Comments on: Networks to Snub Conventions

By: bryan

bryan — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Except, I think, for people who do not subscribe to cable or satellite service. One could make the argument that broadcast companies operate on public airwaves and should therefore give up more time to political coverage. As well, nearly 50 percent of the populace doesn't have Internet.

I mean, C-Span is giving gavel to gavel coverage anyway, so that's your political junkie source. But the network coverage clearly isn't intended by the parties for political junkies, but for the non-junkie.

By: Jim Henley

Jim Henley — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

This is simply the parties' comeuppance for their decades-long effort to strip the conventions of even the chance of drama. They are no longer news in any sense, so there's no reason for the "news" divisions of the major networks to present them whole. They are pseudo-events; really, they're attempted infomercials, and damned long ones.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

I think Henley's probably closer to the truth than my initial reaction, which is that the networks started moving away from gavel-to-gavel coverage at about the same time us snake-handlin' yokels out in flyover country stopped voting the way the networks' talking heads tell us to vote.

But I'm not convinced there isn't some of that in their decision too...

By: Boyd

Boyd — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

I quit watching any portion of the nominating conventions years ago, so that prejudices me on the networks' rationale for limiting coverage: declining (virtually non-existent?) viewership.

Remember, all that matters with the networks is how many eyeballs they can capture. Without that, nothing else matters.

---