So the networks are "seething" about lost ad revenue when POTUS

[monmouth]

wishes to speak to the nation? I have a solution. It has been stated that MSNBC is a fav of the WH in general soooooo, next time POTUS desires to speak to the nation he goes exclusively to MSNBC. The station could use the ratings boost, let David Shuster and Keith, or Ed be the guys on the desk.

Analysis will be fair and accurate and the other networks can shove it! I'm happy with that, whatcha think?

[JoePhilly]

1. The only network that "seethed" was Fox. This is a non-issue.

[monmouth]

3. Execs. at Big Four broadcast networks

Obama drama
Nets take a stand against primetime pre-emptions

By John Consoli

May 7, 2009, 08:47 PM ET
By and large, they personally forked out for his campaign, they voted for him, and they know he is capable of boosting TV ratings just by making an appearance.

But executives at the Big Four broadcast networks are seething behind the scenes that President Obama has cost them about $30 million in cumulative ad revenue this year with his three primetime news conference pre-emptions.

Now top network execs quietly are hoping that Fox's well-publicized rejection of the president's April 29 presser will serve as precedent for denying future White House requests for prime airtime.

"We will continue to make our decisions on White House requests on a case-by-case basis, but the Fox decision gives us cover to reject a request if we feel that there is no urgent breaking news that is going to be discussed," said one network exec, who, like all, would not speak for attribution fearing repercussions from the administration.

"If the president wants to make it tough for your network, he can," the exec added.

Another network executive confided, "Nobody wants to take on the White House, so we'll have to tiptoe through this."

continued at www.hollywoodreporter.com

[JoePhilly]

7. Then they should let a few advertisers sponser their coverage.

[DJ13]

2. Theres no reason to preempt primetime on the big 3

Theres enough cable news channels, and PBS for standard over the air broadcasting to use for night time Presidential speeches.

Those who want to know what the President is saying can choose to change channels to watch.

Outside of a national emergency of some kind, theres really no need to disrupt regular TV programming.

[kimmylavin]

4. Wouldn't want our citizens informed, now would we?

It may surprise you to learn that not everyone has cable.

PBS IS a great option, but why not the networks?
That's the best way to reach the most people.

The other side of your equation, of course, is that there are dozens of ways to re-watch regular TV programming.

[DJ13]

5. Wouldn't want our citizens informed, now would we?

By force? No.

I want a citizenry that WANTS to know whats going on.

[kimmylavin]

6. No one forces you to watch tv.

If people don't want to hear what the president of their country has to say about the very state of their LIVES, then they can turn it off.

And good luck with that idyllic citizenry you envision...
What was the rate of eligible voters to actual votes cast last time?

[DJ13]

8. Look, if people want to watch they would still be able to

People are adults, if they want to know what President Obama is talking about they will find one of the channels showing his press conference.

But forcing people to watch is the antithesis of the freedom we supposedly stand for.

I didnt like it when Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, or Bush Jr. did it, I dont like it when Obama does it.

[RC]

9. I usually did not watch that stumble tongue, druggie bu$h when he was on prime time.

Where was their bitching about losing money then?