Major Broadcast Networks to Decrease Convention Coverage - Author Experiences Schadenfreude

Apparently, once again, the major broadcast networks will be scaling back political convention coverage, according to The Hill (TV to snub conventions). As I've noted recently, I think the "news" coming out of the conventions should get a lot less coverage (Blogging the Political Conventions). However, I must confess a bit of schadenfreude when I read The Hill article. Read on...

The Republican and Democratic parties hope to nudge the networks into more live coverage, but broadcasters have concluded that there will be little news to report.

And rightfully so. Not to mention that you never know when some politician will blurt out the f-word and get the broadcaster fined by the FCC. I mean, heck, if the VP will cuss on the floor of the Senate, where won't a politician use indecent language?

“We know we’re going to cover the nomination and the [nominee’s] speech,” said one network’s spokeswoman, but “we’re not sure about the first two days.”

That's pretty much the only thing most people care about anyway.

This [reduced coverage] is a significant challenge for candidates. Kerry must use the convention to define himself before a national audience, presenting his carefully packaged image as a veteran and a leader, and overcome characterizations in Bush’s TV ads that he is a flip-flopper, observers say.

Yeah, this explains Kerry's high profile recently, as Jeff Jarvis notes (Voting against). But it is not just the Democrats.

Democrats and Republicans will continue talks with the networks this week and plead for more coverage.

Ha ha ha. Pleading for coverage. Ha ha ha. Sorry, another schadenfreude moment. How pathetic. Is this what our politics has become? Perhaps the political parties ought to stop sucking up to the glass teat and instead seek to explode it. Of course, the parties are reaching out to alternative news sources.

MTV, Comedy Central and ESPN will also be producing convention shows.

Nothing says inconsequential circus like coverage by these three networks. Do the parties think that coverage by MTV makes them more relevant? Heck, MTV isn't relevant to anyone who's eligible to vote. Rather than pandering to entertain us, the parties might think of becoming more relevant by actually trying to be relevant.

If the networks skip the first half of the convention, they would miss events likely to create buzz in Washington.

And we should care about buzz in Washington, why? I'll bet studies will show that TiVo users fast-forwarded through most of the speeches in order to watch the commercials. However, at least some politicians are honest about this charade.

“They are much less important than everyone thinks … unless you own a hotel,” said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).

Maybe, one of these years, one of the political parties will note that sucking up to the mass media monster they have created through the FCC isn't really helping them (or us) and we'd be better off with a more decentralized distribution network.