led by ABC, were named by 32 percent.
Although the public primarily turned to TV for news about the
attacks, half the respondents told us they also were reading newspapers
more closely, and about a third were checking the Internet more
often than before September 11. Surprisingly, younger people --
18-29 year-olds -- were strikingly more likely to report increased
newspaper readership than those 30 and older (59 percent vs. 48
percent).
Over the course of the fall the public increasingly looked to
news sources other than television for coverage of the war on
terrorism both at home and abroad. A mid-November survey found
the number relying mostly on newspapers tripling (from 11 percent
to 34 percent) since the week of the attacks. Similarly, use of
Internet news sites climbed from 5 percent to 13 percent over
that period. In fact, among under-30s the Internet (at 20 percent)
rivaled newspapers (24 percent), radio (24 percent), and local
TV news (19 percent) for news about terrorism. Cable was the top
choice of younger people with 55 percent naming it, while network
news was cited by the smallest number as a main source of terror
news (14 percent).
The "who" and the "how" of the story of the
attacks were the most compelling components of the news for American
audiences of all ages. Fully 72 percent followed this aspect of
the story very closely -- which was even more than the 57 percent
highly interested in news about efforts to provide protection
against further attacks, and the 52 percent very interested in
news about military actions.
Whether the strong interest in terrorism will lead Americans to
increased interest in news once the crisis passes is as much an
open question as whether the good feeling the public has about
the media's performance will improve its credibility in the long
run. A mid-November survey by the PRC hinted that the answer to
both questions may be yes. That poll showed a major increase in
favorable opinions of the press for accuracy of reporting, professionalism,
morality, patriotism, and caring about the people it covers. Sixty-six
percent of respondents said they were now more generally interested
in the news than they were before September 11. This is appreciably
higher than the 49 percent who expressed increased interest in
the news following the gulf war.
Interest in international news was certainly not buoyed by the
intense news consumption during the brief gulf war. In fact, the
90s were just the opposite -- an age of indifference. The war
on terrorism may well be different because the public may feel
vulnerable for a long time. As the fall months passed, however,
there were indications of familiar patterns of disengagement by
some segments of the news audience who have been most problematic.
Specifically, while younger people continued expressing strong
overall interest in news about terrorism, they were much more
disengaged than older audience segments when it came to attentiveness
to news of the military campaign, anthrax attacks, and the intense
debate in Washington about how to improve airline security.
The course of the war on terrorism will obviously dictate whether
we are on the verge of a revival of interest in serious news.
The conduct of the media will determine whether their commendable
performance at a time of national crisis will have an enduring
positive impact on their long-standing credibility problems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Kohut is director of the Pew Research Center.
|
|
|
