he media analyst Andrew Tyndall says the uninspiring 2000 presidential race should get the journalism it deserves.
''If they're reporting on it accurately, they shouldn't report it as a battle of ideas, because it's not,'' he said.
By any number of measures, from surveys of citizens to the TV ratings for the GOP convention, voters seem distinctly unmoved, and in some cases, woefully undereducated, about a race that Newsweek says looks to be ''at first glance ... a low-stakes affair pitting the gregarious chairman of the Inter-Fraternity Council against the earnest president of the Science Club.''
One scenario between now and Election Day is a tactical war between Al Gore and George W. Bush, which triggers ''horse-race'' journalism about polls and name-calling that further alienates the electorate.
Yet a number of observers offer an optimistic counterview. They suggest that if Gore emerges from Los Angeles having turned the race into a tight one, as is expected, the media will have a serious chance to play a pivotal role in a hotly contested election, one in which journalists help reengage the electorate in the final campaign stretch.
''In my opinion, we have a greater opportunity to have an issue-oriented campaign than we've had in many years,'' said Larry McGill, Freedom Forum research director. ''This is a wonderful opportunity for journalism to rise to the occasion.''
There is not now evidence to suggest that the 2000 campaign has been journalism's shining hour. The media, and the candidates themselves, have not captured public interest, and the reduced network TV convention coverage is one symptom of a wider malaise.
In late July, a Pew Research Center survey found that only a quarter of the voters knew much about what the two major candidates stood for. The aptly named Vanishing Voter Project at Harvard University's Joan Shorenstein Center, which has tracked the high level of voter apathy, found that only days before the Republican convention, more than three-quarters of those surveyed didn't know when it was taking place.
Not surprisingly, some early surveys also tracked the media's preference for strategy over substance. A Project for Excellence in Journalism study in the runup to the early primaries found that 54 percent of the 430 stories examined had dealt with topics such as fund-raising or tactics, more than twice the number of policy-related articles. A survey of network news coverage in the month before Super Tuesday, conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, found that at least two-thirds dealt with ''horse-race'' or ''strategy-oriented discussions.''
It's the very prospect of a real horse race between Gore and Bush that leads some analysts to suggest that the media will turn its focus not just to the dynamics of the race, but also to the issues and positions that could swing it.
''My sense is that it will be the most competitive presidential race in a generation,'' said Paul Taylor, executive director of the Alliance for Better Campaigns. ''Competitive races tend to spark people's interest. And the fact that it's a close race increases rather than decreases the chances'' for more substantive coverage.
''If there is a close race, both the issue coverage and the horse-race coverage will be more substantial,'' said Thomas Patterson, Bradlee professor of government and the press at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. ''I think you'll get a lot of polls because there'll be interest in the gain of even two or three points. But that invites attention to what will be the cutting-edge issues.''
In a race in which the Republicans acted like Democrats at their convention and the Democratic nominee picked one of the most conservative running mates he could find, some wonder what those cutting-edge issues might be.
''I don't know what they are going to cover,'' Everette Dennis, a professor of communications at Fordham University, said of the press. ''In a way, Nader is right that there are profound similarities'' between the candidates, Dennis added, referring to the Green Party presidential candidate, Ralph Nader. Dennis suggested that biography and blunder may dominate the headlines.
The Pew Research Center director, Andrew Kohut, said: ''I think the debates will make it interesting. I think they'll pick a fight over something. My worst fear is that it will be like 1988,'' when George Bush sparred with Michael S. Dukakis over largely symbolic wedge issues like the Pledge of Allegiance.
But the prevailing opinion is that the story will revolve around meatier matters. ''I think there are a number of very important issues that have been placed on the table, to the credit of the candidates, particularly Bush,'' Taylor said, referring to tax policy and Social Security.
''It seems to me that the race has to be amazingly substantive'' on such subjects as Social Security and public education, added Larry Sabato, a media critic and author of the new book ''Peep Show: Media and Politics in an Age of Scandal.'' ''Bush has to prove he has the policy skills ... and Gore is convinced he's on the popular side of the issues. He knows he doesn't have the personality to win.''
Sabato also said the candidates have set a tone that will dictate a more serious debate. ''This is the first race that I can ever remember where both candidates have gone out of their way to tell the press, the public, and their opponents that they will be positive, positive, positive,'' he said. ''It also fits the mood of the country. ... People want a positive race.''
''People look at these candidates and say they're the same,'' Kohut said. ''In this case, if we're going to engage people in the story, it's going to have to be on the issues ... what the stakes are, why this is important to you, and the way the candidates are different in consequential terms. Getting some meaningful differentiation is crucial to getting people to connect with this thing.''
And for all the whining about this year's no-news campaign, it holds a lot more potential than the last presidential fight. In the lopsided 1996 contest between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, coverage was down, voters yawned, and journalists went through the motions for the final few months. Newsweek's postmortem carried the headline ''Bored to the Bone,'' and four years ago, the Freedom Forum's McGill said the media's role in the 1996 race was ''signaling to voters this wasn't a campaign worth watching. It's like continually announcing there's a 10-run lead in the seventh inning.''
This time around, there's not likely to be a 10-run lead. And the candidates as well as the media may have a crack at a late-inning comeback.
