Chat Transcript: Media Critic Marvin Kalb (Nov. 14, 2000)

Nov. 14, 2000 -- Among the questions still unresolved on Election Day is whether the media are able to balance competitive pressures with the need to be sure about the facts before calling a race.

When reporters called Florida, first for Al Gore, then for George W. Bush, and then as "too close to call," were they just doing their jobs in a very close election? Or were they irresponsibly rushing to judgment and perhaps unfairly influencing the contest for the Presidency?

Marvin Kalb joined us today in an online chat to discuss the role of the media in American politics. Kalb, an award-winning journalist, moderator and author for more than 30 years, currently acts as executive director of the Washington office of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. Kalb also lectures at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. The chat transcript is below.

Moderator at 2:00pm ET

Welcome Marvin Kalb.

Tom Blazier at 2:00pm ET

How would you compare this year's election coverage with that of 1988? To what extent has the media learned from that "low-watermark" year of largely substance-less reporting and the subsequent hand-wringing by many within the news industry over the media's role in a Democratic society?

Marvin Kalb at 2:03pm ET

It is a complicated question. 1988 was a very difficult year for reporters. They were unhappy with the candidates, and they were unhappy with their own performance. They vowed never to do it again in the same way.

Each Presidential election since then has been covered in a somewhat different way. There are now more 24-hour-a-day television news networks, there is now the Internet, there is now much more speculation about personalities, and less substantive news.

Reporters are being questioned vigorously at this time about their coverage of the 2000 campaign. They're not particularly happy with what they did, but they think they did better than in previous campaigns.

James in Atlanta from delta.com at 2:03pm ET

What practical changes do you recommend to make election night coverage more like hard news rather than "info-tainment"?

Marvin Kalb at 2:05pm ET

It is not a matter of hard news or "info-tainment." It is a matter of getting the facts right. Election night is dominated by one central issue: who has more votes. That question cannot be answered definitively unless you know who won the election. On election night this year, the projections suggested that the reporters and the anchormen knew what they were saying and knew that their projections were accurate.

As we know, the projections were, in a number of key cases, flat out wrong. Those errors, those blunders, were hugely important, and the nation and, really, the world wait now for a resolution of the original question: who got more votes.

Sarah Bonsall from dsl.ccob.com at 2:05pm ET

Is it feasible for the US to have a 24-hour vote, using uniform polling hours nationwide? It seems to me that would help in solving the problem caused by the competitive race to project a winner.

Marvin Kalb at 2:09pm ET

That is absolutely right. The competitive race to project a winner makes it extremely difficult to be careful, cautious; competition seems to drive caution and care out the door. Now, if there were a uniform closing time across the entire nation, it would unfortunately pose a number of complications.

There is an eight hour difference between Bangor, Maine and Fairbanks, Alaska. Does that mean that Bangor, Maine would have to open its doors eight hours earlier, or eight hours later? In either case, it would effect when someone goes to work. Would factories have to stay open later, or open six or eight hours earlier, or three hours earlier?

And even if we had a uniform closing time, it still does not ensure that the competition built into the networks and the way they function would still not be a driving and determining factor in deciding who won and who lost, in deciding what kind of call to make and when.

So there are two issues here: one issue relates to laws and regulations that could be applied across a very large country, involving many time zones; the other problem relates to the nature of contemporary journalism, and the underpinning of ferocious competitive pressures that drive the industry. The problems, in other words, reside in both areas, and a solution, therefore, must be found in both areas.

Ed Goldstein at 2:09pm ET

Hello Mr. Kalb: In your judgment, would it make sense to go to a weekend voting system (Saturday & Sunday) with a uniform national closing time for the polls on Sunday evening? Your former student, ED G

Marvin Kalb at 2:12pm ET

Ed was a very bright student, and asks a very good question! Election Day on a Tuesday is not written into the Constitution. It is a custom that evolved in an essentially agricultural society. There is no reason in the world why Election Day cannot be changed, why the time of the year cannot be changed, and why it could not be spread over two days on a weekend. In that way, it would not interfere with work, and indeed there might then be an opportunity to sensibly embrace the different time zones while imposing a single closing time for all balloting.

But, to enact such a new concept and structure, would require, I believe, just about a unanimous vote. And why do I say that? Because let's say that a lot of small states around the country agree that that is the best idea, but four states do not agree, and those four states are California, Texas, Florida and New York. As a practical matter, the new structure could not be launched without those states’ total cooperation, so effectively you're going to need the cooperation of every single state. It might be possible to achieve this, it would take a lot of work, but it's worth doing if it's possible.

Ken Kellow from pa.us.prserv.net at 2:13pm ET

How do we know media "calling" the election has an effect? Or are we assuming it does?

Marvin Kalb at 2:16pm ET

Well, we know that it has an effect, because after the networks called Governor Bush the winner, the President-Elect, early Wednesday morning, Vice President Gore called him to concede. The Vice President did not concede because of anything other than the calls that were made by the networks shortly after 2 a.m. Wednesday morning.

Now, he could have privately checked with his own people before making the concession call, but he chose not to do that. That is only one illustration of what is very clear: that these calls do directly influence the way in which the politician responds to the election results.

We know, for example, that Governor Bush from Texas and Governor Bush from Florida called their cousin John Ellis, who works at Fox news, and who made the call to anoint his cousin President Elect of the United States. Once again, that's an illustration of the way in which journalism in different ways has an effect on the public policy outcomes of these elections.

Moderator at 2:16pm ET

Mr. Kalb thank you for joining us, do you have any final thoughts to share?

Marvin Kalb at 2:19pm ET

My final thought is that it is extremely important for television news to find a better way of calling elections. If they don't, there are two possible outcomes. One, the networks continue to lose credibility with the American people — this is not new, but the problem got much worse last Tuesday night and Wednesday morning when the networks made a number of howling blunders.

Number two, there will undoubtedly be Congressional Hearings; Congressional Hearings designed to investigate the editorial process at the networks. That is a terrifying prospect, in that it might cut directly into the editorial independence and freedom of the network news departments.

Before Congress does anything shortsighted and foolish, and probably unconstitutional, the networks have an obligation to themselves, to their stockholders, to the entire country, to shape up and find a much better, fairer way of calling election results.

Moderator at 2:19pm ET

Thank you Marvin Kalb. And thanks to all our chat participants!