Fixated on the horse race

In the most thorough analysis to date of the ongoing media coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign, the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy on Monday released a study that described the mainstream political press as, in effect, a bunch of horse-race handicappers out of touch with the public’s demand for more insight into the candidates’ positions on the issues.

Although there were 17 “mainstream” Republicans and Democrats in the race during the first five months of the contest, the report found, the media effectively pretended there were only five candidates worth covering.

Sen. Barack Obama enjoyed the most “positive” press, and Sen. John McCain the most “negative,” in the view of the authors, due in part to the media’s focus on fundraising: Sen. Obama raised more than expected, while Sen. McCain raised less.

How shall the media defend themselves against this charge?

The “issues” that pundits fume over can be pretty ephemeral. (Which candidate neglected to wear an American-flag pin or place his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance?)

Meantime, it takes millions of dollars to win an election. If reporters focused on some obscure candidate solely because they were intrigued with the policy visions he spun from his rocking chair, readers might be shocked to wake up next November to find “Old Pops” had polled too few votes to matter, while someone they knew little about had actually won the presidency.

That said, however, it’s also time to plead substantially guilty.

The presidential campaign of Republican Rep. Ron Paul — a Texas obstetrician who ran in 1988 on the Libertarian ticket — announced last week his will be the first Republican presidential campaign to open a full-time office in Nevada.

Coverage of the Paul announcement mentioned that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims four full-time staffers in the state and may also open a headquarters.

Rep. Paul has been running local radio ads. He raised $5 million in the third quarter. All this was duly reported. Fine.

But how do Rep. Paul’s views on the legality of the war in Iraq contrast with those of the “front runners”? How do his views on socialized medicine and the actuarially insolvent Social Security and Medicare Ponzi schemes — and what to do about them — contrast with those of his rivals? How do voters respond to the fact Rep. Paul seems to be the only candidate talking about the role of the Federal Reserve in the ongoing devaluation of the dollar, which tends to erode savings while driving up the price of oil?

The authors of this week’s study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center would predict that TV viewers and even newspaper readers would have to dig pretty hard to find the answers to those questions. And they would be right.

We can do better.