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.

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).