CPN - About CPN

CPN is designed and maintained by ONline @ UW: Electronic Publishing Group.

E-mail us at cpn@cpn.org

Topics: Civic Communication

Voice of the Voter

"Let us hear your voice," read the tantalizing box in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Within hours of that invitation on March 21, 1994, residents of the Bay Area were speaking loud and clear - thanks to "Voice of the Voter," an innovative partnership formed by the San Francisco Chronicle, KRON-TV, and KQED-FM. Their goal: to open a three-way dialogue among the people, the candidates, and the news media during the 1994 election.

The response started with dozens of calls to "Voice of the Voter" voice-mail hotlines operated by KQED and the Chronicle; letters and e-mail soon followed. With few exceptions, they came from people eager to have a say in their political present and future.

Mark Francis of Petaluma phoned KQED radio from his car: "I'm concerned about the economy, my son's school, and the environment we live in. What I don't care about are politicians' sex lives and 20-year-old real estate deals. I'm encouraged by your project and I hope something comes of it."

Or Leigh Marriner of Green Brae, thrilled by the chance to "get past the surface where politicians usually have to stay." Or Stephen Fine of San Francisco, who asked KQED for in-depth coverage of candidates' voting records, adding, "This sounds like a breath of fresh air."

That instant interest was a safety net for the media partners, who were inching along a tightrope as they tried to find a balance between the traditional coverage that treats campaigns as horse races, and a newer concept called civic journalism that asks journalists to treat people as participants, not spectators.

"Voice of the Voter" was a radical departure for the three partners. The project broke down barriers among newsrooms as the partners shared resources and made joint editorial decisions without relinquishing independence. Editors and reporters brought the public into the political dialogue without abdicating their responsibilities as journalists.

During its 11-month run, "Voice of the Voter" had several high-water marks

Several thousand readers, listeners, and viewers took part by asking candidates questions, offering comments on the issues, or participating in forums. The partners used the power of the press to force the candidates to listen - and respond - to what the people had to say. For example, Kathleen Brown, the Democratic front-runner for governor, agreed to record answers to citizens' questions only after learning the Chronicle was running a story about her refusal to participate. "You have us cornered," another candidate's press person told KRON producer Stacy Owen.
The partners, realizing their message wasn't reaching beyond their traditional audiences, formed working relationships with dozens of foreign-language media and community organizations that serve San Francisco's multitude of ethnic groups. After the primary, KQED-FM hired a part-time community coordinator and produced fliers in Cantonese, Vietnamese, and Spanish to increase outreach.
The partners and a civic co-sponsor produced the only statewide gubernatorial debate before the June 7 primary, a 90-minute session broadcast statewide. A panel of journalists questioned the three Democratic front-runners while a fourth panelist, from the civic group, asked questions that had been phoned or mailed in by readers and viewers.
Voter registration reached a new high. Nearly 40,000 prospective voters responded to an unprecedented fall registration drive inspired by "Voice of the Voter." The drive was led by the Chronicle and picked up by other Bay Area newspapers. The papers, with the cooperation of the California secretary of state, distributed the actual registration form as a newspaper insert. The state was so pleased with the outcome, it hopes to expand the program.
The project drew critical acclaim from fellow journalists, winning a respected award from the local chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists for public service in broadcasting.

Putting it Together

"Voice of the Voter" was one of five major initiatives launched by National Public Radio and The Poynter Institute for Media Studies in 1994 to bring citizens back into the political process. Other projects were in Boston, Dallas, Seattle, and Wichita. In each city, the public radio and newspaper partners were free to design their own projects, which could include recruiting television partners.

San Francisco's NPR affiliate KQED-FM was the first partner in place; news director Raul Ramirez had taken part in the national NPR planning. But Ramirez would be on a Nieman fellowship at Harvard University for the first six months of 1994, leaving assistant news director Sally Eisele to make the project happen.

"I wasn't sure what this project was going to be," said Eisele, aware that the very flexibility that encouraged each NPR-Poynter project to invent itself also meant she and the other newsroom coordinators would be winging it right from the start.

Before he left, Ramirez, along with NPR editorial director John Dinges and Poynter's Ed Miller, talked about several possible newspaper partners, but, according to Ramirez, they "couldn't escape the fact that the San Francisco Chronicle is the paper of Northern California."

For Chronicle executive editor Matt Wilson, the project's aim made sense: "Political campaigns have become very adept at setting agendas that might not be the agenda the public would choose. [In the NPR project,] voters are part of the process, not something the process is aimed at."

Wilson and managing editor Dan Rosenheim knew they were making a commitment without the full backing of their own staff.

"Our curiosity, interest, and enthusiasm was not shared by our rank-and-file reporters," Rosenheim recalled. There were three areas of concern: "Are you telling us we've been doing a bad job? How much of what we'd be doing is really news? We're the experts; we're in the best position to determine."

Indeed, several staffers recalled outright hostility to the idea of the initiative - and to having advisers big footing it into their newsroom. Chronicle political editor Susan Yoachum, the paper's lead political reporter, said she felt like she had a target on her back when Miller met with the partners to explain the need to change the way journalists cover elections. "Somebody was going to come in from the outside and tell me how to do my job better?" Yoachum said, recalling her irritation.

"I think it's not good when an outside institution comes in and says, `You've been doing it wrong,' " assistant national editor Jim Brewer said. "We said, `Bull. . . we've done this before.' "

Looking back, Rosenheim said he would change the way he introduced the project to the newsroom. Someone from the Chronicle should have explained the ideas and goals to a broader cross section of the newsroom emphasizing that the goal was to augment traditional political coverage, not replace it. At the outset, Yoachum had other reservations. "Are we doing the right thing here? Is this the role of a newspaper? There was a lot of talk about making the public our partners, and my feeling was that abdicated our responsibility. We are like a flour sifter for people. We are supposed to take information and analyze it."

As the project progressed, Yoachum's attitude changed and she began to see the value of opening a dialogue with her readers. Even though her title is "political editor," Yoachum is a reporter. Brewer was the one responsible for integrating the project into the paper's election coverage and working with the other partners.

Brewer ran into some resistance because the decision to participate was made at the top without input from reporters and mid-level editors. "There was a feeling in some quarters that it was carrying water for management. It got better, much better," said Brewer, who also evolved into a believer.

Adding to the problem was a labor dispute with the San Francisco News Agency that would climax in a strike nearly a year later and force the project to a premature conclusion only days before the election.

Finding a Television Partner

The Chronicle-KQED-FM alliance was a good start, but it wasn't enough. The project would not succeed in the sprawling Bay Area without a strong television partner. The Chronicle and KQED each had ties to television. KQED-FM shared an administrative staff and quarters in the Mission District with KQED-TV, a public television station; the Chronicle's parent company owns NBC affiliate KRON-TV.

KQED-TV didn't have the personnel or financial resources to be a partner; KRON had the resources and a much wider audience. KRON also had Belva Davis, co-host of its California This Week public affairs show.

To KRON assistant news director Jim Esser, "It was a foregone conclusion that we would do it."

Not foregone was what form that involvement would take. The first idea was to use KRON's new all-news cable outlet, BAY-TV, scheduled to debut in July. Brewer and Eisele were excited by the possibilities of television with fewer time constraints, but the cable connection never materialized.

The false start slowed down KRON's participation. Stacy Owen, a producer who would be the station's point person for the project, wasn't assigned until March, just before leaving on an extended vacation. Assigned as lead reporter was Rollin Post, the only television political analyst in the Bay Area and Belva Davis's co-host on California This Week.

KRON's newsroom managers scrambled to fit the costs of an issues poll into their budget, but as Owen explained later, "the real costs of doing the project were in human terms, not cash."

First Steps

Most of the people involved met twice in early 1994, once with Miller from Poynter and again to discuss an issues poll. The group decided to focus on the race for governor instead of the U.S. Senate race, concentrate on the front-runners, and name the project "Voice of the Voter." KQED's Eisele, KRON's Owen, and the Chronicle's Brewer were assigned to handle day-to-day details.

The planners had to devise a way to ensure maximum editorial independence while producing joint programs. That meant planning their own newsroom's coverage while playing to each partner's strengths. In addition, they had to find ways to carry the momentum from late March to the June 7 primary, and then through the summer into the general election. And they had to do all of this while carrying out their usual duties.

Their strategy was to launch the project with a poll, coordinate coverage of the key issues defined by the poll, and produce a gubernatorial debate.

For polling, The Field Institute, the San Francisco polling organization that produces one of the state's leading horse-race polls, was commissioned to survey 633 Bay Area residents the first week in March. The 32-question survey started with a simple question about whether "things in the state are generally going in the right direction, or. . . are seriously off on the wrong track?" When 63 percent of the respondents chose "wrong track," it was a strong indicator that the partners were on the right track.

Crime and education topped the concerns. As pollster Mervin Field told the Chronicle, "One of the most intriguing findings of the poll was the number of respondents who combined the two issues into a concern about violence in schools."

The results provided enough copy for each partner to launch "Voice of the Voter" on March 21. The poll also provided a pool of about 300 people who said they would be willing to be contacted by a reporter.

Field turned over 100 of the questionnaires to each partner. Each set contained an equal number of respondents for the top issues. Brewer, Eisele, and Owen then sorted through the responses, exchanging sources like trading cards until each was satisfied.

Initially, the partners wanted to enter the data from the forms into a computer database they could share, but the task was too labor intensive to accomplish during the launch.

By the general election, Pat Walsh, a part-time administrative assistant on the Chronicle's national desk, constructed a database with all 300 responses. Walsh culled the responses for 100 people who matched Bay Area demographics in a number of ways, including race, age, and economic status. That database was housed in a Chronicle computer that KRON and KQED accessed by modem.

Walsh started another in-house database within days of the launch, logging the name, address, region, and concerns of everyone who wrote or faxed the Chronicle about "Voice of the Voter" from March through September until he accumulated more than 500 potential sources for Chronicle reporters. With the poll results in hand, it was time for Brewer, Eisele, and Owen to decide which of the top concerns would be singled out for coverage by the partners. For three weeks in April the partners highlighted crime, education, the environment, and the economy. One topic - low voter registration and turnout - was added to reflect one of the partner's concerns.

"Voice of the Voter" Underway

Most papers launch a major series on a Sunday, their largest circulation day, but the Chronicle does not publish on Sundays as part of a joint operating agreement with the San Francisco Examiner.

Instead, the "Voice of the Voter" was launched on Monday, March 21, with a Page-One story about the poll and two inside pages filled with numerous graphs, sidebars, and text boxes. An unsigned letter explaining "Voice of the Voter" to readers started on Page One and continued on an inside page; it told of "a new dimension in Bay Area political coverage (that) will try to reconnect Bay Area citizens with the political process."

Eisele produced a two-part report introducing the "Voice of the Voter" that aired during each of KQED's two local-news cut-ins to Morning Edition.

The Chronicle began to run a box listing the times and topics for "Voice of the Voter" reports on KQED and KRON. Brewer also added KQED's hotline number to the Chronicle's "Let Us Hear Your Voice" box.

The hundreds of voice-mail messages, letters, and e-mail messages flooding in after the launch laid the foundation for a new part of the project: "The Candidates Column," which debuted April 4. This weekly feature allowed citizens to quiz incumbent Gov. Pete Wilson and the three front-runners for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination.

To make "The Candidates Column" work for all three media, the partners decided to have KQED record the candidates' responses. KQED shared the sound with KRON and the Chronicle transcribed the responses for a print version. If the question came from a message on voice-mail, the actual sound was used; written questions were read aloud. Instead of recording each candidate's response to a new question every week, the partners chose to ask the candidates for governor to respond to several questions at once in KQED's studio or by phone.

The candidates' replies to that invitation varied wildly, ranging, as Susan Yoachum wrote, "from eagerness to reluctance to refusal."

Longshot Democrat Tom Hayden accepted with alacrity, volunteering to record his answers at KQED during a campaign trip to the area. John Garamendi, the state insurance commissioner, also jumped right in, using the opportunity to take a shot at Brown and her reluctance to debate her primary opponents. Incumbent Wilson agreed, but his staff groused about the personal tone of some of the questions and complained when the journalists declined to change the wording.

Kathleen Brown initially refused to participate. Her staff blamed scheduling problems; one aide even called the project "annoying." When told there would be a story about her refusal to participate, Brown spokesman Michael Reese finally relented. "If I move heaven and earth to change her schedule [so she can participate], will that kill the story?" he asked.

The answer was "No." Instead of sweeping it under the rug, the Chronicle ran Yoachum's look at the incident - "Governor Candidates Hear `Voice' " - on the front page the same day "The Candidates Column" debuted. "The initial reluctance of the front-runners underscored what the `Voice of the Voter' project is attempting to address-the seeming unwillingness of candidates to respond to citizen concerns," Yoachum wrote.

Asked to choose the moment when he knew the project was worth the effort, the Chronicle's Rosenheim picked this one without hesitating. "That's when we saw the potential for this, that we had a legitimate Page-One news story. It was a news story because we wanted `Voice of the Voter' to be important. It was a legitimate story in the discomfort that candidates felt when confronted with a direct question phrased by a citizen in non-politicalese."

As Yoachum explained during an interview with KQED, "I think what was happening was the project was evoking exactly what we intended it to do. We were getting the candidates to change their habits, and at first they didn't like it."

In a way, the project profited more from Brown's initial refusal to debate and Wilson's reluctance than it would have if all the candidates had followed Hayden's example. The ruckus and its results showed the public that the partners were serious about finding the voices of the voters, while serving notice to the candidates that the project couldn't be brushed off without a fuss.

Turning Up the Volume

Launching a series of citizen questions, called "The Candidates Answer Your Questions," was a simple query from Alfonso deAlbo of San Jose: "I would like the candidates for governor to list the rights illegal immigrants should have. And the rights of legal immigrants when they are stopped on the streets guilty of looking like illegal aliens. Are we not innocent until proven guilty?"

De Albo was unhappy that none of the candidates responded directly to his question and the Chronicle and KQED covered his reaction. "The reason I'm participating in this program is because I knew that they were not going to respond. I just wanted to prove it," de Albo said. "I would like to tell you that I was very dissatisfied with all of their responses."

He wasn't alone. Fellow questioner Dan Kalb, whose question about campaign finance reform ran the next day was equally unimpressed, as were the callers who jammed the voice-mail boxes. "If I gave an answer like they did in a test like that I had in college or even high school, I would have flunked the test," said caller Brian Lennon. "All the candidates flunked the test and it's unacceptable."

Lennon also chided the media for not insisting that the candidates answer voter questions. "Getting questions from the people is a great idea, but you need, as reporters, to exercise some judgment and not consider we are all idiots listening to the canned statements and to answers that do not answer the questions."

Enough people raised the same concern to warrant a quote from Rosenheim in the Chronicle's story: "We think the expressions of unhappiness by Mr. De Albo and Mr. Kalb are one of the most effective ways to change the way politicians talk to all of us. The whole idea of the `Voice of the Voter' project is to shine a spotlight on political candidates and get them to respond to people's real concerns."

Although the public's quick critical response drew attention to the quality of the candidates' answers, it had no immediate impact because the partners had already recorded several responses at one session.

The interaction did have an effect on Yoachum, who was beginning to find some value in the dialogue. "I was impressed with the feedback we got in the primary. People really liked posing their questions - they liked it so much that I'm sold."

The partners improvised as they went along. Having KQED-FM record the candidates' questions worked well for radio and print, but didn't make good television. The audio-only responses forced KRON-TV to rely on still photos of the candidates and written transcripts. When it was time to record a new batch, KRON's Rollin Post conducted the question-and-answer sessions on camera and KRON shared the audio with the other two partners. And instead of using the voice-mail audio or having the question read, KRON videotaped the people whose questions were used in the series.

By the general election, the partners were eager to use a device they picked up from the NPR-Poynter Election Project in Boston. Instead of simply asking the questioners to read their questions for the camera, Post showed them the candidates' responses and recorded their reaction. Also by the general election, Post used his own journalistic skills to prode the candidates into more responsive answers.

Other Elements

KRON also produced weekly features focusing on a single issue such as crime or education; Owen listened carefully to KRON's voice mail for not-so-obvious issues such as Indian gaming, helmet laws, and rail transit. The reports aired during the 6 p.m. news.

In addition to the issue stories and Q-and-A's, the Chronicle ran follow-up stories based on reader responses. That had a dual effect of signaling that the partners were serious about giving voters a voice and encouraging more readers to respond. None of the stories carried a byline. The Chronicle added a twist by tacking a few questions and answers to the bottom of the first response stories. For instance, one caller asked the candidates to address legalizing drugs. The response: None of the candidates supported the idea.

Rather than rely on readers to volunteer comments on certain issues, the Chronicle actively solicited comments using a text box that ran with "Voice of the Voter" articles. The feature evolved from a small box asking readers to "Let Us Hear Your Voice" to a more prominent box led by a large, bold-faced headline asking a specific question such as "Are the Candidates Addressing Your Concerns About the Economy?" along with instructions on how to reach the media partners. Every time a box appeared, calls and letters jumped from 25 to 30 a day to 100 or more.

KQED-FM Package

KQED offered a varied "Voice of the Voter" package in the months leading to the primary:

Issues pieces and the "The Candidates' Column" were aired during Morning Edition.
Twelve editions of Forum, the station's 9-11 a.m. weekday call-in show, were used for a roundtable format that mixed callers, two or three citizens picked from the original poll, and reporters discussing a specific issue such as the economy.
Five half-hour single-topic specials on education, crime, the economy, the environment, and voter participation were broadcast Friday evenings.
A two-hour April 19 forum on "Three Strikes You're Out," the Proposition 184 law-and-order ballot initiative, was taped by KQED and broadcast two days later.

At KQED the project reached throughout the newsroom. "In our case I think we had no choice," said Ramirez, but he and Eisele were determined from the start to involve everyone. "A project like this doesn't play only as political reporting."

The mix of specials, call-ins, and issues analysis helped. "It seemed to naturally fit into what we were doing in the newsroom [which was already] divided into beats," explained Eisele. "This had the effect of getting reporters involved who normally wouldn't cover politics."

The Debate

With "Voice of the Voter" coverage well under way, the partners turned their attention to the next goal: a televised statewide debate featuring the three leading Democrats for governor.

The key move was recruiting as co-sponsor the Commonwealth Club of California, a San Francisco civic organization experienced at producing high-profile political events. The club handled the logistics, freeing the partners to focus on the candidates, the format, and the coverage.

Janette Gitler, KRON's director of programming, negotiated with the candidates. Candidate Kathleen Brown was the most difficult during negotiations. (She would later accuse Pete Wilson of refusing to debate.) She eventually agreed to the debate, but resisted efforts to televise it.

KRON produced the event for live television at a cost of about $10,000 and offered it free to stations outside the Bay Area. It was picked up by enough outlets to guarantee a statewide audience. KQED aired it live.

Instead of using citizen panelists, the partners mixed a traditional debate panel with civic journalism by having reporter-panelists Sally Eisele, Susan Yoachum and Belva Davis include questions from readers and viewers.

Nearly a thousand people packed the Grand Ballroom of the San Francisco Hilton the evening of May 24. Eleven of them were there to participate in a "Voice of the Voter" exercise. Their mission was to watch the debate, then meet with Chronicle reporters as a focus group to evaluate the candidates' performances for the next day's paper.

Prior to the event, most were undecided or favored Brown; they came away nearly unanimous in their choice of Tom Hayden as the clear winner. The Chronicle used their comments as stand-alone text blocks, instead of weaving them into a narrative. The paper also produced a box in which the panelists graded (A+ to F-) each candidate.

A few days later, the Chronicle again turned to a panel to evaluate campaign ads; members of both panels were selected from readers who responded to "Voice of the Voter" by phone, modem, or mail. The paper had run an "Ad Watch," written by a reporter, during the primary, but this was the first time the public was invited to critique ads. Six voters spent an evening viewing nine 30-second spots from a number of races, then handed the award for worst political ad to Sen. Dianne Feinstein for an attack on opponent Michael Huffington.

Jeremy Friedlander of San Francisco summed up their response: "The fundamental mistake is thinking you're going to get real information out of an advertising campaign."

The June 6 panel story was the Chronicle's last before the next day's primary. The paper, though, had one more request for its readers: "We want to hear from you about this project. Is it worthwhile? Should we continue it in the general election campaign in the fall? What additions or changes would you like to see?"

The response was quick and sure.

"Absolutely. . . As a matter of fact, it should be a regular ongoing feature of the Chronicle," Larry Henderson wrote from Palo Alto.

"The Voice of the Voter' project is very worthwhile and I hope you continue it for the general election campaign in the fall and all future election campaigns," wrote Beverly Hailer of San Mateo, adding, "I feel that this project has made me a more informed voter than I would otherwise have been."

Phase II

The feedback was welcome, but the partners were already planning Phase II: The first calls to organize a fall debate between primary winners Brown and Wilson went out the day after the primary.

Brewer, Eisele, Owen, and several others met for a thorough review of the project. They emerged with several goals: to better organize their own efforts; to improve the techniques used during the primary; and to concentrate more intensely on reaching beyond their own audiences.

To accomplish those goals, the partners tried to match responsibilities to strengths:

KRON would produce the "The Candidates Column," lead negotiations for the hoped-for debate, and house the main "Voice of the Voter" hotline.
The Chronicle would create a source database accessible to KRON and KQED by modem. At the urging of Executive Editor Matt Wilson, the Chronicle also would lead a voter registration drive.
KQED would concentrate on community outreach, town meetings, roundtables, and other ways to involve the public.

"Voice of the Voter" would go on hiatus for most of the summer as the partners charged their batteries. The public face of the project resumed in August.

Reaching Out

KQED faced the most daunting task.

As Eisele explained in a mid-term memo, an all-time low voter turnout for the primary underscored the need for "Voice of the Voter." Most of those who did vote were disproportionately white, upper income, and older-all in one of the most demographically diverse regions in the country.

"We need to reach the non-voters. We need to reach people who don't normally listen to the news or read a newspaper. And we need to make their concerns part of the election-year discourse," she wrote.

Luckily, Eisele had a secret weapon in Holly Krassner, manager of community relations for KQED-FM and KQED-TV.

"Since the object of `Voice of the Voter' was to reach beyond our listeners, we had to look at other vehicles to get to them," Krassner said. She and Eisele pieced together a plan that included:

Widespread dissemination of fliers in Cantonese, Vietnamese, and Spanish, with English translations on the flip side. Each version carried the same message: "Voting is power. Your vote is your voice. Those who do not vote can be ignored. We want to hear your voice!" There was also a brief description of the project and some of its events. The hotline number and the partners' logos and that of "Voice of the Voter" appeared on each side.
A partnership with Project Vote Smart, a non-partisan, non-profit voter education organization that included "Voice of the Voter" in its own educational material. Project Vote Smart distributed the fliers.
Ancillary partnerships with ethnic community organizations, such as Chinese Affirmative Action, and with the region's ethnic media.

"Voice of the Voter" was only one of Krassner's duties, and even with Eisele's help, the task was overwhelming. Another Holly - Holly Kernan - was hired as a part-time public affairs producer. Based in the newsroom, Kernan dedicated her time to "Voice of the Voter" community outreach. "Obviously, [the needs] are going to be different in different markets. What worked for us was having somebody in the newsroom," Krassner said. Kernan and Krassner attended editorial meetings to find ways to tie coverage into community outreach.

Krassner doesn't advise any newsroom to tackle an effort like this without help. "Be realistic. To do added value does take time and people power. That doesn't mean you have to hire additional staff. Look inside first, throughout the organization, then consider extra support as an option." She suggested inside support could come from community relations, promotions, and marketing; outside support could mean a hired coordinator, interns, or volunteers.

KQED faced other concerns. News director Ramirez, a Cuban-American, was especially sensitive to the need to choose community partners carefully. "The problem is choosing which one. Who do they trust in that community? You need to be cautious. You need to understand that each one of these communities is as heterogeneous as the whole city. To be in touch with one publication is not enough."

"You have to spend the time to find out where the civic conversation occurs in that community."

Making It Easy

Meanwhile, the Chronicle was turning its attention to another kind of outreach.

The newspaper kicked off its voter-registration drive August 19 with the announcement that registration forms would be inserted in the 560,000 papers distributed September 23. The completed postage-paid forms would be forwarded by the secretary of state's office to the appropriate county. It was a small notice, but arranging it was no easy task. Yoachum was assigned to negotiate with the secretary of state's office. She refused involvement in debate negotiations to avoid a conflict with her reporting, but felt comfortable with this assignment "because this was something I wasn't going to write about."

Her first contact was with the secretary of state's press office. "When I first called them, I would say that the reaction ranged from laughter to incredulity. Nobody had ever wanted to do this and it had never been done - so we were breaking new ground."

The state office agreed to provide the forms, but told Yoachum the Chronicle would have to pay about $25,000 to cover the cost of printing and mailing. She suggested finding a less expensive method. A few days later, her contact called and offered to print and deliver the forms at no cost.

No explanation for the change of heart was given, but acting Secretary of State Tony Miller was campaigning to become the full-fledged secretary of state.

The paper also decided to print absentee ballots several times during the general election campaign, in part because of the belief that Democrats gain most from voter registration efforts while Republicans have the most to gain from absentee ballots.

"We're not in business to promote any party but we are in business to promote the idea of voting," Yoachum explained. "Registration is giving people a tool and, then, if they choose not to vote that's their choice. At least, they're then equipped to vote. The second step of making absentee ballots available is a convenience."

Yoachum knows some journalists believe newspapers should not even encourage people to vote. "I know there is a prevailing thought that the last thing a paper ought to do is get involved. There are some levels of involvement that I'm not particularly comfortable with either, but a level of involvement that essentially promotes practicing democracy is safe."

The Chronicle was the first, but several other Bay Area newspapers followed suit. The result: nearly 40,000 people - roughly one-third of the 112,595 new voter registrations between September 23 and the October 14 deadline - registered by using color-coded applications distributed by California newspapers. The Chronicle accounted for 15,640 registrations, a 3-percent return on its distribution.

"Voice of the Voter" picked up steam again in early September as Democratic candidate Kathleen Brown and Republican incumbent Pete Wilson battled over the issue of debates. This time, Brown wanted to debate, but Wilson was unhappy with all but one of the proposed formats and especially opposed to any format that included the public as questioners. The wrangling grew so fierce the very issue of whether the two should debate became a story. The partners were caught in the maelstrom. They had hoped to repeat the previous spring's success but were hampered by the candidates' posturing. Finally, in late September, they asked their readers, listeners, and viewers a series of questions about debates, prompting an unprecedented flood of comments.

As Owen recalled it: "Our security people called me at home. They said `The TV station is being flooded and voice mail is going to crash unless you do something about it.' "

Owen called the partners for help. "I was yelling at the guys at the paper to help me download the voice mail. There were so many after a while we just started taking tallies of yes-no."

The vast majority of the respondents insisted that debates should be held; many were outraged by Wilson's refusal to face questioning from the public. One caller complained: "I think it's very arrogant on his part not to want to talk to his constituency, and limit it to the media. I'd like to have him know that."

Not everyone approved of letting the public ask questions; in fact, a significant number - mostly older callers - said debates work best when reporters ask the questions.

Despite the public's criticism, the candidates continued to use the debates as bargaining chips. Brown actually signed an agreement to participate in an October 16 "Voice of the Voter" debate, but her premature and inaccurate announcement that both parties had agreed prompted Wilson to reject the invitation outright. Wilson had already rejected a proposal by the California Broadcasters Association that called for questions from the audience. Wilson agreed to an October 14 debate on KVIE-TV, the public television station in Sacramento; his chief negotiator informed Brown it was KVIE or nothing. She complained about the limited audience provided by public television.

"They are both playing games," KRON negotiator Janette Gitler told the Chronicle. "Our goal as `Voice of the Voter' partners is to create a situation for our viewers, readers, and listeners to get the information on where candidates' stand. The candidates' goal is to play cat-and-mouse with each other."

When the dust settled, Wilson had boxed Brown into the debate and format of his choosing. Voters' questions would be filtered through a panel of reporters as in the project's spring debate, and there would be no live audience.

The "Voice of the Voter" partners had to be content with knowing they had raised the volume of public discussion and the candidates had heard. "We had a major contribution in making sure that debate happened at all," said Owen. KRON chose not to carry the live feed offered by KVIE. "It was a Friday night during a sweeps month at 6:30 p.m. Being a commercial station had its limitations."

KRON found other ways to incorporate the debate into its coverage. The major vehicle was California This Week. In the weeks leading to the general election, the second half of the Sunday-morning show was devoted to a series of mini-debates between candidates for other statewide offices. Reporters from the Chronicle and KQED participated.

Three shows were turned over to discussions of the statewide initiatives making the most noise: Proposition 187 on illegal immigration, Proposition 186 on single-payer health care, and Proposition 188 on smoking. In October, a special series on the initiatives aired during the 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. newscasts.

KRON also produced an hour-long video "voter guide" that aired the Sunday before the election. Rollin Post was involved as an analyst; the in-depth coverage of candidates and major ballot initiatives was provided by the general assignment reporters who covered them day-to-day.

At the Chronicle, Brewer was struggling to give "Voice of the Voter" a high profile. Before the primary, the project had its own logo and was separate from the election coverage.

"In the general election we sought not to do that," Brewer explained, sensitive to the need to cover the horse race as it neared the finish line. The "Voice of the Voter" logo was changed to make "Election `94" and "Voice of the Voter" equal in size, then it was used liberally on any election story.

Brewer was producing "Voice of the Voter" in a newsroom growing tense as relations between management and the unions became more acrimonious. With a strike deadline looming, energy and attention levels dwindled.

Still, "Voice of the Voter" was taking one last stab at analyzing campaign advertising. Another voter panel was assembled to grade the ads, this time with a twist. The Chronicle mixed the real ads with several parodies produced for Saturday Night Live. The idea was to see whether the panelists could tell the difference.

The results never appeared in print. The last "Voice of the Voter" story ran October 29.

When the unions walked out on November 2, Brewer, a member of the San Francisco Newspaper Guild, went with them. The only members of the "Voice of the Voter" team left in the newsroom were senior managers such as Rosenheim. The strikers produced a newspaper of their own, but they could not and would not espouse any projects viewed as property of the Chronicle. "It wasn't ours. It was theirs," Brewer said. "We didn't take the database. We didn't even take our pencils. We had nothing."

KRON and KQED continued plugging along with election coverage. KRON brought in the Chronicle's Yoachum for its "Voice of the Voter Guide to Decision `94" program. KQED, which had prepared another series of half-hour special reports on major issues, ran a sixth half-hour November 4 as an preview for the November 8 election. Each of the KQED specials aired twice in the late afternoon and was preceded by a Forum discussion in the morning; the specials were distributed via satellite to other California public radio stations.

Despite their efforts, "Voice of the Voter" was overshadowed by the strike and the horse race. By November 14, when the strikers returned to work after a bitter two weeks on the picket line, "Voice of the Voter" was yesterday's news.

Measuring Success

Did the project accomplish anything?

Chronicle executive editor Wilson isn't sure. "We added something. I'm not sure we added enough or that we added it successfully. We were better at getting voices of the public in the paper in ways we had not done before. It's hard to assess the value of that."

KRON's Owen called the failure to reach beyond a select few staffers "a personal frustration of mine." But, she said, "Realizing that we struck a chord, not only with our viewers but also with the candidates, has made an impact in both our shops."

"How do you measure success?" asked KQED's Eisele. "Did we do more issues-oriented political coverage? Did we help educate more people? Did we influence the way people voted? Did we want to?"

One measure could be volume. KQED produced approximately 25 hours of programming during "Voice of the Voter." Some of the programming would have been a part of traditional election coverage, but the bulk resulted from participation in the NPR-Poynter Election Project.

Another measure was the thousands of readers, listeners, and viewers who participated by attending forums, watching or listening to the broadcasts, and commenting through letters, calls, and e-mail.

The Chronicle published nearly 100 stories under the "Voice of the Voter" banner; its greatest success may have been the voter-registration drive. KRON succeeded by keeping a focus on issues despite the fevered pitch of California politics.

The easiest success to quantify was the partnership itself. No one could foresee the chemistry that, in Yoachum's words, just "clicked." Wary of the collaboration at first, she was thrilled by the results. "To realize you could work with them and not be co-opted or not co-opt them. I had never realized that you could partner with other elements of the media like that."

Eisele agreed. "We had more visibility and more influence because we were a partnership. But one of the most gratifying elements was watching the way it evolved, the way it grew as we came up with ideas and employed them."

The designers of the NPR-Poynter Election Project wanted journalists to realize the potential in covering elections as partners. The San Francisco partners did just that.

More than a year after "Voice of the Voter" began, they are examining ways to continue the partnership and to integrate some of the elements into other kinds of coverage, including the mayor's race and the 1996 presidential campaign.

"I want people in the industry to know this thing has legs," Brewer said. He also wants them to know it takes commitment. "There's a very strong commitment of person power that has to be given. Community-oriented journalism takes a lot of extra time and dedication, particularly if you have a tight budget or staffing problems. You can't just go in, hold a confab, and beat it."

Yoachum's attitude continues to evolve. "I still maintain it's a crock to say we're in a partnership with our readers. There are lots of reasons why people come to us, not the least of which is we provide a service. I think community journalism carries some inherent risks. Clearly we have to do something differently, but that can't be a sellout."

Can that be done?

"I can't believe I'm going to say this-I would be disappointed if we don't continue it in some fashion. We struck a chord."

Back to Civic Communication Index