It seems like whenever there’s a big political event - a speech, convention, State of the Union, etc, every single network and cable station which does ANY type of news coverage will simulcast the event. Such as tonight you would see Democratic Convention coverage on ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, FOX News, MSNBC, CNN, CSPAN, etc.
I figure this is for one of two reasons. Either the networks are hoping that you’ll just happen to watch it on THEIR channel, so that you can see their company logo throughout it, or there is a government intervention to prevent people from having the choice to watch other television shows instead of what they consider to be the most important. Of course this wouldn’t apply to specialty cable channels (Comedy Central, A&E, etc) which don’t do any news coverage to begin with.
What is the real answer?
Also, on a lighter note, which station do you usually watch when this happens, and why? I usually go to CNN if I want commentary, and C-SPAN if I don’t. Why? Because pure cable channels are always clearer quality than network stations.
If you have a news service, it can be rather embarrassing if you don’t offer coverage of a major news event.
Exact coverage of these events does range (at this convention, for example, ABC, NBC, and CBS are offering less coverage than PBS, which in turn is broadcasting less coverage than cable), but to not offer coverage at all would annoy the news staff very much.
For your second question, I’ve been watching the convention on C-Span. I don’t need to watch the coverage switch to Wolf Blitzer or whoever just because the news outlet decided that I wasn’t really interested in the current speaker and really wanted to hear yapping pundits instead. C-Span (and PBS but they don’t start broadcasting until later) gives me uninterrupted coverage.
In some areas, like where I currently live, if you don’t have cable or satellite, you only get one over the air network affiliated station, so it wouldn’t be that you just happen to watch their channel, it would be the only option for you to see a major news event.
TV coverage of conventions dates back from the early days of TV, when conventions still did matter. Not only was gavel-to-gavel coverage expected, it had the potential to be exciting.
Also, it was used as a proving grounds for correspondents. The 1952 conventions made Walter Cronkheit a star, and David Brinkley and Chet Huntley were first teamed together for the 1956 conventions. It was a place where they could show their stuff.
For this reason, all three networks were happy to provide full coverage.
Of course, things have changed. The conventions have become PR exercises, with no real suspense.* Cable news started offering coverage, and the broadcast networks cut back on coverage (it actually seems that they were all using the same video feed, though, oddly, some were a few seconds ahead of others).
The network coverage continues – at least for the major speeches – as a way to validate their news credentials and also as a public service to give voters a look at who’s running.
Though I did enjoy the roll call vote yesterday. Nicely old fashioned, with all the "Great State of ____________ and the roll call of prominent citizens (though Montana overdid it). Sure it was a foregone conclusion and symbolic, but it was fun to watch.