General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNetworks won't air Obama speech (on immigration)
Gasp! They'll lose money, and those millions who might be affected? Pshaw! 
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/224777-networks-wont-air-obama-speech
Networks won't air Obama speech
By Ben Kamisar, Jesse Byrnes and Justin Sink - 11/19/14 06:19 PM EST
Three major networks will not air President Obama's prime-time address Thursday outlining his executive actions on immigration.
Officials with ABC, CBS and Fox confirmed to The Hill that Obama's 8 p.m. speech from the White House will not be carried on their networks. CNN reported that NBC would not be carrying the address either.
Cable news networks are expected to carry the address, as is the Spanish-language networks Univision and Telemundo.
more...
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/224777-networks-wont-air-obama-speech
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)is put into a corner by limiting access to pay TV to me.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)
Cha
(297,196 posts)The US "media" is making themselves more and more irrelevant
Spazito
(50,331 posts)tantrum because, gasp, the President found an alternate way to reach the public.
Pathetic, they really are "making themselves more and more irrelevant."
Cha
(297,196 posts)later?
But, I thought of yours, too, Spazito.
Spazito
(50,331 posts)they often cut to live speeches, etc, of the President.
I know MSNBC will be covering it as well which is good.
Cha
(297,196 posts)where I went when I lived in New York during the bush coup years.
Spazito
(50,331 posts)ABC, NBC and CBS that aren't, mindless shows are an imperative, advertising dollars ya know.
Cha
(297,196 posts)
still_one
(92,189 posts)Cha
(297,196 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)He will be on 20 different stations. What difference does a few more make? Even if you dont have cable PBS will carry the speech, and I can still record the big bang theory.
Horse with no Name
(33,956 posts)
babylonsister
(171,065 posts)talk to everyone without all the filters (fox et al) ? And immigration is a big deal to a lot of people?
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Everybody wil have an opportunity to watch him if they want, but Im sure ratings for football and big bang theory will show some people dont want to watch, and thats ok too.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)California, immigration a fairly big issue. Speech is on at 5 in the afternoon. For a live speech to get closest to 'talking to everyone' it needs to be 9 EST, which makes 6 PST. That gives you the optimum number of Americans both awake and free to watch.
Very few of the people to whom this is most important could leave work early to see the speech at 5, but they will not miss this speech. Millions will listen on radio, as I have for most 'Primetime Speeches' by everyone because it's 5 o'clock where I live, not primetime. Hell, I heard Obama's 08 nomination acceptance speech on the radio on the Oregon Coast with a view not to be believed, sitting in my car without a TV for miles......better than being in Denver.
alittlelark
(18,890 posts)Find me another PRESIDENT of the USA that was denied airtime for a Major issue going on at the time.... 
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)alittlelark
(18,890 posts)....and all were lies? At that point the debacle was viewed by most sane ppl as, ... well... a DEBACLE. No news organization with integrity would allow that sh*t propaganda.
YOU know this is not even close in comparison. 
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Im just happy I can still tivo the big bang theory and watch football.
alittlelark
(18,890 posts)
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)
TBF
(32,058 posts)
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)and the White House did not coordinate well in advance about the requested airtime. The decision not to air his speech was purely economic and expected. Hollywood is hardly a bastion of conservatism, but the president is still not entitled to a primetime slot, particularly since the speech is essentially political, not a time sensitive or emergency address.
The whole issue is also very overblown. He'll be on multitude of networks, including PBS for those without cable. Anyone who wants to watch his speech, will unquestionably be able to easily do so.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Expecting them air a speech is a bit tone deaf.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)... When golf courses with reservations made months in advance wouldn't scratch their customer base to accommodate a last minute request from the president.
Baclava
(12,047 posts)what gives?
sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)and debate that we're supposed to have. These are federal air waves aren't they? When the POTUS speaks on an important issue the networks shouldn't have a choice whether or not to cover him. I mean isn't that the bully pulpit?
branford
(4,462 posts)People haven't stopped discussing it, for years!
Simply, the president is not entitled to primetime television slots. Covering the president has always been a matter of custom, courtesy and voluntary civic duty for matters like the once a year State of the Union or time-sensitive national emergencies, some presidential press conferences, and related matters.
The argument that the major networks should actually be required to air the speech is absurd. Apart from the vast 1st Amendment problems. the "federal airwaves" argument would only cover terrestrial broadcasts, not carriers like cable. In any event, the president with be on many channels, including PBS for those without cable, satellite, etc., and anyone who is interested can watch the speech. This is the reason why the major networks have been covering fewer and fewer presidential addresses over the years. Moreover, despite the importance of the immigration issue, it still is essentially political in nature, and neither time-sensitive nor an emergency address.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The fact is that the whole country is rarely awake and free at the same time to watch a live event. So the idea that a network live cast means 'the nation is watching' is a false one. It means the East Coast gets the speech in Prime Time, the West Coast in drive time.
Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)I like to watch these addresses with NO filter or commentary....
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)I could not imagine cspan ever skipping a presidential speech.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Pretty much anyone who wants to watch it, can watch it. But for those who are not interested, why not just let them watch their regular shows?
babylonsister
(171,065 posts)Some issues I'd like to force down the throats of the ignorant or apathetic. This is one way to do it.
But tune out and turn on!
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Let's force every website to broadcast the speech live on streaming video. Let's also preempt Netflix, Hulu and Youtube. The glorious leader must be heard by all.
babylonsister
(171,065 posts)No, but news channels who want to be taken seriously should act serious.
All those places you mentioned are options for those who really want to get away from it all.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,835 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Speak when it is news time for the networks. 6:30 would be perfect.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,835 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)It's not!
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,835 posts)How sad a society we've become.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)What's the saying early bird gets the worm. Lol. I think the President just likes to hear himself speak. He does it well. I just wish he would consentrate on results.
Cha
(297,196 posts)the President has to say on Immigration.
They're quite touchy.
Not everyone has freakin' cable.. directed at those who can't do without their big bang theory.
branford
(4,462 posts)More importantly, regardless of its wisdom, the public is free to prefer the Big Bang Theory or anything else over a presidential address.
Accusing people of believing that the county shouldn't be able to hear what the president has to say about immigration is entirely disingenuous and insulting. Anyone with a television, even without cable, no less a computer, will be able to watch the speech if they so choose.
Believing that the four legacy broadcast networks should be free to choose whether to cover the speech, and the abject lack of surprise that they will not on primetime Thursday night during November sweeps, has absolutely no bearing on whether the speech is important or if people should watch.
Cha
(297,196 posts)speech on immigration 8 years ago. But, evidently times have changed.
Fuck the Broadcast stations.. Besides PBS.. Univision and Telemundo have this.. anyone who doesn't want to hear Obama's speech will be in the dark like they always are.
No worries the big bang goes on and on and on..
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,835 posts)Once upon a time the so-called Big 3 broadcast networks wouldn't have hesitated to carry a presidential speech so they could cite it as helping meet that obligation. But apparently there's a generation out there now, with a presence on the board, that thinks broadcasters' biggest obligation is to deliver their prime time soaps and reality program to them on time and without interruption.
Cha
(297,196 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Mostly because the thought of folks being able to choose to watch something than Obama's speech does not make me slightly unhinged.
brooklynite
(94,535 posts)Or do we just force messages you like?
hugo_from_TN
(1,069 posts)The people that don't want to watch are changing the channel anyway.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 20, 2014, 12:18 AM - Edit history (1)
But it continues to disgust me.The problem of being on Facebook, just as in every attempt Obama has tried to use social media, is being trolled to the point of no one being able to ask a decent question or make a comment without the deluge of RWbots and Paulibans flooding the page so truth will not be allowed momentum.
And internet resources are being tiered right now, so not all can afford to see this anyway. Plus sites can be overloaded by bots and shut down. They are more vulnerable than network news and radio.
There are more people than many who spend more time online imagine that depend on network news and radio to shape their opinion. It's an effective strategy, in fact it's sparked actions in real life. It's a important omission, but no one one has ever been blacklisted, edited out, talked over and analyzed without end by RW goons on media the way that Obama has. They have poisoned the right and the left.
I hope there will be some attention paid by those affected by this in other venues. In my experience, many immigrants are not at all engaged in politics but just making a living. And they get all of their news from TV.
progressoid
(49,988 posts)And on all the Sunday morning shows.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)They would never chose that time to cover their complaints. Sunday morning is appropriate for DNC and RNC to discuss it. Times when Big Bang Theory, football, Greys Anatomy, Scandal is a horrid time.
Cha
(297,196 posts)oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)So the networks cannot be bothered. Hope the president lets them sit in their comfy seats for a few months before he grants any interviews!
glinda
(14,807 posts)I am getting really pissed off.
Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts)Move the network's news correspondents to the back row of the briefing room and move the Latin American media outlets to the front.
moondust
(19,979 posts)Rachel did a segment tonight on earlier Presidential addresses not covered by the networks. It's actually quite a few, though some were felt to be little more than political speeches.
Here it is if anyone is interested: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/tv-networks-turn-backs-on-obama-announcement-361090627518
Cha
(297,196 posts)
yuiyoshida
(41,831 posts)website that will be covering the speech? I don't have a TV, and would have to watch on line.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)President Obama Delivers an Address to the Nation
President Obama lays out the new steps he's taking to fix our broken immigration system. Watch the address live on November 20th at 8pmET and learn more at WhiteHouse.gov/Immigration-Action.
Facebook Twitter
http://www.whitehouse.gov/live/president-obama-delivers-address-nation
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)President Obama announces his executive action on policy changes to the U.S. immigration system.
Airing LIVE Thursday, Nov 20 8:00pm EST on C-SPAN.org
Nov 20, 2014 | 8:00pm EST | C-SPAN.org
Nov 20, 2014 | 8:00pm EST | C-SPAN 1
TYY
PatrickforO
(14,573 posts)400,000 people who marched on Wall Street against global warming either.
Who decides what is news now?
Stellar
(5,644 posts)and go berserk, apeshit. ppfftt!
simak
(116 posts)But it should be interesting to hear a rationalization of how adding another 5 million low-skilled workers will help the job market.
spanone
(135,831 posts)
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)Now the President only gets to have a "bully pulpit" if he is Republican.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Alternatively, it can be an FCC requirement that at least one of the three major networks (can include Fox network, though not Fox News per se), has to carry the President's speeches if so requested. They can alternate, with a crawl on the bottom of the other two saying the President is speaking on XYZ network. Third alternative: all three networks can have a crawl saying he is speaking and can be seen on the US Govt network I just suggested or on MSNBC or on whichever station(s) is/are broadcasting the speech.
This is not rocket science. Why do Democrats pay strategists? Democrats need to act preemptively. Whining after the fact is getting old.
branford
(4,462 posts)including problems under the 1A, 5A, due process, equal protection, etc. Absent a true immediate national emergency, where the networks would offer access anyway, the government cannot just selectively seize access or airtime from private companies.
However, there probably isn't anything that would prevent the federal government from owning and operating it's own network, although it would have to operate under greater restrictions that private enterprises (i.e., it couldn't be partisan or deny the opposition party access to time, etc.). These restrictions would essentially deny any political advantage to either party, still be inordinately expensive, and unnecessary and likely very unpopular as many cable networks and PBS, no less the internet, still carry all presidential addresses and other important matters.
However, if you still believe it's a good idea, you're certainly welcome to lobby for Government TV®. Since Congress fights viciously over the trickle of PBS funding and it's purported bias, I wish you luck trying to establish authority and funding for a new major network with the viewership and resources of the established broadcast networks.
Simply, everyone who owns a television or a computer will be able to watch the president's speech, if they so choose. You cannot make people watch or be interested, and commandeering private media companies will not change this simple, if unfortunate, fact.
merrily
(45,251 posts)The FCC has a lot of regulatory power over broadcasting, even to the extent of controlling the content of entertainment programming in the public interest. Requiring a crawl because of overriding public interest is hardly a violation of the due process or equal protection.
However, there probably isn't anything that would prevent the federal government from owning and operating it's own network, although it would have to operate under greater restrictions that private enterprises (i.e., it couldn't be partisan or deny the opposition party access to time, etc.). These restrictions would essentially deny any political advantage to either party, still be inordinately expensive, and unnecessary and likely very unpopular as many cable networks and PBS, no less the internet, still carry all presidential addresses and other important matters.
Not "probably," definitely nothing that prevents the federal government from having its own network to broadcast Presidential speeches like this one. And we are talking about a Presidential speech about immigration here, not a campaign speech. So, I don't see how the above applies in this context of this thread.
Since Congress fights viciously over the trickle of PBS funding and it's purported bias, I wish you luck trying to establish authority and funding for a new major network with the viewership and resources of the established broadcast networks.
Downright silly. It's not my job to establish federal funding to broadcast Presidential speeches. And, a network to broadcast Presidential speeches is hardly comparable to PBS programming or even PBS's funding needs.
You cannot make people watch or be interested, and commandeering private media companies will not change this simple, if unfortunate, fact.
Straw man. I said nothing about making people watch.
No clue why you seem to be trying so hard to be this negative about broadcasting Presidential speeches, but it does seem that you straining to do so.
branford
(4,462 posts)that is selective and arbitrary, and used to promote certain political content. The FCC has far less power that you believe, "public interest" does not mean what you think it may mean, and FCC authority has been battered so badly in court rulings and public opinion that some even question the agencies relevance. Many of the current restrictions on network television today are more the result of custom and practice and responding to viewer demands, than any enforceable authority.
Moreover, the FCC regulates the public airwaves, and has little to no power over cable and satellite transmissions which represent the majority of how people watch programs today. For instance, that is why cable television broadcast shows with nudity and certain language whenever they wish.
As a practical matter, if the government actually tried to force the networks to carry the speech, regardless of whether they prevailed in court or paid appropriate compensation, it would likely result in a continuous and constant stream of bad press and negative coverage that would make any president and his party regret they even contemplated such a decision. If you push the media, they will push back.
Lastly, in an age of cable television and the internet, anyone with a television or computer can watch the speech if they choose. Accordingly, why would you even contemplate the government trying to regulate of the media in such a manner, regardless of its dubious legality?
There is simply no way to force people to be interested in the president's speech.
merrily
(45,251 posts)However, a more detailed reply from mewill have to wait until tomorrow.
As I just told another poster on another thread, sunrise is coming very soon where I live.
Have a good night.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I was going to make a more detailed reply to your post 64, but, it turns out that Reply 78 to your #68 covers it better than any point by point response I could make to your reply 64.
branford
(4,462 posts)Unlike the State of the Union which is required under Art. 2, Sec. 3, of the Constitution, is there some little known provision in the Constitution about the importance or requirement of presidential immigration speeches of which I'm not aware that could trump the protections provided in First and Fifth Amendments?
I'm not trying to be negative about broadcasting presidential speeches. My opinions would remain the same if some or all of the networks choose to broadcast. However, as an attorney, I both treasure the protections of the Constitution and can readily observe numerous legal and political problems with your suggestions to increase viewership of the speeches.
More importantly, I find the constant focus on the legacy networks quite odd. Anyone with a television or computer will be able to watch the speech if they choose.
brooklynite
(94,535 posts)what is required is a REPORT to Congress, not a speech.
merrily
(45,251 posts)not limited to topics specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
merrily
(45,251 posts)What is special about a presidential speech on immigration?
Another straw man to add to those in the post of yours to which I responded last night. No one said a Presidential speech on immigration was more special than any other matter of national interest.
I'm not trying to be negative about broadcasting presidential speeches.
Your wording and methodology say otherwise. Anyone who read your first post alone could see that you were trying to be negative about my proposals from the jump.
Let's see what's gone on in your first post to me and this one: One straw man and makeweight argument after another, negative/disparaging/dismissive/overly dramatic etc. wording, false equivalency, appeal to authority, moving the goal post, etc.
It's obvious that you've been trying be negative about my proposals. It's even more obvious that you are not trying to be positive or constructive, or even neutral, about my proposals. (Btw, my point was not so much any specific proposals as it was about being pro-active, instead of whining after the fact. However, since I posted specific proposals, you are certainly entitled to object to them.)
However, as an attorney, I both treasure the protections of the Constitution and can readily observe numerous legal and political problems with your suggestions to increase viewership of the speeches.
LOL, apart from the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, you really had no reason to mention you are an attorney. For just one thing, attorneys have no special ability to spot political problems. Anyway, your initial claim was about unconstitutionality. Let's not move the goalpost to include unspecified political problems before you even begin to prove your initial claim.
Also, I assure you, attorneys don't "treasure the protections" of the Constitution any more than I do. Finally, with all due respect, you are not in court, where an admission to the bar is required; and being an attorney is irrelevant on a message board. On a message board, anyone can claim anything and it doesn't matter. Factual and legal arguments are either persuasive and dispositive or they aren't. So far, you haven't even made any factual or legal arguments at all, let alone dispositive ones. You've made only totally unsupported claims with a bunch of logical fallacies thrown out, like so much spaghetti being thrown at a wall to see what sticks. (Hint: so far nothing has.)
Finally, as I already pointed out to you in my prior post, I said nothing about increasing viewership, yet you raise that again in this post and post 64 to me. More straw men, to no purpose.
My opinions would remain the same if some or all of the networks choose to broadcast.
Yes, it's been pretty clear that you've been looking at this only from the perspective of the networks, not from the perspective of the citizens who own the airwaves, or from the power of Congress to regulate the citizen owned airwaves. And you know what they say about opinions, especially unsupported ones.
More importantly, I find the constant focus on the legacy networks quite odd. Anyone with a television or computer will be able to watch the speech if they choose.
The alleged focus on networks is more important than alleged violations of the Constitution? mmmkay.
Again, did you happen to notice the title of this thread and the OP? If so, perhaps you want to post that comment to the OP, rather than to me. As for me, I was simply responding to the OP, which is specifically about refusal of networks to carry a speech of the President that the President apparently thought was important for the nation to hear. The subject of the OP to which I was replying was the reason for my alleged odd and constant focus on networks, LOL.
At that, I gave 3 alternatives that Democrats (or any party) could have pursued long ago, if private network refusal was actually of any concern to them. One of the alternatives I gave did not involve private networks at all (and you were even discouraging about that). The second did involve networks, but only to the extent of a crawl, which they already do for certain weather conditions and other breaking new. Only the third alternative that I gave involved any network to anything but what I consider a relatively de minimis degree.
That said, many people do not own a computer and don't get even "basic cable." The get only networks and some local public service networks, like the Boston City government channel I mentioned in my first post on this thread. And, all of that does not address the issue of what if no network, even PBS, declines to carry an important speech? Moreover, network vs. cable has nothing at all to do with your claims of unconstitutionality. Again, please prove your original claim before bringing in new issues.
Unlike the State of the Union which is required under Art. 2, Sec. 3, of the Constitution, is there some little known provision in the Constitution about the importance or requirement of presidential immigration speeches of which I'm not aware that could trump the protections provided in First and Fifth Amendments?
Yet another straw man, more loaded wording and more downright silly makeweight. Citizens with a right to vote are presumed to be interested in what their President has to say about matters of federal law enforcement and other matters of national interest. And citizens, not networks, are also presumed to own the airwaves, which is why the government got to regulate the airwaves to begin with, that and the police powers of Congress.
Certainly, it's in the national interest that citizens with the right to vote have access to see their President making speeches on matters of national interest that are not campaign speeches. Your implication that government power to regulate broadcasting constitutionally extends only to speeches mentioned in the Constitution is beyond silly. Why bother to waste your time and mine with comments that silly?
Moreover, as I mentioned in a prior post of mine to you, plenty of FCC regulation since 1934 could be said to have "trumped the protections of First and Fifth Amendments," yet courts have upheld the regulatory power of the FCC against such Constitutional challenges by media time and again.
For instance, media can certainly argue convincingly, probably even prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that programming with more sex, violence, nudity and profanity at any hour of the day or night would be First Amendment expression and regulations prohibiting or limiting the same deprives them of greater profits and freedom of expression. Yet, the FCC has been regulating those things since 1934 (thanks, again, President Roosevelt). Federal courts have held that said does not violate the Constitution. That isn't news to anyone, either, is it? Besides that, I never addressed financial compensation of networks, one way or the other.
Speaking of the Constitution and being silly, let me bring our exchanges to a bottom line.
so far I have been fielding everything you have thrown out, silly or not, logical fallacy or not, unsupported claim or not. That has been silly of me.
The heavy burden to prove a law of Congress is unconstitutional is not on the one alleging the power of Congress. Rather, it's on the one trying to prove that a law of Congress in this area would be unconstitutional, even though FCC regulation of airwaves in general is not.
Ergo, I don't have any burden to prove you wrong or to keep pointing out that you have not proven your claim or that your statements are logical fallacies. Rather, you have the burden to prove your own claim that my proposals would be unconstitutional. Once you do that, I can either concede or try to rebut. So far though, you have advanced nothing to rebut.
Not so coincidentally, perhaps, the above tracks the posting convention. If you post a claim that another poster challenges, you either prove your claim or stand corrected. So far, you haven't even tried actually to prove your claim of unconstitutionality. Soooo, at this point, I am going to insist that we stop wasting each other's time and energy and finally put the burden back where it always belonged.
Please name the Supreme Court cases that prove, or very strongly support, the claim that each of the three alternatives that I proposed would violates the Constitution because they are beyond legislative power to regulate public airwaves. (Please do not name cases that are readily distinguishable. That, too, would only be a further waste of your time and mine: I've watched Sesame Street and it turns out, I am pretty good at "Which of these things is not like the others (and therefore is not dispositive SCOTUS precedent).
If you cannot do that, or choose not to, there's really no point in going any further. We'd only be talking at each other endlessly, in a pointless waste of oxygen. We've done enough of that already. Thanks.
branford
(4,462 posts)I have no intention of writing a legal brief on an internet forum about the increasingly limited powers of the FCC, including how their remit does not generally cover cable broadcasting or coverage, the limitations imposed by the First and Fifth Amendments, regulatory takings, etc.
You are free to peacefully advocate your views about how you believe the government should usurp certain networks in order broadcast presidential speeches for what you consider to be the public good. However, since for both legal and political reasons, neither congress nor the president, from either party, has not nor ever will even attempt to implement them, this discussion is pointless.
Nevertheless, both you and anyone else will be able to watch or listen to the president's speech this evening, whether on cable, including Spanish language stations Univision and Telemundo, broadcast television like PBS, the internet or on the radio. I would be more concerned that the president's choice of speaking at 8:00 pm (in order to preempt the beginning of the Latin Grammys on Univision), makes it exceedingly difficult for our west coast residents to contemporaneously listen, since many will still be at work or commuting home at 5:00pm PST.
merrily
(45,251 posts)the power of Congress, not only the power of the FCC.
If the issues were as crystal clear as you've been claiming and implying, a few case names would suffice.
For example, no legal brief is required to show, on an internet board or anywhere else, that government cannot segregate public schools by race. Brown v. Board of Ed. Done in one.
If the law around my proposals were as clear as you've been claiming, you would have needed one relatively brief post to show that.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)It will be on 15 cable channels and PBS for those without cable.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I was simply responding to the OP, in the context of the OP.
My point was, if someone thinks something is important, do something pro-actively. Don't just wait until things don't go your way and then get upset. I was not independently making the point that it is important to be on a network. The OP implies that.
However, now that you raised the point, it might be important that some future speech be on television somewhere and you cannot always count on voluntary compliance, even from PBS. However, that is not the frame of the OP and not the point I was making.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)Do you even acknowledge how far out of constitutional bounds that would be?
He's not the grand Lord and master...
merrily
(45,251 posts)Sorry, but unless and until someone provides that, I am over responding to bs and straw men. I already did way too much of that with Branford.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)in 2006 the four major networks all pre-empted their coverage for Bush's immigration speech
Skeowes28
(62 posts)Prevents blowback
tblue37
(65,340 posts)the story of their accomplishments.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)babylonsister
(171,065 posts)
Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)in them with Grey's Anatomy, Scandal and How To Get Away With Murder.
So, it's a Very Big Night for that network. If the shows were pre-empted and moved back and all the hassle that comes with it - including advertiser issues - believe me, nobody would be talking about immigration issues the next day. There'd just be fury dominating over that.
With a billion ways to get news, it doesn't need to be like it was twenty, thirty or fifty years ago. Though the big networks get the big ratings, there are far, far more people watching non-network shows that wouldn't see the preemption anyway.
This is why we have news channels.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)The networks will cover it later but they won't put Obama on live or without spin.
Response to babylonsister (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It is about money and we should pay attention to that. The networks know their viewers. If they feel more people tuning into a new episode of the Big Bang Theory tonight will be put off by their show being interrupted, then they won't air it. If the network knows this, so does the President. Why put something on that is going to upset a majority of viewers. Not everyone is like us here. Most would rather watch the BBT than the Pres. I'm sure a large number of people don't want to be forced to watch a politician on their Thursday night. I guarantee I will be able to find the President on 5+ channels tonight. Including Fox, CNN, MSNBS and others. That puts the President in almost every single living room in the country. Almost every single one. Why pre-empt programs when it is know it will upset more than it will make happy. The information he will give, along with the speech live, will be available to almost every single adult in the country.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)More importantly PBS will air the speech, so even without cable there is still an opportunity to watch it.
NOVA_Dem
(620 posts)A source at one of the major networks told The Hill that the White House did not officially request prime-time coverage on the networks Thursday, a big night for ratings given popular shows on several networks, including ABC’s “Shondaland” schedule of shows created by producer Shonda Rhimes.
The White House also downplayed the fact that the high-profile immigration address won’t be aired live on the big broadcast networks.
That's from your own link.
While President Barack Obama has requested primetime blocks to address the American people before, Stelter noted that those speeches mostly addressed foreign policy initiatives. For Obama not to request network time –especially for something as big as immigration reform — suggested that “he’s not going all the way,” Stelter noted.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-big-three-networks-will-not-air-obamas-immigration-speech/
I don't think he want's that wide an audience to tell you the truth.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,835 posts)
City Lights
(25,171 posts)on what he said.
All part of the plan...
kentuck
(111,092 posts)And will they carry clps of the same speech they deem not worthy of carrying??
It seems if it is worth reporting on, then it would be worth carrying?
Blanks
(4,835 posts)I don't think I ever saw Dubya live. I didn't care to hear his stupid ass so I watched something else when he spoke.
This is the day of YouTube. If you want all your friends to watch it share the video of his speech on Facebook.
I'm sure someone will share it here. It isn't as big a deal as the days when - if you didn't catch it live - you missed it.
I think you can still watch the Gore/Bush debates on YouTube. There isn't a sense of urgency on this issue. He's presenting his case and they'll talk about it on the news. There isn't any real need to see it in real time, the video will be around for years.