Networks Shouldn’t Be Out-Foxed
He may not be everyone’s favorite media baron, but give Rupert Murdoch his due. The other day he came up with an idea that - if improved upon - just might lift American political campaigns out of their televised swamp.
Murdoch announced a plan to give free air time this fall to the presidential candidates, a practice that the foreign-born head of Fox television network knows is the norm in nearly all of the world’s mature democracies except the United States.
Unfortunately, the initial reaction from the three more established and public-spirited networks was to treat Murdoch like the skunk at the tea party.
Bright clothespins on their noses, anonymous sources at ABC, NBC and CBS told the New York Times - off the record - that they already make a far more substantial commitment than Fox does to covering the campaigns.
They’re right. Fox doesn’t seriously cover news. It does minimal public affairs programming, and its offer of free air time is relatively cheap grace, given the low ratings for most of its shows.
But all those truths are also a bit beside the point. Politics isn’t going very well on television these days - not on Fox, but also not on NBC, CBS or ABC. Campaigns unfold on all commercial television as a bread-and-circus blur of 30-second attack ads and eight-second sound bites. Citizens feel cheated. They grow cynical.
Television journalists may be a part of the problem. No one denies they have a vital role to play as skeptical observers, independent analysts and vigilant watchdogs of the men and women who seek public office.
But in recent years they’ve let the fine line between journalistic skepticism and cynicism break down. The biggest growth industry in televised politics during the 1990s - aside from Steve Forbes’s ads - has been the pundit class. Increasingly, they offer their wisdom larded with blatant cynicism.
Happily, there’s a way that the other networks might improve on Murdoch’s proposal - and in the process transform television into an ally rather than adversary of nourishing political campaigns.
Why not have all four networks offer a few minutes a night of free air time to the candidates in the final month of the fall campaign, in the heart of prime time, and if possible in a “roadblock” format (shown simultaneously on all commercial networks, plus PBS and participating cable stations)?
In return, why not insist that the candidates use this time for talking-head presentations? No journalists. No surrogates. No opponents. No tricky images. No unseen narrators. Just the candidate, making his or her best case to the biggest audience America assembles every night.
This format would trigger a number of healthy changes in campaign discourse.
The talking-head requirement would force candidates to take direct responsibility for what they say. Attack the other fellow if they wish - but they’ll have to do the dirty work themselves.
The duration of the free time segments should be fixed at anywhere from two to five minutes. Five would probably be ideal, but if too rich for the networks, two would do. A lot can be said in that time - it’s a quantum leap from 30 seconds. Eric Sevareid and John Chancellor were given two minutes when the network news broadcasts still offered commentary. They made coherent and persuasive arguments.
The placement in prime time would give the candidates access to tens of millions of Americans who have stopped watching the evening news, reading newspapers and bothering to vote. They’re settling in for a pleasant evening of “Seinfeld” or “Monday Night Football.” Borrow a few minutes of their time for politics - but offer them substance, not snippets.
The “roadblock” would lend a certain weight to the occasion. It would be the networks’ way of telling their viewers: This is the presidency. Happens once every four years. It’s important. Pay attention.
The networks could rotate the segments nightly among the two major party candidates and any serious independents. So for the last month of the campaign, you’d have Clinton on a Monday night at 8:55, the GOP nominee on a Tuesday night at the same time, Clinton again (or an independent) on a Wednesday, etc.
Ideally, these five-minute presentations would play out as a serialized debate, with thrust and parry, charge and rebuttal - all the elements of drama that journalists are always looking to superimpose onto politics.
They could become the place where the campaign “happens” in its culminating month. They - and not the photo ops, sound bites, attack ads or polls - could drive both the campaign strategy and journalistic coverage. Who knows, they may even become what ordinary Americans talk about at office water coolers or grocery checkout lines.
This won’t be easy for the networks. It will cost them ad revenue. It will be inconvenient for them to break into programming.
They may want to rejigger some elements of this proposal to ease their burden. But they know as well as anyone: This is a relatively small “fix” that could change the language of politics. It would allow the candidates to put their best foot forward, not their worst. It would enable the campaign to be waged with civility and dignity.
xxxx