By Katy Grimes

Is it any surprise that sports, weather and traffic now account for 40 percent of the content on television newscasts? “In 2012, a continued erosion of news reporting resources converged with growing opportunities for those in politics, government agencies, companies and others to take their messages directly to the public,” reports a new study from the Pew Research Center’s project for excellence in journalism.

Most interesting however, is who is leaving news outlets: “People who said they had forsaken a news outlet were more likely to be men than women, older than younger, richer than poorer and Republican or independent rather than Democratic. While about one-third of Republicans and independents stopped turning to a news outlet, just one-quarter of Democrats did,” the report found.

“The primary concern for people who gave up on an outlet seems to be quality,” the report found.

Surprise, surprise.

“When asked which they noticed more, fewer stories or less complete stories, far more people said the latter (24 percent to 61 percent). While reduced thoroughness in stories was the more prevalent response among adults overall who were aware of the struggles, the split was not nearly as wide – 48 percent versus 31 percent.”

The report found that thoroughness in the stories was the biggest problem. People want complete stories and are fed up with media not asking questions.” 61 percent of them said stories were less complete than they had been versus just 24 percent who complained there were too few stories,” the study found.

This is what I rail on constantly. Too many members of the dwindling media are skilled stenographers, and don’t bother to ask “who, what, when, where, why, and how?” The questions not asked are apparently what has so many Americans leaving news broadcasts in search of thorough content.

Take a look at the report – share your thoughts.

The State of the News Media 2013

Katy Grimes: A story in the Sacramento Bee Saturday reported that Israel’s liberal press is on the ropes. But the McClatchy writer’s conclusions about why are laughable.

“The economic crisis that’s hit the newspaper industry in the United States and elsewhere is threatening some of Israel’s most influential publications and could soon leave the country with virtually no left-leaning printed newspapers,” the Bee reported.

The economic crisis had very little to do with the decline of newspapers in America. The crisis is one of content.

The number of newspaper readers has been declining for many years. Even with the decline in readership, many big newspapers refuse to accept blame or responsibility.

Far too many newspapers continue to publish biased, highly subjective stories, in place of news content. The opinion pages have melded with the news pages, with many newspapers no longer making the distinction.

“Unlike in the United States, where most news outlets strive for objectivity, Israeli papers take political stands in their news pages,” the McClatchy writer stated.

Oh, there’s no bias in that statement. It’s just laughable, but many reporters actually believe this.

“Publishers say that competition with the Internet, as in the rest of the world, is one reason for their decline.”

Pardon me while I choke back the tears.

What we have today is a mainstream media in denial. Perhaps the Internet is to blame. More people than ever hunger for information, and many don’t want it filtered or biased. Political junkies know that most newspapers are only a jumping-off point for the real story. The Internet has provided people with a way to access the rest of the story, as radio giant Paul Harvey used to say.

“Are Israelis aware that they are reading a paper that is practically in Netanyahu’s pocket? Sure they are,” said Didi Remez, a left-wing Israeli political activist, the Bee reported.

Are Americans aware that they are reading newspapers and listening to mainstream television media that is practically in President Barack Obama’s pocket?

The Media Research Center reported:

“As even former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw acknowledged today, liberal journalists were loaded and ready to pronounce this election over and Romney’s campaign dead after the first debate: ‘If it had been Romney performing like the president last night, it would have been over.’ But the beating Obama received last night was so complete that virtually no one (the New York Times excepted, as usual) denied it.

But how did they report Obama lost? Therein lies the rub: they — as well as Democratic operatives — are pushing the spin that this was all about style and presentation. Obama was “flat,” “lackluster,” “not himself,” and “not firing on all cylinders.” In other words, Obama wasn’t Obama last night. Some are going further, pushing the narrative that Romney was somehow mean-spirited and even deceptive in his presentation.

This analysis denies reality. Obama lost on style, to be sure. More importantly, much more importantly, he lost on content. Romney crushed him. For the first time in his political career Obama a) had to defend his record and  b) had no one running interference on his behalf. Romney as challenger had a seemingly endless list of particulars to choose from and did so in a devastating manner. That, that was the damage done to Obama.”

If this is still unclear, try these interesting examples:

Media Reality Check: ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: Reliably Crowning Democrats as Debate Winners 

Media Reality Check: ABC, CBS, NBC Hype Romney Hidden Camera Tape, Bury Obama’s ‘Redistribution’ Clip 

Media Reality Check: Convention Slant: NBC Donates 25 Percent More Airtime to DNC Than RNC 

Special Report: The Media’s “Miracle” of a Scandal-Free Obama 

Media Bias 101: What Journalists Really Think — and What the Public Thinks About Them 

Profiles in Bias: Documenting the Bias of Top Journalists and Major News Stories 

and here.