Re: WHDH drops playoffs

[Dave Faneuf <tklaundry@juno.com>]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 19:48:44 -0400 John Mullaney <john@minutemancomm.com>
writes:
> Dave,
> I'm kind of kidding.... I wouldn't want me or the FCC deciding what 
> was news.
> It just seems that presidential debates have become long slow 
> platform
> speeches that don't need to be on all the VHF channels at the same 
> time. It's
> almost seems like they are trying to force you to watch by limiting 
> your
> choices instead of trying to provide a source of coverage.

> John
>

Glad to hear it was mostly tongue in cheek, I was beginning to worry
about you ;-)  I still think the over the air stations should all cover
it...if only to uphold the old tradition public good and all, not that
public good counts to the corporate types anymore.  I agree the "debates"
are not even close to what I would consider to be a real debate, but that
is no reason not to carry them. btw, I would include all candidates that
qualify for matching federal funds and I am NOT a Buchanan supporter, but
it seems to me.....but that is another argument...
 
> Dave Faneuf wrote:
> > So, if you want to watch the ballgame or the WWF go ahead no one 
> is stopping you.
> 
>John responded
> Well how could one do this if the debate is on here instead?
> 
I don't think the WB is pre-empting WWF for the debate, unless of course
it is Jesse Ventura's ;-)  On a serious note, I have at home pretty close
to 50 channels, the debate won't be on most of them and if you had
satelite TV you could still probably pick up the game somewhere.  

df