Will Networks Opt for Conventional Coverage?

You have to be old and blessed with a good memory to recall when the conventions of the Democrats and Republicans determined who would be the party nominee. Since the 1950s, each party's candidate was decided before the opening gavel was struck.

As the parties turned their conventions into marketing campaigns, TV network news cut back dramatically on coverage. In recent years, broadcasters do, at most, an hour a night.

Some say the networks are shirking their civic responsibility. The networks disagree. They ask why they should give what amounts to free infomercials to each party. Who needs broadcast coverage, they ask, when cable news and PBS already are doing it, not to mention web sites with streaming video.

Times change. Convention coverage in the 1950s and 1960s was good business. In the pre-cable days, it was either the conventions or reruns. This was the time the news divisions took the stage, front and center. Now, with dozens of cable channels and other options, networks fear the more convention they show, the more viewers defect.

But 2008 could change that. While each party has its favorites, an upset in Iowa or New Hampshire could upend all the predictions. No one really knows the impact of the internet in getting out the vote. What's more, if either Al Gore or Fred Thompson join the race, all previous bets are off.

So what happens if no candidate has a majority of delegates when the convention starts? Might the conventions once more become hives of dealmaking and scenes of multiple ballots? And will broadcast networks revers course and give them the coverage that befits their new importance? Or will they continue to ignore them, fearful that viewers will click over to cable?

We may soon find out. Perhaps we'll see if broadcasters' arguments about conventions were hot air and smoke to camouflage a retreat from their commitment to the public interest.

Posted by Barry Garron