Well, it was nice while it lasted...the surge of trust in the news media coverage that occurred on and shortly after Sept. 11. Unfortunately "the press is inching back toward pre-September 11th norms of behavior," says the latest study of news coverage of the war on terrorism.

The study, conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, finds that news consumers hungrily consumed the "solid sourcing and factualness" that dominated the coverage of bombings and their aftermath. "A full 75% of what the press reported was a straightforward accounting of events," the study reported.

But as the story moved from what happened in America to the war in Afghanistan, "analysis and opinion swelled - so much so that the level of factualness declined to levels lower than those seen in the middle of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal."

Wow!

The PEJ study was not a public opinion survey. Rather, the project "involved a detailed examination of 2,496 stories contained on television, magazines and newspapers in three key periods in mid-September, mid-November and mid-December," according to the PEJ.

Among the significant findings, the study discovered that, during the earliest days of the story, only "25% of coverage was analysis, opinion and speculation - including talk shows and the opinion pages." However, by December that percentage jumped to 36% and "the number of sources cited as evidence in stories also declined over time, though it is still relatively high.

"On talk shows, journalists often seemed to luxuriate in sounding not like knowledgeable experts on TV stages, but like anyone else standing in a barroom," the study said.

The study lays the blame for the fall-off in sourcing directly at the Pentagon's feet. "One reason for the decline in sourcing and factualness and the rise in interpretation over time may be the restrictions the government is imposing on journalists' access to information," the report says. It then quotes ABC National Security correspondent John McWhethy: "The restrictions are unprecedented and they are successful."

The study, says PEJ, justifies pre-9/11 media analysis. "For years, surveys, focus groups and other research have found consistent patterns in what people say they don't want from the press. People dislike anonymous sourcing. They want information more than interpretation. They resent journalists offering what they think rather than what they know. They dislike hype and the sense that the media is manufacturing and sensationalizing stories."