Online NewsHour: Al Vecchione Forum

The first is Character Above All. The show, broadcast on May 29th, explored how the character of the past ten presidents affected their presidencies. It also examined what aspects of character are the ones that voters should try to understand.

When Al Vecchione retires from MacNeil/Lehrer Productions in July, he will devote more of his time to an issue he has been working on for some time, the proposal to give free television time to candidates. He has argued that this is an important way for citizens to hear from the candidates themselves, to allow candidates to deliver an unfiltered message directly to the American people. To this end, he will work with Paul Taylor, former Washington Post reporter, to give presidential candidates free airtime on most major networks.

Al Vecchione answered your questions on the idea of free television for candidates and Character Above All.

I found the Character Above All Web site to be a real educational experience. The combination of the show transcript with essays by noted historians taught me a lot about Presidential history. Are more of these projects planned in the future? Will television programs in the future be designed for a multimedia approach (i.e. a book, a tv show and a Web site)?

MacNeil/Lehrer Productions and other producers have produced many programs over the years with a multi-media approach (book, outreach etc.). What's new is the addition of the online service.

To your second point concerning more programs like "Character Above All" in the future, unfortunately we have none planned at the moment. But we're always open to suggestions.

First let me say that Character Above All was what tv is all about. Thought-provoking, intelligent and meaningful. Thank you for the show.

We focused on the character issue because in recent months it has become highly topical in the contemporary political arena. The press and the general public have been more focused on this issue than at any time in recent memory.

Currently most tv news organizations have said that it would compromise their editorial control to give free air time to candidates. Does this concern you? Also why does the free time not apply to different media like radio or newspapers?

Television is quite simply, the most powerful mechanism for communication ever devised. Many surveys indicate that some two-thirds of the American public gets its news and information through television. So its the most effective conduit through which to reach the largest number of people. That's particularly true in the Prime Time viewing hours.

Having said that, I would hope that radio too would join the effort. That would help in reaching even more people. Newspapers I think are different, although I am confident that most major newspapers would re-print a full transcript of each speech the following day.

To your point about ceding editorial control to the candidates: I think quite frankly, that its a somewhat silly and paranoid concern that some journalists have expressed. My view is that voters have every right to direct access to the candidates. The overwhelming majority of the information we receive during an election campaign is filtered through the journalism machinery. That's OK, and probably as it should be in a Democracy. But surely one--only one--free TV exposure would not disrupt the Republic. The American voter is smart enough to handle it.

Free air-time to one group could cause all groups with a cause to think they, too, are entitled. The airwaves would soon be flooded with special interest messages.

I'd rather see a media that objectively reports the views of the candidates and how they will deal with the issues vs. the media's obsession with digging for and reporting the dirt.

If the Free TV airtime proposal ever becomes a reality, normal Fairness Doctrine rules of some kind would be applied. The Free TV advocates - like myself - would abide by whatever legal guidelines are established by the FCC. The rules would surely resemble those applied for TV Debates, and as such would mitigate or eliminate fringe candidates or special interests.

I very much agree with the thrust of your second point. We need more and better objective reporting of the candidates views and their positions on the issues. The media does spend too much of its time and effort digging up dirt -- although sometimes that digging process does prove revealing. Journalism is an imperfect science. Some would say its an art form and that's often where the problems begin.

When we talk "free" television or even radio time, who will be standing the cost of this "free" time. Will the taxpayers, the media owners or who will make this "free."

The air waves that "Airtime" is transmitted over belongs to the American people. The Federal government grants a license to broadcasters to transmit programs "in the public interest," and it grants the license at no charge to the broadcasters. They in turn, do their business on these airwaves for which they earn millions -- indeed billions -- of dollars of profit each year. To expect them therefore to grant a few minutes of "Free" time is really not asking very much.

Further, a method of transmitting these candidate segments between programs is available by which not even the commercial broadcasts would lose any revenue from commercial messages. The only aspect that is free, is that the candidates would not have to pay the broadcasters for the use of the time. That would mean that they would in turn spend less, have to raise less money for their campaign, and would perhaps at the end of the day be less beholden to special interests.

I think the idea that candidates should get a few free minutes every night on the major networks (PBS, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX) is wonderful. It will take the pressure off the unfortunate importance of commercials.

But how would a decision be made about *who* is a candidate? And who would make this decision? Everytime I've gone to the polls to vote, I've noticed a long list of other candidates for president who I'd never previously heard of. Would all of these candidates get their free slot on network TV? Even the really dumb ones? I don't really see a way, within a democracy, that all of these candidates - whether there are 10 or 100 - shouldn't get the same benefit. And if there are too many candidates, we'll be back to where we started, with the big guys with all the money buying commercial time.

If the Free TV airtime proposal ever became a reality, normal Fairness Doctrine rules of some kind would be applied. The Free TV advocates -- like myself -- would abide by whatever legal guidelines are established by the FCC. The rules would surely resemble those applied for TV debates, and as such would mitigate or eliminate fringe candidates or special interests. I do think that these rules have validity, and there is much precedent for following them. The courts have long since validated their use on behalf of the overall public interest. The central idea of the Free TV movement is to raise the level of the political dialogue, and to eventually mitigate the influence of special interests.

Program
Support
From:

AL VECCHIONE ON FREE AIR TIME TO CANDIDATES AND CHARACTER ABOVE ALLWEDNESDAY 6/12/96

Al Vecchione answered your questions on the idea of free television for candidates and Character Above All.

AL VECCHIONE ON FREE AIR TIME TO CANDIDATES AND CHARACTER ABOVE ALL
WEDNESDAY 6/12/96