Yeah, because that’s exactly the same as comparing a television broadcast to a transcript of said television broadcast… :rolleyes:
ETA: Just put the things on YouTube and the junkies can watch whenever and whereever they want. Of course, I think Obama already does this for many speeches.
In case you hadn’t noticed, we live in a constitutional republic with presidential (as opposed to parliamentary) polity. The difference is that the man we chose as the Chief Executive of our government, to run the country, is reporting to his bosses, the people of the nation. I know the news media prefer to spin everything as politics and electioneering, but even the most venal and political of presidents have spent most of their time doing the job of being CEO of the USA.
Much though I disliked his policies, Mr. Bush was conscientious in doing that job according to his own lights, and his presidential reports to the people, though few in number, were geared to tell us what he was doing, planned to do, and why he felt it the right thing to do. Mr. Obama is doing the same thing – more often and more openly, apparently, but with the same concept.
If you don’t want to hear electioneering speeches, I cannot blame you. But the President reporting to the country is sui generis – he is informing those who hired him to do a job what he is doing to carry out that job. Nobody else in government is in quite the same situation – Nancy Pelosi is answerable to a constituency in California and to the House membership, and nobody else but Joe Biden holds a similar office answerable to the whole country.
Presence is lost in transcripts and such.
Obama projects a strong presence when he speaks on televison or in person.
The president’s enemies, and he has quite a few in America, don’t like it when he projects that presence. Screw em, they’re just the same losers who messed up the country so bad these past eight years. Their opinions are worth nothing.
Again, I’ve never disagreed with your premise. I faithfully watch all State of the Union addresses and anything that has an immediate message. His last 2 appearances were pointless. the last one was the worst and the ratings showed it. When he asks for air time (at the expense of the networks) he needs to bring something to the table or people will not watch it. The networks aren’t interested in a monthly fireside chat that comes out of their pocket. When you lose a prime time audience then the next time slot takes a ding along with it.
In the age of the internet there is an unlimited amount of bandwidth for fireside chats.
What a depressing sentiment.
How about the Greens? The Libertarians? The Constitution Party? America First? How about the My Neighbor Who Mows Before Seven AM, Who I Will Not Name But Might Sound Like Meat PcGreevy Is An Asshole Party?
Your Obama bitching is getting pretty pathetic pretty early. Pace yourself, you’ve likely got another seven and a half years to go.
-Joe
But if they don’t fight this, it’ll be harder to get the nation back on track to the secret government that gave us wars and torture and sunken cities and stuff.
Oooh! Atlantis is SO cool. Can I change my vote?
-Joe
I largely agree. I do, however, think it is newsworthy in the sense of “this is important information you should know,” and that has been lost. Just look at the campaign coverage - instead of reporting on whether what the candidates are saying is correct, we get reporting on whether what they are saying will help them in the “horse race.” We got daily Iraq coverage and little about Afghanistan, and then daily Afghanistan coverage and little about Iraq. There’s no proportion or perspective, just a dance from one crisis to the next.
So, to get to your next point…
I do not think that the substance of what Obama is trying to communicate would be respected and digested appropriately by the modern media, which is what I was getting at in the last post by the reference to sound bites and such. So his only way to get a meaningful message through is to sidestep them by requesting direct time. It’s far from an ideal solution, as it’s basically relying on Obama’s good faith not to propagandize, but it’s ultimately forced upon him by the inability or unwillingness of the news media to do their job in fighting ignorance.
If I were to aim for a better solution that still works within the context of the media sucking, then I would suggest speaking during evening-local news blocks.
I didn’t interpret his audience as being political junkies at all. Speaking as a political junkie, we already know close to everything he says in the press conferences. And he doesn’t need to speak at primetime to reach us, he can speak whenever he wants. It’s everyone else he’s trying to reach by going on at primetime, because that recap in the morning will be filtered down by the media into the “newsmaking” segments.
When the message is a rambling political montage then people aren’t going to watch it. On top of not watching it, they will see future messages as the same-old same-old. If you’re going to replace a prime time program that somebody wanted to watch you should have something important to say to justify it.
It may be down, but that’s still a darn good share of the total viewing audience
Perhaps your vison of the presser as a ‘rambling political montage’ is colored by your own political leanings, or perhaps people like to watch such stuff more than youy think they do. However the mechanism works out, the viewership numbers belie your analysis.
Opera is not pushpin. Especially in economics.
I don’t think you read all the way to the bottom of your cite.
Those are terrible numbers for a speech delivered over 10 networks.
I disagree that people enjoy listening to politicians talk more than I. People watch the State of the Union and major announcements because they expect a focused message. IMO, the viewership declined sharply because the last two didn’t have a focused message. This was the second time the President came on TV with nothing to talk about. It was nothing that couldn’t be incorporated into a freebie interview on 60 minutes or a dozen other outlets. President Obama enjoys a fair amount of media affection and should use it in lieu of pissing off TV execs who don’t want to lose money.
People will watch messages regarding an economic crisis, impending war, space aliens and large meteors about to hit the planet. At some point, the message is not significant enough to warrant a Presidential appearance.
Yup I did. I don’t really care for your analysis.
28.8 million is 28.8 million whether it’s on one network or 10.
28.8 million chose to watch Obama.
That’s a lot of people.
I would bet that it’s a lot easier to hit 28.8 million when you’re displacing most or all of the other interesting stuff on TV.
I could see something like that : every time anyone (republican or democrat, public figure or pundit) makes a point, cut to Superman’s Kevin Spacey going “WROOOOONG !”. We could call it 4chanTV !
You make it sound like the American public is litteraly glued to their TV and cannot physically turn it off and do something else with their time. Wait…
But that’s a cheat and you know it because regular television programs are not measured that way.
How would you have it measured? The detractor’s implied ‘divide by 10’ is plainly horseshit. Just what are the 10 networks and who all watches them anyway? Does the weather channel count as a network?
When we don’t divide President Obama’s numbers by some arbitrary number, we see that he comes out quite well in comparison to what passes for hit shows:
List of top 20 shows in prime-time Nielsen ratings:
Unless you dice it dishonestly, lots of people watched the presidents news conference.
But regular television programs don’t air on multiple networks simultaneously, either.