The 2004 presidential election is a perfect occasion for U.S. news organizations to invigorate.

Mario Canseco

In the year that brought wall-to-wall coverage of the Iraqi conflict and unprecedented world attention to a gubernatorial race, it would be easy to assume that Americans are satisfied with their news media. Recent surveys indicate that the audience is questioning accuracy, credibility and parity more than ever before.

A survey conducted last month by Gallup might act as an eye opener for news organizations in the United States. 54 per cent of respondents say they have trust and confidence in their media to report fully, accurately and fairly. The numbers for this particular topic have been stable over the last 10 years, but fall well below the April 1974 high of 69 per cent, right before a president was forced to resign over the Watergate scandal.

From the moment Richard Nixon boarded the helicopter on the White House lawn for the last time, investigative techniques were used—and sometimes overused—to get to the bottom of issues. The advent of the 24-hour news cycle in the 1980s, and online presence in the 1990s assured immediate supply for content.

Then came 9/11. Uninterrupted images and testimonies consumed newsrooms for days. Editors and reporters are still quick to point out that outlets were at their best in those tragic days of September 2001. The public does not seem to agree. Only 14 per cent of respondents to a Harris Interactive poll in July believed the media has matured as a result of the terrorist attacks.

Last March, the coalition effort in Iraq became the most heavily described conflict in history. Embedded journalists filed their reports from secret locations, and cameras mounted all over Baghdad showed just what "shock and awe" meant. In the early days of the war, 58 per cent of respondents to a Pew Research Center for the People and Press survey said coverage of the war was "frightening." The long broadcasts ended exactly six months ago, with the toppling of a Saddam Hussein statue.

The war provided a story that polarized views on war reporting. The rescue of private Jessica Lynch made the front pages of several American newspapers, as tales of her improbable survival after being stabbed and shot circled their way around the globe. When doctors in Germany examined the soldier, her injuries—although momentous—were completely different than first reported. An ensuing British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) documentary questioned the truth behind the private's rescue, and was branded as "ridiculous" by the Pentagon.

A month after Lynch's rescue, 62 per cent of respondents to a Gallup poll said media stories are often inaccurate. The numbers are only three per cent away from the lowest point since the company began asking this question. The smallest measure of credibility occurred in December 2000—in the middle of the Florida recount—after news organizations flip-flopped over what candidate would eventually become the country's next president.

Media outlets have also been hit with problems away from the Persian Gulf. The deceptive practices of Jayson Blair in the New York Times brought shame to a highly respected daily. Athletes, like former basketball star Charles Barkley, were taking the place of commentators on CNN. Conversely, pundits were talking sports. Rush Limbaugh's brief foray as a football analyst for ESPN came to an end a few days ago.

Last but not least is the question of parity. 59 per cent of respondents to the latest Gallup survey said the media is slanted, either too Liberal or too Conservative for their taste.

American media outlets can stop these numbers from dropping further. There is no better opportunity than the 2004 presidential election. The contest provides a perfect showcase for balance in coverage, accuracy in reporting—especially when assessing exit polls and calling states for a candidate—and a fair inclusion of ideas and statements.

Archive Search

Search the Angus Reid Global Monitor Politics In Depth archive.