Obama's Prime-Time Addresses Could Cost Networks Millions In Lost Ad Dollars

President Obama's desire to talk -- and talk, and talk -- to the American public could cost broadcast networks millions, and millions, and millions of prime-time TV dollars.

Broadcasters are bracing themselves for the likelihood of three prime-time interruptions in three weeks, totaling at least three hours of prime time -- and ad breaks -- yanked.

"His economic stimulus package apparently does not extend to the TV networks," one network exec noted

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[zanzig]

Stop paying your individual over rated talking heads tens of millions $$ and perhaps you won't have a need for a stimulus.

[MED1025]

If they don't want to fulfill their obligation to serve the public interest which came as part of their license to broadcast, they can either give up the license or pay a rental fee for the use of our airwaves.

[shirleyfeeney]

We had a president who ignored the American people...

and now we have one who is actually willing to communicate with us and the networks are b i t c h i n g about this? As the American public, I think we can easily take care of this--how about we just stop patronizing your sponsors?

The airwaves are public and free, The POTUS has a right to speak, and you have no right to complain about the loss of revenue.

[island-in-alabama]

Boo hoo. Cry me a river.

Americans lose trillions of dollars in worth.

Americans lose millions of jobs.

Millions of Americans can't feed or house their families, and tens of millions more are at risk of joining them.

Now the MSM wants to whine about losing some ad revenue over a Presidential speech...

How transparent and disingenuous - they just don't want the President to outflank their patently false framing of the issues.

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

I love this.

Shock and awe preempting prime-time and incurring millions in costs at networks.

For some reason, I don't know whether the author wrote this tongue in cheek. Maybe because all in all it doesn't matter.

[MS]

OMG - you mean that the networks that use our PUBLIC AIRWAVES and make money off of that FREE BENEFIT may have to offer AIRTIME TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

OMG - the poor poor networks, that make millions every minute using our FREE NATIONAL AIRWAVES may have to follow the rules they agreed to in the first instance, and allow the President of the United States to address the nation?

Why was this not a problem every time that George W. Bush addressed the nation?

Why are we - once again - faced with a screaming Enquirer headline that does not reflect the story?

[2008CaliforniaFan]

They didn't mind giving us Bush's 'W ar on te rror' for eight years at a price of 12 Bi llion a month to our Country.

Like I should care about their commercials. At least we will hear some truth now.
Now go make up another one of your Reality Shows.

[cluesearch]

I don't recall anyone criticizing Bush for his moronic prattling during the lead up to the war--I recall two or three preemptive remarks (pun intended).

[sarimn00]

Get over it. We are "this close" to a depression, and the American people would like to hear him speak.

[island-in-alabama]

We're beyond "this close". The statistics always lag.

The Second Great Republican Depression has begun, and the MSM is doing everything they can to knee cap any attempts to reduce the suffering, repair our infrastructure or stimulate the spending needed to start rebuilding our GDP.

[georgiana1]

I don't remember them complaining when Bush was continually on television.

[teepeeyoyo]

When was Bush ever on TV saying something substantive?

[karela]

The President speaking on the economy during a time of economic crisis, in which nearly three million jobs were lost last year and over a millions jobs were lost in the last two months, is pertinent and far more important to the country than commercials on TV. The media makes a lot of money by virtue of the American people and in fact they all made a vast amount of money in 2008 on the basis of Obama's campaign. In the same Washington Post article where all this whining occurred, we were also told that NBC was bumping it's prime time show to put on a special hour about the single woman with the new octuplets. No mention was made about the hardship this presented to the networks. Americans have a greater need to know details about keeping or getting jobs and about keeping their homes and about getting the economy rolling again than we do to know an hour's worth about a single mom and her babes, though I wish them well. I don't recall hearing any flack about the half a billion or so that networks made off political campaign ads recently. Time to pretend like they're providing a public service every now and then.

[Tulka2]

Yes, i think the networks are having a little pout about all that Obama money they used to collect. Now he's the president and they have to give him free coverage.... or do they? I think that's what they are mulling over.

[Tulka2]

I fear this is the first volley in an effort to make the case that it is "unfair" that a president has a bully pulpit. It would make sense the rich and powerful would only encourage that oft touted bully pulpit thing if the bully pulpit is advancing the cause of the rich and powerful.

[island-in-alabama]

Yep, this is the rich and famous, who are terrified they'll lose some of their hoard of wealth, trying to undercut reform of the crooked system that allows them to strip mine the American public

[soulfulnotes]

They've made fortunes off public airwaves. They need to gratefully do their part.

[toocoldout]

What do you mean "Public" airwaves? The airwaves do not belong to the lazy smelly stupid public. They belong to the rich.

[Tulka2]

No. The airwaves belong to the people of the United States and we lease them out to the networks. The networks have certain contractual obligations to the citizens... like emergency signals... for instance. Cable television is a different story.

Switching to digital does worry me. Then the networks will not come through the airwaves, but instead over the cable. I don't know what it means to free speech.

[notthistime]

hahahahahaha They really are intimidated by President Obama. This is too funny.

[island-in-alabama]

They are. They're terrified of him.

They need to understand that the American people are onto their tricks, and that they should be intimidated by more than just one person.

[MANK]

You mean I get a breather from mindless dribble on the major networks for awhile and hear how an attempt is being made to pick up the pieces of this shattered country. I think I will figure out my hourly cable rate and deduct it from my monthly bill. But I guess T.W .will raise my rates for lost income.

[USCitizenShareHolder]

Why do they have a problem with how much it is going to cost for THE PRESIDENT to talk to the US citizen?

How much exactly did it cost for BUSH to get on national TV and lie to a nation about starting an unecessary war? HOW MUCH?

How much exactly did it cost for BUSH to get on national TV (several times) with his propaganda about the war he started? HOW MUCH?

How much exactly did it cost for BUSH toget on national TV after he helped ruin the economy and then got on national TV to tell us about it? HOW MUCH?

TALK ABOUT DOUBLE STANDARDS.

WHAT'S UP WITH THAT.

WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON HERE.