On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:29 AM, JW <[email protected]> wrote: > Have you heard anything from the podium besides "Our party/candidate > is great, has done great things in the past, and will do great things > if elected, while the other party/candidate is awful, has done awful > things in the past, and will do awful things if elected"? It'll be the > same next week, too. (SNIP) >
Right - this is the excuse often given for not covering the conventions anymore. But that is what campaigns are - each side tries to persuade the public that its guy, and its policies, and its values, are better than the other side. That is not a reason not to cover a campaign - that is the campaign. Neither party is obligated to make itself look bad just to provide "good TV" for the networks. I am all in favor of requiring the broadcast networks to earn some of their public service credits by giving over 24 hours of primetime to split between the two major parties one week every four years and let them sell themselves however they see fit. The news divisions are not expected to simply videotape the messages of course - they are expected to actually practice journalism. Put the messages in some context, interview party leaders and rank and file delegates on the floor, probe for whatever they may be able to find beneath the glossy surface, bring in people with different assumptions and values and get their opinion. Tonight I switched over to ABC to watch the primetime time hour - Condoleezza Rice was already speaking when they came on the air. They went to just a few minutes (maybe less) of her speech a couple of times, but mostly ignored it. Now I despise Rice (not personally, I don't know her, but her values and her performance in previous administrations), but she is very knowledgeable and a former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser, and she was giving the most serious and systematic treatment of foreign affairs at this convention. I don't know what ABC was showing from 9:45 to 10:00 (ET), but I doubt it was more important for the public good than listening to Condi Rice's take on Obama's foreign policy decisions, and her reasons for why she things Romney would do a better job. If ABC and the other networks had agreed to broadcast even just 2 hours per night of the convention they could have moved her speech back a bit, aired the entire thing, and then spent a thoughtful 20 minutes discussing and analyzing what she said with informed people from a variety of perspectives. Now, I am not saying that I am surprised that ABC and the other networks do not want to spent even the miniscule fraction of their precious August primetime doing this kind of thing, but I am calling bullshit on the excuse that the reason is that their journalistic standards are repulsed by the slick and glossy infomercial the conventions have become. The networks don't do it because they are hardly in the real journalism business anymore, probably don't know how to do it, and are not inclined to do it because even reruns of Wipeout or whatever they were showing makes them more money than coverage of serious issues. ** -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
