the legislators held no opinion concerning the questions. Most legislators, when they could answer the questions, were positive. Thus, when asked, "Did the program have a positive or negative impact on your constituency's support of you?", no impact was 16%, negative impact was one percent, and positive impact was 58%, with mixed impact being four percent, while the remaining 21% were don't know replies. When asked if the program resulted in positive or negative evaluations of the legislative process, eight percent felt the program had no impact, four percent felt it had a negative impact, 72% felt it had a positive impact, four percent felt it had a mixed impact, and the remaining 12% held no opinion on the matter. The Finally, when asked if they were in favor of continuing the program series next session, 85% of the legislature said yes, six percent said no, and four percent were unsure. remainder (five percent) held no opinion. The program was refunded for the coming session CAPITAL PRESS CORPS Of particular interest is the reaction of the Capital Press Corps which covered the legislature and had to co-exist with the TODAY IN THE LEGISLATURE production staff. Twenty-five of the thirty-two newspeople responded to the questionnaire. When asked if they viewed the program, 17% of the reporters said no, 68% said they viewed occasionally, and 16% were regular viewers. Perceived Legislator Reactions Since some of the reporters had filed stories dealing with the irritation caused by the lights and related television equipment, we asked the reporters the same series of questions as we had asked the legislators concerning lights and cameras. When asked if the lights had bothered the legislators, 16% The of the newspeople said the lights had not bothered the legislators, 36% said they had bothered the legislators at first but that the legislators got used to the lights, while 40% said the lights bothered the legislators throughout the session. remaining eight percent of the newspeople had no opinion. When asked if the cameras had bothered the legislators, there was a substantial difference in reported perceptions between the legislators and the reporters. Whereas 93% of the legislators reported the cameras did not bother them, only 68% of the reporters perceived the cameras in the same Twenty percent of the reporters felt the cameras had bothered the legislators at first, but that they acclimated to the camera's presence. manner. When asked how the lights and cameras affected the legislator's behavior in the session, the reporters had far different perceptions than the legislators. While 80% of the lawmakers reported no change in their behavior, only eight percent of the reporters said they had perceived no change in behavior. The major difference in opinion came in the estimated number of legislators who displayed some behavioral effects. The reporters said that two-thirds of the legislators exhibited some change. When asked what type of behavior resulted from the IION presence of the cameras, we can summarize briefly the reporters' comments. Some reporters, 40%, felt that television coverage resulted in more debate, while 201 felt it also resulted in better attendance. When asked specifically if the legislators grandstanded for the television cameras, 44% of the reporters replied yes, 32% of the reporters felt that only a few legislators grandstanded rather than all of them. Eight percent said there was no more grandstanding than usual present. Twelve percent said no grandstanding occurred and four percent held no opinion. Program Evaluation Approximately 449 of the reporters were positive about the program, 36% had mixed (positive-negative) perceptions and a large 20% had no opinion. When asked if the program should telecast unedited excerpts with no evaluation, the reporters differed from the legislators. A majority of the reporters, 603, wanted the segments to be edited with evaluation. The reporters were a little more likely to perceive the series producers to be fair and balanced in their selection of issues than the legislators 72% versus 66% for the legislators). When asked if the program was boring, eight percent of the reporters said yes, 64% said it was boring some of the time, and 28% had no opinion. As would be expected, the reporters were a little more critical of the type of coverage telecast by the programs, especially in comparison to the legislators. Sixty percent of the reporters felt the program gave only the surface of the legislative process, versus 39% of the legislators who felt the same. Approximately 24% of the reporters agreed that the program did furnish in depth coverage, contrasted with 448 of the legislators who agreed. When asked if the program should be continued, 88% of the reporters agreed, with the rest expressing unsure or don't know responses. SUMMARY Of those interviewed in the seven public television markets, 14% of the sample watched at least one program of the TODAY IN THE LEGISLATURE series: Among the legislators, 82% indicated they viewed the program, while 84% of the Capital Press Corps said they watched TODAY IN THE LEGISLATURE at least once. Responses to the program indicated à positive evaluation. Viewers felt the program was informative, that their understanding of the legislative process was enhanced by the program, and that they learned about what their specific legislators do at the Capitol. Ninety-four percent of the viewers felt the series was worthwhile. Of the total sample interviewed for the panel study, only 10% felt the program should be discontinued. Eighty-five percent of the legislators and 88% of the journalists were in favor of continuing the program. One critical issue concerns effects of such programming on the legislators. However, responses indicate the negative effects of TODAY IN THE LEGISLATURE were perhaps minimal. About half of the Florida public sample, while 92% of the journalists and 68% of the legislators felt the program caused some of the legislators to do their work differently. In terms of kinds of effects, legislators note more debate (37%). Similarly, 40% of the Capital News Corps felt the program caused more debate. Some grandstanding was noted by both the journalists and legislators. However, in noting the reactions of everyone interviewed, the positive effects of the program seem to outweigh the negative. This non-technical summary precedes the issuance of our more detailed analysis of the data later this spring. |