Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Nov. 11, 1999 /2 Kislev, 5760

Morton Kondracke

Kondracke
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
David Corn
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Arianna Huffington
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
MUGGER
Kathleen Parker
Robert Samuelson
Debbie Schlussel
Sam Schulman
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports
Weekly Standard

Econophone

Will TV stop profiteering from politics?


http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- WITH EXCEPTIONS, the broadcast TV industry seems to regard politics simply as an opportunity to get rich from campaign ads, not to inform the public. But there's an easy way it can do both.

Stations and networks can voluntarily resolve to devote at least five minutes a day to news coverage of the elections next fall -- and apply the same kind of imagination to the task that they've used to turn local weather and sports into profit centers.

The broadcast networks have found a way to make documentaries profitable and interesting with prime-time shows such as NBC's "Dateline" and ABC's "20/20."

Surely they could do the same with the 2000 elections, in which the presidency, Congress, probably a Supreme Court majority and lots of significant policy -- Social Security, Medicare, guns and health insurance -- are up for grabs.

Stations now have a new resource to help with coverage -- FreedomChannel.com -- that will collect 90-second on-camera issue statements from major federal candidates and make video available at a low cost.

The trend, however, is for broadcast television to write off politics as news, while collecting hundreds of millions of dollars in political ads each election cycle -- profiteering from politics, not serving the public.

In 1998, California had a crucial governor's race, but TV stations in the top five media markets devoted, on average, less than half a percent of their total fall news coverage to the election.

Meantime, all candidates in the race spent $100 million on TV ads, according to a study by the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California.

In another study, Rocky Mountain Media Watch surveyed local TV news coverage of the 1998 elections in 25 states and found that viewers of the late local news were four times more likely to see a political ad than a political story.

And the Center for Media and Public Affairs found that total minutes of network news coverage of the 1998 elections dropped 74 percent below the level of the 1994 midterms.

This year, according to University of Virginia scholar Larry Sabato, only half the stations serving his state covered the crucial legislative elections. A few stations did it well, but those that did not included the major stations in Washington and the Tidewater region, which reach half of the state's population.

Similarly, a survey by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication found that stations in Philadelphia covered issues in the mayoral election months ago, but only the horse race in the later stages.

A dismal dynamic is at work in TV and politics: More and more is being spent on campaign ads, less and less time is being devoted to covering elections, and voter turnout gets lower every year.

According to one crusader trying to change the system, Paul Taylor of the Alliance for Better Campaigns, "If this were a business, the CEO would surely be fired."

But, he says, "In politics, market incentives don't apply. Most politicians like low-turnout elections. Their object is to collect as much money as they can, dominate the airwaves and freeze out the opposition."

TV stations don't seem to care, either. They'll rake in $600 million from political advertising in 2000 -- six times as much, after inflation, as in 1972 -- and spend less to cover the races.

Their profiteering is all the more outrageous because in the 1995 Telecommunications Act, Congress handed the industry a $70 billion windfall, giving it extra bandwidth to use absolutely free.

To lower campaign costs, Congress ought to require TV stations to give candidates some free airtime -- they operate, after all, under federal license -- but most members seem afraid of the broadcasters' power.

Suggestions by the Federal Communications Commission that it might require stations to give away time have been met with congressional threats to cut off the FCC's funding.

Last year, a commission appointed by the Clinton administration came up with an ingenious alternative: a suggestion that networks and stations voluntarily put on five minutes of "candidate-centered" programming per day during the month preceding the elections.

The idea was boosted in a letter and newspaper ad signed by former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, retired CBS anchor Walter Cronkite and 90 business, academic and political figures.

Taylor's group has prepared a handbook for local TV stations to use in creating interesting political programming through mini-debates, interviews and issue statements. It reads like Broadcasting 101, but the stations seem to need it.

Broadcasters, says Taylor, seem to have the idea that politics is boring and that voters are turned off. If that's so, he says, it's the result of a "self-fulfilling process."

"People have been fed junk food for a generation and they are sick of it," he said, referring to campaign ads. He thinks that if stations provided nutritious, interesting meals, people would return. Politics might even improve ratings if stations devoted themselves to it.



JWR contributor Morton Kondracke is executive editor of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill. Send your comments to him by clicking here.

Up

11/09/99: Is GOP isolationist, or just partisan?
11/04/99: Gore, Bradley Run Opposite Races On Style, Substance
11/01/99: GOP, Clinton could reach deal swiftly
10/27/99: Bush to fight 'culture wars' -- positively
10/21/99: Porter, Mack: heroes on medical research
10/19/99: Gore scores among party big shots, but polls go South
10/14/99: Bush critiques could help GOP Congress
10/12/99: Congress can save health care from ruin
10/07/99: Will gun-control cause the GOP to shoot itself in the foot?
10/05/99: Gore moves: Desperate but necessary
10/01/99: Fox, Armstrong make case for NIH
09/28/99: Dems' race brightens Bush's chances
09/23/99: East Timor deflates `Clinton Doctrine'
09/21/99: Buchanan v. Bush? Yeah right
09/17/99: Candidates turn attention to poverty
09/15/99: Bush's education problem
09/09/99: Budget makes 2000 an `issues' election
09/07/99:Airport rage increases, with good reason
09/02/99: U.S. future up for grabs in 2000
08/31/99: U.S. Capitol needs visitor's center -- soon
08/24/99: Will 2000 be the year of the foreign crisis?
08/19/99: Neither party has upper hand for '99
08/17/99: Ford gets freedom medal one month early
08/12/99: There's time to catch Bush, say Gore aides
08/10/99: Rudy, Hillary try much-needed makeovers
08/09/99: GOP must launch new probe of Chinagate
08/02/99: Pols blow fiscal smoke on budget surplus
08/02/99: One campaign reform should pass: disclosure
07/27/99: Gore leads Bush in policy proposals

©1999, NEA