Second Guessing

How much does television affect American politics? Ever since the 1960 Presidential campaign, the question has haunted the election process. John F. Kennedy '40 very effectively used the fledgling medium, and a a result he has often been called the first "TV President." This claim has some validity; JFK's campaign received a real boost from the famous Nixon Kennedy debates, among the first such affairs ever broadcast to a national audience. Currently, it is hard to forget Ronald Reagan's description as the "Great Communicator" when he appears in his element--behind a podium delivering a prepared speech.

But, while people often discuss the impact of televised advertisements, debates, and exit polling, no one seems to ever do anything about it. First Amendment freedoms are assumed, almost off handedly, to be sufficient protection for the broadcast media during election years.

But danger of this complacent faith in the First Amendment became apparent last week in the aftermath of the lowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. The House Telecommunications Subcommittee has been holding hearings this year concerning the effect of TV projections on final vote tallies. The problem first received widespread attention after the 1980 Presidential contest, when President Jimmy Carter's early concession prompted as much as two per cent of the Western electorate to stay home, according to several studies. Although this probably didn't cause Carter's defeat, the results of state-level contests may have been decisively affected. The practice of spot-polling voters as they leave the polls, and instantaneous transmission of the results to TV screens, may have had the same discouraging effect.

This alleged distortion of election returns is what the Telecommunications Subcommittee has been studying. The chairman. Rep. Timothy E. Wirth (D-Colo.), sent a letter after the February 20 lowa caucuses to the presidents of the three major networks. In the letter, Wirth recommended that the networks show "restraint" in broadcasting election results before voters have cast their ballots. He also invited the network presidents to testify at hearings on the Monday preceding the New Hampshire primary, and the networks each sent a representative.

Closer to home. Massachusetts Attorney General Michael Connolly has tentatively proposed a bill which would actually prohibit TV stations from projecting voting results until the poll have closed.

Both Connolly and the Congressional subcommittee understand some of the flaws of the present system. In his letter Wirth addressed the heart of the issue. "To put it simply, in scores, if not hundreds, of rooms where caucuses were occurring, Iowa voters were told what the results would be before and during their decision-making process."

The legendary deluge of reporters on New Hampshire produced almost the same outcome--extensive and frequent updates of exit polling throughout the day. Sen. Gary W. Hart's (D-Colo.) surprising victory margin became apparent quite early in the afternoon.

These facts demand that society look long and hard at the possible implications for modern democracy. Do TV projections discourage voters favorable to the losing candidate from going to the polls? Do they also scare away voters favorable to the apparent winner by making them feel overconfident? Do voters for an underdog turn out early, and in large numbers, precisely because they share Wirth's and Connolly's opinion and hope to push their candidate to victory in spite of expectations?

This "second guessing" effect of polls lies at the heart of the problem and Wirth alludes to it--perhaps inadvertently--that the first projection in Iowa. by CBS News, was broadcast at 8:12 PM-18 minutes before the caucuses even began. The other two networks quickly followed. NBC a few minutes later and ABC at 8.46. Significantly, these projections differed radically from the ranking of just the day before.

The medium is not the message. It never has been, in the competitive and lucrative American media. The New Hampshire returns embarrassed the national press more than any other recent event. After predicting the winner incorrectly, the networks received insult added to injury through Hart's record-breaking margin. It's simply impossible to conjecture that the networks did anything other than report the facts as they saw them; any other approach would be vulnerable to ruthless exposure by a competitor. And any media organization, however small, which had correctly predicted the return would have made the election scoop of the century.

Thus Wirth and Connolly misplace their criticism. If the voters who said weeks ago that they would vote for Mondale actually did on election day, the projections would have been borne out, as they partially were in Iowa. It is somewhat perverse to blame the press, even in part, for Mondale's failure in the Granite State. It's like saying that predicting the truth turns the truth into a lie.

The problem lies not in the exhaustive surveying and reporting of the well-staffed networks, but in the failure of voters to do what they told reporters they would do. As far as election day itself, if true New Hampshire Mondale supporters had seen the TV projection of Hart's growing lead by midafternoon, one hopes they would have felt even more motivated to go to the polls, believing (ironically because of the previous projections themselves) that New Hampshire Democrats are largely Mondale Democrats in the first place and that something wrong must be happening.