How how much does negative tabloid coverage of politicians matter?

Politicians frequently complain about the coverage the media gives to politics (not enough of it, too superficial, too negative etc.) But what does the public make of it all?

The Committee on Standards in Public Life this week published their third report into public attitudes towards standards of conduct in public life. It included this conclusion based on their research:

People are generally positive about the way in which the media covers political news, with the exception that they are widely critical of the tabloid press, which they see as setting out to tarnish the names of politicians, with little regard for the truth …

It is interesting to note in this context that tabloid only readers are not quick to defend the way in which their own newspapers cover politics. Indeed, their confidence in the veracity and political utility of their newspapers is not much greater than the negative attitude towards tabloids held by broadsheet readers…

Both sets of readers rate tabloids very poorly as looking for any excuse to tarnish politicians, focusing on negative stories and being more interested in getting a story than telling the truth; and they are equally positive (c. 80%) about broadsheets avoiding these behaviours.

What’s more, 92% of tabloid readers agreed that tabloid papers are, “more interested in getting a story than telling the truth”, compared with 91% of broadsheet readers saying this of tabloids. Only 17% of tabloid readers, however, said the same of broadsheets (as did 18% of broadsheet readers). They know they are not getting the truth and they know the truth is elsewhere.

I was slightly surprised at how positive the public views were overall. It is interesting to ponder whether – if people view tabloids as setting out to criticise politicians with little regard for the truth – that means they largely discount negative stories they do read in the tabloids, and so those stories may often not have that much impact.