Time - Man of the Year/Time_Man_of_the_Year_Compact_Publishing_3YX-Disc-1_Compact_Publishing_1993.iso/moy/112392/1123640.000

Text File | 1993-04-08 | 6KB | 124 lines

                                                                                ESSAY, Page 84

Election Day Fraud On Television


By Michael Kinsley


    Democratic National Committee Chairman Ron Brown was
beaming as he bounced into the CNN Washington bureau (where I
work part time). And rightly so. It was midafternoon on Election
Day, and exit polls showed that Bill Clinton was going to win
big. But before going on-air, Brown sobered up. "I'd better not
seem too happy," he said. "The polls are still open." Brown
soon appeared on TV screens around the world expressing
cautious optimism to an interviewer who knew as well as Brown
did that the result was a foregone conclusion.

    Bush deputy campaign director Mary Matalin was interviewed
on CNN a few minutes after Brown. Her eyes said it was all
over, but her mouth soldiered on. Reports of high voter turnout
were very encouraging for hopes of a Bush upset, she insisted.

    The drama that had you glued to your TV the evening of
Nov. 3 was a fraud perpetrated by a vast conspiracy. Virtually
everyone you saw on-screen -- reporters, analysts, candidates
and their handlers -- knew what everyone else was waiting to
hear, yet pretended ignorance. Not just that Clinton would win,
but by what margin in which states. And the Senate and
governorship results too. All available at the punch of a
computer button hours before they were reported to viewers.

    The New York Times editorialized afterward that "the four
networks deserve unstinting praise for threading a careful path
between sensationalism and censorship." In fact, election-night
broadcasts were an orgy of both vices, as all the networks
generated false tension while suppressing the very information
that would dissipate it.

    And why? Because otherwise sane people believe -- against
all logic -- that it somehow undermines democracy to project
the result of an election before some people have voted. The
networks are not to blame. Under pressure from Congress and
sundry goody-goodies, they have agreed not to "characterize the
outcome" in any state until the polls (the real polls) have
closed in that state. This hasn't satisfied some Westerners, who
complain about announced results from the East before polls have
closed in the West.

    This year all four networks called the Clinton victory at
10:48 p.m. Eastern time -- 7:48 p.m. in the West where polls
closed at 8 p.m. -- thereby denying Westerners 12 precious
minutes during which to vote in ignorance. Meanwhile, newspapers
-- including the New York Times -- had hit the streets as early
as 10:30 p.m. with CLINTON VICTORY headlines.

    Self-censorship inevitably blurs into outright deception
as network anchors pretend the race hasn't been decided. "The
only way Bush can win now is by carrying states X, Y and Z,"
they say, knowing full well that Bush can't carry states X, Y
and Z and cannot win even if he does. Or they drop little hints
of the true outcome -- "The smell of change is in the air
tonight, Peter" -- as if these insights derive from years of
experience and exquisitely sensitive journalistic nostrils
rather than from cold, hard numbers on a computer screen in
front of them.

    The exit polls do provide a way of hint dropping: "While
we don't yet know who will carry Georgia, Dan, it's interesting
to note that Clinton is running strongly there among people both
under and over five foot six." Or they provide grist for
tautological insights: "People who say that Bill Clinton
reminds them of Jack the Ripper seem to be voting against
Clinton in large numbers tonight, Tom."

    What's the point? I have news for people voting late in
the evening on the West Coast. It is virtually certain that the
election result is settled by the time you vote. This is true
whether or not that result is reported on TV. In fact, even
those, like me, who voted early in the morning on the East
Coast could do so with confidence that the election result would
be determined despite our particular vote, if not before it.

    But if reporting the result on TV leads people not to
vote, however nutty their reason, isn't that a bad thing? Well,
even studies purporting to show that early reporting reduces
voter turnout don't claim that this affects the actual result
-- in the main race or in subsidiary contests. And that's only
logical. Why should knowing the outcome discourage voters for
the loser more than voters for the winner, or vice versa? High
voter turnout is desirable for its own sake, I suppose. But
surely, deceiving people into exercising their right to vote is
high-mindedness gone badly astray.

    Some argue that exit polls shouldn't be reported because
they may be wrong. But aren't other citizens able to handle
this possibility as well as the journalists and politicos? The
main difference between exit polls and other polls is that exit
polls are more likely to be accurate. Fear that they are right,
not fear that they are wrong, is what upsets people.

    The New York Times recommends "extending daylight time for
two weeks in the West," keeping East Coast polls open until 9
p.m. and requiring Western polls to shut at 7 p.m. The aim of
this Rube Goldberg contrivance would be a uniform poll closing.
Thus, to save Westerners from the alleged danger of a devalued
vote at, say, 7:30 p.m., they will be denied the right to vote
that late at all. And even this won't solve the censorship
problem, since the networks know the results long before the
polls actually close.

    I have a better idea. Why don't we grow up? Voting is an
act of democratic faith. You do it even though you know that
elections are never determined by one vote. If you can't stand
the thought that your vote doesn't "matter" in that sense, you'd
better not vote at any hour in any time zone.