TV Stations Tune Out Free Air Time for Political Candidates

The argument is as old as the earliest days of radio: If broadcasters would just offer free air time to political candidates, the result would be a more informed and discerning electorate.

That theory didn’t fly in the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt, but now it’s being revived by public interest groups that say TV stations should set aside more time for candidates to speak directly to voters. Even former presidents Carter and Ford and broadcast legend Walter Cronkite have joined the cause.

But the movement to provide air time for candidates will likely founder again, sunk in large part by the television industry’s powerful lobbying outfit, the National Assn. of Broadcasters. And as the NAB pushes Congress to tune out the idea of mandating free time, television stations are profiting from an explosion in political advertising.

Stations expect to earn a record $600 million this year by selling air time to federal, state and local candidates and advocacy groups. That’s nearly a 50% increase from their 1996 take, and double the sum from 1992.

Ads a Boon to TV Stations’ Profits

Political ads are expected to generate 9.2% of a typical TV station’s revenue this year, up from 3.2% in 1992, according to a recent report by the Wall Street firm Bear, Stearns & Co. As an advertising category, political ads were the third-largest source of revenue in 1998, generating TV stations more money than fast food, phone companies or movie studios.

The profusion of political advertising, Cronkite and others argue, is exactly why free air time is needed. The term “free air time,” however, is a bit of a misnomer because its advocates are not calling on broadcasters to donate time so candidates can air more slick ads.

Rather, they’re prodding the stations to set aside more time, which the stations would control, for “candidate-centered discourse,” such as debates, extended interviews or news reports.

Offering that free exposure to local, state and federal candidates would compel them to explain their policy positions directly to voters, its advocates say. What’s more, it would level the field for challengers taking on better-financed incumbents and elevate the tone of the nation’s political debates.

A White House panel of broadcasters and good-government groups has called on stations to air five minutes per night of such discourse for the 30 nights preceding an election. So far, only about two dozen of the nation’s 1,400 stations have pledged to meet the panel’s recommendation.

Since the panel’s report, the Federal Communications Commission has, for the first time, opened a formal study of the issue.

Two weeks ago, the NAB filed papers vigorously resisting the idea, saying it’s unconstitutional for the government to dictate what stations put on the air. Even the stations that voluntarily offer air time to candidates say mandating it would hand over control of the nightly news to bureaucrats.

But a mandate for free time is exactly what more than a dozen good-government groups--led by former Washington Post political reporter Paul Taylor--are seeking from the FCC.

“Free air time is not a panacea, but it would be a help,” said Taylor, who heads the Alliance for Better Campaigns. But “there is a fairly deep economic incentive for the broadcasters to maintain the status quo.”

One intent of providing more time is to reduce the amount candidates spend buying commercial slots, and in the process reduce the pressure on candidates to raise money from private interests.

But even reformers concede that candidates, if provided free air time, still might raise the same sums and spend the money on mailers or other expenses. And money will continue to flood the political process regardless of whether candidates have free time, opponents note, because of spending by advocacy groups, which accounted for an estimated 44% of the political ad dollars spent in 1996.

Taylor’s previous efforts have led almost nowhere in Washington, where the broadcasters’ lobby has a long record as a Capitol Hill powerhouse. Eddie O. Fritts, the NAB’s president, attended Ole Miss with Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who opposes mandating free time. In late 1997, Lott refused to allow debate on Sen. John McCain’s campaign finance bill until the Arizona Republican dropped a provision calling for free candidate time.

Weeks later, McCain and Democrats like Rep. John D. Dingell of Michigan warned the FCC not to push broadcasters to offer free time. McCain and Dingell said it was for Congress, not a regulatory agency, to decide the issue.

Congressional lawmakers from both parties have enjoyed the support of broadcasters.

In the 1995-96 election cycle, 58 television executives from the nation’s largest broadcasters gave more than $397,000 to congressional and presidential candidates as well as the parties, says the watchdog group Common Cause.

In the two most recent congressional elections, the NAB and the corporate parents of the four major networks gave a combined $2.2 million to Republican candidates and $1.4 million to Democrats.

While the industry flexes its Washington muscle to keep air time available only for a price, TV stations are reaping a windfall from candidates desperate to get on the screen.

News Coverage on the Wane

“We chase political dollars,” said Ted Pearse, sales manager at Detroit’s WDIV, owned by Washington Post-Newsweek Stations Inc. “A lot of stations in the past were afraid of it. They’re afraid someone’s going to yell at them. They’re afraid of Washington. We’re not afraid. . . . There’s going to be an awful lot of money spent across the country electing this president.”

Part of the reason campaigns are buying so much TV commercial time, political consultants say, is that stations have all but abandoned news coverage of politics. In California, for example, the state’s major stations devoted less than 0.5% of their newscasts to the 1998 governor’s race in the three months leading up to the election, according to a study by the University of Southern California.

But candidates may turn down free time if the proposed format doesn’t suit their political strategies or schedules. NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton noted that federal, state and local candidates turned down $15.1 million worth of free time that would have been used for debates in 1996.

As broadcasters are quick to point out, even stations that have agreed to the air time recommendation have run into trouble applying it. WCVB, a Boston ABC affiliate, invited the major presidential contenders to weekly mini-debates in January, but Bill Bradley, a Democrat, and Texas Gov. George W. Bush, a Republican, declined.

Candidates “have their own strategies and their own game plans,” said Paul La Camera, the station’s general manager. “Sometimes they don’t want to be exposed in a live debate.”

Instead, the station aired clips from Democratic and Republican debates on issues such as health care and gun control. It also aired an in-depth analysis of tax proposals, using a mix of clips from candidate speeches and debates.

In this year’s presidential race, so far none of the networks have pledged to meet the five-minute standard, even though CBS Television President Leslie Moonves was co-chairman of the panel issuing the recommendation.

Moonves said there is “a certain validity” to the reformers’ argument that free time for candidates would let unknown or underfunded candidates gain more exposure. But a standard would be meaningless, he said, unless Congress also enacts reforms to rein in campaign spending. For this reason, he’s reluctant to commit to the White House recommendation now.

“We don’t want to be the Lone Ranger,” he said.

Neither does anyone else. Most major broadcasters are ignoring the White House panel’s proposal.

“They were not realistic recommendations,” said Dennis FitzSimons, president of the broadcasting unit of Tribune Co., which is merging with The Times’ parent corporation, Times Mirror. “I think it’s up to our stations to decide how best to serve their communities.”

Tribune earned about $25 million from political ads in 1998, or 2% of its revenue, and expects about the same results at its 23 TV stations this year, FitzSimons said.

Although candidates demand more free time, “they don’t use it. They want to exercise too much control over the debates,” said Stan Statham, president of the California Broadcasters Assn.

And when candidates do accept formatted free time, Statham complained, they only use it to bicker in sound bites. “What we seek is cross-fire. If what we get is pablum, then we’ll have to accept that because this is America, and you can’t force people to do things they don’t want to do.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

What is “free airtime”?

It is not free commercials, as the term may imply, but rather time set aside by broadcasters for debates, extended interviews or news. Reformers want stations to set aside five minutes per night for the 30 nights preceding an election. But such measures could cut into burgeoning revenue from political ads.

*

Broadcasters contribute millions to candidates and lobby Congress to reject proposals to make TV stations offer candidates free airtime . . .

1995-96: $1.4*

1997-98: $2.8*

1999: $1.4

*

. . . while those stations reap millions from paid political advertising.

1995-96: $444

1997-98: $578

1999: $665 (est.)

*

*lobbying spending for the National Assn. of Broadcasters and the political action committees of the four major TV networks’ corporate parents

*

Sources: Common Cause, CMR/MediaWatch