Faculty Research Working Papers Series Diminishing Returns: A Comparison of the 1968 and 2000 Election Night Broadcasts Thomas E. Patterson December 2003 RWP03-050 The views expressed in the KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or Harvard University. Copyright belongs to the author(s). Papers may be downloaded for personal use only. Diminishing Returns: A Comparison of the 1968 and 2000 Election Night Broadcasts* by Thomas E. Patterson Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 www.shorensteincenter.org Research sponsored by a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. December 2003 Shortly before 8 p.m., the television call led to a falloff in turnout on the networks projected Al Gore as the West Coast that cost them at least two winner of the Florida vote. Two hours House seats and perhaps a Senate seat later, they retracted the call. Then, just or two. after 2 a.m., the networks claimed George W. Bush had won in Florida and However, exit‐poll projections are a was thereby the president‐elect. Upon bigger threat to broadcasters’ hearing this news, Gore called Bush to reputations than to the integrity of concede defeat. Meanwhile, the elections. There is no firm evidence to networks were trying to get statements support the claim that network from the candidates. “We haven’t heard projections influence voter participation yet from either Al Gore or the in any systematic way.2 Although triumphant Governor Bush,” said CBS’s scholars are divided in their opinions, Dan Rather. “We do expect to hear from nearly all agree that the impact of exit them in the forthcoming minutes.” polls is small. Some scholars have Forty‐five minutes later, the networks concluded that exit polls might even reported that Gore’s concession had boost turnout slightly in a close election. been withdrawn. “Nobody knows for a The 1980 presidential election is the one fact who has won Florida,” Rather told instance when West Coast turnout his audience. At 4 a.m., the networks clearly sagged after the networks named retracted the claim that Bush had won a winner. However, the culprit in this the Florida vote.1 case appears to have been a presidential candidate. Inexplicably, Jimmy Carter The networks’ performance—“We went on the air to concede the election a donʹt just have egg on our face, we have full two hours before polls had closed an omelet all over our suits,” said NBC’s on the West Coast.3 Tom Brokaw—contributed to the post‐ election confusion. It also renewed the Should broadcasters be more longstanding complaint that the responsible in their use of exit polls? Of networks’ exit‐poll projections dampen course, they should. Often, the misuse turnout in states where the polls are still of exit polls has stemmed from the rush open. The networks’ first projections to declare a winner. No network wants aired in 1964, and Republicans to withhold a call that others have made complained loudly when Lyndon and every network likes to boast “you Johnson was declared the winner heard it here first.” After NBC called shortly after 9 p.m. EST. However, the Florida for Gore an hour after the first of GOP’s response was mild compared the state’s polls had closed, the other with how Democrats reacted in 1980 networks felt pressured to duplicate the when, shortly after 8 p.m. EST, nearly call. three hours before West Coast polls had closed, the networks declared Reagan This type of pressure, however, is the winner. Democrats claimed the early largely self‐generated. Viewers Diminishing Returns 3 apparently could not care less whether and contrast the 7:00‐11:00 pm (EST) ABC, CBS, or NBC makes the first call. coverage of the 1968 and 2000 Election There is also no indication that viewers Night broadcasts. These broadcasts punish a network for withholding a call. were selected for analysis in part In the words of the blue‐ribbon team because journalists each time faced that evaluated CNN’s use of exit polls in nearly the same challenge. Each election 2000, “early calls serve no particular was decided by a razor‐thin margin. public or journalistic purpose.”4 If Each time, Americans turned off their broadcasters would exercise a bit more television sets and went to bed without restraint and would show a healthier knowing for sure who their next respect for the statistical error inherent president would be. in polling, much of the controversy surrounding exit‐poll projections might Yet, broadcast television was itself a disappear. quite different enterprise in 2000 than it had been in 1968. The 1968 election took Analysts might then find time to place in a period when exit polls and study other features of Election Night remote feeds were in their infancy and broadcasts. Unlike the debate and when the broadcast networks had a convention broadcasts, those on Election monopoly on the viewing audience. By Night have received little scrutiny apart 2000, broadcast equipment was highly from their use of exit polls.5 Scholars mobile, exit polling had been advanced, have paid so little attention to these and broadcasters were competing with broadcasts that entire books have been cable outlets for viewers’ attention. written on the networks’ presidential campaign coverage without so much as even a footnote about the Election Night The Content Analysis broadcasts. Yet, these broadcasts are an undeniably important part of our public The analysis in this paper is based on life. They mark the end of the campaign the broadcast “segment”—the and the start of the transition toward continuous portion of an Election Night new leaders and policies. Election Night broadcast in which the same general is one of those increasingly rare topic is discussed. In most cases, a moments when an uncommonly large broadcast segment began with a verbal number of citizens eagerly gather in signal from the network anchor (for front of their television sets to hear example, “We turn now to . .”). A brief about politics. digression from the main topic of a segment was not considered to mark a What information do these new segment. By this definition, a total broadcasts provide to the public? What of 870 segments were identified in the and who do they emphasize, and what 1968 and 2000 broadcasts. interpretations of the election do they offer? In a preliminary effort to answer Each segment was coded to identify such questions, this paper will compare such things as its main and secondary 4 Thomas E. Patterson topics, the people and graphic material They developed a primitive computer it featured, and the style of reporting it model that predicted the national two‐ employed. These measures revealed few party vote on the basis of selected local differences either in 1968 or in 2000 returns furnished by the wire services. between ABC, CBS, and NBC. The model accurately predicted the 1952 Accordingly, the three networks are and 1956 elections, but, given the size of lumped together in the analysis that Dwight Eisenhower’s victories, this was follows. The illustrative examples used hardly an extraordinary feat. In 1960, in the paper should be seen in the same the model led the networks to announce light. Although the examples identify early in the evening that Richard Nixon particular networks and journalists, they appeared to be the likely winner, an were chosen in each case because they embarrassment that contributed to their represent general tendencies. decision in 1964 to rely on exit polls.6 The broadcast segments in 1968 and Returns vs. Results. Although the 2000 were nearly equal in length—68 1968 Election Night broadcasts were the seconds on average in 1968 and 72 second ones to use exit polls, they bore a seconds on average in 2000. The resemblance to previous broadcasts. For variation in segment length was also one thing, they opened with general nearly identical in 2000 to what it had commentary. CBS anchor Walter been in 1968. Thus, differences between Cronkite began his nework’s broadcast the 1968 and 2000 broadcasts would not with a quick review of a few early appear to be an artifact of segment returns and then turned to the length. commentator Eric Sevareid and the author Theodore H. White for their observations on the campaign. They Votes and Projections exchanged views on the past and the future of America’s political parties, In the era before exit polling, with Sevareid evoking the scholar broadcasters went on the air on Election Clinton Rossiter’s theory of third Night before they had results to report. parties, while White speculated on the They used their opening minutes to impact of George Wallace’s and Spiro prepare the audience for the evening Agnew’s candidacies on the border ahead. They reviewed the campaign and states. speculated on the outcome of key races. Only when vote returns started to come The 1968 broadcasts also made in from the states did the networks extensive use of actual vote returns. A begin to base their judgments on actual full third of the results reported in 1968 numbers. were based on actual returns, as opposed to exit‐poll projections. In fact, Even in this early period, the actual returns were the featured display networks were not fully content to let as, throughout the evening, the the actual returns speak for themselves. networks turned to big boards that Diminishing Returns 5 showed the running national vote totals were dominated by coverage of election in the presidential race.