Commentary –

Television News Fails Again

By Jason Salzman

Americans get most of their information from television. And where in the television world are the bulk of the “facts” about election-related topics? From TV news programs? Dream on. The majority of citizens get most of their information about candidates and other ballot issues from television advertisements.

At the national level, news coverage of election issues has decreased significantly over the past 20 years. The nightly network news programs – that’s Dan Rather, etc. – broadcast hundreds fewer election stories than they did in 1988, according to the Tyndall Report. Coverage of the political conventions has also decreased by two thirds over the past two decades.

As for the debates, NBC offered its affiliates the option this year of broadcasting the deciding playoff game of the American Baseball League, instead of the final presidential square-off. Fox skipped the last debate in favor of a new science fiction drama called Dark Angel.

But despite the embarrassing decrease in election coverage, Americans who tune to national network TV news can become informed about the presidential race.

The same cannot be said for Americans who tune to their local TV news to become informed about local ballot issues and candidates.

An Alliance For Better Campaigns report revealed that, prior to this year’s primaries, local TV news outlets broadcast an average of only 40 seconds per night of election coverage. This is consistent with exhaustive studies in past election years.

While election news coverage was meager on local TV news, political advertising was overwhelming. Stations in New York and Philadelphia, for example, broadcast 10 times more ads than news stories. (And, according to previous reports, most of these election stories on local TV news are not about local issues, like ballot initiatives or congressional races; they focus instead on the star-studded presidential race.)

Why does this matter? Because we rely on professional journalists for a fair and accurate assessment of all election issues, including the positions of candidates, arguments about ballot initiatives, and the truthfulness of political advertising. Our democracy relies on journalists to help voters sort through the political hype and make informed decisions.

Without adequate TV news coverage of elections, citizens – who turn to TV for information – are left to form their opinions of candidates based on manipulative ads created by professional spin doctors. The resulting political debate is synthetic, often shrill, and clearly alienating to those who are turned off by advertising. This toxic atmosphere certainly contributes to the decisions of half of our citizens not to vote.

Ironically, the very same local TV stations that apparently find election issues too boring to cover are profiting handsomely from elections. This year, the broadcasting industry is estimated to have raked in $600 million in advertising revenue related to the 2000 election – six times what it earned a generation ago.

It is easy to see, then, why political advertising is the main cost of election campaigns. The Bush and Gore campaigns, for example, spent 45 percent of their funds each on advertising, according to the latest statistics available. That’s more than the cost of their staff payrolls, travel, overhead, direct mail, and other events combined.

In this media environment, elections, particularly at the local level, are sold to the folks with the most money for TV advertising. The ideas of cash-poor third party candidates literally never get aired. And alternative candidates can make little headway in the polls, regardless of their positions on the issues.

So what do third party candidates and activist groups do to get attention? They enlist celebrities or act like buffoons. (Witness Jesse Ventura.) Or they stage elaborate stunts, like a “naked protest,” nonviolent civil disobedience, or a “breast feed-in” to attract the TV news cameras. This works for the media, but it doesn’t work for democracy.

What’s the solution? How about free media time to candidates? As part of one recent campaign – endorsed by Jimmy Carter, Walter Cronkite, and a White House panel – over 1,300 local TV stations were asked to voluntarily broadcast five minutes of election news per night prior to the primaries. Only two stations took up the offer.

Some local and national journalists argue that if they cover more election material, they will lose their audiences. But if they fail to cover them, we may lose our democracy. It is time for journalists to risk lowering their profit margin, and, in the public interest, give elections the coverage they deserve.

(Jason Salzman is board president of Rocky Mountain Media Watch (www.bigmedia.org) and author of Making the News: A Guide for Non-Profits and Activists.)