Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

What Kind of News Do People Really Want?

By Curtis Brainard, Columbia Journalism Review. Posted September 6, 2007.


A Pew report studies twenty years of American preferences.
Advertisement

It's almost fifty pages long, but well worth the read: a recent study by the Pew Research Center for People & the Press synthesizes 165 separate national surveys and finds that American news preferences have remained "surprisingly static" over the last twenty years. Tucked behind this central conclusion, however, is a suite of more intriguing observations about readership and audience habits.

Overall, the study found the percentage of people who follow the news "very closely" dropped from thirty percent during the 1980s to twenty-three percent during 1990s -- but then jumped back to thirty percent during the twenty-first century. That swing has less to do with changes in information technology (from broadcast, to cable, to online) than with changes in world events -- or "reality" as study author Michael J. Robinson described it. The dip in public attention during the last decade of the twentieth century was likely the result of relative peace and economic prosperity in the United States, he wrote: "The '80s were more 'interesting'; the '90s, less so; the '00s have been most interesting so far."

The study broke down news in nineteen separate categories and then six "super categories." Not surprisingly, war and terrorism have consistently ranked at the top of the stack since 1986, where the study begins. So have bad weather, and natural or manmade disaster stories, although the latter stand out for having witnessed a precipitous drop in public interest, one of the rare instances of significant change. In contrast, money news is the only category that has grown notably more popular with time. Crime, health, and politics have consistently ranked as mid-level interest categories. Science and technology, foreign news that is not directly related to the U.S., and tabloid and entertainment news have consistently ranked lowest in the public eye.

It is disheartening that only about a quarter of the American public, on average, finds news compelling on a daily basis. But contrary to popular belief, "there is scant evidence that during the last century -- despite major changes in the news 'menu' -- the American audience has moved toward a diet of softer news. News tastes have become neither less nor more serious since the 1980s," Robinson concluded. As this singular observation indicates, the study, overall, is a mixed bag of the reassuring and the dismaying. Reading it leaves an impression not unlike the feeling of having broken even in a game of high-stakes poker -- mostly frustrated, but a little relieved.

Given the mostly changeless nature of public news interests over time, some of the more interesting aspects of Robison's work are his observations about the stories people have latched onto during the first half of this year. He compares Pew's "News Interest Index" with the "News Coverage Index" from Journalism.org to determine where the former lagged, equaled, or surpassed the latter.

Stories that elicited significant amounts of coverage, but little public interest, included Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the firing of eight federal prosecutors, the trial and sentencing of White House aide Scooter Libby, and the criminal charges against astronaut Lisa Nowak. Stories that inspired equally large amounts of coverage and interest included the war in Iraq, the boys kidnapped in Missouri, and search and rescue of the hikers on Mt. Hood. Regarding Iraq, it is interesting to note that the execution of Saddam Hussein provoked equally low levels of coverage and interest. Finally, stories that aroused much more interest than coverage included global warming and inadequate conditions for soldiers and marines at Walter Reed Medical Center.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: media, news, public opinion, pew research

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Give me what I want:
Posted by: kwalla on Sep 6, 2007 12:16 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If lust and hate is the candy,
if blood and love tastes so sweet,
then we give 'em what they want.
Hey, hey, give 'em what they want.

So their eyes are growing hazy 'cos they wanna turn it on,
so their minds are soft and lazy.
Well, hey, give 'em what they want.

If lust and hate is the candy,
if blood and love tastes so sweet,
then we give 'em what they want.

So their eyes are growing hazy 'cos they wanna turn it on,
so their minds are soft and lazy.
Well... who do you wanna blame?

Hey, hey, give 'em what they want.

If lust and hate is the candy,
if blood and love tastes so sweet,
then we give 'em what they want.

So their eyes are growing hazy 'cos they wanna turn it on,
so their minds are soft and lazy.

Well... who do you wanna blame?

10,000 Maniacs, "Candy Everybody Wants"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yeah, yeah... Posted by: kepstein7777
» RE: Yeah, yeah... Posted by: willymack
So....
Posted by: talkville on Sep 6, 2007 2:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's see, 30 percent is at the maximum what we can expect as far as 'closely' followed news and interest in them, with categories and sub-categories and super-categories varying and oscillating on this great metric graph.

Government 'of the people, for the people and by the people'!

200 years ago, 100 years ago, 20 years ago. An informed people sending 'representatives' to govern us, by 'consent of the governed"!

Reasons for optimism, anyone?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So....what? Posted by: gazooks
» RE: So....what? Posted by: talkville
» RE: So.... Posted by: Knowmad
4.7
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Sep 6, 2007 3:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another thought-provoking piece, courtesy of Alternet. It's been a good couple of weeks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So much for market forces.
Posted by: LMNOP on Sep 6, 2007 5:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
". This harkens back to the earlier, chicken-and-egg discussion of where interest lags behind coverage, and where it exceeds coverage. "That the national news audience does not shift its news diet nearly so quickly as news organizations shift their news menu" is one of the most important take-away messages for journalists in Robinson's study."

So much for the falsehood that the news agencies don't have an agenda but instead are merely catering to popular demand to maximize profits. Not that that was acceptable either, but we have even less than that now. The media's choice to under-report stories such as global warming and inadequate conditions for soldiers and marines at Walter Reed Medical Center represents an agenda to protect the administration that ignores market forces and sacrifices profitability for ideology.

The old agenda of the news media was to inform the electorate. The new agenda is to carry water for the fascists, and when not doing that, to cater to and help further condition the tabloid mentality of the American people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So much for market forces. Posted by: timebomb734
» RE: So much for market forces. Posted by: matty848
Several points
Posted by: anothername on Sep 6, 2007 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The selection of news is the number one reason why it is important for minorities and for women to be included in news staffs and on editorial boards. Thinking of alternative sources for quotes and references is another reason for newsroom diversity.

I have written for several small publications and currently have a print publication that emphasizes women and politics and also write for a local blog that I am hoping will lead to a serious alternative to the local print media that cannot seem to cover local news, such as the city council and the school board. I regularly encounter people who love my work. However, very few of them understand that for me to report the news and to be a journalist I need to pay my salary, as well as pay writers and other staff. Thus, few people are willing to pay for the news service, even if all they are being charged is a fee to cover distribution. Businesses also fail to realize that advertising is not always about bringing in customers, that sometimes it is about reaching decision-makers and keeping news sources alive that will provide the businesses with essential information to help them run their businesses profitably.

I have heard disturbing comments from other people, however. People accept poor quality reporting because there is only one local paper. Other people have told me they look at pictures and if the picture looks interesting they will read the article. This always scares me because I also know of many people who will look at a picture of a columnist or reporter and not read the item because, according to them, a black woman or a white man has nothing of value to say, depending on their gender and skin color. I also am concerned with people who proudly say they only get news online and believe that businesses make money from ads on news sites.

Editors want to hear from readers, listeners, and viewers. If something is not news or is poorly presented or is well done, write or call or send an e-mail. If you don’t want the comment published, just note it is not for publication. The editors (and publishers) need to hear from the people consuming the news. Unfortunately, even when consumers are offering opinions, decisions on what to cover will often depend upon what sells papers or brings in viewers to lure advertisers.

Intellectually, people may want to know how the dollar is doing or why infrastructure is collapsing. Emotionally, people perk up when gossip is presented because they want to hear what the latest ridiculous action of the starlet or actor is. It is also the problem that at the end of a long day, people want something mindless with which to unwind from work.

I have much more to say, but I’ve already written too long of a post.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Great post! Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Several points Posted by: realmuzik
EDITING OR CENSORING ?
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 6, 2007 7:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To have selected news stories thrown at us everyday depending on what has to be sold to us simultaneously is not "news". It's trying to get and keep our attention. We know that. Local Newspapers play to the locals. The lack of real news coverage is responsible for the fact that Iraq was allowed to spin out of control. Almost no coverage. Journalism and reporting has a responsibility to inform us. Let someone else do the selling. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People love to criticize the Media. They should. It is concentrated and undemocratic. But recall...
Posted by: yellow on Sep 6, 2007 8:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that it is the job of the media to criticize the government and big business. Holding power centers' feet to the proverbial fire is the role of the media in a democratic society. They must seek the truth. Certainly, this is what keeps any society democratic.

But the MSM fears being cut off from news sources the biggest of which is the government. Big business is also a key source. Too many slam articles and certain journalists will be barred and sources cut off from that media organization. There are also fears about responsibility and reputation which are legitimate. To much skepticism could led to inaccuracy and the death of the paper/network. It's a tightrope. I would caution those who unjustly accuse all the MSM or "beating the war drums" and supporting Bush. This is absurd. True creatures like Judith Miller, who is gone, were irresponsible. They picked up certain stories and ran with 'em usually with bogus information from dubious people. In the end she didn't survive.

Today we are seeing a much more critical MSM who treats the statements that eminate from the White House with at least one grain of salt. This is how it should be at the very least.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Onion says it all
Posted by: chaoslegs on Sep 6, 2007 9:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author wrote:

it is interesting to note that the execution of Saddam Hussein provoked equally low levels of coverage and interest.

Which is why the Onioin did this article.

Calling last December's execution of Saddam Hussein "anticlimactic," White House officials announced Monday their intention to hang the late Iraqi dictator again this year in an attempt to garner a more favorable response from the public.

On a more serious side. I can't watch local news because it drives me nuts.

The unending local weather reports when severe weather is threatening also drives me nuts. The scroll bar is good enough most of the time.

I am glad I don't have cable, as I didn't have to see that missing woman in Aruba coverage. August 2005, months after it happened, I was in a hotel room in Pittsburgh and they were still covering it.

My local paper the Minneapolis Star and Tribune (noted for liberal editorial board, which is pretty pro-business) runs George Will, Charles Kauthammer, and David Brooks very regularly on the Commentary page. Has a local nut columnist Katherine Kersten who is ultra conservative. Used to regularly run conservatives Jonah Goldberg, Debra Saunders, and Mona somebody on the Commentary page. In the past week had run pieces on the Commentary page by the Heritage Foundation (against SCHIP) and Hudson Institute (against organic farming).

However, outside of a weekly piece by Garrison Keillor, doesn't regularly run a liberal. Some EJ Dionne, occasional Paul Krugman, and Molly Ivins before she passed, although Ivins may have been an homage to her days as a beat reporter in the late 60s or was it early 70s for one of the two papers (Star or Tribune before merger).

Yep, traditional media is killing itself. The question is will we be better off.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Consolidation of corporate media ownership by global investment banks
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Sep 6, 2007 10:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone who believes there is a 'free market' in news, or that what people 'want to see' makes any difference at all, is living in a dream Disneyland world.

See: The Unseen Lies: Journalism As Propaganda, by John Pilger, 2007:

"So I thought I would talk today about journalism, about war by journalism, propaganda, and silence, and how that silence might be broken. Edward Bernays, the so-called father of public relations, wrote about an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. He was referring to journalism, the media. That was almost 80 years ago, not long after corporate journalism was invented. It is a history few journalist talk about or know about, and it began with the arrival of corporate advertising. As the new corporations began taking over the press, something called “professional journalism” was invented. To attract big advertisers, the new corporate press had to appear respectable, pillars of the establishment-objective, impartial, balanced. The first schools of journalism were set up, and a mythology of liberal neutrality was spun around the professional journalist. The right to freedom of expression was associated with the new media and with the great corporations, and the whole thing was, as Robert McChesney put it so well, “entirely bogus”.

Salon has a good archive on this: The Media Borg

All televison news is controlled by a tiny handful of major coporations. NWS (NewsCorp-FOX), TWX (Time Warner-CNN), DIS (Disney-ABC), GE (General Electric- NBC), VIA-B (Viacom), etc. Newspaper, magazine, book publishing and radio station ownership is similarly consolidated.

Now, for a primer in corporate structure: the shareholders get to elect the board of directors, who then are responsible for hiring the CEOs. Most liberals have an attention span that stops at the level of CEOs, who really are just the well-paid men (and some women) who take the fall for their shareholders if things go sour - like Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling of Enron. The shareholders are themselves often major corporations or investment banks, who are themselves simply fronts for secretive funds that have changed the laws to preserve the secrecy of their investors.

Corporate interests are sensitive to charges of running a massive propaganda operation, and so this area of the corporatocracy involves more secretive arrangements and multiple layers of holding companies than any other.

At the level of journalists and editors, it isn't so much conspiracy as it is self-censorship and groupthink, as well as the internalized axiom that one shouldn't publish stories that hurt the business interests of the shareholders, since the corporation's primary responsibility is to their shareholders - and if you don't actively please corporate, your career will be sent to the dumpster.

I wouldn't doubt that real conspiracy also goes on in secret committees - for example, the decision by all the major media outlets not to publish the results of their independent Florida vote count after 9/11 was obviously coordinated from the top down. Of course Gore won the 2000 election!

Do Americans want to hear news about stolen elections, for example? Put that in your poll, Pew: "Would you like news outlets to report on whether U.S. elections over the past 8 years have been tampered with?"

I'd guess the answer would be yes in all cases. . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» HOW 'BOUT SOLON'S ADS? Posted by: Mr. Heathen
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
The link to Alterman's article is great
Posted by: eddie torres on Sep 6, 2007 12:58 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Eric Alterman: "But what can possibly be the argument for giving people junk they don't even desire?"

Audiences are not more alienated from the traditionally delivered network news; instead they're being pushed away from it to a more fragmented but lower cost distribution model.

Alterman says far more people today get their "news" from internet, talk-radio, and cable sources where production costs are a fraction of that of traditional broadcast network news. End-users are being encouraged to actively self-select their market position with more tailorable streams of information. Where they can be more actively targeted with tailored advertising messages.

Which is actually more profitable to media conglomerates: as long as there are no restrictions on vertical integration, media companies in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago continue to dictate the flow of news content out of centralized locations and into segmented customer pools.

The conglomerates contend that this system is better at telling advertisers what end-users are willing to consume; what it really does is put the Wall Street suits and their blue chip computer models back in the middleman seat collecting fees and service charges for national marketing campaigns.

-

Plus...

Spaulding: "I want a hamburger... no, a cheeseburger. I want a hot dog. I want a milkshake."

Judge Smails: "You'll get nothing and like it!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

more you watch less you know
Posted by: wleming on Sep 7, 2007 5:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why would the author find it strange that only a quarter
of americans log onto corporate capitalist tv news?
there is no greater recorded failure than the tremendous
dis-service the corporate media have done and continue
to do in providing americans with a blitz kreig of lies
and evasions. why aren't fewer watching should be the question?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Corporate Media
Posted by: frank69 on Sep 9, 2007 12:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ah yes! The good old corporate media. "If it bleeds, it leads." "Celebrity news." "Tornado, earthquake, Tsunami, Wildfire."
Crap, just crap. Day in and day out. Night after night. If you watch or listen to it, Let me sell you at least one span of the Bay Bridge!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Poll Reveals Public Perception; Iraq Had Weapons of Mass Destruction
Posted by: Betsy L. Angert on Sep 11, 2007 10:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Curtis Brainard . . .

I thank you so much for your examination of this report. I love Pew Charitable Trust surveys. For me, these are the news I crave. I feel these evaluations often reveal more than standard "news" might. These reports help us to see our selves and why what is will be unless we choose differently.

The results of this study parallel a Harris Poll® released a year ago. According to a July 21, 2006, Harris Poll® most Americans prefer their personal perceptions to facts. They are not necessarily convinced by news reports, if the perspective differs from their own. Humphrey Taylor, Chairman of the Harris Poll, spoke of this in a recent interview with Journalist Bob Garfield of "On the Media" fame. In this dialogue Mr. Taylor proclaimed, currently fifty percent of Americans are convinced; Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They believe this despite all evidence to the contrary.

I referenced this report in a missive titled, Poll Reveals Public Perception; Iraq Had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

More recently, I commented on another illuminating Pew Report.

Robert Frank of the Wall Street Journal reports,"[T]he Pew Charitable Trust published the first of its studies on economic mobility. The nonpartisan project is taking input from top economists and researchers across the political spectrum in an effort to measure American mobility - the ability of a person to move up or down the income ladder.

The study finds that economic mobility in America is "less than has long been presumed." It says economic mobility is actually declining for men in their 30s, who are doing worse (as a whole) than their father's generation when measured by incomes: "This suggests that the up escalator that has historically ensured that each generation would do better than the last may not be working that well.""


I believe as long as we live a life based on "blind faith' the quality of our circumstances will be dire.

I invite your thoughts on . . .
Capitalism; Competitive Markets Cut To The Core; Inequity Is Inevitable

Betsy L. Angert
BeThink.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

mick3
Posted by: mick3 on Oct 1, 2007 2:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Americans don't find daily news compelling? Gee, I wonder why? Could it be because what passes for news is either government/corporate propaganda, sensationalism, or back-fence gossip? Insulting. When did you ever see an important piece of legislation or news from a place not approved by the Far Right, perhaps something that would affect most of our lives, accurately and honestly reported on the front page of a newspaper? Or even reported at all? As for TV, many I've spoken with no longer watch network news, being averse to being lied to, misled, kept in the dark, and treated like morons. They say they sometimes flick on local "news" to hear local weather forecast. I haven't watched network TV for at least fifteen years. Why would anyone?

Well, anyone who reads French newspapers knows what journalism can...and is supposed to...be. Of course, Americans now have the attention span of gnats, after a life of conditioning from watching TV, with its nearly constant interruptions for commercial breaks, which themselves are often an exercise in fractured attention. We have become a peculiarly ignorant nation because corporations, via the media, have taken over society almost in its entirety.

And that's all to the good; just ask Hillary, Obama, or any member of the self-proclaimed Democratic Leadership Council. According to them, Israel isn't even a rogue nation that has viciously defied international law since its inception and soaked up hundreds of billions of US money in the process. Think what good might have been done for our own people had we not supported Israel, with its tradition of torture, subjugation, murder, invasion, displacement of its neighbors, bulldozing of homes whether empty or not withholding precious water, and all the rest of Israel's ghastly bag of tricks for slowly killing their neighbors. And don't forget its enormous nuclear stockpile, which goes unchallenged by the US because they are "allies". Don't kid yourselves, Israel is no one's friend, only willing to play cats' paw while exploiting the hell out of us. And that same media treat Israel with respect, supporting the unsupportable. Appalling.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]