networks. The networks operate under rather severe resource constraints that are not eased by having a large crew of reporters and technicians chasing candidates all over the country to film rallies (all of which have a startling resemblance to each other). Candidate interviews and reconstructed issue presentations involve fewer costs and contribute more to voters' information.

Candidates should also end their complicity in campaign "pseudoevents." For example, although television news gave little coverage to George McGovern's issue stands, McGovern himself shares the responsibility. With his numerous rallies, staged with network news in mind, McGovern provided the "pseudo-events" which dominated television's coverage of his campaign.

Candidates and their staffs may now spend more time preparing the setting for their campaign rallies than in preparing the content of their speeches. Traditional evening rallies have given way to elaborately staged morning or noontime extravaganzas that are directed, not at the attending audience, but at the millions who will be watching the television coverage. Candidates' involvement in these spectaculars often obscures any serious messages they might have for the viewers. We doubt if stories of these rallies help candidates' campaigns. There is a stifling monotony to them, and as the campaign progresses, voters tune them out. Further, such stories lack substance and provide no solid basis for voters' evaluations of candidates. Press conferences and interviews, with an occassional televised rally, would serve candidates' strategic purposes better than their present efforts. This approach would also make campaigns more meaningful for the voters.

A final suggestion is that television news consider the merits of fewer, more lengthy stories rather than continuing its current policy of many, brief items. The 30 minutes in a network news program could

-44

Although

be put to better use than accomodating a headline service.
networks commonly run 15-20 stories per evening, there are seldom
We believe more

so many stories of compelling national importance.
extensive coverage of fewer stories would overcome the confusion and
inattention which results from the montage format and would better
inform the public.

Televised Political Advertising

Political spot commercials have been frequently criticized. Two of these criticisms are properly directed at advertising: ads oversimplify political reality and are expensive.

They address

Televised ads are, indeed, oversimplifications. those few, limited themes that candidates feel can be communicated effectively within a short period of time. But there is a specious component to the oversimplification criticism.

Seldom do political messages, regardless of source, completely elaborate on an issue. Newspaper and television news stories are seldom comprehensive.

Issue information invariably flows in bits

and pieces to the electorate, and voters are always left with the task of putting it together. If televised ads present limited information to voters, the difference between them and other information

* We will not try to counter objections that are properly directed at candidates rather than commercials. For example, the charge that ads frequently contain lies and appeals to prejudice should be directed at candidates. A 60 second televised deception is no worse than a lie occurring on a 30 minute broadcast or spoken by the candidate or appearing in print. In fact, a little reflection on past presidential campaigns reveals that most appeals to prejudice and most intemperate remarks appear, not in televised spots, but in news stories, reflecting the fact that most such indiscretions occur on the stump or during press conferences. Because ads are directed at a broad audience, and because the content of ads can be carefully considered before being aired, political ads are usually less inflammatory and untruthful than several other message forms.

-45

sources is in degree, not in kind. We are not certain, message-bymessage, that televised ads communicate less information than other sources. Tightly constructed, often with highly supportive visuals, they are a very efficient message form, and the information content of a single ad compares favorably with that of a single television news story.

Criticisms of advertising oversimplifications have relevance only when the argument is tied to the fact that less well informed voters rely most heavily on the commercial for their political

information.

The argument can be made that, because these voters lack extensive contextual information from news sources, they

are not able to evaluate advertising messages fully, and thus, are influenced unduly by oversimplified advertising messages.

Without doubt, these voters are most subject to advertising

influence. But the nature of this influence is different than commonly assumed. The influence is seldom direct. Instead, information and impressions from ads are filtered through these voters' basic convictions and predispositions. Although their political outlook is not well formed, they know their minds and tend to use advertising information to judge the candidates against these predispositions. short, we think political spots help poorly informed voters choose the candidate who best fits their value preferences.

The desirability of political ads becomes, then, a simple question:

Is it better to have these voters go to the polls with or without the additional information from ads? We think there is only one answer to this question. With the information.

In

However, tension exists between this desire to retain advertising as an information source and the desire to reduce advertising to curb

-46

campaign costs. Theodore H. White has described the high costs of
television campaigns as "a new kind of buy out." White feels that
"the corruption of politics by the need for money for television
time is almost as great as it became under the old-time party bosses
who needed money to buy votes at the saloon."

Sensitive to the need for campaign reform, we would like to suggest the following about television advertising and its costs: Candidates can cut spending on televised ads somewhat and still get their messages across.

Consideration should be given to providing candidates free
broadcast time for airing their televised ads.

Our evidence indicates that some "wear out" is associated with

televised political advertising. As exposure to televised ads increases, voters' attention to ads decreases. Also, as ad exposure increases, positive comments about ads decrease and their negative evaluations increase. Additionally, our data indicate that voters with moderate television exposure (one to two hours on an average evening) show gains in information from ads equal to those with heavy exposure. Only voters who average less than an hour of prime-time viewing fail to show substantial effects from advertising exposure. All of this suggests that candidates could reduce their advertising budgets to some extent or, from a different perspective, that varying levels of advertising spending between candidates do not within limits appreciably disadvantage the candidate spending less money.

-

Although it is a controversial proposal, we feel that consideration should be given to providing candidates with free time to air televised spots.

Most proposals for free broadcast time argue that the time

be given for programs of 15 or 30 minutes in length. The simple fact is, however, that voters show little interest in such programs.

These

-47

programs attract small audiences, and audiences which disproportionately include highly interested voters committed to the featured candidate. Most voters dislike seeing their entertainment programming pre-empted by these comprehensive political presentations and they turn to other channels.

However, they will sit through short political spots, from which the informed and uninformed acquire information.

Moreover, it is likely that both candidates and the television industry would agree to free political ads more readily than they would agree to free 15 or 30 minutes broadcasts. Quite obviously, from the way they spend their campaign dollars, candidates prefer televised ads to longer broadcasts. Further, incumbents and frontrunners who have been understandably reluctant to appear on lenghty programs with their opponents have not exhibited the same reluctance to use televised advertising spots. In addition, the television industry is largely opposed to lengthy broadcasts which replace entertainment programming and result in a loss of advertising revenue. However, the industry might back free time for political spots if the time to be reserved for these spots was not taken from regular advertising time allotments but, instead, added to current allotments.

A move to provide free advertising time could be used to curtail certain advertising practices that many critics find objectionable. Free time could be awarded only if candidates agreed to certain stipulations, e.g. the time would have to be used for on-camera candidate presentations of their issue positions.

* We do think, however, that free time for lengthier political broadcasts is desirable as well.

** There is even room for imagination. Assume, for illustration, that some criteria could be developed to specify the issues to be presented through ads. Within a single ad, then, each candidate's position on the issue could be presented. If five-minute spots were used, each ad would provide a mini-debate which, over many ads shown several times each during a campaign, would provide voters considerable comparative issue information on the candidates.