Prime Time Pressers
| Fri May. 8, 2009 10:14 AM PDT
Executives at the Big Four broadcast networks are seething behind the scenes that President Obama has cost them about $30 million in cumulative ad revenue this year with his three primetime news conference pre-emptions.
Now top network execs quietly are hoping that Fox's well-publicized rejection of the president's April 29 presser will serve as precedent for denying future White House requests for prime airtime.
"We will continue to make our decisions on White House requests on a case-by-case basis, but the Fox decision gives us cover to reject a request if we feel that there is no urgent breaking news that is going to be discussed," said one network exec, who, like all, would not speak for attribution fearing repercussions from the administration.
....Even more irksome, the White House is bailing out bankers, insurers and carmakers, but nary a nickel has gone to the struggling media industry.
I'm actually on the networks' side here: it's really not clear to me why they should be obligated to blanket the airwaves with presidential press conferences these days. Something like 90% of all households now get cable or satellite reception, which means they can watch this stuff on CNN or CSPAN regardless of what the nets do. And very little news is made at these things.
So why not rotate? Let cable cover prime time press conferences as part of their normal fare, and let the Big Four take turns. The days are long gone when we could expect the entire nation to stop what it was doing and listen raptly whenever the president decides to take a few questions from the press corps.
At the same time, if the nets really are irked about not getting any bailout money — well, break out the tiny violins. You know what to do with them.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
Didn't we just give away a huge chunk of bandwidth to them for free? Don't they have any public responsibilities to fulfill in return for using a public resource? A press conference here and there ain't gonna kill 'em. And missing a half hour of American Idol isn't going to kill the rest of us.
Wait. What?
Submitted by kenga (not verified) on Fri May. 8, 2009 10:33 AM PDT.
[blink]
Kevin - you did write "broadcast", right?
As in broadcasting over the public airwaves?
That is why they are obligated to cover them - the broadcasters are BORROWING
those airwaves from you and I. Covering these sorts of events is part of the agreement that permits them to use the airwaves in the first place - they also have to submit to regulations about what sort of content can be broadcast too.
And they do so in order to be permitted to broadcast their toothpaste, beer, car and feminine products commercials to make shitloads of money.
Cable outlets are not under any obligation to broadcast it.
So whether or not any or all of them do so is of zero consequence to the obligations of the broadcasters.
News for you - Massachusetts is a small and pretty modern state, but there are still hundreds of thousands of people with no access to cable, and with insufficient funds to pay for satellite.
I suspect Obama would make
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri May. 8, 2009 10:40 AM PDT.
I suspect Obama would make them happier if he invaded Venezuela or lied about a rusty trombone.
I would point out these are
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri May. 8, 2009 10:47 AM PDT.
I would point out these are the public's airwaves the networks in principle use them at our discretion. I do not agree with the networks whining about this and find it pathetic.
Bender
"...with his three primetime
Submitted by Ranger Jay (not verified) on Fri May. 8, 2009 10:55 AM PDT.
"...with his three primetime news conference pre-emptions."
Yeah. Dubya was "thoughtful" not to do many of those, I guess.
corporate profits are more important than the public interest
Submitted by tpx on Fri May. 8, 2009 11:20 AM PDT.
Using the public airwaves leaves the networks without a legitimate reason to complain about broadcasting the president's pressers, but the fact that they do and the fact that their complaints are considered relevant reveals mainstream media, and the countless Americans they have mesmerized, considers corporate profits more important than the public interest. Like ranchers who use public lands to feed their cattle, broadcasters have assumed ownership of the public's airwaves, denying having any responsibility to use them for the public's interest. Additionally, no mention is made of how many viewers the president's popularity drove to the networks who might not have otherwise seen their for profit programs and promotions.
Public Interest, Convenience, and Necessity
Submitted by Etaoin Shrdlu (not verified) on Fri May. 8, 2009 12:22 PM PDT.
Broadcast frequency allocations are made by the FCC with reference to the "public interest, convenience, and necessity. See Section 307(e) of the
Communications Act of 1934/1/ (the "Communications Act"), as
amended by Section 403(i) of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 for details
Public Interest, Convenience, and Necessity
Submitted by Etaoin Shrdlu (not verified) on Fri May. 8, 2009 12:22 PM PDT.
Broadcast frequency allocations are made by the FCC with reference to the "public interest, convenience, and necessity. See Section 307(e) of the
Communications Act of 1934/1/ (the "Communications Act"), as
amended by Section 403(i) of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 for details
No no no no no!
Submitted by Mark L. (not verified) on Fri May. 8, 2009 1:02 PM PDT.
"90% of all households now get cable or satellite reception" is *not* a valid reason to excuse the broadcasters from anything. Public resources should be controlled by and used to the advantage of the public!
Our house is broadcast-only because we don't see the value in having orders of magnitude of programming hours available, but a lot of people just can't afford it.
(unfair analogy: If 90% of the population lives close enough to walk to private schools, does that mean we don't need public ones any more?)
Oh boo hoo
Submitted by daCascadian (not verified) on Fri May. 8, 2009 2:23 PM PDT.
Hollywood Reporter >"Executives at the Big Four broadcast networks are seething behind the scenes that President Obama has cost them about $30 million in cumulative ad revenue this year..."
As if they couldn`t raise their ad rates by a dollar or two to make up for their boo hoo hoo "losses" while using public owned frequencies for public purposes.
Yet another group of pampered elitists whining about having to be responsible.
"The man of great wealth owes a particular obligation to the state because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government." - Theodore Roosevelt
Cable vs. Cable
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri May. 8, 2009 2:56 PM PDT.
Yes, I have cable. I have basic cable-networks, PBS, CBC (love it!), hallmark, discovery, CSPAN, etc. Nothing to write home about. I have it because it costs the same to have basic+internet as it would for just internet-DUH! Why not?
So, if the Obama press conference was on CNN, MSNBC or FOX I would not be able to see it.
Kevin, from your stats it seems that there is alot of leeway in the cable subscribers. Also, this is Nielsen National People Meter households (want to participate in the surveys, tilted toward lots of channels) AND it stopped 4thQ 08 BEFORE the big dip in "prosperity". Let's look at this again when the rest of the sub-primes hit this year and see how it goes, shall we?
You guys did notice that I
Submitted by Kevin Drum on Fri May. 8, 2009 4:30 PM PDT.
You guys did notice that I suggested the broadcast networks rotate these press conferences, didn't you? It's not as if folks without cable wouldn't be able to see them. I just don't see the point in pretending that they're so earth shattering that they need to be carried on every network.
And hauling out the public interest requirement is a very bad argument. "Public interest" should not be confused with "what the president wants."
Kevin, You do know that if
Submitted by Scotia formerly Anonymous (not verified) on Fri May. 8, 2009 6:32 PM PDT.
Kevin, You do know that if cable broadcasts the presser, networks will bow out, saying that the "public has been served"!
I agree that one network and one cable channel would suffice with a chryon on all other channels telling the viewing public where to look for the presser. (They advertise their programs-why not?)
I just think that this democracy thingy is a two way street and we need to see our Pres as much as possible to judge and spark our participation.
Maybe even a cello
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat May. 9, 2009 12:16 AM PDT.
Tiny violins? With what I'd do with them, no, full size violins for at least the NBC execs and their idiotic programing & canceling decisions lately.
What have you done for me lately?
Submitted by jhm on Sat May. 9, 2009 3:17 AM PDT.
The issue for me isn't so much any public obligation on the nets' part (albeit I think that they have more than they give [and rotating might sound good, but while I can receive the major nets over the air, I cannot get my local NBC, so I wouldn't assume that all people get all networks]).
My deal is: didn't the nets (and cable et elia) just get untold $billions from one of, if not the single longest and most expensive campaign cycle in history?
Kevin - you apparently think
Submitted by Marc (not verified) on Sat May. 9, 2009 12:08 PM PDT.
Kevin - you apparently think that the broadcasters just get the rights to use the spectrum and owe the public absolutely nothing for it. I think that they owe the public a great deal....
Including the obligation to donate airtime during political campaigns to coverage, especially if it costs them money. There is such a thing as a common good and a degree of responsibility that goes with a license to print money. We ask at least that much of, say, bars.
What about rural antenna user's?
Submitted by Trippp on Sat May. 9, 2009 4:16 PM PDT.
It may come as a surprise but there are people who may be able to receive only one of the broadcast networks via an antenna.
Will the switch to HD broadcast give 100% coverage over the entire USA? I don't think so.
I count myself with those who are kinda shocked that you so quickly give in to the networks, but maybe you represent the future view of the world. Corporations own everything and they let the people use it for a fee.
Tripp
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
