C-SPAN 25th Anniversary News & Information: Survey of Political Scientists

	Campaign 2008
	110th Congress
	Bush Administration
	Supreme Court
	Energy
	Iraq
	Response to Terrorism


C-SPAN SERIES

	America & the Courts
	American Perspectives
	Booknotes
	Book TV \| Schedule
	The Communicators
	Newsmakers
	Prime Minister's Questions
	Q&A
	Road to the White House
	Washington Journal


C-SPAN RADIO >>

	Radio \| Schedule
	American Political Archive
	LBJ White House Tapes


OTHER C-SPAN SITES

	American Presidents
	American Writers
	Book TV
	Booknotes
	C-SPAN Classroom
	Campaign 2008 Bus
	C-SPAN Video Library
	The Capitol
	Capitol Hearings
	Lincoln 200 Years
	Must Carry
	Politics
	Presidential Libraries
	Q&A
	Students & Leaders
	Tocqueville


NEED HELP?

	Download RealPlayer
	Download Windows Player
	Problems With Video?
	C-SPAN Copyright Policy
	Contact Us

C-SPAN Contacts:
Peggy Keegan, (202) 626-7986 pkeegan@c-span.org
Robin Scullin, (202) 626-8797 rscullin@c-span.org

NEW C-SPAN STUDY: CONGRESSIONAL SCHOLARS EXAMINE HOUSE TELEVISION AFTER TWENTY-FIVE YEARS

WASHINGTON D.C., April 19, 2004—This Spring, as the U.S. House of Representatives marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of televised proceedings, a new C-SPAN survey of political scientists shows overwhelming agreement that televised coverage of House floor debates was the best decision for the public, but draws mixed conclusions on the effects of television on the House itself.

On March 19, 1979, the ninety-sixth Congress under the leadership of House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill permitted its sessions to be televised gavel-to-gavel. C-SPAN carries those sessions live to cable and satellite television audiences nationally. At the time of the decision, Members understood that it was inevitable that television would change the institution. This legislative scholars' survey highlights the many positive effects of televised House sessions, yet responses offered by a minority of the academics suggest some institutional ramifications.

Asked whether the decision to televise House sessions was best for the public, an overwhelming 96% of the legislative scholars say yes; furthermore, 59% of respondents also believe it was the best decision for the institution. However, a significant minority, 28%, disagree, saying television was not the best decision for the House. Further, when asked if televised coverage of House floor debate has changed the institution, "for the better or worse," a similar percentage, 25%, said "for the worse."

"There is an almost unanimous consensus that the decision to televise the proceedings was the right choice for the public, with a far less decisive feeling it was the right choice for the institution," says co-advisor Jeffrey Biggs, Director, APSA Congressional Fellowship program and a survey co-advisor. "This would suggest a clear endorsement for the public's right to know."

The survey respondents are also evenly divided over whether a quarter-century of television coverage has improved or worsened overall public perception of the House. Thirty -six percent say television cameras have had a "positive or very positive effect," while 37% say television has had a "negative or very negative effect." One survey participant elaborates, writing: "Even though I think that televised coverage �sometimes has a negative affect on public opinion of the Houses, I think it is best for the country for people to be able to see their government at work." "C-SPAN [coverage] is a significant force for civic engagement in the United States," writes another.

The survey was distributed by C-SPAN in late February and early March to the 516 members of the American Political Science Association's (APSA) Legislative Studies Section. Many veteran academics participated—74% of the survey's 131 respondents say they have been active Congress watchers for more than l0 years.

Three academics with extensive Congressional experience served as advisors to C-SPAN for this survey: Jeffrey R. Biggs, Director of the APSA Congressional Fellowship program and former spokesman for House Speaker Tom Foley; John J.Pitney, Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College, APSA Congressional Fellow for then-Senator Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY) and the House Republican Policy Committee; and Robert X Browning, Associate Professor of political science, Purdue University and Director of the C-SPAN Archives.

Effects on the institution: 77% of the participating academics believe television cameras have increased partisanship in the House, with 17% of them saying cameras have increased partisanship "a great deal." Fifty-seven percent think the sessions are longer because of television cameras; 79% say the presence of cameras results in more House members taking part in floor debates; and 95% of the scholars say the presence of cameras results in more Members requesting time for discretionary (non-debate) speeches.

The survey also explores what motivates most House members to speak on the floor. "Raising personal visibility" receives the largest response by far, clearly suggesting says Jeffrey Biggs, that speaking on the floor "has an outside motivation, rather than inside."

Primary Motivation for Members speaking on the floor
Mobilize activist groups	6%
To influence other Members	7%
To help their political party	9%
To inform the general public about policy	11%
To communicate with their constituents	26%
To raise their personal visibility	42%

"These results reflect the observations that many Congress-watchers have: Members have learned how to use the proceedings to advance their policy agendas or personal visibility through speeches and parliamentary maneuvers. At the same time, it may well be the institution suffers a bit since proceedings can be slowed or disrupted in the untidy process we call democracy," comments Robert X Browning, who led the academic team for the survey.

Television benefits both parties: Respondents do not believe that the televised House the benefits one party at the expense of the other: 29% say both parties benefit equally; 29% say the majority party benefits most; and 34% see advantages for the minority party.

A number of procedural reforms have been suggested over the years, in fact the House has occasionally experimented with some—to make the proceedings more interesting to the viewing public. Survey respondents were asked whether these changes would have a positive or negative effect on the institution:

Procedural Reform	% Ranking Positive / Very Positive
Adopt a version of the British Parliament's "Question Time"	78%
Change rules of debate to allow more "give and take" among Members	71%
Schedule key debates in prime television viewing time	64%
Allow C-SPAN, or other private media, to control the television cameras	57%
Allow the public to see real- time reporting of individual Members' votes	58%

A sixth proposal receives more mixed reviews: Asked whether turning off the cameras during the discretionary speeches—"Special Orders" and/or "One-minute" speeches—would have a positive or negative effect on the institution, 32% say this would have a "positive or very positive effect," yet 42% believe turning off the cameras would have a "negative or very negative effect."

"Political scientists possibly see these speeches as a safety valve for the frustrations of the minority party," explains John Pitney, Jr, survey co-advisor.

"For twenty-five years, people have asked us 'How has television affected the Congress?' There are a number of surveys which explore public attitudes about Congress and we thought it would be interesting on this significant anniversary to add to the mix the opinions of those who study the institution," says C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb.

House floor debate is available to more than 88 million U.S. households that have access to C-SPAN via cable or satellite service. Televised floor coverage of the House and Senate is produced by congressional staff and made available to all news organizations. C-SPAN's other public affairs programming including congressional hearings, national political coverage, book programs, history specials and international events, is produced entirely by C-SPAN. C-SPAN was created in March 1979 as a public service of the U.S. cable television industry.

The survey was distributed via the Internet from February 20 through March 8, 2004 to 516 members of the Legislative Studies Section of the American Political Science Association, political scientists who teach and research Congress at colleges and universities across the country. There were 131 non-duplicative respondents. Results were compiled by Dr. Robert X Browning who was joined in the analysis by Jeffrey R. Biggs and John J. Pitney. The survey is available at: www.c-span.org/Academic_survey/surveyresults.html.


ONLINE PRESS KIT >>

Contest Winners
Read the essays of the 25 contest winners.

Press Releases
Sep. 28, 2005 -- Winners Named in C-SPAN Viewer Essay Contest Marking 25 Years of Viewer Calls

Sep. 14, 2005 -- C-SPAN Marks 25 Years Of Viewer Calls-Ins With LIVE, 25-Hour Call-In Program On Oct. 7

Aug. 17, 2005 -- C-SPAN Marks 25 Years Of Viewer Calls-Ins With LIVE, 25-Hour Call-In Program On Oct. 7

News Articles
The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY) - Oct. 10, 2005
Talkers Magazine - Cover Story Oct. 2005
Jewish World Review - Columnist David Brooks, Nov. 1999

History of Call-Ins on Radio and Television
A timeline of call-in programs

Evolution of Call-Ins on C-SPAN
A timeline of call-in programs at C-SPAN

More about C-SPAN's 25 Years of Viewer Call-Ins
Background information on C-SPAN call-in programs

Contact Us
Send e-mails to C-SPAN