The Network Responsibilities

[cyphen]

no, i'm not talking about P2P, or client server... I'm talking about good ol' ABC, NBC, CBS...

Just from a non-political standpoint, does anyone else see their refusal to air the presidents address as irresponsible to the citizens of the US? That was certainly newsworthy, more so than President Clinton's explanation for the whole Lewinsky thing. I think the American people had a right to see it, and deserved to see it in full with Live coverage. My NBC affiliate aired it here, but much to my alarm, i discovered that many areas did not cover it at all.

IMO, the media has a responsibility to the people, and this to me seemed like a blatant disregard for the citizens of the US. The President addressed the Nation about possible war, and the reasons for it's urgency. There's a whole other thread on whether or not we should - so let's not get into that. But does that not seem like something that may be of particular interest to the Nation?

This to me, was a blatant abuse of their position. They refused to air something of national interest because they opposed it's content politically. I hope they get sued big time and that in the future the media is not politically slanted.

Hello, networks? One order of news, hold the opinon.

[Knothead]

Maybe unpatriotic of me, but I have long wondered why a speech by the President HAS to be carried on all channels at once!

It's just redundant, clicking through channels, the same thing on all of 'em. Just IMO.

[U-96]

I think China and North Korea and Cuba also make efforts to the same effect.

A supposedly free media can show what it wants, for the highest bidder. If the network gets public funding, then it may have an obligation to show "public service" stuff. I've seen celebrity weddings come higher up the news schedule than famine and war, so it's not hard to see where priorities lie

[Theophylact]

Look: the White House was trying to game this one. They wanted the networks to carry it, but (a) he didn't have anything much new to say, (b) it was before a captive audience in Cincinnati, not from the Oval Office, and (c) they didn't want people to start thinking that war was about to be announced. In short, they didn't ask the networks to carry it, because they didn't want to call it a major speech; they just wanted it to be treated as a major speech.

They figured wrong, but 17 million people watched it anyway. Big deal.

Bush was preaching his usual propoganda to a captive room of invite-only guests. Why should the networks give a care about such an event? When he allows Q+A from a more politically diverse audience or perhaps ever actually talks about his economic or domestic agendas, then I might actually comphrehend giving him air time on a major network.

[cyphen]

That's exactly where i disagree. The networks shouldn't be deciding what they want us to hear - especially as it relates to our president adressing us. You can have the opinion that President Bush was preaching propoganda, but each person should have the right to come to their own conclusions.

The audience he spoke in front of is irrelevent specifically as it was an address and not a Q+A event. And there have been many many many presidential addresses aired in the past of less import without Q+A - why not air this one, where he is directly speaking to the nation on a serious topic that he has received both praise and criticism over?

Controlling the information we recieve is hardly a democratic practice.

[jman01pa]

In my area, they interrupted Fear Factor.

I think all public stations should be required to air things of this nature. They should also be required to push programs back passed his speech and not simply interrupt them. Fear Factor was half over when the President was done talking. I was devistated...

[Theophylact]

cyphen: My point was that it's standard practice to ask the networks to carry a speech, and equally standard practice for them to oblige by carrying it. The White House didn't ask, because it was playing games. The networks wouldn't play those games.

[cyphen]

where can i find information supporting this? Because it seems to me that it's very political on the part of the media, which undeniably is liberal, right before an election in which the democratic party fears it's candidates may lose support on this particular issue? I don't see why the White House wouldn't ask the networks to air it??? The speech was about the fact that we weren't going to war - but that it was a good possibility if Saddam doesn't comply with UN demands. So it seems to me the White House had nothing to lose and everythign to gain by asking the networks to air, by making it a major speech....

[Theophylact]

cyphen, here's the story from yesterday's New York Times. I reproduce it in full so you can see both the Administration's story and the networks'.

October 8, 2002
3 Networks Skip Bush's Talk, Citing Absence of Request
By JIM RUTENBERG

WASHINGTON, Oct. 7 — Three major broadcast networks — ABC, CBS and NBC — chose not to carry the president's speech live tonight, despite much advance news coverage and the growing sense that the nation may soon be at war.

Although the speech was clearly intended more for the American public than for members of Congress or other constituencies he wants to support the war effort, the White House did not formally ask the networks to broadcast the speech, as is the usual practice.

Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, said the administration did not ask for network time because it did not want to mistakenly telegraph to the broadcasters, or the news media at large, that the president was to announce war plans.

"No matter how we did our best to create reasonable expectations, a rumor mill would have grown suggesting that military action was imminent," Mr. Fleischer said. "When the White House asks for time, it is because it's paramount. If we don't ask for time, we're using good discretion."

Other White House officials said privately that if they had asked for coverage, that would have unduly heightened expectations for a speech that had no particularly new or dramatic details. Still, some White House officials indicated that they had hoped the networks would cover the address anyway.

As it turned out, only Fox decided to carry it. But NBC's and Fox's affiliated cable outlets, MSNBC and Fox News Channel, also carried the speech.

Representatives for other networks said they decided against broadcasting the speech because the White House did not formally request that they do so.

Paul Friedman, executive vice president of ABC News, said the White House, "in fact, gave us guidance to the effect that the speech was primarily a new framing of the president's position."

But several network executives said that they were puzzled that the White House did not make the request and that they assumed it was a signal that the speech was not important enough to warrant the disruption of their prime-time schedules.

The Fox television network said it decided late in the day to show the speech, after a number of affiliates expressed an interest in carrying it. The network was to show Game 5 of the National League Division Series between the San Francisco Giants and the Atlanta Braves. Major League Baseball agreed to push the first pitch back to 8:27 from 8:20, East Coast time.

Some network executives said the White House's decision to leave the choice to the networks put the onus on them — and left them possibly facing negative publicity for choosing not to take a prime-time presidential speech in the face of possible action against Iraq. One executive said the White House approach was "passive aggressive."

Still, executives at the major networks said they were comfortable with their choices, especially because they had established that the president was planning to generally restate his case against Iraq and was not expected to provide any staggering disclosures. Complicating matters, executives at all of the networks said, was the fact that the president was not speaking from the Oval Office, but from a lectern before a large audience likely to applaud — sure to give his speech the feel of a political event.

"The president is giving a speech to a group of people in Cincinnati, which is different than an address to the nation," said Allison Gollust, an NBC spokeswoman.

Network officials also asserted that Mr. Bush had been making his case against Iraq for some time. Any news that came out of his speech would be shown on their regular newscasts, they added.

Jerry Nachman, the MSNBC editor in chief, on his early evening program "Nachman" harshly criticized NBC and the other networks for their decision, suggesting they were more concerned with making money from advertising.

"Hey, war's big, but this is the month that broadcast networks are rolling out or reprising their prime-time schedules," Mr. Nachman said, referring to the recent start of the new broadcast television season.