3 ms·

This wasn’t supposed to be a problem because to get airwaves from the FCC broadcasters had to agree to broadcast a certain amount of public interest programming

by MBCook 4y ago

This wasn’t supposed to be a problem because to get airwaves from the FCC broadcasters had to agree to broadcast a certain amount of public interest programming, which they do with news. The problem is basically everyone seems to be trying to see how far they can push the line on “good enough” without ending up getting fined. And the FCC knows how dangerous it is to try to rein that in. And media consolidation means you can produce crappy news and not fail because you only compete with yourself or one other corporation that also happens to try to send as little possible on news. All incentives to do a good job (as a corporation) are gone. And as long as the slide wasn’t too fast they wouldn’t get called on it. So here we are. Edit: and oh yeah, not airing a prime time presidential address to the nation because your ratings would go down. I’m sure the public interest rule was designed to protect your ratings above all else.

gruez 4y ago
>Edit: and oh yeah, not airing a prime time presidential address to the nation because your ratings would go down. I’m sure the public interest rule was designed to protect your ratings above all else. "TV networks not wanting to air a prime time presidential address because of ratings" is one way of framing it. The other is "TV networks giving what their viewers want and not shoving a presidential address down their throats". In the era of cable TV and c-span.org, people who want politics can get it. The person tuning in at prime time to watch NCIS or whatever doesn't care for the president's speech, and I'm not sure what good can come from trying to force people to watch it.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  It's in the public interest to hear from the president during significant events. With on demand streaming and syndication folks with get their NCIS fix one way or another.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >It's in the public interest to hear from the president during significant events. for the purpose of argument, let's assume this premise is true. It's not hard to imagine that a biden supporter would be amendable to the idea there's a "public interest" to hear from him. However, how would this work if it's a president you oppose? Would you support allowing trump in 2020 to hijack prime time TV so he could rant about how "biden and ANTIFA democrats are mounting a dangerous attack on the country’s values, and Americans must fight back"[1]? Absent a principled way of determining what counts as "public interest", what you're saying just boils down to "people should be forced to hear the speech that I like". [1] quote adapted from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/01/biden-slams-attacks-on-democracy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/01/biden-sla... >With on demand streaming and syndication folks with get their NCIS fix one way or another. I haven't had cable for a while, but I'm pretty sure that "on demand streaming and syndication" doesn't allow you to watch episodes as they're being aired. Moreover, not everyone knows how to operate a streaming service. In contrast if you wanted to hear biden's speech you could easily tune into CNN or c-span. Therefore it's pretty clear that canceling prime time TV has more of an impact on people's options than not airing biden's speech does.
    - paulryanrogers 4y ago
      FWIW I hate most presidential speeches, regardless of party, and all their obligatory "God bless America" fluff. Yet I do see value in the bully pulpit during genuine crises. With broadcast TV giving way to on demand it's my hope there will be a way to at least prompt the nation to take a moment to hear from our elected leader. Even if it's just a text with a link to a live stream.
nostromo 4y ago
> not airing a prime time presidential address to the nation because your ratings would go down The networks didn’t air it because it was deemed to be an election year political speech.
dredmorbius 4y ago
What address and what network(s) are you referring to?
- gruez 4y ago
  he was probably referring to this article that made the rounds a few weeks ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/09/02/biden-speech-network-coverage-independence-hall/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/09/02/biden-speech...
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    Thanks.

by MBCook 4y ago

gruez 4y ago

>Edit: and oh yeah, not airing a prime time presidential address to the nation because your ratings would go down. I’m sure the public interest rule was designed to protect your ratings above all else. "TV networks not wanting to air a prime time presidential address because of ratings" is one way of framing it. The other is "TV networks giving what their viewers want and not shoving a presidential address down their throats". In the era of cable TV and c-span.org, people who want politics can get it. The person tuning in at prime time to watch NCIS or whatever doesn't care for the president's speech, and I'm not sure what good can come from trying to force people to watch it.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
It's in the public interest to hear from the president during significant events. With on demand streaming and syndication folks with get their NCIS fix one way or another.
- gruez 4y ago
  >It's in the public interest to hear from the president during significant events. for the purpose of argument, let's assume this premise is true. It's not hard to imagine that a biden supporter would be amendable to the idea there's a "public interest" to hear from him. However, how would this work if it's a president you oppose? Would you support allowing trump in 2020 to hijack prime time TV so he could rant about how "biden and ANTIFA democrats are mounting a dangerous attack on the country’s values, and Americans must fight back"[1]? Absent a principled way of determining what counts as "public interest", what you're saying just boils down to "people should be forced to hear the speech that I like". [1] quote adapted from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/01/biden-slams-attacks-on-democracy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/01/biden-sla... >With on demand streaming and syndication folks with get their NCIS fix one way or another. I haven't had cable for a while, but I'm pretty sure that "on demand streaming and syndication" doesn't allow you to watch episodes as they're being aired. Moreover, not everyone knows how to operate a streaming service. In contrast if you wanted to hear biden's speech you could easily tune into CNN or c-span. Therefore it's pretty clear that canceling prime time TV has more of an impact on people's options than not airing biden's speech does.
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    FWIW I hate most presidential speeches, regardless of party, and all their obligatory "God bless America" fluff. Yet I do see value in the bully pulpit during genuine crises. With broadcast TV giving way to on demand it's my hope there will be a way to at least prompt the nation to take a moment to hear from our elected leader. Even if it's just a text with a link to a live stream.

nostromo 4y ago

> not airing a prime time presidential address to the nation because your ratings would go down The networks didn’t air it because it was deemed to be an election year political speech.

dredmorbius 4y ago

What address and what network(s) are you referring to?

gruez 4y ago
he was probably referring to this article that made the rounds a few weeks ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/09/02/biden-speech-network-coverage-independence-hall/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/09/02/biden-speech...
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  Thanks.