• 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

President's Televised Address

Status
Not open for further replies.
I read that the network substituted a repeat episode of “GAM” instead of running the new episode that had been scheduled. As it was a repeat episode they preempted the beginning of the show so the 10 pm “Shark Tank” started on time. They probably did this so 11 pm local news and late night programming wouldn’t be delayed.
I have another recording that I guess will confirm this. "Abbott" usually runs over but surely they made it end on time, but I'll check anyway.
 
I similarly listened on the radio also carrying CBS Radio News. Without seeing the speech (and not commenting on the content of the speech) he almost sounded sedated or medicated, he sounded monotone except when criticizing the previous administration
That's his standard reading voice, I think. I think it makes him sound stupid (which is quite a statement, given the stupidity he's prone to spewing when he's off-script).

c
 
That seems to simply be the way these topics go. Broadcasting (especially journalistic/news broadcasting) is inherently political simply by the nature of what is being broadcasted, making it rather difficult to avoid completely.

c
Oh I get that. But there are lots of posts here with nothing but political statements. Case in point:
That's his standard reading voice, I think. I think it makes him sound stupid (which is quite a statement, given the stupidity he's prone to spewing when he's off-script).

c
When one can’t read above a second-grade level, if that, attempting to say words is hard.
The Epstein files are so bad that he would rather wage a war rhan have attention paid to them? Not baffling at all, unfortunately.
Trump/Kegsbreath wanted a "patriotic" media that would worship Trump, and they've pretty much got.


There's a lot of actual talk about television, too, but it's unfortunate to have to read through all the political mumbo-jumbo on here. It's getting old.
 
There's a lot of actual talk about television, too, but it's unfortunate to have to read through all the political mumbo-jumbo on here. It's getting old.
You're right, of course.

Fortunately everyone here seems to be quite civil about it for the most part. I've seen it in other forums where someone starts talking political, then someone else disagrees, and pretty soon everyone's fighting and arguing to the point where the thread has to be locked down and many posts deleted because people couldn't behave themselves.

c
 
You're right, of course.

Fortunately everyone here seems to be quite civil about it for the most part. I've seen it in other forums where someone starts talking political, then someone else disagrees, and pretty soon everyone's fighting and arguing to the point where the thread has to be locked down and many posts deleted because people couldn't behave themselves.

c
I don't know...it can get pretty nasty here. Case in point, the thread about a WABC right wing host that got shut down, after a moderator was called a racist among other things.
 
You're right, of course.

Fortunately everyone here seems to be quite civil about it for the most part. I've seen it in other forums where someone starts talking political, then someone else disagrees, and pretty soon everyone's fighting and arguing to the point where the thread has to be locked down and many posts deleted because people couldn't behave themselves.

c
That happens here too. Or did. Political discussions aren't being allowed.
 
There's a lot of actual talk about television, too, but it's unfortunate to have to read through all the political mumbo-jumbo on here. It's getting old.

It is quite literally a political speech, by a polititcian. Unclear to me how any discussion would not contain "political mumbo-humbo" as you put it. Given the nature of the original post, if you don't want to entertain that there will be political discussion you probably should move on to other posts- looks like there are several dozen other active threads going on right now on this board. In comparison to most of the rest of the internet, this discussion is extremely mild and civil.
 
How did TV and radio cover the President's sweary rant on his Truth website? The BBC broadcast the language in full with a warning, while some other stations just referred to it as "expletive laden".

Personally, I think the importance of knowing the President of the United States is using such language in public statements outweighs the importance of people not being offended while listening to the news, so I err on the side of broadcasting the language where it is a direct quote of something said.
 
The issue is not that this is a topic about a politician and a political program. If comments were restricted to broadcast it would be fine but there are those who can't seem to follow rules. Calling someone stupid or can't read above a second grade level is NOT commenting on the broadcast but simply spreading hate for the sake of doing so. And I agree, it gets tiring.
 
Last edited:
The president's address last week seemed to drive down ratings from the preceding hour. Interrupting entertainment shows like Survivor may get you a lot of attention for a few minutes, but the 9PM hour had fewer viewers than 8PM.


The president will hold a press conference today, Monday, at 1PM. No word on if the networks will pre-empt for coverage:

 
Last edited:
How did TV and radio cover the President's sweary rant on his Truth website? The BBC broadcast the language in full with a warning, while some other stations just referred to it as "expletive laden".

Personally, I think the importance of knowing the President of the United States is using such language in public statements outweighs the importance of people not being offended while listening to the news, so I err on the side of broadcasting the language where it is a direct quote of something said.
The threats of massive war crimes are more important than the profanity
 
How did TV and radio cover the President's sweary rant on his Truth website? The BBC broadcast the language in full with a warning, while some other stations just referred to it as "expletive laden".

Personally, I think the importance of knowing the President of the United States is using such language in public statements outweighs the importance of people not being offended while listening to the news, so I err on the side of broadcasting the language where it is a direct quote of something said.

NPR this morning just referred to his post as being "laden with expletives."

And, of course, this is not the first time he's done this. During Mr. Trump's first term in office, he referred to certain African and Caribbean nations as being "s**thole countries,", most likely referring to the color of the skin of a majority of their citizens. In that case, NPR played the entire quote (he said it at a White House briefing, if memory serves) only once and with plenty of warning beforehand for those who didn't want their children to hear it. (The network didn't cover the briefing live.)
 
During Mr. Trump's first term in office, he referred to certain African and Caribbean nations as being "s**thole countries,", most likely referring to the color of the skin of a majority of their citizens. In that case, NPR played the entire quote (he said it at a White House briefing, if memory serves) only once and with plenty of warning beforehand for those who didn't want their children to hear it. (The network didn't cover the briefing live.)
There was no recording of the original statement because it was said during a closed-door meeting. Trump and his administration denied he actually said the word, until he finally admitted and repeated it a few months ago:
 
I sometimes wonder if I would be better off leaving the US and becoming a citizen of some other place, such as the UK, say, but I fear there's more than a bit of "grass is greener" syndrome going on, so I'm probably better off staying put, even though I've grown increasingly resentful of my government, particularly the demented and incompetent lier in chief.
Except for a few places where high net worth individuals can qualify for citizenship by investing millions, elsewhere it takes years to become a citizen of another country.

When I was in Ecuador, I studied and fulfilled certain steps to get citizenship. After 5 years, I was still several years away from qualifying. And that was not even a country where most people want to go and live.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Back
Top Bottom