Presidential Debate - why carry it on all networks?

[landtuna]

In my metro area there are five network TV stations carrying the debate as well as MSNBC and there may be others I don't know about.

My question is.....why? Other than the obvious reason that network stations do not want to appear unpatriotic what is the purpose of showing the identical program on every station?

Are there really any metro areas in this country who do not have access to at least the "Big 4" or at least PBS?

Is there any valid reason why the networks cannot rotate this type of coverage similar to what's done in the sporting world?

 

[MarcB]

Here in Hartford is gonna air live on WFSB (CBS), WVIT (NBC), WTNH (ABC), and WEDH (PBS). FOX 61 WTIC-TV is gonna carry it on delay tape after their news ends because they're showing the Yankees take on the Redsox. Right now it's raining in Boston so they may end up showing the debate live.

 

[Markxxx]

I never could understand, except the networks see it as a segway into their own news commentary that happens after the debates.

I guess it's like the mean nasty old lady that lived in my building. No one liked her, no one was sorry she died but we all went to the wake, and no really knows why we did

 

[arnoldevns]

Let me back up and remind everyone of all the people who complain when Fox doesn't run the political conventions each year. This simply because Fox is off the air by the time the big speeches hit at 9pm Central.

Now, Fox is on the air at 8pm when this debate takes place and they're going to run it. The same is true of the State Of The Union address.

The reality is that you could put the debates, political conventions and State Of The Union address on just PBS and reach almost every viewer who wants to watch it. However, the network that refused to air the debate would be subjected to no end of ridicule by competitors and viewers who somehow feel slighted by it.

That's why it's on all the channels.

 

[RicoGregg]

I'm just guessing that perhaps license renewal considerations might also have something to do with it. Stations are supposed to be serving "the public interest", and maybe they're concerned that if they're the only station in a market that didn't show a presidential debate, that Friendly Cousin Charlie might raise his eyebrows at renewal time.

Just guessing.

 

[Yeziknoradio]

...because this is a 500 channel universe today, and all the networks need to transfer attention over to sister stations that are not covering the debate.

Channels with programming that eveyone ignores.

There must be some wishful thinking that this debate is giving better ratings to failing networks.

OR they honestly believe the debate is the only choice for ratings, no matter what airs.

Television is, after all, a business before it can be anything else.

 

[Iowan]

Actually, this debate is NOT carried on all networks--The CW just finished airing it's final Smackdown, and Celebrity Expose was on My Network TV

 

[landtuna]

Actually, this debate is NOT carried on all networks--The CW just finished airing it's final Smackdown, and Celebrity Expose was on My Network TV

I don't think most people consider CW or My Network actual 'networks' in the formal sense and the two programs you list are probably a good reason why. They are more like independents with access to a few common programs. Neither is worth watching in my area and that was long before CW was on life support.

 

[fybush]

I never could understand, except the networks see it as a segway into their own news commentary that happens after the debates.

A "Segway" is that funny-looking two-wheeled motorized scooter thingy. I don't think Brian Williams is riding one of those tonight.

A "segue" is a transition, and that's what the networks are after - these are high-profile events, and CBS wants to make sure Katie and Bob and the rest of the team are prominently featured before and after the debate, in hopes that more people will see them there and it will boost their ratings in their normal time slots. Same thing for ABC and NBC. Fox is a little different, inasmuch as it has no network news department of its own - but it's sure good publicity for FNC.

 

[N_D_Radioguy]

... rotate this type of coverage similar to what's done in the sporting world?

Not even remotely analogous.

Sports programming -- like the NFL or MLB playoffs -- isn't "rotated." It's specifically contracted by the league and networks. The Super Bowl doesn't actually rotate among networks. Fox [as an example] has a detailed contract to air the Super Bowl in specific years that happen to be three years apart. That contract is entirely separate from the NFL contracts with CBS, NBC and Disney, which are all also distinct from one another. If Fox were to fold amid the current financial crisis, for instance, the NFL would not change the "rotation" of the Super Bowl with the remaining networks; it would put all of the parts of Fox's contract back up for bids.

It's not even apples and oranges; it's apples and orangutans.

 

[mimo]

I've always thought that if a network/channel were to air the debate, you'd already have people watching the debate who were watching the programming that aired before. It's convenient, people don't need to change channels to watch it. There's always a lot of interest in the presidential debates. It would be smart programming to air the debate, even if it is on every other channel. It's like a programmer of a radio station once told me. If I'm airing a show and the station 30 miles down the road is airing it also, and I have just as go0d of a signal in that town, even if only 5 people are listening to that show, I want those 5 listeners. It it's just a small number of viewers that could be gained from airing the debate, don't you think that every network executive wants to have access to every last viewer?

 

[philosofy]

Our local CW station here in San Diego actually carried the debate which kind of surprised me. Did the debate location provide a pool feed and anyone that wanted to could carry it?

 

[tothedj]

This is a good question, and i assume since the political campaign is a news event
ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, and Fox have a obligation to broadcast this, but since the
cable news channels MSNBC, CNN, and the Fox News Channel carry them as well,
maybe the idea of rotating debate coverage would be a good move, not all viewers
want to watch the same thing, and if i recall, back in the 1970's before cable took
off, they did rotate debates, maybe after this year, this idea will be discussed, and
with the changing technology, by 2012, webcasting could play a bigger role.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

I don't think most people consider CW or My Network actual 'networks' in the formal sense and the two programs you list are probably a good reason why. They are more like independents with access to a few common programs. Neither is worth watching in my area and that was long before CW was on life support.

Technically, I believe CW/MyNet are classified as "program services" by the FCC. For that matter, I'm pretty sure FOX is in the same boat...by their own choice, as officially being recognized as a "network" puts them in a new category for a lot of things.

To the public, it's basically semantics.

 

[arnoldevns]

maybe the idea of rotating debate coverage would be a good move, not all viewers
want to watch the same thing, and if i recall, back in the 1970's before cable took
off, they did rotate debates,

You are wrong. ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS have always all carried the debates.
Do remember that there was a debate in 1960, but there wasn't another one until 1976.
That was the year Gerald Ford threw down the demand to debate during his speech at the GOP convention
after beating Ronald Reagan for the nomination. Carter agreed and they also agreed to a Vice Presidential debate.
It's been that way ever since.

Carter actually refused to participate in one of the 1980 debates because the organizers had agreed to invite independent John Anderson. Reagan and Anderson debated and it sank Anderson's numbers in the polls.

I think the debates are usually worthless. I thought the debate last night was pretty good. I would also like to see the debate commission change their rules to include all candidates who are on the ballot in all 50 states+DC. It would remove the variability of polling numbers (the debate commission will invite 3rd party/independents if they're at 15% in the polls) from the selection process.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Are there any 3rd party candidates this year who are on the ballot in all 50 states and Washington DC? I'm not aware of any. The last one may have been Pat Buchanan in 1996. Not certain.

 

[Markxxx]

Here's a site that lists who's on the ballot in what states

http://www.politics1.com/p2008-ballot.htm

 

[DStroyer]

I always thought part of the reason for running these political things (debates, speeches, etc.) on multiple channels is that there are people who are so remotely located - and only use rabbit ears or a roof antenna -that can only get one channel on their TV's... Or maybe, they get one channel "pretty good" and another one or two really crappy.

 

[Prais]

I'll give you another reason to run it on "all channels."

There are things that are more important than what's on Nick at
Night."

If you live in the United States you should be smart enough to WANT TO participate. If you want to shirk your "civic duty" and not be informed, you need to examine WHY you live here. Didn't you ever take a Government class in school?

If your civic duty is to "be stupid" then don't complain about who is running things.

 

[ixnay]

I never could understand, except the networks see it as a segway into their own news commentary that happens after the debates.

A "Segway" is that funny-looking two-wheeled motorized scooter thingy. I don't think Brian Williams is riding one of those tonight.

R-I needs a LOL emoticon, Scott.

ixnay