Accountability for the Legislature: The Impact of Extended Television Coverage Frank V. Donovan, Legislative Correspondent Panel on: Informing the Public Through the Media Public opinion surveys indicate that Americans regard television to be their "most believable" source of news. It is significant, therefore, that state legislatures are increasingly opening their decision-making processes to the public via extended, in-depth, television coverage, particularly by public television outlets. Neither institution may be the same again. Such coverage goes far beyond normal state capitol reporting. In states where performed well, the new relationship appears to be helping to bring about fundamental, positive changes in the manner and accountability with which the peoples' business is being conducted. This is no small accomplishment at a time when public confidence in government and politicians is so low. The judgment nets out the many pros and cons, but generally, the coverage is being welcomed by concerned citizens and thoughtful legislators alike. The former because of their demand for a responsive and responsible legislature; the latter because of their desire for greater public awareness and understanding of the work of their branch of state government, work upon which they must stand for reelection. At a time when many state capitol news bureaus are thinly staffed and when state governmental units are relying more heavily on press agents this opportunity for people to see for themselves, without "manipulation," is particularly useful. As a student of government, I consider such extended television coverage as one of the major forces shaping legislatures today. Aside from what pollster to. Harris called the changing fox of the American wajia, te orter forces include the 3.5. Supreme Court's reapportionment dec.s.ons, the "New Federalism" with revenue-sharing, and the leg.s.ative modernization efforts of legislatures and reform groups. (e.g. Eagleton Institute, the Citizens' Conference on State Legislatures, and most recently Common Cause.) Let's take a moment to place your situation into perspective. Political scientists remind us that there is a deeply-rooted antipolitical bias in American folkways. From Colonial times, Americans have never really held politicians in high esteem. Vietnam, Watergate, and now the Agnew affair have reinforced this not altogether unhealthy view. To further compound the situation, pollsters have found repeatedly that, with few exceptions, most people do not care that much about most public issues most of the time. For the average citizen, personal concerns about health, family, job and "making ends meet" normally take precedence. It is not surprising, therefore, that individual legislators lament the low public awareness of the state legislature on one hand and then decry the results of what media coverage they do receive with its real or imagined "unfairness" and "ineptitude." Chances are that some of you can cite personal examples of what you consider "inaccurate," "superficial," "biased," "sensationalized" or even "poisonous" reporting. My own experience, however, has been that most reporters do succeed in doing competent even-handed reportage, day in and day out, despite some very severe job constraints. (For a detailed discussion of this problem you may have seen this Citizen's Conference reprint "What's Wrong with Statehouse Coverage," by Thomas B. Littlewood of the Chicago Sun-Times in The Columbia Journalism Review, March/April 1972.) Connecticut was a pioneer in 1964 and 1965 with extended TV coverage. Today public television stations in Georgia, Florida, Nebraska, Idaho, West Virginia and other states are devoting substantial portions of their schedules to their respective legislatures. Lacking the dollars, hence the program material, resources, options and pressures of the commercial channels, public television does have the "luxury of time" to inform viewers more extensively on happenings at the state capitol. Each state is different, but Connecticut is illustrative of those states whose stations have plunged into legislative coverage with sophistication, courage and imagination. Still, we all have a long way to go. In Connecticut we started by televising directly from the floor of the House of Representatives and the State Senate during debates on major issues. We also covered key public hearings by legislative committees. Connecticut Public Television (CPTV) began such broadcasts as a means of providing a public service of importance to our viewers throughout the state. At the same time, of course, we -on a shoestring budget were thus able to obtain good, inexpensive program material with considerable viewer appeal. - Since 1965 our coverage of legislative activities has grown considerably. Major debates on issues, such as the budget, the personal income tax, environmental and consumer legislation, restoration of capital punishment, equal rights for women and scores of others in recent years have received complete live or video-taped coverage from both House and Senate sometimes from 10:00 a.m. on one day until 3:00 or 4:00 a.m. the next day. Videotapes are made for later, showing in prime time and may be edited. If edited, they will provide large segments of the critical points in the debate. We've CPTV also broadcasts significant committee hearings either at the State Capitol or when possible from elsewhere in the state. even experimented with committee hearings with people calling in toll-free from around the state, to express their views. We produce film documentaries on emerging issues, run a regular 35-minute news show from the Capitol five nights a week during the session with videotape highlights, interviews and analysis. The various state capitol reporters give a weekly legislative wrap-up and panel, of leading newspaper editors has a regular weekly program which includes state issues. Debates may be staged by CPTV using a format similar to "The Advocates." And, key study reports are discussed by their authors and interested critics. (Incidentally, we also cover completely the state political conventions, and schedule debates between gubernatorial, U.S. Senate and Congressional candidates respectively.) Free prime time is made available to candidates for major offices. The three elements of coverage are: (1) News, (2) Features, and (3) Editorials. We are deeply involved on the first two items, but by federal law, we as public television stations cannot editorialize. Such editorials by commercial stations can be a powerful force. For example, WBZ-TV, and WBZ-Radio (Group W) in Boston may produce thirty to forty separate editorials over four to five months time on a given legislative subject, such as narcotics control or car pooling. They even will have the necessary legislation drafted for introduction, to the Massachusetts legislature. In Connecticut CPTV tries hard not to give our viewers a superficial, one-dimensional view of the legislative process, of legislative issues or of individual legislators. We understand and point out to our viewers the role of the legislature as an arena for settling conflicting claims. We dig out the facts of caucuses, executive committee meetings and the various hallway and behind-thescenes negotiations in the Governor's Office or downtown restaurants. We interview the participants, often on a head-to-head basis, to ascertain the facts of such negotiations. We also interview the governor, leadership, rank and file legislators, agency heads, lobbyists and ordinary citizens to give our viewers an accurate, fair and well-rounded picture of controversial issues. Indeed, in a hotly contested, fluid situation when we're running live during a debate our viewers often have a better up-to-the-minute grasp on what's happening than many of the rank and file lawmakers on the floor at the time. Our obligation throughout, of course, is to the truth and to our viewers, not to the would-be image of the General Assembly, or that of individual legislators. Any members of press, radio or television would say the same thing, but in our case we have a special situation in that the legislature controls the purse strings for a significant percentage of our budget. In the case of CPTV's legislative coverage, it has been underwritten in part by grants from a foundation established by the late U.S. Senator William H. Benton. Connecticut Public Television is a private non-profit corporation with a broad-based board of directors. We are viligent not to allow ourselves to be politicized or be a propaganda tool. To do so would |