The Obama Show faces cancellation

[elfkin477]

Back in February I wondered in a thread about one of Obama's many television appearances how much money they were costing, and was told not to be silly. During a crisis - then they meant the economic crisis, not the new flu crisis - the money it costs doesn't matter.

Turns out that these appearances have cost the big four 30 Million dollars in advertising revenue so far this year, and they're finally getting pissed about it. All four networks (or the other three who haven't already - FOX already refused to air his last primetime appearance) are now considering not broadcasting Obama whenever the whim strikes him to speak to the country.

Is there value to his frequent primetime appearances? Enough so to offset out the fact that loss of revenues is threatening to cause the networks to have to reduce jobs, during a recession? Or is it just ego-feeding? And is being on the air during primetime hours, instead of from seven to eight as networks would prefer, justifiable for every address? What if there's a new crisis every two months his whole administation?

[ParentalAdvisory]

If the networks don't want to film him, nobody is forcing them to. It is their choice, isn't it? Or is there some media law that says presidential speakings must be broadcasted?

[Squink]

By November 1963, President Kennedy had held 64 news conferences, an average of one every sixteen days. The first, less than a week after his inauguration, was viewed by an estimated 65 million people. A poll taken in 1961 indicated that 90% of those interviewed had watched at least one of JFK’s first three press conferences. The average audience for all the broadcast conferences was 18 million viewers

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical...+the+Press.htm

If the networks can't make a profit off the public airwaves while serving the public interest they should get out of the business and let someone who can do it.

[Driver8]

Sure, there is value. It is helpful to furthering his goals to have the electorate on his side - indirectly influencing the willingness of representatives, etc to support Obama friendly legislation.

As far as I can tell the networks are not obligated to cover his speeches. If they decide it is not in their interests as a company to do so then I cannot blame them for that. Obviously they saw some value in covering his previous speeches, it sounds like that may no longer be the case. I assume if there was a sufficiently serious crisis market forces would dictate that his commentary would be covered.

They could always compromise and cover the speeches delayed by a few hours if the President keeps scheduling them in prime time. I just don't see why they are forced to cover them. If they do, obviously they feel that it is in their best interest.

The lost jobs argument seems a little esoteric to me - surely you're not suggesting that in these difficult times the President lower his profile, leading to sales and job losses in the lucrative commemorative plate industry? Why do you hate America?

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by ParentalAdvisory

If the networks don't want to film him, nobody is forcing them to. It is their choice, isn't it? Or is there some media law that says presidential speakings must be broadcasted?

I suppose he have their reporters moved to the back of White House briefing room and instruct his press secretary to never call on them.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by elfkin477

Is there value to his frequent primetime appearances? Enough so to offset out the fact that loss of revenues is threatening to cause the networks to have to reduce jobs, during a recession? Or is it just ego-feeding? And is being on the air during primetime hours, instead of from seven to eight as networks would prefer, justifiable for every address? What if there's a new crisis every two months his whole administation?

I struggle to come up with a non-sarcastic response, because if nothing else, this shows you the esteem news divisions are held in these days. Journalists complained, often bitterly, that Bush hardly ever spoke to the press. Now, with a pair of wars and a serious recession going on, the networks are complaining that Obama's on TV too much? Serving the public interest my eye.

That said: yes, Obama is using this to promote his agenda, as should be expected; it's annoying when all the networks carry the same thing; and they're not all obliged to cover it. I think the excuse that this is a problem because of the economy is crap, however - if they want to say "we don't want to give up the ad revenue from Seinfeld reruns," they're entitled, but protesting that they can't afford to cover the news because times are tough and they need every penny is a pile of crap.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by alphaboi867

I suppose he have their reporters moved to the back of White House briefing room and instruct his press secretary to never call on them.

He could use this tactic but it would then become the story. His message would be lost to bad press.

Televised Presidential speeches have historically been limited to State of the Union addresses and the occasional crisis. Not only are stations not obligated to carry them they have traditionally been treated as free political advertising with time given to the other party at the end to balance it out.

IMO President Obama has expended a lot of personal capital (as well as network money) on air time that lacked any real purpose for the last 2 appearances.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Marley23

if they want to say "we don't want to give up the ad revenue from Seinfeld reruns," they're entitled, but protesting that they can't afford to cover the news because times are tough and they need every penny is a pile of crap.

They've been reducing the budget for news because the revenue isn't there and they've replaced expensive shows like Sienfeld with reality shows. Why should any company donate money to a politician if they don't want to?

[The Second Stone]

It has the advantage of teasing the morans.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Magiver

They've been reducing the budget for news because the revenue isn't there and they've replaced expensive shows like Sienfeld with reality shows.

Seinfeld's still on twice a day every day over here. But ad revenue was an issue before Obama took office and before the recession set in. As I said, they're entitled to be cheap if they want. I just find it shameless.

Why should any company donate money to a politician if they don't want to?

News coverage is not a corporate donation.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

It has the advantage of teasing the morans.

Never tease a moran when you can spoon feed a moron.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Seinfeld's still on twice a day every day over here. But ad revenue was an issue before Obama took office and before the recession set in. As I said, they're entitled to be cheap if they want. I just find it shameless.

News coverage is not a corporate donation.

Then they should give equal time to the other party in the interest of news.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Magiver

Then they should give equal time to the other party in the interest of news.

1. Equal time provisions were rightfully repealed ages ago, 2. there is no president of the other party, and 3. the other party often gets plenty of rebuttal time. You make it sound like they don't immediately turn to two or more partisan hacks for commentary following any political address.

[elucidator]

Oh, god yes! Equal time, I absitively posolutely insist on such fairnesss! A Republican rebuttal, yes, for sure, at least as much time allotted as the Prez gets! Bobby Jindal! No, wait, Newt! Yes, Newt! Or Michael Steele! Now, there's the ticket!

This is excellent news for the McCain campaign! Wait, McCain!.....

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Marley23

1. Equal time provisions were rightfully repealed ages ago, 2. there is no president of the other party, and 3. the other party often gets plenty of rebuttal time. You make it sound like they don't immediately turn to two or more partisan hacks for commentary following any political address.

The concept of equal time is not a dead issue when one party is using donated air time. And no, the other party did not get free rebuttal time for the recent Presidential appearances.

This is political commercial time at the expense of the networks.

[Jonathan Chance]

I think you guys are missing the point. It is not 'donated' air time. The electro-magnetic spectrum belongs to the people of the United States and is held in trust by the federal government.

I was taught (a million years ago in college) that, while traditionally the networks can decline to run a government speech or whatnot the government controls the airwaves and does have the right to require coverage of certain events should the wish to exercise that right.

I'm not saying that they should, but you people are considering the airwaves and such as if they belong to the networks. They don't. All rights to the various frequencies and such are held and leased out by the government.

[DSeid]

Does anyone have access to information on how many prime time and other appearances other recent Presidents (maybe from Carter on) held?

I'm hypothesizing that media strong Presidents (think Reagan, Clinton, and Obama) all take/took advantage of prime time more than the less media strong Bushes and Carter did. It would be nice to test the guess.

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by Magiver

The concept of equal time is not a dead issue when one party is using donated air time. And no, the other party did not get free rebuttal time for the recent Presidential appearances.

This is political commercial time at the expense of the networks.

Well, clearly it isn't. If the networks calculated that the benefits did not outweigh the costs then they would not do it (unless they are incompetently managed, but I don't think it is fair to blame that on the administration). If there was some sort of federal law stating that broadcasting the addresses live was mandatory, then I would see your point.

Assuming these reports of network frustration are correct I'll agree with you that the President may have expended much personal capital on these broadcasts, especially if the networks are now more reluctant to carry future speeches as they do not see the benefits anymore. I disagree that the President has spent network money: the network has spent network money. If the calculation now is that this is money badly spent, then they should find other ways to spend it.

[crowmanyclouds]

Originally Posted by elucidator

... Equal time ... fairnesss! A Republican rebuttal, yes, for sure, at least as much time allotted as the Prez gets! ...

And why just limit it to actual politicians? How about, any time anyone makes a political statement on the publicly owned electro-magnetic spectrum the same amount of time must be given to anyone who wishes to speak in opposition?

We just need a name for it. Equal time rule? Fairness something?
How about The Fairness Doctrine?

I'm sure conservatives won't have any problem with that, right, right?

CMC fnord!

[Little Nemo]

Then they should give equal time to the other party in the interest of news.

No problem. Every time President Obama makes a televised appearance the networks will allow the other President to have an equal amount of time.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by Magiver

Then they should give equal time to the other party in the interest of news.

Oh, my god...wasn't it your side of the aisle that was having feargasms about the Fairness Doctrine a couple of months ago?

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Oh, god yes! Equal time, I absitively posolutely insist on such fairnesss!

But what would we call it? The Fairness Principle? No...too dry. The Fairness Donation? No, no...

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Driver8

Well, clearly it isn't. If the networks calculated that the benefits did not outweigh the costs

What benefit?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Magiver

The concept of equal time is not a dead issue when one party is using donated air time.

Equal time requirements are dead. As I said, both Republicans and Democrats comment ceaselessly on Obama's appearances. Republicans are not being shut out. The President, as the individual who most dictates the political agenda, does get some advantages in coverage. That's the advantage of incumency, it gets used in politics and particularly during campaigns, and it's life. if the president does it, it's basically news.

And no, the other party did not get free rebuttal time for the recent Presidential appearances.

Did they ask? And for that matter, did the Democrats ask for a 'donation' of pizza shop coverage when Cantor, Romney and Jeb Bush did their thing last week?

This is political commercial time at the expense of the networks.

Last week CNN donated some of its time to coverage of a truck hijacking in Georgia, but since it was daytime, they didn't complain at the hijacker. It's not a donation. It is covering the news.

Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance

I was taught (a million years ago in college) that, while traditionally the networks can decline to run a government speech or whatnot the government controls the airwaves and does have the right to require coverage of certain events should the wish to exercise that right.

I referred to this when I made my comment about the public interest. It's true that the government owns the airwaves and leases them, requiring the networks to serve the public interest. The government would never dare hold the networks to the promise.

Originally Posted by DSeid

Does anyone have access to information on how many prime time and other appearances other recent Presidents (maybe from Carter on) held?

I don't have the access, but considering there are more networks, different means of communication, and advent of the 24-hour news cycle I think it would be hard to compare. And in the case of George W. Bush, he didn't give a fuck for the press in the first place, so he often chose not to deal with them.

[Polycarp]

You know, Geroge W. Bush was President of the United States of America. Now Barack H. Obama is. The President is entitled to address the people when he feels circumstances call for it. The networks, as custodians of the public airwaves, should be carrying that.

Not because he's a Democrat -- or a Republican. Because he's President/

I didn't like Mr. Bush's policies. But he got my respect for trying to do a tough job. I think Mr. Obama deserves the same.

"The Obama Show"?? Pfui! Perhaps we could replace him with Homer Simpson. After all, nobody deserves respect for their office -- he's just there to entertain us, right?

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Originally Posted by Magiver

The concept of equal time is not a dead issue when one party is using donated air time. And no, the other party did not get free rebuttal time for the recent Presidential appearances.

This is political commercial time at the expense of the networks.

Nobody is donating air time to Obama when he gives a speech as president. It is a news event that any news organization can choose whether they think is newsworthy or not. There is no donating going on. Equal time involves giving candidates equal time.... not presidents.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

You know, Geroge W. Bush was President of the United States of America. Now Barack H. Obama is. The President is entitled to address the people when he feels circumstances call for it. The networks, as custodians of the public airwaves, should be carrying that.

Not because he's a Democrat -- or a Republican. Because he's President/

I didn't like Mr. Bush's policies. But he got my respect for trying to do a tough job. I think Mr. Obama deserves the same.

I'm not arguing with anything you've said except Obama's last 2 addresses were nothing. As I stated before, he's pissed away a lot of network goodwill. His first address was a defacto State of the Union address (not usually done by a new President) but it was appropriate given the economy. I'm being kind to call the next one a follow-up. After that he was taking up space at someone else's expense.

If Bush was making monthly appearances on prime time I would be equally annoyed and I suspect Democrats would be too.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I

Nobody is donating air time to Obama when he gives a speech as president. It is a news event that any news organization can choose whether they think is newsworthy or not. There is no donating going on. Equal time involves giving candidates equal time.... not presidents.

2 things wrong with your response. First, news is not provided free, networks have commercials. Second, everything that comes out of the President's mouth is not news.

The networks are absolutely donating air time.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Magiver

If Bush was making monthly appearances on prime time I would be equally annoyed and I suspect Democrats would be too.

Which proves what exactly?

[Captain Carrot]

Originally Posted by Magiver

Second, everything that comes out of the President's mouth is not news.

Next time a camera is on him while he's muttering to himself, let me know. I think a speech meant for public consumption counts as news.

Originally Posted by Magiver

The networks are absolutely donating air time.

No, they are devoting airtime to it. This is not a donation.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Captain Carrot

Next time a camera is on him while he's muttering to himself, let me know. I think a speech meant for public consumption counts as news.

He speaks in public all the time. That doesn't make it news.

Originally Posted by Captain Carrot

No, they are devoting airtime to it. This is not a donation.

Head spins 360 degrees. No, they are clearly donating air time. There are no revenue commercials. It's money lost. It's lost on a network level as well as a local level because both lost advertising revenue. This is not debatable.

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Magiver

He speaks in public all the time. That doesn't make it news.

Head spins 360 degrees. No, they are clearly donating air time. There are no revenue commercials. It's money lost. It's lost on a network level as well as a local level because both lost advertising revenue. This is not debatable.

No, because they don't own the air time. That's much like referring to the Tenth Amendment as what the Federal Government gives the states, or Indian reservtions as what we gave the Indians. The airwaves are a public trust, which the stations which they own or supply are licensed to use.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Magiver

Head spins 360 degrees. No, they are clearly donating air time. There are no revenue commercials. It's money lost. It's lost on a network level as well as a local level because both lost advertising revenue. This is not debatable.

It's lost money for sure. But would you say NBC donated airtime to OJ Simpson when it aired his Bronco chase during Game 5 of the 1994 NBA Finals?

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Marley23

It's lost money for sure. But would you say NBC donated airtime to OJ Simpson when it aired his Bronco chase during Game 5 of the 1994 NBA Finals?

They had commercials during the NBA Finals.

As I've pointed out, I'm not against the State of the Union address and other messages of relevance. In my area half of the stations didn't carry the last one. That's the point of this thread. I watched the one before that and it consisted of about 8 minutes of speech and then a question and answer period for 52 minutes. It was nothing. I flipped back and forth on the last one and it was less relevant than the one before it.

[Zoe]

Magiver: His first address was a defacto State of the Union address (not usually done by a new President)

I think he gave us fair warning that he was not going to be like other Presidents.

I like being kept informed. Why don't the networks try rotating in coverage of his speeches for those who grow restless or want something with explosions and skinny women. For those who see the President as a world leader in days of crisis, we can stay tuned. Of course he is making news every time he stops at a microphone. That's why the mike just happens to be there.

But you are mistaken when you say that television has not covered Presidential news conferences before. John Kennedy's news conferences were a delight to watch. He was very witty.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Magiver

They had commercials during the NBA Finals.

Not while OJ and AC were on the lam, they didn't.

As I've pointed out, I'm not against the State of the Union address and other messages of relevance. In my area half of the stations didn't carry the last one. That's the point of this thread. I watched the one before that and it consisted of about 8 minutes of speech and then a question and answer period for 52 minutes. It was nothing.

I understand that not every single word Obama says in these things is vital, and that he's using his position to get more time and advance his agenda. If the networks would rather show "Lie to Me" and "The Mentalist" or whatever because the news is inconveniencing them, I think it speaks poorly for their motives.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Public airwaves are owned by the public, not by the networks. The networks are allowed to use them for free out of the goodness of the government's heart, but the primary purpose of the public airwaves is to serve the interest of the public, not the networks. I think that if a network like Fox is going to decide it wants to put its own interests ahead of the public's, then I think their license needs to be revoked.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Public airwaves are owned by the public, not by the networks. The networks are allowed to use them for free out of the goodness of the government's heart, but the primary purpose of the public airwaves is to serve the interest of the public, not the networks. I think that if a network like Fox is going to decide it wants to put its own interests ahead of the public's, then I think their license needs to be revoked.

PBS (all 5 feeds) didn't carry the last Obama speech in my area as well as CW and Fox. What would possess you to think the President should get air time at the expense of the networks just for the asking?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Because, like I said, the public owns the airwaves not the networks. Where does anybody get the idea that they're entitled to make a profit with a public resource without ever being obliged to serve public interest? It's not like the networks actually PAY to use those airwaves.

[ZebraShaSha]

Jesus Christ the republic is truly crumbling. The day when the evening news is brought to you by Coke is the day we know to burn it to the ground and start over.

[JThunder]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Because, like I said, the public owns the airwaves not the networks.

Maybe so, but the networks own the hardware used to transmit over those airwaves. They also pay the salaries of the people who operate and maintain that hardware.

I do agree that the public has a right to those airwaves, but only within reason.

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by Magiver

What benefit?

Why don't you ask the networks? You know, the ones that out of two options, to broadcast or not to broadcast, chose to broadcast. It is reasonable to assume that there was some perceived benefit. I can only only offer possibly widely inaccurate speculation (brand recognition, creating consumer habits, etc as people tune to your station to hear the broadcast over your competitor who isn't).

Unless you are suggesting there was no benefit? This makes no sense to me. Are they making the decision to broadcast by flipping a coin? Was their CEO replaced by an anti-CEO, aiming to increase costs and decrease profits? I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from ... if there was no benefit why would they have broadcast the addresses?

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by Magiver

I'm not arguing with anything you've said except Obama's last 2 addresses were nothing. As I stated before, he's pissed away a lot of network goodwill. His first address was a defacto State of the Union address (not usually done by a new President) but it was appropriate given the economy. I'm being kind to call the next one a follow-up. After that he was taking up space at someone else's expense.

I still don't understand your complaint. The network decided to broadcast. If it really was "at their expense" they would chose to decline, as it seems they are starting to do now. If it really was a terrible decision to accept, it was their terrible decision. I'm not sure why I should blame the President for asking for something that is in his own benefit.

If you are correct about the burning of goodwill then that is a strategic political error that will most likely reduce Obama's ability to sway the electorate (and indirectly the legislatures). I can understand that being annoying to an ardent Obama supporter as it undermines his ability to enact policy that is friendly to said supporter. I may be mistaken, but I don't think that is where you are coming from.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Because, like I said, the public owns the airwaves not the networks. Where does anybody get the idea that they're entitled to make a profit with a public resource without ever being obliged to serve public interest? It's not like the networks actually PAY to use those airwaves.

To begin with, stations are obligated to pay their employees, utility companies, bank loans, suppliers, city and county taxes, etc..... They're like any other business.

On top of that, Obama lost 29% of his audience from his previous speech. Fox out-pulled every other station in the time slot which means the public would rather watch a non-political show called "lie to me" than listen to another Obama speech. I'd say the public airwaves were served just fine.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Driver8

Why don't you ask the networks? You know, the ones that out of two options, to broadcast or not to broadcast, chose to broadcast. It is reasonable to assume that there was some perceived benefit.

If you read the original cite you'd know they're pissed.

[TWDuke]

Originally Posted by Magiver

Fox out-pulled every other station in the time slot which means the public would rather watch a non-political show called "lie to me" than listen to another Obama speech.

Three times as many people watched the Obama speech as watched "Lie to Me."
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/30...-episode/17730

Originally Posted by Magiver

If you read the original cite you'd know they're pissed.

Who are "they"? AdWeek reports that some anonymous executives are upset. An executive can be the president of the network, whose opinions regarding news coverage are very important, or it could be the HR director, whose feelings on the matter mean squat. It's not even clear from the article which networks (or how many) are represented.

[Little Nemo]

To begin with, stations are obligated to pay their employees, utility companies, bank loans, suppliers, city and county taxes, etc..... They're like any other business.

Except that other businesses aren't built on a public resource like a slot of the televison bandwidth. There's only a certain number of slots available and lots of broadcasters that want them. So they have to agree to terms of usage which include informing their viewers as well as entertaining them.

On top of that, Obama lost 29% of his audience from his previous speech.

"His audience"? Do you understand that Barack Obama is not competing against Jay and Dave? He's the President of the United States not a reality show star. His addresses are broadcast because they're newsworthy not because they're popular entertainment.

Fox out-pulled every other station in the time slot which means the public would rather watch a non-political show called "lie to me" than listen to another Obama speech. I'd say the public airwaves were served just fine.

I'm not surprised that Fox viewers aren't interested in learning about what's going on in the world. I'm just distressed that somebody tells them it's time to vote every couple of years.

[Justin_Bailey]

While blaming Bush about anything is popular around here, deciding whether or not to carry a Presidential speech started with Bush in 2005.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...B63&sec=&spon=

The networks caved in that instance after saying they wouldn't air Bush (after the White House agreed to push up the speech so as not to interfere with 2 hours of programming). They likely decided that was the last straw and wouldn't do it again for unimportant speeches.

And frankly, there's no need for the President to take up every broadcast channel.

[Richard Parker]

I agree that there is some line across which the President would be asking for too much time. The media companies do owe Uncle Sam for free use of the pubic airwaves, but that does not and should not mean there aren't limits.

It just isn't clear to me why anyone thinks Obama has crossed this line. Can we agree that Bush spoke to the American people and the media far too infrequently? I think given the economy, two wars, major government initiatives, etc., a primetime presser every other month isn't asking much.

There is value in having the President communicate with the people, even if it is just summarizing progress on the economy and answering media inquiries live and in public. I'd be fine with paying for it in tax dollars, but I imagine Magiver would be even more upset by that.

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by Magiver

If you read the original cite you'd know they're pissed.

You consistently ignore the major point of my posts, which is that this was a voluntary decision by the networks. I didn't even suggest that they weren't pissed off. But they only have themselves to blame! If they really are this pissed off then it sounds like the correct decision at the time would have been "Hey Prez, this is gonna cost us some serious dough. Wanna move it to another time? If not, I'm afraid we're gonna have to pass".

It seems so random to blame the President for this: "I rented a movie from blockbuster the other night and it turned out to be awful. What a waste of money! Curse you, President Obama!"