The FCC needs to step in...

[Guest MikeSC]

The major TV networks are planning to cut coverage at the political conventions, ignoring major speeches early in the week.

 

The Republican and Democratic parties hope to nudge the networks into more live coverage, but broadcasters have concluded that there will be little news to report.

 

“We know we’re going to cover the nomination and the [nominee’s] speech,” said one network’s spokeswoman, but “we’re not sure about the first two days.”

 

Previously, networks covered each day of the convention.

 

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and President Bush have already locked up their nominations, so the networks don’t feel obliged to cover the four-day windup to their acceptance speeches.

 

“They are very tightly choreographed events,” said the spokeswoman. “There is virtually no news that is made at the conventions any more.”

 

Sources say each networks will likely reduce coverage from four years ago, even though coverage in 2000 already was scaled back from historic levels. Networks could provide as little as an hour of live coverage on the penultimate nights (Wednesdays), with perhaps two hours for the Thursday finale.

 

This is a significant challenge for candidates. Kerry must use the convention to define himself before a national audience, presenting his carefully packaged image as a veteran and a leader, and overcome characterizations in Bush’s TV ads that he is a flip-flopper, observers say.

 

Bush, whose approval ratings dropped to 48 percent in the latest Gallup poll, needs his convention to reestablish his credentials on terrorism, security, and the economy, and counteract any post-convention “bounce” by Kerry. Harry Truman is the only president to win reelection despite a June approval rating below 50 percent.

Democrats and Republicans will continue talks with the networks this week and plead for more coverage

 

“We are gathering information, talking to the networks,” said Peggy Wilhide, communications director for the Democratic convention in Boston. “The final decisions rest with them as to how much they will cover. We’re trying to make it as attractive as possible…”

 

But Democrats are already turning elsewhere: “We have done a lot of outreach to non-traditional [media] outside of the traditional big five,” said Wilhide.

 

Black Entertainment Television will be broadcasting nightly from Boston’s Fleet Center. The Spanish language Univision will have a correspondent there. MTV, Comedy Central and ESPN will also be producing convention shows.

 

The cable political network C-SPAN plans gavel-to-gavel coverage from the convention floor, as it has in the past. The Fox News Channel, CNN and MSNBC, and Internet coverage can fill some of the void left by the withdrawing networks. The proliferation of media has given the networks an excuse to scale back coverage, observers add.

 

Don Ritchie, associate Senate historian, said: “The major networks … make more money when they have comedies and ‘Law and Order’ on than when they have politics on. That’s the sad part of it.”

 

If the networks skip the first half of the convention, they would miss events likely to create buzz in Washington. Democrats are counting on a prime-time speech by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) to excite the party’s base. Former President Bill Clinton, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), former Vice President Al Gore and presidential

candidate the Rev. Al Sharpton will all speak.

 

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani ®, first lady Laura Bush, and California Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger are scheduled to speak during the first two days of the GOP convention in New York.

 

The networks usually provide equal amounts of coverage to the Republican and Democratic conventions. NBC, CBS and ABC each gave 15 hours to the 1992 conventions, 12 hours in 1996, and eight and a half hours in 2000, according to the Vanishing Voter project at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

 

Nielsen Media Research estimated that 20 million people, or 15 million households, watched network, CNN, MSNBC and FOX coverage of the 2000 Democratic convention. About 19 million people, or 14 million households, watched the 2000 Republican convention.

 

On the final night of the 1996 Democratic convention, about 27 million people watched combined coverage by the networks, PBS, CNN and the Family Channel. The number was 25 million for the Republicans.

 

In 1960, each network devoted four to nine hours of continuous nightly coverage. At the 1972 Democratic convention, ABC coverage began in prime time and ran until 4:45 a.m. on Monday, midnight on Tuesday, 12:30 a.m. on Wednesday and 3:40 a.m. on Thursday, Nielsen says.

 

But in 1996, ABC’s Ted Koppel walked out of the Republican convention, comparing it to an “infomercial.”

 

After 1960, both parties started awarding a greater share of convention delegates through the primary voting process, and conventions ceased to be the forum where presidential tickets were brokered.

 

“They are much less important than everyone thinks … unless you own a hotel,” said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).

http://www.thehill.com/news/063004/tv.aspx

Yes, I know the conventions are usually boring --- but they're no worse than the friggin' View or most of the reality show BS.

 

Last time I checked, the licenses that the FCC gives out FOR broadcasters requires them to carry news for the common good.

 

At a certain point, they DO have to put the public good over the ratings of their damned re-runs.

-=Mike

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

Ignoring the conventions IS for the common good. Come on, you've seen them.

 

besides, any poor bastard who wants 24 hour coverage will have of his pick of no less than 10 cable channels.

[Guest MikeSC]

Ignoring the conventions IS for the common good. Come on, you've seen them.

 

besides, any poor bastard who wants 24 hour coverage will have of his pick of no less than 10 cable channels.

In this case --- cable shouldn't HAVE to do the job that the networks SHOULD be doing themselves.

-=Mike

[sfaJack 0]

I don't see the big deal with this. The networks do have a point--the candidates have already been picked, so what exactly is there to report, other than possibly the VP candidates?

 

And most people don't give a shit anyway; just look at the pathetic numbers of voter turnout on Election Day.

[CanadianChris 0]

Exactly how are a bunch of same-old, same-old speeches news?

[Styles 0]

This is not a good precedent. The FCC indeed was setup to protect the public good, and whether you think they're boring or irrelevant, they're an important part of our history and civic duty, and they should be covered.

Yes, there are cable channels covering them, but not everyone has cable, and those who only have over the air, especially those with lower incomes that can't afford cable, should not be exluded from an important part of our electoral process.

[Bored 0]

FCC is too busy trying to raise fines to ridiculous amounts for "indecency" to care about the conventions.

[CanadianChris 0]

This is not a good precedent. The FCC indeed was setup to protect the public good, and whether you think they're boring or irrelevant, they're an important part of our history and civic duty, and they should be covered.

But they ARE being covered. The nominations and the nominees' speeches, which are the important parts, are being shown live in their entirety. Just because networks don't feel the need to show a tired old speech from Joe Republican praising Bush to the skies doesn't mean they aren't being covered.

 

Generally, when looking for newsworthy events, I tend to look for ones that can't be described as "irrelevant."

[bobobrazil1984 0]

The FCC cares more about trying to level half million dollar fines for people who make fart sounds.

 

But anyways, there is usually too much coverage of these events, which are usualy just party faithful saying... well the same things. Even moreso with there being zero drama.

That article said they devoted about 8 hours to each party's convention in 2000?? 4-6 sounds about right to me.

All the networks' JOB here, imo, is to show the nominations, and the nominee's speeches, and maybe a little bit extra just for the hell of it.

 

But on the flip-side, all these nets are showing is reruns anyways... so... either way.

[Guest Hero to all Children]

This reminds me of Phoenix.

It's a German public broadcasting channel (which are financed by a mandatory tax for each piece of receptor media {TV, radio, etc} you posess, they're not rate bound and thereby pretty awesome) dedicated soley to politics and documentaries.

 

They usually have a live coverage of the daily sessions of parlament, documentaries and some historically significant sessions in full length and uncut.

 

Why doesn't the government simply create a channel dedicated to political coverage? No commentary, just run the damned conventions through.

 

Also: If you were a channel would you want to cover two large conventions that go on for hours and that only a really small minority cares for? Give them such a channel, make it mandatory for each state to carry this channel in the local network and tada.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Needless complaining. The networks skimp on the first two days' coverage every time, with a 10-11pm block or something like that. The only nights they've ever completely covered in my lifetime were the final two with the Vice Presidential and Presidental nominations and speeches. As someone pointed out, anyone with even the basest of basic cable will have 2-plus channels (CNN and C-SPAN) to watch for coverage.

 

And Mike, if you're going to complain about what would go on in place of the conventions, at least pick something that comes on in prime time. The View comes on at like, 11 in the morning.

[Vyce 0]

I don't know if I really have a problem with the networks not airing this stuff. Although I think the Arnold speech should be televised.

 

Just because networks don't feel the need to show a tired old speech from Joe Republican praising Bush to the skies doesn't mean they aren't being covered.

 

But this is what I WOULD have a problem with.

 

If what the networks do show favors one party more so than the other (for example, showing 2 hours of Democratic convention coverage, and only one hour of Republican - or showing most of the speeches of Democrats, but cutting the speeches of the more prominent Repubs like Rudy or Arnold), then I'll have a BIG problem with this.

 

And then the FCC should step in.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

The conventions are so stupid. They're like some kind of authoritarian rally minus the book burnings. And really, who wants to watch both parties try to one up the other to see which minority fringe group they can promise the most social benefits to.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

The conventions are really just a big pep rally now. The networks are really only interested in ratings and advert money. So they give a shit about as much as I do. Which is very little. Maybe if they hired the Nitro Girls between speeches and had a monster truck run over the opposing parties symbols. Like say, the republicans could hire Grave Digger to crush a paper mache donkey or something. Cut to commercial: "Brought to you by CASTROL GTX!!"

 

 

 

"I got lots of great ideas. Problem is most of them suck" George Carlin

[NoCalMike 0]

so it's not bad enough that major media networks want to take away the voice of any independent aka 3rd party voice, but now they even want to scale back on the 2 Giants voices.......lovely.

 

It is once every four years, I think people can afford to miss an episode of some shitty drama show. Not to be an asshole, but if people are so interested in Law & Order, then go watch a public trial, or turn on court TV. Stop watching a drama show and pretend to care about "court cases"

 

I know the DNC and the RNC are mostly just fluff these days, and rather then gathering to decide on direction, they are mostly comparable to a high school rally trying to pep up the football team, but still the Presidential election and the events leading up to it, are way more important then "prime time television"

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I'm going to echo what has already been said here, so I'll be brief.

 

Don't care.

 

Conventions are fluff.

 

Big Media better not give Dems more time.

 

That should cover it...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Hilariously, Mike, I argued with you over this exact same precedent a few months ago and you took the exact opposite side.

[NoCalMike 0]

Hilariously, Mike, I argued with you over this exact same precedent a few months ago and you took the exact opposite side.

I don't even remember that conversation, but could you refresh my memory with a link..... (I think I am about to be OWNED~!)

[NoCalMike 0]

Big Media better not give Dems more time.

Yeah, because we all know how "pro-Kerry" the media has been thus far.....

[MrRant 0]

Good. I'd rather not have my programming interrupted. Most people would just tune to FOXNEWS, CNN, MSNBC or CSPAN anyways and I think the networks realize that.

[2GOLD 0]

Simple:

 

Film the conventions like a reality show. Vote off members of the crowd and bring Democrats into the Republican convention and vice versa. Americans are stupid enough to give it a 15 share.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Hilariously, Mike, I argued with you over this exact same precedent a few months ago and you took the exact opposite side.

I don't even remember that conversation, but could you refresh my memory with a link..... (I think I am about to be OWNED~!)

I don't feel like looking for it, but if you insist.

 

Give me 5 minutes or so.

[NoCalMike 0]

Hilariously, Mike, I argued with you over this exact same precedent a few months ago and you took the exact opposite side.

I don't even remember that conversation, but could you refresh my memory with a link..... (I think I am about to be OWNED~!)

I don't feel like looking for it, but if you insist.

 

Give me 5 minutes or so.

if you want, you can just PM it to me.......

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Fuck it, I'm tired of looking for the thread. It was about CFR free advertising provisions as they pertain to the FCC's mission to protect the common good. Mike was firmly on the side of the television stations and their right to profit.

[NoCalMike 0]

Fuck it, I'm tired of looking for the thread. It was about CFR free advertising provisions as they pertain to the FCC's mission to protect the common good. Mike was firmly on the side of the television stations and their right to profit.

Ok well then that seemingly was in a different context, as the networks do have a right to show what they want. I wasn't trying to make the point that the FCC SHOULD STEP IN or anything like that, I just said, they should feel some obligation to this, but as far as "the right" of course they have the right to show whatever the hell they want. Two different issues.

[Guest MikeSC]

Fuck it, I'm tired of looking for the thread. It was about CFR free advertising provisions as they pertain to the FCC's mission to protect the common good. Mike was firmly on the side of the television stations and their right to profit.

No, I was not. I opposed CFR because it was a blatant violation of First Amendment Rights.

 

Before bitching, make sure you know what you're talking about.

 

Closest I've come is when there was discussion of not covering the DNC due to Kerry's people floating the idea of not accepting the nomination until later.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I remember this thread. Mike was firmly against TV stations having to run political crap over their normal programming because it unfairly took away ad dollars and the network should decide what to run because they pay the bills and bitch bitch bitch.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

With the vast number of cable networks covering the conventions (what business does ESPN have doing anything related to the convention?) there are plenty of other outlets besides CBS/NBC/ABC/FOX for people to watch the Convention. I dont see why the FCC would need to step in and do anything. It would be a different story if there were no alternatives to the networks and they decided to not have any coverage.

[NoCalMike 0]

Fuck it, I'm tired of looking for the thread. It was about CFR free advertising provisions as they pertain to the FCC's mission to protect the common good. Mike was firmly on the side of the television stations and their right to profit.

No, I was not. I opposed CFR because it was a blatant violation of First Amendment Rights.

 

Before bitching, make sure you know what you're talking about.

 

Closest I've come is when there was discussion of not covering the DNC due to Kerry's people floating the idea of not accepting the nomination until later.

-=Mike

Dammit, now I feel really stupid, Tyler was talking about MikeSC!?! Dammit I was having a conversation with MYSELF about something I didn't even remember saying, and now it turns out I didn't even say it.....Someone give me a sleeping pill.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

In May, during sweeps, Bush made an important speech about Iraq, the state of the war, Abu Grahib and a bunch of other stuff to bring the masses up to speed. The major stations made no effort to interrupt their east coast programming (the finale of the Swan and the season finale of some retarded show like Yes, Dear) in favor of this speech.

 

This speech SHOULD have been aired on every major network. Is this what everyone is trying to remember sparked the earlier (but similiar) debate?