Welcome to choof.org. Unfair. Unbalanced. |
More Links Reenhead |
August 02, 2004
Cover the Conventions! In a largely delusional editorial published in the Washington Post, ABC News president David Westin argues that we shouldn't blame the networks for not covering the convention. Why? Because these criticisms are out of date. We now live in a media democracy where we don't need the networks as much as we used to: "This changes fundamentally the decision a news division makes about what it covers. If we broadcast extended convention coverage when most Americans would rather be watching something else, our audiences will flock to the alternative programming." And besides, the conventions are boring: "If the conventions themselves were as interesting as they were in 1948 or 1956 -- or even 1968 -- then we wouldn't have this problem. But as we all know too well, they aren't. As much as we might like to coerce people into watching what we think to be good for them, we simply don't have that power." Well, Bill Maher's Real Time has the answer to Westin. It's so good that I've transcribed it below. This is from the July 30, 2004 episode. And finally, new rule: Political conventions are important and they deserve to be broadcast and viewed in their entirety.Posted by chris at August 2, 2004 08:38 AM Maher ignores the best argument for networks' reduced coverage of conventions, because it trumps all his others: PEOPLE CHOOSE NOT TO FRIGGIN' WATCH THEM. The networks are just running what people want to watch. This doesn't seem all that hard to understand, really. For those few diehards who have to watch every second between the gavels, there are other sources for that. Conventions are infomercials anyway. Frankly, I'm surprised anyone watches them at all. Posted by: Robert at August 19, 2004 03:30 PMPost a comment
Powered
by |