Publications
Civic Journalism: Six Case Studies
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.
“Voice of the Voter”
The partners were caught in the maelstrom. They had hoped to repeat the previous spring’s success but were hampered by the candidates’ posturing. Finally, in late September, they asked their readers, listeners, and viewers a series of questions about debates, prompting an unprecedented flood of comments.
As Owen recalled it: “Our security people called me at home. They said ‘The TV station is being flooded and voice mail is going to crash unless you do something about it.'”
Owen called the partners for help. “I was yelling at the guys at the paper to help me download the voice mail. There were so many after a while we just started taking tallies of yes-no.”
The vast majority of the respondents insisted that debates should be held; many were outraged by Wilson’s refusal to face questioning from the public. One caller complained: “I think it’s very arrogant on his part not to want to talk to his constituency, and limit it to the media. I’d like to have him know that.”
Not everyone approved of letting the public ask questions; in fact, a significant number — mostly older callers — said debates work best when reporters ask the questions.
Despite the public’s criticism, the candidates continued to use the debates as bargaining chips. Brown actually signed an agreement to participate in an October 16 “Voice of the Voter” debate, but her premature and inaccurate announcement that both parties had agreed prompted Wilson to reject the invitation outright. Wilson had already rejected a proposal by the California Broadcasters Association that called for questions from the audience.
Wilson agreed to an October 14 debate on KVIE-TV, the public television station in Sacramento; his chief negotiator informed Brown it was KVIE or nothing. She complained about the limited audience provided by public television.
“They are both playing games,” KRON negotiator Janette Gitler told the Chronicle. “Our goal as ‘Voice of the Voter’ partners is to create a situation for our viewers, readers, and listeners to get the information on where candidates’ stand. The candidates’ goal is to play cat-and-mouse with each other.”
When the dust settled, Wilson had boxed Brown into the debate and format of his choosing. Voters’ questions would be filtered through a panel of reporters as in the project’s spring debate, and there would be no live audience.
The “Voice of the Voter” partners had to be content with knowing they had raised the volume of public discussion and the candidates had heard.
“We had a major contribution in making sure that debate happened at all,” said Owen. KRON chose not to carry the live feed offered by KVIE. “It was a Friday night during a sweeps month at 6:30 p.m. Being a commercial station had its limitations.”
KRON found other ways to incorporate the debate into its coverage. The major vehicle was California This Week. In the weeks leading to the general election, the second half of the Sunday-morning show was devoted to a series of mini-debates between candidates for other statewide offices. Reporters from the Chronicle and KQED participated.
Three shows were turned over to discussions of the statewide initiatives making the most noise: Proposition 187 on illegal immigration, Proposition 186 on single-payer health care, and Proposition 188 on smoking. In October, a special series on the initiatives aired during the 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. newscasts.
KRON also produced an hour-long video “voter guide” that aired the Sunday before the election. Rollin Post was involved as an analyst; the in-depth coverage of candidates and major ballot initiatives was provided by the general assignment reporters who covered them day-to-day.
At the Chronicle, Brewer was struggling to give “Voice of the Voter” a high profile. Before the primary, the project had its own logo and was separate from the election coverage.
“In the general election we sought not to do that,” Brewer explained, sensitive to the need to cover the horse race as it neared the finish line. The “Voice of the Voter” logo was changed to make “Election ’94” and “Voice of the Voter” equal in size, then it was used liberally on any election story.
Brewer was producing “Voice of the Voter” in a newsroom growing tense as relations between management and the unions became more acrimonious. With a strike deadline looming, energy and attention levels dwindled.
Still, “Voice of the Voter” was taking one last stab at analyzing campaign advertising. Another voter panel was assembled to grade the ads, this time with a twist. The Chronicle mixed the real ads with several parodies produced for Saturday Night Live. The idea was to see whether the panelists could tell the difference. The results never appeared in print. The last “Voice of the Voter” story ran October 29.