Florida fiasco

Florida fiasco

Feb. 17, 2001

Television news executives had an uncomfortable hearing before Congress on Wednesday, trying to explain "what went wrong" on Election Night.

At issue was their haste to call the election, which might not have been such an egregious sin had not they awarded it to the wrong person.

Every newspaper in the country remembers switching from network to network that evening. In the Cortez Journal newsroom, the managing editor picked an Associated Press story after then-Vice President Al Gore was announced as the winner in pivotal Florida. In a last check of the standings before the issue went to press, Florida was no longer in the Gore column, so the front page was pulled back and the story reworked. Just as the ink began to flow, one network lit up the state for Gore again; the editor declined to stop the presses. That turned out to be a wise decision, because the results were not moments away but weeks.

The difference between newspapers and television networks is that until a newspaper hits the streets, its editors' misjudgments are discreet. All four major networks broadcast their flawed reporting across the entire country on Nov. 7. They blamed the mistake on Voter News Service, which conducts the exit polling that allows networks to predict winners with a fair degree of certainty long before the votes are actually counted.

The network heads called before Congress pointed out that the government cannot tell the media what it cannot print or announce; prior restraint is still unconstitutional. They also defended their up-to-the-minute reporting by saying that the public has both a desire and a right to know what's happening in the United States of America, particularly when it involves such important matters as a presidential election. (They neglected to mention that their coverage didn't actually assist the public in that regard.)

The legislators, in turn, pointed out that the outcome might have been different had the media acted responsibly. But the problem wasn't lack of responsibility, nor was it simply the desire to keep up with each other. The flaw in the system was faith in a technology that until then had proven trustworthy. All the statistics available pointed to one conclusion, but sports fans know that anything can happen in the final seconds of a game. Network execs know that too, having been told so in numerous calls, letters and e-mails from sports fans who were furious because a television station cut away before an outcome-changing play.

Even congressional representatives know, most of the time, that politics is more than a game. What they need to recognize now is that the reporting really was only a small part of a problem that also includes an evolving party system and an electoral college invented centuries ago.

News outlets should be held accountable for announcing results, particularly the wrong results, in a manner that influences those citizens who have not yet voted. If Congress believes that curbing the media will solve the problem, it has another thing coming. That will require action from this country's leaders, not just its commentators.