The first experiments in televising the nominating conventions began in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1948; by 1952 both the Democratic and Republican conventions were broadcast nationwide on television. The impact of the medium, eventually networked into a truly national phenomenon, was immediate. After watching the first televised Republican convention in 1952, Democratic party officials made last-minute changes to their own convention in attempts to maintain the attention of viewers at home.

By 1956 both parties further amended their convention programs to fit better the demands of television coverage. Party officials condensed the length of the convention, created uniform campaign themes for each party, adorned convention halls with banners and patriotic decorations, placed television crews in positions with flattering views of the proceedings, dropped day-time sessions, limited welcoming speeches and parliamentary organization procedures, scheduled sessions to reach a maximum audience in prime time, and eliminated seconding speeches for vice presidential candidates. Additionally, the presence of television cameras encouraged parties to conceal intraparty battling and choose host cities amenable to their party.

Until the early 1950s conventions actually selected as well as nominated the party’s candidates. Today the presidential nominees of the major parties are generally determined before the convention takes place. The prevalence of state political primaries, the increased power of television as a source of political news, the trend of early presidential campaigning, and the prominence of political polling almost ensure that each party’s candidates are selected prior to the nominating convention. Indeed, since 1952 only two presidential nominees have not competed in the primary season (Aldai Stevenson in 1952 and Hubert Humphrey in 1968). And, in all but the Democratic convention of 1952, the Democratic and Republican nominees were chosen on the first ballot. Therefore, the conventions broadcast on television are no longer geared toward selecting nominees but staged to celebrate candidates and attract television coverage.

Television coverage of the convention has assigned new roles to political parties, candidates, and television news divisions in the presidential selection process. Today political parties must share the convention stage with aspiring candidates and prominent journalists. Nominating conventions are no longer controlled by party bosses making decisions in smoke-filled rooms. Contemporary conventions are planned by professional convention managers and consultants who see the nominating convention as an unequaled opportunity for the party to obtain free, rehearsed exposure on television newscasts. Thus, parties use nominating conventions to project a desirable party image and inspire party loyalty.

For presidential candidates, the televised convention has brought freedom from the party establishment. Today it is not uncommon for presidential candidates to rise to prominence without party help. State political primaries and television news and advertising allow a greater number of candidates to seriously contest for their party’s nomination. Jimmy Carter’s nomination in 1976 provides an example of an outsider with little national political experience benefiting from television and the primary season. The candidacies of Democrat Jesse Jackson and Republican Pat Robertson also profited from political primaries and the televised convention. Television coverage does, of course, ensure that today’s conventions are well attended by prominent politicians. Many high-profile political leaders use the televised convention to launch their own future presidential bids, promote their current legislative efforts, or support other causes, groups, or programs.

To the television news divisions, the national conventions are the biggest extended political media events of the election year. The networks (ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC), as well as the cable channels CNN and C-SPAN, allocate prime-time coverage and assign their top personnel to the conventions. Foote and Rimmer refer to convention coverage as the “‘Olympics of television journalism’ where the networks have a rare opportunity to go head-to-head on the same story.”

Waltzer contends presidential election years are unmatched showcases for the rival networks to exhibit their competing talents. Internetwork rivalry manifests itself in several ways: (1) the networks engage in extensive advertising to capture the eye of the viewer; (2) the conventions are used to introduce new items of television equipment; (3) the networks compete in marshaling political consultants and analysts to augment their coverage staffs; (4) the networks compete for superiority in content, completeness, and depth of coverage—it is a race for “exclusives,” “scoops,” and “firsts,” and for the unusual “features” of a convention; (5) the networks compete to make news with their coverage as well as to report the news of the conventions; (6) the networks seek to overcome the enormity and confusion of the convention and their coverage by personalizing coverage with anchor correspondents; and (7) the networks compete for audiences and audience ratings.

These factors indicate why television has made a commitment to broadcasting the convention over the years, and why the networks strive continually to create the “right” formats to attract audiences. From 1956 through 1976, for example, the networks covered conventions in their entirety. Although ABC cut back its broadcast in 1968, the other networks continued gavel-to-gavel coverage through 1976. Since 1980 all news outlets have cut back on their coverage. Future airtime is expected to depend on the “newsworthiness” of the convention, largely determined by the perceived competitiveness between the two party tickets as well as potential conflict or infighting within one party’s nominating process.

Parties much prefer to control the visual images broadcast to voters themselves, as the Republicans did in 1984. In that year, the Republicans aired Ronald Reagan’s campaign film, A New Beginning, a film that celebrated the Reagan presidency, transformed the art of political filmmaking, and, according to Joanne Morreale, established the televisual campaign film as a centerpiece of the presidential campaign.

At times, however, no one is able to control the conventions; political officials and network executives and technicians alike are caught up in events beyond their control. This was certainly the case in the 1968 Democratic convention, perhaps the most famous of all televised events of this sort. On that occasion, antiwar protesters demonstrated outside the Chicago Convention Center, drawing down the wrath of the Chicago police. Inside, the conflict was reflected in charges and countercharges, name-calling, and recrimination. Much of this activity was caught on camera, but the sense was that even the TV cameras were reacting rather than controlling. Few conventions since that time have been so dramatically bound to television, and most are tightly controlled events exhibiting small moments of spontaneity.

Viewership for nominating conventions has decreased over the years. According to the Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy, television networks aired 60 hours of each party convention in 1952, and 80 percent of the households in the United States watched about 10 to 13 hours of this coverage. Forty-four years later, network coverage of the 1996 conventions averaged eight hours, and just 10 percent of households reported tuning into the coverage. In 2000 roughly 20 percent of Americans tuned in to two hours or more of the conventions, according to the Annenberg Public Policy Center, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania.

At the close of the 20th century, strategies for increasing the audience for conventions took at least three forms. Parties attempted to plan the conventions with “star power,” scheduling political personalities at key moments to attract viewers. In 2000 cable channels (such as CNN, Fox News, CNBC) offered extensive in-depth coverage to attract viewers desiring extended or non-prime-time reporting, while Internet sites experimented with interactive activities to accompany or replace television viewing of the conventions, including alternative camera angles, gavel-to-gavel streaming video, web-exclusive commentary, 24-hour chat rooms and related message boards, up-to-the-minute polls and interactive quizzes, and opportunities to chat with delegates. While the hype surrounding such efforts was notable, actual traffic on these Internet sites was modest.

Advocates of the current system contend televised conventions inspire party loyalty and enthusiasm and allow the selection of a candidate who represents the political middle rather than the extremes. Critics allege today’s nominating conventions are undemocratic spectacles and propose replacing them with a national presidential primary system. Despite these critiques and aforementioned efforts to increase viewership, substantial convention reform is unlikely. Today’s streamlined conventions continue to attract an audience for television networks and cable channels, political parties, and presidential candidates alike. Although television coverage has brought cosmetic changes to the convention, it has not interfered with its basic functions. As in earlier days, contemporary conventions honor presidential nominees, create party enthusiasm, and present party platforms.