To some observers, the current U.S. news coverage of the presidential campaign is becoming nasty and shallow, with recent furors over trivia misstatements rather than issues.

Only dire economic troubles have managed to divert the media’s attention away from the pettier aspects of the campaign in recent days. It’s tempting to join the many voices lambasting journalists for “dumbing down” an exceedingly crucial election, but perhaps the finger of blame can be pointed at the connection between public demand for “info-tainment” and the fierce competition for advertising revenue that is needed to keep the news industry afloat.

It’s not news that traditional media stalwarts like The New York Times and The Washington Post, which regularly offer in-depth coverage of the issues, have entered days of financial insecurity. And a quick check of their Web sites shows which stories the public is reading and e-mailing to friends. In the wake of Sarah Palin’s nomination for vice president, for example, her views on the Georgia-Russia conflict aroused considerably less public interest than her daughter’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy.

So, when you ask yourself why there are so few stories on the candidates’ positions on U.S. aid to Africa, but so many discussing whether or not McCain invented the Blackberry or debating Obama’s “celebrity” status, you need to follow the money. Or, thinking like an advertiser, follow the ratings.

As Digital Deliverance’s Vin Crosbie puts it: “The more consumers the vehicle attracts, the higher the rates the advertiser are willing to pay and the more money the vehicle earns.”

In the über-competitive world of news, the fight for advertising revenue means attracting the largest audience, which leads to “dumbing down” content to “attract a larger audience by appealing to a lower common denominator,” as Crosbie says. And that raises some questions about the role of the press in creating an informed electorate.

So, that’s what’s up with U.S. election coverage. Suggestions for improvement are welcome.

In a recent interview with an Iranian journalist and blogger who now lives in Canada, I asked how Iranian bloggers protect themselves from government authorities that are increasing restrictions, intensifying scrutiny, and raising the cost of getting caught.   (See “Heretic” Bloggers Risk Execution Under Iran’s New Restrictions.)

He said many bloggers use “anonymizers” to hide their Internet protocol (IP) addresses, but lamented that there was no online manual to instruct new bloggers on how to change their IP address, get around filtering, and create closed blog communities.

I’m sure he will share my delight in discovering that Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has put together a Handbook for Bloggers and Cyber-Dissidents that covers everything from getting started to blog ethics to defensive strategies. It’s available in English, Persian, Spanish, Chinese, Arabic and French.

“Bloggers cause anxiety,” it reads. “Governments are wary of these men and women, who post news without officially being journalists. Worse, they frequently raise sensitive issues which the media, now known as ‘traditional,’ dare not cover.”

The handbook advises those who wish to blog anonymously to set up their accounts under pseudonyms from a public-access computer. It gives instructions on the use of proxy servers such as Tor and advice on how to cover your tracks.

If you live in a country that censors parts of the Internet, RSF also has a section on circumvention systems and how to “tunnel” to a computer in a unfiltered location. All this information is accompanied by plenty of warning that users might soon find themselves dealing with very unhappy government authorities.

For a laugh (or a cry), check out the 2008 “Golden Scissors” awards at the very end for the most effective authoritarian regime actions against the online activities of their citizens.