Poll: Players in Clinton/Lewinsky Story Were
Covered Fairly But Public Has Clear Ideas About
How Coverage Could Have Been Improved
NEW YORK, April 14 /PRNewswire/ -- Most Americans believe that news media coverage of President Clinton, Monica
Lewinsky, Kenneth Starr and other principals in the Clinton/Lewinsky story was basically fair, according to a Media Studies
Center poll conducted March 8-22, 1999. At the same time, the public has clear ideas about how coverage of the story could
have been improved.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans (63%) rated coverage of President Clinton as basically fair, similar to the percentages who
said that coverage of Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp and Hillary Clinton was fair (63%, 67% and 69% respectively). More
than two-thirds of the country also felt that both the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress had been covered fairly (73%
and 67% respectively).
Three-fifths of the public (61%) felt that coverage of Kenneth Starr was fair. Most people (59%) also perceived coverage of
Chelsea Clinton as basically fair, although one person in five (21%) felt that coverage of Chelsea was ''very unfair,'' the highest
such percentage received.
''The public is not without its criticisms of the coverage of the Clinton/Lewinsky story, but lack of fairness is not among them,''
said Robert Giles, executive director of the Media Studies Center. ''As far as the public is concerned, the news media did not
play favorites in its scrutiny of the major players in this story.''
But the public also sent a clear message to the media that less would have been more insofar as coverage of the
Clinton/Lewinsky story was concerned. In response to a series of questions that asked people how they would have covered
the story had they been in charge, the public offered the following recommendations.
First, they would have backed off from the saturation level coverage that typified this story. More than eight people out of 10
(86%) said they would have reported on the Clinton/Lewinsky story only when there was a new development in the story,
rather than reporting on the story every single day.
Second, they would have toned down the sexual content of the story. Nearly three-quarters of the respondents (73%) said
they would have included ''fewer references to sex'' if they had been in charge of coverage.
Third, they would have stuck more to the big picture, rather than getting caught up in minutiae. Six people in 10 (60%) said
that fewer details about the story would have sufficed.
Public concern about the excessiveness of Clinton/Lewinsky coverage may help to explain another finding of the survey,
namely, a marked decline in overall public satisfaction with the coverage of the story which occurred between January and
March.
While more than half of the country (55%) rated coverage of the Clinton/Lewinsky story as either ''excellent'' or ''good'' in
January (at the midpoint of the Senate impeachment trial), just 40 percent gave the media such ratings in March. (This is only
slightly higher than the 36% mark received by the news media at the end of January 1998, just after the story broke.)
This decline in public opinion came during a period which featured several high profile media events related to the
Clinton/Lewinsky story: the airing of the Juanita Broaddrick interview on NBC (February 24), the Monica Lewinsky interview
with Barbara Walters on ABC (March 3) and the release of books by both Lewinsky and George Stephanopolous.
''This decline in public opinion about the coverage of the Clinton/Lewinsky story is probably due to a combination of public
weariness of the story and the not unreasonable expectation that the story would reach closure at the end of the impeachment
trial,'' said Larry McGill, research director of the Media Studies Center. ''As we now know, it did not.''
As of late March, just four percent of the country said they were still ''very interested'' in the Clinton/Lewinsky story, while
more than half of the public (59%) said they were ''not at all interested'' in the story. By comparison, 19 percent said they
were very interested in the Kosovo story (this was before the NATO airstrikes began on March 24), 34 percent were very
interested in the Y2K story and 68 percent said they were very interested in news about the debate over the future of social
security.
Other findings from the survey:
-- The public expressed some skepticism regarding NBC's motives for
delaying the airing of the Juanita Broaddrick interview, which was
conducted in January but did not air until February 24. NBC said they
delayed the interview in order to make sure that the report was
complete and accurate before putting it on air. However, a plurality
of the public (43%) said they thought NBC delayed broadcasting the
interview for political reasons versus 40 percent who believed that
NBC was simply dotting all its i's and crossing all its t's before
airing the interview. One person in six (17%) said they weren't sure
what to believe.
-- Having now witnessed an impeachment trial, the country still believes
in the impeachment process. Eight people in 10 (84%) agreed that the
impeachment provision in our Constitution is basically a good idea.
Two-thirds of the country (65%) also agreed that news media coverage
of the Senate impeachment trial provided important insights into how
our government works.
-- The president is considered to be about as believable as Geraldo
Rivera. Among those respondents who were familiar enough with Geraldo
Rivera to rate him on a believability scale (representing 90 percent
of the total sample), more than half (58%) rated him as either "very"
or "somewhat" believeable. A similar number, 55 percent, gave such
ratings to President Bill Clinton. Perhaps this finding is not so
surprising, given Geraldo's spirited defense of the president on CNBC
over the past year.
Of the 10 people we asked the public to rate in terms of believability, the two they found most believable were journalists Tom
Brokaw and Sam Donaldson. More than 90 percent of those who could rate either Brokaw or Donaldson found them to be
''very'' or ''somewhat'' believable (96% and 92% respectively).
Linda Tripp ranked last in terms of believability. Of those who could give her a rating, just 31 percent found her ''very'' or
''somewhat believable,'' while 47 percent found her ''not at all believable.''
How believable is that person? *
(Among those who could rate each person)
Pct. who were
able to rate Very Somewhat Not Very Not at All
each person
Tom Brokaw 91 43 53 3 1
Sam Donaldson 76 30 62 5 3
Larry King 84 14 65 12 9
Juanita Broaddrick 25 16 48 13 23
Chris Mathews 23 14 66 13 7
Don Imus 30 10 50 23 17
Geraldo Rivera 90 9 49 21 21
Bill Clinton 99 8 47 21 23
Monica Lewinsky 99 4 40 25 31
Linda Tripp 88 5 26 23 46
* Note: Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.
The Media Studies Center survey, involving telephone interviews with a random national sample of 1,001 American adults,
was conducted by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut between Monday, March 8
and Monday, March 22, 1999. The sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The survey was conducted for The Freedom Forum's Free Press/Fair Press project. Launched in 1998, Free Press/Fair Press
is a multimillion-dollar project that documents and analyzes public concerns about the way journalists do their jobs, while also
seeking a better understanding of the role and responsibilities of a free and fair press.
The Media Studies Center, an operating program of The Freedom Forum since 1985, is devoted to improving understanding
between the media and the public. Center programs bring journalists, scholars, media executives and the public together to
examine the media's effects on society. |
