On Cold Night, Shedding Light Isn’t Easy

When the moment of decision came, the one the nation had waited to hear in the long hours that had passed since Monday afternoon, the major networks were poised to deliver the verdict.

They just couldn’t figure out what it was.

With their breath visible in the windy, cold night air, TV reporters stood outside the U.S. Supreme Court, their images broadcast live on television.

The tension almost crackled as they waited for colleagues to scramble down the flight of white steps with the court’s decision flapping in their hands. Then they did what you almost never see on television: They bent their heads and frantically pawed through the pages of the court’s decision.

“Can you make heads or tails of it?” asked CNN anchor Judy Woodruff.

ABC, CBS and NBC had broken away from regular programming to cover the 7 p.m. PST ruling. The powerhouse cable news networks had been standing by for minutes.

On CNN, Larry King had just warned, “No Supreme Court decision tonight and ice storm tomorrow,” when he was interrupted by anchor Bernard Shaw cutting in to say a decision was on the way.

MSNBC showed a lone reporter standing outside the Supreme Court, waiting for a correspondent to race down the steps with the decision, in hand, but unexplained.

In many ways the moment was emblematic of the 35 days of turmoil and angst that had passed since election night was marred by premature calls of a victor in Florida by the networks, which first gave the state to Gore and then, in the early morning hours, said the state and the presidency belonged to Bush.

On Tuesday, all day long, the talking heads told viewers the nine Supreme Court justices would almost certainly be the final word, the last stop in the election mess. At last, they had the decision, all 65 pages. But what did it mean? Did the nation have a president at last?

No one seemed to know.

At first, there was consensus among somewhat confused correspondents and legal experts that a recount in Florida was still possible, with the case being thrown back to the Florida Supreme Court. But as they shared their own snap analysis, some of the highest-paid on-air legal talent in the country warned that they needed to read the entire document to be sure.

At one point, CBS News anchor Dan Rather called the ruling “stupefying.” Apparently unable to figure it out, he read a Reuters wire story aloud that sought to explain how it favored Bush. Rather appeared unconvinced, however, cautioning viewers in the next breath that it was too early to call it a victory for the Texas governor.

Later, Rather solemnly read a second wire service story that confirmed that legal experts were “puzzled.”

At another point, he interrupted a guest in mid-legal analysis to explain why viewers expecting to be watching the courtroom drama “Judging Amy” were not.

In Tallahassee, Bush attorney Barry Richard turned away from the broadcast, hunting down a copy of the ruling on CNN’s Web site.

“After flipping around channels listening to reporters while they were reading it, I gave up and found it myself,” he said, still poring through it at home an hour after its release.

Those on the spot outside the nation’s highest court didn’t appear to be enjoying themselves.

On MSNBC, legal analyst Dan Abrams shivered but remained unfazed, attempting to make sense of the complicated six-part legal decision, which included a concurrent opinion and four dissents.

On CNN, which had been angrily shouted down on election night by disgusted Bush supporters standing in the chilly drizzle of Austin, Woodruff on Tuesday night sparred with correspondent Charles Bierbauer.

As Bierbauer stood on the court’s steps and Woodruff reported from the Washington studio, each read aloud from the decision, parsing the legal conundrum, before giving up and cutting to a CNN correspondent in Tallahassee.

But he couldn’t offer any clarity: “All us aren’t sure what’s going on.”

Once the court’s decision was read in its entirety, the reporting shifted within the hour. The justices had favored Bush. Things looked bad for Gore.

James A. Baker III, who has spearheaded Bush’s Florida operation, went on air at 8:20 PST for a terse four-sentence statement, thanking supporters but not declaring victory. The cameras stayed on him as he walked out of the room, ignoring a shouted question.

But the Gore camp had yet to speak.

Just about 8:30 p.m. PST, in Washington, CNN’s John King read a message from the vice president’s campaign chairman, Bill Daley.

“The decision is both complex and lengthy,” King read from his beeper. Bottom line: no concession yet.

But it soon became clear that Gore’s party was far from united. In the fast-paced world of live TV, several Democratic politicians broke rank. “Clearly the race for the presidency has come to an end,” Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.) told MSNBC.

The night also featured an angry Laurence Tribe, one of Gore’s top attorneys, denying to CNN that he had advised the vice president to concede. In a strange exchange, CNN anchor Bernard Shaw then read to Tribe from a Reuters story detailing an interview the attorney had done earlier with rival MSNBC.

“I certainly have not offered the vice president that advice,” said Tribe, who was off-camera, represented only by a tiny picture at the bottom corner of the screen.

Tribe added that Democrats “should not prematurely conclude this opinion is definitive.”

The Harvard law professor clashed with Bierbauer over the court’s intent. The court, Tribe said, was “not really accepting responsibility” for ending the election.

As the rancor continued, David Gergen, a Republican who served in the Clinton administration, summed it up for ABC: “The election is over, but the war goes on. This is Antietam, not Gettysburg.”

*

Times staff writers Michael Finnegan and Jim Mann contributed to this story.