Proof that ratings are more important than news: Wargaming an Obama blowout

It's not that the networks are planning their strategy in the event of an Obama blowout. These are pros. It's their job to be prepared for all contingencies. There are some plausible scenarios in which Obama more or less clinches the election before the polls close in the West.

That's just how the electoral college works. It should have been abolished a long time ago. But meanwhile, back in the real world, there's a commercially unappetizing possiblity that the election will have been cinched up by 8pm Eastern, 5pm Pacific. That's an eternity by advertising standards.

What's disconcerting is how upfront the networks are about their strategy to keep Americans glued to the TV, whether the proceedings are newsworthy or not:

“As to the presidential race, it's pretty simple: We will try to call a winner in each state as soon as possible after the polls close in each state,” Friedman e-mailed. “If that adds up to 270 for someone before the polls close in the West, there's not a lot we can do. If there are not enough electoral votes for one man to win it before the Western states close, but we're pretty sure how they're going to fall, we will be ready with language which states the obvious without being too obvious. We can't be in the business of pretending to be stupid.”

Network political experts do not expect a candidate to reach the winning threshold of 270 electoral votes before 11 p.m. Eastern. “Nearly a mathematical impossibility,” one network official e-mailed. [...]

Friedman said that in case of a landslide, “We could say something like, ‘Given the number of electoral votes Obama already has, and given what we know about the voting so far in various states where the polls have not closed, it is going to be very hard for John McCain to win.’ I would sincerely hope that kind of language would not discourage people out West from voting.” [Politico]

The Politico headline is "Nation Could Face a Short Election Night." Perish the thought. Fewer eyeballs transfixed on ads for soap!

Good thing the networks are resolved to string us along until they meet their obligations to advertisers, even if it means distorting the real import of election results.

Comments

[sam]

I agree with you on one level that "news" organizations are throwing away actual news in favor of ratings, which is a problem, but given than an east coast electoral blowout could serve to depress voting in the west (which might not have an effect on Obama but could affect down-ticket races), part of me doesn't entirely have a problem with not declaring the race entirely over before the polls close on the west coast.

Then again, I've always favored "national" polling times in presidential elections (say 6am east coast to 9pm west coast), to give the maximum number of folks the time and ability to vote without letting people think it's a waste of time.

[Ghost of Joe Liebling's Dog]

"We can't be in the business of pretending to be stupid."

That CBS VP made me laugh out loud. I'm truly grateful that the Professional Journalists™ aren't pretending to be stupid.

[Mike the Mad Biologist]

Since Ghost of Joe Liebling's Dog took the words right out of my mouth, I'll add that this would be a good opportunity for online newspaper sites to gain some site hits--they're not trying to sell commercials.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

I think we should let Hawaii vote a day early, keep the schedule the same in the rest of the country the following day, and then count all the votes at once.

An unintended benefit would be that pollsters would have a huge incentive to refine exit polling technology, which would ultimately be a check on cheating.

[julia]

Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the west not voting would keep Obama from getting the kind of numbers that would give him an actual mandate, could it?

[parse]

If the truth is that the election has been decided early be settled races in the East, I don't understand the ethics of refusing to report that because it might discourage people in the West from voting.

[Alan Bostick]

There is more at stake than ratings and ad revenue here. Think back to the election of 1980, Reagan v. Carter. The networks called the election for Reagan well before the polls closed in the west coast states, and for some strange reason voter turnout in those states was below expectations. Voters felt disenfranchised and stayed home; and down-ballot candidates and propositions were affected -- oddly enough, Carter voters were more likely to feel disenfranchised than Reagan supporters.

The networks took a lot of heat for calling the election early in 1980, and they don't want to take that heat again.

[julia]

Because, parse, they'll be calling based on their interpretation of incomplete data. As we saw in 2000, that isn't an exact science.

It's been an article of faith that they don't do this for decades. If they're changing their minds now, I very much doubt it's because the peoples' right to know has all of a sudden becoem important to them.

[parse]

julia, I didn't say "if the networks decided that the election had been decided." I've heard the argument made that even if verified early returns show that an election has been decided, the information should be suppressed because it might discourage other voters from casting ballots. That's the argument I don't understand.

If you want to say "journalists shouldn't make claims about elections that they can't substantiate, I won't argue with that.

In the instance Alan Bostick related, there is no inference that the criticism was based on the fact that the networks reported inaccurately, but merely that the fact of their accurate reporting was correlated with lower turnout in the West. Should networks refrain from reporting election results that are accurate based on the possible influence on potential voters?

[PhoenixRising]

Good thing the networks are resolved to string us along until they meet their obligations to advertisers, even if it means distorting the real import of election results.

Yeah, because casting doubt on the outcome of a not-too-closely-contested national election is neutral and unbiased. And couldn't ever lead to a Republican-Congressional-aide riot.

What a bunch of putzes.

[Autumnal Harvest]

I've heard the argument made that even if verified early returns show that an election has been decided, the information should be suppressed because it might discourage other voters from casting ballots. That's the argument I don't understand.

What don't you understand about it? Information can be true, and yet its coverage can have negative effects. If holding off reports for a few hours (whatever their motivations) could encourage equal voter participation throughout the country, it seems to me that would be a good thing.

That said, I'm not sure why we would act surprised that "ratings are more important than news." Network news is a multi-billion dollar business, so I expect the networks to be interested in whatever will get them the most billions of dollars. I can't even pretend to find that outrageous or surprising.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

I'm not surprised, I'm just glad when the executives come right out with the truth.

[parse]

Why would the fact that the information might discourage some people who would otherwise vote from going to the polls necessarily be a negative effect? Do you think increased voter turn-out is a per se positive phenomenon in elections? I think of Republicans in 2004 pushing gay marriage as an issue, motivated by an expected increased turnout by conservative voters.

[Alon Levy]

Parse, do you support the decision to call Florida for Gore before the Panhandle had finished voting?

[TB]

Of course ratings are more important than "news", whatever that might be.

The major broadcasting networks and the cable news outlets are a for-profit business. No more. No less.

They might have briefly had something approaching ethics, but that was at least 35 years ago.

Sure, consume any and all "major news sources", from Fox to Pravda, and then IGNORE as much as you possibly can and go to your own sources.

Once again, Joe Strummer was right, lo those many years ago:

Ignore
Alien
Orders

[TB]

"Why would the fact that the information might discourage some people who would otherwise vote from going to the polls necessarily be a negative effect? "

Know much about voter suppression?

See also:

von Spakovsky, Hans A.

Milgram, Stanley

Skinner, B. F.

[parse]

Alon, I don't remember enough details about the decision to call Florida for Gore to say for sure. My recollection is that the early Florida calls were more an example of what julia complains about-- "interpretation of incomplete data." I certainly think networks can be faulted for drawing conclusions without adequate evidence, whether those conclusions later turn out to be true or false.

T.B., I think I would generally restrict "voter suppression" to describe efforts to prevent voters who wish to vote from being able to do so. I consider the release of accurate information that might result in people deciding they didn't want to vote to be a different phenomenon.

My general inclination is to support the release of information. Temporary suppression of election results that persuade some potential voters against casting ballots might be an exception to that general rule; I'm interested from hearing from people who believe it should be why they believe it should be. (Or perhaps people don't believe that favoring the release of information generally is a useful rule.)

[Autumnal Harvest]

Do you think increased voter turn-out is a per se positive phenomenon in elections?

Well, yeah. Don't you? Obviously, increased voter turn-out can help my side or the other side on particular issues. But I think it's important in a democracy that large numbers of people feel connected to the process that chooses our government. And I also think that it would be best if the "national election" of our national government was as "national" as possible. I think it's kind of unfortunate that it's based, due to anachronistic historical reasons, on an amalgam of state-run elections. Having voter turnout in different areas of the country depend on the vagaries of time zones seems like just unfortunate noise in the signal.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

The presidential race is an incentive to get people out for all the races on the ticket, including state and local contests--which probably have at least as much of an impact on each voter's day-to-day life as the choice of the president, albeit in different ways.

It's not good to have an entire time zone feeling like their votes don't really count.

That's why we need legal reforms to make sure that all the ballots are counted at the same time.

The Framers never anticipated a country with time zones and instantaneous mass communication. They must have assumed that all voters would be casting their votes without knowing how people had voted elsewhere in the country. If you've got one segment of the population that always votes with different information, you're going to systematically distort the outcome of elections.

[parse]

I asked: "Do you think increased voter turn-out is a per se positive phenomenon in elections?"

AH answered Well, yeah. Don't you? Obviously, increased voter turn-out can help my side or the other side on particular issues. But I think it's important in a democracy that large numbers of people feel connected to the process that chooses our government.

No, I don't think increased turn-out is a per se positive. Here's a hypothetical case: results in the East have already determined who will be elected President. The ballots of voters in the West can't have any affect on that outcome.

Should information about the election be surpressed to avoid discouraging potential voters in the West?

The potential voters most likely to be effected would be those disinclined to vote in state and local elections unless they were already making a trip to the polls to vote for President. I'm not convinced it's a good thing to maximize the potential participation of those types of voters.

[parse]

It's not good to have an entire time zone feeling like their votes don't really count.

Even when it's true that their votes don't really count?

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

If all the results are released at the same time, everyone can say that their vote counts. Because a candidate could win with by carrying any combination of states that adds up to 270 electoral votes.

Imagine if everyone who was going to vote Democrat voted before noon and all the Republicans showed up in their respective districts after noon. Even if enough Democrats nationwide turned out in the morning to decide the election, it wouldn't be true that the votes of the Republicans didn't count. Nor should Republicans feel, in retrospect, that their votes didn't count if they later learn that by some bizarre fluke, the Democrats happened to vote first.

But if election authorities announced that the election had already been decided by noon, those who hadn't voted would justifiably feel cheated.

I'm not saying the networks should string people along and distort the state of the race.

[Alon Levy]

Lindsay, out of curiosity, how does Canada resolve the multiple timezones issue? Does CBC wait until BC finishes voting to report results from Ontario?

[Bruce]

This could have a serious impact on the California Prop 8 battle if soft opponents of Prop 8 (banning same-sex marriage) decide not to bother because the big race is over - OR if folks decide to start partying early and skip actual voting. Especially since Prop 8 is very close, with the pro-8 forces leading very slightly in polling (which is often not enough to win in a California proposition, as there's often a small built-in opposition to any proposition.) I think an Obama blow-out might tempt some to stay home who otherwise would have voted no, whereas most of the the pro 8 people will be likely more bitter, more grim but with a last-ditch effort to save the night on their minds.

Maybe I misread this.

[cfrost]

If the truth is that the election has been decided early be settled races in the East, I don't understand the ethics of refusing to report that because it might discourage people in the West from voting.

As a resident of the West Coast, I’m pretty much sick and tired of the broadcast media pulling the plug on our elections. The outcomes in presidential election years have been regularly announced before we get home from work or very soon thereafter. Millions of voters then don’t bother voting, particularly if their side has already lost the national election. So our elections are skewed every four years. Congressional and local races, initiatives, bond issues, - all fucked up. Thanks.

Should networks refrain from reporting election results that are accurate based on the possible influence on potential voters?

Absolutely, categorically, yes.

Do like Oregon and make the whole thing mail-in ballots only.