Editorial: Public TV stations and 'Willie Wacko'

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Monday that public stations, when sponsoring debates, can exclude candidates not found newsworthy. This should allow government-run stations to better serve their viewers by exercising journalistic discretion. No longer will they feel forced to include fringe candidates who have absolutely no hope of winning.

The case arose after Ralph Forbes, a former American Nazi Party member who now describes himself as a Christian supremacist, said his free-speech rights were violated when the five-member Arkansas Educational Television Network did not invite him to a 1992 congressional candidates' debate.

Other than requirements for age and residency, there are hardly any limitations on who can run for public office. Essentially, anybody who has enough money to pay a filing fee can appear on a ballot, which is as it should be.

But should public television stations forfeit their right to use journalistic judgment? During the Supreme Court's argument session last October, Chief Justice William Rehnquist summed it up best when he invented an unpopular candidate, Willie Wacko, deemed a loser even by some of his friends. "Do they have to give him access?" Rehnquist asked in the hypothetical example.

The egos of the Willie Wackos who seek public office may be bruised, but a public television station's hands shouldn't be tied when deciding the format and participants in a debate. Yet at the same time, public television stations should not be cavalier in excluding a candidate from a debate; exclusion should be the exception rather than the rule.

archive