WASHINGTON
Here's a classic example of the kind of thing that drives Al Gore to distraction.
A former reporter, Gore is making the classic politician's goof in thinking that what appears in print or on the air has any significant bearing on whether he does or doesn't get elected president.
Nearly two months ago, at the dawn of the current media fad - to wit, that having ''surged'' ahead in the polls, George W. Bush is doing all the right things while the vice president is floundering - there was considerable press attention on a respected survey of registered citizens in Michigan, a critical battleground state.
It showed Bush and Gore tied 42-42 percent, with trends behind the overall numbers indicating clear movement toward the Texas governor among major segments of the state's electorate, especially independents and relatively conservative Democrats who live in the suburbs.
Even more press attention then focused on a second Michigan survey a month later, which showed Bush perhaps moving into the lead (45-42 percent, or within the survey's error margin) as those suburb-related demographic trends appeared to gather a little steam.
From Gore's frustrated perspective, the plaintive question is why the first set of trends was a big story but the second barely rated a hiccup, even in Michigan. The first was a key element of negative assessments of the vice president's campaign; the second has hardly produced any press comment that it might signal a turnaround in core Democratic as well as swing voter sentiment about the two candidates, at least in a state the Democrats have to carry and the Republicans would dearly love to steal.
The real question, however, is why should Gore give two hoots what anybody else says outside the people his campaign pays to have informed opinions.
The answer, from all I can gather, goes to one of the few important manifestations of Gore's having spent his childhood school terms living here with his chronically political family in a hotel. He has this notion - rather odd among modern politicians - that what appears in the paper or on the air is worthy of his time and, worse, his analysis and reaction - often his rather intense reaction.
Gore is not a complainer, not prone to whine at reporters, editors, or columnists about what they say or write. Instead, he tends to react intensely internally - hence the distraction. His top people are known, as a result, to have meetings about particular stories that are in the works. Gore tends to badger top advisers about particular slights, wasting his and their time in bull sessions about the mystical rhythms of press coverage.
Among the politicians who have noticed this fixation is President Clinton, from whom Gore could learn a thing or two. Bill Clinton is a success in part because he approaches the world of the media with no illusions or expectations. For example, he learned during the impeachment ordeal that ''all Monica, all the time'' had absolutely nothing to do with public opinion as it unfolded over the long year.
Governor George W. Bush of Texas is similarly unencumbered by press concerns and illusions. His roller coaster ride so far provides all the evidence he needs. All the adoring initial press exposure a candidate could want last summer and fall had no impact on John McCain's ability to gain traction with voters and come fairly close to upsetting him.
And all the negative press that Bush got as the campaign heated up from just before the New Hampshire primary through Super Tuesday had absolutely nothing to do with his ability to beat back McCain's challenge. From his personal life to his mental acuity to his chances of victory, the governor evinces a healthy ''whatever will be will be'' attitude.
Not so the only former reporter in the race. His latest reaction - to a Washington Post editorial taking a neutral position on Bush's latest attempt to fill in some of the huge gaps that remain in his position on defense - produced a flurry of activity reflecting Gore's frustration but accomplishing nothing else.
What is odd about Gore's press preoccupation is that as a candidate he tends to stiff the reporters covering him, though his accessibility has improved lately. It's as if he has the discipline to ration access but not to control his fixation on how he is covered.
The truth is that the tenor of press coverage and commentary has very little to do with how a candidate fares in presidential politics. Research primarily shows that what media groupies call ''buzz'' may have commercial value, but the increasing focus on style and horse race aspects of politics has caused most people to take press coverage more as infotainment than as information.
The sooner Gore realizes this, the better he'll do on the trail.
Thomas Oliphant is a Globe columnist.
