More Debates?

Equal-time rule eased

The change is tiny: an adjustment of an exemption in a regulation. But the implications are national. Last week the Federal Communications Commission, in the latest of Chairman Mark Fowler's moves to free the television industry from content regulations, ruled that broadcasters may stage political debates between candidates of their own choosing without necessarily having to grant equal time to those excluded. Fowler maintained that the decision would "permit, encourage and foster increased political debate."

Under the longstanding equal-time rule, broadcasters who made time available to one candidate were required to do so for all the others, no matter how minor. Thus, the candidate for, say, the Antivivisectionist Party was entitled to the same exposure as a Democrat or Republican. Designed to encourage debate, the rule actually stifled it. The networks avoided the burden of providing time to marginal candidates by giving less time to any of them.

One compromise was for outside groups to arrange debates between major-party candidates, which were then covered by the networks as "bona fide news events," a designation that placed them outside the equal-time requirement. Notable examples: the televised debates between Ronald Reagan and President Jimmy Carter in 1980 and between Carter and President Gerald Ford in 1976, which were sponsored by the League of Women Voters. Now network or station-sponsored debates will themselves be considered news events.

Executives of the three commercial networks happily predict a marked increase in the number of televised debates. NBC, ABC and CBS have already dispatched telegrams to the Democratic and Republican National Committees inviting candidates to participate in on-air debates some time next year. Broadcasters maintain that they will be able to bring greater flair to staging the encounters than the league was able to do. Says CBS Senior Vice President Gene Mater: "We can do a better job. Communications is our business."

Others are not so sure. Dorothy S. Ridings, president of the League of Women Voters, believes that the decision allows broadcasters "to make as well as cover news," giving them far too much power in the process. Andrew Schwartzman, head of the Media Access Project in Washington, contends that since local broadcasters are likely to have "family, business partners and friends involved in local politics," their judgment in choosing candidates for station-sponsored debates might be suspect.

Whether the decision maximizes coverage of the candidates, or simply minimizes the restraints on broadcasters to cover the candidates as they see fit, remains to be seen. It will be up to the viewer and the voter to decide. This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.