On Tuesday, television watchers, whatever their political leanings, should have been able to join in celebration: the campaign of 1994 was over.
For weeks there has been lamentation on all channels about the nastiness of the advertising on all channels. Except for the professionals who turn out the stuff (and for whom every negative is a positive on their balance sheets), campaign commentators have chorused their disgust at charges and countercharges that have little to do either with truth or with issues that really touch voters' lives.But they also agree that the voters, in this sour season, did not seem to know or care much about candidates' experience or policies or about the consequences of, say, cutting taxes. The commentators were especially incensed by 30-second television spots that explained nothing. Money buys time, and time buys votes, and attack ads breed attack ads.
So what is to be done, except for preparing ourselves for even worse in 1996? By now, eyes glaze at the mention of campaign reform, yet without restrictions on contributions and expenditures and serious federal financing, our political arrangements will remain in thrall to the fat cats and their hired media manipulators.
Unfortunately, with so many senators and representatives reluctant to give up the largesse, campaign reform is not around the corner.
So the burden falls on television itself. For reasons of self-interest and concern for freedom of speech, networks and stations cannot be expected to bar those invidious 30-second spots or to deny candidates other opportunities to slander their rivals. And the polluters are not going to stop the dumping in an outbreak of guilty conscience. Still, perhaps their products can be subjected to public examination without violating anyone's liberties. At least, the possibility demands discussion.
Network news departments have lately been making efforts to sort out truth from fiction, relevance from irrelevance in the din. Good, but that is not nearly enough to stem the effluvia poisoning the political environment. Here, then, is a short, not overly ambitious wish list:
- Any advertisement that attacks a rival's character should be delivered personally by the candidate who is making it, not by some anonymous voice. Say anything you want, sir or madam, but say it openly on screen. And every respectable news department should feel an obligation to give the target an opportunity to respond, again in person.
- Any advertisement that attacks a candidate's record should be followed with all deliberate speed by a news-department accounting of its accuracy and its method of delivery. The analysis should come while the advertisement is still fresh in mind. If this discourages the 30-second spots, so much the better. (This suggestion could be usefully applied to so-called positive advertising, too, which is often positively misleading.)
- Considerably more of prime time should be given to interviews with the candidates, conducted not by blank local-news anchors but by real reporters, well supplied with background material and not shy about pressing for comprehensible answers. Debate formats should be aimed at enlightenment, not at agitation, more in the spirit of "The MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour" than of "Crossfire." Some programs and personalities contribute to the brainless brawling even while decrying it.
These proposals (which, I confess, would not do much to reduce the demagogy and lunacy of talk radio) are not original and probably not enforceable; they involve technical and economic as well as legal problems. So if other approaches serve better, fine. The object is simply to add more accurate information to the campaign commotion and reduce the vicious nonsense.
Whether many voters will be more moved by the facts than by the attacks is a separate matter. Asking for more enlightening television campaigns is like asking for more intelligent television dramas; audience preferences may lie in another direction. But that's show business.