Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  
Home

Those without cable or satellite have a fuzzy view of the presidential race

Submitted by Chad on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 10:37am.

BE-ELECTED
by Chad Rubel

For those with cable or satellite TV, February 17, 2009 doesn't mean a whole lot. For those who use rabbit ears to get television, the date in February is a significant deadline. February 17, 2009 marks the transition from analog to digital TV.

And if you do have cable or satellite, you probably think the transition isn't significant, but to many Americans, their TV watching depends on it.

So what does this have to do with politics? We keep hearing that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have had 20 debates. But if you are one of those who don't have cable or satellite, there haven't been 20 debates. There has been - one? The only one that leaps to mind that was on broadcast TV was the Saturday night contest in New Hampshire on ABC.

For goodness sake, we had a writers' strike, where networks were showing low-rated reruns. And we had a scenario where CBS and NBC both blew off Saturday night programming to cover a regular-season football game scheduled to air on the NFL Network. (ironically, CBS blew off "Good Night, and Good Luck" to show the game. Did CBS eventually reschedule that December broadcast?)

And yet the networks couldn't show presidential primary debates. If they were worried about ratings, then all four major networks should have carried the debates at the same time, or traded off so each network would have carried an equal number of debates.

Saturday night programming is so devalued on the broadcast schedule that only FOX consistently runs first-run programming on Saturday Night (COPS, America's Most Wanted). This fall, ABC's Saturday night programming was literally college football games. So, since the networks devalue Saturday night so much, they could have had the debates on Saturday night and not "suffered" too much.

Despite what the corporate media would like to believe, the airwaves belong to us. They serve a purpose to a lot of Americans who vote. The millions of coupons the government is printing up for digital converters (so those with analog TVs can still watch TV after the conversion) proves over-the-air TV is still relevant.

Think about this when it comes to political coverage on TV: In Canada, you can watch "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" and the "Colbert Report" with an antenna on CTV, but you can't watch those shows in the United States with an antenna.

One easy solution for broadcast TV is to stream the debates on a separate digital channel. For example, in Chicago, the NBC station (Channel 5) broadcasts its regular fare on 5-1. A weather channel airs on 5-2. If it had a third digital channel, the station could have run last night's MSNBC debate on 5-3.

The right-wing element goes nuts over a brief exposure of a female nipple (e.g., Janet Jackson), yet there's no protest over a lack of political debates on broadcast TV. If the right-wingers feel the airwaves need to be protected from a nipple, the left-wingers need to stand up to protected the airwaves from ignorance.

Those without cable or satellite have a fuzzy view of the presidential race
Technorati Tags:Technorati Tags:

»

My TV hasn't been on in months

Submitted by Freedem (not verified) on Thu, 02/28/2008 - 9:35pm.

I went Aol & Compuserve before it was "all you can eat" but it was the Salon article on the GOP sexual hypocrisy when every station described it as a "Clinton Web site" striking a corrupt attack as a defense.

As the facts were easily seen by anyone bothering to look, my respect for anything said in the MSM took a nosedive that has only nosedived further since. But now that all from Daily Show, Olbermann, & Democracy Now to Science programs and Scifi (many not on American cable or years late)are watchable on the web, the TV never gets warmed up.

In any case shows like Time Tunnel or Sliders that I used to think quite good now look like something from the 1950's Soviet Union. They are so obvious it is a wonder I could ever stomach them.

But I know that the majority of folk do not have regular access ti high speed internet, and a majority who do, do not seek out sites Like Buzzflash, Democracy now, Kos, etc. where they would see that Reality so that many whom I talk with have an incredibly reduced knowledge base even if their inclinations are liberal, and especially so if they are not. It is these folk (including many in Washington) who need special attention to bring them along, and for more than just the Presidential race.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Gang Of Pirates think that the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat, only a fool would think it bipartisan to accommodate them by acting the part.

»

Affects toothless banjo player vote--couldn't care less myself

Submitted by smchris on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 7:51pm.

I got online with CompuServe in 1986 and I've gotten any significant news from the internet for close to a decade.

You can have High Def and still have "rabbit ears". I watch the local "news" for regional human interest junk and the weather on my MythDora MythTV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythTV) and then menu to BFM Paris TV stream for international news to avoid the domestic evening propaganda.

»

I know!

Submitted by Smashette on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 4:25pm.

This is me! I don't have cable so I try to watch the debates on my computer but it's choppy and thats rather irritating to watch. The ABC debate required me to download their player, so I did, but it still didn't work! It's ridiculous! First the Red Sox take their games to cable, and now I can't even watch the debates. Hope I am not going to have to pay to get a book from the library!

»

Forget the cable.

Submitted by Freedem (not verified) on Thu, 02/28/2008 - 9:41pm.

Better to spend the money on decent Internet, as even if you have to DL first it is quite as good and you can reply back.(mostly)

»