Four Campaigns, Eight Conventions...But Just One Spin
Table of Contents:
- Four Campaigns, Eight Conventions...But Just One Spin
- Introduction
- Questions: Leftward, Ho!
- Labeling: Republican Extremists vs. Democratic Moderates
- Controversies: Separate and Unequal Treatment
- Conclusion: Recommendations for Fair and Balanced Coverage
Conclusion: Recommendations for Fair and Balanced Coverage
Even if it weren’t laughably unlikely, it would be as bad for the public to have a media elite that was constantly pushing a one-sided conservative agenda as it is to deal with the current elite that’s lopsidedly liberal. What’s required is fairness and balance, where both sides can take their ideas to voters and get a fair hearing.
This review of convention coverage shows a pattern of unequal treatment of Democrats and Republicans that’s uncorrelated with any political personality, overriding controversy, or any specific circumstance of any campaign. Old habits are hard to break, of course, but here are a few ways the networks could give viewers more even-handed coverage this summer:
1. Apply same labeling standard to both parties. Either avoid ideological labeling during convention and campaign coverage or, if you feel it is necessary, be sure to hold those involved in the internal battles of both parties to the same standard — especially in applying extreme labels such as "ultra-conservative" or "ultra-liberal," "far right" or "far left," and variants on the word "hard," including "hard-line conservative" and "hard-edged conservative."
This means that if viewers are told that George W. Bush is being pulled out of the mainstream by "hard-line conservatives," reporters should make sure viewers are alerted with equal frequency to how Al Gore is being pulled out of the center by "hard-line liberals" or the "far left of the Democratic Party."
Following this policy will ensure that viewers do not receive a skewed view of how the Republican candidate and his supporters are outside the mainstream while the Democratic candidate and his supporters are portrayed as middle-of-the-road.
2. Play Devil’s Advocate in a Balanced Manner. Confront representatives, activists and candidates within both parties with the strongest arguments of their opponents. On a practical level, this means if Republicans are asked in Philadelphia about how their pro-life position is an extremist view which will turn off suburban women, Democrats in Los Angeles should face an equal number of questions about whether their backing of partial-birth abortion is an extremist position which will scare away moderate voters.
3. Hold Both Parties and Their Candidates to the Same Standard in Raising Controversies. In 1988, network reporters highlighted Republican controversies (such as Dan Quayle’s service in the National Guard) 190 times, but mentioned Democratic scandals (such as Michael Dukakis’s furlough program for murderers) only four times.
This year, if reporters decide to raise subjects such as allegations of past drug use by George W. Bush, two weeks later at the Democratic convention they should spend an equal amount of time on controversies in Al Gore’s past. Similarly, if viewers are told about the controversy over Bush’s visit to Bob Jones University, and reminded of that university’s advocacy of anti-Catholic and racially insensitive views, then equal time should be given in Los Angeles to alerting viewers to Al Gore’s meetings with Al Sharpton and informing them of his record of incendiary racial demagoguing.
4. Don’t Harp on the Negativity of One Party Without Applying the Same Standard to the Other Party. During their prime-time coverage of the two 1996 conventions, network reporters used negative terms like "bash" and "harsh" to describe Republican positions or convention speakers 57 times but, despite several negative speeches attacking Republicans, Democrats were scolded for negativity only seven times.
In just a few weeks, the 2000 conventions will be history. Will the networks be remembered for their fairness and balance, or for their separate and unequal treatment of the two parties?
