TV POWER IN POLITICS

Press, Issue 32345, 10 July 1970, Page 6

TV POWER IN POLITICS

mu

JAMES RESTON

of the If

“New York Times”, through . N.Z.P.A.) ’

NEW YORK, i American television is ' on the spot these days. ( It has developed such 1 power over politics and ' government in the] United States that, like ( big business in the ,20s ; and big unions in the 1 30s and 40s, it is being ] charged with unbalanc- , ing and corrupting the j political system of the nation.

There is obviously some-, thing to this charge, but the, charge is not quite fair. For television may be as greedy as big business was in the '2os or the big unions were in the 30s and 40s, but it is not as free to do what it chooses. It dramatises the frivolity, permissiveness, and violence of the age, and it is responsible for the noisy abomination of the singing commercial, but it is not responsible for the rules that; enable rich political candidates to buy television time and win elections over poor and often better candidates who cannot afford to buy time on the tube. Rich Favoured

That is the responsibility of the Administration and the Congress. They propose and make the laws, and the television networks and stations have to comply with the laws that are passed, but television officials are now recognising that the rules favour not only rich candidates for political office but also the President and put the opposition party at a serious disadvantage. Accordingly, the Columbia Broadcasting system in the last few days has agreed to give free network time four or five times a year—it has not said precisely how many times—to the opposition party to answer political, arguments by the President.! In so doing, it has recognised that the present system greatly favours the party in power and that some effort should be made to give the opposition at least a limited opportunity to reply. This can never be an “equal opportunity.” The I [President speaks for the [ whole country. He alone has all the information essential to the security of the nation. In his inaugural address, his State of the Union messages, his economic reports, his television press conferences, his special messages to the Congress, his proclamations on historic occasions, his international pronounce-; ments, his trips around the world and his indirect statements twice a day through his White House spokesmen; —through all this he dominates the news. But television adds greatly to his political power and the; more television influence increases, the more Presidents will use it to enhance their authority at the expense of the political opposition. Trend Clear For example, President Eisenhower made 49 live television network appearances in his eight years in the White House, but President Nixon has already made 22 live television appearances in the last 16 months. He will make two more in the next few days. The trend is clear, and it started before the Nixon Administration. Each President since Eisenhower has been making more television appearances before the nation and increasingly they are being held in prime evening time to larger and larger audiences. The political possibilities of this are fairly obvious. Long before the development of national television in! America, historians were[ observing that the “strong” [ Presidents were those who knew how to manage public opinion and the weak Presidents were those who failed to master the arts of public persuasion. “A great nation,” said! Woodrow Wilson, “is not led by a man who simply repeats the talk of the street corners or the opinions of the newspapers. A nation is led by a man who hears more than those things, so that he can speak what no man else

knows, the common meaning of the common voice, not the rumours of the street, but a new principle for a new age . . .’’ Television is obviously a great instrument of such leadership as Mr Wilson had in mind. Indeed, it might [have saved Mr Wilson and his ideals from the tragedy of his latter days had it been available at that time. But now that it is available to his successor in the White House, with a television station in the basement and [instant access to an audience

? of millions, what of the op- i eiposition which is forced in I j large measure to talk to a;l vifew colleagues and empty 1 galleries in the Senate? [1 1 This is the new problem h i of political balance, and not[i I so new either. The Demo- 1 tcrats have controlled they iiWhite House for 28 out of f /[the last 39i years, and, now I i that they are out of office, 1 t they are howling for equal i > time. < e They will, of course, never s i get it. No opposition party 1 1 ever can, but beyond the pre- 1 e sent partisan argument, there f

is clearly here a great question. Television has unibalanced the American political system in favour of the men in office and the men of wealth. No student of the politics of the nation. Republican or Democrat or Independent, would deny it, and, fortunately, the networks are beginning to recognise, very late and in a very limited way, that something must be done to restore at least the semblance of balance between the ins and the outs, the rich and the poor candidates for office.