Weekly Briefing

Why televising the General Assembly is an excellent idea

Last week, the state House of Representatives began to look into the idea of televising the various proceedings of the General Assembly. Though not formally a part of the study committee that's examining the issue, the state Senate has apparently expressed an interest as well.

It's about time.

Here (along with some responses to likely criticisms of the idea) are five common sense reasons why bringing TV cameras into every nook and cranny of the state Legislative Building is a great idea that's long overdue:

Reason #1 - It's our General Assembly. The idea of televising the business of various elected bodies is hardly a new or revolutionary idea. Congress got over its jitters about the matter decades ago and today, even the tiniest little hamlet televises all of its city council proceedings. The reason for this rapid growth in televised lawmaking (aside from the rapid advance of communications technology) is simple: people want to see what their representatives are doing and have a right to do so.

Though it's sometimes treated that way, membership in the state House or Senate is not the same as being a part of some super-exclusive, private club. Sure, lawmakers are important people who deserve our respect and appreciation, but they are also our employees. There's no reason for them to operate behind some shroud of mystery. The more frequent presence of a few cameras might even serve to keep in check the oversized egos of a few lawmakers who sometimes get a little carried away with their own importance.

Reason #2 - The rapidly disappearing mainstream news media.  Americans have relied upon journalists to act as the watchdogs of government since (and even before) the beginning of the Republic. In that role, of course, journalists have played (and continue to play) an incredibly important role in recording and deciphering the workings of democracy.

Unfortunately, today, the news media is clearly struggling. Newspapers are shrinking and closing and reducing the coverage they provide. Here in Raleigh, the cadre of state capital reporters has been dwindling for some time. As a practical matter, there simply aren't enough reporters to keep up with what's going on in state government - especially when the General Assembly is running full tilt.

And while the world of blogs and nonprofit news and commentary providers (like N.C. Policy Watch) is on the rise, few of these new outlets have (or are likely to reproduce) the budgets or people power of traditional news media. These new providers and aggregators (as well as the traditional reporters) need every opportunity that modern technology can provide to allow them to be in as many places as they possibly can be at one time. Though certainly not as good as actually being there, watching a television feed (or two or three) is a lot better than nothing. 

Reason #3 - Henry Aldridge. Do you remember the former state representative and self-appointed expert on human sexuality who made one of the more offensive speeches in the history the General Assembly a few years back? Hint: he's the one who confidently lectured his fellow lawmakers on the impossibility of victims of sexual assault becoming pregnant.

Fortunately for the state, reporters were there to capture the statements of this pathetic character and the rest of his political career was short-lived. Unfortunately for the state, the General Assembly is often home to a number of Henry Aldridges. As anyone who has spent some time trolling the halls on Jones Street can attest, there is scarcely a week that goes by when the General Assembly is in town that doesn't include a remarkably ill-informed or offensive statement that's at least in the ballpark with Aldridge's nutty declaration. 

Whether it's a remarkably insensitive and hateful comment about immigrants by a blowhard lawmaker, a buffoonish performance by a big shot corporate lobbyist, or just the embarrassing banter that sometimes invades various official proceedings, the General Assembly is rife with "you can't make this stuff up" moments that the public ought to know about.

This is not to say that the only reason for cameras is to promote a rise in "gotcha' journalism." There are lots of other reasons for people to pay attention to state government. Having said this, there is clearly a benefit in letting the public see some of the remarkable things that are said and done in its name. It seems almost certain that the presence of cameras would elevate the level of discussions in Raleigh and help to expose and weed out some of the more embarrassing and incompetent characters who have managed to worm their way into positions of power and influence.        

Reason #4 - Our widespread ignorance. Quick, when does the General Assembly come into session? When does it adjourn? Who are your state legislators? Who presides over the state Senate? As a subscriber to NC Policy Watch publications, you may have a pretty good feel for the answers to these questions. If you were like most North Carolinians, however, you'd probably have only the vaguest notion of the answers.

Here in the state capital, the demise of traditional news coverage of the General Assembly and the rapid growth of Raleigh and surrounding areas means that not even many local people know when the General Assembly is in town - much less what they're up to on a daily basis.

To a certain extent this is to be expected in today's world of wall-to-wall news from around the world. State government can be a little wonky and boring. But, it seems almost certain that a lot of the public's lack of interest stems from not knowing the characters and day-to-day story line. Regular TV coverage wouldn't solve these problems overnight, but it would have to help.

Reason #5 - It's already being done. Finally, it's not like bringing cameras into the halls of the Legislative Building and the big ugly box out back known as the "Legislative Office Building," would break some kind of longstanding taboo or put a bunch of sketch artists out of work. Many legislative floor sessions, committee meetings and press conferences have long been televised and/or recorded for later broadcast. The only real questions are whether we should televise and record all of them, how it should be done and where things can and should be shown.

Addressing concerns

Much of the discussion at last week's study committee meeting on the subject surrounded the issue of cost and distribution - i.e. how much would it cost to install and run the equipment that would be necessary and who would televise the proceedings? These are legitimate questions, but lawmakers ought to be able to answer them quickly.

In a twenty-plus billion dollar state budget, one or two-million dollars (the estimated cost) seems a small price to pay to allow the public such an important window on its government. As for where things would be shown, this too seems like minor issue. Even if space on local cable systems is not immediately forthcoming, it would be extremely easy to make all proceedings available online.

In today's world of converging media in which the line between the internet and traditional television is rapidly disappearing, such an outlet would be a perfectly adequate start. Indeed, a simple, uncomplicated series of video feeds from all of the legislative meeting rooms (as is currently done with audio in some of the rooms at the General Assembly), would be a much simpler and more affordable than turning each chamber and committee room into a full-fledged TV studio.

Such a basic and straightforward approach might also help to alleviate the concern voiced by some TV skeptics - namely, that the General Assembly will be transformed from a place of genuine thoughtfulness and spontaneity into a fully choreographed "show."

Going forward

Let's hope that as they pursue this issue in the months ahead, lawmakers take a simple, no-nonsense approach to giving the public what it deserves - a basic and unfiltered window on the workings of one of government's mot important branches. Rarely will they have an opportunity to have such a large impact on the common good at such a modest expenditure of time and money. 

 Email This Post  Print This Post

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 7th, 2008 at 11:56 am and is filed under Weekly Briefing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.