Entertainment vs. Politics: Just Follow the Money

In a recent article for Brill’s Content, David Halberstam discusses aspects of the modern media he didn’t foresee in writing his 1979 book “The Powers That Be.”

“When the Berlin Wall came down,” he observes, “the one thing I never thought of was the effect it would have on journalism, television journalism in particular, releasing those who ran the network news shows from their obligations to cover the world and allowing them instead to hold a mirror up to an increasingly self-obsessed society.”

Nothing exemplifies this better than this week’s prime-time schedule, during which CBS will devote more hours to monitoring eight people isolated in a house for its summer soap opera, “Big Brother,” than to covering the Democratic National Convention.

As for an explanation of how we arrived at this point, one need only look to another ‘70s-era figure, Deep Throat, who, thanks to William Goldman’s screenplay for “All the President’s Men,” famously told reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein how to dig up the roots of the Watergate scandal: “Follow the money.”

Indeed, a thirst for profit governs the big corporations that control the public airwaves, and by giving short shrift to the electoral process, they manage to keep funneling money back into their pockets. In addition, no one--including most politicians, their occasional broadsides at the TV industry notwithstanding--seems especially interested in altering this equation.

Three themes arise when the networks justify their minimalist coverage of the conventions and the reduced time devoted to politics in general. One is that the conventions amount to news-free infomercials, another hinges on the fact political junkies can always get their fill elsewhere and the third has to do with the diminished appetite for such news.

Taking these one by one, the excuse that conventions are simply exercises in self-promotion is just that: an excuse. Though network news executives imply that televising extensive coverage will somehow taint the airwaves, it’s hard to argue that even party propaganda, and subsequent analysis, doesn’t do more to enlighten the populace than reruns of “3rd Rock From the Sun” and “King of Queens,” the prevailing alternative in August.

What the networks don’t mention is that they have a financial incentive to broadcast sitcom reruns, so their complete response should go something like this: “The conventions are just infomercials for the political parties and, worse, we don’t make any money off them, whereas we do by offering second and third showings of our regular prime-time programs.”

As for the proliferation of news options, it is absolutely true that three-quarters of U.S. homes--those that subscribe to cable or own satellite dishes--possess dozens of them. In fact, most of these options belong to companies that own the same broadcast networks ducking out on convention coverage, to the benefit of their sister cable channels.

Under this system, the Fox network, available in more than 98% of U.S. homes, will show the Keenen Ivory Wayans action movie “Most Wanted” on Thursday, when presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore accepts his party’s nomination. This encourages those who are interested in what Gore has to say to watch the Fox News Channel, available (for a nominal portion of your monthly cable fee) in 43% of U.S. homes.

In similar fashion, NBC’s muted presence at the conventions is an obvious boon to MSNBC, which gets to feature top-line NBC News anchors such as Tom Brokaw on the little-seen cable news channel. The WB network is another no-show, comfortable that viewers can go to Time Warner’s news network, CNN. Then again, these broadcasters at least can point to such parallel news operations, whereas CBS and ABC cannot.

Turning to declining interest in political coverage, the networks have helped create a self-fulfilling prophecy, feeding the children a steady diet of sweets and suddenly wondering why they turn up their noses at broccoli once every four years.

Politics is a tough sell on prime-time newsmagazines, which prefer “personal” stories, hidden-camera consumer reports and splashy celebrity interviews. As for local news, which too often appeals to paranoia and hysteria (“Your kids could be in danger! Find out at 11!”), the Democrats had best pray that Gore’s speech doesn’t conflict with a high-speed police chase or celebrity wedding.

Facing this formula, it’s no wonder something as dry as presidential politics doesn’t measure up. The only solution, in this summer of “Survivor,” might be to turn the whole exercise into a game show, giving convention attendees hand-held meters and letting them vote the most boring speakers out of the hall.

This isn’t to say that you won’t find politics on broadcast television. It’s just that most of it is in the form of advertising, providing an additional source of income to the TV stations owned by the broadcasting giants.

*

Moreover, despite talk about stations providing free air time to candidates in exchange for billions of dollars worth of digital spectrum granted to broadcasters under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, it increasingly appears that only goody-two-shoes public advocacy groups really want to see that happen.

After all, free air time not only would potentially cut into broadcasting revenues but also would compel politicians to put up or shut up and address issues, lacking the same control that paid-for campaign spots provide when it comes to staying “on message.”

Though discussion persists regarding this issue, as any Hollywood agent knows, the time to ask for concessions is before, not after, you close the deal. Just how much determination there was to alter the status quo is open to question, with a network chief, CBS Television President Leslie Moonves, serving as the reform commission’s co-chairman.

Though broadcast journalists remain sincere about their desire to inform, their bosses stay focused on keeping the money flowing. So around and around the system goes, throwing off dollars with every turn.

Cable and Internet technology, we’re told, will eventually change all this, but it will be years before those new media rival the reach traditional news outlets enjoy. It’s a “Let them get cable” attitude, ignoring that one in four U.S. homes have either chosen not to subscribe or decided they can’t afford it.

Fortunately, there is PBS, which truly fulfills its mandate during the conventions, becoming more than just a place where one can find nature documentaries and British costume dramas.

Hollywood, meanwhile, is well-represented at the Democratic convention, in much the way its royalty crowds into Staples Center for a Lakers game. Politics thus becomes a new venue to rub elbows with the rich and famous, the ultimate networking opportunity.

Entertainment industry heavyweights should have a nice view of the action from the luxury boxes, a better and broader one, come to think of it, than you’ll find on the major networks.

*

Brian Lowry’s column appears on Tuesdays. He can be reached by e-mail at brian.lowry@latimes.com.