Primary received mediocre coverage.

Hellinger, Daniel

The Missouri primary season came to an end with a whimper, not a bang. There were only a few competitive, dramatic races to cover on election night. It was like watching someone win the U.S. Open by a dozen strokes, but without Tiger Woods.

Nor did it help that the area's various election boards had released only 11 percent of the vote by 10:30 p.m. Most people were probably in bed by the time reporters gave the final results of close races in the Second Congressional District Republican primary and the first-district Democratic primary. KMOV (Channel 4) managed to report the final results of the First District contest just before leaving the air at 11:30.

The shooting death of a St. Louis City police officer posed further problems for local television. Intros packed with "Decision 2000" graphics were unsuitable for introducing the tragic, leading news story of the day. News crews deployed to cover candidates had to be stretched to gather comments from family, police and public officials about Officer Robert Stanze.

Still, imaginative coverage of the primaries was lacking. Although equipped with helicopters, mobile units and multiple camera teams, the news operations opted for staid reports featuring anchors glued to their chairs behind desks. Reporters in the field vacuumed sound bytes into their hand-held mikes as elated or disappointed candidates digested the results. Having avoided covering these races in the preceding weeks, television news reporters generally offered little context to help viewers understand the results.

Wearing that practiced gaze of feigned interest, the anchors shifted to one booze and balloon campaign party after another. Left unexplored was how the "world's greatest democracy" actually conducts its business. Although reporters occasionally made reference to the financial resources of the candidates, no station bothered to investigate who the major financial backers were in local races, or what they might want in return from the candidates.

Why did KSDK (Channel 5) bother inviting University of Missouri political science professor David Robertson to the studio? In nearly 60 minutes of coverage, the station's house analyst was allocated approximately 30 seconds to dissect the voters' entrails. Robertson had an interesting point to make about Todd Akin's defeat of former St. Louis County Executive Gene McNary, which he attributed to the power of grassroots organizing of the religious right. He was missing in action from the rest of the coverage.

Desite copious spending on spot ads, ground wars rather than air wars made the vital difference in several close contests. One example was Akin's defeat of McNary; there was also Lacy Clay's triumph over Charlie Dooley in the First Congressional District. Not that Clay lacked money, but it was the political machine his father built that delivered the bulk of his sizable margin of victory. Yet with a few notable exceptions, news coverage provided little insight into the machinations of local politics.

The ability of the Christian right to mobilize votes was a story that deserved much greater coverage. Not only did Akin prevail, but in several important state representative races religious organizers probably made the difference. For example, Michael Gibbons, a right winger backed by pro-life forces, prevailed over moderate Emmy McClelland to nab the GOP nomination for state senator in District 15, embracing much of Kirkwood and Webster Groves. Gibbons outspent McClelland, but it was the turnout of anti-abortion voters that made the difference.

It might be objected that election night is for reporting who wins and loses, not who pays for elections. Unfortunately, election night is the only night that local television pays attention to the business of democracy. It is the evening when citizens are most focused on the electoral process. If not then, when?

Four tops five in coverage

Comparing the coverage on the two leading local stations, Channels 4 and 5, the nod for quality goes to Channel 4. Larry Conners served as more than just a conversation traffic cop. He offered some insightful observations about the election patterns, particularly in regard to turnout and party organization. Channel 4 correctly analyzed the importance of relatively high turnout (38 percent) in the city relative to the county (30 percent). Channel 5 on the other hand, gave no clue to why, with only 11 percent of the vote counted, the Clay camp was elated about leading by three percentage points. Conners explained that the high turnout in the city favoring Clay sealed Dooley's fate.

Conners did slip once, erroneously reporting that a run-off election would be made automatic by a margin of victory of less than one percent in the Second District Repubican primary. To his credit, Conners later admitted his error, and pointed out that such a result merely ensured an automatic recount.

A low point in coverage on Channel 5 was Ken Hibbs's interview with McNary. Hibbs sounded more like a McNary staffer as he complimented the candidate. "You didn't campaign negatively." "You know Washington." Intended or not, the gist of Hibbs' remarks seemed to be, "Aren't you upset that the voters kicked you in the face for running a clean campaign? Shouldn't the voters have rewarded you for all those years of service?"

None of the reports actually examined the impact of the vicious advertising campaign unleashed by State Senator Frank Flotron against his fellow Republicans. Why had Flotron's well-heeled air campaign failed to win him the nomination? Had Flotron, in effect, ensured the election of Akin? How did McNary feel about Flotron's tactics? Channel 5 did provide a live interview with Todd Akin at his home, while Channel 4 made do with a videotaped interview.

Channel 5 did somewhat better in interviews with Carnahan and Ashcroft. Mike Owens did a good job getting Carnahan to define differences between himself and the Republicans in the general elections, and Ashcroft got a similar question later. Channel 4's Craig Christian, on the other hand, highlighted Carnahan's support for a patients' bill of rights and invited the candidate to explain the importance of shifting the Missouri seat to the Democrats. The result was more like a free spot ad than an interview.

The election day news also included Al Gore's announcement of his running mate. Channel 4 covered the announcement and also told viewers that Republican vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney would be making an appearance in St. Louis. Channel 5 covered neither announcement.

More ads, few stories

In 1905, political boss George Washington Plunkett of New York expressed his views on money and politics. "The day may come when we'll reject the money of the rich as tainted, but it hadn't come when I left Tammany Hall at 11:25 today." It still hasn't come. And obviously television doesn't regard the money as tainted either.

Terry Ganey, Jefferson City bureau chief for the Post, reported that area candidates were buying huge blocks of television time leading up to the primary. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bob Holden's television ad campaign would fall just short of $1 million through the primary alone--and Holden was uncontested. His opponent, Jim Talent, was holding back for a post-primary ad barrage. Meanwhile, he focused his advertising outstate on radio, according to sources. Even so, the Republican candidate spent $56,000 on ads placed with the four local stations in the weeks before the primary. Of that amount, reported Ganey; $32,512 had been placed with Channel 5.

The scarcity of ad time relative to demand means that candidates were also making heavy buys on stations that allotted little more than their normal local news slot to the election. A reporter at KDNL (Channel 30) expressed bitterness to SIR that during a period in which candidates were shoveling money into the station, management had actually cut back air time and resources to the news division.

Internet to the rescue?

The failure of local television to cover the contests in the months preceding the election means the voters had to rely upon the print media. Coverage in St. Louis' only mass circulation daily was spotty. As usual the Post produced a voters guide, but it did not become available, even on the Internet, until the weekend before the election itself.

After a bit of searching (and an inquiry with Internet editor Jan Paul) postnet home page did uncover a guide to Campaign 2000. Unfortunately it was not accessible directly from the home page, but only after clicking the link to news." The guide brought together a series of articles, mostly by political reporters Ganey and Jo Mannies, which had appeared over the weeks leading to the election.

For those with Internet access and willingness to tolerate the time it takes to load the java-laden homepage of postnet, and then hunt for the appropriate link, the assembled articles were of great use. Gathered together, these reports demonstrate how much experienced reporters, allocated resources and an adequate news hole could add to the sophistication of voters. Especially useful were looks at close races for state House and Senate seats, examinations of the role of money in several campaigns, and critical reviews of television ads.

However, what does Internet coverage offer those who rely upon the print edition of the daily newspaper for their campaign news? And as impressive as the assembled reports, viewed in their entirety, are, congressional, local and statewide races are generating no more than one or two articles per day.

In the weeks since the primaries, the local media have focused almost exclusively on the presidential contests. Talent and Holden continued to wage an expensive air war, largely around the issue of using tax money to fund vouchers for private education. The Post, to its credit, has explored the issue in several articles. Despite having resident education reporters on several news teams, local television remained silent, content to rake in the profits from spot ads.