What happens when they won't cover President Kerry?

[dsc]

Last night the 4 major networks got away with ignoring Bush's speech in the eastern and central time zones in favor of things like Fear Factor. This is a major problem. By any reasonable standard a speech by the Commander in Chief about a war is news. Bush should have been covered and Kerry should have been given a response. By letting, and encouraging this act of wantan greed and coporate irresponsibility we will make it much harder to argue that Kerry speeches should be covered when he is President. And Kerry will need those speeches more than Bush needs his given the extreme likelyhood of a Republican or at least conservative Congress. Kerry will need that bully pulpit which got diminished last night. This will bite us on the ass and we have no one to blame but ourselves for thinking it was great when Bush was in office.

It gets worse though. The speech was so bad, it actually would have helped us to have it covered. So not only did we set this lousy precedent, it actually hurt us now too. Standing up for corporate irresponsibility is wrong, no matter who we think it is benefitting in the present.

[Vickers]

1. "a speech by the Commander in Chief about a war is news"

Huh? I thought the war was over?

Didn't they say that

A FUCKING YEAR AGO?

Oh, and they are already getting their practice in ignoring Kerry, so looks like it's all fair and square.

[ibegurpard]

2. You can bet that it would have been covered

If the White House had actually wanted it covered. They knew they had nothing to say and they also had the added bonus of trotting the chimp out there after his embarrassing little bike accident with scabs all over his face. They deliberately played this one down, IMHO.

[trumad]

3. Here we go again

This was a speech to a war college! Do we show every speech numnuts makes? Give it a rest.

[dsc]

7. When Kerry can't get a tax plan speech covered

don't bitch to me. Sorry either we have prinicples or we don't it is that simple.

[trumad]

19. Oh for christs sakes...

You're implying that folks who think Dubya should not be doing campaign speeches on the networks primetime, are without political principals. Bullshit! The networks judged rightly so that the speech was a non-event... And it fucking was.

[dsc]

20. and when they make that judgment about a Kerry speech?

what will you say? IF it is anything but they have the right to do so you have no principles.

[trumad]

21. I'll say the same damn thing!

in a heart beat... Do you really think that they ran every speech B. Clinton made? This is apples and oranges dude... If Kerry were to announce a speech but did not ask the networks to carry it I'd be OK with it...... It wouldn't bother me a bit.

[dsc]

22. They did carry virtually all of Reagan's and the first Bush's

No they didn't carry all of Clinton's but they should have and they should have here too. Close to or over 800 people died fighting in the war that speech was supposed to give us the rationale and exit strategy for. The fact he didn't have those was news and should have been shoved down the populace's throats. Instead it was, like the casualities themselves, relegated to political junky ville.

[Monte Carlo]

4. Well, maybe that's a tad pessimistic...

... I mean, when have one of Bush's speeches contained anything worth covering? I don't mean this just as a partisan, but Bush's speeches don't have details. They just don't. It's all preachings about freedom and terror. There are no surprises.

Kerry, hopefully, is going to have something substantive to say. The networks cover the speeches for the ratings, and maybe when we have a President that'll draw an interested audience, things will change.

[dsc]

6. and who gets to make that decision

I can hear the press now about Kerry's first economic address in say Feb of 2005. He campaigned on it in the fall, there is nothing new in this speech, it is sweeps, there is cable if people really want to hear him and just what do we say to this? New and interesting are in the eyes of the beholder.

[Monte Carlo]

8. They'll do it if everyone else is.

The pressure to compete with the other networks for the ratings for Presidential speeches, which are substantial, tends to keep things the way they are. It's like a Prisoner's Dilemma; each network may want to put on their own shows instead, but doing so would leave another network with all the ratings for the addresses.

[dsc]

9. that didn't work this time

and I doubt it will in the future. Sadly news doesn't command the ratings it once did. I honestly wonder if one network showing Kerry would beat the others showing just regular shows. I would like to think so but I doubt it.

[Monte Carlo]

12. Well, Bush's speeches are so incredibly boring...

... not that Kerry is some dynamo, but all the old and politically-active people in this country still pay attention to the addresses. Maybe this is just wishful thinking, but I think someone like Kerry - someone who actually knows what he is talking about - could bring the audiences back.

[elperromagico]

5. Kerry wouldn't give such a crappy "speech." n/t

[trof]

10. Here's how it works:

If the president wants to make a major speech to the public, his comm people contact all the major networks and REQUEST something like a 30 minute time slot at 7 Eastern on Wednesday. I don't think they've ever been turned down.

This time they did not request it. That fact can be interpreted in a number of ways, as seen here.

[aldian159]

17. yeah, they gotta ask for it 90 minutes in advance

n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

11. First of all, we have to make sure that the Dems take

at least one house of Congress back.

When you are recruiting Kerry voters in the fall, BE SURE to impress upon them the importance of electing Democrats for other officees. Otherwise, they'll be likely to think, "Oh, Congressman Richard Repub is an okay guy. No reason to throw him out."

The media will not mention this, so the campaign workers on the ground have to do it.

(I'm in a safe Democratic Congressional district, so this won't be relevant for me, but if I were in rural Minnesota, I'd be hammering that point.)

[dsc]

13. I am doing my part on that

We have a well funded challenger to LaTourette and even Fingerhut seems to be gaining on Voinovich. But even a Democratic Congress isn't necessarily going to be liberal. Look at what happened to Clinton's health care bill in a Democratic Congress.

[BabsSong]

14. Actually the press has never covered all "major" speeches

It depends. For example, a speech to tell the people that we are going to war, etc. is covered. A SOTU speech is covered. Perhaps they would have covered this speech right after the Iraqi invasion finished as our "plans" in the region. But I've seen speeches like this ignored before because they are basically deemed in advance as nothing but political campaigning with no real importance to the issue and, thus, they get stuck into having to either provide time for the opponent or get highly criticized. After an election, they will cover Kerry's innaugeration speech. They will simply cover highlights of addresses on things like "a universal health care proposal" that he might deliver to audience X or Y. Yes, this country would be a lot better off if they covered more. But they don't.

[NewJeffCT]

15. Kerry will get plenty of coverage

Limbaugh & the others in the RW Echo Chamber will start pounding away with baseless charges that will be investigated ad naseum, forcing more 'mainstream' network coverage and forcing Kerry to hold press conferences to defend himself.

[jpgray]

16. The president can ask the networks to cover it--this time he didn't

No big deal--Bush didn't want the coverage, he didn't get it.

[dsc]

18. wouldn't that be all the more reason to cover it?

IF I were President of a network and the President of the US were giving a speech billed to be a major explanation of the goals of his largest initiative and he said "Don't bother covering this" I would be sure to cover it.