choof.org

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 Because these criticisms are out of date.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.
You can't call everyone in Washington morons if you don't know exactly what it is that makes them morons.

Now the conventional wisdom on conventions is that they are no longer worth of our attention because they are too produced and there is no drama...

We're picking a president here, not the last comic standing.

The media treats conventions like pointless interruptions of their real job, covering the Scott Peterson trial. No surprises, no excitement? Hey, you know what's exciting? It's exciting when politicians get drunk with power because people aren't keeping an eye on them. No one expected that we would retaliate for 9/11 by attacking Iraq! Unpredictable! Exciting!

And the reason the conventions are so produced is because if they weren't the networks wouldn't air any of it. And the site of John Kerry last night rushing through his speech in cold sweat so that he wouldn't go over time and force viewers to miss the first two minutes of Elimidate was one of the saddest moments in the history of democracy. The man is proposing how to rule the globe and we treat him like it's an audition at the Improv and he just got the light.

I'm not saying everyone has to pour over the issues and read everything that is out there. We can't even get our president to do that.

But the conventions are one of the only times when the election isn't reduced to sound bytes and attack ads. You can get to know these people a bit. It's not exciting enough just to hear Theresa Heinz Kerry? Oh I'm sorry, next time we'll get Justin Timberlake to whip her tit out.

Maybe the conventions aren't boring, maybe it's the people who don't participate in our society who are boring. Once every four years the two parties put on a little pageant for you. These are our faces, these are our voices, this is our vision of America's future. You'd think that would be a little more interesting than reruns of celebrity poker...

If you think the Democratic convention was too slick? Wait until the Republicans and their convention with OBL making a grand entrance in chains from the back of the arena like King Kong!

Posted by chris at August 2, 2004 08:38 AM

Comments

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 PM