FREE AIR TIME

March 2000
		Should television networks be required to give free air time to candidates for public office? Barbara Cochran, president of the Radio-Television News Directors Association, and Paul Taylor, executive director of the Alliance for Better Campaigns, answer your questions.

Forum introduction Are the networks going to continue to settle for quiz programs? Why should anyone have for nothing something which has value? Why not charge broadcasters a fee for use of the public airwaves, and give the money to the people? How about reducing the number of days per week so there could be a real debate every week or two? Will free air time lower the amount of spending, or will it just mean seeing more of the candidates on the air? Why not mandate a free broadcast channel that airs debates, campaign info, and election coverage?     Online Special: Election 2000 Feb. 22, 2000 Negative campaigning Feb. 1, 2000 The primary press Jan. 12, 2000 Special interest ads Oct. 19, 1999 Campaign finance reform voted down Browse the NewsHour's coverage of the media and politics and campaigns   Alliance for Better Campaigns Federal Communications Commission Radio-Television News Directors Association

Gloria E. Yuin of Freeport, N.Y., asks: I strongly support the free air time proposal, but fear it will lead to five minutes of cliches. How about reducing the number of days per week so there could be a real debate like the ones in New Hampshire every week or two?   Paul Taylor responds: One advantage of a nightly series of candidate segments is it has a better shot than longer debates at reaching the "inadvertent audience." These are the people who may not seek out the traditional debates, but may catch five minutes at the end of a newscast or entertainment program. These are also the people who – without such free time segments -- are most likely to be exposed to a barrage of campaign ads and mere 8-second sound bites. Will it be five minutes of cliches? Research shows that candidates actually stick to issues and substance during such segments. And if candidates can only deliver canned messages, they’ll suffer at the polls.   Barbara Cochran responds: The problem with a mandate for five minutes of air time every night is that it does not allow for the journalist's editorial discretion in how best to serve the audience. Voters tell us the most useful information they receive in making their decisions on how to vote comes from debates, interviews and news coverage. Five minutes of unmediated candidate speech is likely to result in bromides scripted by consultants. There's no opportunity to question the candidate, to clarify positions or to challenge misstatements of fact or erroneous charges. In 1996, I was executive producer for political coverage for CBS News. We gave the two presidential candidates, Sen. Bob Dole and President Clinton, 2 and a half minutes each night for a week to respond to questions the public most wanted answered. The results were disappointing. Each candidate restated positions they had taken all year on the issues we asked them about and each one made misstatements or repeated false charges about their opponents. I don't believe the public learned any more about either candidate than which one did a better job of reading a TelePrompTer. Many stations in 1998 and again this year are experimenting with ways to present candidates' issue positions in ways that will engage the audience, formats like mini-debates and responses to questions posed by voters. This does require the co-operation of the candidates, and frequently they duck these opportunities. A 1997 survey by NAB showed that more than a quarter of the nation's television stations made debate offers that were rejected.