Actually, what we need is a reputable news network with the sand to actually report things in an honest manner, and not screw with the story just to sensationalize it and get an extra ratings point.

Some very successful for-profit companies understand that it's often better to be simple and straightforward and earn people's respect, rather than moneygrubbing in the short term.

I have high hopes for INdTV (Gore's venture), although we'll have to see. If it turns out to have some reasonably intellectual news coverage, coverage that appeals to smart people of all ages, it could start to leach ratings from the other networks.  And competition inspires imitation.

You probably have a point when it comes to media coverage of relatively obscure issues for which there is neither the interest nor resources to assign permanent beat reporters.  I witnessed this frequently when working as a fisheries management biologist for the National Marine Fisheries Service in Alaska.  Once in a while some big issue would hit the news and the Seattle newspapers might assign some business reporter to scrape up a story.  There was obviously no chance that such a reporter would be able to communicate the nuances of fisheries population dynamics, a field that many PhD fisheries biologists struggle with.  And such a business reporter is unlikely to be able to understand the nuances of decisionmaking under the Fishery Management Council system.  So I cut them some slack.  Even so, a few of the Anchorage and Seattle reporters actually took the time to educate themselves on the issues and actually managed to write some fairly good stories.

However national politics is an entirely different arena from obscure industry news.  How many political reporters does CNN have on staff?  How many are dedicated primarily to covering the election?   Unless I miss my guess, I suspect there are at least half a dozen reporters who probably have a staff of several dozen researchers and assistants to rely on.  Under those circumstances, the sewage that passes for coverage on CNN and all the other networks is absolutely inexcusable.  Absolutely inexcusable.  They have an obligation to inform and with the resources they have at their disposal their coverage is absolutely inexcusable.  

To whit, I have never seen the following logical type of election stories covered on any network.

1.  An actual explanation of how polling works and what the statistical terms like margin of error mean.  How many times do CNN on-air "talent" say nonsense like the race is in a "statistical  tie" just because some poll shows the two candidates estimated percentages are within the margin of error for each candidate's sample.  That is total nonsense.  The only statistical tie is an actual tie.

2.  An actual explanation of each major issue in which both the candidates positions are explained AND the actual policy process through which the candidates proposals would be implemented is explained.  Voters need to be educated about what proposals can be implemeted through executive order vs what need to be implemented through legislation and finally what proposals need to be implemented through consitutional amendment.  For example, about 3/4 of Nader's platform would require constitutional amendments to implement.  So even if he was elected he would be unable to even begin to implement most of his platform.  I would like to see a story on some issue like health care in which the reporter walked us through how Kerry's proposals would need to be implemented (through legislation) and how he would need to marshall a voting majority in both houses to accomplish it.  And then provide some commentary about how likely that is to happen with DeLay and Frist running Congress.

3.  Stories that evaluate the realism of different candidate's proposals.  Does Bush have a plan to privatize SS?  What has he said on the subject?  What have his policy advisors and top administration officials said on the subject?  What do the conservative think tanks say?   How would it work and what would it cost and how does the math work out?   What are the arguments pro and con?  That's the sort of story I'd like to see just once before I die.

The stupidity of the situation, however, is mind boggling.  But a lot of journalists, particularly TV journalist, aren't that well informed.  And a lot of people, production assistants,, producers, etc. who normally cover fashion, or whatever, are probably being pulled into providing support for the election.

Still, had I been a manager at CNN, I would have been very, very unhappy.