Tough Calls: Presidential Candidates and One-on-One Satellite Interviews

Communicator staff

THE QUESTION:
The presidential candidates are offering one-on-one satellite interviews from the campaign trail in important states. The opportunity puts your anchor doing a direct talk back interview with Clinton, Huckabee, McCain or Obama, but the candidate pays for the satellite time. Do you accept the offer? Do you disclose who paid for the time to your viewers? If you allow representation of one candidate, do you allow air time for all?�

KYLE GRIMES
News Director
WPTZ/WNNE-TV
Plattsburg, NY
We have been in this position a handful of times during the primary season and it is our policy to either pay for these satellite windows or not to take them. We have found that all of the major candidates have some mechanism in place to bill the local stations. Transparency is at a premium in our business and we make every effort to ensure that our viewers are looped into our position on issues like these especially during an election cycle. When we have done satellite interviews with one candidate we have called the other candidates in the same party to allow them a similar opportunity. In most cases they have passed on the offer and we make sure to include that in our on-air story to give the viewers the context that we are not just seeking out one candidate. Making sure you have good (working!) phone numbers for key media personnel associated with each campaign can help you be proactive about letting other campaigns know that you have scheduled an interview with their competitor. We are fortunate to work for Hearst-Argyle, a company that has taken a leadership position on election coverage. Internally, we have had dialogue on this very issue as well as a number of others in regards to accurate and fair coverage of candidates. That guidance coupled with consistent newsroom communication with managers, producers, anchors and reporters can often help you avoid the pitfalls that election coverage has the potential to create.�

FORREST CARR
News Director
WFTX-TV
Cape Coral, FL
Candidates who make themselves available for direct questioning by the media and/or the general public, by whatever means, should be commended and encouraged. Conversely, when candidates stonewall the media and the public, journalists should point that out as well, and demand better access. For a candidate to spend campaign money on production services in support of this goal doesn’t present an ethical problem, no more than it would be improper for the candidate to spend money on travel to see local journalists in person, or to spend long distance dollars or cell phone minutes to call us up. This assumes, of course, that the candidate does not attempt to place restrictions on the interview. We should jump at the chance to help our viewers understand the candidate’s positions, track record and character. Certainly we should offer opposing candidates the same opportunity, but our decision to interview one candidate should not be conditional on the willingness of the others to do likewise. (And by the way, lack of access to satellite facilities is no excuse for ducking an interview; there is nothing wrong with an old-fashioned phoner). That said, without a doubt the public is sensitive to news video sourcing issues due to the controversy revolving around the use of unlabelled video news releases. Our company, Journal Broadcast Group, has guidelines in place for this. If a candidate is paying for video transmission services, we would disclose that via a graphic, an on-air announcement or both.�

STACEY WOELFEL
News Director
KOMU-TV
Columbia, MO
With Missouri an important swing state in just about every presidential election, these pitches are pretty common around here. It’s always been our policy to say “no” when we get them—including during the primary season this year. That often comes as a surprise to viewers when I mention it. The first impression is that we would kill to do an “exclusive” interview with John McCain or Barack Obama. We would, but these interviews aren’t really exclusive. Beyond that, they come under circumstances I find unacceptable. First, there’s the matter of who is paying for the interview in terms of satellite time. Our policy is that we pay for the cost of newsgathering and that we avoid letting the person or organization we are covering assume those costs. In the case of these candidate interviews, the candidates’ campaigns are paying the cost of the satellite time. Not only is that against our policy, but I believe most viewers wouldn’t like it either if they knew about it. Those I have disclosed our policy to change their view of the interviews, seeing them as more of a paid appearance than a legitimate news interview. Beyond the questionable appearance of accepting a paid satellite window, the acceptance of these interviews cuts out the same opportunity for those candidates who cannot afford to put together these satellite tours. I believe it is our responsibility to not only bear the costs of collecting our news material, but to cover candidates equally regardless of their ability to keep pace with the spending of the leading candidates.�

TOD PRITCHARD
News Director
KITV
Honolulu
We require each campaign to bill us for the satellite time and any other fees for facilitating the interview. That eliminates any potential financial conflict. For fairness and the best content we call all the candidates to see if they are willing to do one-on-one interviews with our anchors. We also treat each interview equally. For example, before the Hawaii Caucus both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama offered to do interviews. We showed both interviews in full on our website and produced packaged versions of the content in our newscasts. FYI- Hawaii does not have a Republican Caucus or Primary.

GEOFF ROTH
News Director
KSEE-TV
Fresno, CA
I would set the same standards for this type of satellite interview that I do for any satellite media tour that is offered to the station. Is there news value to it? Will our viewers benefit from the information provided? If the answer to those two questions is “yes”, then we do the interview and we disclose to the viewers who is providing the satellite time. If the American Red Cross is providing an SMT to discuss earthquake preparedness, we would do the interview. If Proctor and Gamble is offering an SMT with a movie star who is going to plug a product, we wouldn’t do the interview. If a presidential candidate was in town and offered one-on-one interviews to discuss issues that concern our market, we would do the interview. We would give the same opportunity to any of the other candidates if they chose to come to our market. The same would hold true for satellite interviews. I wouldn’t bar an interview with Hillary Clinton just because Barack Obama wasn’t in town or wasn’t doing satellite interviews on a particular day. Over the course of time, as a news organization, you would want to make sure that you provide information to your viewers on all of the major candidates running for office.

No thanks, Mister or Miss Candidate. Although it's arguable that there isn't much difference between a candidate traveling around the country at great expense in order to generate press contact -- or merely appearing via satellite -- the appearance of an independent news organization taking 'freebies' bothers me. If I were a viewer watching such an interview and the station disclosed that it was provided the satellite time gratis, I'd wonder if there were an 'understanding' regarding what kind of questions were 'off-limits'. To take advantage of a freebie without disclosing the fact would be the worst of all scenarios - in which case the interview would be just one notch above a VNR.

Originally published in the April 2008 issue of Communicator. All rights reserved.

Comments

Add Comment