[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Corporate network bash
--- Sean Smyth <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I was under the belief that the Bush administration
> did not request the time
> from the broadcast networks to carry the speech in
> the first place.
IMHO, whether the government requests the time or not
should not be a significant consideration. The
networks ought to make an independent judgment on
whether a particular event is important enough to
interrupt regular programming. I don't want the
networks turning programming decisions over to a
politician -- even one I support.
I am a supporter of the President and his policy on
Iraq but I did not see anything earthshaking in
tonight's speech that justified universal coverage. I
would have been more likely to cover live the
announcement last week of agreement on a resolution
with Democrat Leadership in the House and key
Democrats in the Senate. That was real breaking news,
not just a politician trying to make the case for
their policy, which was what was going on tonight.
The networks serve their viewers by reporting the
significant parts of the President's speech, along
with dissenting opinions. It seems to me that anyone
who is interested in this issue can easily find
network coverage of both sides of this issue and the
possible implications of military action. I don't
think live coverage of tonight's speech was critical
to adequate coverage of this important issue.
I applaud Channel 7's decision to carry the speech,
but I fail to see why every station in the market
needed to carry it. This was a planned event where
those that were interested could seek out coverage on
radio or TV. It was not breaking news that
necessitated breaking into regular programming on
-- Dan Billings, Bowdoinham, Maine
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More