e have all lived through a moment of political drama probably unparalleled in the history of American politics. It was a drama staged on television, and in one respect at least, television news flubbed its lines ''big time,'' as Dick Cheney might say, and now both press and politics have a huge problem.
Twice in seven hours the major television networks called Florida wrong: first, on Tuesday evening, that Gore had won it, and second, early Wednesday morning, that Bush had won it, when in fact neither candidate had yet won it. It was too close to call. These editorial blunders quickly created a political crisis, filled with uncertainties and suspicions reminiscent of the narrow 1960 presidential election, which was won by John Kennedy only after Illinois and Texas miraculously produced the margin of victory.
Television news, like all of contemporary journalism, is supposed to cover the news fairly and accurately. It is not supposed to be the news or make the news. For decades, television news has been a major player in the fashioning of public policy and in the covering of political campaigns and conventions.
But when it miscalled Florida, it stepped awkwardly into the spotlighted middle of the presidential arena - it became the star, raising serious questions about its continued ability to function objectively and to call future elections with a high degree of public acceptance based on professional credibility. Americans, already skeptical about network coverage of politics, may now wonder whether they can trust the networks to be fair and accurate in their calling of presidential elections.
The official explanation for the network blunders is that there were ''clerical errors,'' affecting the soundness of the data. Later, experts running the large data bank available to all major news organizations offered a second explanation - that returns from one small county contained ''a number of errors.'' These errors led to faulty reporting, questionable commentary, and political skepticism, especially when it became clear that the miscalls were holding up of the naming of the new president until Florida recounts the votes.
Actually, up to this point the networks have been remarkably reliable in their reading and reporting of exit polls and in their calling of elections. Their editorial judgment about polling data, while not flawless, has been impressive. Yet their mistakes on Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning were so obviously damaging to both candidates that partisan activists have begun to level sharp criticism at the networks for intruding too directly into the political process. They are asking whether there may be a better way.
It would not be at all surprising to see some members of Congress launch an investigation into the way networks organize their election night coverage, especially the calling of close races that could affect the ultimate selection of a president. Such an investigation could easily imperil the editorial independence of the networks, not to mention the continuing viability of the First Amendment.
The networks themselves may soon gather for a reexamination of their roles and responsibilities on election night. They might even produce a new set of guidelines for the next election filled with cautionary clauses, because more than anyone else they do not want to invite any governmental control, influence, or management. The news networks face daunting political and technological challenges. In fact, the accurate reading and calling of polling data may be among the least daunting of their immediate problems. Another is that the very act of voting has been changing. Oregon now votes by mail. Other states are beginning to vote by way of the Internet. Still others are more open to the use of absentee ballots.
In this new environment, can the networks any longer rush to judgment? Not if they want to avoid another Florida. But can the networks control their competitive juices? Not likely. The economic imperatives are simply too compelling.
Even without this week's blunders, the networks have been in trouble. ABC, CBS, and NBC operate in ferociously competitive times. The network news departments may now in fact be in the twilight of their professional lives.
Marvin Kalb, a former network correspondent, is executive director of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
