TALKING HEADS
A Low Blow For High Expectations?
By Vaughn Ververs
NationalJournal.com
Friday, July 16, 2004
One theory driving election predictions this cycle goes something like this: Americans are energized like never before, they are paying more attention to the campaign, and they will turn out in higher numbers than we've seen in decades. The numbers back that up. In poll after poll, respondents say they are following the election more closely than they did four years ago. A recent Pew poll found 63 percent believe the election results "really matter" and that 58 percent had given "a lot" of thought to it.
The unwillingness of networks to devote more time is understandable in the context of most election years, when voter apathy is the rule. But if the polls are right, this year is different.
If those numbers are a true reflection of voter intentions, turnout should be very high indeed. But if public interest is really so high, why are the three broadcast networks committing just three hours of airtime to each party convention? Higher interest should mean higher ratings -- or do they know something that the pollsters don't?
If there's one thing network programers know, it's that the number of viewers tuning in for the conventions declines each and every cycle. A lack of news and drama, combined with moment-by-moment scripting, does not produce breathtaking coverage. Still, increased interest should translate into increased viewership, right? Unfortunately, we may never know the answer.
The networks' decision to gut convention coverage (this year mirrors the coverage in 2000) is likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Those truly interested in watching the convention happenings are more likely to tune into one of the three cable news networks, knowing they will get much more comprehensive coverage there. Network numbers then will go down, allowing them to say, "See, we told you so."
The real question will be whether the cable numbers go up substantially or not. Unless those numbers rise to towering heights, the perception will likely be that ratings went down once again, and the argument for no network coverage will gain steam. But is that a realistic reading of what people want or a function of network decisions?
Who's to say that three hours of coverage each night of both conventions this year wouldn't yield great ratings -- at least equal to what the networks will get with summer entertainment programming? It would follow that by roadblocking the major networks with convention coverage, the ratings would naturally go up just by virtue of eliminating competition. But they could increase even more.
The four networks, including Fox, have been averaging about 6 million viewers this summer. That's about 24 million people tuning in. The most unfortunate aspect of the networks' coverage is not that those viewers have to go to the cable channels to watch -- it's that many will not. Millions, perhaps tens of millions, will instead opt for one more re-run of "CSI."
The networks will, of course, argue that they are providing plenty of coverage. Their evening news broadcasts will originate from the convention sites, and presumably, be mostly devoted to them. Their anchors will be on hand, as will their star analysts. Their Web sites will provide comprehensive coverage. ABC is even offering a "digital" signal, whatever that means.
The cable folks will argue that they have now become the channels to go to for news, and that they are filling the void. All that is true to some extent, but doesn't excuse the networks. After all, they have all their resources there. Why not put them to use? And do you really think that, just because the cable channels are covering something, the networks wouldn't?
The unwillingness of networks to devote more time is understandable in the context of most election years, when voter apathy is the rule. But if the polls are right, this year is different. And politicians are starting to notice. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has recently threatened legislation to require networks to increase their political coverage. Given the networks' approach to the conventions, maybe that's not such a bad idea.
Point Of Order
We would be remiss if we were to let the week go by without offering a comment on the New York Times' front-page story touting the "rumor" that President Bush may drop Vice President Dick Cheney from the GOP ticket. That the story was written at all is suspect. That it was written based on a "conspiracy theory" being "advanced privately by prominent Democrats" is worse.
This is certainly not the first time the "dump Cheney" story made its way into the news. Not long ago, former Sen. Al D'Amato, R-N.Y., publicly suggested that very thing. It may have generated the first media attention D'Amato received since leaving office. Such is the power of this "rumor." According to the Times, the rumor has "so greatly intensified" that Cheney "himself was forced to address it" in a C-SPAN interview.
Cheney has been asked repeatedly about the possibility of not being on the ticket, and he has repeatedly given the same answer. Could the Times perhaps be signaling that it knows a little more about this possibility than they are able to report at the moment? If so, it's a sneaky and inappropriate way to do so. If they have it, they should report it; if not, don't insinuate.
What's the harm in the story? Well, all day long on cable news, radio and the Internet, the story was re-reported. And it was treated not solely as a "rumor," but as a possibility. A front-page story in the New York Times will do that. We can't wait to see which "rumor" next makes it above the fold -- or which one does not.
Vaughn Ververs is editor of The Hotline, the National Journal Group's daily briefing on politics. His e-mail address is vververs@nationaljournal.com. |
