|
|
The Black Vera Wang (episode 63). The President waits for word on a possible terrorist attack on a military installation (1). Toby meets with network news directors to discuss coverage of the upcoming presidential nominating conventions (2). C.J. gets used to Secret Service protection while taking her niece shopping for a dress, and learns that Special Agent Donovan was there when President Bartlet was shot at two years earlier. Sam receives an attack ad on tape, tries giving it back, and ends up getting played by an old friend. Josh brings moose meat to Donna, who gives it to a White House intern who then auctions it on-line.
| 
The White House
|
Terrorist attacks on military personnel and institutions (last updated May 4, 2002) (back to top)
There have been several significant terrorist attacks on United States military personnel and institutions in the last two decades. In recent years, the al-Qaeda organization headed by Osama Bin Laden has committed several attacks, initially targeting the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia (for more on this issue, go here) and then allegedly coordinating the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. Before September 11, the pro-Iran group Hizballah was believed responsible for causing the most American deaths, though it never was linked to an incident on American soil.
- April 18, 1983: Bombing of marine barracks. Simultaneous suicide truck-bomb attacks were made on American and French compounds in Beirut, Lebanon. 242 Americans killed, and 58 French. Responsibility linked to Hizballah.
- April 12, 1984: Attack on restaurant in Spain near a U.S. air force base. 18 servicemen killed, 83 injured. Responsibility linked to Hizballah.
- April 5, 1986: Bombing of West Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. military personnel. Two soldiers killed, 79 servicemen injured. The United States responded by bombing targets in Libya.
- November 13, 1995: Bombing of U.S.-operated military training center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Incident results in deaths of one US citizen, several foreign national employees, more than 40 others. The Saudi government arrested four Saudi men in connection with the bombing, coerced them into giving public confessions that they had been inspired by communiqués from Osama Bin Laden, and then beheaded the suspects before the United States could interview them.
- June 25, 1996: Bombing of US barracks at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, resulting in 19 military personnel killed, 515 people injured. In June 2001, federal prosecutors indicted 13 members of the pro-Iran terrorist organization, Saudi Hizballah, or "Part of God." No Iranians were named or charged in the indictment, but the indictment links the Saudi Hizballah members to Iranian military officers.
- October 12, 2000: Attack on the destroyer U.S.S. Cole, which was docked in a port in Yemen. 17 sailors killed, 39 injured. Responsibility linked to al-Qaeda.
- September 11, 2001: Attack on Pentagon and World Trade Center, resulting in the deaths of thousands of civilians and military personnel. Responsibility linked to al-Qaeda.
For more information on terrorism, go here.
Sources: U.S. State Department's history of significant terrorist activities worldwide from 1961 to 2001, on-line here. A press release announcing the June 2001 indictment related to the Khobar Towers incident is on-line here.
Network coverage of political conventions (last updated May 8, 2002) (back to top)
Once the highlight of the presidential campaign, the major parties' presidential nominating conventions have declined in importance as substantive issues are dealt with beforehand in the primaries and as the conventions themselves have become more managed for television audiences. Still, they do focus the nation's attention on the presidential campaign and generally give candidates a boost in polls.
One sign of the conventions' changing relevance is the dwindling audience even as more media outlets - from cable to the Internet - cover them. The main television networks, which have traditionally covered such conventions over the past few decades, have started to question how much they should cover the conventions.
According to reports of Nielsen ratings from 1960 to 1996, the percentage of homes watching the Republican Convention peaked in 1976 at 31.5 percent, and generally fell to 16.5 percent in 1996. The 2000 campaign reportedly saw the decline continue. On the night that George W. Bush accepted the Republican nomination, CBS's popular show Survivor reportedly drew 27.4 million viewers, whereas the network's convention coverage later that night drew less than a sixth of the Survivor audience. ABC had the highest-rated coverage that night, but still drew just 7.6 million viewers. Even counting for NBC and CBS, fewer people saw Bush's speech than saw Survivor that night.
However, focusing solely on convention ratings could overlook a larger point. Some studies have shown that television ratings for news and voter's interest in presidential elections (at least up until the drawn-out battle over the 2000 election) have declined overall. The convention's decline could be part of something larger (for more on voter turnout and on the 2000 election, go here).
Substantive Functions of Political Conventions
Political conventions serve two official functions. First, they serve as the culmination of a party's democratic process of selecting its presidential nominee. Before 1832, nominees were selected by party elites in a caucus system. After the 1830s, parties began holding primaries to elect delegates to the convention, and these delegates would elect a nominee at the conventions. The caucus method is still used in some states such as Iowa.
Second, political conventions are the forum at which parties adopt the platform for its campaigns. This document is written beforehand by a committee, though dissident members can write a minority report if there is strong disagreement on a particular issue. Since the platform is meant to be usable by all candidates, the document typically is general and vague. Republican presidential candidate Wendell Willkie once called them "fusions of ambiguity."
These two functions have diminished in importance as political parties have tried to minimize conflict at conventions by deciding matters beforehand and by recent changes in convention rules. Since the 1950s, presidential candidates have been determined through the primary process so that there is little doubt about the nominee when the convention actually opens. And in recent years, platforms have not been too prominent, with fights largely centering on the abortion issue (for more on abortion, go here).
Political parties have also changed convention rules and delegate selection procedures to ensure more widespread support within the party. These changes began after the 1968 Democratic National Convention, which was marked more by violent protests over Vietnam and Mayor Richard Daley's infamous malapropism about the police than for the substantive actions taken there (Hubert H. Humphrey was nominated after Lyndon B. Johnson announced he would not run again).
Given these changes, the last convention at which anything of substance was resolved was the 1980 Democratic National Convention, when Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) lost a last-ditch effort to change a voting rule and finally conceded the party nomination to President Jimmy Carter. Kennedy still continued to fight Carter on the party's platform, and the final document was reportedly filled with so many concessions to Kennedy's forces that Carter himself did not strongly support it.
Going further back into history, the last presidential candidate to be decided at his party's convention was Democratic Governor Adlai E. Stevenson of Illinois in the 1950s. Stevenson was "drafted" by President Harry S Truman and Illinois supporters into running for the first time in 1952 and did not win the nomination until the convention's third ballot. He won his party's nomination again in 1956, this time on the first ballot. The 1956 convention was also notable for being the last time that a major presidential candidate left the decision as to his running mate to the convention delegates, who elected Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee as Stevenson's running mate. Stevenson ultimately lost both general elections to General Dwight Eisenhower.
Nonetheless, conventions are still a forum which commands the nation's attention. The conventions are still important in offering a forum for the candidate and his party to make their case to the country and by focusing the country's attention on the presidential candidate for at least one night. Almost all candidates have received a boost in their approval ratings following a convention.
As for the other nights, however, the conventions have been criticized as infomercials where nothing of substance is done. The 1996 conventions, for example, were seen as patching over intra-party differences in order to show a more unified face for each party, and for showcasing quasi-politicians such as Christopher Reeve and General Colin Powell, who at least used part of his time to express political differences with other Republicans and went on to become Secretary of State. The last convention where a speaker other than the presidential and vice-presidential nominee said anything of note was the 1992 Republican National Convention, when Pat Buchanan spoke about a cultural war within the United States.
Political Conventions and Media Coverage
Like much of politics, the conventions have adapted to media coverage. Radio coverage began in 1924 and television coverage began in 1940. In fact, the final acceptance speech that now marks the convention is one result of such coverage. Before such coverage, presidential candidates did not actually appear at the convention but accepted the nomination several weeks later. FDR became the first major candidate to break that tradition, appearing in 1932 to accept the Democratic nomination; Republican candidates began accepting in person with the 1944 nomination of Thomas E. Dewey.
In recent years, party leaders coordinating the convention have become increasingly media-savvy and the conventions have become more scripted and controlled. Most substantive differences are dealt with beforehand and off-screen, schedules are streamlined to avoid long speeches and roll-calls, and media-friendly events have been moved to the prime-time viewing hours when the audience is watching.
Given the convention's change in role from a decision-making, deliberative body to a media event, some have questioned whether the media's role should change as well.
First, is the convention worth such a deployment of journalistic resources? Now, about 15,000 journalists descend on each convention site in order to cover the events there and many of them report frustration with their ability to cover events. In 1996, Ted Koppel of Nightline and most of his staff left the Republican National Convention early, saying it was "more than an infomercial than a news event," and not worth such extensive coverage.
Second, how much should television networks cover? Television networks have been covering fewer hours of the convention, focusing their attention on the acceptance speeches by the presidential and vice-presidential nominee. Traditionally, all television networks covered the conventions in order to ensure the capture of the television audience, forcing casual viewers to watch because there is no alternative programming available. Some still argue this point, saying that even with the growth of cable and Internet coverage, about a quarter of U.S. households does not have cable service or a satellite dish and must be served.
Obligations under the FCC as to Political Coverage
Whatever the journalistic or social principles may argue, there is no legal obligation on behalf of either national networks or local stations to cover political conventions. In fact, national networks are not regulated by the FCC as to content at all.
Local TV stations are regulated, but the only regulations as to political broadcasting are that local stations must provide "equal opportunities" to all candidates. When one candidate has been permitted to "use" a station, stations must "afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office." The FCC does not consider an appearance of a candidate on a bona fide newscast, interview or documentary to be a "use," nor on-the-spot coverage of a bona fide news event, which it specifically defines to include political conventions.
In 1996, Reform Party presidential candidate Ross Perot complained to the FCC that he was entitled to more prime-time coverage since the television networks had provided extensive coverage of the 1996 Republican and Democratic parties' presidential nominating conventions but not of the Reform Party's. Perot stated that the news exemption should not apply to at least four hours of such coverage because "while some limited news was dispatched, the vast majority of the network's programming … was simply a staged forum for the candidates."
The FCC rejected Perot's argument, saying that it would not distinguish between party conventions and other candidate events that might be covered as newsworthy. Quoting the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 1976 case, the Commission ruled that "it is more reasonable to believe, as the Commission apparently does, that any appearance by a candidate on the broadcast media is designed to the best of the candidate's ability, to serve his own ends."
Sources: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., National Party Conventions, 1831-1980 (1983). Congressional Quarterly, Inc., Selecting the President: from 1789 to 1996 (1997). The Vanishing Voter Project at the Joan Shorenstein Center hosted a panel at the 2000 Republican National Convention on convention coverage; a background paper on the discussion is on-line here and a transcript of the panel is on-line here. The Federal Communications Commission is on-line here and its 1996 decision regarding Ross Perot's complaint is on-line here. James Bennet, 'Nightline' pulls the plug on convention coverage, New York Times, August 15, 1996. James Bennet, Party uses networks' love of live TV to snare them, New York Times, August 28, 1996. Bill Carter, Plunging ratings touch off debate on why public is losing interest, New York Times, August 3, 2000. Adam Nagourney, Speakers being given absolute freedom to stick to the script, New York Times, August 3, 2000. NOTE: I was a metro reporter for the Chicago Tribune during the 1996 Democratic National Convention; I covered a handful of state delegations.
|
