TV Coverage of U.S. Party Conventions: A Proposal for 2000

The 2000 race for the presidency has begun. Aspirants for their party’s nominations have declared their inclination or disinclination to run; indeed, months before the first primaries announced candidates have already withdrawn their hats from the ring. Exploratory committees have been organized, and the race to raise funds is on full-steam. The parties have already chosen their convention sites, and states are jockeying for early and therefore presumed strategic positions on the primary calendar. It is not too soon, therefore, to give serious thought to the presidential selection process and television’s coverage of it, and to consider how they might better be connected to an electorate disaffected with politics, politicians, and the news media.

A major part of the problem is that the public has seen and heard too much of politicians and media people of late. For the sake of promoting democratic politics and a more positive, attentive, and active electorate, less is better than more. Take network television coverage of the national nominating conventions. Since 1968, we have seen the proliferation of pledged delegates and relentlessly front-loaded primaries and caucuses. In 2000, about two-thirds of the convention delegates and possibly the candidates themselves will be chosen before the end of March, months before the late summer conventions. The major television networks have argued that the conventions are “dinosaurs” that just ratify presidential nomination choices made de facto months before their opening, and they have scaled back their coverage. They gave up gavel-to-gavel coverage long ago but still make major commitments of prime airtime, staff, equipment, and revenues to convention coverage. It is likely that inertia will prevail and they will do it again in 2000. But this mode of coverage just does not work; it does not provide a coherent and therefore informative view of the parties and of the nominating politics of the conventions. It does not allow the convention proceedings to reach the viewers; instead, it offers a disjointed parade of media “talking heads” as they search for conflict and human interest and engage in speculation. The viewing audience declines with the increasing availability of alternative programming, and the networks complain of the absence of real news and of lost audiences and revenues.

It is time for the television networks and the political parties, and for everyone interested in saving politics from the self-indulgence of its principal players, to rethink network television coverage and the conventions themselves. The central objectives should be informing the public of the news of the conventions in a meaningful and manageable way, facilitating the conduct of the business of the conventions by the parties, allowing the parties to introduce their candidates, their programs, and themselves to the electorate, and using effectively the resources of television and the other news media. How might this be achieved?

Assume that the 2000 conventions of the two major political parties will be the usual four-day affairs. First, the major television networks (ABC, CBS, NBC—and PBS) should bite the bullet and announce that they will not provide live coverage in prime time of the first three days of the conventions. Instead, they will report these sessions during their regular news broadcasts. They will provide live coverage in prime time (9 to 11 p.m.) only for the fourth sessions of the conventions when the vice-presidential nominees are introduced, make brief acceptance speeches, and in turn introduce the presidential nominees for their acceptance speeches. Live and in prime time the nominees would be formally introduced to the public, and they and their parties could still use the occasion with its energy and promise to initiate their general election campaigns.

Second, given this action by the major television networks, the political parties should rethink the proceedings of their conventions. They can use the first three days to conduct the important business at hand without constantly worrying about the cameras and what stories the networks have chosen to air live at that moment. The parties would not be under pressure to make the working sessions of their conventions engaging television fare...