Mary Washington College professor Stephen Farnsworth has a new book out indicting television network news coverage of presidential election campaigns.

By LUCIA ANDERSON
The Free Lance-Star

Date published: 11/10/2002

ETWORK television is doing a terrible job of giving Americans the information they need to make intelligent choices in presidential elections.

That's the conclusion Stephen Farnsworth came to after intensive analysis of 5,847 network news campaign stories aired during the past four presidential elections.

Farnsworth, an associate professor of political science at Mary Washington College, worked on the study with Robert Lichter, president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs in Washington. Farnsworth is also a senior fellow at the nonprofit, nonpartisan center.

The two scholars have just published the findings of their study in "The Nightly News Nightmare: Network Television's Coverage of U.S. Presidential Elections, 1988-2000."

"Network news is the closest thing we have to a national conversation," Farnsworth said. "Television is where most people receive most of their information."

Farnsworth and Lichter take the networks to task on several fronts: the lack of time spent reporting on the campaign, the tendency to focus on trivialities and the distortions in the coverage.

The authors write: "Thus, network election news coverage has been characterized in this analysis by declining volume, little substance, pervasive negativism, a sometimes partisan tilt, and heavy mediation." By mediation, they mean the interpretation of candidates' positions by reporters, rather than letting the candidates speak for themselves.

The two political scientists take particular exception to the network news programs' tendency to focus on who's ahead in the polls, rather than exploring candidates' positions on substantive issues.

"The media concentrates on strategy and tactics," Farnsworth said. "There are important issues out there--the future of the judiciary, the budget, tax cuts, health, Social Security, Medicare "

Farnsworth and his co-author are also concerned about the dwindling amount of time candidates are given to articulate their views. Complicated policy positions become 10-second sound bites on network news shows, oversimplifying and distorting the issues.

The book backs up these contentions with an accumulation of data laid out in easy-to-read tables.

The center's content analysis of television news shows "allows us to do what no one else does who looks at the media--bring evidence to the table," Farnsworth said.

He said the center's data shows people are increasingly turning to cable news, public broadcasting, newspapers and the Internet for the information they need.

"Now we get a distorted, warped view of the campaign [on network news]," Farnsworth said. "The Internet may make TV news more honest."

He and Lichter suggest that longer news programs could provide better campaign coverage, pointing to the 60-minute "Newshour with Jim Lehrer" on public television as a model. They argue that a 30-minute program (22 minutes with commercials) simply does not allow enough time to explore issues.

They also propose having weekday news shows similar to Sunday morning's "Meet the Press" and "Face the Nation" during presidential election years. This would provide an additional forum for airing candidates' policy positions.

Date published: 11/10/2002