Networks May Scale Back Convention Coverage For Obama's Speech

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 they had spent months planning for.

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.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[rubberneck]

Why can't he accept at the convention? This is so stupid. The speech will be interrupted to often with that many people. What if the place is not filled?

[PumaAnn]

Smart call by the networks and it's Obama's loss.

[buddhistMonkey]

It won't be Obama's loss. It's not like the networks are going to cut coverage of the first African-American nominee and best political speaker in half a century, speaking in front of the largest convention crowd in history. Not to mention that Obama will be accepting his nomination 20 years to the day after Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech. It's the kind of event that news channels dream about, and Obama will be a ratings bonanza for any network that gives him airtime.

No, the networks will make their cuts during the unimportant parts of the convention... like during Hillary Clinton's speech, for example.

[Plowboy]

And so now they behave like what they are --- as usual.
The networks and news do not agree. They prefer a certain brand of infotainments.
Guess which!
Hint: they loved Bush, didn't they?

[dayala]

watch it on CSPAN, they'll most likely cover the whole shebang with no commercials.

[FrictionSoul]

That's okay by me. Just let us in there with video cameras for an unadulterated look at what promises to be an awesome events.

[flydoghead]

Why don't the networks just fold their "news" divisions anyway ?

They are pretty much worthless .

For all the networks' insight at the lead in to to the War in Iraq, they should all be held accountable.

We wouldn't be in this mess without the collaboration of the network news divisions.

[Triciann]

Nothing to do with budgets and money. The networks are doing their own censoring. Democracy in this country is in peril. Suggest Obama supporters take action. How about a boycott of offending networks or of products advertised on them?

[presto]

Of course it has to do with budgets and money. No one watches the networks any more. They are having money trouble. This is understandable - but not important. It is hardly a censoring problem. Why would they cut off revenue? Watch it elsewhere.

[walkthewalk]

Priorities people. What if, in order to cover the Democratic Convention, the networks were forced to move money from quality shows like "Wipeout," "Fear Factor" and "Big Brother"? America, as we know it, might cease to exist.

[lily31]

" could add hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to already cash-strapped news divisions...." LOL

What are these exec smoking? They haven't served up news for years and they wouldn't recognize it if they stumbled over it in broad daylight!

SUGGESTION:

A: tap your entertainment millions ......
OR
B: take the HuntleyBrinkly approach ~ hire real journalists and spend less on razzle dazzle platforms and gimmicks.

[Canaris]

Walter Cronkite used to do it with a desk with come clocks on the wall behind him.

We know the networks aren't using their budgets to hire actual journalists, so I fail to see what the problem is.

[SaddieMcCall]

mainstream media is working overtime to make themselves irrelevant in getting the news. They are quickly losing their audience because they fail to demonstrate any kind of journalistic standards any more. It has become the FOXification of the news.

[AxelDC]

The networks make billions every political year off of TV ads from candidates across the board. Now they balk at spending a few thousand on covering the biggest political event of the year.

Not only are they ingrates, they are very poor businessmen. Any investment in political coverage is returned in spades from TV ads. Maybe the candidates will respond to the reduced coverage by buying more ads on the Internet and elsewhere.

Penny foolish and pound foolish by the clueless plutocrats running the MSMs

[LeBelAge]

I agree. Cash strapped my butt. This is an excuse by the MSM NOT to cover the Democratic Convention.

[presto]

Got paranoia?

[Egalitare]

Dear ESPN, FSN, and CBS Sports,

How do you cover an event in a sports venue? We're soooo confused!

Sincerely yours,

The MSM

[muadibe]

LOL...exactly! They just figure without Obama there, it'll be a snooze. They have PLENTY of money.

[Witchitalineman]

Oh boo hoo that the networks might have to "scale back" their coverage due to financial restraints. At the rate they listen to their consumers and in addition rip them off I could give a hoot!

[Yvaughn]

As seriously in the tank as the MSM has been for McCain and the Republican message, I wouldn't be surprised. Hello, news shows? This convention and this speech are NEWS.