The 2012 presidential campaign was a frustrating experience for many voters, who say the campaign was more negative than usual and had less discussion of issues than in most previous campaigns. Both Obama and Romney get mixed grades for the job they did reaching out to voters, as do campaign consultants, the press and pollsters. On most measures, voters’ views of campaign 2012 fall short of the election four years ago.

Similarly, voters do not have a particularly rosy outlook on national politics going forward. Fully 66% say that relations between Republicans and Democrats will either stay about the same (52%) or get worse (14%) over the next year. And while 56% of voters think Obama will be successful in his coming term, that is down from the 67% who thought his first term would be successful at this point four years ago.

While broad majorities of all voters want Barack Obama (72%) and the Republican leadership (67%) to work with the other side to get things done over the coming year, each party’s political base sends mixed signals. Only about half (46%) of Republicans want GOP leaders to work with Obama to get things done, while about as many (50%) say they should stand up to Obama, even if less gets done. The message to Obama from Democrats is only somewhat more conciliatory: 54% want the president to try to work with Republicans, but 42% do not.

Republicans and Republican leaners remain of the view that the GOP leaders should move in a more conservative direction, not a more moderate one, by a 57% to 35% margin. Democrats and Democratic leaners, meanwhile, continue to support more moderation from their political leaders: Nearly six-in-ten (57%) want Democratic leaders to move in a moderate direction, while 33% want them to move in a more liberal direction.

These are the principal findings of the Pew Research Center’s quadrennial post-election survey, conducted Nov 8-11, 2012 among 1,206 voters who were originally interviewed before the election. The poll finds that, despite expressing strong criticisms of the campaign, most voters say they were satisfied with the choice of presidential candidates and believe they learned enough about them over the course of the campaign to make an informed choice. The presidential debates, in particular, stand out as positive – about two-thirds (66%) say they were helpful in learning about the candidates.

Republican voters are about as likely as Democratic voters to say they learned enough about the candidates to make an informed choice and to have found the debates helpful.

Republicans also are less critical of their candidate, and their party, today than they were after John McCain’s loss in 2008. Fully 75% of Republican voters give Mitt Romney a grade of A or B for the way he conducted his campaign. In the post-election survey four years ago, 63% of Republican voters gave McCain an A or B. In that regard, more GOP voters say they were satisfied with their choice of candidates this year than after the 2008 election (57% now, 38% then).

Republicans also are more positive about the GOP’s performance in the campaign. Six-in-ten GOP voters (60%) give their party grades of A or B for the way it conducted the campaign; just 44% rated the party that positively after the election four years ago.

But Republicans give the voters much lower grades than in 2008 – just 29% give a grade of A or B, down from 47%. In fact, Republicans’ grades for the voters equal the lowest grades given by members of either party dating back to 1988. In 1996, after Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton, just 30% of Republicans gave the voters positive grades.

The survey finds that internet has again grown as a source of campaign news. Nearly half (47%) of voters say the internet was a main source of campaign news over the course of the election, up from 36% four years ago. The internet now far surpasses newspapers (27%) as a main source of campaign news, though it still trails television (67%).

In this vein, virtually all voters (92%) who followed the returns on election night tracked them on television, and 34% followed the returns on the internet. Slightly more than a quarter of voters (27%) were “dual screeners,” using both television and the internet to get information. Among voters younger than 40, 39% of those who followed returns on election night kept track both by watching TV and following online.

Election night is also a social experience for some voters: 16% of those who followed election returns did so with friends, while 8% used social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter to track the results. Obama supporters were more likely to watch returns with friends, and to use social networks to follow results, than were voters who supported Romney.
Aside from long lines, few voters report having had problems casting their ballots. Some 37% of the voters interviewed say they cast their ballot before Election Day, 19% in person and 17% by mail. Many early voters cite convenience as the main factor they cast their ballots early, but for those who went to early voting sites the lines were often just as long as for those who waited until Election Day.

While most say the voting process in their area was managed well and that they are very confident that their votes were accurately counted, confidence about the vote nationwide is down from 2008. About three-in-ten (31%) voters say they are very confident that the votes across the country were accurately counted this year, down from 43% four years ago. Just 21% of Romney voters say they are very confident in the accuracy of this year’s vote, down from 29% among McCain supporters four years ago. Skepticism is also up among Obama supporters, 42% are very confident that the nation’s votes were accurately counted, down from 56% after the 2008 election.

Mitt Romney’s statement that 47% of the public is dependent on government has registered strongly with voters. Fully two-thirds of voters (67%) correctly identify Romney as the candidate who made the comments. Among those aware that Romney made comments about the “47%”, more than half (55%) have a negative reaction while just 23% react positively.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Sept, 27-30 among 1,005 adults, including 828 registered voters, finds that large percentages of Republican (65%), Democratic (65%) and independent voters (72%) know that Romney described nearly half of the population as dependent on government and paying no taxes.

The reaction among those aware that Romney made the comments is clearly negative. Yet they also think that news organizations are giving too much coverage to Romney’s “47%” statement. Nearly half of voters (49%) who know that Romney made those remarks say news organizations are giving the story too much coverage, while just 13% say they are giving it too little coverage; 28% say the amount of coverage has been appropriate.

The survey also finds that, more generally, voters are not too impressed with the jobs both candidates done in attempting to win them over. Only about half of voters give Barack Obama grades of A or B in convincing them to vote for him. Even fewer voters give Romney grades of A or B for persuasiveness.

GOP Voters’ Mixed Views of Romney Comments

Overall, 55% of registered voters who identify Romney as the candidate who made the “47%” comments have a negative reaction to them, while fewer than half as many (23%) have a positive reaction . Nearly one-in-five (22%) react neutrally (19%) or have no opinion (3%).

Democrats overwhelmingly react negatively to Romney’s comments (88%). And 55% of independents who are aware of Romney’s comments say they have a negative reaction; just 18% view his comments positively.

GOP voters aware of Romney’s statement have mixed opinions: 54% react positively, while 29% have a neutral reaction or don’t know, and 17% react negatively.

Voters with lower family incomes who are aware of Romney’s statement have a highly negative reaction to them: 69% of those with family incomes below $30,000 express negative views of Romney’s 47% comments, compared with about half of those in higher income categories.

In terms of how the press has covered Romney’s comments, a sizable majority of Republican voters (74%) say the press has them given too much coverage. Nearly half of independent voters (48%) also say Romney’s remarks have gotten got too much coverage, while just 29% of Democrats agree.

Grading the Campaigns

Voters grade the Obama’s efforts at winning them over far less positively than they did four years ago. In October 2008, 65% of voters graded Obama at A or B for convincing them to vote for him, while 32% graded him at C, D or F. Today, just 46% of voters grade Obama at A or B, while about as many (50%) give him a grade of C or lower.

Obama’s grades today are about the same as John Kerry’s (46% A or B) and George W. Bush’s (42%) in October 2004. Obama also gets about the same grades as did Bill Clinton in 1996, during his reelection campaign.

In September 1996, 50% rated Clinton’s efforts to persuade voters at A or B, while 47% graded them at C or lower.

Romney’s current grades are in line with John McCain’s marks in 2008 and Bob Dole’s in 1996. Currently, 31% of voters give Romney’s campaign a grade of A or B. In October 2008, 34% gave McCain’s campaign a grade of A or B, while 29% gave Dole’s efforts positive grades in September 1996.

Currently, Democrats’ grades for the Obama campaign are more positive than GOP voters’ grades for the Romney’s. Nearly eight-in-ten Democratic voters (78%) give Obama a grade of A or B for convincing them to vote for him; 62% of Republican voters give Romney equivalent grades. Independent voters also give the Obama campaign higher marks (42% A or B) than the Romney campaign (26% A or B).

For the second time in a decade, the believability ratings for major news organizations have suffered broad-based declines. In the new survey, positive believability ratings have fallen significantly for nine of 13 news organizations tested. This follows a similar downturn in positive believability ratings that occurred between 2002 and 2004.

The falloff in credibility affects news organizations in most sectors: national newspapers, such as the New York Times and USA Today, all three cable news outlets, as well as the broadcast TV networks and NPR.

Across all 13 news organizations included in the survey, the average positive believability rating (3 or 4 on a 4-point scale) is 56%. In 2010, the average positive rating was 62%. A decade ago, the average rating for the news organizations tested was 71%. Since 2002, every news outlet’s believability rating has suffered a double-digit drop, except for local daily newspapers and local TV news. The New York Times was not included in this survey until 2004, but its believability rating has fallen by 13 points since then.

These are among the major findings of a survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted July 19-22 among 1,001 adults. The survey asks people to rate individual news organizations on believability using a 4-point scale. A rating of 4 means someone believes “all or most” of what the news organization says; a rating of 1 means someone believes “almost nothing” of what they say.

The believability ratings for individual news organizations – like views of the news media generally – have long been divided along partisan lines. But partisan differences have grown as Republicans’ views of the credibility of news outlets have continued to erode. Today, there are only two news organizations – Fox News and local TV news – that receive positive believability ratings from at least two-thirds of Republicans. A decade ago, there were only two news organizations that did not get positive ratings from at least two-thirds of Republicans. By contrast, Democrats generally rate the believability of news organizations positively; majorities of Democrats give all the news organizations tested ratings of 3 or 4 on the 4-point scale, with the exception of Fox News.

Current Believability Ratings

The Pew Research Center has asked about the believability of individual news organizations for more than two decades. During this period, the Center also has asked separately about the news media’s overall performance; ratings for the news media’s accuracy, fairness and other aspects of performance also have shown long-term declines. (For the most recent report, see “Press Widely Criticized, But Trusted More than Other Information Sources,” Sept. 22, 2011.)

The believability measures are based on those who give each news organization a rating. Roughly one-in-five are unable to rate the believability of NPR (21%), the New York Times (19%), the Wall Street Journal (19%) and USA Today (17%).

As in past believability surveys, local TV news and the CBS News program 60 Minutes receive the most positive ratings. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of those able to rate local TV news give it a rating of 3 or 4. Ratings are comparable for 60 Minutes (64% 3 or 4).

Despite the declines in believability, majorities continue to give most news organizations ratings of 3 or 4. However, ratings are mixed for NPR, MSNBC, the New York Times, Fox News and USA Today. About half give each of these news organizations believability ratings of 3 or 4; approximately the same percentages give them ratings of 1 or 2.

Believability of News Organizations: 2002-2012

Positive believability ratings for the New York Times have fallen by nine points since 2010, from 58% to 49%. The decline has been comparable for USA Today. Two years ago, 56% rated USA Today’s believability at 3 or 4; today 49% do so.

About six-in-ten (58%) rate the Wall Street Journal’s believability positively. That is little changed since 2010 (62%), but in 2002, 77% rated the Journal’s believability at 3 or 4 on the 4-point scale.

Perceptions of the believability of the daily newspaper “you are most familiar with” are about the same as they were two years ago. Currently, 57% give their daily newspaper a positive believability rating, which is little changed from 2010 (59%).

Believability ratings for all three major cable news outlets have declined since 2010. MSNBC’s believability rating has fallen from 60% to 50%, while the percentages giving CNN and Fox News believability ratings of 3 or 4 have declined seven points each, to 58% and 49%, respectively. In 2002, the ratings for all three cable news outlets were considerably higher – 76% for CNN, 73% for MSNBC and 67% for Fox News.

The believability ratings for local TV news are higher than those for the three cable news outlets. Currently, 65% give local news a rating of 3 or 4. Since 2002, credibility ratings for local TV news have remained more stable than have ratings for the three main cable news outlets.

There also have been slight declines since 2010 in believability ratings for the three major TV networks — ABC News, CBS News and NBC News. Over the past decade, positive ratings for all three have fallen from the low 70s to the mid- to high-50s. More than six-in-ten (64%) give the CBS weekly newsmagazine 60 Minutes believability ratings of 3 or 4. That is down 13 points since 2002.

Since 2010, the percentage giving NPR believability ratings of 3 or 4 has dropped eight points to 52%. NPR’s believability ratings had changed little from 2002 to 2010; about six-in-ten in each year rated NPR’s believability positively.

Partisan Gaps in Credibility Ratings

Republicans have long held a more negative view of the credibility of the news media than Democrats and this continues to be reflected in current assessments of news outlets. Republicans rate the believability of nine of 13 news organizations less positively than do Democrats. Fox News is the only news organization that is rated higher for believability by Republicans (67% of Republicans vs. 37% of Democrats). However, the percentage of Republicans giving Fox a believability rating of 3 or 4 has fallen 10 points, from 77%, since 2010.

Partisan differences in believability ratings are more pronounced for broadcast and cable TV news organizations, with more modest gaps for most newspapers.

More than twice as many Democrats as Republicans rate MSNBC’s believability positively (69% vs. 32%). The differences are about as large in views of the believability of CNN and the three broadcast networks.

The partisan divide in views of the New York Times’ believability also is substantial; 65% of Democrats, but just 37% of Republicans, rate the believability of the Times at 3 or 4. However, there are smaller differences in views of other newspapers. More Democrats (65%) than Republicans (49%) give positive ratings for the newspaper they know best, but about as many Republicans as Democrats rate the believability of the Wall Street Journal and USA Today positively.

A majority of Democrats (59%) give NPR a believability rating of 3 or 4. That compares with 48% of Republicans.

The partisan differences in views of the believability of most news organizations have increased greatly since 2002. For example, the partisan gap in believability of each of the cable networks was only about 10 points a decade ago; today, the gaps in believability ratings for Fox News, MSNBC and CNN are at least 30 points.

A 2009 survey by Pew Social Demographic Trends found that blacks had far less confidence than whites in their local police in a number of areas, including their treatment of racial groups.

Just 14% of African Americans said they had a great deal of confidence in local police officers to treat blacks and whites equally. More than twice as many whites (38%) had a great deal of confidence in the local police to provide equal treatment. More than three times as many blacks as whites said they had very little confidence in their local police to treat the races equally (34% vs. 9%). Blacks’ confidence in local police to provide equal treatment was little changed from 2007 or 1995.

Yet that survey showed that African Americans had a positive overall assessment of the state of race relations. About three-quarters of African Americans (76%) said blacks and whites got along “very well” or “pretty well.” Majorities of both blacks (60%) and whites (70%) said that the values of the two groups had gotten more similar over the previous 10 years.

And in the wake of Barack Obama’s election as president, there was a sharp rise in perceptions of black progress. Nearly four-in-ten African Americans (39%) said that the “situation of black people in this country” was better than it had been five years earlier.  In 2007, just 20% said the condition of blacks had improved in the previous five years.

Blacks’ concerns over racial discrimination had not decreased, however. More than four-in-ten (43%) African Americans said that there is a lot of discrimination against blacks, compared with just 13% of whites. Whites were more likely to say that Hispanics than blacks faced a lot of discrimination (21% vs. 13%).

Fully 81% of African Americans said “our country needs to continue making changes to give blacks equal rights with whites.” Just 36% of whites agreed, while a majority (54%) said “our country has made the changes needed to give blacks equal rights with whites.”

News Coverage of Blacks

A 2010 study by the Pew Research Center found that African Americans were highly critical of news coverage of blacks. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) said that coverage of blacks was too negative. Just half as many (29%) said coverage was either fair (28%) or too positive (1%).

By contrast, nearly half (48%) of whites said that coverage of blacks was generally fair. Just 31% of whites thought that news coverage of blacks was too negative.

That survey also found that blacks were far more likely than whites to say that the news media devoted too little coverage to race relations. About half of African Americans (51%) said the subject of race relations received too little coverage, compared with just 24% of whites.

However, there were smaller differences between blacks and whites in views of the accuracy of news coverage of race relations. Pluralities of both whites (50%) and blacks (42%) said that coverage of race relations make them out to be worse than they actually are. Smaller percentages said coverage presented race relations as better than they really are (16% of whites, 23% of blacks) or about as they really are (23% of whites, 26% of blacks).

The Martin Case: News Interest and Coverage

The Pew Research Center’s most recent News Interest Index, conducted March 22-25 among 1,003 adults, found that Trayvon Martin’s death was the public’s top news story. African Americans were more than twice as likely as whites to say that this was their top story (52% vs. 20%).

On March 30, the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism released a report showing the very different ways that cable TV news outlets and talk radio, blogs and Twitter have covered and analyzed the Trayvon Martin story. It found that Twitter interest in the Martin story did not surge until March 17, three weeks after the teenager’s death. (For more, see “How Blogs, Twitter and Mainstream Media Have Handled the Trayvon Martin Case.”)

With a contested primary in only one party this year, fewer Americans are closely following news about the presidential campaign than four years ago. As a consequence, long-term declines in the number of people getting campaign news from such sources as local TV and network news have steepened, and even the number gathering campaign news online, which had nearly tripled between 2000 and 2008, has leveled off in 2012.

The one constant over the course of the past four elections is the reach of cable news. Currently, 36% of Americans say they are regularly learning about the candidates or campaign on cable news networks. That is virtually unchanged from previous campaigns, yet cable news is now the top regular source for campaign news.

The cable networks also hosted most of the candidate debates, which stand out as a particularly interesting aspect of the campaign. Nearly half of Republicans (47%) have watched a GOP debate during this campaign, up from 32% at a comparable point four years ago.

In contrast to cable, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press’ 2012 campaign news survey, conducted Jan. 4-8 among 1,507 adults nationwide, finds broad declines in the numbers getting campaign news from newspapers, and local and network TV news. Just 20% say they regularly learn something about the presidential campaign or candidates from their local daily newspapers. In 2008, 31% said they got campaign news from their daily newspaper and 40% did so in the 2000 election cycle. There are comparable declines in the share regularly getting campaign information from network evening news programs and local TV news. For all three of these sources, the rate of decline slowed during the dramatic 2008 election cycle, but has again continued on a downward track.

In previous campaigns, declining figures for traditional sources were at least partly offset by increasing numbers turning to the internet. But that is not the case in 2012, as the number regularly getting campaign news online has leveled off. This is largely due to a lack of interest in the early 2012 campaign among younger Americans, who have traditionally been the broadest internet news consumers, and who also are less apt to be Republicans.

Over the month of January, only 20% of those younger than 30 said they were following news about the campaign very closely, down from 31% in January 2008. In fact, on the weekend Newt Gingrich won a dramatic victory in the South Carolina primary, young people expressed as much interest in a battle over online piracy legislation as they did in the campaign. (See “Cruise Ship Accident, Election Top Public’s Interests,” Jan. 24, 2012).

As campaign interest among young people has declined, fewer say they are going online for campaign news. Just 29% of those younger than 30 regularly learn something about the campaign online, down from 42% four years ago. Early in the 2008 campaign, people under age 30 were twice as likely as people 30 and older to get campaign information online. There is far less of an age gap today.

While other sources have advanced and receded, cable news networks have held their own over the past four election cycles. Moreover, cable news reaches a substantial number across age and partisan lines. To be sure, Republicans and Democrats are increasingly turning to different cable networks for their campaign news. When asked where they get most of their campaign news, far more Republicans than Democrats cite Fox News, while Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to cite CNN and MSNBC.

Few Learning from Social Networks

Many of the newest internet tools for getting campaign information, including social networking, are being used by a relatively limited audience. One-in-five Americans (20%) say they regularly or sometimes get campaign information from Facebook and just one-in-twenty (5%) say the same about Twitter. Even among Facebook and Twitter users, most say they hardly ever or never learn about the campaign or candidates through those sources.

About half (52%) of Americans say they at least sometimes learn about the campaign from websites or apps of TV, newspaper, magazine or radio news organizations. Slightly more than a third (36%) regularly or sometimes learn from websites or apps of news sources that are only available online.

When respondents are asked to name the specific internet sources they turn to for campaign news and information, the most frequently cited are CNN (by 24% of those who get campaign news online), Yahoo (22%), Google (13%), Fox News (10%), MSN (9%) and MSNBC (8%). Politically-oriented sites like Huffington Post and the Drudge Report are each mentioned by only 2% of those who get campaign news online.

More See Biased Coverage

The survey finds that the number saying there is a great deal of political bias in the news has risen to a new high, with the most intense criticism coming from Tea Party Republicans. Currently, 37% of Americans say there is a great deal of bias in news coverage and 30% say there is a fair amount of bias. Far fewer see not too much bias (21%) or none at all (10%). The percentage saying there is a great deal of bias has increased six points, from 31% to 37%, since 2008.

About three-quarters (74%) of Republicans who agree with the Tea Party movement say there is a great deal of bias – at least twice the percentage as in any other political group, including non-Tea Party Republicans (33%) and liberal Democrats (36%). Among news audiences, those who cite the Fox News Channel or the radio as their main source of campaign news are the most likely to say there is a great deal of bias in news coverage.

Campaign Outreach

While new technology allows campaigns and groups multiple ways to reach out to voters, campaign commercials have by far the widest reach. Fully 72% of registered voters nationwide report having seen or heard campaign commercials related to the 2012 presidential campaign. That is far more than the percentages saying they have received  email from a campaign or political group (16%), visited a candidate’s website (15%) or followed a candidate’s updates on Twitter or Facebook (6%).

While small, the number of people who track candidates on social networking has grown. At this point in the 2008 campaign, just 3% said they had signed up as a “friend” of a candidate on a social networking site.

One-in-four (25%) say they have already received pre-recorded telephone calls about the campaign, often referred to as “robocalls.” That is comparable to the level early in the 2008 presidential campaign. Only about a third as many (8%) have gotten phone calls from a live person. Telephone outreach has not been limited to Republicans. Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters are just as likely as Republicans and Republican leaners to have received live phone calls (8% each), and only slightly less likely to have received campaign robocalls (23% vs. 28% of Republicans).

Overall, 7% of registered voters say they have contributed money to a campaign, about the level measured early in the 2008 campaign (8% in Nov. 2007). But unlike four years ago, Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters are more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to say they have contributed to a candidate – presumably Obama – in the 2012 campaign.

Negative opinions about the performance of news organizations now equal or surpass all-time highs on nine of 12 core measures the Pew Research Center has been tracking since 1985. However, these bleak findings are put into some perspective by the fact that news organizations are more trusted sources of information than are many other institutions, including government and business.

Further, people rate the performance of the news organizations they rely on much more positively than they rate the performance of news organizations generally.

And the public’s impressions of the national media may be influenced more by their opinions of cable news outlets than their views of other news sources, such as network or local TV news, newspapers or internet news outlets. When asked what first comes to mind when they think of “news organizations,” most name a cable news outlet, with CNN and Fox News receiving the most mentions by far.

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press has been tracking views of press performance since 1985, and the overall ratings remain quite negative. Fully 66% say news stories often are inaccurate, 77% think that news organizations tend to favor one side, and 80% say news organizations are often influenced by powerful people and organizations.

The widely-shared belief that news stories are inaccurate cuts to the press’s core mission: Just 25% say that in general news organizations get the facts straight while 66% say stories are often inaccurate. As recently as four years ago, 39% said news organizations mostly get the facts straight and 53% said stories are often inaccurate.

But Americans have a very different view of the news sources they rely on than they do of the news media generally. When asked to rate the accuracy of stories from the sources where they get most of their news, the percentage saying  these outlets get the facts straight more than doubles. Fully 62% say their main news sources get the facts straight, while just 30% say stories are often inaccurate.

The biennial news attitudes survey was conducted July 20-24 among 1,501 adults nationwide, with supplemental data collected on other, smaller surveys in June, July and August. These surveys find that while the public holds news organizations in low regard, they are more trusted as a source of information than are federal, state and local governments, the Obama administration and business corporations.

Nearly seven-in-ten (69%) say they have a lot or some trust in information they get from local news organizations, while 59% say they trust information from national news organizations.

By comparison, about half say they have a lot or some trust in information provided by their state government (51%) and the Obama administration (50%). Smaller percentages trust information from federal agencies (44%), business corporations (41%), Congress (37%) or candidates running for office (29%).

Overall, television continues to be the public’s main source for national and international news. Currently, 66% say they get most of their news from television, while 43% cite the internet as their main news source. While this is little changed from last year, over the long term the gap between TV and the internet has narrowed: Four years ago, roughly three times as many people cited TV than the internet as their main source of national and international news (74% vs. 24%).

Despite the growth of internet news, it is clear that television news outlets, specifically cable news outlets, are central to people’s impressions of the news media. When asked what first comes to mind when they think of news organizations, 63% volunteer the name of a cable news outlet, with CNN and Fox News by far the most prevalent in people’s minds. Only about a third (36%) name one of the broadcast networks. Fewer than one-in-five mention local news outlets and only 5% mention a national newspaper such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal or USA Today. Just 3% name a website – either web-only or linked to a traditional news organization – when asked what comes to mind when they think of news organizations.

The survey finds that the growth in negative attitudes toward the news media in recent years in several key areas has come among Democrats and independents. Since Barack Obama took office, the proportion of Democrats saying that news stories are often inaccurate has risen sharply, and they are now nearly as critical as Republicans.

In 2007, 43% of Democrats and 56% of independents said stories were often inaccurate. Since then, the percentage of Democrats expressing skepticism about the accuracy of news reports has increased by 21 points to 64%, and the percentage of independents saying this has grown by 10 points. Republican views have held fairly steady: 69% see stories as often inaccurate, little changed from four years ago (63%).

While the press’s overall reputation in many areas has declined, majorities continue to say that news organizations care about how good a job they do (62%) and are highly professional (57%). However, these evaluations also have slipped somewhat since 2007.

The public also continues to view press criticism of political leaders as a check on possible wrongdoing. A majority (58%) says “such criticism is worth it because it keeps political leaders from doing things that should not be done.” Just a quarter (25%) say that press criticism of political leaders keeps them “from doing their job.”

Partisan differences in views of the press’s watchdog role have disappeared in recent years. In 2007, during the Bush administration, 71% of Democrats and just 44% of Republicans said press criticism of political leaders was worth it because it kept them from doing things that should not be done. In 2009, after Obama took office, somewhat more Republicans (65%) than Democrats (55%) favored a watchdog role for the press. In the new survey, nearly identical percentages of Republicans (59%), Democrats (58%) and independents (58%) support the watchdog role.

The survey finds that most Americans prefer news with no political point of view, and this feeling is particularly widespread when it comes to getting news online. Fully 74% of online news consumers say they prefer internet sources that do not have a political point of view. Just 19% prefer sources that have a political point of view.

Social networking has expanded the ways in which the public gets news and information. About a quarter (27%) of adults say they regularly or sometimes get news or news headlines through Facebook, Twitter or other social networking sites. This rises to 38% of people younger than 30, but now spans a notable share of older Americans (12% of those 65 and older) as well.

Most of those who get news from social networks (72%) say they mostly just get the same news and information they would get elsewhere. Just 27% say the news they get over social networking sites is different than the news they get elsewhere. And when asked to describe what they like about getting news over social networks and Twitter, answers range from features of the technology such as speed, portability and brevity to ways in which the content is more customized, personal and topical.

Broad Criticism of Press Performance

While the public has long been critical of many aspects of the press’s performance, negative attitudes are at record levels in a number of areas. The percentage saying news organizations are often influenced by powerful people and organizations has reached an all-time high of 80%.

Other measures, including the press’s perceived lack of fairness (77%), its unwillingness to admit mistakes (72%), inaccurate reporting (66%) and political bias (63%) match highs reached in 2009.

The public is about evenly divided over whether news organizations are immoral (42%) or moral (38%), but the proportion saying the press is immoral also equals an all-time high.

On the positive side, majorities continue to say that news organizations care about how good a job they do (62%) and are highly professional (57%). However, the percentage saying news organizations do not care about how good a job they do (31%) is at an all-time high, while the percentage saying they are not professional (32%) equals its previous high, reached in 1999.

Long-Term Views of the Press

In the Pew Research Center’s first survey on news attitudes in 1985, majorities said that news organizations were often influenced by powerful people and organizations (53%) and tended to favor one side (53%). However, by a 55% to 34% margin, more Americans said that news organizations get the facts straight than said their stories were often inaccurate.

Opinions of news organizations in all three areas have grown more negative since then. And since 2007, there have been increases in the percentages saying that news stories are often inaccurate (from 53% to 66%), that news organizations are often influenced by the powerful (from 69% to 80%), and that news organizations tend to favor one side (from 66% to 77%).

Most Say News Organizations Are Highly Professional

A majority (57%) views news organizations as highly professional, while 32% say they are not professional. However, the percentage saying news organizations are not professional has risen 10 points since 2007.

About six-in-ten (62%) say news organizations care about how good a job they do. However, just 18% think the media is willing to admit their mistakes; this is little changed from 2009 (21%).

By two-to-one (62% to 31%), more Americans say that news organizations are politically biased than say they are careful to avoid biased reporting. These views have changed only modestly in recent years. During the mid-1980s, far fewer said news organizations were politically biased; in Pew Research’s first news attitudes survey, 45% said news organizations were politically biased while 36% said they were careful that their reporting was not politically biased.

The news media also is faulted for invading people’s privacy and focusing too much attention on bad news, but these opinions have not become more negative over the past quarter century. In the current survey, 69% say news organizations invade people’s privacy, while 24% say they respect people’s privacy. In 1985, about as many (73%) said the press invaded people’s privacy.

About two-thirds of Americans (66%) say news organizations pay too much attention to bad news, while 24% say news organizations report the kinds of stories they should be covering and just 3% say the media pay too much attention to good news. These opinions have varied little over the past decade.

More See Press Hurting Democracy

For the first time in a Pew Research Center survey, as many say that news organizations hurt democracy (42%) as protect democracy (42%). In the mid-1980s, about twice as many said that news organizations protect democracy rather than hurt democracy.

The public also is divided over whether news organizations stand up for America (41%) or are too critical of America (39%). These opinions have changed little in recent years, but in 2002 and 2003 somewhat more said that news organizations stand up for America.

Yet majorities have consistently expressed the view that criticism of political leaders by news organizations keeps them from doing things that should not be done. Today, 58% say this, while just 25% say that the news media’s criticism keeps political leaders from doing their jobs. Even as attitudes toward the press have grown more negative, support for the press’s watchdog role has remained stable.

Partisan Perceptions of the News Media

Over the past decade, Republicans have been more critical of the press’s performance than have independents or Democrats. But partisan differences in a number of areas have narrowed in recent years.

Views of media accuracy and independence have become much more uniform across partisan groups, as Democrats and independents express increasingly critical views. Since 2007, the percentage of Democrats saying news organizations are often influenced by powerful people and organizations has grown by 12 points; there has been a comparable increase among independents (14 points). Meanwhile, Republicans’ views have shown less change.

Even on issues where there continue to be substantial partisan differences, such as in views of political bias and whether the media is too critical of America, the gaps have narrowed.

Three-quarters of Republicans (76%) say news organizations are politically biased, a view shared by 54% of Democrats. In 2007, 70% of Republicans but only 39% of Democrats said the press was politically biased. Views on this question among independents have changed little (63% now, 61% in 2007).

Four years ago, Republicans were much more likely than Democrats to view the news media as too critical of America (63% vs. 23%). But in the current survey, far fewer Republicans (49%) say this, while the proportion of Democrats that see the press as too critical of America has grown eight points to 31%.

Democrats (64%) and independents (66%) now are about as likely as Republicans (69%) to say news media produce inaccurate stories, a notable shift from just a few years ago, when Democrats and independents had more faith in media accuracy. Partisan gaps on these two issues had been as high as 21 points for inaccuracy and 17 points for influence, but the divides have narrowed to 5 points and 4 points, respectively.

Media Trusted More than Other Sources

Despite their declining assessments of news media, Americans say they trust the information they get from news organizations more than they trust information they get from other places, including government and business sources.

The public is most inclined to believe information from local news organizations: 69% say they trust such information a lot (17%) or some (52%). Almost six-in-ten (59%) say the same about national news organizations: 14% say they trust a lot of what they learn from the national media, while 45% say they have some trust in information provided by national news organizations.

By comparison, Americans are about evenly divided over whether they trust information from the Obama administration: 50% say they trust it a lot or some, while 48% have not much or no trust in administration information. The public also is about evenly split over whether they trust information from their state governments (51% a lot or some, 47% not much or not at all). Fewer trust information from federal government agencies, business corporations or Congress. Just about three-in-ten trust a lot (1%) or some (28%) of what they learn from candidates running for office.

There are no partisan differences in how much people trust national or local news organizations.  About six-in-ten Republicans (62%), Democrats (60%) and independents (58%) say they trust a lot or some of the information they get from national news organizations. Figures are higher for local media: 75% of Republicans, 68% of Democrats and 69% of independents trust at least some of the information they get from local news outlets.

However, among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, those who agree with the Tea Party movement express more skepticism about national media trustworthiness than do those who disagree or have no opinion of the Tea Party. Almost half of Tea Party supporters (47%) say they do not trust information from national news organizations much or at all, compared with only 31% of those who do not agree with the Tea Party or offer no opinion of it. There is no difference by Tea Party support when it comes to trust in local news organizations.

Older Americans are notably less likely to trust information from national news media: 47% say they trust information from national news organizations a lot or some; about six-in-ten in all other age groups say the same.

Most Consider Their News Sources to Be More Accurate

Despite their negative views about the press and the accuracy and fairness of its reports, most people say they are able to find news that is accurate. About six-in-ten (62%) say the news sources they use most generally get the facts straight; by comparison, just 25% say that news organizations generally get the facts straight.

While the vast majority of people say the press, as a whole, tends to favor one side (77%), the public is divided over whether the sources they rely on most deal fairly with all sides or not. About half (49%) say the news sources they use most tend to favor one side, but about as many (45%) say their choice sources treat all sides fairly.

There are only modest partisan differences in people’s views of the accuracy and independence of the news sources they use most.

TV Still Top News Source

The public’s top two sources of news remain television and the internet. Two-thirds of Americans (66%) say television is where they get most of their news about national and international events, while 43% say they turn to the internet. About three-in-ten Americans (31%) say they get most of their national and international news from newspapers. Radio was a distant fourth choice, with 19% saying they turned to it for news. (People were allowed to name up to two sources).

Television has dominated news consumption since the question was first asked in 1991, though the proportion naming it as a main source has declined over the past two decades. Throughout the 1990s and into the early 2000s, about eight-in-ten named television as their main source of national and international news.

The top sources of TV news are the Fox News Channel, cited by 19% of the public, CNN (15%), and local news programming (16%).

Audiences for the Fox News Channel remain divided along partisan lines. About a third of Republicans (34%) cite Fox as their main source of national and international news, compared with 17% of independents and 9% of Democrats. This is little changed from 2009. Over the same period, the total audience for CNN, meanwhile, has declined from 22% of the public to 15%. Most of that decline has come among Democrats (down 10 points) and independents (down 6 points).

Television also is the most frequently cited source of local news, with 59% citing it as a main source. Newspapers are cited more often as a source of local (39%) than national news (31%). By contrast, just 17% cite the internet as their top source of local news, less than half the percentage citing the internet as their main source of national and international news (43%). The internet is on par with radio (14%) as a local news source.

There continue to be large age differences in the main sources for national news. Among those younger than 30, the internet far surpasses television as the main source for national and international news (65% vs. 51%). Television is the most frequently named source for older age groups, though the gap is fairly modest among those 30 to 49 (61% television vs. 51% internet).

Those 65 and older are only age group in which more cite newspapers (49%) than the internet (15%) as a main national news source. The internet is cited about as often as newspapers by those 50 to 64 (36% internet, 33% newspapers), and far more often by younger people.

Age differences are less pronounced in the leading sources of local news; majorities across all age groups cite television as their main source. Those under 50 are far more likely than older Americans to say they get local news from the internet, though only about quarter (23%) do so.

Across all groups, newspapers are mentioned more often as a source for local than national news. The difference is particularly notable among those younger than 30 – 37% say they rely on newspapers for local news compared with 24% who cite newspapers as a main source for national and international news.

When asked about the number of news sources available, 37% say the number of national news sources is growing while far fewer (13%) see the number of sources as shrinking; 47% say the number is staying the same. However, about as many say the number of local news sources is shrinking (21%) as growing (19%); 55% say the number is staying the same.

Those younger than 30 are much more likely to say the number of national news sources is growing (47%) than are those 65 and older (29%). This may be related to young people’s greater reliance on the internet for national news.

Searching For News Online: Google, Yahoo Popular Destinations

About half of internet news users (51%) say that when they last looked for news on a specific topic or story on the internet, they went first to a website that offers links to stories from many news organizations; 43% say they went directly to the website of one of their favorite news organizations.

Among all internet users, search engine sites were the most popular place to look for news about a story or topic, with 21% citing Google and 14% citing Yahoo. CNN is the most popular news-organization website for searching, overall, offered by 13% of all internet news users.

Among those whose last news searches took them first to a favorite news organization, CNN tops the list, with 22% citing it, followed by local news sites (13%). Yahoo and Fox also are popular options (10% each). Among those who went first to a site with links to other sites, Google was the most popular first destination, with more than a third naming it (35%), followed by Yahoo at 17%.

Most Want News with No Political Point of View

More than six-in-ten Americans (63%) say they prefer news sources with no particular point of view, while 29% prefer sources that have a political point of view. The preference for news without a political point of view is even stronger when it comes to online news: 74% of those who get news online want it to come without a political point of view, while just 19% prefer online sources that have a point of view.

About as many Democrats (35%) as Republicans (31%) say they want news with a political point of view; 24% of independents say this. The partisan differences are more pronounced for online news: 32% of Democrats prefer online news with a political point of view, but just 16% of Republicans and 14% of independents want the same.

Even when the public has been asked whether they want news from their point of view, the clear preference is that the news have no particular point of view. In Pew Research’s 2010 media consumption survey, 62% said they wanted news with no particular point of view while just 25% wanted news from their point of view.

A 57% majority say elected officials just get caught more often because they are under greater scrutiny. About two-in-ten (19%), on the other hand, say elected officials have lower moral standards than ordinary Americans, according to the latest national survey conducted June 9-12 among 1,002 adults by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and The Washington Post.

Among the 19% who attribute the scandals to lower moral standards among elected officials, most (13% of the public) say that when people get into positions of power, they tend to lose their moral standards, while 4% say that politics attracts the kind of people who have lower moral standards.

There are only slight differences in opinion across political and demographic groups. Each attributes the number of sex scandals more to the level of scrutiny faced by officials than to lower moral standards by at least a two-to-one margin. For example, 55% of men and 59% of women say that elected officials involved in sex scandals get caught more often because they are under greater scrutiny.

There also is no difference in opinion between those following the current scandal involving Rep. Anthony Weiner very closely and those following this news less closely. Weiner has acknowledged sending sexual messages and photos to at least six women online.

Overall, 12% reject both of the options offered, answering neither or giving other reasons. Among those who offer an explanation, the most frequently cited refer to elected officials’ ego or arrogance.

A series of major breaking stories captured the attention of both the public and the media in 2010, while news about the nation’s struggling economy consistently attracted high levels of public interest and coverage throughout the year.

Each week, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press conducts national public opinion surveys to measure which news subjects are receiving the most public attention, while the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism analyzes news coverage. For an analysis of the year’s news coverage, see “The Year in News 2010: Disaster, Economic Anxiety, but Little Interest in War” released January 11, 2011.

The public and news media were largely on the same page during the peak moments of the year’s biggest breaking news stories – the disaster in Haiti, the passage of health care legislation, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the outcome of the midterm elections. (See “Top Stories of 2010: Haiti Earthquake, Gulf Oil Spill” Dec. 21, 2010.)

In most cases, the public and news media’s priorities were in sync. At their peak intensity, each of these stories filled over 40% of the week’s newshole, according to PEJ’s News Coverage Index, and was the most closely followed story that week by more than 40% – and in several instances about 60% – of the public, according the Pew Research Center’s News Interest Index.

But there were moments, and stories, when the public’s interests diverged substantially from the press’ coverage. And those discrepancies, moreover, tended to fit a broader pattern.

In general, the public tended to maintain its interest in major breaking news stories considerably longer than the press did. And the press tended to maintain substantially more interest in Washington Beltway controversies than did its audience.

Most notably, in the weeks following three of these major news events – the Haiti disaster, the passage of health care legislation, and the capping of the gulf oil spill – public interest remained high long after the news media’s focus had turned elsewhere. And while public interest in the 2010 midterm elections was on par with press coverage in the final stages of the campaign season, coverage far exceeded public interest earlier in the campaign cycle.

Over the course of 2010, seven of nine cases in which coverage far exceeded public interest involved stories that had far greater resonance inside the Beltway than outside. These included the firing of General Stanley McChrystal, the release by WikiLeaks of classified State Department documents, Scott Brown’s winning the Massachusetts Senate seat in a special election, and the firing of Shirley Sherrod, a former U.S. agriculture department employee. Notably, several of these stories involved the media itself. These included: McChrystal and his staff’s being quoted criticizing the administration in Rolling Stone magazine, WikiLeaks raising questions about press responsibilities, and video of Sherrod being shown repeatedly out of its full context after being picked up from a conservative website.

Press, Public Both Kept Watch on Economy

One story where the public and the media were often in sync was the economy. Coverage of economic news was consistently high from week to week and cumulatively represented the single largest story over the course of 2010. Public interest was also notably consistent. In every week public interest in economic news was measured, at least 30% of Americans said they were following reports about the condition of the economy very closely, and, aside from periods of peak interest in Haiti, the health care debate and the Gulf oil spill, at least 10% said the economy was the story they were following more closely than any other. Economic news received the most or second most public attention in 32 of the 45 weeks in which public attention to the topic was tracked.

Public’s Interest Outlasts Press’ on 2010’s Big Events

While the economy topped the news over the course of the whole year, 2010 was marked by a series of other major stories that received overwhelming levels of news coverage and public interest as well. The year began with a devastating earthquake in Haiti, followed by end game in the fight over sweeping health care legislation, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the Republicans’ victories in the midterm elections.

At their peak, each of these stories dominated press coverage – accounting for more than 40% of the newshole in a single week. And at these moments, public interest was commensurately high. Fully 66% of Americans said they were following the debate over health care more closely than any other news the week of March 22-28, and 63% were focused on the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico the week of June 14-20. Immediately following the earthquake in Haiti, 57% of Americans followed news about the aftermath more closely than any other story, and in the week following the 2010 midterms, 43% of Americans said that was their top news interest.
While press and public interests coincided at these peak moments, the news media and public did not concur continuously about the importance of these news stories. Most importantly, the public stayed focused on three of these stories – the disaster in Haiti, health care reform and the gulf oil spill – long after media attention had shifted to other emerging stories.

Just three weeks after the most intense focus on the Haiti earthquake, coverage of the aftermath comprised just 8% of the newshole, replaced by press coverage of the economy and possible problems with Toyota vehicles. Yet the public continued to report more interest in news about the earthquake’s aftermath than either of these other topics – 38% said they were following news about Haiti more closely than anything else.

Similarly, less than a month after the July 15th capping of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico, 44% of Americans continued to say they were following news about the spill and its aftermath more closely than any other topic. Yet just 3% of news coverage focused on the spill’s aftermath, as the press focus had turned toward the upcoming midterm elections.

And within three weeks of President Obama signing major new health care legislation, the issue filled just 3% of news coverage; there was more coverage of a major mining accident in West Virginia, Obama’s push to place greater controls on the world’s nuclear weapons and Tiger Woods’ return to the PGA. Yet 33% of Americans said they were most interested in news about the new health care law, far more than any of these other stories.

Political Incidents Garner More Coverage than Interest

Other than stories that affect them personally – such as the debates over health care legislation and tax cuts – Americans often show less interest in political or Washington stories than does the media. That was the case in several instances in 2010, including the forced resignations of Gen. Stanley McChrystal and Shirley Sherrod. The week of June 21, for example, the media devoted 21% of coverage to the termination of McChrystal, then commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Yet fewer than one-in-ten
Americans (7%) said they followed the news about McChrystal most closely that week. Instead, 53% of Americans were still focused mostly on developments in the Gulf of Mexico.

The week of July 19, the media jumped on a story about the USDA firing an African American official for allegedly making racist comments in a speech. The department quickly changed course, offering Shirley Sherrod her job back, when it became clear her comments had been taken out of context. The story accounted for 14% of the newshole (33% on cable news channels), but just 8% of the public said this was the news they were following most closely. That week, half the public (51%) said they were following news about the Gulf oil spill most closely.

Similarly, the political drama of the 2010 midterm elections often drew far more press than public attention. Though the public eventually took a strong interest in the Nov. 2 midterm elections in late October, there were instances earlier in 2010 in which coverage of the primaries significantly outweighed interest. During the week starting Sept. 13, the media devoted 30% of the newshole to election news (42% for cable news channels) – including Christine O’Donnell’s surprise win in the Delaware Republican Senate primary. That week, 11% of the public said they followed election news most closely, while more than twice as many (26%) rated news about the economy as most important to them.

This gap between public interest and press coverage continued through September and October, as the election consumed over a quarter of the newshole, but was a second, or even third-tier story in terms of public interest. The elections did not become the top story for the public until the final week before Election Day, and remained the top story for the two weeks following.

Modest Coverage, Interest in Ongoing Wars

The ongoing U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq received modest press coverage and public attention over the course of 2010. Aside from spikes in press coverage related to Afghanistan surrounding General McChrystal’s resignation in June and the WikiLeaks release of secret military documents in August, events in Afghanistan and Afghanistan policy received modest press coverage in 2010 – 4% of the news measured by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. Across 18 weeks in which public interest on the topic was measured, roughly a quarter said they were following Afghanistan-related news “very closely”. But Afghanistan was the top news story for fewer than one-in-ten Americans in virtually all of those weeks.

Similarly, over the entire course of 2010 1% of news coverage was devoted to Iraq events and policy debates, and in no week did Iraq consume more than 10% of the newshole. Public interest in Iraq news was also modest – in the ten weeks in which public interest in Iraq-related news was tested, roughly a quarter of Americans said they were following “very closely”, but about one-in-ten rated it as the top story they followed most closely. The exception to this came in early September, when 17% said they were following news about the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq more closely than any other story.

Matches and Mismatches at a Glance

The graphic below plots out the interest and coverage levels for many top weekly stories of the year. For long-running stories, such as the economy or the Gulf oil spill, the numbers have been averaged and are represented by larger square dots. The bold diagonal line represents the typical relationship between coverage and interest across the entire year’s worth of weekly measurements (as defined by a simple regression analysis).
Data points above the diagonal line represent stories in which public interest was high relative to the amount of press coverage. Those points below the line show stories in which press coverage was high relative to the amount of public interest. In both directions, the farther a story is from the line, the greater the gap between interest and coverage.

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 Monday through Sunday) PEJ compiles this data to identify the top stories for the week. (For more information about the Project for Excellence in Journalism’s News Coverage Index, go to www.journalism.org.) The News Interest Index survey collects data from Thursday through Sunday to gauge public interest in the most covered stories of the week.

Results for the weekly surveys are based on landline telephone and cell phone interviews conducted under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International among a national sample of approximately 1,000 adults living in the continental United States, 18 years of age or older. Both the landline and cell phone samples were provided by Survey Sampling International. Interviews were conducted in English.

The combined landline and cell phone sample are weighted using an iterative technique that matches gender, age, education, race, Hispanic origin, region, and population density to parameters from the March 2009 Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. The sample is also weighted to match current patterns of telephone status based on extrapolations from the 2009 National Health Interview Survey. The weighting procedure also accounts for the fact that respondents with both landline and cell phones have a greater probability of being included in the combined sample and adjusts for household size within the landline sample. Sampling errors and statistical tests of significance take into account the effect of weighting.

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.

The 9/11 terrorist attacks drew more public interest than any other story in the past decade. In October 2001, a month after the attacks, 78% said they were following news about the story very closely, up slightly from the week after the attacks (74%).

The devastating hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast in 2005 – first Katrina and then Rita – also captured the attention of an overwhelming numbers Americans. In October of that year, a month after Katrina struck New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, 74% said they were following news about the storms very closely (70% were following very closely the week after Katrina hit).

The 2005 hurricanes sent the price of gas soaring, a development that also drew broad public attention. In September 2005, 70% said they were following news about high gas prices very closely. In general, the public is highly attentive to fluctuations in gas prices. Nearly as many said they were closely following rising gas prices in May 2006 (69%) and June 2008 (66%), and when prices fell in October 2008, 53% followed very closely.

Aside from Hurricane Katrina, several other natural disasters over the past ten years riveted the American public’s attention. In particular, roughly six-in-ten very closely followed both the 2010 earthquake in Haiti and the 2004 tsunami that struck coastal areas surrounding the Indian Ocean.

During this decade there were several mass shootings, but the ongoing shooting spree that for weeks terrorized the Washington, D.C.-area attracted the most public interest. In October 2002, 65% said they were following news about the sniper attacks very closely. The sniper shootings were the public’s top story in 2002.

A number of the decade’s top stories occurred during a tumultuous two-month period in the fall of 2008. As the mortgage and financial crisis grew, 70% of Americans said they were following economic conditions very closely in September of 2008, and in October 59% reported very close attention to the stock market declines specifically. Around the same time, 62% said they were following the debate in Washington over plans to use government funds to stabilize the markets very closely. By this measure, public interest in the bank bailout debate was far more intense than the highest levels of interest in the 2009-2010 health care debate (51% followed very closely in the final week before passage) or the 2009 stimulus debate (50% very closely). And to top off a month packed with economic news, 61% of Americans were following the 2008 election very closely at the same time.

Interest in news reports about the situation in Iraq peaked during the early months of the war. In May 2003, during the week in which President Bush delivered his “Mission Accomplished” speech and two weeks after the fall of Baghdad, 63% said they were following news about the situation in Iraq very closely. Just a year later, a darker chapter in the war – the offensive by insurgents in Fallujah and allegations of abuse by U.S. troops at abu Ghraib prison – also drew considerable interest. In May 2004, 54% said they followed news about the situation in Iraq very closely.

Public attention to news about the war in Afghanistan was highest when military action began in late 2001 and early 2002, when 51% were following very closely. By the summer of 2002 interest had fallen off substantially; in July 2002 41% were following events in Afghanistan very closely. In recent years, the highest level of interest in Afghanistan came in late 2009 as Barack Obama announced his plans for winding down the U.S. military effort there. In December of that year, 43% followed his policy announcement very closely.

Of the biggest news stories of 2010, three make the list of the decade’s top stories: the earthquake in Haiti, which 60% followed very closely, is among the top ten most closely followed stories of the decade. Slightly lower, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico this summer was followed very closely by 59% at the peak of public interest. And the final debate over health care reform was followed very closely by 51%, just edging in to the top 25 stories of the decade.

There are many more ways to get the news these days, and as a consequence Americans are spending more time with the news than over much of the past decade. Digital platforms are playing a larger role in news consumption, and they seem to be more than making up for modest declines in the audience for traditional platforms. As a result, the average time Americans spend with the news on a given day is as high as it was in the mid-1990s, when audiences for traditional news sources were much larger.

Roughly a third (34%) of the public say they went online for news yesterday – on par with radio, and slightly higher than daily newspapers. And when cell phones, email, social networks and podcasts are added in, 44% of Americans say they got news through one or more internet or mobile digital source yesterday.

At the same time, the proportion of Americans who get news from traditional media platforms – television, radio and print – has been stable or edging downward in the last few years. There has been no overall decline in the percentage saying they watched news on television, and even with the continued erosion of print newspaper and radio audiences, three-quarters of Americans got news yesterday from one or more of these three traditional platforms.

In short, instead of replacing traditional news platforms, Americans are increasingly integrating new technologies into their news consumption habits. More than a third (36%) of Americans say they got news from both digital and traditional sources yesterday, just shy of the number who relied solely on traditional sources (39%). Only 9% of Americans got news through the internet and mobile technology without also using traditional sources.

The net impact of digital platforms supplementing traditional sources is that Americans are spending more time with the news than was the case a decade ago. As was the case in 2000, people now say they spend 57 minutes on average getting the news from TV, radio or newspapers on a given day. But today, they also spend an additional 13 minutes getting news online, increasing the total time spent with the news to 70 minutes. This is one of the highest totals on this measure since the mid-1990s and it does not take into account time spent getting news on cell phones or other digital devices .

The biennial news consumption survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted June 8-28 on cell phones and landlines among 3,006 adults, finds further evidence that the combination of digital and traditional platforms is leading to increased news consumption.

The groups that are driving the increase in time spent with the news – particularly highly educated people – are most likely to use digital and traditional platforms. Fully 69% of those with some post-graduate experience got news through a digital source yesterday; this also is the group that showed the largest rise in time spent with the news from 2006-2008 to 2010 (from 81 minutes yesterday to 96 minutes). There also has been a modest increase in time spent with the news among those 30 to 64 – but not among older and younger age groups.

Digital platforms are supplementing the news diets of news consumers, but there is little indication they are expanding the proportion of Americans who get news on a given day. The vast majority of Americans (83%) get news in one form or another as part of their daily life. But even when cell phones, podcasts, social networks, email, Twitter and RSS feeds are accounted for, 17% of Americans say they got no news yesterday, little changed from previous years.

Moreover, while young people are most likely to integrate new technologies into their daily lives, they are not using these sources to get news at higher rates than do older Americans. Rather, those in their 30s are the only age group in which a majority (57%) reports getting news on one or more digital platforms yesterday.

The integration of traditional and digital technology is common among those in older age groups as well. Nearly half (49%) of people in their 40s, and 44% of those between 50 and 64, got news through one or more digital modes yesterday – rates that are comparable to those 18 to 29 (48%). Digital news consumption is low only among those ages 65 and older, just 23% of whom used one or more digital modes for news yesterday.

Print Newspaper Decline Only Partially Offset by Online Readership

Only about one-in-four (26%) Americans say they read a newspaper in print yesterday, down from 30% two years ago and 38% in 2006. Meanwhile, online newspaper readership continues to grow and is offsetting some of the overall decline in readership. This year, 17% of Americans say they read something on a newspaper’s website yesterday, up from 13% in 2008 and 9% in 2006.

But the online audience is only partially stemming the decline in the share of Americans who turn to newspapers; even when all online newspaper readership is included, 37% of Americans report getting news from newspapers yesterday, virtually unchanged from 39% two years ago, but down from 43% in 2006. (These percentages still may miss some people who access newspaper content indirectly through secondary online sources such as news aggregators or search engines.)

In general, daily newspaper readers tend to be older on average than the general public, but the regular readership of some of the major national newspapers – USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and especially the New York Times – defy this trend. More than half of regular USA Today and Wall Street Journal (55% each) readers are younger than 50 – a profile that largely matches the nation as a whole (roughly 55% of all adults are between 18 and 49). Fully two-thirds (67%) of regular New York Times readers are younger than 50, with a third (34%) younger than 30 – making its audience substantially younger than the national average (55% younger than 50, 23% younger than 30).

The young profile of the regular New York Times readership is undoubtedly linked to the paper’s success online. Nearly one-in-ten of internet users younger than 30 (8%) – and 6% of all internet users – volunteer the New York Times when asked to name a few of the websites they use most often to get news and information.

Cable News Audiences in Flux

Overall, cable news continues to play a significant role in peoples’ news habits – 39% say they regularly get news from a cable channel. But the proportions saying they regularly watch CNN, MSNBC and CNBC have slipped substantially from two years ago, during the presidential election.

Only Fox News has maintained its audience size, and this is because of the increasing number of Republicans who regularly get news there. Four-in-ten Republicans (40%) now say they regularly watch Fox News, up from 36% two years ago and just 18% a decade ago. Just 12% of Republicans regularly watch CNN, and just 6% regularly watch MSNBC.

As recently as 2002, Republicans were as likely to watch CNN (28%) as Fox News (25%). The share of Democrats who regularly watch CNN or Fox News has fallen from 2008.

In terms of specific programs, Fox News hosts Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly have succeeded in attracting conservative and attentive audiences. This is also the case for radio host Rush Limbaugh.

Most of those who regularly watch O’Reilly (63%) and Hannity (65%) are 50 or older; 44% of the public is 50 or older. By contrast, the Daily Show and Colbert Report have the youngest audiences of any outlet included in the survey. Large majorities of those who say they regularly watch the Colbert Report (80%) and the Daily Show (74%) are younger than 50; 55% of public is 18 to 49.

News Audiences’ Political Views

Ideology continues to be closely associated with people’s choice of certain news sources. Eight-in-ten Americans (80%) who regularly listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Sean Hannity are conservative – roughly twice the national average of 36%. And at the other end of the spectrum, the New York Times, Keith Olbermann, the Daily Show, the Colbert Report and Rachel Maddow have regular audiences that include nearly twice the proportion of liberals than in the public.

News audiences also vary widely when it comes to opinions about current issues and topics. For instance, those who describe themselves as supporters of the Tea Party movement make up disproportionately large proportions of the audiences for Limbaugh’s radio show and Fox News opinion programs. This also is the case for supporters of the NRA (National Rifle Association).

By contrast, supporters of gay rights make up large shares of regular New York Times readers, viewers of the Colbert Report and NPR listeners. Several ideologically divergent news audiences – including Wall Street Journal readers and viewers of the Colbert Report and Glenn Beck show – include larger-than-average percentages of self-described libertarians.

News Outlets’ Appeal: From Breaking News to Entertainment

News audiences are drawn to different sources for different reasons. A substantial majority (64%) of regular CNN viewers say they turn to the network for the latest news and headlines; far fewer say they turn to CNN for in-depth reporting (10%), interesting views and opinions (6%) or entertainment (4%). Similarly, the main appeal of network evening news, USA Today and daily newspapers is the latest news and headlines.

Regular Fox News viewers offer somewhat different reasons for tuning into that network: 44% say they go to Fox for the latest news, but a sizable minority (22%) volunteers several reasons or say that all apply.

Regular readers of the Wall Street Journal and New York Times are drawn particularly by in-depth reporting; 37% and 33%, respectively, say they mostly read those papers for in-depth reporting, the highest percentages for any new outlet.

For the audiences of evening cable programs – whether liberal or conservative – interesting views and opinions are the primary appeal. That is the case for regular listeners of Rush Limbaugh as well, although many Limbaugh listeners cite multiple reasons or say that all apply.

For some news audiences, such as regular NPR listeners, no single reason stands out as to why people watch, read or listen: 28% of regular NPR listeners cite several, or all, of the reasons listed, while nearly as many say they listen for the latest news (21%) or for in-depth reporting (20%).

Entertainment is by far the biggest reason why regular viewers of the Colbert Report and the Daily Show tune into those programs; 53% of the regular Colbert audience and 43% of the Daily Show audience say they mostly watch those programs for entertainment. Yet entertainment also is a factor for many regular viewers of morning news shows (18%), readers of USA Today (16%) and other audiences.

Fewer Liberals Enjoying the News

Overall, the share of Americans who say keeping up with the news is something they enjoy a lot has dipped, from a consistent 52% in recent biennial news consumption surveys, including 2008, to 45% in 2010.

The decline is linked to partisanship and ideology: in 2008 67% of liberal Democrats said they enjoyed the news a lot, compared with just 45% today. By contrast, about as many conservative Republicans say they enjoy keeping up with the news today as did so two years ago (57% now, 56% then). This has resulted in a switch in news enjoyment. Today, conservative Republicans enjoy keeping up with the news more than any other ideological and partisan group; just two years ago it was the liberal Democrats who held that distinction.

Other Key Findings

•While 26% of all Americans say they read a print newspaper yesterday, that figure falls to just 8% among adults younger than 30.

•Far more men (50%) than women (39%) get news on digital platforms, such as the internet and mobile technology, on any given day. Men are more likely to get news by cell phone, email, RSS feeds or podcasts than are women. But men and women are equally likely to get news through Twitter or social networking sites.

•More people say they mostly get news “from time to time” rather than at “regular times.” The percentage of so-called news grazers has increased nine points (from 48% to 57%) since 2006.

•Search engines are playing a substantially larger role in people’s news gathering habits – 33% regularly use search engines to get news on topics of interest, up from 19% in 2008.

•About three-in-ten adults (31%) access the internet over their cell phone, but just 8% get news there regularly.

•Most Facebook and Twitter users say they hardly ever or never get news there.
•One-in-four adults (25%) who have Tivos or DVRs say they program them to record news programs.

•About eight-in-ten (82%) say they see at least some bias in news coverage; by a 43% to 23% margin, more say it is a liberal than a conservative bias.

•Roughly a third (35%) read a book yesterday, which is largely unchanged over the past decade. Of those, 4% read an electronic or digital book.

•The public struggled with a four-question current events quiz – just 14% answered all four correctly. But about half (51%) of regular Wall Street Journal readers aced the quiz, as did 42% of regular New York Times readers.

•Among news audiences, Obama gets his highest approval ratings among regular viewers of Keith Olbermann (84% approve) and Rachel Maddow (80%); his rating is nearly as high among regular readers of the New York Times (79%). Obama gets his lowest ratings among regular Sean Hannity viewers (7%) and Rush Limbaugh listeners (9%).

•Partisan gaps in media credibility continue to grow, with Republicans far more skeptical of most major news sources than Democrats. The one exception is Fox News, which twice as many Republicans believe all or most of (41%) than Democrats (21%).