By the time this paper is finished, the Americans will have re-elected Bill Clinton, and the Republicans will probably remain in control of one, if not both of the Houses on Capitol Hill. Most people believe that Bill Clinton ran a flashy campaign, a belief accentuated by 73-year-old, Bob Dole's muddled and dry presidential bid. Clinton will be the first Democrat elected to a second term in the White House since the end of the Second World War-at least that is the consensus of those calling Toronto-based open-line radio shows. The majority of Canadians know that Bill Clinton's main rival in Washington DC is Newt Gingrich, yet when asked who the Leader of the Opposition is, most draw a blank—or say Preston Manning.

In an article written for Deadlines and Diversity, Pierre Mignault describes a common trend in today's TV newsrooms: one news organization uses another's footage, and "melts them down" into one story. Canadian newsrooms have a unique problem because the domestic television industry is small, and operates with a limited budget. Therefore Canadian newscasts are "totally dependent on the American coverage for international news because [they] purchases American pictures for [their] newscasts." Even operating under the assumption that the footage used from the American networks is objective, it is still objective from an American stance, thus an isolated American attack on Iraqi radar becomes a strong news story. By carrying such a story, even if presented as a pre-election posturing by Clinton, the presidential campaign gains a higher profile in Canada. This then leads to extensive coverage of the campaign itself, which is of questionable Canadian news value; after all the same attention is rarely given to other countries elections.

While reporting who was elected president is newsworthy, melt-down coverage risks creating the illusion that the American presidential campaign is news in itself. The repercussions of this can be seen in the arena of talk radio. A few days before the actual election, the CBC devoted an hour to the question "Who would you vote for: Clinton or Dole?" Callers from across Southern Ontario called in to the show to call Clinton a "socialist" or Dole a "curmudgeon." The traditionally insightful show may have had a story session that stone-walled and caused "a scramble for the standby: trivia. That's the type of show where rolodexed people...are invited in as plants." Airing a show like this, especially on the CBC, Canada's national broadcaster, raises a number of ethical concerns, some of which were discussed by Conway Jocks in his essay for Deadlines and Diversity.

Jocks writes that listeners who tune into open-line programs are often "wrenched about from day to day." In the CBC example, most listeners except a degree of sober discussion on the current issues. A simple solution to this conundrum, suggested by Jocks, is one of his four recommended revisions to the Broadcast Act: strictly defining a program's format to one genre, be it public service or generic trivia. By changing the regulations, the particular CBC program could be changed into one hour of insightful discussion of a current affairs program, the other hour more trivia based. Jocks touches on this alternative when discussing the restrictions regarding objectivity and balance by suggesting shows with opposite viewpoints could follow one another in the line-up. Unfortunately, his recommendations on balance do not encompass the second problem with the presidential election example. By carrying such a "light" show such as the one discussed on CBC, the media begins to feed of itself as opposed to generate or discuss new ideas.

While Ontarians were phoning in to say which American presidential candidate they like the best, the Quebec Lieutenant-Governor had admitted to participating in an anti-Semitic riot during the Second World War. If the election topic was merely filler, why was the more newsworthy Lieutenant-Governor story not chosen? Possibly, the producers were afraid that no one would know enough of the story to discuss it, and the presidential election was more topical. If this was indeed the reasoning, it is weak indeed: plants, which are commonly used, according to Jocks, could have been used to "ignite" the conversation; and the election is not more topical, rather it is American, and therefore more known because of the reasons discussed earlier.

Though the latter point is not one that can necessarily be added to the Broadcast Act, it can be overcome in one of two ways: implementing a CanCon-type regulation within the CRTC mandating that Canadian stories should be discussed if at all possible, or producers should take the initiative to air Canadian stories whenever feasible. These solutions are not ideal because regulating current affairs is a dangerous step towards restricting the freedom of expression; and relying on producers to use a genuine news story as opposed to an artificial Canadian one is risky ("A Canadian may have been eaten by a flesh-eating fish when a train carrying 200 people plummeted into the Congo River. What would you do in a similar situation?"). By tightening up the ethical and moral obligations of these open-line shows, a stronger journalistic ethic can begin to replace the current "chat" format a lot of these shows currently are.