Election Night coverage on the broadcast networks

[Jul]

Katie Couric and Charles Gibson will make their prime-time debuts as chief anchors for CBS and ABC next month during hour-long specials reporting midterm election results. Brian Williams is likely to do the same at NBC, but that network hasn't announced its Election Night plan.

To read the rest: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061018/ap_en_tv/tv_midterm_elections

 

[toby]

Why can't you summarize the article instead of taking a random quote and a link?

 

[fred flintstone]

True. Most people never click on links. The only way to make sure people see what you thought was so important is to rewrite the story as a post here.

The key item here, however, is in the lead (the post is not totally random). CBS and ABC are only going to do an hour of election returns - at least that's the current plan. The networks - at least two of three - have given up on election night and yielded to cable/satellite news channels. Also interesting, the article doesn't even mention Fox.

So Katie and Charlie are going to read from the TeleprompTer. Is anyone surprised? Is this news at all.
Nope.

The picture with article shows off Katie's rack, though. ;D

 

[Tim-In-Houston]

True. Most people never click on links. The only way to make sure people see what you thought was so important is to rewrite the story as a post here.

The key item here, however, is in the lead (the post is not totally random). CBS and ABC are only going to do an hour of election returns - at least that's the current plan. The networks - at least two of three - have given up on election night and yielded to cable/satellite news channels. Also interesting, the article doesn't even mention Fox.

So Katie and Charlie are going to read from the TeleprompTer. Is anyone surprised? Is this news at all.
Nope.

The picture with article shows off Katie's rack, though. ;D

It's the midterm elections...as far back as I can remember the networks have only ever programmed an hour for mid-term results. The last was 2002, of course, and I know ABC (with the late Peter Jennings) only did that 10:00 - 11:00pm (ET) hour for results.

The networks usually program the entire evening for presidential elections, but as important as the midterms are - in terms of who will control congress for the next two years, the local stations are more capable of handling and giving returns than the networks.

 

[KeithE4]

The key item here, however, is in the lead (the post is not totally random). CBS and ABC are only going to do an hour of election returns - at least that's the current plan. The networks - at least two of three - have given up on election night and yielded to cable/satellite news channels. Also interesting, the article doesn't even mention Fox.

Since it's a midterm election, with all the races in-state, there's no real need for much national broadcast coverage. An hour to summarize is probably quite adequate.

Most of the coverage will be either from the cable bloviators (and, I'm willing to bet that O'Reilly, Hannity, Matthews, Olbermann, and their ilk, will be on more often than the regular news anchors) or local stations. That's all there really needs to be. You'll see much more broadcast coverage in November 2008.

The picture with article shows off Katie's rack, though.

Do we really need to go there (not that I'm arguing, mind you)? ;D

 

[fred flintstone]

This is a national election with one-third of the Senate (and control of the Senate) and all of the House (and control of the House) up for grabs. It is a major national election because a major upset is possible - even likely - which could shift national politics for the next generation.

There was a time when Walter Cronkite and Huntley-Brinkley would have gone with this all evening, and all night if need be.

Whether the networks should go wall to wall with this is a separate question. Clearly, one-hour will not be enough for people involved in the electoral process (prime news consumers). What's apparent here is the terrestrial TV networks increasingly are getting themselves out of the news business. Magazine shows make money; those will continue. Morning shows also make money for networks (although may not be that good for local stations); the networks will want to keep those going in some form. The evening news continues on inertia and because news divisions won't give it up, but its days are numbered. But the networks have mostly given up on breaking news; ceding that domain to cable/satellite news channels. This is just one more example.

Gotta look at the big picture, folks.

 

[Nertz!]

I agree with toby, stop posting links to random stuff and give us a nutshell of what the article is about.

 

[Jul]

I agree with toby, stop posting links to random stuff and give us a nutshell of what the article is about.

I'm not good recapping things. That's why I do it the way I'm doing it not because its eaiser for me.

 

[KeithE4]

This is a national election with one-third of the Senate (and control of the Senate) and all of the House (and control of the House) up for grabs. It is a major national election because a major upset is possible - even likely - which could shift national politics for the next generation.

That's the only thing that makes a midterm election a national issue - control of Congress. 2008 will certainly be different since this will be the first time since 1952 that neither a sitting President nor Vice President will be running for President.

There was a time when Walter Cronkite and Huntley-Brinkley would have gone with this all evening, and all night if need be.

This is 2006, not 1966. In 1966, 80% of American TV viewers had their choice of CBS, NBC, or ABC - and nothing else. Three (or sometimes just one or two even then) channels, not the 70 or more of today. All three carried election coverage and they had no competition other than radio in all but the largest markets. I wonder how well the independents did on election day in the markets that had them, assuming they didn't run local coverage of their own.

The proper place for wall-to-wall national election coverage today is cable news, not the over-the-air dinosaur networks.

 

[toby]

I agree with toby, stop posting links to random stuff and give us a nutshell of what the article is about.

I'm not good recapping things. That's why I do it the way I'm doing it not because its eaiser for me.

Can you please translate this into English?

 

[fred flintstone]

This has nothing to do with the topic.
If you have a complaint or comment, please send the individual a personal message and/or report the post to the moderator.

 

[DoctorBear]

That's the only thing that makes a midterm election a national issue - control of Congress. 2008 will certainly be different since this will be the first time since 1952 that neither a sitting President nor Vice President will be running for President.

Which is what makes these elections important - these are where your candidates are coming from. How will Hilary do in NY? Or Lieberman? Or any other senators or governors who are aiming for 08?

There is also the idea that these elections are a referendum on Bush - the war, the economy, national security. If there is a change, it will either change how Bush governs or if he goes against a Democratic sweep and tries to do business as usual, will cause even more rancor.

Actually, I think the networks could draw a huge audience just by promising that "the negative ads are all gone, you can come out of your spider holes now."

 

[jegrant]

I think that broadcast networks will only go wall-to-wall for this election if there are severe, awful difficulties in voting in multiple states. If there are few or no voting problems, and/or only affecting one state, I think they'll stick with the announced schedule.