Journalists Surveyed About Themselves p.

By: Debra Gersh

Times Mirror-sponsored survey polls them on their
perceptions of the presidential campaign coverage sp.

As the presidential primaries began to wind down in May 1992, 50% of journalists surveyed said that their effect on the campaign had been neutral. By October, more than half (55%) said the coverage of President Bush had damaged his campaign.
Further, only 11% of those surveyed in October said President-elect Bill Clinton's campaign had been hurt by the coverage, compared with 36% who said media coverage helped him win the election. Three percent felt President Bush was helped by the media, according to a survey of 250 senior media professionals by the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press.
"Although the conclusions about who was helped and who was hurt changed over the course of the year, both surveys found journalists lauding press coverage generally, despite their widespread belief that the coverage was having a negative impact on one of the campaigns," according to the report, which discovered "a widespread view within the media community that the press bore no responsibility for the impact of its campaign coverage."
In May, only 24% of media respondents said Bush's campaign had been hurt by press coverage. That number jumped to 55% by election time. Also, in May, 22% said they thought the coverage was helping Bush, while in October, only 3% responded similarly.
Talk show hosts, who were included only in the October survey, were especially critical of the press's impact on the candidacy, with 74% saying the coverage hurt Bush's campaign.
When asked why they thought the coverage hurt Bush, answers from the media professionals surveyed included the Bush record (38%), that the focus on the economy made Bush look bad (23%), that the press was biased against Bush (16%), and that the press was biased toward Clinton (14%).
Impressions about the impact of press coverage on the Clinton campaign also increased between the May and October surveys.
In May, 64% of respondents said they thought the press coverage was hurting the Clinton campaign, compared with 11% in October.
Those who thought the coverage helped Clinton rose from 13% to 36%, and respondents who said the effect was neutral increased from 12% to 49%.
Further, as the talk show hosts said coverage hurt Bush, 52% said it helped Clinton, while 35% said it was neutral.
Of those who thought coverage helped Clinton, 29% said it was because the press was biased toward him, while 23% thought it was because Clinton ran a good campaign.
Interestingly, among a subgroup of top editors surveyed, only 13% of those who said coverage helped Clinton cited press bias as the reason. Most (40%) said it was because Clinton ran a good campaign.
Among those who thought the coverage hurt Clinton, 69% cited the extensive focus on character issues. Print respondents with the same answer numbered 77%, while only 58% of tv people answered similarly.
Television respondents differed from their colleagues in other media when it came to other reasons Clinton's campaign was hurt by the press.
While 17% of the total said the campaign was hurt because the press reported just the facts about Clinton, only 8% of tv professionals cited that as a reason. Twenty-four percent of print people fall into that category.
In addition, those who said it was due to questions about his veracity/trust totaled 14%, 18% of print, but only 8% of television people agreed with that statement.
A full quarter (25%) of television professionals said the Clinton campaign was hurt by the coverage because the press is critical-adversarial. Only 6% of their print colleagues agreed, as did 14% of the total.
According to those surveyed, the events with the greatest impact on the presidential election were Ross Perot (28%) and the debates (22%). Print respondents had similar responses, with 17% citing the debates and 31% mentioning Perot.
Eighty percent of all respondents said press coverage was excellent (10%) or good (70%), while 16% said it was fair and 2% rated it poor.
Respondents also were asked about the quality of coverage of certain issues. While most of the media professionals said coverage was at least good, the talk show hosts were more critical than others.
For example, when asked how the press did in its coverage of Clinton's Vietnam draft status, 63% of the print people said it was very good, as did 50% of the top bosses. Only 35% of talk show hosts said it was good, while 22% rated it poor.
Similarly, when asked about coverage of the economy, 26% of the print respondents said it was excellent, but none of the talk show hosts agreed. On the flipside, while only 2% of print people said coverage of the economy was poor, 26% of the talk show hosts rated it such.
Disparity was seen again when they were asked about coverage of the Murphy Brown issue. Here, however, it was print that differed.
Only 8% of print professionals surveyed thought coverage of the Murphy Brown flap was excellent, compared with 14% for tv and 31% of talk show hosts.
Print people surveyed mostly thought coverage there was good (37%) or only fair (36%).
Talk show hosts also were harsher when it came to rating coverage of candidates' positions on the issues.
Only 4% of talk show hosts said coverage of that was excellent, compared with 16% of print and 25% of the "powers that be."
More talk show hosts rated coverage of positions good (44%) or only fair (43%). Most others surveyed rated it good.
Respondents were pretty consistent in grading coverage of George Bush and Iran-contra only fair (48% total) or poor (23%).
Seventy-seven percent of all respondents said campaign commercials have a positive effect on the campaign process. When respondents are broken out by media, more print people (81%) see a positive effect of the commercials than tv (74%).
When asked about the impact of talk shows on the campaign process, 68% said the increased importance of such programs had a positive effect, while 19% thought it was negative.
Sixty-five percent of talk show hosts said such programs had a positive impact, while 26% said it was negative. The breakout for print respondents was similar, with 62% citing a positive impact and 23% saying it was negative.
When it came to assessing media coverage of media coverage, however, the talk show hosts once again were more critical than the others.
Sixty percent of all respondents said media coverage of themselves had a positive impact on the campaign (69% of print), but only 39% of talk show hosts agreed.
Most of the talk show hosts said media coverage of media coverage had neither positive nor negative impact (22%) or a negative impact (also 22%). Only 9% of the print respondents thought the impact was negative, and 5% said it was neither negative nor positive.
When it came to media-sponsored polling, the talk show hosts again were more critical of the effect, with 74% saying those polls had a negative effect on campaign coverage. Eighteen percent said it was positive, and 4% said neither.
On the other hand, 41% of total respondents and 45% of print professionals said media-sponsored polling had a positive impact, as did 42% of the top bosses.
Thirty-six percent of the total respondents thought such polling had a negative effect, and 12% said the effect was neither negative nor positive.
Among the print journalists, 35% thought those polls had a negative effect, and 11% said they were neither negative nor positive.
Hindsight may be 20/20, but the closer it is to an election the better able the media are to pick a winner.
In May 1992, only 13% of all respondents thought Clinton had an excellent (1%) or good chance to win the presidency. At that time, 52% said his chances were only fair, and 32% thought they were poor.
By October, however, as the election loomed, 56% of all respondents gave Clinton an excellent chance of winning, with 39% betting the chances were good. Only 3% said Clinton stood only a fair chance of winning, and none rated it as poor.