To cover or not to cover that is the question

[CNYSkinFan]

Three networks delay decision about Bush Iraq talk By Paul J. Gough
Tue Jun 28, 4:15 AM ET



NEW YORK (Hollywood Reporter) - Three of the four broadcast networks had yet to decide late Monday whether they would carry President Bush's speech on Iraq Tuesday in front of soldiers in Fort Bragg, N.C. By then, only ABC had said it would carry the address.

ADVERTISEMENT

The White House formally requested an hour of primetime at 8 p.m. ET for Bush's speech at a time when public opinion polls show the tide turning against the war in Iraq. While there was no question that the cable news channels would cover the president's address, the broadcast networks were a tougher sell.

CBS, NBC and Fox all said they would decide sometime Tuesday whether to carry the speech. Concerns centered on the potential newsworthiness of the speech and the fact that it was being given not in the Oval Office but far from Washington.



SOURCE (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=597&e=1&u=/nm/20050628/tv_nm/bush_dc)

I am not sure how I feel about this. I definitely think prime time press conferences, special speaches from the White House, and the state of the union should be mandatory coverage time for the major networks. However this speach seems more like a pep rally complete with soldier back drop. Cable news will be covering this so why should the networks? But then again anything taking reality tv off the air for a while can not be all bad.

[Ibleedburgundy]

SOURCE (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=597&e=1&u=/nm/20050628/tv_nm/bush_dc)

I am not sure how I feel about this. I definitely think prime time press conferences, special speaches from the White House, and the state of the union should be mandatory coverage time for the major networks. However this speach seems more like a pep rally complete with soldier back drop. Cable news will be covering this so why should the networks? But then again anything taking reality tv off the air for a while can not be all bad.

I don't understand why ANYTHING would be mandatory coverage for the networks. They can do what ever they please and if that includes black-balling a dishonest administration, so be it.

[CNYSkinFan]

I don't understand why ANYTHING would be mandatory coverage for the networks. They can do what ever they please and if that includes black-balling a dishonest administration, so be it.

Well I whole heartedly disagree here. I am no friend of the Bush Administration but he is still the President. The office is bigger then the man. And the Networks lease the airwaves from the government with the condition that they will occasionaly do PSAs and cover events for the public good.

However where this differs is that it is not in the white house, it is not a presidential debate, it is not the state of the union nor a press conference. It could very well be described as a photo op. So I can see them not covering it.

Can anyone remember a non press conference or state of the union speach that was covered by the networks when the feed did not come from the White House?

[Agrawog]

Well I whole heartedly disagree here. I am no friend of the Bush Administration but he is still the President. The office is bigger then the man. And the Networks lease the airwaves from the government with the condition that they will occasionaly do PSAs and cover events for the public good.

However where this differs is that it is not in the white house, it is not a presidential debate, it is not the state of the union nor a press conference. It could very well be described as a photo op. So I can see them not covering it.

Can anyone remember a non press conference or state of the union speach that was covered by the networks when the feed did not come from the White House?

I am a huge opponent of this administration and given how tightly they control all media access you know this event will have that too. And even though I feel there will a huge amount of disinformation in the content and especially in the event itself (the soldiers cheering the paper emperor) I think the networks should carry the speech. Whatever you think of him this speech could be very important. We need more political discourse in this country not less.

I say show the speech and try to minimize showing the other crap Rove will roll out. We should bet money on the backdrop at Ft. Bragg. My guess is huge armored vehicles and tanks (gotta compensate!).

[CNYSkinFan]

I am a huge opponent of this administration and given how tightly they control all media access you know this event will have that too. And even though I feel there will a huge amount of disinformation in the content and especially in the event itself (the soldiers cheering the paper emperor) I think the networks should carry the speech. Whatever you think of him this speech could be very important. We need more political discourse in this country not less.

I say show the speech and try to minimize showing the other crap Rove will roll out. We should bet money on the backdrop at Ft. Bragg. My guess is huge armored vehicles and tanks (gotta compensate!).

I wonder if any banners will be unveiled?

[Ibleedburgundy]

I am a huge opponent of this administration and given how tightly they control all media access you know this event will have that too. And even though I feel there will a huge amount of disinformation in the content and especially in the event itself (the soldiers cheering the paper emperor) I think the networks should carry the speech. Whatever you think of him this speech could be very important. We need more political discourse in this country not less.

I say show the speech and try to minimize showing the other crap Rove will roll out. We should bet money on the backdrop at Ft. Bragg. My guess is huge armored vehicles and tanks (gotta compensate!).

Dude, what makes you so sure Rove is not rolling out this speech?

[danny's stogie]

This pseudo event has the sleeze-factor of a orange alert warning.

[Spence]

My tendency is to err on the side of airing a presidential address. However, this one is baloney. If Bush had some actual news to announce [we're sending more troops, we're bringing some troops home, we've cut a deal with that zarqawi psycho, I'm thinking about using nukes, etc.] then I'd air the address without a second thought. However, the White House has already made it clear that Mr Bush has nothing new to announce. He's simply going to get out there in front of a bunch of soldiers [pretty much what he did on the U.S.S. Lincoln] and say what he's been saying all along. We've got to stay the coure, we're making great progress, Iraqi freedom is our freedom, etc. He'll make a few remarks linking 9/11/01 to Iraq.

That's not news. If I ran one of the four networks I wouldn't run that. It's just a commercial for Mr Bush. Now, the cable TV networks have got nothing better to do so they might as well show it. CBS could do better ratings putting on a 7-year-old repeat of "Everybody Loves Raymond."

[Ibleedburgundy]

This pseudo event has the sleeze-factor of a orange alert warning.

:lol1:

[GibbsRules!]

I don't understand why ANYTHING would be mandatory coverage for the networks. They can do what ever they please and if that includes black-balling a dishonest administration, so be it.

I don't have any problem with dogging this administration, but anything that can be used to let the troops know they are doing a great job (even if it is a pep talk from the CIC) is a good thing IMO.

The Soldiers are instruments of this administrations foreign policy (no matter how screwed up it is) that were put in place to do a job. They're doing a damn fine one at that. I'm sure morale over there is beat down as it is...why beat it down more?

When I was in the Navy and underway in the Med I always enjoyed and felt reassured when President Reagan would address the nation or deliver his weekly radio address. Of course, he could actually communicate his message.

Sometimes we don't think about those serving when we spout off about Nazis and Gulags, but it does hit home with them I'm sure. Let's not punish them or thier dependents any more by not broadcasting a reassuring message for them, they're doing the best they can.

[SkinsKY]

My tendency is to err on the side of airing a presidential address. However, this one is baloney. If Bush had some actual news to announce [we're sending more troops, we're bringing some troops home, we've cut a deal with that zarqawi psycho, I'm thinking about using nukes, etc.] then I'd air the address without a second thought. However, the White House has already made it clear that Mr Bush has nothing new to announce. He's simply going to get out there in front of a bunch of soldiers [pretty much what he did on the U.S.S. Lincoln] and say what he's been saying all along. We've got to stay the coure, we're making great progress, Iraqi freedom is our freedom, etc. He'll make a few remarks linking 9/11/01 to Iraq.

That's not news. If I ran one of the four networks I wouldn't run that. It's just a commercial for Mr Bush. Now, the cable TV networks have got nothing better to do so they might as well show it. CBS could do better ratings putting on a 7-year-old repeat of "Everybody Loves Raymond."

Ditto. This whole thing is just an attempt at damage control. I doubt he'll say anything new...or intelligent.

[Axegrinder]

Why broadcast it?
It's only a rerun of the Mission Accomplished episode.





disclaimer:I'll watch it anyway.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Well I whole heartedly disagree here. I am no friend of the Bush Administration but he is still the President. The office is bigger then the man. And the Networks lease the airwaves from the government with the condition that they will occasionaly do PSAs and cover events for the public good.

I completely agree, and I'm no Bush fan, either.