Many more Americans are turning to the internet for campaign news this year as the web becomes a key source of election news. Television remains the dominant source, but the percent who say they get most of their campaign news from the internet has tripled since October 2004 (from 10% then to 33% now).

While use of the web has seen considerable growth, the percentage of Americans relying on TV and newspapers for campaign news has remained relatively flat since 2004. The internet now rivals newspapers as a main source for campaign news. And with so much interest in the election next week, the public’s use of the internet as a campaign news source is up even since the primaries earlier this year. In March, 26% cited the internet as a main source for election news, while the percentages citing television and newspapers remain largely unchanged.

Not surprisingly, the internet is a considerably more popular source for campaign news among younger Americans than older ones. Nearly three times as many people ages 18 to 29 mention the internet than mention newspapers as a main source of election news (49% vs. 17%). Nearly the opposite is true among those over age 50: some 22% rely on the internet for election news while 39% look to newspapers. Compared with 2004, use of the internet for election news has increased across all age groups. Among the youngest cohort (age 18-29), TV has lost significant ground to the internet.

On television, the cable news outlets clearly dominate the big three networks as main sources of campaign news. Nearly half of the public (46%) turns to the cable news channels, with 25% naming CNN as a main source of campaign news, 21% naming Fox News Channel and 10% naming MSNBC. Only 24% rely on the network news outlets ABC, CBS and NBC. Another 13% look to local TV news. This reflects broader changes in news consumption patterns. In recent years, cable news outlets have overtaken the networks as the general news sources that the public watches most regularly. [See “Key News Audiences Now Blend Online and Traditional Sources”; released August 17, 2008]

Cable News Audiences Highly Partisan

The audiences for the major cable news networks are highly partisan, while the audiences for network TV and the internet are more in line with the general public.

Among those who name the Fox News Channel as their main source for campaign news, 52% are Republicans and only 17% are Democrats. By contrast, among those who rely on MSNBC for their campaign news, 50% are Democrats and only 11% are Republicans. Similarly, CNN’s campaign news audience is largely Democratic – 45% are Democrats and 13% are Republicans.

Notably, there are substantial differences in awareness of recent campaign events among the different cable news audiences. Majorities in each audience said they heard a lot about reports that the Republican National Committee spent about $150,000 on clothing for Sarah Palin and her family. But far more of those who get most campaign news from MSNBC than those who rely on Fox News heard a lot about the controversy (71% vs. 51%, respectively heard a lot about this story). Among those who turn to CNN for election news, 62% reported hearing a lot about Palin’s wardrobe.

Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama registered more widely among the MSNBC news audience than among those who rely on Fox News for presidential campaign coverage. Seven-in-ten MSNBC viewers heard a lot about the Powell endorsement, compared with 54% of the Fox News audience. Close to six-in-ten (59%) of those who turn to CNN heard a lot about the endorsement.

About two-thirds of those who rely mainly on Fox News for campaign coverage (66%) said they had heard a lot about links between Obama and ACORN, the community organizing group that has been accused of voter registration fraud. A comparable proportion (62%) of those who rely mainly on MSNBC heard a lot about this story. A majority of those who get most of their campaign news from CNN (52%) heard a lot about the ACORN allegations.

About the Survey

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.

The results for this press release are based on landline telephone interviews conducted under the direction of ORC (Opinion Research Corporation) based on the combined data from two nationwide samples of adults, 18 years of age or older. For results based on the combined sample of 2,011 respondents, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. For results based on the separate survey samples conducted October 17-20, 2008 (N=1,003) and October 24-27, 2008 (N=1,008), the sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage.

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.

Voters in the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire are being inundated with mail, phone calls and other contacts from the presidential campaigns. In particular, overwhelming majorities of likely voters in both states have received pre-recorded calls, or “robo-calls,” about the campaign. However, far more Democratic voters than Republican voters in these states say they have been personally contacted by one of the campaigns.

Nearly two-thirds of likely voters in Iowa’s Democratic caucuses (65%) say they have been called by a representative of one of the campaigns. By comparison, 46% of likely Republican voters in Iowa say they have received a personal phone call from one of the campaigns.

In addition, a third of likely Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa (33%) say they have been visited at home by someone talking about the campaign. Just 8% of the state’s likely Republican caucus-goers say they have gotten a home visit from a campaign representative.

The partisan differences in campaign activity are somewhat less pronounced in New Hampshire. Still, twice as many likely Democratic primary voters than likely Republican voters in New Hampshire say they have been visited at home by someone talking about the campaign (30% vs. 15%).

Overwhelming numbers of both Democratic and Republican voters in the early primary states say they been contacted by the presidential campaigns in less personal ways — traditional mail about one or more of the candidates, or pre-recorded phone calls about the campaign. Roughly a third of likely voters in each party in Iowa (34% Republican, 33% Democrat), and comparable numbers of voters in New Hampshire, also say they have been emailed by one or more of the candidates.

Notably, eight-in-ten likely voters in Iowa say they have received pre-recorded calls, or ‘robo-calls,’ from the campaigns. More than a third of all likely voters in Iowa (35%) say they usually listen to these pre-recorded calls, while 44% say they usually hang up. By contrast, many more likely voters in New Hampshire say they hang up on campaign robo-calls rather than stay on the line.

Voters who hang up on pre-recorded calls from the campaigns mostly view these calls as a minor annoyance, rather than something that makes them angry. In both Iowa and New Hampshire, roughly four-in-ten likely voters consider robo-calls a minor annoyance while far smaller percentages say the calls actually make them angry (5% in Iowa, 9% in New Hampshire).

Greater numbers of likely voters in both states say they usually listen to a personal campaign call than to a pre-recorded call. In Iowa, 50% of likely voters say they usually listen to a call from a person, compared with 35% who say they usually listen to a robo-call. In New Hampshire, about twice as many voters say they typically listen to a live, rather than recorded, campaign call (39% vs. 19%).

The primary state survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, in collaboration with the Associated Press, was conducted Nov. 7-25 among 724 voters likely to vote in Iowa’s Jan. 3 caucuses; 1,040 likely voters in New Hampshire’s Jan. 8 primary; and 841 likely voters in South Carolina’s Republican (Jan. 19) or Democratic primary (Jan. 26). In addition, a separate national survey was conducted among 915 voters who say they are likely to vote in a primary or caucus in their state.

As expected, most of the campaign activity has been focused on the earliest primary states — Iowa and New Hampshire. Compared with likely voters in those states, far smaller percentages of likely voters in South Carolina have received campaign mail or pre-recorded phone calls. In addition, just 19% of likely voters in South Carolina say they have received a personal call about the campaign; majorities of likely voters in both Iowa (58%) and New Hampshire (52%) say they have gotten such calls.

Most voters in the early primary states say they have found news coverage of the campaign and the presidential debates helpful in their decisions about whom to vote for. But early state voters take a less positive view of the candidates’ commercials; only about one-in-ten likely voters in the three early states have found the candidates commercials very helpful, roughly a third of the proportions saying they find campaign news and the debates very helpful.

Voters in New Hampshire express a somewhat more negative view of campaign commercials than do voters in Iowa and South Carolina. A narrow majority of likely voters in New Hampshire (51%) say the candidates’ commercials have been not too or not at all helpful, compared with 43% of likely voters in Iowa and 41% in South Carolina.

Politically Engaged Iowans

Despite the intense political battles that candidates in both parties are waging in Iowa, there is no evidence that voters in that state are experiencing campaign fatigue. About seven-in-ten likely voters in Iowa say they find the campaign interesting, compared with 57% of likely voters in New Hampshire, 48% in South Carolina and 45% nationally.

In all three states, and among voters nationally, more Democrats than Republicans say they find the campaign interesting. In Iowa, 77% of likely participants in the Democratic caucus say the campaign is interesting, compared with 60% of those likely to attend a Republican caucus, and Republicans are twice as likely as Democrats to describe the campaign so far as “dull” (37% vs. 19%).

Voters in the early primary states also are tracking campaign news at higher rates than voters elsewhere. Four-in-ten likely voters in Iowa, and about as many in New Hampshire, say they are paying very close attention to news about the campaign. That compares with 31% of likely voters in South Carolina, and just 24% among voters nationally. There are no significant partisan differences in attentiveness to campaign news.

However, nearly half of Iowa Democratic voters (45%) say they have attended a campaign event. That compares with 28% of likely GOP voters in Iowa. Far smaller percentages of Democrats and Republicans in New Hampshire (28% of Democrats, 20% of Republicans) say they have attended a campaign event.

Sizable minorities of likely Democratic and Republican voters in Iowa also say they have contributed money to any of the presidential candidates (18% of Democrats, 14% of Republicans). Slightly smaller numbers of likely voters in New Hampshire and South Carolina say they have donated money to the candidates. Nationally, about one-in-ten likely Republican (11%) and Democratic voters (9%) say they have given money to any of the candidates.

The Campaign Online

Aside from receiving email from the campaigns, voters are using the internet to watch video clips about candidates, visit candidates’ websites, and access social networks such as Facebook and MySpace to get information about candidates or to sign up as a “friend.”

Nationally, roughly three-in-ten (28%) of all likely primary voters say they have watched online video clips about the candidates or the election. Comparable percentages in Iowa and New Hampshire also report watching political video clips, though somewhat fewer likely voters in South Carolina have done so. In addition, 30% of likely voters in Iowa, and 29% in New Hampshire, say they have visited candidate websites; by comparison, fewer voters in South Carolina (16%), and nationally (17%), have accessed candidate websites.

This is the first presidential campaign since the rise of social networking sites, such as Facebook and MySpace. Small proportions of the likely voters in the three states say they have visited one to these sites to learn about candidates or to sign up as a friend. Nationally, 7% of likely primary voters say they have visited one of these sites to get information on the candidates or to sign up as a friend.

There is no significant partisan gap with respect to campaign activities online. Despite describing the campaign as more “dull,” in both the primary states and nationwide Republicans are about as likely as Democrats to have viewed videos, visited candidate websites or visited social networking sites related to the campaigns.

However, there is a substantial age gap in online political activity, particularly when it comes to visiting social network sites to learn more about the campaign. Nationally, 17% of likely voters ages 18 to 34 say they have visited a social network site to learn about the campaign or sign up as a friend; no more than one-in-20 older voters go on these sites to engage in political activity. In addition, younger voters ages 18-34 are more likely than older voters to watch online video clips about the campaign.

More Democrats Attending Events

Likely Democratic primary voters in Iowa and New Hampshire are considerably more likely to have attended a campaign event this year than at a comparable point four years ago. In late 2003, 34% of likely participants in the Iowa Democratic caucuses had attended a campaign event, compared with 45% this year. And among likely Democratic voters in New Hampshire, the percent attending an event has risen from 18% to 28%. Trends are not available for Republicans because there was no GOP nomination contest in 2004.

The internet, too, is playing a greater role this year than at a comparable point in the 2004 campaign. In Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, the share of Democratic voters who have visited any of the candidate’s websites is up. And in all three states as well as nationwide more Democratic voters are receiving campaign-related email.

Campaign Calls: A Closer Look

While virtually all Iowa and New Hampshire voters have received phone calls about the campaign or the candidates this year, for many Republicans these calls have been only in the impersonal form of a pre-recorded call.

Among likely Republican caucus-goers in Iowa, 83% have received either a personal call or a robo-call; a relatively large minority (37%) has only gotten pre-recorded campaign calls, while 43% have received both types of calls. While the overall outreach to likely Democratic caucus-goers has been about the same (86% have received one or more calls), just 21% of Democratic voters have only received robo-calls, while 61% have received both kinds of calls. The pattern is similar in New Hampshire, where more than three-quarters of both Democrats and Republicans have received one or more calls, but a greater share of Republicans (32%) than Democrats (23%) have received only automated calls.

In Iowa, telephone contacts were quite widespread already in 2003, but there is a notable increase in the rate of phone calls in New Hampshire. In late 2003 just 55% of likely Democratic voters had been called on the phone by a campaign (the 2003 survey did not distinguish between pre-recorded and live calls). Today, 79% of likely Democratic voters in New Hampshire have received either personal or pre-recorded calls. While less widespread, the upward trend in calling is apparent in South Carolina as well.

More Polling in Early States, Too

Just 7% of all likely voters nationwide say they have participated in other polls about the presidential campaign this year. However, substantial minorities of likely voters in both Iowa and New Hampshire report that they participated in other campaign surveys this year.

About three-in-ten likely caucus-goers in Iowa (32%), and nearly as many likely primary voters in New Hampshire (28%), say they have been polled about the campaign this year (not including this survey). At this stage, political polling has been less intensive in South Carolina; just 8% of the likely voters in that state say they participated in other polls.

Short videos produced for the internet are becoming an important component of campaign news. In some cases, candidates themselves are producing videos and releasing them on their campaign websites. Candidates also are seeing their own gaffes or embarrassing moments packaged in a brief video and put up on the web for all to see. And while these videos originate on the internet, more people are viewing them on TV than online.

This week’s News Interest Index poll tested four popular campaign-related videos to measure public awareness of each and to determine where people have seen the videos — on the internet or on television. Many Americans are aware of these videos, but most report that they have seen them on TV. The four videos included in the poll were Hillary and Bill Clinton’s parody of the final episode of “The Sopranos;” a video entitled “I got a crush on Obama;” footage of John McCain joking about bombing Iran; and a tape of John Edwards brushing his hair to the tune of “I Feel Pretty.” Fully 44% of the public have heard of at least one of the four videos and 27% have seen at least one.

Overall, the video of the Clintons was the most recognized: 32% of the public have heard about the video and 19% have actually seen it. Half as many (16%) have heard about the Obama video, which features a young woman who calls herself “Obama Girl,” while 8% have seen this video. Nearly as many (15%) have heard about the John Edwards video and 7% have seen it. Finally, 13% have heard of the McCain video and 6% have seen it. For each of the four videos tested in the poll, more than twice as many say they have viewed them on television as opposed to the internet.

The Clinton video was produced by the Clinton campaign and posted on the campaign’s website. Still, it was aired extensively on television news outlets. Fully 15% of the public first saw this video on television while 4% saw it first on the internet; another 13% say they have heard about it but not seen it. Similarly, 6% of the public first saw the Obama video on television, while 2% saw it first on the internet (8% have heard of it but not seen it).

A similar pattern can be seen for the Edwards and McCain videos: 5% say they watched the Edwards video on TV, 2% saw it on the internet. For the McCain video, 5% saw it first on television, 1% saw it on the internet.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to have heard about both the Clinton and Obama videos. Roughly equal proportions of Democrats and Republicans have heard about the McCain and Edwards videos.

Although the campaign websites and internet videos are often geared toward younger voters, older people are more likely to have heard about three of the four videos — the Clinton video, the McCain video and the Edwards video. In all three cases, people ages 50 and older are more aware of the video than are those under age 50. The Obama video is the only one that all age groups have heard about in roughly equal numbers.

Iraq and U.K. Terror Plot Top News Interests

In the news last week, the war in Iraq and the investigation into the London and Glasgow car bombs were the most closely followed stories. Though there was relatively little coverage of events on the ground in Iraq, more than a third of the public (36%) paid very close attention to the war, and 22% listed it as the single news story they followed more closely than any other. Only 3% of the national newshole was devoted to the Iraq war last week. The media focused much more heavily on the fallout from the terrorist attack in Glasgow and the near miss in London. That story filled 14% of the newshole, making it the most heavily covered story of the week.

The public generally approves of the media’s coverage of the recent terrorist events in the U.K. Nearly two-thirds give the press excellent (19%) or good (45%) marks for its coverage. Another 22% say the coverage has been only fair, and 7% rate it as poor. A majority of the public (57%) says news organizations are giving the right amount of coverage to this story. Only 19% say the story has received too much coverage, and a similar proportion (17%) say it has been under-covered.

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 1-6, and survey data measuring public interest in the top news stories of the week was collected July 6-9 from a nationally representative sample of 1,017 adults.

Democrats Tune in to Libby Story

George Bush’s decision to commute Scooter Libby’s prison sentence was the second most heavily covered news story last week. Overall, 11% of the national newshole was devoted to this story. The story was covered most extensively on cable television with 20% of the news on that sector focused on Libby.

While coverage of Bush’s decision to commute Libby’s sentence was not quite as intense as coverage of the verdict had been, public interest in the story increased significantly. During Libby’s trial less than 10% of the public followed the story very closely, and just 13% paid very close attention to his guilty verdict in March. But 27% of the public paid very close attention to news of Bush’s decision to commute Libby’s sentence. Democrats are more interested than Republicans in this latest chapter (34% vs. 22% followed the Libby news very closely). Roughly one-in-ten Americans listed the Libby story as the one they followed more closely than any other this past week.

A quarter of the public (24%) followed news about the 2008 campaign very closely last week, and 10% listed this as their most closely followed story. The campaign was the third most heavily covered news story (8% of the newshole), and the dominant theme of the coverage was the candidates’ second-quarter fundraising totals. As has been the case for much of this year, Democrats paid closer attention than Republicans to campaign news (33% vs. 21% followed very closely).

The widespread flooding in Texas and the plains states attracted nearly as much interest as the presidential campaign, though much less news coverage. Roughly one-in-five Americans (21%) followed the floods very closely and 10% listed this as their most closely followed story. The national news media devoted 3% of its overall coverage to this story.

The Iraq policy debate heated up again last week, as prominent Republicans continued to speak out against the current administration’s policy. More than a quarter of the public (27%) paid very close attention to the debate in Washington over U.S. policy in Iraq, but only 4% listed this as their most closely followed story of the week. This story constituted 3% of the overall newshole.

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.

Although former Vermont governor Howard Dean failed to win the Democratic presidential nomination, his campaign left a strong imprint on the political world. It assembled a network of over a half-million active supporters and contributors, raised over $20 million in mostly small donations online, and demonstrated the power of the internet as a networking and mobilizing tool in politics.

Who are the internet activists ­ the people widely known as “Deaniacs” ­ who joined the Dean campaign as it slowly grew from asterisk status in early 2003 polls to the frontrunner position at the beginning of 2004? A new Pew survey provides the first detailed look at the cyber-soldiers of this pioneering campaign. An internet survey with a random sample of 11,568 activists drawn from the online database of those who had contributed money or otherwise worked on behalf of Gov. Dean provides insight into who they are, why they joined, how they reacted to Dean’s loss and President Bush’s reelection, and what they think about the future of the Democratic Party.¹

The survey was conducted in two waves: one before the election (Sept. 13-Oct. 12), and a second after the election (Nov.18-Dec. 14).

As expected, a key rallying point for Dean activists was their shared opposition to the war in Iraq. Two-thirds cited the war as the most important factor in their decision to join the campaign. The perceptions that Dean was willing to speak unpopular truths and would change the direction of country were also strong unifying factors. However, the study’s findings belie the popular image of Dean activists as largely young and drawn from college campuses. Instead, the group’s overall age distribution is fairly close to that of Democrats in the general public.

But Dean activists are far wealthier, better educated, more secular and much less ethnically diverse than other Democrats. A disproportionate number of Dean activists are white, well-educated Baby Boomers ­ fully a third are college graduates between the ages of 45 and 64, compared with just 9% of Democrats in the general public. But the image of younger Deaniacs as political newcomers has been borne out. For more than four-in-ten (42%) Dean activists ­ and two-thirds of those under age 30 ­ the Dean campaign represented their first foray into active presidential politics. And among those who were political veterans, a sizable number (36%) said they were more engaged this time than in previous campaigns.

The survey also finds that Dean’s supporters were not discouraged by his campaign’s demise or Kerry’s general election loss, but instead constitute an engaged group of citizens who intend to remain active in the Democratic Party and exert significant influence over its future direction. After Dean dropped out of the race, most worked hard on behalf of Kerry (66% donated money to Kerry) and virtually all of them (97%) voted for him. Half (51%) say that Bush’s reelection motivates them to be even more politically active in the future.

In many respects, Dean activists resemble other political activists on the left and right. They are more interested and engaged in politics, more ideological, and better educated than the average citizen or their fellow partisans. But they are distinctive in one key respect: As befits a campaign that largely established its identity on the internet, the Dean activists are highly internet-savvy; more than three-quarters (77%) said they go online several times per day and 83% have been using the internet for more than five years.²

Compared with Democrats in the general public, the Dean activists are much more liberal across a range of issues, more dissatisfied with President Bush and with the direction of the country. Their liberalism stands out even when compared with delegates to the 2004 Democratic convention, who themselves were significantly more liberal than rank-and-file Democrats. Roughly eight-in-ten Dean activists (82%) describe themselves as liberal, compared with 41% of the convention delegates and 27% of national Democrats.

The activists are critical of the Democratic Party in a number of respects. Most do not think the party has done well in standing up for its traditional constituencies or for liberal positions. Two-thirds (67%) want the party to change to better reflect liberal and progressive values. By contrast, a majority of members of the Democratic National Committee (52%) said in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey in February 2005 that they want the party to move in a moderate direction.

Most activists say a new third party would be a good thing, but voice little enthusiasm for actually abandoning the Democratic Party. The activists are divided about how progressive and liberal causes can best be advanced: 38% think the Democratic Party is best able to do this, but an equal number say privately funded advocacy groups are best (36%). Just 13% think a new political party is preferable. And most believe George Soros and other wealthy liberal philanthropists helped the party and progressive causes in general.

Dean activists were motivated by an intense disapproval of President Bush’s job performance (96% strongly disapproved) and by strong opinions on the issues, especially the war in Iraq. They also support gay marriage by more than ten-to-one (91%-8%); half of national Democrats (50%) oppose gay marriage. The activists were attracted to Howard Dean in large part because they believed that he would stand up to Bush and give voice to views widely considered unpopular. Many also believed that he was the best candidate to bring about change inside the Democratic Party.

The war in Iraq was not the only important issue in the activists’ decision to support Dean. One third (34%) said health care was important, and about one-fourth (24%) cited fiscal responsibility; both were issues Dean had championed as governor of Vermont.

Although nearly all Dean activists believe that the decision to invade Iraq was wrong, they are divided on the question of what to do now. Compared with national Democrats, the Dean supporters are actually more supportive of keeping troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized (44% said this, compared with 33% of Democrats in August 2004).

On other questions related to national security, there are far fewer hawks among the Dean activists than among Democrats nationally. Only about one-in-five Dean activists (19%) say military force is often or sometimes justified against countries that may seriously threaten the U.S. but have not yet attacked, compared with 44% of all Democrats. Just 21% of the activists (and 20% of Democrats nationally) would entirely rule out such preemptive military action.

In addition, the activists are much more supportive of giving strong consideration to the interests of U.S. allies than are Democrats generally. More than three-quarters of Dean activists (78%) say U.S. foreign policy should strongly take into account allied interests. A plurality of Democrats (49%) agree, with 38% backing a policy based mostly on U.S. national interests.

While the Dean campaign drew an amalgam of 1960s liberals and 21st century progressives, there are intriguing generational differences on the war and social issues. Those under age 30 tend to be much more supportive of gay rights, with 71% strongly favoring legalizing gay marriage (compared with 46% among those 50 and older). They also are much more apt to mention gay and lesbian issues as a key reason they joined the campaign (21% vs. 4%).

On military matters, the older activists who came of age in the 1960s are significantly less supportive of keeping troops in Iraq (34%, vs. 61% among the younger group), and less likely to say that the use of pre-
emptive military force is sometimes justifiable (13% vs. 31%).

Other Findings

Dean activists are heavy news consumers and rely on a wide array of sources ­ the web, newspapers, radio and, to a lesser extent, TV. Nearly as many say they regularly get news from the network and cable news websites as from the news broadcasts themselves. And 58% say they regularly listen to NPR, compared with just 16% of the general public.

The Dean campaign formed the basis for an extensive ­ and enduring ­ social network. Fully 71% of the activists say they met someone in person or online through the campaign, and 45% still keep in touch with a campaign contact. But most activists say they were drawn to the campaign because of politics and the issues, and not mainly by the prospect of forming relationships with people who shared their values.

The activists remain committed to the Democratic Party, even if some are reluctant supporters. They are clearly dissatisfied with party leaders: 80% of the activists say Democratic leaders supported the war in Iraq because they were afraid to stand up to the president.

Nine-in-ten Dean activists blame Dean’s loss in the primaries on “negative news coverage.” Many also pointed to perceptions that Dean was not electable (73%). While a third blamed Dean’s campaign performance, just 19% pointed to Dean’s policy stances as a reason he lost.

The activists overwhelmingly think of themselves as progressives (90%) and most describe themselves as patriots (80%). More than half (55%) call themselves fiscal conservatives.

Guide to the Report

The first section of this report, which begins on p. 7, covers the attitudes of Dean activists toward the Democratic Party and the future of progressive politics. Section II, which starts on p. 12, covers the activists’ feelings about the Dean campaign. Section III, which provides a detailed look at the activists’ internet activities and news consumption, begins on p. 20. And Section IV (p. 26) looks more closely at the activists’ political values and attitudes. A description of the study’s methodology begins on p. 31.

In September polls conducted by the Pew Research Center, 57% of those under age 30 say they are giving a lot of thought to the upcoming election. That compares with just 41% of young people who said they were thinking a lot about the election at this stage four years ago, and 44% in 1996. Older people, those age 30 and older, continue to express more interest in the election ­ more than seven-in-ten in each older age group say they are giving a great deal of thought to the election.

There also has been an across-the-board increase in interest in election news compared with four years ago, with the percentage of young people following this news very closely nearly tripling (from 10% to 27%). Even so, significantly fewer Americans under age 30 than older people track campaign news very closely.

The percentage of young people who say they are registered to vote also has increased significantly since 2000 ­ from 47% to 58%. The number who are registered is at the 1992 level (60%). And the number of young registered voters who say they plan to vote in November has reached 85%, up from 67% four years ago.

Youth Vote Fluctuates

Over the past month, young voters have displayed significantly more volatility in their candidate preference than most other groups in the population. In Pew’s most recent poll, President Bush leads John Kerry by a margin of 48% to 42% among registered voters 18-29. Just a week earlier, Kerry led by 53% to 35% among this group. And two polls earlier in September found the same pattern of shifting support. In fact, young voters have moved in the same direction as the overall trends in the polls, but their swings have been more extreme than the rest of population. In 2000, Gore and Bush ran about even among young people (Gore 48%, Bush 46%), according to exit polls by the Voter News Service.

Interestingly, more young voters than older voters express a candidate preference ­ just 4% of those under 30 voiced no preference in Pew polls conducted in September, compared with higher percentages in older age groups. Yet young voters, once having expressed a preference, also are far more likely than others to say they may change their mind before the election. Roughly a quarter of voters age 18-29 (24%) say they might shift their support before Election Day, the highest percentage of any age group.

In that regard, a relatively large proportion of young voters (42%) say the upcoming presidential debates will influence their voting decision. In older age groups, where far more voters say their minds are already made up, fewer than three-in-ten say the debates will matter in their voting decisions.

Young Log on for Election News

Since the 2000 campaign, the Internet has become a more important source of election news for all Americans, but young people continue to go online for election news at higher rates than do older Americans.

Nearly three-in-ten of those age 18-29 say they get most of their election news online, up from 22% in November 2000. That compares with 21% of those age 30-49, and smaller percentages of older people, who get most of their election news from the Internet.

The 2004 presidential campaign is continuing the long-term shift in how the public gets its election news. Television news remains dominant, but there has been further erosion in the audience for broadcast TV news. The Internet, a relatively minor source for campaign news in 2000, is now on par with such traditional outlets as public television broadcasts, Sunday morning news programs and the weekly news magazines. And young people, by far the hardest to reach segment of the political news audience, are abandoning mainstream sources of election news and increasingly citing alternative outlets, including comedy shows such as the Daily Show and Saturday Night Live, as their source for election news.

Today’s fractionalized media environment has taken the heaviest toll on local news, network TV news and newspapers. Four years ago, nearly half of Americans (48%) said they regularly learned something about the presidential campaign from local TV news, more than any other news category. Local TV still leads, but now 42% say they routinely learn about the campaign from local television news. Declines among nightly network news and newspapers ­ the other leading outlets in 2000 ­ have been even more pronounced (10 points network news, nine points newspapers).

The Pew Research Center’s new survey on campaign news and political communication, conducted among 1,506 adults Dec. 19-Jan. 4, shows that cable news networks like CNN and Fox News have achieved only modest gains since 2000 as a regular source for campaign news (38% now, 34% in 2000). But as a consequence of the slippage among other major news sources, cable now trails only local TV news as a regular source for campaign information. In several key demographic categories ­ young people, college graduates and wealthy Americans ­ cable is the leading source for election news.

In that regard, the relative gains for the Internet are especially notable. While 13% of Americans regularly learn something about the election from the Internet, up from 9% at this point in the 2000 campaign, another 20% say they sometimes get campaign news from the Internet (up from 15%).

The survey shows that young people, in particular, are turning away from traditional media sources for information about the campaign. Just 23% of Americans age 18-29 say they regularly learn something about the election from the nightly network news, down from 39% in 2000. There also have been somewhat smaller declines in the number of young people who learn about the campaign from local TV news (down 13%) and newspapers (down 9%).

Cable news networks are the most frequently cited source of campaign news for young people, but the Internet and comedy programs also are important conduits of election news for Americans under 30. One-in-five young people say they regularly get campaign news from the Internet, and about as many (21%) say the same about comedy shows such as Saturday Night Live and the Daily Show. For Americans under 30, these comedy shows are now mentioned almost as frequently as newspapers and evening network news programs as regular sources for election news.

But people who regularly learn about the election from entertainment programs ­ whether young or not ­ are poorly informed about campaign developments. In general, Americans show little awareness of campaign events and key aspects of the candidates’ backgrounds: About three-in-ten (31%) can correctly identify Wesley Clark as the Democratic candidate who had served as an Army general and 26% know Richard Gephardt is the candidate who had served as House majority leader. People who say they regularly learn about the campaign from entertainment programs are among the least likely to correctly answer these questions. In contrast, those who learn about the campaign on the Internet are considerably more knowledgeable than the average, even when their higher level of education is taken into account.

TV Still Dominates

While cable news and the Internet have become more important in informing Americans about the election, television as a whole remains the public’s main source of campaign news. When individual TV outlets are tested, 22% say they get most of their news from CNN, 20% cite Fox, and somewhat fewer cite local news or one of the network news broadcasts.

By this measure, newspapers, radio and Internet are viewed as secondary sources of campaign news. At this stage, the Internet remains a secondary source ­ even among Internet users. About three-quarters of Americans who use the Internet (76%) say television is their first or second main source for news about the campaign (37% cite newspapers, 20% the Internet). Still, the number of Americans overall who mention the Internet as a main source ­ as first or second mentions ­ has nearly doubled since 2000 (from 7% to 13%).

Bias Concerns Grow Among Democrats

The survey also finds that the nation’s deep political divisions are reflected in public views of campaign coverage. Overall, about as many Americans now say news organizations are biased in favor of one of the two parties as say there is no bias in election coverage (39% vs. 38%). This marks a major change from previous surveys taken since 1987. In 1987, 62% thought election coverage was free of partisan bias. That percentage has steadily declined to 53% in 1996, 48% in 2000, and 38% today.

Compared with 2000 a much larger number of Democrats believe that coverage of the campaign is tilted in favor of the Republicans (29% now, 19% in 2000). But Republicans continue to see more bias in campaign coverage than do Democrats. More than four-in-ten Republicans (42%) see news coverage of the campaign as biased in favor of Democrats; that compares with 37% in 2000. Among independents there also has been a significant decline in the percentage who say election news is free of bias (43% now, 51% then), though independents remain divided over whether the coverage favors Democrats or Republicans.

The survey finds that two-thirds of Americans (67%) prefer to get news from sources that have no particular political point of view, while a quarter favors news that reflects their political leanings. Independents stand out for their strong preference of news that contains no particular viewpoint (74% vs. 67% of Republicans and 60% of Democrats).

With the race for the Democratic nomination about to enter a critical phase, the campaign has yet to break out in terms of public interest. But attention is not notably lower than at a comparable point in the last presidential contest. Nearly half of Americans (46%) are following news about the nomination contest very (14%) or fairly (32%) closely; in January 2000, slightly more (53%) said they were following the campaign, but at that point there were nomination contests in both parties.

The survey also finds:

Political endorsements ­ whether made by politicians, celebrities or advocacy organizations ­ continue to have little impact on most Americans. Moreover, among the small number swayed by such endorsements, the effect is mostly mixed. On balance, endorsements by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Vice President Al Gore would have a somewhat negative impact, although most people say they would not be affected either way. An endorsement by a person’s priest or minister is a net positive, but 80% say such an endorsement would not matter (up from 70% in 2000). Newspaper endorsements are also less influential than four years ago, and dissuade as many Americans as they persuade.

Internet users rely on the web sites of major media outlets for campaign news, rather than Internet-based news operations. Among Americans who use the Internet, 40% say they regularly or sometimes learn about the campaign from the news pag
es of web portals like AOL and Yahoo.com, and 38% say the same about web sites of major news organizations like CNN and the New York Times. Just 11% regularly or sometimes learn about the campaign from online news magazines and opinion sites such as Slate.com.

Since 2000, there has been sharp decline in the percentage of Republicans who say they regularly learn about the campaign from daily newspapers, as well as local and nightly network TV news. And with the rise of Fox News the political profile of the campaign news audience has become more partisan. Fully twice as many Republicans as Democrats say they get most of their election news from Fox News (29% vs. 14%). Significantly more Democrats than Republicans get most of their election news from one of the three major networks (40% vs. 24%).

Campaign Interest and Familiarity

Most Americans are not familiar with the ins-and-outs of the campaign. Just a third say they have heard a lot about Al Gore’s endorsement of Howard Dean; another 36% have heard something about it. Even fewer (16%) have heard a lot about Dean’s widely reported comment about wanting to win the votes of “guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.” In fact, 59% say they have heard nothing about the controversy.

Public awareness of facts about the candidates’ backgrounds also is relatively low. Overall, 31% correctly identified Clark as the candidate who served as an Army general. At about this stage in the 2000 Democratic race, approximately the same percentage (30%) knew that Bill Bradley was a former senator. An overwhelming percentage of Clark supporters (91%) knew that the candidate was a former Army general.

Fewer Americans (26%) were able to identify Richard Gephardt as the former House majority leader. Even Gephardt supporters were not widely aware of this fact; just 36% knew that their candidate had been majority leader.

Older Americans are more knowledgeable about these facts than are younger people, and more men than women correctly answered these questions. Interestingly, nearly as many conservative Republicans as liberal Democrats have heard a lot about Gore’s endorsement of Dean (42%, 45% respectively). But liberal Democrats were far more likely to know about Clark’s background than any other ideological group.

Online Americans Knowledgeable

Where people turn for campaign information makes a big difference in what they know about the campaign. People who use the Internet, those who listen to National Public Radio, and readers of news magazines are the most knowledgeable about the campaign.

About six-in-ten of those who report regularly learning something about the campaign from these sources were able to correctly answer at least one of the two candidate identification questions, and a third or more can answer both. Daily newspaper readers, those who listen to talk radio, and those who watch public television or the Sunday morning political talk shows are nearly as knowledgeable.

By comparison, people who say they regularly learn from late night television, morning TV shows, local television, and comedy TV shows are the least informed. Among these groups, two-thirds or more were unable to answer either of the knowledge questions. Falling in between are viewers of cable news and talk shows, C-SPAN, TV news magazines, and network TV news.

The Internet and Campaign News

While 13% say they are getting most of their campaign news from the Internet, this is the highest figure ever recorded, and matches the 11% found among voters at the conclusion of the presidential campaign in November 2000. In November 2002, as the end of the midterm election campaign, just 7% of the public cited the Internet as a major source. And at a comparable point in the nominating process in 2000, only 6% cited the Internet.

These gains come not only because more people are going online now than in previous campaigns. Even among those going online, the percentage saying they are getting most of their campaign news there has nearly doubled (from 11% to 20%) since November 2002.

About one-in-five young people age 18-29 (21%) say they are getting their campaign news from the Internet, putting it within 10 points of newspapers (30%) among this group. There continues to be a gender gap in Internet use for campaign news, with more men (16%) than women (10%) citing it as a key source.

More people also say they are going online for the explicit purpose of getting news or information about the 2004 elections. Overall, 14% of all Americans ­ 22% of those who go online ­ turn to the Internet with the goal of informing themselves about the election. These figures are comparable to the numbers from the end of the election campaign in 2002. Levels of online news seeking are still below those seen in November 2000, but that was at the end of a presidential campaign.

Learning About the Campaign Online

Overall, the number of people who say they regularly or sometimes learn something about the campaign from the Internet has increased nine percentage points since January 2000, from 24% to 33% today.

In addition, people report learning about the campaign from a variety of specific Internet sources. Nearly three-in-ten (28%) say they regularly or sometimes learn from the web sites of major news organizations, and 27% say they learn from the news pages of the Internet service providers, such as Yahoo and AOL. Fewer than one-in-ten (8%) learn from online news magazines and opinion sites, such as Slate.com.

Relying on the Internet as a source of campaign information is strongly correlated with knowledge about the candidates and the campaign. This is more the case than for other types of media, even accounting for the fact that Internet users generally are better educated and more interested politically. And among young people under 30, use of the Internet to learn about the campaign has a greater impact on knowledge than does level of education.

Coming Across News Online

The key to learning from the Internet is active use. More people say they “come across” campaign news online (24%) than say they go online specifically for the purpose of learning about the campaign (14%); another 24% go online but say they do not encounter campaign news. This raises the question of whether inadvertent exposure to news while surfing can also help people learn about the campaign.

People who go online for the explicit purpose of obtaining election news are relatively well-informed about the campaign. On average, these people show familiarity with two of four campaign events or stories. That is more than twice the score of those who do not go online.

But those who say they simply come across campaign information when going online for other purposes are only slightly more knowledgeable than those who do not come across such news or even those who do not go online.

Internet as a Campaign Tool

For many Americans, the Internet is also becoming an important means of communicating about the campaign and participating in it. About one-in-five (18%) use the web for political activity of one sort or another (among those going online, 30% engage in some form of political activity). The most popular uses for the Internet are to get candidate issue information (11% of the public) and to send or receive emails about the campaign or candidates (11%). Smaller numbers seek information about local groups and activities, visit candidate or organization web sites, or engage in discussions, chats, or blogs.

People under age 30 are more active in using the Internet for campaign purposes, despite being generally less interested and
engaged in politics. About a quarter (24%) say they have taken part in at least one of six online activities, and 17% have engaged in two or more.

Dean and the Internet

Howard Dean’s campaign has effectively employed the Internet as a campaign tool, raising record amounts of money and sponsoring numerous local meetings of supporters. But the survey finds that Dean’s supporters are not vastly different from supporters of other Democratic candidates in terms of their online campaign activity.

Supporters of candidates other than Dean are just as likely as Dean backers to be Internet users. And both groups are about equally likely to say they are regularly learning about the campaign from the Internet. But Dean supporters are somewhat more likely to say they go online seeking news about the election (by a margin of 26% to 19%).

Comparable numbers of supporters of Dean and the other Democratic candidates say they have sent or received emails about the campaign (17% for Dean, 18% for the others), sought information about local campaign activities, engaged in online chats or blogs, or visited candidate web sites. More Dean supporters have visited the web sites of groups or organizations that promote candidates or positions.

Young People Leaving Traditional Sources

The increasing role of the Internet and comedy programming as a source of news for younger Americans comes as they continue to turn away from more traditional campaign news sources.

Four years ago, young people were far more likely to regularly learn about the campaign from network evening news (39%) than from the Internet (13%) or comedy programs (9%). Today, all three sources rate about equally in importance, as the percent citing network news as a regular source of campaign information has fallen from 39% to 23%. The Internet and comedy shows have become more widely used as information sources (about one-in-five cite each as a regular source of campaign news).

Overall, TV remains the main source of news for all generations, including younger Americans. While network and local news have fallen in importance among younger Americans, cable news has held its own, with 37% of 18-29 year-olds saying they regularly learn about the campaign from cable outlets. TV news magazines like 60 Minutes and 20/20 also have grown in importance among younger Americans. Today 26% of younger people cite TV news magazines as a regular source of political news, up from 18% in 2000.

While these changes in the campaign news environment are the most striking among younger Americans, many of the same patterns are apparent among older generations as well. The decline in the percent saying they regularly learn about the campaign from newspapers has been just as pronounced among those over 30 as among those in their teens and twenties. Since 2000, fewer people over 30 say they learn about the campaign from network news, though here the drop-off has been greater among younger people.

Moreover, an increasing percentage of Americans in their 30s and 40s also are turning to the Internet for campaign information ­ 16% regularly learn about candidates and the campaign from the Internet today, up from 10% in 2000. But the Internet remains a relatively minor campaign news source for people age 50 and older. Just 7% regularly learn about the campaign from the Internet today, compared with 6% four years ago.

Comedy Shows Matter

Comedy programs are increasingly becoming regular sources of news for younger Americans, and are beginning to rival mainstream news outlets within this generation. Today, 21% of people under age 30 say they regularly learn about the campaign and the candidates from comedy shows like Saturday Night Live and the Daily Show, twice as many as said this four years ago (9%). (Note: In January 2000, the show Politically Incorrect was listed with Saturday Night Live, rather than the Daily Show.) And this is particularly true for younger men, 27% of whom regularly learn about the campaign from comedy shows, compared with 14% of young women.

Overall, one out of every two young people (50%) say they at least sometimes learn about the campaign from comedy shows, nearly twice the rate among people age 30-49 (27%) and four times the rate among people age 50 and older (12%).

Young people also are much more likely than older generations to learn about the campaign from late-night talk shows like Jay Leno and David Letterman, though there has been no increase from four years ago on this measure. Taken together, 61% say they regularly or sometimes learn about the campaign from comedy and/or late-night talk shows.

For many young people, the content of the jokes, sketches and appearances on these programs is not just a repeat of old information. Respondents who said they regularly or sometimes learned about the campaign from these programs were asked if they ever learn things that they had not heard before, and nearly half said they had learned something new. Put another way, 27% of all respondents under age 30 say they learn things about the candidates and campaigns from late night and comedy programming that they did not know previously.

Age Gap in Knowledge, Interest

Younger Americans pay far less attention to the political campaign, have heard far less about major campaign events, and know little about the candidates themselves. Overall, more than six-in-ten of those under age 30 (64%) say they are not even somewhat interested in news about the Democratic primary campaigns while most people age 30 and over express some or a great deal of interest in the race. And roughly four-in-ten younger Americans have not heard about some publicized campaign events, such as Dean’s “pickup trucks” comment or Gore’s endorsement of Dean. Fewer than half as many people over age 30 display a similar lack of awareness of campaign events.

When it comes to knowing specifics about the candidates, the age disparity is even greater. Of two factual questions (which candidate served as an Army general and which served as majority leader in the House) just 15% of younger Americans could get either question correct (a mere 6% knew both). By comparison, 37% of people age 30-49, and half of people age 50 and older, could answer at least one of these questions.

This lack of interest and knowledge is related to younger peoples’ use of media sources. Far fewer say they learn from traditional news sources, such as network evening news, PBS, Sunday morning talk shows, newspapers or weekly news magazines. These sources are strongly related to knowledge and familiarity with the campaign.

And while many young people say they learn about the campaign from comedy and late night shows, the extent to which they actually gain much information is unclear. Holding constant a person’s education, interest, and use of other media sources, there is no evidence that people who say they learn about the campaigns from late night and comedy shows know any more about the candidates, and are at best only slightly more aware of major campaign events, than those who do not watch these programs.

While late night and comedy shows may not impart much campaign information, the other growing resource for campaign information among younger people ­ the Internet ­ proves to be one of the most powerful tools available. Even when the fact that Internet users tend to be more educated and engaged is taken into account, young people who say they regularly learn about candidates and the campaign online are much better informed about the campaign than those who do not go online for such news.

Interviews, Speeches and Debates

In general, appearances and speeches by the Democratic presidential candidates have resonated with the public more than the eight candidate debates that were held last year.

Just 20% of the public, and only a slightly greater percentage of likely Democratic primary voters (23%), saw any of the candidate debates. Far more people say they have seen the Democratic candidates interviewed on news or entertainment programs (46%) or have seen or heard part of a speech by the candidates on TV (42%).

Most of those who have seen one or more of the candidates interviewed on TV could not recall the specific program on which they appeared. Those who were able to do so mentioned a wide range of programs, including late night comedy and talk shows (10%), cable talk news shows such as Hardball (6%), network evening news programs (5%) and Sunday morning interview programs (5%). Overall, 23% of those who have seen a candidate interview or appearance cited a broadcast network program as the source, while 20% cited a cable network or program.

Interestingly, candidate speeches and appearances were not significantly more visible to Democrats than they were to Republicans, though there is some evidence that opposition to President Bush has encouraged some Democrats to pay more attention to the campaign.

Democrats who disapprove of the president’s job performance were far more likely to have seen or heard the candidates in various venues.

Campaign News Enthusiasts

While the majority of Americans are at most marginally engaged in the Democratic primary process, a small number keep close tabs on campaign news and events. These people have been following the campaign closely, enjoy keeping up with election politics, and are familiar with all of the election events and facts asked about on the survey. Overall, they represent roughly 7% of the population.

Campaign news enthusiasts are roughly three times more likely than those less engaged in the election to cite cable talk shows, Sunday morning talk shows, NPR, PBS news shows, and weekly news magazines as regular sources of information. Fully half of this core group (53%) saw at least some of the candidate debates held in 2003, compared with only 20% of Americans overall. And more than eight-in-ten have seen candidate interviews, appearances, and speeches on TV.

The Internet also stands out as a particularly important source for campaign news enthusiasts. Nearly half (46%) say they have sought out campaign news online, compared with 26% of people who are somewhat engaged in election news, and just 7% of people who are less interested. They are far more likely to go online for a wide range of campaign and candidate information, and to participate in online activities such as sharing e-mails, participating in discussion groups, and looking for information on local campaign activities. The political activity of this core group is not limited to the Internet, as these same people are the most likely to have made campaign contributions, joined political organizations, and contacted elected officials in the past 12 months.

More See Biased Campaign Coverage

While there has been no growth in general perceptions of media bias, the public is expressing more concern about partisan bias in coverage of the presidential race. Currently, just 38% say there is no bias in the way news organizations have been covering the presidential race, down from 48% four years ago. Majorities saw no bias in press coverage of the early stages of the 1988 and 1996 presidential campaigns.

The growing sense of biased campaign coverage crosses party lines, but is most notable among Democrats. Four years ago, most Democrats (53%) said there was no bias in news coverage of the campaign; today just 40% of Democrats take this position, and those who do see bias overwhelmingly see it as favoring the other party.

Republicans, too, are less apt to see campaign coverage as balanced today (33% say there is no bias, down from 41% four years ago).

Americans at either end of the ideological spectrum are the most likely to see campaign coverage as biased, but in precisely the opposite ways ­ by 47% to 8% conservative Republicans say the press leans toward the Democrats, not the Republicans, in its campaign coverage. By 36% to 11% liberal Democrats say coverage tilts to the Republicans.

In terms of media audiences, only people who get most of their campaign news from Fox News or from radio see a distinct bias in news coverage of the election, while Americans who get most of their news from CNN, network news, local TV, newspapers and the Internet are split evenly over whether press bias tilts to the Republicans or Democrats. People who get most of their news from network or local news programming are the least likely to see any bias in campaign coverage.

Overall Bias Perceptions Stable

A solid majority of Americans say they see a great deal (30%) or a fair amount (35%) of political bias in news coverage generally. In contrast with the growing perception of biased campaign coverage, this measure has not changed markedly since January 2000 when 67% saw at least a fair amount of political bias.

Conservative Republicans are significantly more likely to perceive the press as biased in its news coverage than are moderate and liberal Republicans, Democrats, and independents. This ideological difference is mirrored in the disparate opinions among audiences of different news sources.

People who get most of their news from the Fox News are much more likely to say the press shows a great deal of bias than are viewers of CNN, Network news, and local TV news. People who cite radio or the Internet as their main source of campaign news are also more likely to see widespread bias in the media.

Interestingly, younger generations express somewhat less concern about press bias than their elders. Barely one-in-five Americans under age 30 say they see a great deal of media bias in general news coverage, compared with roughly a third of those age 30 and over. More -well educated Americans also perceive the press to be more biased than those who never attended college.

Most Prefer News Without “Point of View”

Two-thirds of Americans (67%) say they prefer to get their news from sources that do not have a particular point of view, while a quarter (25%) say they prefer news from sources that share their political point of view.

There is no significant partisan disagreement on this issue ­ majorities of Democrats and Republicans share a preference for news sources that do not have a particular point of view and an even greater percentage of independents holds this opinion. Moreover, there are only modest differences among news audiences, although people who rely on the Internet are even more likely than those who use other sources to favor news without a particular point of view.

But there is a significant gap along racial lines. African Americans are more than twice as likely as whites (47% to 21%) to express a preference for “getting news from sources that share your political point of view.”

Endorsements a Minor Factor

Most Americans say candidate endorsements by major political figures, celebrities, well-known institutions and even their clergy would not have an impact ­ positive or negative ­ on their voting decisions.

Among 14 individuals and institutions tested, former President Bill Clinton had the biggest impact, but people were evenly divided whether Clinton’s endorsement would make them more or less likely to support a presidential candidate (19% each).

Among other political figures, Gore and Schwarzenegger’s endorsements are seen somewhat negatively, while Sen. John McCain’s is viewed, on balance, positively. But most people say they would not be affected one way or the other.

That is also generally the case for organizations like the Christian Coalition and the AFL-CIO. But among various demographic groups, endorsements from some of these groups does have an impact: 37% of white evangelical Protestants say they would be more likely to vote for a presidential candidate endorsed by the Christian Coalition, while about as many seculars (36%) say they would be less likely to back a candidate backed by that organization.

Men are divided over the effect of an endorsement by the National Rifle Association ­ 21% say they would be more likely to vote for an NRA-endorsed candidate, 18% less likely. But on balance, women view an NRA endorsement negatively (18% less likely vs. 9% more likely). Majorities of men and women say an endorsement by the National Rifle Association would not affect their vote.

More Americans used the Internet to get campaign information in 2002 than during the last midterm election four years ago. While much of this increase has come from the overall growth in the online population, a higher proportion of Internet users sought election news than did so four years ago (22% now, 15% in 1998). The Internet was a less important source for such news in 2002 than in 2000, but midterm elections typically engender less public interest than presidential contests.

Information on candidate positions on the issues was the top draw for online election news consumers. Nearly eight-in-ten (79%) said they researched where candidates stood on issues, up significantly from 69% in 2000. And more than four-in-ten election news consumers (45%) researched candidate voting records; that also represents an increase from 2000 and 1998. This is consistent with an overall increase in the number of Internet users who said they looked for information on specific issues like the environment and gun control.

The sites of major national and local news organizations continued to be the leading sources of online campaign information. Roughly half of online election news consumers (52%) said they went most often to the sites of major national media organizations such as CNN and the New York Times, while 18% cite websites of local news organizations. But specialized political and issue-oriented sites are becoming more popular. Three-in-ten online campaign news consumers said they went to such sites most often, compared with 19% in 2000.

The nationwide survey among 2,745 adults by the Pew Research Center and the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that the Internet was a principal source of campaign news for only about one-in-ten online users (11%) and just 7% of the general public. Among those who said they went online for election news, the Internet rivaled newspapers as a main source for campaign information (31% cited the former as a main source of election news, 33% the latter). But even among this group, television remained by far the leading source of election information, with half listing it as their main resource.

While the Internet has not made significant gains in recent years as a primary outlet of election news, it does serve as an important source for young people who go online. Among those under age 30 who go online, 16% said they got most of their election news from the Internet, far more than any other age group. For these young Internet users, the Web ranked with radio (15%) and slightly behind newspapers (22%) as a source of campaign information.

While the online audience for campaign news has grown over the past four years, those who went on the Internet for election news did so less frequently than in 1998 or 2000. Among the online audience for election news, 59% in 2002 said they went online at least weekly, compared with 65% in 1998 and 75% in the presidential election year of 2000.

Election News Audience: Largely Internet Veterans

The profile of online election news consumers continued to be dominated by upscale, veteran Internet users. Men more than women, whites more than minorities, highly educated more than less educated and the wealthy more than the poor went online for election news. But use by women and minorities is growing. In 1998, 61% of online election news users were men and 39% women. In 2002, that gap narrowed to 57% men and 43% women. In 1998, nine-in-ten election news consumers on the Internet were white, but that number slipped slightly to 84%. Minority representation among election news consumers rose from 9% in 1998 to 13% in 2002.

Although college graduates continued to constitute half of the online election news population, there was modest growth among the less educated, with non-college citizens representing 23% in 2002, up from 18% in 1998. A plurality of election news consumers (37%) had family incomes of $75,000 or above, a figure that increased 14 percentage points since 1998.

The age profile of online election news consumers has not changed substantially since the 1998 election. Just over a quarter (27%) were under age 30 (compared with 24% in 1998). People age 65 and older still constitute a tiny fraction of the online election news audience — 5% in 2002, 4% in 1998.

In general, Internet newcomers were less likely to go online for election news than those who have been online for several years. Just 7% of those who have been online for less than two years sought campaign news during 2002. By contrast, more than four times as many of those who have been online for at least six years (30%) went online for election news.

Convenience Remains Top Draw

Those who went online for campaign information were motivated both by the convenience of the Web and by the greater range and depth of information it provides. Nearly six-in-ten (57%) of those who got election news online said that convenience was an important reason for doing so. This is about the same percentage who cited convenience in 2000.

A sizable minority of online election news consumers (43%) said they went online because they could not get all the news and information they wanted from traditional news sources, up from 29% in the 2000 election (though lower than the 53% who said this back in 1996). Republicans were more likely than Democrats to cite this as a reason for seeking news on the Internet (50% vs. 36%).

The range of ideological perspectives on the Web is large, but very few online election news consumers said this is a major reason for them to turn to the internet. Fewer than one-in-ten (8%) said they went online for campaign news because the Web offers new sources that reflect their specific interests or values. Liberals and conservatives were no more likely than moderates to mention this as a reason to go online for election news.

State Races Draw Most Online Interest

As was the case in the midterm elections four years ago, statewide elections attracted the greatest interest from online news consumers. More than three-quarters (78%) said they got news about gubernatorial races online, and two-thirds (68%) went online for information about Senate races.

Nearly two-thirds (64%) went online to learn about House races, and 56% sought information on local races. Roughly four-in-ten election news consumers (44%) said they got information about ballot propositions. Among the online audience for election news, men and women displayed similar interest in all types of races except for local contests: women were 10 percentage points more likely than men to follow local races online.

This election year saw a sizable increase in the proportion of online election news consumers who sought information about candidates’ voting records and positions on issues. Roughly eight-in-ten (79%) looked for information about the candidates’ issue stances, and nearly half (45%) sought out information about their voting records. Both represented significant increases over 2000 (69% for issue positions and 33% for voting records).

Online polls were somewhat more popular in 2002 than in recent elections. Roughly four-in-ten election news consumers (39%) said they participated in such polls, compared with 35% in 2000 and 26% in 1998. Although just 10% of online news consumers said they participated in online discussions about politics, the rate among young people was almost twice as high (19%).

The growing number of voters seeking information about the candidates was mirrored in a sharp increase in Internet users who reported visiting websites that provide information about specific issues or policies such as the environment, gun control, abortion or health
care reform. Nearly a quarter of all Americans (24%) and 39% of Internet users said they visited such sites.

Young Internet users were more likely to seek out websites with specific policy information (45% among those 18-29), compared with those 50 and older (34%). Men and women did this in equal numbers. Better educated Internet users did this more commonly than the less educated, but even among Internet users with less education (those with a high school education or less), about a third visited a web site for this kind of information. Newcomers to the Web visited information sites at about half the rate of long-time Internet veterans.

Major News Sites Popular

Most election news consumers relied on well-known news organizations for information on the campaign. In 2002, nearly two-thirds (64%) of online election news consumers visited the sites of major media organizations like CNN and the New York Times, or local news organizations. This was a significant increase over 2000, when 55% went to these kinds of sites.

A little over half of online election news consumers (52%) went to the national news sites, while nearly 18% went to local news sites, up from 12% in 2000. These sites were even more popular during the 1998 campaign (29%).

About one-in-five (19%) election news consumers said they went most often to the news sites of AOL and other online services. That is a significant decline from recent years: in 2000 and 1998, more than a quarter of election news consumers relied mostly on these sites for campaign information (27%, 26%).

At the same time, more specialized political sites gained ground. Nearly a third of online election news consumers (32%) said they went most often to government and candidate websites or sites that specialize in politics, up from 19% in 2000. Within this category, state and local government websites are drawing more election news consumers: twice as many went to these sites as did so in 2000 (12% vs. 6%). But visits to candidate websites were up as well (11% vs. 7% in 2000), as were visits to issue-oriented sites (9% vs. 4%).

Active Consumers of Election News: A Closer Look

The most active consumers of campaign news — those who sought information on candidate positions and on how candidates voted — followed more races and went to more websites than did more casual consumers of such information. Four-in-ten election news consumers researched candidate positions and voting records in 2002, up from 30% in 2000, and their habits and interests are very different from others who got campaign news online.

Nearly three-in-ten (29%) of these “deep diggers” said they looked for information on all election races (governor, Senate, House, local races, and ballot propositions), and 79% followed at least three kinds of these races. Almost half (46%) cited the Internet as one of their most important sources of campaign information, compared with 31% of all election news consumers.

Voters who used the web to seek information about candidate voting records and positions on issues were especially likely to visit political websites. More than four-in-ten (44%) relied on these sites during the campaign, compared with 25% of those who engaged in one of those activities and 22% who did no research on issue positions or voting records. But these “deep diggers” were less likely than other election news consumers to rely on the news sites of commercial online services such as AOL (only 13% said they visited these sites).

Those who sought out candidate issue and voting information said they used the Web because they do not get all the information they want from traditional sources: 48% cited this reason. Convenience was important to these heavy users, too, but no more so than for other consumers of online election information.

Not surprisingly, active election information seekers reported very high levels of general interest in government and public affairs, apart from elections: 86% said they follow news on those subjects “most of the time,” compared with just half of the general public. In addition to getting campaign information, 68% also reported visiting websites about issues and policies of concern to them. Those who sought issue or voting information about candidates also made use of this information: twice as many who did this said the Internet helped them decide how to vote, compared with voters who were less active consumers of this kind of data (38% to 19%).

Few Party Differences, Except Online Polls

More Republicans than Democrats go online for election news (by a margin of 18% to 11%), but there are few notable differences between political partisans in what they do online. Democrats and Republicans generally look for the same kinds of information, donate money and engage in online discussions at the same rates.

But nearly half of Republicans who go online for election news (46%) said they like to register their opinions in online polls. By comparison, fewer than three-in-ten Democrats (28%) do this. With Republicans more likely to go online for election news and register their opinions in polls, the profile of those who take online surveys tilts heavily Republican. Half of those who said they like to take online polls were Republicans, while just one-in-five were Democrats.

But TV Still Dominates

The Internet remains a secondary source of campaign news for most of the public. Only 7% of Americans said they got most of their news from online sources, slightly below the 11% who said this after the presidential election in 2000. Instead, most voters still look to television as a principal source of campaign news: two-thirds did so in the 2002 elections, down only slightly from 2000, when 70% cited television. But the mix of specific television sources was different from 2000 because of the local and regional nature of the midterm elections. Over one-third (35%) cited local television as a primary source, up from 21% in 2000. By contrast, only 7% mentioned network news, down from 22% in 2000. Cable was also a less common source at 21%, down from 36% in the presidential election year.

Just a third of Americans said they got most of their news on the elections from newspapers. This was a six-point decline from 2000 (39%) and only about half the number who said they relied primarily on newspapers in 1996 (60%).

Campaign 2000 firmly established the Internet as a major source of election news and information. But as the audience for online campaign news has expanded — increasing fourfold over the past four years — it has gone more mainstream in its preferences and pursuits. A majority now cites convenience, not a desire to tap new or different information sources, as the main reason they go online for election news. Many more election news consumers gravitate to the online addresses of major news organizations and web portals than seek out specialized political sites or the candidates’ own sites.

Nearly one-in five Americans (18%) say they went online for election news during this year’s campaign, up from 4% who did so in the 1996 campaign. Fully one-third of the online population, which itself has grown dramatically over the past four years, got election news from the Internet. Veteran online users were far more likely to get election news than Internet “newbies”: 45% of those who have been online for at least three years used the Internet to access election information, compared to 17% of those who began going online in the past six months.

The Pew Research Center’s latest nationwide survey — conducted during October and November among 4,186 online users, in association with the Pew Internet & American Life Project — finds that election information draws more election news consumers than participation in online political activities. Nearly seven-in-ten of those who went online for election news sought out information on the candidates’ positions.

This information clearly had an impact: 43% of election news consumers say it affected their voting decisions, up from 31% in 1996. The effect of online campaign news has been particularly pronounced among young people. Fully half of online election news consumers under age 30 say the information they received made them want to vote for or against a particular candidate. Still, there has been no indication that the Internet is actually drawing more young people — or for that matter, more people of any age — into the political process. Controlling for other factors related to participation, Internet users are no more likely to be engaged in the political process, and show no greater propensity to vote than do non-users.¹

Convenience is the Internet’s main appeal as a campaign news source. More than half of those who went online for election news (56%) cited convenience as their main reason for doing so, up from 45% in 1996. During that campaign, when the Internet had yet to fully emerge as a news medium, a majority of election news consumers (53%) said they went online because they weren’t getting all the news they wanted from traditional media; just 29% cited that factor in the current survey.

The online audience for election news has shown less interest in engaging in other political activities than it has in accessing political information. But the Internet is beginning to affect the way candidates and voters interact. A sizable minority of those who went online for election news (35%) registered their views in Internet political polls, while 22% used email to contact candidates and 5% made campaign contributions over the Internet.

Online Use Spiked at Campaign’s End

On a day-to-day basis, interest in online campaign news peaked around Election Day. Fully 12% of Americans went online for political news on November 7, and 18% went online the day after the election — a more than fourfold increase in the normal traffic for political news. The continuing drama of the post-election story and its fast-moving pace kept people online for election news in the week following November 7. Between 11% and 15% of all Americans followed the story online on any given day during this period.

The current poll was conducted as part of a larger effort to track Internet use over time. The Pew Internet & American Life Project has been conducting a daily tracking poll almost continually since March 1, 2000, measuring online usage. The level of campaign news consumption remained remarkably stable from March through October; during this period, roughly 3% to 5% of Americans got campaign news online on a typical day. This pattern was not influenced dramatically by important primary contests in March, nor by the conventions or the fall debates.

The Internet audience is not only growing, it is getting decidedly mainstream. Two years ago, when just 23% of Americans were going online, stories about technology were the top news draw. Today, with 41% of adults using the Internet, the weather is the most popular online news attraction.

Increasingly people without college training, those with modest incomes, and women are joining the ranks of Internet users, who not long ago were largely well-educated, affluent men. Moreover, newcomers to the Internet go online much more often for personal reasons than do more experienced online users.

As a consequence, Internet news interests are changing markedly. The popularity of general interest subjects online — from weather patterns to entertainment news — is growing much faster than that of political or international news. According to the Pew Research Center’s nationwide telephone survey of 3,184 adults, the percentage of Americans who go online to access local, entertainment and weather news has grown substantially since 1996. And, while more voters used the Internet for election news and information in 1998 than two years earlier, the percentage of the online public that sought out election information actually diminished.

At the same time, the rate of consumer purchasing on the Internet is skyrocketing. Even before the Christmas rush, 32% of Internet users had bought something online, a leap from just 8% in 1995. If consumers grow more confident about the security of online commerce, this number may climb higher: 61% of Internet users who have not yet made an online purchase cite credit card security as a reason.

Similar growth can be seen in the popularity of email, which continues to be the top Internet draw and shows the same broadening trend. Email is used exclusively for work much less than it was in 1995 (12% vs. 31%). Today, among those who use email, 88% do so for personal reasons either exclusively (41%) or for both personal and work communications (47%). Many email users say they communicate more often with friends and family now that this technology is available.

But with everyday use, some of the mystique of email is fading. Among those who use email at work, the percentage who think that email leads to more frank communication between upper and lower ranks in the workplace fell to 36% in the current survey from 69% in 1995.

The broadening of the Internet population also casts doubt on suggestions that online activities are associated with social isolationism and interpersonal distrust and that the Internet attracts malcontents. The survey, which included 1,993 Internet users, found them to be as engaged — as likely to have visited a friend or family member or called someone just to talk yesterday — as people who don’t go online. Frequent Internet users are just as trusting of other people and the government as the average American, even when factors like age, education and income are taken into account.

News Use Varies

The November 1998 survey that is the principal basis for this report confirms a dramatic growth in online news consumption over the past several years. But Center surveys also find considerable variation in online news reading habits from month-to-month. For instance, while the November survey found 37% of Internet users saying they went online at least once a week to get the news, an April 1998 poll found 55% and a subsequent December survey logged 64%. These fluctuations may reflect differences in the news environment from month-to-month, or they may indicate that “getting the news” online is a somewhat ambiguous activity that blends, in people’s thinking, news consumption with other information-gathering activities.

The comprehensive November survey also provides a mixed answer to the question of whether increasing use of the Internet as a news source is leading to decreasing use of traditional news outlets. Three-in-four Internet news consumers (75%) say they get more of their news from traditional outlets, while only 11% say they are now using print and broadcast outlets less.

Further, the online population is more likely to read a newspaper daily than the offline public. But this is not an apples-to-apples comparison because Internet users tend to be more interested in the news than non-users.

When the media habits of users and non-users are contrasted taking their interest in politics and other demographic differences into account, the survey finds heavy Internet news consumers watching relatively less television news than their offline counterparts but reading newspapers and listening to radio news just as often.

The survey finds other indications supporting the idea that using the Internet may have a more negative impact on news viewing than news reading. First, Internet users most often go online for the kind of information featured by television news, especially by cable. Updates on stock quotes and sports scores (38%), weather, movies and other local information (39%), and news headlines (29%) are among the most often used features of Internet news sites.

Second, new online users increasingly come from lower and middle socio-economic groups which are heavier than average television watchers. New users are also disproportionately drawn from younger generations, who have primarily relied on TV rather than newspapers for their news.

The survey indicates, however, that both print and broadcast news may be able to cross-fertilize their audience with Internet news users. Fully 41% of those who go online say they turn to the Internet to get more information on stories first seen in the traditional media. Relatively few (21%) say they read stories online instead of getting them in newspapers or on TV.

The websites of national broadcast news organizations are more popular than newspaper sites. In fact, the current survey finds proportionately fewer online visitors to newspaper-sponsored sites than in 1996. Reports of using the MSNBC website increased the most over this period.

Generally, online audiences say they turn to news websites for three reasons: to get information that is unavailable elsewhere, for convenience and for the ability to search for news on a particular topic. Audio and video supplements are secondary, as is the ability to express opinions about news topics. This is true for both heavy and light news users.

The Internet news audience finds the websites of various news organizations no more or less accurate than the information found in those organizations’ traditional news outlets. However, more broadly, 44% of online users think that an accurate picture of what is going on in the world is more often found on the Internet than in daily newspapers or on network news broadcasts.

Campaign ’98 and the Internet

Traffic in Web-based election news was higher in 1998 than in 1996 (11 million people vs. 7 million) because the number of people with online access increased, not because politics and elections have become hot topics on the Internet. As a percentage of users, there was less use of the Internet for political purposes in the 1998 midterm elections. Just 15% reported going online for information about the elections, down from 22% in 1996.

This may be in part because midterm elections engender less interest than presidential contests. But the survey also suggests that new Internet users, who have lower socio-economic profiles and less political interest than longtime users, were not as inclined to use the Internet for election information.

Most people who did use the World Wide Web for political purposes rated their visits to various news and election sites as somewhat useful, with media sites getting slightly higher ratings than government or campaign sites. Three-in-ten people who went to a political website were seeking information about a candidate’s record, making that the top motivation for election news seekers. Fully 34% say their vote on Election Day was influenced by information they found on the Internet.

Slightly more Republicans than Democrats or Independents used the Internet for election information. Generally, Americans online are more politically active, more conservative and less supportive of Clinton than the rest of the population. However, a detailed look at their attitudes suggests that the Internet population tends to be somewhat more conservative on economic issues, but more liberal on social questions.

Other Findings:

Few Internet users experience information overload — and most (63%) say they spend neither too much nor too little time online.

Nearly one-fifth of Internet users get customized news reports and an equal number receive emailed news. Slightly more regularly get news stories online instead of from newspapers and TV.

Trying to find something on the Internet is the top source of frustration for users, followed by the speed of Internet connections and the speed of searches. And these complaints aren’t limited to beginners — experienced users express more frustration than new users in each of these areas.

Americans are not overly concerned about computers crashing in the Year 2000. Only 13% worry a lot that computer systems will fail next year.

The remainder of the report is divided into five sections. Section I outlines basic patterns of Internet use. Section II deals with online news consumption. Section III looks at how Americans used the Internet for the 1998 elections. Section IV explores the attitudes, beliefs and behaviors of Internet users. And Section V looks at Americans’ attitudes toward the Internet and technology. These sections are followed by several descriptive tables, a detailed methodology, a technical appendix and the complete questionnaire.