Hopefuls Weigh Risks Of Serious Interviews

This story was written by CBSNews.com political reporter Brian Montopoli.

Despite her frontrunner status, however, Clinton has not spent nearly as much of her time on TV appearances as some of her rivals. In fact, the candidates topping most polls have some of the least TV face time, according to tracking done by The Hotline, a daily political digest in Washington. The publication has been keeping tabs on how often each candidate has appeared on television, other than in debates and advertising, since Labor Day 2005. Clinton shows up on the bottom half of their list -- just below Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani.

It is the candidates lagging behind them who are popping up far more often. Sens. John McCain and Joe Biden, with a whopping 58 hours on TV between them through the end of August, top the Hotline list. (Clinton and Giuliani combine for just 14 hours in the same timeframe.) A CBS News poll out Tuesday, meanwhile, found that three-quarters of those surveyed don't have an opinion of Biden, despite his relative television ubiquity and the fact that he has been in Congress since 1972.

Even in an age when politicians can announce their candidacies on Web sites, television plays an important role in a presidential campaign. But the data above suggest that airtime -- at least the kind you're not paying for -- may not carry the kind of power it once did. Forums like the Sunday morning talk shows give candidates the opportunity to earn exposure and credibility, but they also come with risks -- a bad performance or an instantly-YouTubed flub can do significant harm to a candidate. And a daytime appearance on a cable network may pass largely unnoticed by the voting public.

There are a number of other options available to candidates looking to communicate their message. When Fred Thompson decided to finally declare his candidacy, he didn't go to "Face The Nation," "Meet The Press," or one of the nightly newscasts. Instead, he headed for "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno," much as Arnold Schwarzenegger did when he wanted to announce his California gubernatorial run in 2003. It was, the New York Times noted, "a pleasant, risk-free forum, safe from potential negativity and tough questioning from reporters, a debate moderator or the public."

Some candidates need airtime more than others. Clinton, Giuliani, Thompson and Barack Obama have become celebrities, and they get plenty of media attention without having to submit to interviews. (In London this week, Giuliani even claimed to be "one of the four or five best known Americans in the world.") The Mike Huckabees and Mike Gravels of the world, meanwhile, need all the exposure they can get.

One way to guarantee that exposure is to pay for it. "You have 30 seconds where you get to say your talking points how you want to say them," notes Joel Rivlin, deputy director of the Wisconsin Advertising Project at the University of Wisconsin. "You're not being followed by someone who opposes you and wants to counter your argument."

Most viewers understand that a campaign ad isn't the same thing as an interview, of course. But advertisements allow campaigns to maintain control of their message, and the evidence suggests that they remain an effective form of communication. Romney, who began advertising early and often in both Iowa and New Hampshire, currently leads in most polls in those crucial early states. In national polls, he is not doing nearly so well.

The frontloading of the primary schedule and the fact that candidates are raising more money than ever before - money they can spend on ads - has only magnified this effect, argues veteran Democratic strategist Steve Jarding.

"Once you've reached the level where you can be competitive in this highly condensed system, it breeds caution," he says. "If I were advising a presidential candidate, particularly Hillary or Obama, I might say, 'Don't do an interview with CBS News. You might screw up, and then the money could go right down the toilet.' "

And Jarding believes that's not something Americans should be happy about.

"It's like we're in Atlantic City and these guys are walking down the aisle in swimsuits," he says. "There is less and less incentive for them to say anything. It's awful. We're getting to the point where the only reason for them to be talking about the issues is if they're getting their buts kicked."

But there are still benefits to submitting to serious interviews, according to Alex S. Jones, Director of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University.

"You still want to be on serious shows because the influentials are the ones who watch them," says Jones. "That's where the activists and the people really interested in politics and elections are -- the people who are going to be important for fundraising, who are going to go to the Internet and share their opinions on blogs. In that sense they are still the biggest game in town."

But Jarding says that effect only goes so far.

"You might do one show to prove that you can handle it," he says. "But there is a disincentive to take risks if you don't have to."
By Brian Montopoli