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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
