Dan Rather: Convention Coverage May Wither

[kskiska]

LOS ANGELES - CBS anchor Dan Rather says the day is coming soon when there will be virtually no live coverage of political conventions on television networks.

The Democrats and Republicans are to blame for scheduling four-day conventions that do little except advertise their established positions and candidates, he said.

"I think it's inevitable that the over-the-airways broadcasters and, for that matter, many in cable either take a pass or reduce their coverage even more than we've seen in recent years," Rather told the Television Critics Association this weekend.

CBS and the other broadcast networks haven't announced their plans for covering this year's conventions. Four years ago, they ran one-hour, prime-time wrap-ups during the first three nights, then gave slightly more time for the presidential candidates' acceptance speeches.

more…
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=496&u=/ap/20040118/ap_on_en_tv/brf_tv_rather_conventions_1&printer=1

[acmavm]

1. Hell yes, they have to save that valuable air time for 'reality shows' and

pathetic tripe that tries to pass for comedy.

[LiberalFighter]

5. How about reality conventions??

[Maeve]

24. Survivor:the Democrats

Coming this summer!

[GinaMaria]

23. what about 24/7 cable news?

they don't have the time? They are the ones who should be doing in depth interviews, extended coverage and presentation of multiple points of view. What? They don't have the time?

[AP]

2. They don't WANT politics to be on the air. If I produced the conventions

TV show, I could get it ranked number one. It would be EASY.

The networks don't want democracy. They want to run government and have guaranteed profits. So they do exactly what they've been doing.

It's absurd.

[Jazzgirl]

9. Exactly what I was thinking AP.

Why would Rather come out and say "well, networks just aren't going to cover conventions much anymore". BS! These guys don't want people to pay attention. Kind of like the no child left behind which actually works opposite of what the title implies. Leave every child (and everybody else) behind. That way they won't notice they've been screwed!

Jazzgirl :hurts:

[izzie]

3. I really do miss the old style ones, They were messy and fun to watch

It does date me.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

4. Ah, remember watching Rather get roughed up in '68. Good television! n/t

[Poiuyt]

6. What is the frequency, Kenneth?

[gauguin57]

8. conventions are staged

Anymore, both parties' conventions are staged to the hilt. You have a few great speeches surrounded by a bunch of carefully planned crap. No drama ... everything sanitized for our protection. Repuglican big-haired flag-waving; my fellow Democrats trying to find some vague sense of rhythm as they spastically gyrate to some lame old classic-rock song. Sad.

"withering" network coverage would be a real loss if conventions were the way they used to be. But as is ... the speeches by the unknown up-and-comers in the parties (which the networks don't show anyway) are usually the most interesting part of the whole process. I'll watch them on C-Span, thanks, without all the nattering by the network goofuses.

BTW: NBC's John Chancellor also got hassled on the convention floor. In '64, the Rethugs had him "escorted" from the convention floor, and he uttered the immortal words to his TV audience: "This is John Chancellor, somewhere in custody!"

Those were the days!

[Jazzgirl]

10. I remember...and enjoyed it.

[Piperay]

18. Those were the

good ole days for sure. I remember when Mayor Daley's delegation got removed from the convention, that was exciting stuff to see then. :-)

[wtmusic]

7. Good news

Dems will benefit from primary coverage, Repubs will benefit from what, coverage of the war in Iraq?

Don't think so... :silly:

[kskiska]

11. Back in the old days, before primaries

conventions were exciting because no one really knew who the candidate would be, much less his running mate. There was no entertainment – it was all politics. N, Now it's just a big stage show and everyone has known the outcome for months.

[IndianaGreen]

12. I don't care to have my TV programs ruined by political conventions!

I want to hear more about Jacko, Kobe, Britney, Peterson, Paris Hilton...

[Dookus]

13. But he's right...

conventions don't really mean anything anymore. They used to be covered as real news. Now they're just big 4-day commercials for the parties.

Believe me, if there was an audience to watch the conventions, they'd show them. They're whores, remember? If there's a buck to be made, they'll do it. If Americans in large numbers wanted to watch the conventions gavel-to-gavel, they'd broadcast them.

[auburnblu]

14. And with CNN, MSNBC, CSPAN and FoxNews

There is more coverage than ever of the event and less reason for the major networks to cover it. Dan Rather of course is sad, because network ratings are weaker for events like this than they used to be.

[Voltaire99]

15. What's to see at these sanitized events, anyway?

Unlike the old conventions which could become passionate struggles for not merely the nominee but the very soul of the party (see Chicago '68), the modern convention is usually a well-groomed and powdered done deal. Four days of preaching to the choir is followed by a mock "nomination" process for a result known several months beforehand, anyway.

In this we see much more than just the diminution of spectacle. The modern convention is so dull and phony because our democracy has become duller, phonier -- a monoculture withering from sameness.

Let the networks walk away. Frankly, I'd rather watch Comedy Central's live commentary on all the piety and posing anyway. :-)

[Razoor]

16. cutting back for more reality tv shows

stupid move. we dont need more time devoted to reality shows.

also little off topic i think but does c-span and c-span 2 show both party conventions or does a certain channel show one parts convention like c-span for democrats and c-span2 for GOP? this would be the first time I have cspan to watch the conventions

[Piperay]

17. The conventions ARE to scripted

with EVERYTHING to planned out, I'm not even that interested myself. :shrug:

[SoCalDem]

19. Conventions have not been relevant for years now..

The "nominee" is annointed well before the convention, and it's just a four day party to celebrate his coronation.. The US populace pays part of the cost, and it serves no purpose at all..

If the party faithful want to congregate and have a 4 day lovefest, great, but let them do it on their own dime, and I really don't need to see it televised.. It's all so pretentious anyway..

I think that the acceptance speeches of the presidential and vice presidential candidates should be televised, but that's it..

1 hour ought to do it..

In the old days, they actually voted right there and the candidate was not known a lot of the time..

Those days are over.. Does anyone really think that the repubes would run someone other than *?? There is no need for a convention for an incumbent, anyway.. The party faithful don't need the encouragement and the ones who are indifferent to politics don't watch anyway..

[schultzee]

20. we could return to newspapers if the mindless millions would learn

to read after years of exposure to television. Or we could rely on internet.

[donsu]

21. Rather is preparing the public for no coverage of conventions saying

they are pointless/scripted. Hogwash! It's just their vile way of suppressing actual news.

so ok, let them not cover the conventions. WE will cover the conventions and WE will spread the news.

Rather is a traitor.

[TankLV]

22. Let's see - I bet the last one on TV will be the repuke one.

Then, "just cooincidentally", for whatever bs reasons, they will refuse to televise the Democratic Convention that would have happened next.

Just a humble observation on "fair and balanced" and all!