# Presidential Address on 9/9 at 8 EDT



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

The guide is picking the Presidential speech scheduled for this Wednesday at least for the three networks, ABC, NBC, CBS. For some reason the guide for the 24 hour cable news channels has not picked it up. Fox News is carrying it but not Fox Network.

I would think it would make sense for NBC to do what Fox is doing. Carry the speech on their news channel rather than on their other channels. 

I have no idea what people will be missing. I haven't started watching any network TV on Wednesday yet.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

It really comes down to what extent you think broadcasters using the public airwaves have an obligation to inform the community. If you think they have no obligation, then your way works. If you think they do have some obligation to serve the people of the area, then the address to Congress belongs on the OTA channel. All of them, not just the three that choose to live up to their responsibilities, letting the others off to make money while the responsible three are doing their civic duty. (Remember, not everyone has cable, but everyone who has cable has access to OTA channels on cable.)

I say if you don't see there being an obligation, then we should do away with *all *expectations regarding serving the public that people try to apply to OTA broadcasters. Let them each decide whether to serve the community or make money, as they see fit, for each situation where there is a matter of current regulation on their content.

Alternatively, the networks that choose to shirk this responsibility should graciously accept a lower priority in all things newsworthy: Stand in the back of the room at press conferences; move aside when the agents of the "real" news services arrive on a scene; etc. They shouldn't be able to pick and choose among newsworthy events based on how much money they can make by showing something else instead, with impunity.

Note that I don't really have a preference between these various alternatives: Either remove all community expectations from broadcasters, or apply a lower status to stations that choose to show commercial programming instead of newsworthy events such as a Presidential address to Congress. I'm okay with either. I'm not okay with essentially punishing the responsible networks and rewarding the irresponsible networks.


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

Speaking of the Presidential Address, Pres. Obama School Speech is going to be airing live on C-SPAN, 12pm ET/11PM CST.

It's also going to be streamed live on http://www.whitehouse.gov/


----------



## Hercules67 (Dec 8, 2007)

bicker said:


> It really comes down to what extent you think broadcasters using the public airwaves have an obligation to inform the community. If you think they have no obligation, then your way works. If you think they do have some obligation to serve the people of the area, then the address to Congress belongs on the OTA channel. All of them, not just the three that choose to live up to their responsibilities, letting the others off to make money while the responsible three are doing their civic duty. (Remember, not everyone has cable, but everyone who has cable has access to OTA channels on cable.)
> 
> I say if you don't see there being an obligation, then we should do away with *all *expectations regarding serving the public that people try to apply to OTA broadcasters. Let them each decide whether to serve the community or make money, as they see fit, for each situation where there is a matter of current regulation on their content.
> 
> ...


:up:

I wish we can mod such intelligent comments in other ways.

Thank you.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

We have an antenna. Airing only on cable news stations would mean we couldn't see it. :down:


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Good point. Fox network is OTA and Fox News is not. Not everyone has the internet etc. I had already read the school speech after I found out it was on the White House site. Not everyone has the internet, though if you are on this forum, you do. The weekly radio addresses are on Youtube and you have to go to the RNC page to get the Republican Weekly addresses (why doesn't the GOP put them on YouTube?). 

The newspapers usually don't publish a transcription so they only do a summary. The school speech did not have a lot of content. I hope the Health speech does.

If the speech is on one or more of the networks, does it need to be on all of them? I wonder if they could do a rotating broadcast so that all the other networks could be showing something else?


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

Robin said:


> We have an antenna. Airing only on cable news stations would mean we couldn't see it. :down:


Which is fine. All it's going to be is a speech to congress. It's not like you haven't heard the same stuff a million times over from the man in his various speeches across various channels, etc.

Honestly, Fox is making the right call here. Someone's got to stand up to this man and tell him no. If it's *important*, I'm all for giving over airwaves, but this guy is abusing this ability. This will be the 5th speech since he's been in office, for trivial matters.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Thanks for sharing your partisan political perspective.


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

bicker said:


> Thanks for sharing your partisan political perspective.


Wow, so misinformed.
I am affiliated with no party, I vote for no specific party on election day. I made that statement *not* as anything but an annoyed, irritated individual who is tired of seeing some clown pre-empt national TV like he's the biggest thing since sliced bread.

Presidential addresses are well and good, and should be made from time to time, but *only* from time to time, and *only* in an emergency basis (excluding, of course the state of the union). If McCain were doing this, I'd say the same thing. If Bush were, I'd DEFINITELY be saying the same thing.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

twhiting9275 said:


> Wow, so misinformed.


No, just calling you out. You can try to avoid the fact that you injected a partisan political perspective after a half-dozen other posters respected the principles of this forum. Even independents can inject politics into a discussion, as you did. We were discussing an issue without politics, and then you injected your partisan perspective into the discussion. And then you protested being called out on it out of embarrassment. How much more do you want to derail the thread?


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

So, if it doesn't agree with your standpoint, it's partisan. Forget the fact that it's annoying as hell to see TV once again pre-empted for some useless drivel to congress. The man couldn't even be bothered to address the public directly.

Take your political assumptions elsewhere.


----------



## balboa dave (Jan 19, 2004)

twhiting9275 said:


> So, if it doesn't agree with your standpoint, it's partisan. Forget the fact that it's annoying as hell to see TV once again pre-empted for some useless drivel to congress. *The man couldn't even be bothered to address the public directly.*


If only he could put that speech on TV, where the public could watch it.


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

twhiting9275 said:


> Wow, so misinformed.
> I am affiliated with no party, I vote for no specific party on election day. I made that statement *not* as anything but an annoyed, irritated individual who is tired of seeing some clown pre-empt national TV like he's the biggest thing since sliced bread.
> 
> Presidential addresses are well and good, and should be made from time to time, but *only* from time to time, and *only* in an emergency basis (excluding, of course the state of the union). If McCain were doing this, I'd say the same thing. If Bush were, I'd DEFINITELY be saying the same thing.


Health Insurance Reform is an incredibly important issue, whether you are for it or not for it. This country is in a medical financial crisis that is ballooning out of control. The President of the United States is trying to convince the legislature of the United States to do something about it. Again, Pro or Con, only a fool who doesn't care about his medical and financial future would not listen. Every citizen of USA, even those who do not have access to overpriced cable or broadband, has a right and even an obligation to listen to this. The broadcasters of this country who were given the airwaves/frequencies have an obligation to carry something of this import.


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

MScottC said:


> Health Insurance Reform is an incredibly important issue, whether you are for it or not for it.


Absolutely, and I have no problem with that statement.
The problem comes in when anyone (and I do mean anyone) thinks they have the right to demand the media give up their nightly programming for something that was written, *not* for the general public, but for congress.

Like I said, the man's made 5 speeches (counting this one) since he was brought in in January. That's an average of a speech every month and a half, all deemed *important*. At some point the *important* factor is just ignored, right? Like the kid crying wolf, eventually it will all be tuned out.

Again, not political at all, I'm just tired of seeing TV pre-empted by this man who thinks he has the right to do so at his own personal whim. Does anyone know where one might find a list of previous president's speeches like this (again, not counting State of the Union), where TV was pre-empted? I can't recall but maybe a couple done by JR, maybe there were more??


----------



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

twhiting9275 said:


> I'm just tired of seeing TV pre-empted by this man who thinks he has the right to do so at his own personal whim. Does anyone know where one might find a list of previous president's speeches like this (again, not counting State of the Union), where TV was pre-empted? I can't recall but maybe a couple done by JR, maybe there were more??


Does "JR" refer to G.W. Bush?

About every other President, not counting him, saw fit to address the nation on a pretty regular basis. I can certainly remember Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan doing so.

Also, "trivial"?  Your dictionary needs recalibrating.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

I would much rather see the networks carry the speech based on their intepretation of the merits of doing so rather than based on any sort of random guess they have to make concerning "public service" requirements for the "airwaves."

And any such public service requirements, nowadays, should be readily met by broadcasting on a subchannel rather than the main channel.

HBO and numerous cable networks have a much better programming model than the networks nowadays.

NBC, however, has a special place for presidential addresses they should use: 10pmET Now with Leno there every weekday they have a perfect place to preempt regular programming for Presidential "news" coverage.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Nixon pre-empted with some fairly unimportant speeches if I recollect properly and I voted for him in '72. Johnson was bad "I come to you with a heavy heart" and pre-empted a lot also. 

Then there is the odd Fox News effect that only happened once or twice during GW Bush's term. Bush was supposed to make a series of "important" speeches about the Iraq war back in about 2004 when we were setting timelines etc. and Fox was the only one to carry the speeches. I saw the first one and it was nothing. There was no news in it. It was like a stump speech. I don't even think Fox carried the next ones that were supposed to be in the series.


At least there is nothing on right now to be pre-empted.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

twhiting9275 said:


> Honestly, Fox is making the right call here. Someone's got to stand up to this man and tell him no. If it's *important*, I'm all for giving over airwaves, but this guy is abusing this ability. This will be the 5th speech since he's been in office, for trivial matters.


That's funny.. I suspect (possibly incorrectly), that I probably *agree* with you politically.. But that makes it *NOT* trivial.. (taking my tax money is not a trivial matter)


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

First off, bicker, great initial post.

Second, and I don't like saying it, but I may actually agree with twhiting9275, although I wouldn't have referred to the president as a clown (although I'm sure I said worse about his predecessor, so to each their own). I do think that the president (and I'm using that phrase rather than referring to him by name because I think people have shown a shocking lack of respect for the presidential office in recent days) has spoken to the nation about things that don't necessarily merit it. I wasn't alive for the LBJ or Nixon days, so what I remember is presidents speaking to the nation about wars in Iraq and 9/11 and an unfortunate b.j. (also something that shouldn't have merited a national address, but considering the amount of America's time that act took up, I guess I'm in the minority on that view).

Unfortunately, health care is a crucial topic today, and whether you agree with the president's position, the argument that it doesn't merit network coverage should fall on deaf ears. But when the president has spoken once every month and a half, it's quite easy for people to come to that conclusion.


----------

