Networks may limit convention coverage (extra cost with Invesco Field)

[highplainsdem]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080708/pl_politico/11606

Major television networks are considering curtailing coverage of the Democratic National Convention after Monday’s announcement that Barack Obama will accept his party's nomination in a Denver stadium.

According to several broadcast executives, the networks will still cover all the major speeches. But beyond that, all options are open as they look for savings to balance out the anticipated costs surrounding the stadium event. The acceptance event is an unexpected departure from the traditional convention hall format for which they have spent months planning.

Network executives expect Obama’s relatively late-breaking decision to speak at Invesco Field at Mile High, a 76,000-seat football stadium, could add hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to already cash-strapped news divisions. Each network has budgeted millions to cover the political conventions, but that spending is already accounted for in specific costs ranging from hotel rooms to staffing to building convention platforms.

-snip-

In terms of overall impact, ABC News spokeswoman Emily Lenzner said, “While it doesn't change our plans to cover the convention, we are now taking a fresh look at all components of our coverage.”

That fresh look might end up haunting Democrats. While all the networks divide the cost of covering major speakers, they have considerable leeway for expanded coverage, contingent on their own budgets. Additional costs necessitated by the stadium speech could end up limiting coverage of the preliminary three days of the convention.

-snip-

Heightened public interest in the 2008 race means that news executives expect higher ratings from the conventions this year, and the one-time prospect of a contested Democratic convention led them to consider broader coverage than in 2004, when the networks decided not to broadcast the speeches on the second night of the convention. Now, however, the 2004 model suddenly seems attractive again to some executives.

More at the link.

I wonder if the DNC and the Obama campaign were aware of this possibility before the decision was made -- if anyone from the networks explained this to them, at least after the first rumors about using Invesco Field started last week. Shouldn't someone with the campaign have been checking with the networks first, though, to find out whether or not a change in plans requiring the networks to cover two venues for the Democratic convention might lead to less coverage at one?

[silverojo]

1. Another MSM excuse for screwing Obama out of favorable coverage

If a catastrophe were to destroy said stadium before Obama got there, they'd certainly have the cash to cover that story.

In other words, it's bullshit. Typical of the MSM.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WHAT]

3. who cares?,,,,

http://www.youtube.com/user/BarackObamadotcom and others will cover it. Also, aren't they afraid of being denied access in the future.

I just had to comment on this because of all the perspectives in which it could be viewed.

[highplainsdem]

8. I care. I don't think any alleged benefit from his giving the speech at the stadium outweighs

network coverage we might lose otherwise. I don't think anyone foolish enough to be greatly impressed because his audience is at a stadium instead of a convention hall seating 19,000 is likely to vote for him (or anyone else) anyway. I really doubt there's an "impressed-by-stadium-crowds-over-convention-center-crowds" bloc of voters he'll be winning.

I think those closeup shots of delegates who are obviously moved by a nominee's acceptance speech are much more effective than shots from a distance of a crowd.

And if the DNC had even the slightest idea that the move to Invesco Field for the acceptance speech would mean less coverage other days, then this was a dumb move, and a slap at any events and speakers who will get less coverage as a result. God knows there have been enough news stories about news divisions at networks having more limited budgets than they used to have.

Maybe the DNC and the Obama campaign didn't know. Maybe they had floated this idea to people at the networks and there'd been no hint that moving the final day of the convention to Invesco Field would mean less coverage the other days. Maybe this was a possibility the networks withheld. But if the DNC and the Obama campaign knew it was possible that using Invesco Field would mean less coverage other days, then this was a much dumber move than even the campaign seal they had to dump so quickly. And if they hadn't foreseen this possibility, I hope they can change their minds and have the entire convention in one venue, as originally planned, so our convention can get as much coverage as the GOP's.

[AP]

4. Yeah, because it's so hard to set up cameras and report from a sports stadium.

Especially one so big.

[NattPang]

5. Good!

It saves us the bother
of listening to a bunch
of commentators commenting
over the speeches.

That's what they did in 2004,
only showed us the so called
"highlights" they selected.

[tuvor]

6. Surely the media wouldn't try to deceive about the size of an event.

[Drunken Irishman]

7. They'll cover his speech and that's all that really matters.

McCain's speech might not even make it on NBC. haha