It is often said that democracy is not a spectator sport. Yet, for participation to be possible, citizens must have access to at least a minimum amount of relevant election information. The ability of citizens to make informed decisions is essential to a healthy democracy. It is difficult to make an objective determination as to how much information is required for this process to take place. However, a study conducted during the last month of the 2004 election cycle objectively analyzed the information that was widely available through locally produced television newscasts. The evidence uncovered in the study was used as the basis for a petition filed before the Federal Communications Commission. This petition claims that none of the commercial television broadcasters in the Portland media market are fulfilling their public-interest obligation, a requirement on which their broadcast licenses depend.
The Campaign Legal Center, a Washington, D.C.-based public interest group, commissioned the non-profit public research firm Center for Media and Pubic Affairs to examine how much time locally produced newscasts allotted to local election topics during the 2004 election cycle. Researchers also documented the framing of election coverage on a per story basis, rather then using simply airtime percentage. The study looked at three U.S. markets; Portland, Milwaukee and Chicago.
From Oct. 1 to Nov. 1, volunteers in the Portland market recorded 99 percent to 100 percent of news broadcasts produced by local stations. During this period, the four Portland broadcasters aired a combined total of 520 hours of newscasts.
The study found that, in the month leading to the election, nearly 5 percent of broadcast time was spent covering election news. While this is a small amount of time, the research showed that local elections received just a fraction of this time. Seventy-eight percent of election coverage was formatted for the 2004 presidential race, a topic widely covered by national network and cable news. The remaining time was given to local election topics. In other words, during the decision time leading to the election, the four broadcasters combined spent only 3 hours covering the local election topics.
While the presidential race was of great importance, the 2004 election presented Oregon voters with a wide array of complex issues and critical choices. Among them were a Portland mayoral and commissioner race; Measure 36, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman; Measure 37, which has drastically changed land use in Oregon; as well as many other measures and races. There was no lack of pressing topics in 2004, and yet broadcasters gave these topics diminutive coverage compared with that given to all other topics.
The other half of the study focused on the framing of election news. The findings here are also alarming. Election news was primarily focused on campaign strategy, accounting for 37 percent of stories. Coming in at a tie for second were “horse race” frames and stories that did actually focus on issues such as the financial impact of a proposed measure or the positions of a given candidate. They each accounted for 24 percent of election stories.
The Federal Communications Commission allows for-profit companies use of the publicly owned airwaves for no charge. In exchange for the use of this valuable resource, these companies must provide the public with services that, among other things, facilitate the ability of the public to actively participate in civic life. This mandate is part of television broadcasters public interest obligation. In multiple court cases, localism along with election coverage has been found to be fundamental functions of a station’s ability to fulfill this obligation.
As mentioned earlier, the study by the Center for Media and Public Affiars is being used as empirical evidence in a petition that claims Portland broadcasters are failing to meet their obligations. Subsequently, the alliance of citizens and interest groups participating in the petition are calling for the FCC to deny the renewal of the four stations broadcast licenses.
The deposition of Portland City Commissioner Erik Sten, who is participating in the petition, dramatically echoes many of the claims made in the document. Sten states, “I believe that there is a market-wide failure in the Portland media market to provide the public with the information necessary for voters to effectively fulfill their civic role in choosing candidates and making critical policy decisions. … Providing this kind of civic information is vital to ensure a healthy democracy.”
To get a sense of how broadcasters are reacting to the study and petition, I contacted Bill Johnstone, head of the Oregon Broadcasters Association. Johnstone was extremely reluctant to speak with me on the matter. After attempting to re-schedule an interview he had canceled, I was finally issued a statement informing me that he did not wish to answer questions about a “flawed and inaccurate survey.”
Lisa George, a professor of sociology at the University of Portland and Portland Community College, could find no major flaws in the study. She does say that, “we do need to know what election coverage is like on non-presidential election years.” George goes on to say however, “We can still make the case that during presidential years the coverage is extremely low.”
“The ‘local’ broadcasters in Oregon, television and radio, do a stellar job of informing, educating, and entertaining their viewers and listeners,” Johnstone says later in his statement. “The amount of time each individual station allots to local and state political candidates and issues is a decision made at that station. The fact that one station may give more coverage to a candidate or issue than another station, is a decision that lies wholly with each station.”
Andrew Schwartzman, legal counsel for the petitioners, found these remarks to be confusing.
“The question isn't whether the station decides how much time to devote to particular programming, but whether those decisions constitute operating in the public interest,” Schwartzman said.
Although he feels the petition to deny renewal makes a strong case, Schwartzman doesn’t expect that current FCC staff will rule in favor of the petition. “The losing party can appeal the FCC’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals,” he said.
Later in his statement, Johnstone went on to imply that people wishing for more information than TV news currently provides should look to other sources. This is a surprising suggestion from a representative of the broadcast industry, but perhaps it is one for the public to take very literally. If we are to be equipped with enough information to make informed choices at the polls, we must abandoned broadcast media companies just as they have abandoned their public-interest obligations. The Center for Media and Public Affairs study distroys any illusions that TV news can be looked to as a reliable source of information on important electoral issues.
Unfortunately, many people don’t have access to or are unable to navigate other sources of election news. Johnstone suggests that people can engage in dialogue with their colleagues to help form their opinions. Unfortunately, many community members are isolated from diverse points of view, or may have no social networks at all. Furthermore, many stations undertake marketing campaigns that present themselves as being authoritative institutions that filter topics that would waste a viewer’s time.
Most of us consume information produced by private media companies every day. It is important to know what is in this information, just as it is important to know the ingredients of the food we consume. The election coverage study didn’t find things that shouldn’t be in the news, rather it couldn’t find in the news the things that are required to be there. The implications of the study are clear. Citizens cannot rely on TV news to provide adequate coverage of election issues. Those of us, who are lucky enough possess the resources to do so, must turn to other sources and take on the role of investigative journalists to make sure we are receiving the whole story. The days of passive democratic participation, if they ever existed, are over.
