Study shows media doesn't cover election like public wants- with actual issues

The Project for Excellence in Journalism has released a study showing that the media has focused ridiculous amounts of coverage (something like 60%) on election tactics, strategies and fund-raising and largely neglecting the issues (15%) even though most Americans, according to a Pew Center poll, say they want more coverage of ideas and content.

It's interesting and I think a reaction to 24 hour news mentality of news organizations. Rather than cover the boring ideas, or even the personalities, of the candidates they focus on the flashy pseudo-opinion style pieces. To me this means that for every ten articles about the election, odds are only 1 and a 1/2 are relevant information to the public. People would have to be very informed, constantly plugged in to news, to be able to learn about all the positions of all the candidates.

The report also shows that the election has focused on 5 main candidates largely neglecting the rest. Obviously they will justify it by popularity but the truth is that candidates like Roon paul have become hugely popular outside the confines of mainstream media so obviously some of what they are saying resonates with people (the irony of this now being that the only time he gets mention is in stories about how popular he is outside the mainstream media).

To me this seems not only to be a matter of bias, but a result of laziness, taking the easy angle. Looking any candidate name up on Google News will leave you with groupings of up to 200 similarly angled stories. Why is it that these appeal to the mainstream media? Aren't there other possibilities for stories? Is it just cheaper to do analysis where you grab a couple quotes and then spout some generic wisdom? I mean, seriously, how many articles must mention John Edwards haircut but don't mention his stance on drug companies or the war? Which is more telling and which is more important?

The "alternative" media has done a better job.