TELEVISION : Is the Party Over? : New realities have some wondering if the networks need to spend prime time with the Democratic and Republican conventions

When the Republican National Convention convenes Monday, about 15,000 print and TV journalists, wearing their media credentials around their necks like soldiers’ IDs, will spend hours in the super-Texas-sized, 267-acre Houston Astrodomain, covering a story that has changed drastically since the days when the presidential nominee was actually chosen by the delegates.

In an era of carefully orchestrated conventions, TV screens are not likely to match the powerful imagery of the booing of Nelson A. Rockefeller by Barry Goldwater loyalists at the 1964 Republican convention or the tear-gassing and beating of demonstrators by Chicago police during the 1968 Democratic convention.

ABC, CBS and NBC each will spend several million dollars--and devote hours of prime time--to cover the four-day event.

But here’s a question that may seem heretical: Should the broadcast networks be there at all? Is live, prime-time coverage of the conventions a public responsibility or an outdated ritual propelled by the weight of tradition?

“The networks and conventions are both headed for the elephant’s graveyard--the question is which one gets there first,” Reuven Frank, a former NBC News president, declared in an interview. “What I find so disturbing is that, at the same time that they’re cutting back on bureaus and not giving sufficient coverage to the great tragedy in Yugoslavia, the networks are expending resources to tell viewers what is not happening (at the conventions).”

Not so, says a former TV correspondent-turned-media scholar: “I think the networks should be there from 9 to 11 p.m. every night,” said Marvin Kalb, director of the Shorenstein Barone Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. “I believe it’s their responsibility to the public to educate them to the intricacies, the complexities and the importance of presidential politics. The game of presidential politics starts in the primaries and ends on Nov. 3. You don’t stop covering a baseball game until it’s over, no matter what the score.”

Points of view about network TV’s role vary widely on the eve of the Houston convention.

“Once the networks commit resources, they get self-important about what they’ve done,” said Everette Dennis, executive director at the Freedom Forum Media Studies Center at Columbia University. “All traditional standards of news just seem to go out the window when it comes to convention coverage. There’s a tendency to hold on to the mythology of conventions from the past, along with a fear that something might actually happen there.”

Dennis said there is little journalistic reason for the networks to give live, prime-time coverage to the conventions today, since the nomination is virtually sewn up through the presidential primaries and both parties have become skilled at avoiding the appearance of conflict before the TV cameras.

“Conventions today are just a made-for-TV extravaganza where the party tries to get its message out,” he said. “Even all the hullabaloo about there being great oratory, there is just hullabaloo: Only Mario Cuomo’s speech (at the Democratic convention) met any real standards of oratory. Bill Clinton’s acceptance speech was like a long memo, and Jesse Jackson’s speech was highly repetitive from speeches he’s given many times before.

“To me, it’s a silly waste of resources that gives the conventions much more importance than they deserve. The conventions are a parade; I’d say they’re slightly more important than the Pasadena Rose Bowl parade.”

And, again, an impassioned rebuttal: “The convention has quite possibly the next President of the United States speaking, with people coming from all around the country,” said Ginny Terzano, press secretary for the Democratic National Committee. “It only happens once every four years, it’s historic, and it’s a civics lesson for the audience.”

Frank and Dennis both offered an alternative to live, prime-time coverage: covering the conventions on the evening news.

“I’m not saying that the networks should walk away from the conventions entirely, but you don’t have to cover it live in prime time,” Frank said. “Why not have some reporters there but cover it on the nightly newscasts? It would be a big story on some days and not on others.”

“I’d cover it the way the broadcast networks covered the recent AIDS conference in Europe or the environmental conference in South America,” Dennis suggested. “As long as C-SPAN and Cable News Network are there, the broadcast networks can cover the conventions on the evening news.”

Kalb, however, disagreed with those who said there was no story at the Democratic convention. He cited the strengthened role of female candidates at the convention and Clinton’s strategy regarding Jesse Jackson and the black vote as examples of newsworthy topics.

“I saw Larry Tisch (the chairman of CBS) quoted as saying nobody wants to see people just milling around at a convention,” Kalb said. “The broadcast networks now have this simplistic dodge that if you’re really interested in the conventions, go to CNN or C-SPAN (cable networks that offer far more hours of convention coverage). The people who hired me at the networks would roll over if they heard someone say, ‘If you want substance, go to somebody else.’ ”

*

But Kalb was referring to a day when network news divisions didn’t have to pay their own way in the corporate hierarchy, as their management requires them to these days. Millions of dollars in advertising revenues are lost to the networks when they take time away from entertainment programming to cover the conventions.

(CBS did not even air the Tuesday-night Democratic lineup, instead carrying the Major League Baseball All-Star Game. One executive estimated that it cost CBS $1 million in lost ad revenue to push back its previously announced Wednesday-night schedule to an earlier hour so that broadcast viewers would see New York Gov. Mario Cuomo’s speech nominating Clinton as the Democrats’ presidential nominee.)

Despite his negative views on convention coverage, Frank said wryly: “Believe me, the guys in entertainment are not thinking about the news value of the conventions--they’re thinking, ‘How much time do we have to give these idiots in news?’ ”

Although much was made in the press about the conventions being a ratings “bust,” that term is relative. About 20 million viewers saw the opening night of the Democratic convention on the three broadcast networks, and nearly 30 million were tuned in on the final night, when nominee Clinton and his running mate, Al Gore, gave their acceptance speeches.

The average rating for the networks’ Democratic convention coverage was down from a 6.9 in 1988 to a 5.8 in 1992. By comparison, CNN posted record convention ratings, up 173% in prime time, from a 1.0 in 1988 to a 2.0 in 1992. (Each point represents 921,000 households this year; the figure in 1988 was 886,000 households.)

And while the major networks’ ratings were down from those in 1988, they still reached 20 million to 30 million people a night, which would seem to mitigate against the argument that “no one” was watching.

“It pains me that there weren’t more people out there watching, because I thought we did a good job of making the convention interesting and compelling,” said Lane Venardos, the CBS News producer in charge of convention coverage. “And I thought--despite initial skepticism--that the Democrats put on a pretty good show. But there still were millions more people watching the broadcast networks’ coverage than any cable source. I think we have a responsibility to be there in prime time.”

*

Before the Democratic convention, the broadcast networks announced that they would be scaling back their prime-time coverage to one to two hours a night; in 1988, all three had carried two hours a night. Yet, when all was said and done, they ended up giving the 1992 event close to the same number of hours they had given the 1988 gathering.

It was only on Tuesday night this year that ABC and NBC carried just one hour (and CBS none because of the baseball All-Star Game). And in a new joint venture with PBS, NBC extended its prime-time coverage onto another network, with anchor Tom Brokaw and other NBC reporters joining PBS’ Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer at 5 p.m. PDT each evening before beginning NBC’s own coverage later that night.

Before the convention, broadcast executives and the Democratic National Committee played a game of cat-and-mouse, with the committee trying to get the broadcasters to extend their prime-time schedule by dribbling out the announced times of scheduled speeches. The technique worked with Cuomo but missed with Jesse Jackson, whose speech was not carried live by the networks.

Broadcasters seemed determined not to be manipulated, as Jeff Gralnick, the producer of ABC’s convention coverage, said in an interview before the convention.

“We’re not there to cover their production numbers--we’re there to cover news,” he said. “Our objective is not to be used.”

Although Ross Perot’s decision not to run as an independent candidate for President threw some unexpected headlines into the final night of the Democratic convention, broadcasters incorporated that into their coverage before Clinton’s acceptance speech. In interviews after the convention, they said their prime-time schedule had given them enough time to carry the important events while weeding out Broadway production numbers, Clinton’s official film biography and other attempts by the party to get the network to carry material the broadcasters considered political advertising.

But in their zeal to be independent and concise, the networks sometimes seemed to overreach. They went out of their way, for example, to avoid the Democratic-produced videos of ordinary citizens that played on an elaborate “video wall” at the podium. But the video wall was a part of the speakers’ area, and that background was integral to some speeches; omitting it left some speakers lacking context for their remarks.

Compressing their coverage--particularly during the one-hour telecasts on the Democrats’ issue-oriented Tuesday night--seemed to present some new problems for the broadcasters.

“On the nights when they were only on for an hour, they were obliged to tell the viewer everything that happened all night long, and they didn’t allow the viewer to see what was happening then,” Kalb observed. “When you are at an event as a viewer, and you can see things happening over the anchor’s shoulder while he’s telling you what happened an hour ago, you want to say, ‘Would you please get out of the way and let me see what’s going on?’ ”

The broadcast analysts and anchors also seemed somewhat churlish at times, telling viewers that there was no news occurring.

At ABC, producers and executives were satisfied with their coverage of Monday, Wednesday and Thursday evenings, but they gave themselves lower marks for their hour on Tuesday night, when they carried taped highlights of speeches, along with their own around-the-convention-hall reporting on women’s issues and other subjects raised by the Democrats.

“In the main, we were quite pleased with what we did,” ABC’s Gralnick said afterward. “In addition to covering the acceptance speeches and other important speeches live, we used the convention to focus on the issues of the campaign and to discuss where the Democratic Party is going.”

*

But finding the balance between covering the convention and carrying the proceedings remains an unresolved issue.

“The role of the journalist in politics is changing, and that is nowhere more apparent than in the convention coverage,” said Ellen Hume, executive director at the Shorenstein Barone Center. “Journalists there are looking for the traditional elements of a story--drama, suspense, battle--when that no longer seems to be what’s happening. Conventions today can be a time when the journalists step out of the way and let the parties and candidates present their best shots.

“There are only two times--the conventions and the debates--when the candidates have this direct moment before the public. I’m not suggesting that the networks not analyze and check the facts of candidates’ claims and the party’s platform. But they should set aside as much time as they can possibly set aside for presenting the major speeches by major figures, without (simultaneous) editorial comment.”

Some network executives suggest that, in terms of future conventions, it is the political parties that should change. “I think the parties themselves need to re-evaluate the conventions,” Gralnick said. “They don’t have four days’ business to conduct, for example--they have two days’ business to conduct.”

But given the record “bounce” in the polls that Clinton enjoyed after his media exposure during the Democratic convention, it seems unlikely that the parties will change unless forced to by threats of non-coverage. In addition to their prime-time exposure, the Democrats also enjoyed significant replay of the highlights of the convention on NBC’s “Today,” ABC’s “Good Morning America” and “CBS This Morning.”

Michael Gartner, president of NBC News, said his network’s joint venture with PBS is proving to be a good approach to convention coverage this year. (Thanks to the boost from NBC’s talent, PBS enjoyed record ratings for its convention coverage.)

“We were on the air more than three hours per night with the NBC-PBS venture, and that gave us the leisure to cover everything thoroughly,” Gartner said. “I thought it worked journalistically, technically and in terms of audience approval.”

Gartner said it is “impossible to predict” today what kind of coverage the networks will give the 1996 conventions.

“I don’t think you can predict until you know what the story is. Who could’ve predicted the Ross Perot phenomenon four years ago? Three months ago, who would’ve known there’d be speculation that Dan Quayle might not be the vice presidential nominee?”

Do all three broadcast networks have to present several hours a night of prime-time coverage of the convention?

“We have to answer that question every year,” Gartner said. “This year it was worth it to me. I thought there was a good story in the changes in the Democratic Party, and the arrangement with PBS let me be on 3 1/2 hours per night to explain the story and tell it.”

The networks’ dilemma, he said, is simple: “Twenty-five percent of my viewers really want (convention coverage); the other 75% want to watch ‘Cheers.’ ”

For the 25% who do want to watch--and out of a desire to be there with their own team, especially if news happens--the broadcast networks say they will be at the Republican convention for roughly the same number of hours they devoted to the Democratic gathering.

CBS and ABC plan to present about 1 1/2 hours on Monday night, when former President Ronald Reagan is scheduled to speak, while NBC is planning about one hour. All three plan to devote about one hour each to Tuesday night, when the Republicans will talk about domestic issues, and to Wednesday night, when the nominating speeches will be made. The final evening--when George Bush and Dan Quayle are expected to be nominated for President and vice president--is scheduled for two hours in prime time on all three networks.

The networks’ Monday-night scheduling apparently was influenced not only by the appearance of Reagan but also by the planned endorsement of Bush by his former rival, conservative Patrick Buchanan.

The Republicans, like the Democrats, will be seeking to avoid conflict before the TV cameras. But a possible fight over the party’s abortion plank, disgruntlement among some delegates over the Republican ticket and, most important, Bush’s current low standing in the polls could make the convention more compelling for viewers at home.

“Conventions no longer determine your news viability the way they did in the old days, but they have a tremendous ability to energize your whole news organization,” said CBS’ Venardos. “We’re not throwing in the towel on convention coverage. We liked what we saw on the air (during the Democratic convention), and there’s the same potential for news in Houston.”

Tuning in the Conventions

The average prime-time rating for the broadcast networks’ convention coverage has declined since 1968. Prime-time convention ratings for Cable News Network have increased since 1984. ABC, CBS AND NBC Democratic Conventions: 1968: 9.5 1972: 6.1 1976: 7.5 1980: 8.3 1984: 7.5 1988: 6.9 1992: 5.8 Republican Conventions: 1968: 8.8 1972: 7.8 1976: 8.4 1980: 6.9 1984: 6.2 1988: 6.2 CNN Democratic Conventions: 1984: 0.7 1988: 1.0 1992: 2.0 Republican Conventions: 1984: 0.4 1988: 1.0 Source: Nielsen Media Research