Presidents and the Tube

President Nixon's abrupt schedule changes kept the three TV networks off balance last week. First they had to go through the motions of sweeping aside an estimated $250,000 worth of prime-time programs for a Wednesday night speech on the Watergate tapes case. Then the White House decided on a Thursday night press conference instead. Preoccupation with the Middle East problem put that off until Friday. At no time did TV executives, or anyone else, question the President's right to a national audience of 60 million or more when he wanted it.

Indeed, so automatic has presidential access to television become that most people take it for granted. But in Presidential Television, a Twentieth Century Fund Report published last week (Basic Books; $8.95), three authors argue that the tube has seriously tipped constitutional checks and balances in favor of the Executive Branch. Written by Newton Minow, FCC chairman in the Kennedy Administration, John Bartlow Martin, an author and a former Ambassador to the Dominican Republic, and Lee Mitchell, an attorney specializing in communications law, Presidential Television urges a thorough reform of broadcasting regulations before the President's "electronic throne" becomes all too real.

Carefully Rehearsed. "Presidential television," they write, "means the ability to appear simultaneously on all national radio and television networks at prime, large-audience evening hours, virtually whenever and however the President wishes." Such appearances can be deceiving. In 1954, for instance, Dwight Eisenhower participated in a televised "dialogue" with his Cabinet that was presented as a spontaneous exchange. Actually, the session had been carefully rehearsed and scripted.

Whatever the format, use of the electronic prerogatives has increased astoundingly. Nixon has had more prime-time exposure than any predecessor; in his first 18 months in office he appeared during choice hours as often as Eisenhower, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson combined during comparable periods of their Administrations. Neither the Congress, the courts nor the party out of power has kept pace with the Executive's ability to commandeer free air time in the format of his choice.

Legislators and opposition leaders frequently do show up on television. But these appearances are almost never carried simultaneously on all networks. Instead, opponents of presidential policies usually are squirreled away in film clips on news shows or sternly interrogated by reporters on Sunday interview programs. The FCC has consistently ruled that "fairness" is achieved when television merely gives exposure to opposition viewpoints; the authors contend that the networks must do more. They must give spokesmen opposed to the President comparable time and an equal chance at a nationwide audience.

The authors admit the difficulty of finding a single voice for the 535 members of Congress, or for an opposition party in which members are jockeying for leadership. But they point out that TV coverage of congressional hearings--such as the Watergate proceedings this summer--has often had great impact on public opinion. They urge the introduction of cameras on the floor of the House and Senate, where at least four times a year the three networks could broadcast prime-time debates on major issues. They balk at a similar electronic invasion of the Supreme Court, but urge that the court's rulings be covered in greater depth.

Other recommendations include: a set amount of network time for major presidential candidates, paid for by the Government; an automatic right for the opposition party to respond to any TV speeches made by a President within ten months of a presidential election or within 90 days of congressional elections; quarterly prime-time debates between major party spokesmen. In theory, at least, such measures would prevent Presidents from hogging the screen. But enacting the reforms would be a complex and controversial business. Meanwhile, are Americans now as vulnerable to White House brainwashing as Presidential Television suggests? Perhaps not. Despite their heavy use of TV, Johnson and Nixon hardly proved that airwave blitzes alone can shape national opinion. However much use they make of the tube, future Presidents may well decide that TV is not a panacea for their public relations problems.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.