ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, May 28, 1996 TAG: 9605290019
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: FRANK J. FAHRENKOPF AND CHARLES T. MANATT
GIVE CREDIT where credit is due: By offering free television time to the presidential candidates, ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC and PBS have done a great public service. They may even do what Congress has failed to do for a generation - effect meaningful campaign reform.
But to make a difference, the networks must aim for free TV's underlying goal: to help the candidates and the voters focus on the issues we face as a nation. As it stands, the networks have made free TV offers on their own terms, in a way that serves their own interests as much as candidates' or voters'. The result will be a mishmash that probably won't much improve the tenor of the fall campaign.
The networks have agreed to do the right thing; now they need to agree to do it the right way. And that is to broadcast simultaneously in prime time. Here's why:
Free TV simulcasts would get people's attention. Americans do not lack campaign coverage; the networks already provide dozens of hours a week during the fall campaign. But to help focus the attention of the media-saturated public, we need to add quality to campaign coverage, not simply quantity. Nearly 100 million viewers watched the final 1992 presidential debate simulcast, the biggest audience ever for a political broadcast. By contrast, the '92 Perot infomercials, which were not simulcast, drew one-tenth as many viewers. (This dispels free TV myth No. 1, that Americans won't watch substantive political broadcasts.)
Free TV simulcasts would become public events. When the networks simulcast, they send a message that an event is important. Just as presidential news conferences and political conventions are important enough to be simulcast, free TV should be simulcast as well. (So much for free TV myth No. 2, that free TV would reduce journalists' role of scrutinizing the candidates. By creating a new ``news event,'' free TV simulcasts would expand journalists' role, as they will no doubt follow up the broadcasts with news analyses and ``reality check'' segments.)
Free TV simulcasts would create a national dialogue. With more and more niche media outlets engaging in ``narrowcasting,'' Americans share less and less information. Free TV simulcasts would provide the public a shared source of information about the candidates. It might even strengthen America's sense of itself as a cohesive political community that speaks a common political language. (This undercuts free TV myth No. 3, that the Internet, talk shows and other outlets already offer adequate direct candidate-to-voter communication for substantive issues discussion.)
With a coordinated plan, free TV simulcasts are doable. The networks' current hodgepodge of proposals may prove logistically impossible for candidates, and unless viewers are willing to schedule their entire lives around the evening news and magazine shows, they may miss the broadcasts. A simple, common plan would be more manageable. And by simulcasting, the networks could avoid losing viewership shares to one another. (This weakens free TV myth No. 4, that free time is a money loser for the networks. Of course, people can tune out or switch to cable, but the 1992 debate ratings suggest they won't.)
For free TV, then, the devil is in the details. But these details can be worked out. At a minimum, the networks and campaigns need to agree to a coordinated, more focused free TV plan. And they need to do so soon, while they can still work it into their fall schedules.
For free TV to make a difference, it not only needs to be done, but also to be done right.
Frank J. Fahrenkopf and Charles T. Manatt are organizers, with Paul Taylor and Walter Cronkite, of the Free TV for Straight Talk Coalition.
- Los Angeles Times
LENGTH: Medium: 76 lines KEYWORDS: POLITICS PRESIDENTby CNB