NEWS ANALYSIS : Televised Debates Alter Dynamics of Mayor’s Race : Politics: Media image created by Riordan is at risk. Some feel Woo may need a more effective message.

The dynamics of a stage-managed Los Angeles mayor’s race began changing this week with the first in a series of face-to-face debates--those political minefields where no amount of money can assure safe passage.

The risks seem especially high for Richard Riordan, who fought his way from political anonymity to front-runner status with a strong anti-crime message and a bankroll big enough to tell his story on his own terms, in exquisitely designed brochures and expensive TV ads.

In a city where TV news often seems fixated on ATM holdups and car chases, Riordan has had an easy time producing his own media image up to now.

Although Riordan is a political neophyte, his ability to pay for broad media exposure has given him the luxury of limiting personal appearances and minimizing the chance of making mistakes in front of a lot of people. It has allowed a political newcomer to become a household name and, to some, a potential savior of the city.

That started changing Tuesday with the first of a series of scheduled debates between Riordan and his opponent, City Councilman Michael Woo.

Although Riordan often gave as good as he got in Tuesday’s face-off with Woo, it is one campaign arena where he can look awkward and where he has stumbled before.

For Woo, a series of widely watched debates could offer the best chance to play catch-up with an opponent who leads in the polls 3 1/2 weeks before the election. The combative, self-assured debating style that Woo displayed Tuesday might go a long way to erase the perception of weakness that polls show as one of his biggest liabilities.

At the same time, the debates give Woo a chance to chip away at Riordan’s carefully crafted image as a problem solver who is untainted by ties to City Hall. On Tuesday, Woo sought to portray Riordan as a back-room wheeler-dealer whose government connections helped fill the coffers of companies he controlled.

But some campaign observers argue that no amount of TV exposure will help Woo unless he can come up with a compelling message--one that will distinguish the councilman from a government that many people believe has failed them.

The first debate, before an audience of more than 1,000, was taped by Century Cable and is scheduled for broadcast at various times throughout the rest of the week. Five other debates are planned, but only two are scheduled to be shown on live commercial television.

The Woo camp is convinced that Riordan, recognizing a potential hazard, is doing his best to prevent the debates from becoming the central focus of the campaign.

A spokesman for Woo said Riordan is refusing to debate in front of large TV audiences.

“The debates he has agreed to do so far are in front of viewing audiences that are (among) the smallest of all the broadcast stations in Los Angeles,” said Garry South, Woo’s communications director. “He (Riordan) has refused to agree to do any debates on the three network affiliates.”

Executives at two local TV stations, KCBS Channel 2 and KTLA Channel 5, which is not a network affiliate, said Riordan has declined their invitations to debate on the air.

Executives at KABC Channel 7 did not respond to requests for comment. At KNBC Channel 4, anchorman Jess Marlow said both candidates wound up balking at the idea of joint appearances on live news shows.

“When it was quite clear these guys were going to be in the runoff, we invited both to do a once-a-week joint appearance on our newscasts. Riordan said it was presumptuous at that point because he hadn’t won, and since then has said no, he wouldn’t have time to do that. Woo had the advantage of having heard Riordan say it was presumptuous. So he could quickly say, ‘Sure I’d be glad to do it.’

“We’ve offered other opportunities for them to appear jointly and they have chosen not to.”

Joe Scott, Riordan’s press aide, countered that Riordan initiated the call for debates, that “Mike Woo was passive until challenged,” and that “ . . . widely publicized debates have been scheduled, including three on television,” including Tuesday night’s debate, which was taped for cable.

As Riordan has poured millions of his own money into targeted mail and canned TV messages, his campaign staff has often tried to shield him from the pressures of impromptu give-and-take sessions with reporters and others on the campaign trail.

It happened Tuesday as Riordan was heading for Langer’s Delicatessen after a late-morning news conference. A reporter stopped him to ask about a company in Fresno. Riordan had invested in the firm, according to the reporter, and the employees ended up losing their jobs. How did he feel about that, the reporter wanted to know.

But before Riordan could answer, his handlers had converged on the scene and interposed themselves between their candidate and the reporter.

“We’ll get you a statement on that,” one of them barked, tugging at Riordan as he tried to respond.

“Langer’s, Dick,” the aides said, and pressed on.

“But I didn’t control that company, a woman did. . . . I lost money up there. . . .”

Before the issue could be resolved, aide Annette Castro had Riordan moving briskly away from the reporter and toward the deli.

Several current and former television journalists said local television news, the principal source of information for most people, has devoted little time to following the candidates or analyzing what they have to say.

Marlow put it this way: “In terms of coverage, they’re certainly getting equal treatment, which is a good bit of neglect.”

“I’m outraged by the lack of time and attention being given to the most important political event in Los Angeles in 20 years,” said Warren Olney, a veteran TV reporter and anchorman who is the host of KCRW radio’s public affairs program “Which Way L.A.”

“What they hide behind is so-called audience research that says people think politics is boring and dull. But the coverage, or lack of it, goes to the real core issue of whether or not the stations understand their function in a democracy.”

Olney’s views are widely shared.

“I have often thought the way you could get decent coverage of the election would be to have the candidates in a high-speed chase on the freeway and have the TV follow them in a helicopter,” said Paul Clarke, a political consultant and former television journalist.

Local TV news executives insist that since the April 20 primary, they have been diligently covering the race.

Sylvia Teague, managing editor of KCAL Channel 9 news, said the station has aired at least nine stories on the mayor’s race since the April 20 primary, including an examination of the candidates’ ads and interviews with women who say they lost their jobs because of a Riordan business venture. In addition, the station has regularly conducted polls on the mayor’s race.

“We’re doing quite a bit on the mayor’s race,” she said. “I’m satisfied with the fact we’re not just doing the stories that the candidates want us to do.”

But one television news executive, Jeff Wald at KCOP Channel 13, said his station was thinking about cutting back on coverage of the race and questioned the public’s interest in the election.

“In television, you try to bring as many viewers into the tent as possible. Although I feel it’s a crucial election, I’m not so sure the viewers feel it’s a crucial election. . . . This market is different from Chicago and New York, where politics is the lead story every night because people are very much into city politics. Los Angeles is such an area of little communities that I don’t know if L.A. city has the impact it may have had years ago.”

Even if Riordan’s money has allowed him to dominate a relatively passive electronic medium up to now, his financial advantage may not matter that much in the future.

“Riordan has already used his money for what it can really do--separate him from a field of 24 candidates in the primary,” said political analyst William Schneider of the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank. “What money does is buy name recognition, and it did that already.”

Schneider believes that Woo doesn’t have to have as much money as Riordan, just enough “to stay on the air and answer charges thrown at him.”

Schneider is one of several observers who believe that Woo’s problem in the runoff has been lack of an effective message rather than any shortage of capital.

“Woo has been trying to make Riordan look like a scary right-wing extremist, and it isn’t working. People don’t see him that way.

They may see him as a Republican but one who has given money to Democrats as well as to a lot of liberal causes.”

On the other hand, Schneider said, Riordan has been doing an effective job of identifying Woo with the city’s discredited status quo.

“When I ask people I know who are Democrats, what is it that would make them vote for Riordan, their answer is ‘Woo.’ ”

* CAMPAIGN TRAIL: Jobless truckers blame Riordan; Wachs endorses him. B1