Voting in Favor of Change

Let cable’s C-SPAN continue being a network of record. But ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN must dramatically change the way they cover the Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

So, the TV critic from the Los Angeles Times, that swell newspaper with 12 domestic bureaus and 24 foreign bureaus, the newspaper of girth and mirth and the best darned staff in the land, the newspaper published in the land of oranges, sunshine and traffic jams, casts one-half vote for:

--Much less live coverage as a general rule, that is unless the caucuses and primaries somehow break recent tradition and produce no clear presidential nominee in advance of a party’s convention.

The weight of the coverage is crucial because it tends to convey a message--potentially a distorted one--to viewers about the significance of events.

Thus, only keynote addresses and acceptance speeches of the presidential nominees should be in. All other speeches--except ones by persons with unique roles in their parties at a given point, such as Jesse Jackson for the Democrats and President Reagan for the Republicans--should be out.

--No morning, late-night, talk or interview shows at a convention. “Good Morning America,” “Today” and “CBS This Morning”--do not come on down. “Larry King Live”--stay where you are. “Washington Week in Review”--remain in Washington.

--No party platforms, which have become the political equivalent of an appendix. Their removal from TV would go unnoticed, because the candidates aren’t obliged to follow them and they are inevitably forgotten after the conventions.

--No airing of the traditional roll call of states, a once-amusing rainbow of regional political colors that has evolved into a meaningless, tightly scripted ordeal whose sole purpose is to promote statewide candidates and deliver TV-aimed propaganda messages in behalf of the party ticket. You know that’s true if you saw Wednesday’s marathon nomination of Vice President George Bush by the Republicans.

--Killing those staged, simply awful shots of the soon-to-be presidential nominee and his family watching the nomination process on TV while sitting in their hotel suite. The elimination of this bad theater would be automatic were roll calls not televised.

--De-emphasizing acceptance speeches. Excluding the vice presidential acceptance from live TV is the first step. Even more significant, TV must shift its attention away from the superficial issue of whether a candidate--any candidate--can make a good TV speech. It’s a sham.

“The press told us he had to make a great speech--and he made a great speech,” Illinois Gov. Jim Thompson declared Friday about Bush on “Today.” Other leading Republicans and even Democrats echoed that assessment on the morning shows, as if Bush were running for Toastmaster General instead of President.

It’s true that contemporary Presidents must be able to communicate effectively through TV. And these days, more than ever, communication is an element of leadership. But it’s a small one compared with the other qualities required of a capable President.

That Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis made a good speech in Atlanta and Bush did so Thursday night in New Orleans means only that when the stakes were said to be high, two usually lackluster speakers could rise to the occasion as orators and perhaps rally their potential constituencies with words.

Let’s do remember, moreover, that those words, those well-crafted speeches we’ve been hearing about, were not crafted by the candidates themselves. The least Dukakis and Bush could have done was call their speech writers to the podium to share the credit.

--Only rare crowd reaction shots during speeches. This cutback will allow viewers to concentrate almost entirely on the speakers and not be diverted by camera shots that reflect the vision of unseen TV directors whose purpose is only to make good pictures. If we’re going to have the speeches, then let’s have more of the speaking and less of the reacting. Otherwise, the potential for distortion is enormous.

--Less emphasis on the nominee for vice president. Undue focus on the running mate detracts from more critical strengths or weaknesses of presidential candidate.

It’s true that two recent vice presidents, Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford, reached the White House prematurely, but only under freakish circumstances. The President heads the nation, not the running mate who, after being sworn in, will disappear into his office for the next four years and probably never be heard from again. TV should have repeatedly noted this instead of often feeding the fantasy that vice presidents are historically significant.

The Republican vice presidential nominee immediately became significant to the media. Coverage of the controversy over the military service of Indiana Sen. Dan Quayle was legitimately aggressive, however, if only because his selection may reflect poorly on Bush’s leadership qualities should Quayle be tainted.

On the other hand, it was almost quaint watching some TV reporters in a tither over the possibility that the GOP may have selected Quayle partly in the belief that his good looks would attract female voters. In fact, the demographic-minded TV news industry itself often selects key on-air talent (including probably half the nation’s local anchors) based on physical appearance. This includes men who presumably would appeal to females and vice versa. More than anything else, after all, Quayle resembles an anchorman.

--No floor reporters. This would be a tough one for ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN to live with. But these days floor reporters do little beyond edging their way through a maze on the convention floor in search of perfunctory answers to perfunctory questions.

--No analysts. If TV does not cover the meaningless events on the floor, curtails coverage of the speeches and gives less weight to the presidential nominee’s acceptance speech, there will be nothing to analyze. Then everyone can get to bed earlier.

The problem with initiating these needed reforms is that few in TV like being first with a bold move. And, in fact, no hard decisions should be made until the next presidential campaign when the circumstances may be different.

As for his other half-vote, therefore, the critic from the Los Angeles Times passes until 1992.