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

Ari Meltzer of Northbrook, Ill., asks: Will free air time actually lower the amount of spending, or will it just mean seeing more of the candidates on the air? Also, if stations get to choose how to use the time, they are going to want to use the high profile candidates for their free time obligation, but won't this further hurt the chances of challengers defeating establishment candidates?   Paul Taylor responds: The cost of communicating with voters through the mass media is the single greatest cause of skyrocketing campaign spending. By reducing candidates’ reliance on paid political ads, free time – especially in the context of comprehensive campaign finance reform -- can gradually alleviate campaign spending. But the immediate benefit of more air time is that voters will get substantive information and underfunded challengers will get a shot at making their cases heard. We’ve found that stations that have offered air time voluntarily try to be fair, and do not exclude challengers from such offers.   Barbara Cochran responds: There is nothing in the free time proposals that would prevent candidates from spending as much as they choose on advertising. In fact, political consultants regard the candidate-speaks-to-camera format as a relatively weak method of getting their message across, so the availability of such opportunities is extremely unlikely to curtail candidates' desires for the kind of advertising we see now. The question of who gets the time is a difficult one. The Federal Communications Commission has rules for how stations are obliged to offer "equal time" to candidates. This can become especially troubling in the nation's largest markets like New York City and Los Angeles which cover dozens of congressional districts.