A Revolution, Pure and Simple

Television: The controlled political process of the past has been transformed by 30-minute ads, multiple debate formats, cable and talk-show hosts from Larry King to Phil Donahue.

It started as potentially one of the dullest TV political campaigns ever.

Republican standard-bearer George Bush and Democratic favorite Bill Clinton rated right up there with Valium on the home screen. And that late-entry little guy, Ross Perot, seemed at first glance a reincarnation of “Pinocchio’s” Jiminy Cricket--and with the same message: “When you wish upon a star. . . .”

But a funny thing happened on the way to Tuesday’s presidential election.

Along the campaign trail, things suddenly got wonderfully out of control on TV. Unexpectedly, a whole new arsenal of political TV tools turned the system upside down and gave the three contenders dramatic images that they themselves clearly did not possess.

With cable, talk shows, 800 numbers, long-form ads instead of sound bites, a variety of debate formats and populist interviewers from Larry King to Phil Donahue, the staid, controlled TV political process of the past was dead in a flash.

This was a revolution, pure and simple. And not everybody liked it. But technology imposes its own changes, and the die was cast for not only this campaign but the future as well.

As the free-for-all, people’s TV democracy unfolded--warts and all--the biggest losers were the traditional networks, who once called the shots on campaign coverage and had the last word in evaluating events.

No more.

ABC, CBS and NBC already had lost their prominence in political coverage to CNN and C-SPAN, which had become the places to go for gavel-to-gavel reporting of conventions. But now, in the new multichannel universe of TV with all its possibilities, network influence nose-dived further.

Sure, the White House wanna-bes used network outlets for interviews and the long-form ads. But names like Jennings, Rather and Brokaw no longer carried the same clout amid the countless TV alternatives.

And the Big Three networks, which pioneered campaign coverage in the days of NBC’s Huntley & Brinkley and CBS’ Walter Cronkite and Eric Sevareid, don’t set the agenda anymore. They’re just part of the mix, other faces in the crowd to a nation of TV zappers who now can taste a smorgasbord of approaches to political coverage.

Anything goes.

And it certainly did in the historic and unforgettable TV campaign of 1992.

By turns, it was absurd, enlightening, informal, vulgar and eminently unpredictable. In short, real. And the public sensed it. The presidential debates drew huge audiences--91 million viewers for the last one.

With all bets off, no one typified the unlikely new refrains of TV politics more than a couple of people named Brown--Murphy and Jerry.

Though out of the race, Jerry Brown significantly democratized the new-age political process, showing how anyone in any party could compete with an 800 number and sophisticated use of cable, public access and radio shows that had plenty of time to offer free to candidates.

As for Murphy Brown--well, she illustrated how TV entertainment, increasingly freed of restrictions, has become part of the political process. It’s a bad idea in general, but in this case it actually roused a nation to discuss important matters.

Maybe you remember the quote last May 19 by Vice President Dan Quayle that started the whole contretemps:

“It doesn’t help matters when prime-time TV has Murphy Brown--a character who supposedly epitomizes today’s intelligent, highly paid, professional woman--mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another ‘lifestyle choice.’ ”

Before the illuminating fiasco was over, we saw the TV industry gang up on Quayle on the Emmy Awards show. And then we saw the remarkable sight of a fictional person--the title character of “Murphy Brown” (Candice Bergen)--taking further aim at the vice president on this fall’s season premiere.

Was truth stranger than fiction? Or fiction stranger than truth? TV was setting new ground rules again. And that was the case everywhere you looked on the tube.

There was Clinton tooting a saxophone on the Arsenio Hall show. And there he was in an unlikely, but impressive, 90-minute interview with a live audience on MTV.

There was Bush, trying to remain presidentially above this common fray, but finally forced to join in the long-form, pop-interview electioneering--the talk-show merry-go-round with which CNN’s King and others had won viewer interest.

Bush’s open surrender to this TV process came when he sauntered into an NBC White House interview that “Today” show host Katie Couric was conducting with his wife, Barbara.

As for Perot--well, a TV star was born.

Going against every TV rule for looks, dress, speaking manner and presentation, he not only enlivened the debates but also flabbergasted foes with prime-time, program-length commercials that often outdrew such entertainment series as “Quantum Leap.”

He used the kind of outmoded television technique that media consultants warn against--simply flipping charts and talking. And it worked.

“Mr. Perot has shown such remarkable TV acumen in his campaign that he should consider running for the presidency of NBC instead,” the weekly publication Electronic Media said in an editorial.

In the end, there is something to be said for the new, free-style TV campaigning. Despite its obvious flaws and dangers--including outright lying--it has clearly got the public interested in the political process again, and that’s a good thing.

Politics has been dying on TV since the primary system turned the Democratic and GOP conventions into coronations. The system needed a pickup, some new life breathed into it--and new-age TV did the trick.

The cable factor is playing a part right down to the wire. CNBC this week devoted most of its shows to the campaign and has an election special from 6:30 to 8 p.m. Tuesday with Donahue and Russian journalist Vladimir Pozner.

MTV, meanwhile, is continuing its voter awareness campaign. And the priceless Comedy Central cable channel will be at it again on Election Day from 4 to 9 p.m. with its own style of absurdist coverage as votes pour in and results are announced.

Jiminy Cricket, TV politics is more fun than it’s been in years.