For the second time in a decade, the believability ratings for major news organizations have suffered broad-based declines. In the new survey, positive believability ratings have fallen significantly for nine of 13 news organizations tested. This follows a similar downturn in positive believability ratings that occurred between 2002 and 2004.

The falloff in credibility affects news organizations in most sectors: national newspapers, such as the New York Times and USA Today, all three cable news outlets, as well as the broadcast TV networks and NPR.

Across all 13 news organizations included in the survey, the average positive believability rating (3 or 4 on a 4-point scale) is 56%. In 2010, the average positive rating was 62%. A decade ago, the average rating for the news organizations tested was 71%. Since 2002, every news outlet’s believability rating has suffered a double-digit drop, except for local daily newspapers and local TV news. The New York Times was not included in this survey until 2004, but its believability rating has fallen by 13 points since then.

These are among the major findings of a survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted July 19-22 among 1,001 adults. The survey asks people to rate individual news organizations on believability using a 4-point scale. A rating of 4 means someone believes “all or most” of what the news organization says; a rating of 1 means someone believes “almost nothing” of what they say.

The believability ratings for individual news organizations – like views of the news media generally – have long been divided along partisan lines. But partisan differences have grown as Republicans’ views of the credibility of news outlets have continued to erode. Today, there are only two news organizations – Fox News and local TV news – that receive positive believability ratings from at least two-thirds of Republicans. A decade ago, there were only two news organizations that did not get positive ratings from at least two-thirds of Republicans. By contrast, Democrats generally rate the believability of news organizations positively; majorities of Democrats give all the news organizations tested ratings of 3 or 4 on the 4-point scale, with the exception of Fox News.

The Trayvon Martin case has highlighted issues relating to the treatment of blacks by local police departments, the state of race relations in the U.S. and press coverage of African Americans. Pew Research Center surveys in recent years have covered the opinions of African Americans on these and other issues.

• A survey in 2009 found that while African Americans had a positive overall assessment of the state of race relations in the country, just 14% of them said they had a great deal of confidence in local police officers to treat blacks and whites equally, compared to 38% of whites.

• The same survey found that 43% of Africans Americans said that there is a lot of discrimination against blacks, compared with just 13% of whites.

• Nearly six-in-ten (58%) African Americans said that news coverage of blacks was too negative; just 31% of whites said that coverage of blacks was too negative, according to a survey conducted in 2010.

• The Trayvon Martin killing controversy was the public’s most-followed story during the March 22-25 period. African Americans were more than twice as likely as whites to say that this was their top story (52% vs. 20%).

Read the full analysis. See also these separate reports on news coverage of the Martin story:

Trayvon Martin Killing Is Public’s Top News Story

How Blogs, Twitter and Mainstream Media Have Handled the Trayvon Martin Case

Cable news is now the top regular source for campaign news, with 36% of Americans say they are regularly learning about the candidates or campaign on those networks. The long-term decline in the number of Americans who get campaign news from local and network TV has steepened as a consequence of the fact that fewer people are closely following the campaign compared to four years ago when there were contested primaries in both political parties.

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press’ 2012 campaign news survey, conducted Jan. 4-8 among 1,507 adults nationwide, also found a sharp decline in the number of Americans who get campaign information from their local newspapers.

In previous campaigns, declining figures for traditional sources were at least partly offset by increasing numbers turning to the internet. But that is not the case in 2012, as the number regularly getting campaign news online has leveled off. This is largely due to a lack of interest in the early 2012 campaign among younger Americans, who have traditionally been the broadest internet news consumers.

Many of the newest internet tools for getting campaign information, including social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, are being used by a relatively limited audience.

Read the full report for detailed results on the number of Americans using various news sources for campaign information, as well as these subjects:

• Young people and campaign news
• Social networks and campaign news
• Public views on bias in news coverage
• Use of new technologies by campaigns to reach voters
• The partisan cable landscape
• Top online sources for campaign news
• The impact of candidate debates

Negative opinions about the performance of news organizations now equal

or surpass all-time highs on nine of 12 core measures the Pew Research

Center for the People & the Press has been tracking since 1985. However, these bleak findings are put into some perspective by the fact that news organizations are more trusted sources of information than are many other institutions, including government and business.

Fully 66% say news stories often are inaccurate, 77% think that news organizations tend to favor one side, and 80% say news organizations are often influenced by powerful people and organizations.

The public’s impressions of the national media may be influenced more by their opinions of cable news outlets than their views of other news sources, such as network or local TV news, newspapers or internet news outlets. When asked what first comes to mind when they think of “news organizations,” most name a cable news outlet, with CNN and Fox News receiving the most mentions by far.

Read the full report at people-press.org for more discussion on where most Americans get their news; what Democrats, Republicans and independents think of the media’s news coverage; and a detailed look at the public’s positive and negative evaluations of the press.

A 57%-majority says elected officials just get caught more often because they are under greater scrutiny. About two-in-ten (19%), on the other hand, say elected officials have lower moral standards than ordinary Americans, according to the latest national survey conducted June 9-12 among 1,002 adults by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and The Washington Post.

Among the 19% who attribute the scandals to lower moral standards among elected officials, most (13% of the public) say that when people get into positions of power, they tend to lose their moral standards, while 4% say that politics attracts the kind of people who have lower moral standards.

There are only slight differences in opinion across political and demographic groups. Each attributes the number of sex scandals more to the level of scrutiny faced by officials than to lower moral standards by at least a two-to-one margin. For example, 55% of men and 59% of women say that elected officials involved in sex scandals get caught more often because they are under greater scrutiny.

There also is no difference in opinion between those following the current scandal involving Rep. Anthony Weiner very closely and those following this news less closely. Weiner has acknowledged sending sexual messages and photos to at least six women online.

Overall, 12% reject both of the options offered, answering neither or giving other reasons. Among those who offer an explanation, the most frequently cited refer to elected officials’ ego or arrogance.

View the topline questionnaire at people-press.org.

A series of major breaking stories captured the attention of both the public and the media in 2010, while news about the nation’s struggling economy consistently attracted high levels of public interest and coverage throughout the year.

Each week, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press conducts national public opinion surveys to measure which news subjects are receiving the most public attention, while the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism analyzes news coverage. For an analysis of the year’s news coverage, see “The Year in News 2010: Disaster, Economic Anxiety, but Little Interest in War” released Jan. 11, 2011.

The public and news media were largely on the same page during the peak moments of the year’s biggest breaking news stories — the disaster in Haiti, the passage of health care legislation, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the outcome of the midterm elections. (See “Top Stories of 2010: Haiti Earthquake, Gulf Oil Spill” Dec. 21, 2010.)

In most cases, the public and news media’s priorities were in sync. At their peak intensity, each of these stories filled over 40% of the week’s newshole, according to PEJ’s News Coverage Index, and was the most closely followed story that week by more than 40% — and in several instances about 60% — of the public, according the Pew Research Center’s News Interest Index.

But there were moments, and stories, when the public’s interests diverged substantially from the press’ coverage. And those discrepancies, moreover, tended to fit a broader pattern.

In general, the public tended to maintain its interest in major breaking news stories considerably longer than the press did. And the press tended to maintain substantially more interest in Washington Beltway controversies than did its audience.

Most notably, in the weeks following three of these major news events — the Haiti disaster, the passage of health care legislation and the capping of the Gulf oil spill — public interest remained high long after the news media’s focus had turned elsewhere. And while public interest in the 2010 midterm elections was on par with press coverage in the final stages of the campaign season, coverage far exceeded public interest earlier in the campaign cycle.

Over the course of 2010, seven of nine cases in which coverage far exceeded public interest involved stories that had far greater resonance inside the Beltway than outside. These included the firing of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the release by WikiLeaks of classified State Department documents, Scott Brown winning a Massachusetts Senate seat in a special election, and the firing of Shirley Sherrod, a former U.S. Agriculture Department employee. Notably, several of these stories involved the media itself. These included: McChrystal and his staff’s being quoted criticizing the administration in Rolling Stone magazine, WikiLeaks raising questions about press responsibilities, and video of Sherrod being shown repeatedly out of its full context after being picked up from a conservative website.

Press, Public Both Kept Watch on Economy

One story where the public and the media were often in sync was the economy. Coverage of economic news was consistently high from week to week and cumulatively represented the single largest story over the course of 2010. Public interest was also notably consistent.

In every week public interest in economic news was measured, at least 30% of Americans said they were following reports about the condition of the economy very closely, and, aside from periods of peak interest in Haiti, the health care debate and the Gulf oil spill, at least 10% said the economy was the story they were following more closely than any other.

Economic news received the most or second most public attention in 32 of the 45 weeks in which public attention to the topic was tracked.

Public’s Interest Outlasts Press’ on 2010′s Big Events

While the economy topped the news over the course of the whole year, 2010 was marked by a series of other major stories that received overwhelming levels of news coverage and public interest as well. The year began with a devastating earthquake in Haiti, followed by end game in the fight over sweeping health care legislation, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the Republicans’ victories in the midterm elections.

At their peak, each of these stories dominated press coverage — accounting for more than 40% of the newshole in a single week. And at these moments, public interest was commensurately high. Fully 66% of Americans said they were following the debate over health care more closely than any other news the week of March 22-28, and 63% were focused on the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico the week of June 14-20.

Immediately following the earthquake in Haiti, 57% of Americans followed news about the aftermath more closely than any other story, and in the week following the 2010 midterms, 43% of Americans said that was their top news interest.

While press and public interests coincided at these peak moments, the news media and public did not concur continuously about the importance of these news stories. Most importantly, the public stayed focused on three of these stories — the disaster in Haiti, health care reform and the gulf oil spill — long after media attention had shifted to other emerging stories.

Just three weeks after the most intense focus on the Haiti earthquake, coverage of the aftermath comprised just 8% of the newshole, replaced by press coverage of the economy and possible problems with Toyota vehicles.

Yet the public continued to report more interest in news about the earthquake’s aftermath than either of these other topics — 38% said they were following news about Haiti more closely than anything else.

Similarly, less than a month after the July 15 capping of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico, 44% of Americans continued to say they were following news about the spill and its aftermath more closely than any other topic. Yet just 3% of news coverage focused on the spill’s aftermath, as the press focus had turned toward the upcoming midterm elections.

And within three weeks of President Obama signing major new health care legislation, the issue filled just 3% of news coverage; there was more coverage of a major mining accident in West Virginia, Obama’s push to place greater controls on the world’s nuclear weapons and Tiger Woods’ return to the PGA. Yet 33% of Americans said they were most interested in news about the new health care law, far more than any of these other stories.

Political Incidents Garner More Coverage than Interest

Other than stories that affect them personally — such as the debates over health care legislation and tax cuts — Americans often show less interest in political or Washington stories than does the media. That was the case in several instances in 2010, including the forced resignations of Gen. Stanley McChrystal and Shirley Sherrod. The week of June 21, for example, the media devoted 21% of coverage to the termination of McChrystal, then commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Yet fewer than one-in-ten Americans (7%) said they followed the news about McChrystal most closely that week. Instead, 53% of Americans were still focused mostly on developments in the Gulf of Mexico.

The week of July 19, the media jumped on a story about the USDA firing an African American official for allegedly making racist comments in a speech. The department quickly changed course, offering Shirley Sherrod her job back, when it became clear her comments had been taken out of context. The story accounted for 14% of the newshole (33% on cable news channels), but just 8% of the public said this was the news they were following most closely. That week, half the public (51%) said they were following news about the Gulf oil spill most closely.

Similarly, the political drama of the 2010 midterm elections often drew far more press than public attention. Though the public eventually took a strong interest in the Nov. 2 midterm elections in late October, there were instances earlier in 2010 in which coverage of the primaries significantly outweighed interest. During the week starting Sept. 13, the media devoted 30% of the newshole to election news (42% for cable news channels) — including Christine O’Donnell’s surprise win in the Delaware Republican Senate primary. That week, 11% of the public said they followed election news most closely, while more than twice as many (26%) rated news about the economy as most important to them.

This gap between public interest and press coverage continued through September and October, as the election consumed over a quarter of the newshole, but was a second, or even third-tier story in terms of public interest. The elections did not become the top story for the public until the final week before Election Day, and remained the top story for the two weeks following.

Modest Coverage, Interest in Ongoing Wars

The ongoing U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq received modest press coverage and public attention over the course of 2010. Aside from spikes in press coverage related to Afghanistan surrounding Gen. McChrystal’s resignation in June and the WikiLeaks release of secret military documents in August, events in Afghanistan and Afghanistan policy received modest press coverage in 2010 — 4% of the news measured by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Across 18 weeks in which public interest on the topic was measured, roughly a quarter said they were following Afghanistan-related news “very closely”. But Afghanistan was the top news story for fewer than one-in-ten Americans in virtually all of those weeks.

Similarly, over the entire course of 2010, just 1% of news coverage was devoted to Iraq events and policy debates, and in no week did Iraq consume more than 10% of the newshole.

Public interest in Iraq news was also modest — in the 10 weeks in which public interest in Iraq-related news was tested, roughly a quarter of Americans said they were following “very closely”, but about one-in-ten rated it as the top story they followed most closely.

The exception to this came in early September, when 17% said they were following news about the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq more closely than any other story.

Matches and Mismatches at a Glance

The graphic below plots out the interest and coverage levels for many top weekly stories of the year. For long-running stories, such as the economy or the Gulf oil spill, the numbers have been averaged and are represented by larger square dots. The bold diagonal line represents the typical relationship between coverage and interest across the entire year’s worth of weekly measurements (as defined by a simple regression analysis).

Data points above the diagonal line represent stories in which public interest was high relative to the amount of press coverage. Those points below the line show stories in which press coverage was high relative to the amount of public interest. In both directions, the farther a story is from the line, the greater the gap between interest and coverage.

The 9/11 terrorist attacks drew more public interest than any other story in the past decade. In October 2001, a month after the attacks, 78% said they were following news about the story very closely, up slightly from the week after the attacks (74%).

The devastating hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast in 2005 — first Katrina and then Rita — also captured the attention of an overwhelming number of Americans. In October of that year, a month after Katrina struck New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, 74% said they were following news about the storms very closely (70% were following very closely the week after Katrina hit).

The 2005 hurricanes sent the price of gas soaring, a development that also drew broad public attention. In September 2005, 70% said they were following news about high gas prices very closely. In general, the public is highly attentive to fluctuations in gas prices. Nearly as many said they were closely following rising gas prices in May 2006 (69%) and June 2008 (66%), and when prices fell in October 2008 (53% followed very closely).

Aside from Hurricane Katrina, several other natural disasters over the past ten years riveted the American public’s attention. In particular, roughly six-in-ten very closely followed both the 2010 earthquake in Haiti and the 2004 tsunami that struck coastal areas surrounding the Indian Ocean.

During this decade there were several mass shootings, but the ongoing shooting spree that for weeks terrorized the Washington, D.C. area attracted the most public interest. In October 2002, 65% said they were following news about the sniper attacks very closely. The sniper shootings were the public’s top story in 2002.

A number of the decade’s top stories occurred during a tumultuous two-month period in the fall of 2008. As the mortgage and financial crisis grew, 70% of Americans said they were following economic conditions very closely in September 2008, and in October 59% reported very close attention to the stock market declines specifically. Around the same time, 62% said they were following the debate in Washington over plans to use government funds to stabilize the markets very closely. By this measure, public interest in the bank bailout debate was far more intense than the highest levels of interest in the 2009-2010 health care debate (51% followed very closely in the final week before passage) or the 2009 stimulus debate (50% very closely). And to top off a month packed with economic news, 61% of Americans were following the 2008 election very closely at the same time.

Interest in news reports about the situation in Iraq peaked during the early months of the war. In May 2003, during the week in which President Bush delivered his “Mission Accomplished” speech and two weeks after the fall of Baghdad, 63% said they were following news about the situation in Iraq very closely. Just a year later, a darker chapter in the war — the offensive by insurgents in Fallujah and allegations of abuse by U.S. troops at abu Ghraib prison — also drew considerable interest. In May 2004, 54% said they followed news about the situation in Iraq very closely.

Public attention to news about the war in Afghanistan was highest when military action began in late 2001 and early 2002, when 51% were following very closely. By the summer of 2002 interest had fallen off substantially; in July 2002, 41% were following events in Afghanistan very closely. In recent years, the highest level of interest in Afghanistan came in late 2009 as Barack Obama announced his plans for winding down the U.S. military effort there. In December of that year, 43% followed his policy announcement very closely.

Of the biggest news stories of 2010, three make the list of the decade’s top stories: the earthquake in Haiti, which 60% followed very closely, is among the top ten most closely followed stories of the decade. Slightly lower, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico this summer was followed very closely by 59% at the peak of public interest. And the final debate over health care reform was followed very closely by 51%, just edging in to the top 25 stories of the decade.