|
Jewish World Review Nov. 10, 2000 / 12 Mar-Cheshvan, 5761
Philip Terzian
But maybe not.
It is unusual, to say the least, not to know who the next president will be two days after
the election, as this is being written. But patience, as Philip Massinger once wrote, is the
beggar's virtue, and few in the news business regard themselves as supplicants. The desire to
find things out, and transmit them as quickly as possible, is ingrained in the trade -- and
sometimes, as we learned on Tuesday night, with disastrous results.
Early in the evening a trend in favor of George W. Bush was detected among the news readers
and talking heads. But as the polls closed in the Northeast, Al Gore's heartland, this was soon
translated into another dialect: The election was going Gore's way. In the middle of the
evening, that was confirmed. While voters in the western half of Florida were still standing in
line at the polls -- Florida, like some other Southern states, resides in two time zones -- the
networks unanimously awarded the state to Gore.
That appeared to seal the election: Al Gore had won Florida's 25 electoral votes, and
together with strategic Michigan, appeared unstoppable. But of course, it was not to be. The
polls finally closed in western Florida, the votes were being counted, and suddenly the Gore
victory evaporated. Florida was removed from Al Gore's column, and lay in limbo until the
middle of the night when, prematurely, it was awarded to George W. Bush. By that time, enough
Southern and Midwestern states were reporting that the addition of Florida seemed to deliver
the electoral college, and the presidency, to Governor Bush. But in the end, of course, even
that was deemed uncertain: The Bush lead conracted, and Florida ended in a photo finish,
advantage Bush.
All of this was quite exciting, or nerve-wracking, depending on your disposition, or stake
in the matter. But was it necessary? The television networks appeared to be in two desperate
races: To predict the outcome of the election, with authority, and to beat their competitors in
awarding states to candidates. But as we now know, the election was historically close, they
were wrong in many instances -- and disastrously wrong in Florida, upon which the fate of the
election rested uncertainly. Yanking Florida in one direction, and another, then another, and
back again, served only to confuse an astonishing result.
Which brings us to the basic question: What, exactly, are the networks trying to
accomplish? If their purpose is to divine the results of the election in record time -- and my
use of the word "divine" is deliberate -- they have marshaled truckloads of impressive gadgetry
and stage effects. And if their purpose is to beat the other networks to the punch, they
congratulate themselves on "calling" certain states 11.8 seconds before their competition. This
is all very impressive, when it works; but is it really what citizens need, or want, to know?
The fact is that competition has dangerously distorted the work of the television networks
in this instance, and seems to have become an end in itself. In furiously switching among the
cable channels to get basic information, I was struck by the extent to which the acumen of
viewers is deliberately neglected. Instead of allowing us to see the actual number of votes
being tabulated in, say, Florida or Missouri, we were treated, instead, to the pretty faces and
mindless banter of the agonizing news readers. Dan Rather of CBS kept telling us that Georgia
was as tight as the buckle in his grandmother's corset (or any one of hundreds of homely
phrases) but he couldn't be bothered to show us why he said that. Instead of allowing viewers
to see how many votes Bush had in Colorado, with 65percent of the precincts reporting, Brian
Williams, Tom Brokaw, Jonathan Alter, George Stephanopoulos, etc. preferred to remain in front
of the camera, explaining how difficult (or easy) it was for them to predict the outcome.
Memo to Brian Williams and company: I don't want to know whether you have awarded Georgia
to Al Gore, George W. Bush, or the Prohibition Party candidate. All I wish to know are the
numbers, not your predictions. We have exercised the franchise; now grant us the courtesy of
exercising judgment.
Will this year's debacle make a difference? Not likely. It is widely assumed that Jimmy
Carter's premature concession to Ronald Reagan in 1980 (based on TV projections) influenced
crucial votes in the West -- and may even have cost one powerful congressman his seat. For
years the parties have complained about the practice of calling states on the basis of exit
polls; but the competitive instincts, and hazardous impatience, of the TV networks are supreme.
We don't need a McCain-Feingold bill to put election-night reporting in the hands of the
federal government, but a Joe Friday Rule would surely be welcome: Keep the yak to a minimum,
and just give us the
11/09/00: Steve Allen: Smart TV
|