Tuesday, March 11, 2008

The media's love affair surrounding the contention of this year's presidential candidates is growing cold. The attention that was once lavished upon all of the country's potential leaders has waned considerably since fall of last year.

In lieu of election coverage, some of the major television networks like NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX opted to stay with their regularly scheduled programs or substituted the spot with can-miss shows.

A former president of NBC News, Lawrence K. Grossman, is of the opinion that "Networks have pretty much left the field."

So when CBS yearns to get a presidential debate with Katie Couric in the mix, does it make sense that they would run a reality t.v. show, a re-run of NCIS, and a show that very few people have heard of? This would have been a very good opportunity for the network to let Couric earn her $15 million-a-year by covering a live running coverage of the political showdowns between Obama and Clinton.

Of course, when ABC actually covered 3 hours of Super Tuesday during the primetime slot, they "got clobbered" because of it. Some people attribute this to the up-to-date information that is so easily accessable through other mediums.

There are so many other cable stations that have the ability to specialize in these events without a decrease in ratings, such as MSNBC, CNN and FOX news channels. It makes the demand of coverage from the original political heavy-hitters (ABC,NBC and CBS) virtually obselete.

I think that a great majority of Americans are probably rejoicing (whether silently or jubilantly) that alternate stations have started to take over these political sagas. Personally, by the time November rolls around, I am very tired of hearing the squabbles between candidates. It gets to be overwhelming. Sometimes, I just want to hear the local news and nothing else.

Besides, right now I am a little jaded by the fact that my vote in the Florida Primary didn't count. Why am I paying attention to what they have to say now? I was diligent in following the platforms early on, making certain to base my vote (again, the one that didn't count) on studied information, to no avail.
.
Like I said, I am a little jaded. I do understand the importance of educating yourself and knowing what a candidate stands for. I do listen and learn, but it is nice to know that I can always turn to a news station on cable that is likely to have running coverage. I think that it helps maintain a bit of sanity to all the couch potatoes who are a-political. (Bless them)

2 comments:

chelsea said...

I get it, but I do want to interject what a wonderful time to go to the papers. When the networks will hardly show a line graph of delegates to save their life, the paper can be a very enjoyable alternative. You know, like in Independance day, when they took out our satellites, and we went back to morse code.

Whitney Len! said...

You know, I have not even noticed the change! I guess this goes to show how much the news has been slacking in the coverage. It just seems crazy that they did not go forth with Katie covering the debate between Obama and Clinton. (It definitely would have given her a chance to earn that salary). But I think that the stations defitniely should provide more coverage. Especially if they are just going to show re-runs on air anyways.