Economic News Still Closely Read p.

By: Debra Gersh

Latest Times Mirror survey shows military in Somalia was most
closely followed news story, but economic news is still popular sp.

THE DEPLOYMENT OF U.S. forces to Somalia was the most closely followed news story early this year, although those who watched the live reports of the first beach landing were critical of the media presence.
Just over half (51%) of respondents surveyed in early January for the latest Times Mirror News Interest Index cited the U.S. armed forces' presence in Somalia as the most important news event over the past four weeks. Nearly nine out of 10 of them said they followed that story very (52%) or fairly (37%) closely.
Sixty-four percent of respondents watched live television coverage of Marines landing on the beach in Somalia, but 62% of those who tuned in said there was too much coverage. Only 3% said there was too little coverage, while 32% said the amount was just right.
Among respondents who said there was too much coverage, 67% blamed the press. The military shouldered the blame from 19%, and 14% could not say who was responsible.
The U.S. economy is still a closely followed issue, according to the January 1993 news interest survey conducted by the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press in Washington, D.C.
Those who follow reports about the economy very closely (42%) or fairly closely (39%) have remained relatively constant over the past year. In the January 1992 survey, for example, those numbers were 44% who followed very closely, and 40% who watched the story fairly closely.
After those two issues, however, the numbers fall dramatically.
Third on the interest scale is the agreement by the U.S. and Russia to reduce their nuclear arsenals, but only 26% of respondents followed that story very closely, with 41% following fairly closely.
Less than a quarter (24%) very closely followed President-elect Bill Clinton's Cabinet selections; 34% followed the story fairly closely.
When asked later in the survey to recall the name of any appointee to the Cabinet or other high-level administration post, 79% of respondents could not do so. Conversely, 72% could name at least one major U.S. corporation that recently announced massive layoffs.
Over half of the respondents very closely (23%) or fairly closely (32%) followed the news about President George Bush's pardons of Caspar Weinberger and others involved in the Iran- contra affair.
Despite the tabloids, few people said they cared about the breakup of the marriage of England's Prince Charles and Princess Diana.
Only about a third of respondents said they very closely (11%) or fairly closely (21%) followed that story, with 35% reporting they did not follow the story at all closely, and 33% saying they followed the Charles and Diana story not too closely.
Other news from across the sea also attracted little interest from Americans.
Thirty-five percent of respondents said they did not closely follow news about the attacks on foreigners in Germany by neo-Nazis, while 33% responded similarly about Israel's expulsion of 400 Moslem fundamentalists.
The story in Germany was followed very closely by 13%, while the news from Israel was very closely watched by only 10% of respondents.
Most of the respondents rated press coverage of the issue they followed most closely as good, not excellent.
Just under half (48%) said that coverage of U.S. forces in Somalia had been good. Thirty percent rated it excellent, 14% only fair, and 7% poor.
Of those who closely followed news of the economy, 45% said that the coverage of that issue was good, although only 9% said it was excellent. Thirty-four percent rated it only fair, and 9% said it was poor.
Sixty-one percent of those who showed an interest in the story of the nuclear agreement between the U.S. and Russia thought that coverage was good, while 16% said it was excellent, 17% cited it only fair, and 3% said it was poor.
Among respondents who closely watched news of President-elect Clinton's economic conference, 61% rated that coverage good, 16% said it was excellent, 20% said it was only fair, and a small 2% said the coverage was poor.
Fifty-eight percent of the newshounds following the story of Cabinet appointments said coverage of the issue was good, 14% rated it excellent, 23% said it was only fair, and 3% said it was poor.
Coverage of the civil war in Bosnia was rated good by 51% of those who closely followed that issue. Eleven percent of those respondents said it was excellent, 26% said it was only fair, and 8% said it was poor.
When asked to name up to two sources for their international and national news, 83% of respondents cited television.
Newspapers were second with 52%, radio a distant third at 17%, and only 5% cited magazines.
When further quizzed about current events, however, the Times Mirror Center found that respondents who used print only or a combination of print and television for their news scored significantly higher than those who relied solely on television.
For example, while the percentages of those who could name at least one Clinton Cabinet or administration nominee were disgracefully low across the board, 29% of those who relied solely on print media for news could name at least one person nominated, while only 16% of those who only watch tv could do the same. Twenty-four percent of respondents who said they both read and watch their news could name a nominee.