Election a yawner, partly because of the media.

A veteran political reporter takes a long look at the campaign and suggests ways the media could improve.

For editorial writers as for most journalists, the 1996 presidential election failed to meet expectations for a lively contest.

The potential for a close or dramatic race faded soon after the primaries, and (at least for much of the press) the coverage of the conventions, the fall campaign, and the debates was more an endurance contest than a series of any memorable events.

The press, and probably readers and viewers, were happy when Election Day finally ended the marathon. Not surprisingly, overall coverage in 1996 was much less than in 1992, particularly by television.

The details behind the frantic money-raising - the millions raked in by the presidential candidates and both major parties - wound up as the most overlooked story of the campaign. It was only discovered late when the so-called "Asian Connection" was uncovered in the Clinton camp, touching off a flurry of charges and counter-charges between the Clinton and Dole camps. With a little more investigative digging by reporters and editorial advocacy earlier in the year, the raising of "soft money" by both parties might have been exposed in more than just raw numbers. It was not a proud moment for the press.

Even though the media were bored and almost missed the soft-money story, the ratings on coverage were better than you might expect from a public that routinely hates and/or distrusts the press. For example, a Freedom Forum Media Studies Center poll after the election found that 54% of the voters gave the media a grade of A or B - 14% A and 40% B. Only 6% gave the press an F for failure.

However, a similar study by the Pew Research Center was less charitable with its report card. Only 29% gave the press an A or B, while 18% rated the coverage as an F.

My own view is that the press did a much better job (let's say a B) in the general election campaign than in the GOP primaries. (Let's say a C.)

Yes, the election season is a race. Readers and viewers want to know who is ahead or behind, but not to the point of monotonous repetition. The problem is that eventually the polls wind up driving the daily news and editorial coverage while tuning out the public. (And the repetitive polls showing Bill Clinton far ahead of Bob Dole were cited repeatedly by the Republican partisans as evidence of bias against the GOP. Not true, but cited nevertheless.)

A number of surveys reveal that voters want to know more about how issues and candidates' proposals affect their daily lives. The press should have given the voter more of that kind of story and less of the latest daily poll results. Connecting with the voter was one of the reasons Patrick Buchanan surprised the media early in the primaries with his ability to tap into the job security issue in New Hampshire. Several news organizations formed consortiums to attempt to link the candidates and the issues with the public through "civic journalism" projects that met with varying degrees of success. Although civic journalism is unpopular with some editorial writers and other journalists, it presented a new approach to coverage this year.

Editorial writers as well as reporters could have insisted the candidates address important issues that were rarely mentioned. For example, little was said about race relations, urban problems, the future of defense spending after the end of the cold war, education, and foreign policy.

For the most part, Clinton rode out the campaign ("ran out the clock" was the favorite sports metaphor) on the strength of the good economy.

Dole, on the other hand, couldn't decide on his message. First, it was his 15% tax cut, which contradicted his congressional record of being a deficit hawk. Then he turned to ripping Clinton as "liberal, liberal, liberal." The last resort was the so-called character issue and the scandals of Clinton's first term, including Whitewater, Travelgate, and Filegate.

When nothing seemed to stick to Clinton, Dole blistered the press (even though Dole gets along with reporters far better than Clinton) for favoring the president.

The press was guilty on several counts, but bias toward Clinton - or against Dole - wasn't one of them. True, a thorough reading of campaign stories and a review of television newscasts turns up more negative stories about Dole. But the Dole/Kemp campaign was having more conflicts, and even loyal Republicans were speaking out about the trouble.

The accurate reporting of those GOP campaign problems accounted for the heavier negative coverage. Clinton didn't exactly have a free ride, either. The coverage was extensive on the Whitewater scandal and trials in Little Rock, along with revelations of the FBI files on Republicans turning up in the White House.

Every four years, reporters, editorial writers and others gather at various seminars to discuss the coverage of the past presidential election. Flaws are generally acknowledged, and vows are taken to improve the next time around. But little changes, although this campaign admittedly produced a number of stories that represented enterprise and innovation.

Here's where I think the press could use some self-examination before Campaign 2000.

Fewer polls

The press has a love affair with polls, but readers don't. This is especially true before the primaries even begin.

Dole was the strong front-runner for the GOP nomination in early polls, but it was based heavily on his name recognition. Polls, or stories and editorials based on poll findings, should be spaced so as not to overwhelm the voters. And more explanation about the methodology of the poll, in understandable English, would help.

Editorial writers could add perspective - for example, making the point that results of straw polls for the primaries are virtually meaningless. (Phil Gramm tied Dole for first in the Iowa straw poll, but his campaign crashed in the same state when Republicans actually voted in the caucuses.)

Fewer 'inside baseball' stories

In the GOP primaries, we heard more stories about strategy and tactics than issues. There was too much "he's up/he's down" coverage, especially about Dole.

Voters have little interest in these accounts, which tend to be repetitious and dull. The media seem at times to have a tendency to write and air stories and editorials for sources - or for each other.

More coverage of TV advertising

The blizzard of TV ads, many of them of the attack variety, accounted for most of the campaign expenditures.

Candidates find it easier to rip into opponents in 30-second negative commercials than to test their ideas in front of the press. With all the ads to check, the press has difficulty in keeping up with Ad Watch or Reality Check stories.

However, the media need to make an expanded effort to monitor the ads, especially by local television stations. (Now there's a challenge for the broadcast editorial writers!)

More stories on consultants

News organizations should devote more space to the highly paid consultants and their work on presidential campaigns.

The public knows little about them and the influential roles they play.

Be careful of 'predictionitis'

In this age of celebrity journalism, too many journalists get carried away when they appear on television and radio programs.

Offering personal opinions and forecasts is fine for columnists and editorial writers - up to a point - although not for reporters and editors who need to demonstrate impartiality. Reporters will say things on television that they would never put in a story.

Remember, the vigilantes looking for press bias are always watching. Editorial writers have as much interest as reporters in maintaining the wall between commentary and news.

Pack reporting

This year had less pack reporting than in previous campaigns, although the clamor to cheer Colin Powell into the races - in news columns as well as editorials was the worst example.

The mainstream press also found itself cheering a tabloid when the Dick Morris scandal broke at the Democratic convention. After complaining long and loud about the lack of breaking news at conventions, the press herd was forced to charge after the tabloid scoop.

One of the news stories at the GOP convention broke when Ted Koppel of ABC's Nightline left San Diego early because the scripted affair had no news.

Finally, the voters decided - after all the campaign hoopla - in favor of the status quo. Most incumbents were re-elected, including the Democratic president and a Republican Congress. Every special interest had at least something to cheer about.

And the press could cheer, too. As one wag put it: "Our long national nightmare is over."

John Mashek recently retired as political correspondent for The Boston Globe. He spent the past year as a visiting professional scholar at The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville studying the media's coverage of the 1996 presidential campaign.