10 Years of C-SPAN Coverage--and the House Still Stands

On March 19, 1979, when then-Rep. Al Gore (D-Tenn.) stepped up to the podium to make the House of Representatives’ first live televised speech, opponents predicted the practice would lead to disaster. In his speech, Gore countered by saying that television would “revitalize representative democracy.”

Ten years later, most analysts and members of Congress agree that neither side was right.

Since that day when the Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network (C-SPAN) started broadcasting live coverage of the House of Representatives via the rapidly expanding cable-TV industry, Washington-area clothiers have joked of a marked rise in the sale of bright-red neckties.

But beyond cosmetic changes and some slight accommodations in House rules, the consensus is that television in the Congress has not had the dramatic effect both sides predicted.

Opponents of a televised Congress once claimed that cameras would reduce the level of debate to “political posturing” for the benefit of the people watching. But a leading foe of congressional television at the time, Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.), conceded recently that “the playing to the cameras and the galleries that I expected just didn’t occur.”

At the same time, those leading the fight for C-SPAN said the cameras would force a new level of representation for members of Congress who would suddenly be accountable to the average person in their districts.

But Michael Robinson, a professor of media and politics at Georgetown University, said that because of C-SPAN, “a few more people might show up on the floor, (but) the House is not all that different than it was 15 years ago.”

Even Brian Lamb, the widely acclaimed founder and chief executive officer of C-SPAN, now questions whether his network has “changed the world” as some had predicted it would.

“I don’t know and I don’t worry about it,” he said. “I didn’t get into the business to change the system. I got into the business to provide people a larger picture, more of the story.”

C-SPAN’s picture has grown larger over the years. Initially covering only the House proceedings, the network has now added coverage of the Senate, political conventions, congressional hearings, press conferences and call-in talk shows.

“It has been a constant growth,” Lamb said. “That was all in the plan. We had to show a lot of different people that there was an audience out there for this kind of TV. We evolved a step at a time.”

Experts say that while C-SPAN hasn’t wrought major changes in Congress, it has had an effect.

For example, analysts say a cluster of House members who call themselves the Conservative Opportunity Society, led by Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), successfully used C-SPAN to help gain public recognition. By taking advantage of a short period at the end of each day’s business that allows for speeches on any subject, Gingrich and his colleagues were able to rally public support for their particular interests. The rule allowing such speeches had been there before C-SPAN, but was little used until there were cameras present to broadcast the remarks.

“Newt Gingrich made it clear from Day 1 that they were going to use C-SPAN to tell the people the truth,” Robinson said.

In March, Gingrich was elected minority whip, the No. 2 position in the House Republican leadership.

Regardless of partisanship, almost everyone agrees that the camera’s presence has shortened speeches on the House floor and has probably made them better.

For Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the presence of the television cameras in the Senate has meant “the debate has been better. The speeches have been better.”

“There is greater care taken in making sure that what they say is what they mean,” said Michael Sheehan, a media consultant who frequently advises Democrats in Congress on how to take advantage of the television camera. “You don’t have the ability to edit the tape before it is beamed up to the satellite.”

Ed Blakely, a Washington media consultant who formerly worked for the Republican Party, said C-SPAN “requires members to be articulate and to be able to speak in 30- and 60-second sound bites. Woe be it to those who do not come across in a telegenic manner.”

More changes may evolve. Gore, now a U.S. senator, applauds “the marriage of open debate and the television medium” on C-SPAN but adds: “The House and Senate still have some work to do in fully adapting to the needs of democracy by, for example, scheduling important debates for times when most Americans can watch and listen. Eventually, that will occur.”

He suggested that the Senate might schedule important debates during prime time “maybe a couple nights a week.”

By the network’s own count, more than 21 million people tune in at least three times a month to watch the House on C-SPAN I and close to 17 million do the same with the Senate on C-SPAN II. While the numbers remain far below the average viewing audience for commercial networks, they represent substantial growth for the once-fledgling channels.

“There is a part of the population in America that is fascinated by politics and public policy,” said Jeff Greenfield, who covers politics and the media for ABC News. “They follow C-SPAN the way a sports junkie would follow (the cable sports channel) ESPN.”

C-SPAN’s audience spans the socioeconomic spectrum, Lamb said, but he acknowledged that the network appeals most to the politically interested. “Newspaper people, bankers, teachers, politicians--the political infrastructure--watch this network out of proportion with the others in society,” he said.

Some analysts say television’s success in the House and Senate foreshadow similar changes in the other branches of government--most notably the Supreme Court.

“As each institution opens up,” Sheehan said, “the pressure gets greater to open up the deliberations in the Supreme Court.” He added that photo opportunities at the White House might eventually turn into “video opportunities” with C-SPAN broadcasting them live.

For Lamb, however, the primary goal for the next 10 years is “fine-tuning what we’ve already got,” including getting it carried by more cable systems and persuading more teachers to incorporate it in their curricula.

But he said the network would not necessarily be satisfied with broadcasting only American politics. Lamb said he foresees a future where C-SPAN covers the political process in other countries as well.