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.
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?
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. 
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.
If you read the original cite you’d know they’re pissed.
Three times as many people watched the Obama speech as watched “Lie to Me.”
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/30/wednesday-ratings-lie-to-me-vs-president-obama-losts-100th-episode/17730
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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/fullpage.html?res=9F02E3DA1131F93AA15757C0A9639C8B63&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.
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.
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!”
A modest proposal: The President could pause after the 8 minute speech for a commercial break, then the questions from the press in two or three segments separated by breaks. They get in their ads (consumer products and movie trailers only, no political ads) and make money. Everybody happy. In order to ensure that nothing important is missed, the President and staff would challenge the top network correspondents to a quick game of H-O-R-S-E (though in deference to the office, the network guys would have to be “skins”).
Ultimately the real problem is that the advantages of the press conferences aren’t appreciated by the media, because they have been converted into businesses that no longer care about virtues like informing the public or raising the level of discourse. They want Obama to make waves and provide snappy sound bites, and that’s not what he’s trying to do. He thinks the public deserves better and should get better, and so he is explaining what he’s doing in an adult fashion. This is the change he promised and the punditry don’t even notice!
It’s astonishing to me that for the President to get up in front of the camera and answer whatever questions are put to him lucidly and coherently is considered abuse of his position and failure to make news. Seriously? I would have thought that both citizens and the media would be rejoicing to have someone in office who is willing and able to do this. That the news outlets focus on moments like the “enchanted” question and Obama’s sarcastic response on outrage ultimately says more about the quality of their reporting than the quality of Obama’s responses.
But I have to hold my nose and defend part of what Magiver’s saying. While it is true that given the option of broadcasting or not broadcasting, the media are choosing to broadcast, that doesn’t completely explain the situation. If they choose not to broadcast, they suffer the potential loss of being labeled as networks that aren’t as fully covering the news as others and consequentially losing news-minded viewers to those other networks, which is a larger loss than the ad revenue from the programs they would otherwise have broadcast. As such, the optimal path is neither to broadcast nor not to broadcast, but for Obama not to hold a press conference, in which case the networks maintain both their ad revenue and their reputation as news-minded organizations. The calculation here is different for Fox News, which isn’t as concerned about broadcasting Obama press conferences for obvious reasons.
Say wha huh? It’s random to blame the President for this? Didn’t the White House set up the time? Didn’t the White House put together the presentation?
The first one was appropriate given the economy. The second one is a stretch to call it a follow on. After that, they became pointless. The White House is getting a huge amount of free press across the media spectrum and taking money away from the networks for town hall meetings is unnecessary and self serving.
The White House should spend the media goodwill it enjoys with a little more care.
Again! Are you having browser issues? Are you noticing blank spaces between sentences, as if half my posts aren’t visible?
Or are you suggesting a mind control device was used to force the networks to say “yes”? If this was such a negative thing for them, why didn’t they say “no”?
Your question is the point of the thread. They’re getting ready to say no and I’ve pointed out (IMO) that President Obama has pissed away a lot of good will over the last 2 appearances. I don’t know much about Kennedy because I was pretty young then but such appearances have traditionally been used sparingly. People have come to expect a focused message as an offset to the preemption of their favorite program. It’s not like people enjoy listening to politicians. The end of the election cycle is looked forward to like the first flower of spring.
Not during news events that are unfolding live. Things like… um… presidential speeches.
I am not sure they see it that way. Besides, even if they were donating air time–that is their prerogative, isn’t it? If you don’t like what they choose to air you’re always free to switch over to the Huntin’ and Fishin’ Network or some other glurge.
While it’s true that people should be thrilled we have a President who’s willing to speak on camera often and honestly, what he says is not really “news” in the sense of “this is important information you should know right now.”
Nothing would be lost to have a transcript of the speech published in the paper or online the next day. Really, nothing short of “The United States has been invaded by a hostile force” or “The United States has just suffered a terrorist and/or natural disaster” requires the President to completely take over the airwaves.
As a kid I was just pissed because I couldn’t watch Who’s the Boss or something. As an adult, primetime Presidential speeches just seem like pointless pandering to political junkies who have to know everything NOW! The rest of us can wait for the recap in the morning.
(bolding mine)
They are most certainly not like “any other business”. The citizens of the USA allow broadcasters the privilege of making a profit using a publicly-owned resource. In exchange for this privilege (a very, very valuable privilege) they must agree to uphold the primary purpose of all U.S. broadcasters which is to serve the interests of the citizens of the community where they are permitted to broadcast. That means they are mandated to inform–and hopefully educate–listeners via news and community affairs programming. If they can not or will not uphold this duty then their license is supposed to be revoked.
Profit-making is not the primary obligation of broadcast corporations (or at least it is not suppose to be) therefore they are not “like any other business”. Most Americans do not understand the responsibilities and mandates of broadcasters so it is, I suppose, forgivable that you do not understand these things either. But, (as Uncle Walter would say) “That’s the way it is.”
Exactly, this is why going to visit friends and relatives, or even talking with them on the phone, has been largely supplanted by letters delivered through the US postal service. :dubious:
“Oh yeah… that’d be real Swift, Jonathan!” Tom said Swiftianly.