Networks may limit convention coverage (of the Democrats)

[brooklynite]

Source: Politico.com

Major television networks are considering curtailing coverage of the Democratic National Convention after Monday’s announcement that Barack Obama will accept his party's nomination in a Denver stadium.

According to several broadcast executives, the networks will still cover all the major speeches. But beyond that, all options are open as they look for savings to balance out the anticipated costs surrounding the stadium event. The acceptance event is an unexpected departure from the traditional convention hall format they had spent months planning for.

Network executives expect Obama’s relatively late-breaking decision to speak at Invesco Field at Mile High, a 76,000-seat football stadium, could add hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to already cash-strapped news divisions. Each network has budgeted millions to cover the political conventions, but that spending is already accounted for in specific costs ranging from hotel rooms to staffing to building convention platforms.

For most networks, any additional outlays for the convention would come out of their 2008 campaign budget.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11606.html

---

Who cares whether news gets made, as long as the budget balances...

[MadMaddie]

1. Do you want to bet that Republican Convention will be covered

from pre-start and post finish?

More of the MSM trying to control reality and the message.

Hopefully CSPAN or some other Cable station will cover the event as long s it goes.

[ladywnch]

19. just what I was thinking. they're not trying to control the message

too much are they......and by extention, the election/results.

I wonder what excuse they would have found if Obama hadn't chosen Invesco for his acceptance speech. They've been trying to pre-trash the Denver convention for weeks now.

[merwin]

32. When will DU learn that it has NOTHING to do with controlling the coverage. It has to do with the

almighty dollar. Period. Aside from an obviously biased network like Faux News, the rest are purely about ratings and dollars. They could care less who wins the election, as long as there is controversy and the costs are kept down.

[w4rma]

35. News outlets are often a loss leader for the other buisiness interests that the conglomerates

also own. It is the all mighty dollar, but these mega-businesses get most of their money from their other sources. Their news outlets are there for propaganda.

[SquireJons]

38. If it falls to CSPAN, then we lose

Even after all the fawning that the MSM is doing at the feet of McCain, this takes the cake. Are the three major networks, who hold public airwave broadcasting leases, really saying that they can't cover a presidential convention in full because of a few hundred thousand dollars?

As Bill the Cat would say: Pfffffttttttt!

What a load of BS that is. Broadcasting corporations NBC, CBS, and ABC have vested interests in the outcome of the election and they are part of the republican base. They also still have far higher viewership than the cable networks, so controlling the message from these media corporations is most important.

This is a big problem for the country because the fifth estate has been co opted by one political party, and that can't be good.

[CTyankee]

2. So save it on"talking heads" blathering on with their "interpretations" of

the convention news and just concentratate on the speeches, you dummies. Haven't you ever dealt with a budget?

Yeah, I know, they really don't want to deal with the speeches...:argh:

[CatholicEdHead]

3. That is what CSPAN and PBS are for me

Everything uncut and no other commentators or break ins

[CTyankee]

6. But the, who sees it? I love CSPAN and PBS but how many others see it?

No, I want it on PRIME TIME inthe AM and the PM, thank you very much!

[defendandprotect]

17. I've never watched the networks re elections . . . always C-span . ..

why would you want the blabbering, the commercials and the rest of the garbage?

[AllHereTruth]

29. C-span is C-span because most of America doesn't even know it exists.

[defendandprotect]

34. I think it is becoming obscure now . . . in my area they've removed C-span II

from the basic line up.

So, fewer people will come upon the Senate -- I rarely see it now because I have to go to the

internet.

It is something we should be seeing -- in fact, I think our state legislatures should be on TV

daily -- but we're going in reverse right now.


Certainly the heyday of C-span is over for now . . .

[ryanmuegge]

24. Oh, how delightful that would be.

I've had an assfull of tabloid pundits. Do away with them all for good.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

4. Not to mention the cost of all thr hookers

nt

[eppur_se_muova]

5. Maybe McSame will have a total meltdown, and save them the cost of covering the Pubs.

THAT would balance their budgets.

Hmmm ... why are the news divisions so short of funds, I wonder? Aren't they paying their anchors something like $5 MILLION a year? And they can't spare a little coin to cover a QUADRENNIAL event? One which promises to be the most exciting political convention in a couple of decades? Don't their broadcast licenses include some language about "serving the public interest"? If they can't afford to meet those terms, maybe our Congress needs to invite them in to explain why those licenses shouldn't be revoked ... hmmmm ?

[bluestateguy]

18. Don't laugh

The Ron Paul people may cause a ruckus, and there is a possibility of platform fights on issues like global warming.

We may have a more harmonious convention than they do, and they may regret the disproportionate convention coverage of their event.

[Peace Patriot]

7. Is there any way for the internet to live stream the Democratic Convention--all

the speeches, committee meetings, protests and other events that C-Span might not cover, or might cut away from? Am I dreaming? I'm not that savvy on the high end internet technology. What I would like to say to the war profiteering corporate news monopolies is: fuck you! They are raking in billions and billions of dollars in campaign ads. They are using that money to victimize the American public with a relentless stream of fascist bullshit 'news' and opinion. They pre-write the narratives for unjust war and stolen elections. They use their PRIVILEGE of their broadcast licenses (licensed by us--in theory) to fill our PUBLIC airwaves with a putrid cauldron of lies and distortions. If we had anything close to real democracy in this country, we would be commandeering OUR public airwaves for the vital business of democracy--wide spectrum political discussion, candidate access to the public (and vice versa), vetting of creative and useful public proposals, etc. Absent our power and sovereignty as a people, I would like to just boycott them, to cut them out, pay them no mind, make them irrelevant. But I don't particularly trust C-Span. The other day, I turned on C-Span radio at three different times of day, and every time there was some goddamned fascist bullshit program (AIPAC, the Christian Coalition)--it was infuriating. I want DIRECT convention coverage, no commentary; the camera on the proceedings. Choices may have to be made about committee meetings, and protests. I'm okay with some choices, provided that most of it is covered, and provided that, whatever choices have to be made, they are reasonable and unprejudiced by rightwing ideology.

Is that possible on the internet? Can we do webcams and add sound? Possible? Impossible? May be possible? Who could do it?

[MiniMe]

41. cspan should have most of it

[MaineDem]

42. I've been told that will be done

The DNC plans to webcast everything.

[Peace Patriot]

49. Great! Thanks for the info! nt

[Ian David]

8. Did they NOT make enough money off the long, drawn-out Obama/Clinton horse race? n/t

[Psephos]

13. To the contrary, the extended primaries cost them quite a sum more than was budgeted

It was all supposed to be over on Super Tuesday, if you recall.

[LiberalFighter]

9. Are cameras used during Denver Broncos' football games essentially permanent

or do they take them down after each game?

They couldn't all use the same feed for the broadcast?

[PSPS]

12. You're partially correct.

I believe many of the cameras are robotic and permanently in the stadium. One thing is for sure, though. The stadium is already completely wired for this. Sporting events are one of the least expensive programs for the networks.

It's pretty obvious that they're floating the idea of "blacking out" (so to speak) Obama's speech at the stadium. It's kind of like not covering millions marching against the bush/mccain war. If the media doesn't cover it, it didn't really happen.

[jwirr]

15. Those bastards better not black it out - we the people will throw a fit. nt

[Doremus]

10. They can't pool the coverage and share the costs?

That stadium speech is going to be awesome. They'd BETTER televise it on all stations PRIME TIME.

[ChazII]

11. Great question.

Pooling or using the same feed sounds logical to me.

[Juan_de_la_Dem]

14. Do they think it will not reap it's own rewards in viewing and/or sponsorship?

It seems they should be jumping for joy over such a historic opp to broadcast such an event. It will be shown for decades to come....rights to that film will be worth a ton.

[defendandprotect]

16. C-span should cover it . . .

[JanusAscending]

28. They have been announcing for a while now.........

that there will be "gavel to gavel" coverage of both conventions !! It seems to me that my cable Co. ( Comcast) is doing everything in their power to SCREW up this election for me. They took off c span 2, so I can't watch the Senate any more. Now they have notified customers in our area that we can't get MSNBC any more unless we rent a digital converter box. They are going to "digitalize" it right around the time of the convention (but not the other two cable news channels.) It's going to be very hard for me on my fixed income to be able to enjoy the things that matter most to me, T.V. and my "puter".

[bluestateguy]

20. The networks make themselves more irrelevant every day

Who watches the network nightly news anymore, save for 82 year old ladies in retirement homes?

[leftynyc]

40. Don't kid yourself

It's still the main way people get their news. 23 million people watch these newscasts. Any show on cable would kill for these numbers.


http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2008/narrative_networktv_audience.php?cat=2&media=6


Nightly Newscasts

In 2007, the first full year of new anchors, the steady decline in audience accelerated rather than ebbed.1 When the three networks were taken together, all three measurements of audience saw declines over a year earlier and, in two, the declines were steeper than in the past.

According to data from Nielsen Media Research, the networks averaged 23.1 million viewers a night, a drop of 5%, or 1.2 million viewers compared with data from 2006.2

[Pab Sungenis]

21. Remember who controls the cameras at the conventions.

Fox.

No wonder they're thinking about shutting out Obama's acceptance.

What we need to do is make sure we record it, encode it, and blanket the Internet with it. Put it on YouTube, upload it to torrent sites, burn DVD's to hand out. Spread it the old fashioned way: word of virtual mouth.

[NoodleyAppendage]

48. EXCELLENT POINT! This is really an effort by Faux News to shut out the Dems. BINGO!! n/t

J

[scheming daemons]

22. Cool! Win-Win! Less punditry!

[dbonds]

23. So it cost more to broadcast from a stadium already equipped for broadcasts...

than a convention hall that would have to be wired from scratch?

[Doctor_J]

25. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up just showing the RNC

the polls are going very poorly for Big Media and their fascist GOP. All the stops will be pulled out to get McSame into the WH.

[Phred42]

26. The repug convention will be covered because McCAin will drop out

for health reasons - throwing the whole thing open and making the media circus they want

[WhiteTara]

27. even though the numbers will be higher

than ANYTHING for the gops convention...therby making up the money that it will cost, because they can charge higher rates for the democratic convention because of the audience....KKKKarl Rove in action, again.

[droidamus2]

30. Maybe?

I'm not real up on the mechanics of streaming video but Obama's people seem to be pretty internet aware. How about they make a feed or feeds available for somebody to stream to the internet maybe through their site or a more robust site if theirs won't handle it. How about inviting some amateur video users to come in and record things to be uploaded to the internet on a daily basis maybe in the form of some kind of video-blog? Is this even possible?

[highplainsdem]

31. Any information on whether the DNC was warned of this possibility before the final decision on

Invesco Field was made?

[Voltaire99]

33. Unless this convention is different to the war advertisement in 2004...

...I'll be able to stand just as much of it: 15 minutes.

"John Kerry said, "Send me!" -- some of the most sickening words uttered in contemporary politics. The celebration of war at that event was a stake driven into the anti-war movement, and all to support that sad-sack on the merit of his "heroism" in shooting foreigners.

Left a bad taste.

And so might this year's, if Obama's pandering on Iraq continues. Remind me again why 18 more months of war is worth voting for?

Let me remind you, especially those of you too thick or lazy to read history: this is precisely what Nixon did when he campaigned to "end" a war and went on to fight it.

[Trajan]

36. Hilarious change of philosophical position

Damn ... We should have had MORE regulation ..... You silly arses ...

THAT will learn ya ....

[Trajan]

37. Aw heck ... WAY wrong thread ....

Chuckles .... and way too late to edit ... silly me ...

[Ghost of Tom Joad]

39. McCain vs NFL

How will all these news (and I use the term loosely) outlets covering the repubs complete against the opening of the NFL season?

[MaineDem]

43. I think this has been planned for a while

Networks have been cutting back more at each convention.

[NMDemDist2]

44. why don't they borrow a team from their sports division? n/t

[DS1]

45. Cash-strapped news divisions?

For real? :eyes:

[NoodleyAppendage]

46. BULLSH*T. The MSM just doesn't want the image of THOUSANDS CHEERING vs. McCain MN snoozefest. n/t

J

[fascisthunter]

47. geee... what a surprise. Quick Dems, move more to the right

maybe the MSM will treat you better. :puke:

FASCISM in ACTION! Welcome to Corporate Controlled America....