|
|
PAUL TAYLOR ON FREE-AIR TIME FOR POLITICIANS
In an effort to better educate the voters and to limit the power of sound bites, former Washington Post reporter Paul Taylor has been heading a move to offer free television time to candidates. He is trying to persuade the networks to offer two to five minutes a night, in the heart of prime time, during the last month of the general election - from roughly October 1st through Election Day. Click here to read his interview with Charlayne Hunter-Gault.
Click to see a Forum Menu.
I understand America is the only country not to provide free air time to candidates. Have you based your campaign on the experiences of other countries? How?
Paul Taylor responds:
Nearly all the other democracies of the world provide free air time to political candidates. The only two overseas elections I've covered were the Angolan election in 1992, and the South African election in 1994. Both were first-time democratic events. In both, the candidates had free air time. The first election led to renewed civil war, the second led to an end to 300 years of oppression. So based on this tiny sample, the record is mixed. (It's also worth noting that only a fraction of the residents of those countries have televisions.) Free air time isn't a panacea, but it's a step in the right direction.
A question from Garth DeLore of Alexandria, VA:
Have you posed your idea to the candidates? What was been their response?
Paul Taylor responds:
I've posted my idea to the candidates' staffs. They're lukewarm. Dole's people worry he isn't very good on television. Clinton's people figure they're in the lead, why risk anything new? But at least in principle, both Dole and Clinton are on record supporting free air time for candidates. If the networks make the offer, I think they'll have to accept.
A question from Lori Herbert of Burlington, Vermont:
The airwaves are public property so the government has the right to require free air time... will this happen? Or would the whole FCC mandate need to be revamped?
Paul Taylor responds:
In order to require free air time, it would take an act of Congress. Members of Congress tend to want to be on the good side of local broadcasters, for obvious reasons. So a law is unlikely to pass. Another reason: laws are written by incumbents. This idea is only good for challengers.
A question from Julie Mason of Coty, WY:
How effective can five minutes be? The NewsHour has already run stump speeches that were over five minutes. (Some of them-- Morry Taylor's--felt like much more than five!) How is your plan different?
Paul Taylor responds:
Five minutes is long enough to say something substantive, and short enough to keep the attention of millions who won't sit still for longer presentations. Plus, remember, it's five minutes every night for a month. With the candidates alternating, it could unfold as a kind of serialized debate.
A question from Keith Tomao of Hopewell, NJ:
Bill Bradley has proposed a similar idea for Senate races, because the need to fundraise has hindered his ability to concentrate on legislation. Should free-air time be applied at the state level? Some people don't know who is running in any given election. Should the effort be combined with a civic education program of some sort? That would be very ambitious!
Paul Taylor responds:
Yes, it should be applied to the state level. If it works at the presidential level this year, why not allocate five minutes a night on alternating nights to all the state parties in 1998? Then, in each media market, the parties' leaders could decide which of its candidates most needed the free time. It would be good for challengers, good for parties, and good for democracy.
______________________________________________
(Free air time) is a good idea for several reasons. First, it will make candidates less dependent on the interest groups that have been so influential in determining public policy. Secondly, it will reduce the time the candidates now spend in raising money for TV exposure. Third, it will help level the playing field, since all serious candidates will participate equally in the free time. Finally, it diminishes reliance on the 30 second "sound-bites," which serve only to confuse voters, and detract from issues of the campaign.
____________________________________________
Lynn Brielmaier, Houston,TX:
Its a good start......
Getting the candidates free air time for five minutes or so, is a good start.
What we need after this baby-step is to extend it to 15 minutes. This will help to reduce the tremendous need to raise funds to "buy" air time.
Right now, only people who are exuberant fund-raisers can possibly run for office. This leads to the feeling (by the masses) that all of the candidates are already "bought." Therefore, their votes are useless and they don't even show up at the polls.
_____________________________________________
Joseph A. McDonald, Burlington, Vt:
Free air time for Presidential candidates is a great idea that's time has come, but it would be more effective if it were more structured.
For example, two (5) minute sessions each week for the six weeks before the election. There should be set topics for each evening. The first night's topic could be the balanced budget and how the candidate plans to reach it within 6 years, the second night's topic might be Medicare, etc.
The last night or two could be an open forum for the candidates to make their last appeals to the voters.
Two sessions per week gives everyone time to listen to the message and make comments and evaluations. Establishing topics for each night would help the voters compare the policies and goals each candidate is proposing. It would also keep the candidates focused and ensures they address the important issues.
__________________________________________
Rocci Hildum, Cashmere, WA:
I never thought that I would believe in the public funded political campaigns; however, over time, and with experience and observation, I now believe that one of the most pervasively evil influences on the political process of this nation is the influence of money.
Politicians spend tremendous amounts of time and personal resources in accumulating money with which to finance campaigns, and to increase their personal wealth.
I believe, regardless of what they may say, that when someone is required to devote large portions of their work day to attracting financial supporters, it impacts the quality of their work.
Anything that can reduce the dependence of candidates on the attraction of financial support is to the good. I would actually advocate for something even more - free time on radio and in print media as well. I would also advocate for the complete elimination of campaign contributions by PACS and soft money.
I also agree that too much of our political campaigns is conducted in the sound bite mode. I would advocate for anything that requires politicians to deal with issues in greater detail. However, I also appreciate the fact that this culture is moving ever more in the direction of instant gratification, and there is little popular tolerance for anything that takes too long to read, that requires someone to think about what has been said, that is not expressed in rhyming couplets...
I would not be surprised to find that many people would not be interested in such longer length television programs.
____________________________________________
Douglas Otis, Paso Robles, CA:
Yes, the Federal Communication Commission should mandate that a number of hours be allocated for such use. This should include both wireless and cable. All (broadcasters) (should) provide significant time for debate, for both national and local campaigns.
We should also establish an Internet mailing list server to provide e-mail forums that are moderated by selected groups. This e-mail service should also be free. Long distance providers could also be mandated to provide this service as well.
________________________________________
Michael Schumann, Chicago, Illinois:
Not a bad idea, but a case of "A Day Late and a Dollar Short."
I am in complete agreement with the idea that "sound bites" are ruining the political process, but the worst damage is done before the primaries, when there is usually a real difference between candidates.
Sad to say, by the month before the election, what we get in the "sound bites" has become rote and reflexive, defined and refined by the endless polls., It is all the substance the candidates are capable of.
_________________________________________
Van Sant, Hanford, CA:
Free air time for candidates is long over due. It's the media's responsibility to provide free air time to all candidates equally, to make sure that the public is well informed. Plus every effort should be made to reduce campaign costs.
___________________________________________
Lindy Russell, Pasadena, CA:
I strongly support this idea to provide free air time in the last month of the presidential campaign. The networks claim they provide a lot of (public service) with shows like David Brinkley, NightLine, etc., and I applaud them for that. The sad truth is that unfortunately, the average voter looks to TV news as their sole source for information. They don't read newspapers, news magazines, join local political clubs. The networks have contributed a great deal to the dumbing of Americans...
I see this as an excellent opportunity for them to let voters hear (and see) what the candidates have to say, say on the issues. Bravo Mr. Taylor and the NewsHour for providing in-depth election coverage.
______________________________________
Tom Krebs, Winchester, VA:
I think (the) concept is likely to be a winner, but we won't know unless we try it. It is just possible, not likely, mind you, that the idea, if tried, might inject some sorely needed doses of substance into what has otherwise become an exercise in sales promotion. Thanks, PBS, for giving Mr. Taylor's ideas some free air time of their own!
Click here for past forums.
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
