59

Under the weighted probability allocation, minor party candidate D

with an 8% level of support receives 1.51 hours, independent candidate E with only 3% support receives 0.79 hour, and so on. By comparison, major party candidate A with 45% support receives but 2.69 hours.

Of course, when the proportional and weighted probability allocations are combined, in this example the two major party candidates together still get more than 65% of the total time available. But the net effect is to maintain a balance of representation which makes efficient use of the available time while guaranteeing an equitable allocation among majority, minority, and independent candidates. A final aspect of "representative time" is the conditions of use. Use here should be restricted to formats which are "intended to promote rational discussion, illuminate campaign issues, and give the voter insights into the abilities and personal qualities of the candidates," and which avoid "excesses, deception, distortion, fraud, and exaggeration in campaign tactics."55

It might even be reasonable to require that some portion of the total time be used in a debate format with opposing candidates and in a discussion format with community and news media representatives.

This approach to eligibility, allocation, and use would obviously be more complex to administer than the current "equal time" practice. But, as Figure Six and the foregoing discussion are intended to demonstrate, the concept of "representative time" can be hammered down into specific and workable terms which are likely to become increasingly feasible, either via the current or an expanded broadcast television system or when cable television achieves significant penetration into the political marketplace.

55U.S., House, Clean Elections, pp. 20-24; Mickelson, p. 105.

PROGRAM OF POLICY STUDIES IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

The George Washington University
Washington, D. C. 20006

12 Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

5. Report Date

May 1974

6. Performing Organization Code

8. Performing Organization Rept. No.

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

NASA NGL 09-010-030

13. Type of Report & Period
Covered

15. Supplementary Notes

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

16. Abstracts The author summarizes the results of an exploratory inquiry into the potential use of emergent telecommunications technology for communication between congressmen and their constituents. The study employed a number of specific methodologies: interdisciplinary systems model-building, technology analysis, a sample survey, and semi-structured interviews using sketches of the emergent channels.

Six telecommunication configurations were identified as representative of emergent channel characteristics: the teleconference, videoconference, videophone, cable television, cable TV polling, and information retrieval. Analysis of the interview data resulted in an overview of the current congressional-constituent communication system and an assessment of the potential for emergent telecommunications,| as perceived by congressmen and senior staff from the 40 offices in the stratified judgment sample.

Connecticut Public Television, "Television Coverage of the Connecticut General Assembly (1969-1973)"

A REPORT TO THE WILLIAM BENTON FOUNDATION

By S. Anders Yocom, Jr., Vice President, Programing

When an American thinks of government—who runs it, what it does or does not do, what annoys him, what conjures up feelings of loyalty-one is most likely to think first of the Federal Government. Specifically, he is likely to find at the top of his consciousness the President, other high officials and certain members of Congress. But increasingly, and rightly so, State government is finding a more and more prominent place in the awareness of the average individual.

In Connecticut, State government collects in taxes and spends approximately $1.6 billion each year. It retains considerable authority over the State's public school system. It helps feed the poor and care for the retarded and mentally ill. It licenses motor vehicle operators, beauticians, morticians, TV repair people, barbers, and scores of other professionals. There are boards of examiners of embalmers, nurses, optometrists, physical therapists, podiatrists, psychologists, hypertrichologists and others. The State regulates a wide variety of industries ranging from insurance to cable television. While some of this State authority is unseen, much of it is becoming increasingly visible, touching the life of every citizen of the State every day.

Meanwhile, the law-making bodies of the States, including Connecticut's legislature, are undergoing profound changes brought about by several factors. Probably the most significant of these is the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Baker vs. Carr case which requires all state legislatures to apportion their memberships according to the principles of one-man-cne-vote. Suddenly, at the time this decision was handed down in the mid-sixties, the Connecticut General Assembly found that the power which has belonged to the largely conservative rural constituency had vanished. The urban population centers realized newly found clout in the Legislature.

Soon after reapportionment, came a movement to make Connecticut's General Assembly more modern, more efficient and more responsive to public needs. National groups such as The Citizens Conference for State Legislatures, The National Conference of State Legislative Leaders and more recently Common Cause along with The Eagleton Institute at Rutgers University began to nudge state legislatures in all fifty states to take steps to reduce their sizes, reduce the numbers of standing committees and adopt rules and reforms designed to make them more accountable to the electors.

A more recent development in the increasing visibility of state government is the Federal Government's apparent new posture by which more power, responsibility and economic control is being returned to the states through the so-called "new federalism" as evidenced particularly in current revenue sharing

programs.

The newest and by no means the least significant external force which is producing change in state legislatures is television. For more than six years in Connecticut and recently in a growing number of other states, the legislative process is taking place under the scrutiny of television cameras. Public television stations and state networks in Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Nebraska and other states are bringing regular coverage of the legislative process into the homes of the citizenry with significant results.

CPTV BACKGROUND

Connecticut Public Television (CPTV) is a state network operated by a private, non-profit corporation founded in 1961. (Most state public television networks are operated by their states through state governmental authorities or state universities.) Although CPTV has received capital appropriations and an operating grant requested annually from the State of Connecticut, private money has been raised at an increasing rate over the years from foundations, the corporate community and private individuals. The licenses for the three CPTV transmitters (WEDH Hartford, WEDW Bridgeport, WEDN Norwich) were originally held by the State Board of Education and remained inactive until the Connecticut Educa

Much of the activity in other states has been sparked by a national awareness of CPTV's coverage of the Connecticut General Assembly, and the important role played by the William Benton Foundation. In 1972, a sample of this coverage was fed by PBS to all stations across the country. CPTV has been consulted by many of these stations.

tional Television Corporation activated them (Hartford in 1962, Norwich and Bridgeport in 1967). The original staff of approximately one dozen persons has grown to nearly 60 technical, production, administrative and other personnel. In ten years, the production center has been developed into a full color facility with some of the most advanced broadcast equipment available. In addition, both color and black and white facilities are available for travel to production sites anywhere in the State. A black and white production facility is permanently in place at the State Capitol.

Connecticut Public Television, as a public broadcasting entity, offers four basic types of programming: instructional, cultural, childrens and public affairs. The instructional service is aimed primarily at persons who are actively pursuing some type of formalized education ranging from grade school to college credit. The cultural programming includes all elements of American and foreign culture from sports to fine arts and along with extensive public affairs programming (dealing with public issues and officials) is aimed at general audiences. Some programs and series are offered for specialized audiences such as the hearing-impaired, the elderly and the various ethnic groups. The general audience programming is offered in "prime time" so that maximum numbers of viewers can be attracted to these programs at times of greatest convenience to those viewers. The children's programming is broadcast at times when large numbers of children are available for viewing.

Since 1962 much of CPTV's energy and resources have gone into the production of public affairs programming. Numerous issues, local and state, have been explored on programs of varying format. CPTV has built a track record for excellence in coverage of major events such as State political conventions, election returns, city council meetings, public hearings and other events which supplement the pioneering General Assembly coverage.

A natural match exists between the reach of CPTV's signal and the potential audience of concern for the affairs of state government. Although the people are diverse as to interests, economic status and heritage-although their lives are greatly influenced by varied economic and cultural centers, some of which are in other states, there is still one significant factor which the people of Greenwich in the southwest corner have in common with the people of Thompson in the northeast corner and with all others in between: they pay taxes to and receive services from the same political entity, The State of Connecticut. CPTV has the signal reach and the technical and manpower resources to bring the work of the General Assembly to all such people. This resource gives government leaders and their political opponents access to their various constituencies via public television.

The decision to cover the General Assembly was an obvious one. And CPTV had the added incentive of the opportunity to develop a rapport with the General Assembly and demonstrate the public need for a strong, independent public television network.

HISTORY OF CPTV'S COVERAGE

During the spring and summer of 1964 the General Assembly was wrestling with two separate reapportionment problems (Congressional districts and State Assembly districts) as a result of the Supreme Court's decision mandating the one-man-one-vote principle. During this special session, CPTV filmed several hearings and floor debates which were processed and edited into special reports and aired usually the day after the event. For the 1965 regular holdover 1 session, CPTV stepped up its coverage using essentially the same technique, augmented by interviews and discussion programs.

By 1967 a newly_apportioned General Assembly was in session as a result of the Constitutional Convention of 1965. This was the first year that CPTV produced regular weekly coverage of the General Assembly. Each week, an issue was selected, and appropriate members of the assembly were invited to discuss it with key lay people. The series of round table programs soon built a following and became a significant communications force in the process of that session.

But the culmination of that session was the first ever "live-on-tape" television coverage of floor debate from a house of the State Legislature. CPTV had acquired and put into operation a fully-equipped mobile remote production van. It was taken to the Capitol and recorded the entire five hour budget debate from the House of Representatives. The tapes were played back on the air that same night.

1 The 1965 session was a holdover of the 1963 session because the General Assembly had failed to reapportion itself in the special session of 1964.