Back to document

Networks should shun congressional hearings on election coverage

By Douglas Lee
Special to freedomforum.org

11.22.00

Don't go.

Decline politely, if possible. Maybe a "thanks, but no thanks" will be enough. But if not, don't back down. Just say no. And, if necessary, tell 'em to go to hell.

This probably isn't the public relations advice the television networks will receive as they determine their response to Congress' hearings into the botched reporting on election night. But this isn't about public relations. This is about the First Amendment and, yes, the media's absolute right to look like idiots.

Justifiably embarrassed by their flip-flopping on election night, the networks already have launched internal and external reviews of their projection procedures. Some Republicans in Congress, however, aren't satisfied with this approach. We need hearings, they say. We need to get to the bottom of this.

No, they don't. Congress has no right to regulate how the networks report election returns. If a network wants to project a winner based on early returns and exit polls, the First Amendment guarantees it the right to do so. If a network wants to project a winner based on pre-voting polling, it can. And if a network wants to project a winner based on a call to a psychic hotline, it can do that, too.

Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., the instigator of the hearings, knows this. As chair of the House Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications, he knows Congress can't restrict the media's right to project election winners. "I don't intend to violate the law or the spirit of the First Amendment," Tauzin said at his Nov. 10 press conference announcing the hearings. "The intent is to find out what went wrong in this system."

The networks, however, aren't obligated to answer to Congress for their reporting and projection errors. If legislation cannot and will not follow, the only purposes for investigating the projections are to intimidate the networks and to extract the political gain associated with beating up the media.

Indeed, the political gamesmanship started even before the hearings. Less than a week after announcing that the hearings would examine the flaws in the projection system, Tauzin upped the ante.

"I think there is now a presumption of bias in the reporting," Tauzin announced to a news conference on Nov. 16. "The networks will have a duty when they do come before us in our hearing to overcome that presumption."

According to Tauzin, the networks' bias in favor of Vice President Al Gore was evident in projections of several closely contested states. When Gore held a small lead, Tauzin claimed, the networks called the state for Gore. But when Texas Gov. George Bush held a small lead, Tauzin said, the networks said the state was too close to call.

Not surprisingly, the networks immediately defended the objectivity of their coverage. From a public relations perspective, that's the right response. The networks, however, should resist the temptation to defend their honor on Capitol Hill. Just as Congress has no right to require accurate election projections, it has no right to insist on objective election coverage.

Even if unstated, the messages that would be sent by congressional hearings into the networks' accuracy and objectivity would be chilling: "If we don't like your coverage, we'll investigate it. We'll haul you before panels of inquisitors, analyze your editorial decisions and question your ethics. We'll hold you to our standards of accuracy and objectivity, whatever they might be. And we'll do this because we can."

If they voluntarily participate in these hearings, the networks necessarily will legitimize an illegitimate inquiry. If Congress needs to do something, let it try to craft workable legislation requiring all 50 states to close their polls at the same time. Let it attempt to tell the states when they can report their returns. Let it try to calculate the odds of an election this close ever occurring again.

Maybe the networks' 1985 agreement, under which they do not call elections until most of the polls in a given state are closed, needs tweaking. Maybe the Voter News Service, upon which the networks rely for exit polling data, needs a major overhaul. Maybe the networks need to re-examine the way they balance speed and accuracy.

But even if the whole process of projecting elections needs to be dismantled and recreated, there's no role for Congress in that endeavor. The First Amendment guarantees the media's independence from the types of governmental interference and scrutiny now being proposed. No matter how embarrassed they might be, the networks shouldn't attempt to soothe their public consciences by participating in a process that ultimately would be more humiliating than anything they suffered on election night.

So forget public relations. Remember the First Amendment. Don't go.