Nicholas Johnson: The Show Is Part of Election Coverage

Democratsiya Daily [Sofia, Bulgaria], September 16th,1999, p. 17


Nicholas Johnson Note: A skilled reporter conducted this interview (although not credited with a byline). It was first published in Democratsiya in the original Bulgarian. A skilled translator prepared this English language translation. Nonetheless, the net result of the difficulties of going from English to Bulgarian to English, coupled with the differing levels of understanding of each other's media systems, and the inherent problems in news interviews in any language, have resulted in some of the quotes diverging from my recollection of what I at least intended to say. For example, I think it unlikely I would have said that U.S. women are more inclined to vote for men with women's hair styles, or that I was planning to return to Bulgaria for the next elections. Thus, while I would prefer not to be held to these quotes the translation is made available as a part of the record of the visit and for such insight as it may provide. -- N.J., September 23, 1999

Mr. Nicholas Johnson, communications law professor at the University of Iowa, USA, and former member of the FCC visited Bulgaria at the invitation of the Media Development Center and USIS.  Mr. Johnson shared with Democratsiaya the U.S. media experience in covering election campaigns.

Mr. Johnson, in democratic countries it has long been recognized that the media must inform citizens during elections. How should this be done to avoid turning the process of informing into unabashed propaganda?

The best thing that media can do during elections is to cover all the candidate events in a balanced and unbiased way. If the media succeed in this, they will assist the process through which the voters will be attracted to participate and  really vote. Well-informed citizens will cast their vote for a better candidate and will contribute to the country’s development.

What is the formula for on-the-air election  balance and impartiality?

Unfortunately, there is no such formula. This means that every media should have a sense of self-regulation. The existence of that sense speaks for journalism well done and, first of all, professionalism.

If self-regulation is the key principle in election campaign coverage, to what an extent should it be valid for public and private media?

By and large, principles must be the same. But it must be made clear that every information system must be entitled to handle incoming information in view of its format and audience. The media should have more journalistic freedom. In other words, no one can force private media to broadcast election calendars and reports. They will decide themselves what would be interesting for their viewers.

Aren’t we running the danger then of missing out on elections altogether through the programming of some of the media?

I don’t know Bulgarian practices, but I believe that in Bulgaria as in other countries a station that only broadcasts music is doomed to failure. Especially over events that are so important for every citizen. Because the audiences of private commercial stations are also trying to be intelligent citizens, aren’t they?

The Bulgarian National Radio and Television Council  sent media management recommendations on election coverage. Are media in the USA obliged to comply with such requirements?

No. The only requirement is the so-called "equal opportunities" rule. In other words, if  media  gives a candidate time, it should provide air time to the others as well. There are  exceptions to that rule though. When journalists cover election events as information they can judge what is  newsworthy and must be covered. In that case, the equal opportunities rule does not apply, not all party events are covered.

What would your advice be to Bulgarian National TV and Bulgarian National Radio, as public media,  who have to cover the election campaigns of 96 parties and coalitions and not bore the viewer at the same time?

I think a debate must be sought between the bigger parties - four or six at the most. These must be the parties with the most authority and support whose events really are of interest to people. As for the other parties I can’t see what they could gain in a 30-second appearance. I must admit that I was really impressed by the list of 96 parties.

The Bulgarian media would have to be accountable for their election coverage before the NRTVC on a weekly basis. Is the same done in the USA?

No, no one is accountable to us for anything. I fail to understand why you have such a disconcerting amount of institutions monitoring election coverage. Separate monitoring of radio stations, TV stations. The Telecommunications Commission is also part of the monitoring, as far as I know. This is far too complicated for Americans to understand. For most Bulgarians too, I guess.

To what an extent can media coverage of politicians influence election results?

The media image - especially the TV image - is a very important tool for American politicians. A lot of money is thrown into public relations campaigns during elections. This is not always the key to success, however. Of course, in the U.S. the looks of the politician play a role. Sometimes the average American housewife would support a senator with the same hairstyle as hers. An exceptionally light argument in times of grave importance such as elections, but this is television. The downside is that the media are under the strong influence of all that political advertisement campaigning that brings in a lot of money.

Well then, let’s ban TV during elections?

Oh, you probably have very good reasons to do that but it’s not worth it. The benefit will be far inferior to the damage. After all, we must get used to the thought that election time is show time.

Have you visited some of the Bulgarian media?

Only Channel 3. But I will visit some more. This is my first visit to Bulgaria, but not the last. At any rate, I will return before the next elections.