The financial crisis facing news organizations is so grave that it is now overshadowing concerns about the quality of news coverage, the flagging credibility of the news media, and other problems that have been very much on the minds of journalists over the past decade.

An ever larger majority of journalists at national media outlets — 62% — says that journalism is going in the wrong direction, an increase from the 51% who expressed this view in 2004. Half of internet journalists and about the same proportion of local journalists (49%) also take a negative view of the state of their profession.

Soaring economic worries underlie these sour assessments. In an open-ended format, 55% of journalists at national news organizations cite a financial or economic concern as the most important problem facing journalism, up from just 30% in 2004. The proportion of local journalists citing an economic problem also has increased sharply since 2004 (from 35% to 52%). In addition, about half of internet journalists (48%) — those who work for web-only news organizations or the websites of print, broadcast or cable news outlets — point to a financial concern as the greatest problem facing the profession.

As financial concerns have risen, fewer journalists cite the quality of coverage and the loss of credibility with the public as the most important problems facing journalism. Among national journalists, just 22% mention the quality of coverage as the biggest problem facing the profession, down from 41% in 2004. The proportion of local journalists citing the quality of coverage also has declined since 2004, from 33% to 21%.

For many, the financial problems confronting journalism are directly tied to the rise of journalism on the internet. Overall, 16% of national journalists — including 26% of those working in print — cite the current business model for journalism, or the specific challenge of making a profit from web journalism, as the most important problem facing journalism.

However, the national and local journalists surveyed make clear distinctions between the internet’s impact on the news business, which they view with alarm, and the ways that the Web has transformed journalism, many of which the journalists view quite positively.

The survey of journalists was conducted Sept. 17-Dec. 3, 2007 among 585 reporters, editors and news executives by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Large majorities of national, local and internet journalists say it is good thing that citizens are able to post comments on news organizations’ websites. In addition, majorities in all three groups say that video-streaming websites, with YouTube by far the most well-known, have been a good thing for journalism.

Perhaps more surprising is that most national and local journalists also express positive opinions about news aggregating websites, such as Google News and Yahoo News, which have been blamed for contributing to audience declines for traditional news organizations. Notably, fewer local print journalists (53%) view news aggregating sites as a good thing for journalism than do local TV journalists (71%) or national journalists (67%).

Overall, internet journalists have more positive impressions of internet-driven innovations than do journalists who work for national and local print, TV and radio news organizations. For instance, only about a third of national (35%) and local journalists (36%) have a positive view of citizens posting news content on news organizations’ websites; by contrast, 54% of internet journalists say this is a good thing for journalism.

There is an even bigger gap in how national, local and internet journalists view the impact of news ranking sites such as reddit.com and digg.com. Nearly two-thirds of internet journalists (65%) say that reddit, digg and other sites that rank the popularity of news stories are a good thing for journalism. Only about a third of national journalists (34%) and even fewer local journalists (24%) agree.

The survey finds that while journalists welcome many of the new technologies that have revolutionized journalism, they are divided about the internet’s overall impact on the traditional values of their profession. National journalists are evenly split about whether the internet’s rise will strengthen or weaken traditional journalistic values. On balance, more local journalists say the internet will weaken (45%), rather than strengthen (34%), those values. Even among internet journalists themselves, only about half (49%) say the Web will enhance journalistic values.

Older journalists generally see the internet weakening journalistic values. About half of journalists ages 55 and older (52%) express this view. By comparison, a 49% plurality of younger journalists (ages 22-34) says the internet’s rise will strengthen journalistic values.

Those who believe that the internet will strengthen journalistic values cite several factors for this. They assert that the Web increases journalistic transparency and enables journalists to provide more detailed coverage. People who say that the internet weakens the traditional values of journalists most often cite increasing time pressures and diminished quality control in online journalism as the internet’s biggest negatives.

The surveyed journalists give the highest performance ratings to major national newspapers — 92% of national journalists, and 82% of local and internet journalists, give national newspapers grades of A or B. The grades for the websites of national news organizations are nearly as positive. Roughly eight-in-ten national journalists (82%), and nearly as many internet (78%) and local journalists (74%), give grades of A or B to these sites.

Online-only news sites, such as the magazines Slate and Salon, also are highly regarded, at least among internet and national journalists; 76% of internet journalists give these sites an A or B, as do 68% of national journalists. However, just 47% of local journalists give high marks to online-only news sites. Local journalists, especially those working in print, also give lower grades to news aggregator sites, such as Google News and Yahoo News, than do national or internet journalists.

In addition, while half of internet journalists give high marks to bloggers who write about current events, just a third of national journalists and 21% of local journalists do so. Nonetheless, the proportion of national journalists giving high marks to bloggers is twice the number giving similar ratings to local TV news (33% vs. 17%).

Most of the news professionals surveyed say that even in this era of online news, journalists still fulfill their traditional role as the “gatekeepers” of news and information. Majorities of national (64%), local (63%) and internet journalists (58%) believe that journalists still serve as information gatekeepers — and those who express this opinion overwhelmingly see this as a good thing.

The survey also finds:

• Large majorities of local print journalists (82%) and national print journalists (69%) say staffs at their news organizations have decreased over the past three years. Internet journalists are not exempt from downsizing; 52% say staffs at their newsrooms have decreased over the past three years.
• About half of internet journalists say that corporate owners and advertising concerns exert at least a fair amount of influence over news coverage decisions. Perceptions of commercial pressure are less common among print and TV/radio journalists.
• The journalists surveyed are less optimistic about the future of nightly network news than of printed newspapers. About four-in-ten national journalists (42%) say they expect nightly network broadcasts to survive for only another 10 years or less; just 17% say printed newspapers will disappear that quickly.

The bridge collapse in Minneapolis that killed five people and raised concerns about infrastructure safety nationwide surpassed all other news stories last week both in public interest and media coverage. Nearly half (48%) say this was the story they followed most closely last week, far exceeding interest in Iraq, the week’s next most closely followed story (17% most closely).

Coverage of the bridge collapse accounted for 25% of the newshole during the week of July 29-Aug. 3, with much of the coverage focused on the death toll and rescue efforts, as well as the implications for the safety of other bridges across the country. Only three other stories this year have received more coverage in a single week: the Virginia Tech shootings (51%) and firing of radio host Don Imus (26%), both in April; and the Iraq policy debate in January (34%). Coverage of the bridge disaster was particularly intensive immediately after the collapse occurred. From Aug. 1, the day of the disaster, through Aug. 3, news organizations devoted 41% of all coverage to this story.

Overall, 41% said they followed the Minnesota tragedy very closely, making it the third most closely followed story of the year. In May, 52% paid very close attention to rising gas prices, and in April 45% followed the Virginia Tech shootings very closely. In January, President Bush’s announcement of the troop surge in Iraq drew about the same level of interest as the bridge collapse (40% very closely).

Among man-made disaster stories over the past decade, only two attracted greater public interest: the plane crash near New York’s John F. Kennedy airport in November 2001, and the death of 12 coal miners in a West Virginia mine last year.

High Marks for Bridge Coverage

The press gets positive ratings for its coverage of the Minneapolis bridge tragedy. More than three-quarters of the public say that news organizations have done an excellent (28%) or good (48%) job in covering this story. Just two-in-ten rated the coverage as either only fair (14%) or poor (6%).

In addition, most Americans feel that the amount of coverage devoted to the bridge was appropriate. Nearly two-thirds (64%) say the press gave the right amount of coverage to this story, while 23% say the bridge has been overcovered by the press. Only 8% say the story has received too little coverage. The public had a different reaction to the Virginia Tech shootings earlier in the year, when fully half (50%) said the press devoted too much coverage to the story, and 40% said the shootings had received the right amount of coverage.

Murdoch’s Dow Jones Deal

Last week Rupert Murdoch, owner of News Corp., finalized purchase of Dow Jones & Company, publisher of The Wall Street Journal. The deal stirred intense interest among media insiders, but little attention among the public. Just 7% followed news of the purchase very closely, with another 17% following it fairly closely. More than half of the public (54%) said they were not following this story at all closely.

Interest in Rupert Murdoch’s purchase was higher among wealthier people than among those with lower household incomes. Nearly three-in-ten (29%) of those with household incomes of at least $75,000 a year followed news of the deal very or fairly closely, compared with 19% of those with lower incomes.

Most people who have followed Murdoch’s purchase of the Journal (60%) believe that the change in ownership will not make much difference in the quality of the newspaper. About one-in-five (19%) say that Murdoch’s ownership of the paper will make it worse while 11% say that the change will make it better. Among the core audience for the deal — those who followed the story very closely — more say that the Journal will get worse rather than better under Murdoch (by 33% to 18%). However, a plurality (42%) of those who have been tracking the story very closely expect the change in ownership will not make much difference.

There also are some partisan differences in views of the purchase. About a quarter of Democrats (27%) say that Rupert Murdoch will make the newspaper worse, compared with 6% of Republicans who express this opinion. It is important to note, however, that more than half of all Republicans, Democrats and independents do not think that Murdoch’s control of the Wall Street Journal will make much difference.

These findings are based on the most recent installment of the weekly News Interest Index, an ongoing project of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. The index, building on the Center’s longstanding research into public attentiveness to major news stories, examines news interest as it relates to the news media’s agenda. The weekly survey is conducted in conjunction with The Project for Excellence in Journalism‘s News Coverage Index, which monitors the news reported by major newspaper, television, radio and online news outlets on an ongoing basis. In the most recent week, data relating to news coverage was collected from July 29-Aug 3 and survey data measuring public interest in the top news stories of the week was collected Aug 3-6 from a nationally representative sample of 1,015 adults.

Iraq, Campaign ’08 and Other News

While the bridge collapse dominated public interest last week, attentiveness to the situation in Iraq remained at about the same level as it has during the summer, with 29% following war news very closely. About one-in-five (21%) paid very close attention to the Iraq policy debate while a similar number (19%) followed the 2008 presidential campaign very closely.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts suffered a seizure and was hospitalized early last week while vacationing at his summer home in Maine. After a night in the hospital Roberts, the Court’s youngest member, left the hospital fully recovered from the incident. The health scare for the Chief Justice received modest public interest last week: 10% followed the story very closely and just 1% said it was the story they followed most closely.

About the News Interest Index

The News Interest Index is a weekly survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press aimed at gauging the public’s interest in and reaction to major news events.

This project has been undertaken in conjunction with the Project for Excellence in Journalism’s News Coverage Index, an ongoing content analysis of the news. The News Coverage Index catalogues the news from top news organizations across five major sectors of the media: newspapers, network television, cable television, radio and the internet. Each week (from Sunday through Friday) PEJ will compile this data to identify the top stories for the week. The News Interest Index survey will collect data from Friday through Monday to gauge public interest in the most covered stories of the week.

Results for the weekly surveys are based on telephone interviews among a nationwide sample of approximately 1,000 adults, 18 years of age or older, conducted under the direction of ORC (Opinion Research Corporation). For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls, and that results based on subgroups will have larger margins of error.

For more information about the Project for Excellence in Journalism’s News Coverage Index, go to www.journalism.org.

This report is part of State of the News Media 2004, a annual publication of the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Journalists are unhappy with the way things are going in their profession these days. Many give poor grades to the coverage offered by the types of media that serve most Americans: daily newspapers, local TV, network TV news and cable news outlets. In fact, despite recent scandals at the New York Times and USA Today, only national newspapers ­ and the websites of national news organizations ­ receive good performance grades from the journalistic ranks.

Roughly half of journalists at national media outlets (51%), and about as many from local media (46%), believe that journalism is going in the wrong direction, as significant majorities of journalists have come to believe that increased bottom line pressure is “seriously hurting” the quality of news coverage. This is the view of 66% of national news people and 57% of the local journalists questioned in this survey.

Journalists at national news organizations generally take a dimmer view of state of the profession than do local journalists. But both groups express considerably more concern over the deleterious impact of bottom-line pressures than they did in polls taken by the Center in 1995 and 1999. Further, both print and broadcast journalists voice high levels of concern about this problem, as do majorities working at nearly all levels of news organizations.

The notable dissent from this opinion comes from those at the top of national news organizations. Most executives at national news organizations (57%) feel increased business pressures are “mostly just changing the way news organizations do things” rather than seriously undermining quality.

The survey of journalists ­ conducted March 10-April 20 among 547 national and local reporters, editors and executives by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in collaboration with the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Committee of Concerned Journalists ­ also finds increased worries about economic pressures in the responses to an open-ended question about the biggest problem facing journalism today. As was the case in the 1999 survey, problems with the quality of coverage were cited most frequently. Underscoring these worries, the polling finds a continuing rise in the percentage of journalists believing that news reports are full of factual errors. In the national media, this view increased from 30% in 1995 to 40% in 1999 to 45% in the current survey.

When asked about what is going well in journalism these days, print and broadcast journalists have strikingly different things to say. TV and radio journalists most often mention the speed of coverage ­ the ability to respond quickly to breaking news stories ­ while print journalists emphasize the quality of coverage and the watchdog role the press plays as the profession’s best features.

Journalists whose own newsrooms have undergone staff reductions are among the most worried that bottom-line pressures are undermining quality. Fully three-quarters of national and local journalists who have experienced staff cuts at their workplace say bottom-line pressures are seriously hurting the quality of news coverage. Those not reporting staff reductions are far more likely to say business pressures are just changing newsgathering techniques.

Beyond the stress of shrinking workplaces, there are a number of specific criticisms of the news media that are closely associated with the view that bottom-line pressure is hurting the quality of news coverage. First, there is almost universal agreement among those who worry about growing financial pressure that the media is paying too little attention to complex stories. In addition, the belief that the 24-hour news cycle is weakening journalism is much more prevalent among this group than among news people who do not view financial pressure as a big problem, and a majority says news reports are increasingly full of factual errors and sloppy reporting. And most journalists who worry about declining quality due to bottom-line pressures say that the press is “too timid” these days.

In that regard, the poll finds that many journalists ­ especially those in the national media ­ believe that the press has not been critical enough of President Bush. Majorities of print and broadcast journalists at national news organizations believe the press has been insufficiently critical of the administration. Many local print journalists concur. This is a minority opinion only among local news executives and broadcast journalists. While the press gives itself about the same overall grade for its coverage of George W. Bush as it did nine years ago for its coverage of Bill Clinton (B- among national journalists, C+ from local journalists), the criticism in 1995 was that the press was focusing too much on Clinton’s problems, and too little on his achievements.

There are significant ideological differences among news people in attitudes toward coverage of Bush, with many more self-described liberals than moderates or conservatives faulting the press for being insufficiently critical. In terms of their overall ideological outlook, majorities of national (54%) and local journalists (61%) continue to describe themselves as moderates. The percentage identifying themselves as liberal has increased from 1995: 34% of national journalists describe themselves as liberals, compared with 22% nine years ago. The trend among local journalists has been similar ­ 23% say they are liberals, up from 14% in 1995. More striking is the relatively small minority of journalists who think of themselves as politically conservative (7% national, 12% local). As was the case a decade ago, the journalists as a group are much less conservative than the general public (33% conservative).

The strong sentiment in favor of a more critical view of White House coverage is just one way the climate of opinion among journalists has changed since the 1990s. More generally, there has been a steep decline in the percentage of national and local news people who think the traditional criticism of the press as too cynical still holds up. If anything, more national news people today fault the press for being too timid, not too cynical.

Not only do many national news people believe the press has gone too soft in its coverage of President Bush, they express considerably less confidence in the political judgment of the American public than they did five years ago. Since 1999, the percentage saying they have a great deal of confidence in the public’s election choices has fallen from 52% to 31% in the national sample of journalists.

Nonetheless, journalists have at least as much confidence in the public’s electoral judgments as does the public itself. In addition, the growing distrust in the public’s electoral decisions is not being driven by negative feelings about President Bush. Journalists who think the press is not critical enough of Bush are no more likely than others to express skepticism about the public’s judgments.

By more than three-to-one, national and local journalists believe it is a bad thing if some news organizations have a “decidedly ideological point of view” in their news coverage. And more than four-in-ten in both groups say journalists too often let their ideological views show in their reporting. This view is held more by self-described conservative journalists than moderates or liberals.

At the same time, the single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking
a particular ideological stance ­ either liberal or conservative ­ is Fox News Channel. Among national journalists, more than twice as many could identify a daily news organization that they think is “especially conservative in its coverage” than one they believe is “especially liberal” (82% vs. 38%). And Fox has by far the highest profile as a conservative news organization; it was cited unprompted by 69% of national journalists. The New York Times was most often mentioned as the national daily news organization that takes a decidedly liberal point of view, but only by 20% of the national sample.

The survey shows that journalists continue to have a positive opinion of the Internet’s impact on journalism. Not only do majorities of national (60%) and local journalists (51%) believe the Internet has made journalism better, but they give relatively high grades for the websites of national news organizations.

News people also acknowledge a downside to the Internet ­ solid majorities of both national and local journalists think the Internet allows too much posting of links to unfiltered material. In addition, sizable numbers in the national (42%) and local samples (35%) say the Internet has intensified the deadline pressure they face. The changing media environment is generally having an impact on journalists’ workloads ­ pluralities of national and local news people say they are increasingly rewriting and repackaging stories for multiple uses.

While journalists voice increasing concern over sloppy and error-filled news reports, there is no evidence that recent scandals like those at USA Today and the New York Times are having a significant impact on the way journalists view the profession. The number of journalists who cite “ethics and standards” as the biggest problem facing journalism has not grown since 1999. And most say that while plagiarism may be getting more attention these days, it is actually no more prevalent today than in the past.

Opposition to a Federal Communications Commission decision to loosen media cross-ownership restrictions has increased sharply since February, as more Americans have learned about the plan. Overall, half say the FCC decision would have a negative impact on the country, up from 34% in February. Just 10% believe the effect of the rules change will be positive, largely unchanged from February.

Public awareness of the new media ownership rules, which are currently being challenged in Congress, has grown significantly. Nearly half of Americans (48%) say they have heard a lot (12%) or a little (36%) about the issue. In February, only about a quarter of the public (26%) knew even a little about the plan.

People who are most familiar with the FCC plan have an overwhelmingly negative opinion of it. By roughly ten-to-one (70%-6%), those who have heard a lot about the rules change say its impact will be negative, not positive. A majority (57%) of those who have heard a little about the proposal agree. Among the half of Americans who say they had heard nothing about this prior to the interview, there is considerably less concern (40%).

The latest Pew Research Center nationwide survey of 1,201 adults, conducted June 19-July 2, finds that problems with false stories and plagiarism at the New York Times this spring have had surprisingly little impact on overall public attitudes toward the news media. Americans are highly critical of the press on a number of issues, faulting it for inaccuracy, arrogance and political bias, but no more so than in recent years.

Equally notable is the public’s receptivity to the idea that news organizations embrace a decidedly “pro-American” viewpoint, which coexists with continuing support for neutrality in news coverage. Seven-in-ten Americans see it as a good thing when news organizations take a “strong pro-American point of view.” However, when asked specifically if it is better for coverage of the war on terrorism to be neutral or pro-American, fully 64% favor neutral coverage. And these views are largely unrelated. Even most of those who see a pro-American point of view as a good thing favor neutral war coverage (62%).

The survey shows that the public has nuanced views about patriotism and the press. A narrow majority of Americans (51%) believe that news organizations generally “stand up for America.” At the same time, however, many more people believe some news organizations are becoming too critical of America (46%) than say they are becoming too pro-American (25%).

The growing audience for the Fox News Channel, nearly half of whom identify themselves as conservatives, has more consistently negative views of media, especially regarding its patriotism. Nearly two-thirds of Fox News viewers (65%) believe some news outlets are becoming too critical of America, compared with fewer than half of CNN and network news viewers (48%, 45% respectively). (Note: Respondents are asked “How have you been getting most of your news about national and international events?” Multiple answers are allowed. )

The survey finds a greater percentage of the public saying they most often turn to Fox News Channel for national and international news compared with 18 months ago. More than one-in-five Americans (22%) say they get most of their news from Fox News. This is up from the 16% recorded in January 2002 and only somewhat behind the 27% citing CNN in the current survey.

The Fox News audience is decidedly more Republican, and more politically conservative, than the audiences for network news and CNN, as well as the public as a whole. Four-in-ten Fox News viewers (41%) identify themselves as Republicans compared with 32% of network news viewers, 29% of the CNN audience, and 30% of Americans overall. (See Table, page 12.)

These differences are reflected in contrasting attitudes toward the media and politics. Two-thirds of Fox News viewers (66%) see the press as liberal compared with 54% of network news viewers and fewer than half (47%) of CNN viewers. The Fox News audience also is more likely to prefer pro-American coverage of the war on terrorism. Four-in-ten Fox News viewers say it is better that coverage be pro-American than neutral, compared with 32% of CNN viewers, 26% of network news viewers and 29% of the public. Still, a majority of Fox News viewers (54%) prefer neutral coverage of the war on terrorism.

Politically, Fox News viewers express much stronger support for President Bush and his policies ­ and are more likely to have a negative view of former President Clinton ­ than are viewers of other news outlets. Nearly three-quarters of Fox News viewers (74%) approve of the president’s job performance compared with 60% of the public and roughly the same percentage of CNN and network news viewers (63%, 61% respectively). People who get most of their news from Fox News also are more likely to approve of Bush’s efforts on the economy and support the war in Iraq than the general public or viewers of other news outlets. (See Table, page 12.)

Americans generally are divided over President Clinton’s legacy, with 49% saying he will be remembered as one of the best presidents, or better than most, while nearly as many (46%) believe he will be recalled as not as good as most presidents or one of the worst. Nearly six-in-ten Fox News viewers (57%) see Clinton’s legacy in a negative light, compared with 48% of network viewers and 41% of the CNN audience.

Bush Treated Fairly, Most Say

For the most part, people believe the media is giving President Bush fair coverage. More than six-in-ten (62%) say the news organizations they are familiar with have been fair to the president compared with 24% who say they have been unfair. Perceptions of media coverage of Bush have changed little since early in his presidency. In February 2001, 65% viewed the coverage of the president as fair.

Perceptions of the media’s treatment of Bush are comparable to those for former President Reagan late in his second term. By comparison, somewhat more people felt the press was being fair to Bush’s father during his presidency. Public views of press coverage of former President Clinton varied widely. As many as two-thirds felt Clinton received fair treatment, but on a few occasions in Clinton’s presidency only about half believed he was being treated fairly.

Among those who were asked a different form of the question, a 48% plurality indicated that coverage of Bush’s policies and performance has been “about right,” while 25% think the press has been too critical and nearly as many (23%) say it has not been critical enough. The public had roughly the same view of coverage of Clinton’s presidency a decade ago (June 1993), although somewhat more (35%) thought news organizations were being too critical of Clinton’s policies and performance. That was at a point when just 51% felt the press was covering Clinton fairly, and 43% said they were being unfair.

As might be expected, political partisans differ in their views of press coverage of the president. Nearly half of Republicans (46%) say the press is too critical of the president, while 44% believe the coverage has been about right. A plurality of Democrats (47%) believes the coverage has been appropriate, while 38% think it has not been critical enough of the president. These political differences also are reflected in news audiences’ perceptions. Nearly four-in-ten Fox viewers (38%) say the press has been too critical of Bush; only about one-in-five network news and CNN viewers agree (21% each).

Mixed View of Opinionated Hosts

The public takes a very positive view of news organizations adopting a pro-American viewpoint. But there are modest age differences over this issue and the age gap is even more pronounced in attitudes toward other trends in news programming.

In particular, younger people are much more positive about hosts of news shows expressing strong political opinions than are older Americans. Nearly six-in-ten of those under age 30 (58%) see this as a good thing. Just a third of people age 65 and older view this as a positive trend. A plurality of those age 50 and older believes opinionated news hosts are a bad thing.

In addition, a majority of those under age 30 (53%) find the growth of political news talk shows on cable as a good thing. About half of those age 30-49 (48%) and 50-64 (50%) agree. But seniors are less enthused about this trend. Only about a third (35%) have a positive view of more cable chat shows.

There is more agreement among different television news audiences about whether these trends are positive or not. Large majorities of viewers of Fox News (77%) CNN (74%) and the networks (72%) say it is good that news organizations take a pro-American point of view. And these groups take a similar view of news hosts with strong political opinions and the rise of cable news talk shows.

Views of Media Unaffected by Times Flap

With few exceptions, the public’s general ratings of press performance and values today are on par with their scorecard in recent years ­ with the prominent exception of a brief spike in positive views of the media in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The stability in public evaluations of press performance serves to highlight the magnitude of the short-term impact of the attacks, and shows the minimal impact the recent problems at the New York Times have had on the public.

Overall, 56% say media stories and reports are often inaccurate and 62% say the press generally tries to cover up its mistakes rather than admitting them, both figures virtually unchanged from recent years (holding aside the brief surge in public regard for the press following 9/11). Given those attitudes, it is probably not surprising that a majority of Americans (58%) believe that reporters at all news organizations either frequently (22%) or occasionally (36%) make up news stories, as occurred at the Times.

Fully half of the public say they have heard a great deal (21%) or some (29%) about the serious problems with reporting at the Times that led to the resignation of its top editors. But there is no evidence that awareness of the Times’ difficulties has had any impact on the public’s already cynical views about media accuracy and responsiveness. People who followed the Times story closely express no more or less cynicism about media accuracy or responsiveness than the third of Americans who heard nothing at all about the scandal.

‘Liberal’ Media Image Persists

Public cynicism about press values and performance runs deeper than perceived inaccuracies. Most Americans (53%) believe that news organizations are politically biased, while just 29% say they are careful to remove bias from their reports. When it comes to describing the press, twice as many say news organizations are “liberal” (51%) than “conservative” (26%) while 14% say neither phrase applies. This was also the case in surveys conducted in the mid- to- late 1980s and, not surprisingly, there is a significant partisan cast to these perceptions.

Republicans see the press as more liberal than conservative by nearly three-to-one (65%- 22%). Among independents, the margin is two-to-one (50%-25%). And while a third of Democrats say there is a conservative tilt to the American press, a slight plurality (41%) says the press is more liberal than anything else.

But an ideological slant is not the only form of bias the public perceives. Two-thirds say news organizations pay too much attention to bad news ­ just a quarter say the press reports the kind of stories they should be covering. Just 2% say too much attention is given to good news.

Over the past two decades, public concern about press bias has been gradually increasing. Today, two-thirds (66%) say the press tends to favor one side when presenting the news, and seven-in-ten say news outlets are often influenced by powerful people and organizations. In 1985, barely half (53% each) expressed such negative opinions about media independence.

Media Seen As Lacking in Empathy

News organizations also receive poor evaluations for how they interact with the subjects of their stories. Most Americans (56%) say journalists do not care about the people they report on, while just 31% say they do. But there are signs of improvement on this aspect of the media’s image, and the 9/11 attacks may have been a turning point.

The proportion who think news organizations care about the people they report on doubled in the months following the terrorist attacks (from 23% in early Sept. 2001 to 47% two months later). Much of that good feeling has since faded, but today somewhat more describe the press as caring than did so just prior to Sept. 11 (31% now vs. 23% then).

While the public is cynical about how the press treats people generally, most of those who have been mentioned or quoted in a news story express satisfaction with the way the story turned out. Nearly a quarter of Americans (24%) say they have been quoted or mentioned in a news story, up from 19% in 1985. Asked to think about the last time they were quoted or mentioned, fully 73% of those say they are satisfied with the way the story turned out while just 24% are dissatisfied.

But the press receives poor ratings when it comes to its responsiveness to public feedback. Most (58%) say news organizations do not pay attention to complaints from the public about inaccuracies in news reports, while just over a third (35%) say they do.

Professionalism, Patriotism Rate High

The public is less critical of press professionalism and morality. Most Americans (68%) believe news organizations “care about how good a job they do” and 62% describe the press as “highly professional.” People have a more mixed view of the media’s morality. Somewhat more people believe the press is moral (45%) than immoral (32%).

As with ratings of bias, accuracy and professionalism, these evaluations rose sharply following the terrorist attacks and for the most part have since returned to their pre-Sept. 11 levels. One exception is that 62% today describe news organizations as “highly professional,” up from roughly 50% a year ago and before the terrorist attacks. That is still below the 73% who rated the press as professional in the wake of 9/11.

Public ratings of press patriotism have also improved marginally since before the terrorist attacks. Today, 51% say news organizations stand up for America, compared with 33% who say the press is too critical of America. While this is well below the mark registered in November 2001, when the public saw the press standing up for America by four-to-one (69%-17%), it is more favorable than public evaluations of the press before the attacks.

By nearly two-to-one (52%-28%) Americans today say the press does more to protect democracy than to hurt democracy. This also is slightly more favorable than public perceptions before the attacks.

Wary of Press Criticism of Military

Despite widespread criticism of the press on a number of fronts, Americans remain largely supportive of the media’s role as a political watchdog. Most (54%) say that by criticizing political leaders, news organizations most often prevent them from doing wrong. Just 29% say media criticism gets in the way of political leaders doing their jobs.

There is clearly a partisan element to this viewpoint, which has changed with presidential administrations. In February 1999, Democrats were more likely than Republicans to see watchdog journalism as an impediment to governance (by 35% to 24%). Today, these figures are reversed, as 39% of Republicans say press criticism keeps political leaders from doing their jobs, while just 27% of Democrats agree.

While the public’s overall commitment to watchdog journalism remains solid, views of press scrutiny of the military have changed substantially. Today, Americans are divided over whether press criticism of the military serves to keep the nation militarily prepared (45%) or to weaken the country’s defenses (43%). This represents increasing concern about the role of the press especially when compared with evaluations after the first Persian Gulf War. In March 1991, the public by two-to-one (59%-28%) said press criticism of the military was a good thing.

In particular, Republicans have become increasingly concerned over media criticism of the military. In 1985, fewer than half of Republicans (40%) said such criticism weakened the nation’s defenses and following the first Gulf War that number declined to 34%. In the current survey, 63% of Republicans say press criticism of the military undermines the nation’s defenses. Democratic views have shown far less change, so the partisan gap over this issue has more than tripled since 1991 (from 10 points to 34 points).

Media’s Increasing Influence

By a 55% to 29% margin, most Americans say the media’s influence is growing, not decreasing. This is a view most Americans have held consistently since the mid-1980s. Interestingly, younger people are most likely to see media influence as increasing. Among those under age 30, media influence is seen as growing rather than declining by more than two-to-one (61% to 24%). But people age 65 and older are divided (41% see influence growing, 37% declining).

Fox News Viewers Stand Out

While the general public is divided over whether criticism of the military weakens the nation’s defenses, Fox News viewers believe this is the case by nearly two-to-one (60% to 33%). Fox News viewers are also far more likely to say that the press is too critical of the Bush administration (38% vs. 25% general public). On both of these issues, people who get most of their news from the networks or CNN hold views roughly comparable to the nation as a whole.

The perception of media bias is much stronger among the Fox News audience than other television audiences. Fully 76% of Fox News viewers say the press tends to favor one side in covering social and political issues, compared with 67% of CNN viewers and 60% of network news viewers. The difference becomes even more stark in evaluations of the media’s ideological bias. Fully two-thirds (66%) of Fox News viewers say the press is liberal, compared with 54% of the network news audience and just 47% of CNN viewers. The CNN audience is more than twice as likely to see a conservative bias in the media (33%) than is the Fox audience (14%).

Too Much Hillary

The public is largely satisfied with the amount of attention the media has given to developments in Iraq (60% right amount) and the Middle East (59%). But most Americans (55%) say that the press is devoting too much coverage to the publication of Hillary Clinton’s memoir, and a sizable minority (39%) says the same about coverage of the Laci Peterson murder.

More than two-thirds of Republicans (68%) and nearly as many independents (61%) say the press has over covered Clinton’s book. Democrats are less likely to express that opinion; still, a plurality of Democrats (40%) thinks the book has gotten too much media attention.

College graduates and people living in the West are more likely than others to say there has been too much coverage of the Peterson case. (Laci Peterson’s husband Scott, who has been charged in the murder, is on trial near San Francisco.) Pluralities of those who get most of their news from cable ­ both CNN and Fox ­ say the case has been over covered (half of Fox viewers, 44% of CNN viewers). Somewhat fewer viewers of network news outlets believe the story has gotten too much attention (38%).

The public is divided, along partisan and ideological lines, over the amount of press coverage of the controversy over the failure to find Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. A plurality of Americans feels the amount of coverage has been appropriate, while 30% say there has been too much coverage and nearly a quarter (24%) believe there has been too little coverage of this story. Roughly twice as many Republicans as Democrats say the story has gotten too much coverage (40% vs. 21%).

Positive Ratings for Specific Stories

People who closely follow these stories generally give news organizations good marks for the quality ­ as opposed to the amount ­ of that coverage. This is the case even for coverage of Hillary Clinton’s book. Only about one-in-five Americans closely followed that story (22%), but most of those who did gave a favorable rating to the coverage (64% excellent or good).

Attitudes toward coverage of the Iraqi weapons story are an exception to this pattern. More than six-in-ten Americans followed this story at least fairly closely, and that group is almost evenly divided in its evaluation of the coverage (50% good or excellent/48% fair or poor). Democrats are more likely than Republicans to fault this coverage, though sizable numbers in both parties are critical (56% of Democrats, 39% of Republicans).

Journalists increasingly agree with public criticism of their profession and the quality of their work. Overwhelmingly, news media professionals say the lines have blurred between commentary and reporting and between entertainment and news. A growing number of reporters, editors and news executives also say that news reports are full of factual errors and sloppy reporting.

Across all mediums — print, television, radio and the Internet — the news media share public misgivings about their watchdog role. More of the news media today than just a few years ago say the press drives controversies rather than just reports the news in the way it covers the personal and ethical behavior of public figures. Clear majorities in the national and local press, for example, agree with the public that the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal was overcovered.

The impact of these shortcomings is not lost on the press. Lack of credibility is the single issue most often cited by the news media as the most important problem facing journalism today. Alarm about faltering credibility is far more prevalent in the current survey than in a comparable 1989 Center survey. Moreover, the press itself says that the loss of public trust is a leading cause of declining news audiences.

To reporters and editors, the reasons for journalism’s problems are just as clear — growing financial and business pressures. At both the local and national levels, majorities of working journalists say that increased bottom-line pressure is hurting the quality of coverage. This view is more common than it was just four years ago, although it is less often shared by media executives.

For all these changes and troubles, the news media continue to value traditional, high standards for accuracy, sourcing and objectivity. Across mediums, markets and generations, there is near unanimous agreement on the core principles that define journalism — getting the facts right, covering both sides and refusing to publish rumors. Moreover, most members of the press agree that journalism is distinguished because of its contributions to society, providing people with information they need.

These are the principal findings of a new Pew Research Center survey of 552 top executives, mid-level editors and producers, and working reporters and editors from both the national and local news media. The poll was conducted in association with the Committee of Concerned Journalists from November 20, 1998 to February 11, 1999. In addition to print, radio, and broadcast and cable television, a sample of those working in Internet news was also included. Unless otherwise noted, references to public opinion are from a February 18-21, 1999 poll, which can be found immediately following the results of the press survey.

Business Pressures Beleaguer Television

Increased concern about financial pressure is evident in both the print and television press, although it has grown more among those in television and radio, particularly national television.¹ In this group, a 53%-to-38% majority of journalists and news executives say that pressure to make a profit is hurting the quality of coverage rather than just changing the way things are done. Opinion has reversed since 1995, when the national television media split 37%-to-46% on this question.

There are other indications that those working in television news find financial pressure particularly troublesome. They are more likely than their counterparts in print to cite quality issues as journalism’s top problem and to say that in order to attract new audiences, the news media crosses the line between entertainment and news.

While almost all news media respondents think that ownership of news organizations by diversified corporations has had a negative effect on their profession, most add that corporate owners have little influence on what is covered or emphasized. Similarly, few in the press report that advertising concerns play much of a role in news decisions.

Bosses Differ on Financial Pressure

The survey found that news executives and their staffs agree about the problems facing journalism, but executives are more defensive about the impact of financial pressures. At both the national and local levels, for example, fewer news organization chiefs than those in the newsroom ranks say the line is being crossed between entertainment and news.

Top executives are even more adamant about the general effects of the changed economic climate. Unlike their subordinates, clear majorities of news executives think that financial pressures are just changing the way things are done rather than reducing quality. Most mid-level editors and news staff disagree, especially in national news organizations.

Despite these important differences in opinion, most working journalists rate their leadership as excellent or good. Print journalists in national news organizations stand out for their positive views of their leadership: 47% say their bosses share their values a great deal, compared to 29% of national television journalists and roughly one-quarter of local news people.

Press and Public: Out of Touch

Most members of the news media concede that they are out of touch with the public, and they blame themselves more than the public for declining audiences. News media executives and journalists view the public not as uninterested or uninformed, but as feeling overloaded by news and information.

But Americans do not share this view. Two-thirds of the public says they like having so many information sources available; only 28% say they feel overloaded.²

The press also points to its loss of credibility with the public as a major reason for losing readers, viewers and listeners. About half of news media executives and journalists rank lack of credibility with the public as a major reason for declining audiences. This represents a significant jump since 1989, when only one-third of the press said this.

Americans’ evaluations of the news media’s credibility have declined since the mid-1980s. Network news believability is down an average of 11 percentage points; local television news has dropped 12 points and daily newspapers have tumbled 17 points since 1985.2

More people in local news organizations (46%) than national (31%) think that what the public is interested in should be given a great deal of consideration in news coverage decisions. While older members of the news media on both the local and national levels are more reluctant to take public interests into account, the public rewards the consideration given them by the local media.

Local television news tops the list of Americans’ favorite news sources — 64% of the public watches their local news regularly. Only 38% of the public regularly watches national network news.³

Press vs. Public on Watchdog Role

The press continues to value its watchdog role much more than the public does. Less than 10% of the news media — compared to nearly one-third of the public — believe press criticism of political leaders keeps those leaders from doing their jobs. The vast majority (more than 85%) think such criticism is worthwhile, because it keeps politicians from doing things that should not be done.

“As journalists, we are not just communicators, but watchdogs,” says a national cable news correspondent. “We are a very important part of this society’s system of checks and balances.”

The press and the public are more in sync in their criticism of how the media carries out its watchdog role. About half of journalists and media executives say that in reporting on the personal and ethical behavior of public figures, news organizations often drive the controversies rather than merely report the facts. Fully 72% of Americans say such reporting perpetuates scandal.

Other Findings

• Most journalists and news executives agree that they are overly focused on internal dynamics, too often competing with each other and writing more for colleagues than consumers.
• The press gives itself only lukewarm grades for striking the right balance between what audiences want to know and what is important for them to know. This criticism is especially strong in the national television news: Only 38% of those working in this arena say an appropriate balance is struck today, compared to 60% of the national print press and more than half of the local news media in both mediums.
• Two-thirds of those in national and local news say that news organizations’ attempts to attract readers or viewers has pushed them toward infotainment instead of news.
• Internet journalists share many values with those in the mainstream national news media, but there are some differences. While three-quarters of the national media say remaining neutral is a core principle of journalism, just 52% of those who work in Internet news agree.
• Journalists under the age of 35 are the least likely to know of official ethics programs within their news organizations and the most likely to want more of an organized effort.

Many people contributed to the development of this survey, which was funded jointly by the Pew Research Center and the Committee of Concerned Journalists. Bill Kovach, Tom Rosenstiel, Amy Mitchell, and John Mashek of the Committee provided invaluable insights into the issues journalists reckon with today, their values and perspectives.

The research team was led by Molly Sonner, whose focus and analytical integrity informed every stage of the project. Center analysts Kim Parker, Scott Nolde and Greg Flemming also played major roles in conceptualizing the survey and analyzing the data. The sample of journalists and news media executives was drawn by Lauren Lustig, Nilanthi Samaranayake and Charmaine Thompson, who also did the painstaking follow-up work necessary to complete the survey. This book and the charts and tables that enrich it were pulled together by Charmaine Thompson. Beth Donovan played a lead role in writing this report and carefully edited the entire document.