Fast Freights and Side Rails

By WILLIAM A. HENRY III

In covering the race, the media play the "expectations "game

ABC's Peter Jennings used two of them in an opening paragraph on Super Tuesday. So did CBS's Dan Rather. NBC's Tom Brokaw employed a couple of them too, and his colleague Roger Mudd followed with a whole string. The popular words and phrases were variations on that old stand-by of political reporting, the expectations game--this candidate did better or worse "than expected," that candidate "had to" win here or capture some specified percentage of the vote there--and they set the tone for the evaluation of the evening's results. In a nomination battle, especially during the early stages, the interpretation of who won is often more important than the numbing columns of delegate totals. Perception becomes reality, and that reality is formed for the most part by reporters, on television on election night and in newspapers the following morning.

For those who see the news media as unified into an almost conspiratorial entity, the commentary was confounding. On the crucial question of which candidate had the most cause to cheer, the networks could not agree even 24 hours later. NBC played the story on Super Tuesday night as a big comeback for Mondale. Brokaw referred to him as "alive and well tonight in this race." He was even a bit flippant about Gary Hart, comparing him to "this season's hit rock-'n'-roll single." But in its newscast the next evening, the network said, in a classic left-handed compliment, that Hart "can no longer duck the title front runner." CBS's Rather emphasized Hart's success on Tuesday evening. Using a convoluted train metaphor, he opened his report by noting that Hart's candidacy "keeps moving like a fast freight," adding that Mondale's "is off the side rails and is moving forward again." In his interview with the Coloradan, he asked, "In your heart of hearts, you now believe you have the Democratic nomination, don't you?" (Hart's answer: "No.") His question for Mondale: "If your candidacy is still alive, it's hanging on the ropes?" (Mondale's answer: "No.") CBS's newscast the next night was more evenhanded, with scenes of Hart and Mondale that both began: "The big Super Tuesday winner came to Chicago today."

The most influential print analyst, David Broder of the Washington Post, wrote of the early results Tuesday evening that Hart "kept his bandwagon rolling as the music continued to fade for his rivals." A few paragraphs later, he referred to Mondale's "crippled campaign." That stinging reference was dropped by the final edition, after vote tallies came in, and Hart's "bandwagon" was redefined as being limited to New England. Like the networks, Broder had difficulty incorporating late results from caucus states. As a result, the Post's Page One banner headline read: HART WINS 3, MONDALE 2. Hart took a copy of the paper, crossed out 3, wrote in 6 1/2, and tossed it to Press Secretary Kathy Bushkin, saying, "Show this to [Post Reporter Martin] Schram."

Still, the pundits seemed to agree on several criteria that may have appeared mysterious to the ordinary viewer. Hart, for example, was "expected" to win Massachusetts, according to all three networks, the implication being that his big victory therefore counted for less. Apparently he was also "expected" to win Rhode Island, a unionized and traditionally Democratic state that would seem to have been Mondale territory. Thus, to the pundits, Hart's major victory was in Florida, although his margin there was the narrowest in his three primary triumphs. In analyzing Mondale, the standards may have been a little more clear-cut: the networks and columnists, like the Mondale campaign, almost all emphasized Georgia's outcome as the yardstick of the former Vice President's performance. Said ABC Correspondent Brit Hume: "I wanted to be able to go on the air and report what the Mondale people thought it all meant."

The networks continued to forecast the outcome of races, often in advance of any actual tally, based on "exit polls" of people leaving voting places. While the real polls were still open, John Glenn was virtually decreed out of the race by reporters, including ABC's Jennings and NBC's Brokaw in live interviews. Said Glenn: "When you people make projections like that, it discourages an awful lot of good folks from going to the polls."

The exit surveys do serve a useful purpose: they provide information about the demographic profiles of the candidates' supporters. Some of the findings are instructive--that Hart's voters are younger than Mondale's, for example, or that 20% of Jesse Jackson's black voters had registered within the past several months--but the statistics belie the often impulsive, unarticulated motives for voting. Last week, in an effort to restore some mystery and fun to the electoral process, Chicago Tribune Columnist Mike Royko offered some advice to voters confronted by exit pollsters. "Don't give them one honest answer," he wrote. "When they ask you why you voted for Hart, say it is because he is so mature and serious that he reminds you of your grandfather. Or say you voted for Mondale because he reminds you of Johnny Travolta."

Perhaps the most controversial episode of the week was an interview with Hart in which Mudd belittled his victories, saying that Florida "is not a true Southern state" and that Hart was "not a national candidate yet." Mudd asked, "Why do you imitate John Kennedy so much?" And in his closing question, Mudd urged Hart to "do your Teddy Kennedy imitation." The interview prompted 240 telephone calls to NBC in New York, many protesting Mudd's "bullying." Said Mudd: "People have gotten so used to soft and pappy questions in interviews that when they hear firm and brisk questions, they do not know what to make of it." He added that Hart answered the questions ably--perhaps better than expected. --By William A. Henry III