he best way to understand the aftermath of the Nov. 7 election is not to think of George W. Bush and Al Gore as politicians vying for the opportunity to govern the nation.
Instead, imagine them as semipermanent guests on CNN's ''Crossfire'' (''From the right, I'm George W. Bush. From the left, I'm Al Gore'') or MSNBC's ''Equal Time'' or Fox News Channel's ''Hannity & Colmes'' arguing about the merits of the dimpled chad, what constitutes a fair recount, and even whether the election is really over or not.
''Now that the votes are counted, it is time for the votes to count,'' Bush contended on Sunday night.
''Ignoring votes means ignoring democracy itself,'' Gore argued the next night. ''Great efforts have been made to prevent the counting of these votes.''
On Tuesday, the secondary headline in The New York Times said it all: ''No One Is Giving In.'' Why should they? In its own perverse way, the muddled outcome of the 2000 campaign is an apt reflection of the media culture. Every day, cable talk shows fill the airwaves with polarizing pols and pundits who follow the three sacred rules of engagement: see no nuance; acknowledge no merit in the opponent's argument; and agree not to agree on anything. Is it any surprise that the two deadlocked candidates are mimicking that behavior?
On the same night that Gore used the national airwaves to counter Bush's contention that the election was over, US Representative David Bonior of Michigan was squaring off against US Representative David Dreier of California on ''Crossfire.'' Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, was arguing with talk host Armstrong Williams on MSNBC. Virginia Governor James Gilmore was trading barbs with former Clinton aide Lanny Davis on ''Hannity & Colmes'' and New York Governor George Pataki was dueling with California Senator Barbara Boxer, with Larry King as referee. (In case there aren't enough of these shows, CNN recently unveiled ''The Spin Room.'')
In this kind of shouting heads environment, even something as vital as the legitimacy of the presidency isn't enough to cause either side to reconsider.
''What is going on now [in the Bush-Gore standoff] is both an instance of the `argument culture' and the result of the `argument culture,''' says Deborah Tannen, a Georgetown University professor and author of ''The Argument Culture,'' which asserted that polarizing civic dialogue was preventing consensus on basic truths. ''We've conflated public affairs and entertainment so that there's no difference between the O.J. thing, the Monica thing, and this election. It's just one more TV extravaganza.''
In a Pew Research Center survey released in February, a mere 14 percent of the respondents said they regularly learned something about the presidential campaign from these political smackdown shows. The only lesson you can really glean from them, adds Columbia University presidential historian Henry Graff, is that ''there are no shades of gray. Let's you and him fight.''
One wonders whether the presidential hopefuls would have battled this long if it weren't for the ''Crossfire'' culture.
Numbers for the news
While the Florida election follies have proved to be a huge ratings windfall for the all-news cable networks, the picture is a little fuzzier for the local news outlets as the crucial November ''sweeps'' period heads into its last day.
With the presidential recount turning into a long-running saga, MSNBC reported that its daylong viewership for this month was up 253 percent over November of last year. CNN's viewership jumped 198 percent in a year and the Fox News Channel's November numbers were up 353 percent over last year.
In Boston, heightened interest in the election seems to have manifested itself in bigger audiences for the early morning and early evening newscasts. But there's been no growth from last November to this November in the 11 p.m. newscasts, where WHDH-TV (Channel 7) continues to maintain a strong lead over WCVB-TV (Channel 5) and third-place finisher WBZ-TV (Channel 4).
Conversely, the two 10 o'clock newscasts have shown gains with front-running WFXT-TV (Channel 25) up 16 percent over last November and WLVI-TV (Channel 56) up 3 percent.
''I'm very pleased, frankly, with the book,'' said Channel 7 general manager Michael Carson, acknowledging that ''there's nothing dramatic going on here.''
The basic competitive picture for the big three affiliates remains unchanged, but each has a story to tell. Channel 5 is winning in the early morning, at noon, and at 5 and 6 p.m.
''It was a great month for us,'' says general manager Paul LaCamera. Station officials point to the fact that the station's late newscast improved on its lead-in ratings, and that the station has has seen ratings growth over last year in every newscast except 11 p.m. For the first time, they add, ''Chronicle'' won its 7:30 time slot during the November sweeps.
Channel 4, which is second at noon but finishes third in every other news slot, saw ratings growth in the early morning and at 6 p.m. While most ratings comparisons focus on the Monday-Friday newscasts, Channel 4 general manager Ed Goldman said ''I'm pretty juiced about ... the race at 11 p.m. from Monday to Sunday,'' where the station has shown a 7 percent increase over last November.
