• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Presidential Debate - why carry it on all networks?

Prais said:
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.
Click to expand...

Since you didn't specify who your target was I will assume it is me.

I was asking the question more from a technical aspect than a political one. Unlike the "old days" it seems today there are very, very few areas of the country, if any, not served by OTA/cable/sat TV. And even if you are not a cable/sat customer most OTA stations have tons of repeaters making coverage almost universal even in remote areas. In this day and age it seems technical overkill to have the same program, no matter what kind, carried by every major network in all markets.

Now, to address your other comment.....I don't consider people wanting to watch something other than a repetition of major talking points (a so-called 'debate') "stupid". There has been virtually 24/7 coverage of this presidential election from day one. There is at least one cable/sat service dedicated to such coverage. It is virtually impossible to ignore it except perhaps by leaving your dial set on TVLand. I did watch most of the debate myself and agree with the majority analysis that it revealed nothing new about either candidate and was largely a waste of time. It is possible for a citizen to perform his/her civic duty by becoming informed on the issues and candidates in other ways.

Most responders to this thread understood the intent of the original post and good points were made.
 
landtuna said:
I was asking the question more from a technical aspect than a political one. Unlike the "old days" it seems today there are very, very few areas of the country, if any, not served by OTA/cable/sat TV. And even if you are not a cable/sat customer most OTA stations have tons of repeaters making coverage almost universal even in remote areas. In this day and age it seems technical overkill to have the same program, no matter what kind, carried by every major network in all markets.
Click to expand...

From a technical standpoint, you're quite correct. Each of the "big three," and PBS as well, has something like 99% population coverage of the US. Fox isn't far behind.

But as noted earlier in the thread, the networks offer debate coverage as more than just a public service. It's an important promotional opportunity for their hotly competitive news divisions, and needs to be seen in that light as well.
 
Tuna said;
I don't consider people wanting to watch something other than a repetition of major talking points (a so-called 'debate') "stupid"

T old boy, You took my point out of context, almost like the know-it-all schlubs who are hard at work dissing the party they oppose.

First, YOU did not state you were talking from a "technical" standpoint.
I meant (though I also overlooked MY angle ) -my bad) the EVENT itself not the "repition of the talking points" by those who feel they have to repeat what was just said so they can criticize and and color it" to their bias. I seldom stay around for that, anyway.

We better figure out who in ther political world is running things and (more importantly) what they are doing.

With the proven bias of nbc and cnn and fox, one needs to watch carefully. The old days of "trusting" the media are long over.

Then you said,
...Most responders to this thread understood the intent of the original post and good points were made.

I hope you have removed the knot in your shorts by now. You asked a question that calls for an opinion. I was merely responding with MY opinion, just like the rest.

Peace!
 
Each network has a news organization. Just as your local radio and TV stations that have news departments want the local viewer or listener to tune in to their specific station as the local source for breaking news in their local area, etc., so do the networks. They each want you to think of their branded network news department as the place to tune in for breaking news. Most folks do have a network they prefer to get their news from and for these debates those who faithfully watch ABC news will tune into ABC's coverage, those who get their news from Fox News Channel will tune into the Fox News Channel for the debate coverage, etc. So besides the public service aspect of it, there's also money to be made from the news department of your local station as well as the network news department.
 
tested said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Democrats and Republicans would NEVER stand for that.

NorthWest Cable News in Seattle has covered the debates, as has CNBC, Fox Business, and even BBC America. I wouldn't be surprised if MTV or Comedy Central was showing the debates.
 
Since these events have some measurable entertainment value, and you have a legitmate segment of independent voters skeptical of both national Republicans and Democrats--I would love to see CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Yahoo, AOL, Google/YouTube, or whoever hold a series of made-for-TV-debates of the top three third party candidates. It'd be hard to pare it down to three, probably, and the TV side probably wouldn't want to waste time with the VP candidates. But I think it'd make great 'news reality' TV, and it has the potential to keep the Democratic and GOP frontrunners honest.

I can think of plenty of reasons why this doesn't currently happen, but you never know how the political or the media landscape will change down the road. (That's why I included the online content providers along with the dedicated newschannels.)
 
Hi everyone:
Morgan Wick said:
tested said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Democrats and Republicans would NEVER stand for that.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's about time the Supreme Court intervenes and changes this policy. I went to that website referred to earlier. If you saw the OFFICIAL number of people running for President as recognized by state ballots, IT WOULD BLOW YOUR MIND.

Just my opinion....

Cheers :)

Pat
 
Pat Cook said:
The Democrats and Republicans would NEVER stand for that.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's about time the Supreme Court intervenes and changes this policy. I went to that website referred to earlier. If you saw the OFFICIAL number of people running for President as recognized by state ballots, IT WOULD BLOW YOUR MIND.
[/quote]

The number is well over 200 (as I once heard concerning one election) and not all of them are on the ballot in every state. Oooh, here's an idea: October Madness for the Presidency!
 
MikefromDelaware said:
Each network has a news organization. Just as your local radio and TV stations that have news departments want the local viewer or listener to tune in to their specific station as the local source for breaking news in their local area, etc., so do the networks. They each want you to think of their branded network news department as the place to tune in for breaking news. Most folks do have a network they prefer to get their news from and for these debates those who faithfully watch ABC news will tune into ABC's coverage, those who get their news from Fox News Channel will tune into the Fox News Channel for the debate coverage, etc. So besides the public service aspect of it, there's also money to be made from the news department of your local station as well as the network news department.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I was going to say. This is the correct answer as to why most of the networks carry the debates. It has to do with branding their news product. If they didn't carry the debates, that would set this process back. However, anyone notice that the old big three spend very little time, if any, with analysis after.
 
They only have 30 minutes before the break owed to the affiliates, but ABC has covered the debates extensively on Nightline, and devotes much of the first segment of the following day's Good Morning America to analysis and recaps.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom