Reprinted, with permission, from the March 7, 2000 Wall Street Journal
Keep this in mind tonight as the theme music rises on the soundtrack and Bernard and Peter and Dan and Tom blather earnestly into the TV cameras about the Super Tuesday primaries, building suspense until the polls close and they find out who's winning:
It's all an act.
Whether dropping hints about which candidate is doing well or playing the poker face, the anchormen's performances are informed by exit-poll data that start streaming to the networks at 2 p.m. from Voter News Service, the election research consortium run by and for CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Fox and the Associated Press.
The networks aren't the only ones in the know. All day long, media and political elites fill their friends' e-mail and voice-mail boxes with the latest numbers. The exit-poll numbers are the worst-kept secret in the world.
By around 5 p.m., the networks' statistical engines usually have all the data they need to call winners. Yet a VNS embargo blocks its members and its 100-plus media subscribers (including this newspaper) from revealing the data or declaring the victor until the polls have closed.
Why do the networks censor themselves and leave the voters in the dark? I began asking this question at the beginning of the primary season from my vantage point at the online magazine Slate. Starting with the New Hampshire primary and continuing through the South Carolina and Michigan contests, I posted exit-poll numbers on Slate as they became available to me. (Slate was not bound by the embargo, because we aren't VNS subscribers.) Almost immediately, VNS threatened Slate with a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement, unlawful interference with VNS's contractual relations and misappropriation of "hot news."
The first two charges are frivolous. You can't copyright information, only words. As for the claim that Slate unlawfully interfered with VNS's contractual relations with its members and subscribers, this is identical to the charge Brown & Williamson used a few years ago in an effort to suppress a 60 Minutes segment on whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand. Does anybody at CBS appreciate the irony of the network, through its membership in VNS, resorting to the same tactics Big Tobacco used against it?
Not so easily dismissed is VNS's accusation that Slate violated the "hot news" doctrine in passing along the numbers. This legal theory dates to a 1918 Supreme Court case, International News Service v. Associated Press, in which the court ruled that a newswire service was engaging in unfair competition by lifting and rewriting AP stories.
The curious thing is that VNS is invoking the hot-news doctrine to bottle up the news until it turns cold. As Justice Mahlon Pitney wrote in the 1918 case: "The peculiar value of news is in the spreading of it while it is fresh; and it is evident that a valuable property interest in the news, as news, cannot be maintained by keeping it secret."
TODAY IN SLATE
Ford’s Big Gamble
It’s completely transforming America’s best-selling vehicle.
Should the United States Grant Asylum to Victims of Domestic Violence?
The Apple Watch Will Make Everyone Around You Just a Little Worse Off
This Was the First Object Ever Designed
Don’t Expect Adrian Peterson to Go to Prison
In much of America, beating your kids is perfectly legal.
How the Apple Watch Will Annoy Us
A glowing screen attached to someone else’s wrist is shinier than all but the blingiest jewels.
A Little Bit Softer Now, a Little Bit Softer Now …
The sad, gradual decline of the fade-out in popular music.