(00:00:00) Broadcasts of Minnesota meeting or made possible by the law firm of Oppenheimer wolf and Donnelly with offices in Minneapolis. St. Paul and major cities in the United States and Europe members of Minnesota meeting represent. This community's leaders from business government and Academia and the professions. We meet 12 times a year to hear from and question leaders of national and international stature. This is our 14th year in the marketplace of ideas as you all know this year Minnesota meeting is focusing on the information age and how it will alter the way all of us work and play and relate to one another. One of those ways a primary way that we relate to each other is through politics 1996 is a major election year. We're already seeing candidates lining up for Minnesota's congressional seats one of its US Senate seats, and of course the US Presidency our primary Information Technology television continues to dominate politics and it often generates much more heat than light attack ads spin control overnight poles and race horse race reporting. Unfortunately. These are the forces that sometime dominate the screen as opposed to the key issues that are facing us this afternoon. We want to consider an alternative form of politics one focused on honest debate substantive discussion about issues and citizen participation to help us do That we have with us today Kathleen Hall Jamieson. Probably the nation's leading expert on the role of the media in shaping political discourse. Dr. Jameson is Dean of the Annenberg School of communication at the University of Pennsylvania. She has appeared on dozens of television programs on politics culture and the media she is also widely published in academic journals popular magazines and op-ed Pages across the country her interests extend beyond politics and the media she has for example just published a critique of modern feminism titled beyond the double bind women and Leadership. I think everyone in this room has read something by our heard an interview with dr. Jameson immediately following her remarks. Dr. Jameson. Dr. Jameson will take questions from the audience as is our custom Jane maratha. And Ken darling of Minnesota meeting will move among you in the audience to manage that question and answer session. It is now my great pleasure, and I ask you to join me as we present to you and welcome Kathleen Hall Jamieson. (00:03:13) It's good to be home. I was born at Abbott Northwestern Hospital. I was raised in Laconia Minnesota, which still has the best fishing lake for its size in Minnesota my parents continue to live and what Coney Minnesota they celebrate their 52nd wedding anniversary on Monday, which is why in fact I'm here to speak to you today. You think this is about Democratic discourse. I wanted to come home and celebrate with my parents. I defected to Wisconsin for college and graduate school, but have co-authored more with the chair of the speech communication department at the University of Minnesota than with any other person and she is my closest friend Carlin Campbell. This is an extraordinary state. I'm delighted to be back to talk with you about why it perverted my perspective on politics. When you grow up in Minnesota, you have a very different notion of Civic involvement. Minnesotans are more likely to be members of the PTA the League of Women Voters. There are more likely to read newspapers. They're more likely to watch Bill Moyers listening to America and I tell you that because Minnesota actually ran listening to America twice a week during the 1992 campaign something. I was particularly grateful for because during the general election. I was on it weekly at met that my parents had more chance to see their vagrant daughter. When Harvard Professor Robert Putnam looked at the levels of Civic involvement by which he met those kinds of things that glue communities together activism membership in community organizations membership in PTA. Minnesota came out number one in the nation number one. Now, if you're going to study campaign discourse and you come from a place that's that unusual and you go into National politics. You are appropriately going to be appalled by everything you see everywhere else in the United States. I would like to thank you for distorting my political perspective. My parents called at one point during a Minnesota political campaign, and they said the campaign has gotten really dirty. And I said it has with real excitement. Because we use Minnesota and we create our focus groups here because we want a place in which the disk or standards are very high minnesotans. Do not tolerate much in the way of dirty campaigning on like, Texas or Illinois or New York. Where how do we do? We tolerate it. It's the norm of the discourse. And so when they said the campaign has gone dirty. I rushed to get the ads the ads that my parents thought were dirty were considered positive clean advertising by Texas standards, which is where I lived then Minnesota is an unusual Place Minnesota has the opportunity because it is unusual to create a kind of Civic discourse that we ought to use as a model to re-energize discourse in other places and if we could find a way to energize the community activism and other places we would make this a much better healthier democracy. I assume you have the secret but that you just haven't told anybody else or alternatively that it has to do with survival of the fittest. If you live in Minnesota and you have ancestors from Minnesota, you have weathered some of the most terrible Winters available in the United States, and maybe this is just a measure of how Hardy you are and as a result hardy people still have certain basic Civic impulses. When academics look at Civic discourse across the United States, they faced a dilemma and the Dilemma goes like this we say to reporters. Why do you spend so much time focusing on conflict? And so little on the areas of consensus? Why do you spend so much time focusing on tactics what people are doing or not doing in order to win? And so little on the substance of what it is that they are legislating about or campaigning about why is it that you spend so much time telling us about the individual leaders self-interest and so little time telling us whether what they are advocating serves the public interest. Why do you spend so much time giving us such short segments of discourse and why is that discourse? So uncharacteristically hyperbolic It is true that if a politician makes a perfectly reasonable speech it has articulate It is Well argued and it has one extravagant claim in it. But that is going to be the sound bite on network news more often than not that is going to be the lead in the newspaper story more often than not even though it's not representative of the discourse itself. And so it is often the case that substantive speeches don't pass through the media filter, but that a casual remark in QA tossed off is represented as if that was what occurred in that public exchange and we say to journalists. Why is that true? Why are you doing this to us? And they say we're covering what's there most of what that what's there isn't what you would consider good discourse. And secondly, they say we're giving people what they want when substance is there people don't want to read about the substance. When we say to politicians your discourse isn't ideal you do engage in a lot of cheap shot politics and it's rewarded because your sound bites as a result get news attention. But do you want that kind of attention aren't you a little alarm to read some of the things that go through the news filter and a represented as standing for you aren't you embarrassed that your children see this? What we say to politicians why don't you spend more time advocating something and less time attacking the alternative why not tell us what you would do and why it's feasible and why it's better than what the other person would do rather than telling us that the other person is a bad person. It's possible. The other person is a bad person, but the person still has a good idea or an idea that's worthy of scrutiny. The politicians say, that's all the Pressed lets us get through we try to put substance there. But when we do there's no reward the reward in media coverage is to offer the hyperbolic cheap shot assertion not argument conflict not consensus and now we've got a self-fulfilling cycle because each believes the other is to blame and in fact, they're both to blame. What an academic asks the question, where would you intervene to change? My answer is you've got to change them both and there's actually a third party there because remember those news people said to us if the audience's wanted it we would provide it and so you've also got to create acidic climate in which audiences pay some attention to substance. We looked across the body politic for a two-year period to find an instance in which the discourse was pretty good to ask the question if it were pretty good with the Press cover it differently and we found one moment and I'd like to for a moment praise thee that for you and then tell you what the Press coverage said and did as a way of making my argument both that we have to change the discourse and we have to change the coverage and we have to change the audience that moment occurred Sunday June 11th of this year. It was part of an already planned Clinton Forum was senior citizens at the Earl Borden senior center in the Mill Town of Clermont in New Hampshire. I won't talk about how Gingrich got there but he got there and now we had an hour exchange with Clinton and Gingrich about matters of important public policy substance. And what was important about this moment was that for the two to three days before it occurred both Clinton and And Gingrich spent time saying to reporters we're going to try to offer a different kind of discourse. We're going to try to offer substance. We're going to try to show areas of agreement as well as disagreement. We're going to try to argue. We're going to try to engage in a kind of Civic discourse that will help the electorate understand the complexities of the debates that are ongoing right now. And this is by the way, I think an incredibly consequential year for governance. I don't think anyone disputes that and so to have a clarifying our is beneficial to the electorate the Spin Doctors who ordinarily would be telling reporters Clinton is going to have the advantage for this reason or Gingrich is going to have the advantage for that reason for whatever reason didn't spend their time spinning the event strategically they instead said what Clinton and Gingrich said this isn't a showdown a confrontation of fight and exercise and strategic maneuver. This is going to be a dialogue. It's going to be an exchange that's A setup for this occasion in the occasion Clinton and Gingrich with very few exceptions assumed each other's Goodwill and integrity something often lacking in public discourse. They indicated areas of agreement as well as disagreement something often lacking in political discourse. They argued instead of Simply asserting. They didn't engage in cheap shot Hyperbole and when the evidence was inconclusive instead of selectively citing the evidence that favored their side they conceded that there was evidence on both sides and then continued by trying to make the case based on their philosophical differences for why it was that they took the position that they did. I'd like to share two moments from that one hour exchange with you now if you'll roll the tape, (00:12:56) please Let me say that I think that I'd like to see every American make as much as they can possibly make but I also am concerned. I also know I don't think it's too much. I am I'm very concerned. However, there's a there's a disagreement among economists about this. I'm very concerned that if you raise the cost of the first job for the poorest person, for example in the inner city, the way you tend to do is increase black male teenager unemployment, which is exactly the thing you don't want to (00:13:28) do. You're seeing a plug for the Annenberg School in the screen for radio viewers. This just says come to (00:13:35) the anniversary. The contrary view is what my view is and it is true that there are economic studies that say if you raise the minimum wage you raised you raise incomes for people who are at the minimum wage and a little above it to get bumped up but it costs them jobs. There are other studies that say doesn't cost any jobs because for example people on welfare are out of the workforce will think it's more worth their while to come in and compete for those jobs, and they'll want to work more The reason that I am for it is that I believe that first of all, I know that a significant percentage of people on the minimum wage are women workers raising their kids on their own and I just believe that we shouldn't allow if we don't raise the minimum wage this year the next year after you adjust for inflation. It will be at a 40-year low. (00:14:27) The minimum wage is an important issue. There's a philosophical difference on what one ought to do in that exchange fragmentary as it is and I'm editing it for time reasons. You can see a philosophical disagreement a concession that the evidence is not conclusive an indication that both sides doing fact understand the other side's position and that they don't assume the other person is evil for holding that position that's better than discourse as usual. Now. The good news is it happened. Once the bad news is Clinton and Gingrich left that one hour and went back to the discourse as usual and the debate rapidly degenerated as we've seen in the discussions of welfare reform and Medicare, but at least we Illustrated that it could happen. Once what did the Press do the press that has told us if candidates give us substance Kathleen, we will cover the substance differently. First there was something for the press to call news and all of the major news reports indicated what that was. Most of them said that the meeting broke little new policy ground apart from a handshake deal for a joint commission into lobbying and campaign Finance. Those reports didn't indicate what the problem was surrounding campaign reform and finance why these leaders might agree to it didn't create historical context understanding but they did indicate that that was news. Here's what they didn't tell us in most of the news stories that in that one hour. We saw areas of agreement on anti-terrorism legislation on the need to reform Medicare on the need for portability in healthcare insurance. We went through over a year of health care reform policy debate in 1993-94 without most people realizing that all of the parties to the debate agreed that we needed to do something about pre-existing conditions and portability. Here's the moment. There's a moment in this debate in which that Consensus position actually becomes clear where it hadn't in more than a year long National Exchange The Exchange also highlighted differences it highlighted disagreement on raising the minimum wage as you saw on how to reform Medicare on the role and utility of the UN and of national service specifically Clinton's Americorps program. And as Clin indicated in the form itself it showcased to dramatically different philosophies philosophies that are held by many in the electorate and that help us clarify why we support candidates of one party versus another most of the reports didn't summarize and synthesize those areas of agreements and those areas of difference. They were caught only by those who watch the encounter on CNN or C-SPAN. What did the reporters tell us in most of the reports most of them persisted in calling the exchange a combat and calling the participants combatants those who struggle to find alternative language couldn't find it because Outside the language of sports and wore. The reporters didn't have a vocabulary. And so the description that appears most often is and I think it is not an apt one A Love Fest or a love-in and then there were characterizations and this is a news not commentary that I would suggest to you are slightly snide. They're suggesting that we disapprove of this kind of discourse. For example, there's a statement in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that characterizes Clinton as smooth and affable Loose as a moose. I asked you when you go in to vote for president whether among your list of criteria is whether or not someone is Loose as a most in fact does one know in this audience how what it wanted describing if one says looses the most it may be that in Minnesota one actually does have a reference for that. Another news accounts said conservative activists reared on the vinegar of gingrich's partisan attacks must have reached at this dose of maple syrup. Thereby suggesting that Gingrich is discourse was inappropriate and that nausea was an appropriate response to a higher level of Civic discourse. There was another mixed metaphor and it also was odd it occurred in the Washington Post where and ever I suggested that they coded their disagreements with a layer of sugar and then went on to suggest that Gingrich behaved as if he were Al Gore the vice president of Bill Clinton now, I would suggest to you that Al Gore does not disagree with Bill Clinton at least publicly on any of those areas of disagreement showcased in that hour if confrontation anchors one end of the political Spectrum for reporters, they don't seem to have the other end the word. Gamma t c om ity appears once in the news reports. It is voiced on CNN and the transcribers render it comedy some of the coverage implied that reporters found it easier to identify and write about disagreement because it was carried hyperbolically and that it wasn't when it wasn't simplified when it wasn't odd homonym when it wasn't hyperbole. They didn't recognize that it was disagreement. The encounter wrote a reporter for the New York Times was some muted so polite and so carefully conciliatory that it was often hard to distinguish the sharp philosophical differences between the two men. Now I ask you did you ever have any trouble seeing that they differed on the minimum wage? I didn't if this had been a boxing match opined to reporters for the Boston Herald it would have been called in the first round for lack of action other analogies were comparably strained and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Tom Baxter trivialize the encounter by saying it had the look and feel of a Regis and Kathie Lee Nique knock off on a local affiliate and a loss to describe what it was reporters fell back on defining what it wasn't confounding conventional wisdom about the San Diego Union-Tribune. The much-anticipated political showdown between two political foes was neither a slugfest nor was it a cat fight competition remained the underlying frame of reference columnist bill. Fire said two men with basic disagreements just differences in political Outlet competed only in degrees of conciliation and pugilistic metaphors abounded they were pillows on their fists. He said they faced off. So the New York Times They squared off. So the sacrosanct the San Francisco Chronicle in the process the reporters created oxymora Gingrich and Clinton sparred politely. They said the Dallas Morning News said they wrestled gently and the Boston Herald said they battled politely. For the independent and now this is an outside perspective on our politics. This is British the remarkable encounter seem to propel the normally sharp tongue speaker at an increasingly defensive president into uncharted waters of Civility at least in public. I would suggest that the uncharted waters were there for the reporters as well and they fell back onto moves that reporters characteristically make and covering our leaders first, they look to their self-interest and founded venal and wanting and secondly, they asked who won who lost and who appeared to lead self-interest embedded in most of the reports was the Assumption either that the public interest was not at issue or that both the leaders and the public could not win simultaneously on Fox morning news Charlie cook noted that they both needed to lower their negative ratings. It's in their own best interest now notice he's not saying and also in the interest of the public or the political process, so he says so I think they were looking to come across. As warm decent guys, not that they were warm decent guys, but they were looking to come across as warm decent guys who are just trying to work to try to achieve some solutions what madman most significant about the dialogue in Clermont wrote another reporter was that these two gifted and driven politicians each evidently concluded that the best way to win support from an increasingly restless and suspicious electorate was to convince voters that they take the job of governing seriously. Not that they do but to convince voters presumably because they don't that they actually do indeed even after it had happened what wrote the reporter for the New York Times. It was hard to believe that it had that it did was a testament to the weary self-interest that made mr. Gingrich leap at the chance and led. Mr. Clinton to take the risk of letting him. Venal self-interest who won who lost was the second dominant news frame most concluded that the winner was either Clinton or Gingrich, but that the loser was dull who wasn't even there. And Dole by these analyses and he actually got into the news stories as a result was an Iowa trying to get camera time and he couldn't because all the cameras were New Hampshire late night host Charlie Rose opened a segment New Hampshire primary by asking who won this non debate who gained who lost will ask our panel this evening that a former Congressman they do this to noted Newt got what he wanted. And that was basically to come off as someone credible to be on the same stage as the president. I would suggest he did come off. He in fact is one question often asked by those gaming a political event is who appeared better suited for the job. He sought that posture let's journalist retain the form of objectivity there after all not indicating who is more presidential or competent at the same time. It advances the analysis of tactical Advantage some of those moments were absurdist on Charlie Rose is show ABC's Jeff Greenfield literally focused on appearance. He said and I quote next to Gingrich Clinton looks very slim. An extended moment of late nights silliness follows Rose says, yes Greenfield. I have a feeling he'll want him on the stage for the rest Rose says this is physical Greenfield says, he looks buff then Howard Fineman of Newsweek in a moment that does not further Elevate the dialogue says, yeah, I was going to say I saw Newton is blue jeans. The other day in Clinton wins that one hands down. Now you'd expect Charlie Rose. This is after all PBS to be appalled and to try to draw the dialogue back to something substantive. But what does he do? He returns to strategic Advantage. Let me raise this question raised by Bill Sapphire. He says in fact, Bob Dole is the winner in all of this because gingrich's presents freezes out anybody any other Contender rising to form a sufficient challenge against dull, let's cut to the Chase Sapphire had written in his day after column in the debate between the two men trying desperately to lower their High negative ratings who won so far then focuses on appearance and effect while implying that for Gingrich at least what separated appearance from reality was simply hypocrisy. He said Gingrich came across as a man trying hard to come across as someone other than himself. May I read that for you? Again Gingrich came across as a man trying hard to come across as someone other than himself Laurence Olivier must have been in awe of gingrich's performance. Given an alternative form of discourse journalist suggested that it was hypocritical inappropriate cynically motivated not in the interest of the body politic, but in the interest narrow self-interest of those two people who are pandering in order to serve their narrow ends not trying to serve the public good. They also framed this debate in a way that lost the substantive areas of agreement and disagreement that do separate the president from speaker and to separate the two parties. The American people as a result lost a moment. That might have been helpful. What lessons do I draw from this brief case study first. You can't change just one piece in the equation and ultimately create systemic change that's going to work for the electorate. We have to worry about changing press structures and changing political discourse and making sure that the electorate response to both is and as an active partner and that includes the work of Civic organizations on all fronts. Secondly, we are increasingly and you're seeing in the in that Exchange in the extended version of that exchange at a In which what happens in state discourse is going to be much much more important than it ever has been before the reason is this the Republicans philosophically prefer to have government happen at the state level and as a result if the Republican Congress succeeds as it undoubtedly will in many important areas the states are now going to have responsibility for many things that once were debated at the national level. And that means it is now much more important that the states have a kind of discourse that makes it possible for the electorate to understand and to commit itself to the decisions that are being made at the state level the other lessons. I don't directly draw but I draw in directly from my study of political campaigns. The first is that one needs to sustain the change that one makes changing one little piece isn't going to do it. And so for example having one moment in New Hampshire isn't going to give the Press enough practice in an alternate form discourse or give a politician's enough practice in it to ultimately Have it be survivable. We need to have a longer periods of time in which the discourse Norms change a campaign provides that in an environment that in skinnerian fashion gives the electorate the direct ability to reward the good discourse and punish the bad discourse hence, the Electoral environment becomes the way to create the sustained encounters and to give the politicians practice and to let them realize there's no penalty. There's in fact an advantage because among other things those kinds of encounters ought to decrease public cynicism and it gives the press the chance to do likewise. Additionally Minnesota is the place to start why is Minnesota this place to start because it's got a strong tradition of Civic activism because it's got high social capital capital because it has been the source of major Innovations in the monitoring and use of discourse in the past. The Better Business Bureau was founded here. The Better Business Bureau is a model of what self-regulation can do to place constraints on Advertising voluntarily within the industry also, Jefferson Center started citizens juries here and they were used very successfully in my state and its territorial elections two years ago. The citizen jury is a Minnesota model of how to do the world differently and I don't know that you realize how important it is that this just drew out of the natural assumptions that are floating around in Minnesota and seemed very alien to many people in other states when the idea is moved to the move to that state. So this is a good place. There's a second reason that Minnesota is good. Minnesota has sent fine people to Congress and to the Senate and it's put fine candidates up for the presidency and they've been candidates of both parties. I want to close by telling you about the most positive moment. I have had in experiencing Democratic discourse in the past three years. I was the moderator for the citizens jury the national citizens jury that was sponsored in held in Washington Drew citizens for around the country to learn about the Alternatives and the health care reform debate. It happened in October 1993. And in that environment we had And as for the various plans the Press never told you there were multiple plans. They just told you there was the Clinton plan there were six other viable plans on the table. Three of the presenters representing those alternative points of view were minnesotans, not simply because the Jefferson Center is minnesota-based, but because three of the people in the National dialogue were minnesotans and those three came to speak to the citizens about the health care reform debate and their alternative proposal. Those three names are familiar to you. They are wellstone durenberger and Webber. Those three men and I'm waiting for Minnesota to send a woman into this mix. Presented a discourse that was a model of democratic engagement. They assumed the Goodwill and integrity of the others. They acknowledged evidence on the other side. They engage the arguments of the other side. They were deeply knowledgeable. You could not watch those three function in that environment and not say I am very proud that this caliber of person is drawn to public office. It is unfortunate that as we watch the rest of the debate evolved what one saw of those three fine individuals where those Snippets of sound bites that looked as if the debate had been reduced to assertion and hyperbole. I know that didn't represent what they were capable of moving through the news all environment if there had been an alternative structure Minnesota is the place to look to an alternative compact of Civic discourse one that is voluntary one that engages Civic organizations the advertising Community the politicians and the news media in a discussion of what Norms work for. State I call you to consider seriously the Minneapolis Star and Tribune's proposal written by Tom hamburger. I call you to consider seriously a proposal by Lee Lynch and his associates in the form of an advertising code. I call you to take seriously all of the other points of view that are out there about how one could do this better and differently and having done it differently I call on you to take that model out for the rest of us. We are in desperate need of becoming minnesotans. Thank you. Thank you Kathleen, you're listening to Kathleen Hall Jamieson the dean of the Annenberg School of communication speaking to the Minnesota meeting on the station's of Minnesota Public Radio. We have a first question here from Danny. She lasted who has the distinction of being the only Republican member of the Minneapolis city council. (00:32:40) Well, that was a fascinating presentation and I wish every politician and every media person could have been here to to observe it. My question is the three people you mentioned are all friends of mine. And I know them well and they are wonderful elected people all three of them did resort to to some bumper sticker mentality to sound bites and so on an order to win their elections because had they not none of those three people would have been names you would have used because all three would have lost elections and in a perfect world. Everybody would follow the rules that you're setting. It's not a perfect world and and all of the rewards go to the people who win the elections. How do we make that giant step? (00:33:29) That's an extremely important question. And the reason that we have spent so much time asking whether in fact we have good leaders there. Is that often you talk to focus group participants and they say well the problem is we've elected a bunch of bad people rather than saying these are good intelligent hard-working people who have philosophical differences and have alternative solutions that are important and viable and need to be looked at seriously, but when they see the sound bited versions of these people the people begin to look venal partisan and self-interested particularly in the Press frame that tends to suggest that as a dominant forum. And so our first question for me always is our we electing good people and my answer is yes, I think we have elected better people in this last decade than we have in past decades. I think the quality people coming into public service as in has increasingly risen, not Fallen the quality of discourse however in public has gotten worse But there's every instance that in private. It stays very high. I talk to people on the Gingrich staff and on the Clinton staff after this exchange and said Is it true that this kind of discourse happens in private when the leadership meets at the White House and the answer from everyone was of course, how do you think we govern so if in fact we reserved the discourse of democracy for private moments, what we've essentially done is move democracy offstage and not permitted us to experience it hence not commit to us and an environment in which public cynicism about our institutions and that means Congress and elected officials and the academic community and everybody except the Supreme Court in the military is that unprecedentedly high levels it becomes highly problematic because we may stop looking for an environment in which we can forge common Solutions. We actually change the private discourse to move it toward the public Norms. The reason that I think we're going to be able to elevate the discourse is because the electorate is giving us ample evidence that it's had enough first the This is some indicators are telling us that and the citizen indicators include indicators about the Press public confidence in the Press bottomed out in Spring of 1994. It reached the lowest point that it has reached in the history of our polling about attitudes toward the Press reporters have now gotten to got to take seriously the possibility that the messenger is part of the problem. And that means there's some incentive for journalists to try to work alternatively the Civic journalism movement is a way to do that politicians are reading the polls that say the public is cynical the frame that is placed by the Press around this is not inaccurate Gingrich and Clinton have read the polls and the polls say to them. We want a different kind of discourse. And so that is becoming a motivator that creates the possibility that the public will reward discourse that informs and assist the electorate in making decisions and will penalize the discourse that doesn't the reason that I think it's likely to happen is because two things occurred in 1992 that had not been happening in recent history when I wrote packaging the presidency, which was 1984. I All the consultants and I have a great deal of respect for Consultants by the way, but maybe all the Consultants I said, why don't you give us half our speeches by candidates anymore? They were the norm and the 1950s. There are some wonderful speeches as a result available and people watch them in the 1950s and the consultant said to an individual and I'm paraphrasing the one who's most memorable Kathleen when you can get me an audience as large as the audience for Dialing for Dollars for half hour speech. I'll give you the speech 1992 Ross Perot outside. The Consulting communities conventional wisdom hadn't been told you couldn't get audiences for a half hour speech and so he tried them and surprised he got larger audiences than the program's he replaced in two of his half. Our presentations secondly debate viewership had been dropping from 1980 downward in 1992 debate viewership went back up. It went up in part because we experiment with alternative formats, thereby empowering people because they got to ask the leaders questions in their own right, but the fact that you worship went I think it's a sign that said we want to engage. What's the bad news your voter turnout dropped in 1994 and voter turnout starts dropping a state like Minnesota. That's a real warning sign. (00:37:37) Thank you very much. Dr. Jamison for our radio audience. I'm you're listening to dr. Kathleen Jameson who's the dean of the Annenberg School of communication at the University of Pennsylvania. She's speaking to the Minnesota meeting and we at the Minnesota meetings surely hope that people are interested in hearing speeches. We've got a question now from Leonard wit who's the director of the Civic journalism initiative at Minnesota Public Radio you talked about what politicians can do and what the Press can do, how can the citizens be more proactive? What can they do to turn this around? (00:38:10) One of the things that I really like about Tom hamburgers Minnesota compact is the recommendation that the candidates debate in each of the districts in the state. And the reason that I like that and I realize some people have said eight debates isn't the public going to be bored my answer by the way, too. The public going to be board is tell me that you're going to tell me how you're going to ensure that nursing homes are going to be adequately safeguarded for the elderly if the states are now in charge of those recommendations and I will show up for a debate in order to hear that tell me that you're going to be talking about how you're going to reinvigorate the economy of my state. I'm going to show up when you talk about that. I think when you believe that this course is going to be consequential to you're going to show up but you can't show up if it's happening in a television studio and you're invited to sit as a couch potato and watch it. If we have a debate in each district. I'm hoping that all those civically active minnesotans who go to the PTA and they go to the league and they go to the Lions and they go to the Kiwanis. You're one of the few states, by the way, that still has really thriving functioning Civic Community organizations such as lions Kiwanis Etc with what some of the social scientist called the animal groups, but I'm hoping that those same citizens are going to go to the debate physically. They're not going to sit and watch it in the posture of a voyeur in their living room, but they're going to go out and they're going to get a sense. That there's a community there. That's in fact, the way democracy is supposed to work. You're not supposed to sit in the voting booth and say what's my narrow self-interest you're supposed to sit in the voting booth and say what's going to work for the for the whole what's going to work for my community? I think to the extent that you get the baits and districts you had chance of bringing the community there to be part of the debate and I'd like those debates to have Q&A sessions. So people get to talk to their leaders and I'd like them televised and broadcast on radio lots of good coverage and I'd like to say to Citizens all were asking is that in the course of the election you give democracy as much time as you give the Super Bowl you give it that much time and that allows for the time you spent going to the store to get the beer and the pretzels Etc to get ready for the parties. And for one of those occasions go out and participate by being in an audience where you have a chance to hold your elected officials pot responsible. I think that of itself but provide a reinvigorating context for democracy. It's one of the reasons. I think that's such a strong recommendation for hamburger. Thank you. Dr. Jamison. We have a next question here from Jim Hill from Dayton Hudson. (00:40:26) Further to the question about how citizens get get involved. What advice do you give to Corporate America to get involved in the process of improving improving political discourse? (00:40:37) That's a really interesting question. Do you have a Pack? Okay, I will tell you something about history and then you tell me something about packs. Political action committees are an attempt to provide a context for groups to come together in order to contribute. That's a good idea. Right? Here's somebody who's supports people coming together to do things but when political action committees advertise, they are less accountable for their material than when candidates advertise because they can engage in really cheap shots against an opponent and a candidate who benefits can say I didn't do that. That was just that pack. I would hope that packs that put money into pools that advertise would say our advertising is going to meet the highest standards of discourse packs should be able to advertise. There's no problem with that. In fact, your constitutional constitutional consulship protected right to be able to do it. The broadcaster's don't have to are it. However, Add the broadcasters and this is the corollary when they see a Pac ad that does not conform to high standards of discourse should not are that ad I'd like to see broadcasters think through a policy on whether they accept Pac ads or not. And then follow that policy with some care candidate ads for bona fide candidates for federal office have to be run if they have the money to pay for them. If they've are dads for comparable candidate in that race pack adds do not have to be accepted. But if the packs raise the quality of the discourse, the advertising would be constructive. You wouldn't have a problem. If they didn't I'd like to see the broadcaster's be responsible and say that oversteps the line and we don't think it's appropriate to arid and when you're getting that situation, it's probably better to say we don't Are Pac ads at all rather than to say we're going to try to make discriminatory judgments about what is and is not within boundaries because it looks like you're playing politically partisan (00:42:22) games. Thank you. Dr. Jamison. We've got a question now from Mike Freeman who's the Hennepin County attorney and former candidate for governor in Minnesota. He's a Democrat. (00:42:33) So we've had we've had we've had a Republican and we've had a Democrat and (00:42:37) he's not on my Campaign Committee yet. Dr. Jamison. You've been a strong supporter of the First Amendment yet. One of the things that mr. Lynch is attempting to do in his compact that he suggested is to limit to a require the candidates to be somewhat responsible for what the independent groups do even if we candidates would agree and say the has to be positive we can point things out the on the record we shouldn't have at hominem attacks if independent groups come and attack me or any other candidate ultimate Schultz said other people then it's kind of like you're in a position where you're going to get attacked but you can't respond within the confines of the First Amendment. What would you suggest we could do about (00:43:14) that? I don't see a First Amendment problem as long as what we're doing is voluntary and so I have opposed every effort at the federal level to legislate anything in relationship relationship to candidate speech here is the reason I want a candidate because she is a responsible person. Say about any political action committee add that benefits her or attacks the opponent I endorse it or I just claimed it and then say to the station's I endorse it or disclaim it that person is by saying that taking accountability for discourse that is in the environment. That is that can have a highly beneficial effect for that candidate can pollute the discourse and doesn't have any other way to be blocked unless you block it at the broadcast level. And so I think candidates simply as a moral obligation ought to say since that's benefiting me. It's ostensibly on my behalf either. I find that repulsive now, you can pack can still continue to advertise if the station wants to are but at least the candidate has said Don't Judge Me by that I find that inappropriate and I hope the packs then listen when a candidate says that and take the advertising off. I also endorse the notion that candidates review their own advertising. I am appalled by the notion that someone who's going to represent me and Congress me as a Often our me as president might say more than half of the money being spent in my campaign money raised by people who support me philosophically and might be appalled by what's happening in my advertising by the way. My that's being the spent on my behalf is is being put on the airwaves to do something that if I reviewed I might not approve of I want someone to be responsible for all the discourse issued on her behalf. And what I don't see that any problem in saying as a result to a candidate if an ad airs, and it's sponsored by your committee, I want to be able to assume you reviewed it. You think that's appropriate discourse and you're ready to stand behind it. And one of the reasons I favor debates is first because the electorate is always helped by debates, but secondly debates become the environment which one candidate can say to another are you responsible for that ad did you mean to say that there's an important moment in the primaries of 1984 and I use this because it's a Minnesota example in which Walter Mondale turns to Gary Hart and he says you have an ad on the air that says I wanted to kill our boys in Central America. Do you really believe that? Wanted to do that that's a moment that's trying to create accountability of Gary Hart for a claim against Walter Mondale. It's a legitimate accountability for Gary hard to take that was an illegitimate at and so I look for ways within the First Amendment to have candidates assume responsibility and not to have some other force act in their stead because I'm electing the candidate. I'm not electing the other force and I want to know that person is a person of honor and integrity because part of what I'm voting on is whether I want to trust that person for all those decisions. I don't know about yet because I can't force a them, but I'm going to trust her character to make the right decision. Thank you Kathleen. We've had a Republican and a Democrat and Corporate America. And now we have the League of Women Voters in Judy Duffy as a member of good standing in the league. I'm delighted to be here. Well, thank you that was in first one of my questions whether or not you are a member of the league and if not, I would like you to become a member of the league and I would also like you to attend some of the meetings with candidates with me over the next year to encourage. Them to participate in debates. Our position is more debates are better more varied issues. But there is a very real problem of getting candidates to actually participate in debates. Especially participate in debates that are not highly structured. When are you available in 1996? And how should we address that issue? The the reason the debates are so important is that it is in debates that you have the opportunity to see a head-to-head comparison of people and you have an ability as a result to see engagement occur on argue on arguments and issues that are Central to the electorate when debates don't occur the body politic loses. One of the things I take exception to is the recommendation in the Minnesota compact that says if a candidate doesn't subscribe to one of the advertising Provisions, then the candidate doesn't get to participate in debates. I want the candidates to participate in debates as their primary responsibility to the electorate and I don't want anybody to have a way to get out of this. I think candidates for public office ought to at the beginning of the campaign cycle announced one. They will debate to when they will debate three what the format's are. They will debate about and as a result give everybody a chance to plan their lives around those moments because then I expect the citizens to show up and help make that process work. Thank you. Dr. Jamison. We now have a question from Jim. Why core who is the president of the Minnesota broadcasters (00:47:55) Association? And as all broadcasters know and all candidates know 45 days before the primary and 60 days before the general election, they get their their commercials that they make an appearance in for practically nothing or at least the lowest unit rate (00:48:13) which isn't practically nothing. That's a broadcast this point of view and practically nothing (00:48:20) and many in many broadcasters instance is practically nothing and we can we can show that that to be the case but the original intent of the lowest unit rate provision was that the candidate discuss issues that has eroded to the point where the candidate simply does the disclaimer and anything can be R in that ad our proposal is that we return to the original intent and that the candidate use 100% of the television time and 100% of the radio time in order to qualify for that lowest unit rate. (00:48:53) I'm going to ask you a question if I said I believe candidates should discuss issues. And I have problems with your requiring the content of their speech. So what I want you to do as a member of the community representing the broadcaster's is to give the candidates for Statewide office five minutes a week of free time provided. They address the issues that have been selected by poll the polls in the state of most concern to the public. Would you give them that (00:49:16) time many stations do that on a regular basis good for those stations. Now the other problem we have as an organization as an organization. The problem we have is if we if we organize and sponsor a debate then we are nailed for making an illegal corporate campaign contribution. (00:49:32) I don't I don't see that. You've got a problem offering free time. As long as you offer to all the bona fide candidates the I don't want you sponsoring debates. I'm very happy with the notion that journalists have a separate role in the process and when journalists get involved in negotiating who debates what the format etcetera I think journalists are playing in an appropriate role for a fourth estate. I like the notion that independent groups do this that the league does this because then you have the broadcast journalist able to perform their Function well without any of those constraints and I get very nervous. For example as the Network's play behind the scenes to try to make sure that their anchor gets to be the host of the general election presidential debates. I'm much more comfortable with the presidential debates commission notion that we're not gonna have a star anchor moderating for exactly that reason thank you. Thank you. Dr. Jamison we have time for one quick question. We're not keeping score here and Republicans and Democrats, but we're going to ask Wendy Anderson, who was the former governor of Minnesota happened to be a Democrat? Ask the last (00:50:27) question first. I do not belong to the League of Women Voters, but I wish that I did and secondly, why wouldn't you support an effort that would require the candidate to appear in the thirty second attack negative ads, which is what is poison their system (00:50:45) because I don't see how you can get around the Free Speech problem. When you're near encumbering speech what I favor is candidates voluntarily agreeing to a code that has elements that they think are appropriate and Community working together to determine what those elements are as long as candidates voluntarily do it. I don't have any problem with it, but I'm very nervous when you start placing requirements in a legal environment because I think that's a fat Chris First Amendment encumbrance (00:51:14) Kathleen Hall Jamieson Dean at the Annenberg School of Communications at the University of Pennsylvania speaking this known at the Minnesota meeting held at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Downtown, Minneapolis.