Why is campaign coverage so terrible?

Matt Yglesias complains about the media’s campaign coverage, and offers a plausible reason as to why there’s such a relentless focus on trivia:

What’s driving this, I think, are the dual desires to be "tough" and to be "objective." In particular, being objective is thought to preclude being tough about public policy because that would entail picking sides in ideology-inflicted arguments. And people didn’t get into this business in order to provide softball coverage. So instead you ask tough questions about process or about trivia, even though there’s little evidence that these are the subjects about which people want to hear.

I don’t buy this last bit, because, sadly, I think there is plenty of evidence that more people are actually interested in trivia than they are the issues. Why did the Drudge Report pull in 590 million "page loads" in March? Why has the horserace-centric Politico been such a resounding success? If Yglesias really believed that more people are interested in substance, he should use his book earnings to open a new network devoted to hashing out the issues and see how it fares.

He could call it… "PBS."