Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Season Pass Alerts' started by brianric, Feb 22, 2009.
Hey, who stole my post!
OK... We had the presidential inauguration. We had a prime time press conference. We had a prime time address to congress last night.
Unless three = bajilion, I don't quite get the problem. These three things would've happened no matter who was elected president and it should settle down now.
The OP may be used to President Bush's approach, where he had like 3 news conferences in 8 years.
Not to mention all the special interviews he's had. The countless press conferences for every single cabinet nominee. THe pre-Superbowl interview.
There's a bunch of TV's in the cafeteria here, and I swear it seems like at lunch time every day since several months before the election, you cannot be in the cafeteria without Obama being on TV there. If I hadn't already long ago tuned out the crapfest television calls news, I'd be tuning it out by now, for sure.
Actually Evil has a good point about being tired of the habitual song & dance routine. And that was essentially the point of my post that seems to have vanished, which I am none too happy about.
There are quite enough cable news channels in addition to PBS so there is no reason in the world for all the main broadcast channels to carry these Presidential infomercials.
Would you resent it if it was somebody you really liked? I watched all of Bush's State of the Union speeches and his one non-Stete of the Union speechs and they took up all the channels.
I don't think any programs were interfered with so why care? Watch something you have recorded, or a DVD or the basketball game mentioned by the twittering congressman.
Yeah, I would. I am one of those sad, pitiful folks for whom TV is waaay too high a priority. I get pissed when anything or anyone disrupts my schedules.
I would say the same about it no matter who it was. If it's carried on PBS and the cable news channels too then carrying it on EVERY main broadcast channel is absolutely needless.
This may be a carryover when the networks were the only channels carrying live news and they don't want to lose that tradition.
Actually for OTA folks, NBC, ABC and CBS may be the only channels they receive.
Actually I think it's a throwback from the networks being able to get ratings from carrying it. Today with so very many channels carrying it all it does is tick off folks like me who would rather watch a better work of fiction.
About 10% of households with TVs in the US are OTA and if the major networks did not carrry these speechs, then they would not be able to see them at all.
How many of those 10% have access to PBS OTA? I'll wager near 100%. They can watch it there.
Any facts to back your assumption?
Yea. I saw that one too but It doesn't seperate out the cable from the OTA in the 99%. It does say that 21 million households are OTA. That is out of 111.4 million TV households. I'm not seeing anything about how many of those 21 million have access to PBS. I looked but couldn't find any kind of map showing OTA PBS coverage over the nation but I suspect that alot of rural areas might not have coverage.
Isn't the point mostly about whether or not receiving PBS is an option? If they get it via cable, then they're also most likely able to get the presidential addresses from somewhere should the major broadcast networks stop carrying them live.
So there are "1%" that cannot or do not get PBS in any manner, OTA or via Cable or Satellite.
I used the same source that you cited in your post about "if the major networks did not carrry these speechs, then they would not be able to see them at all."
If a rural area does not have PBS coverage, then it is logical to assume that they are too rural to be able to receive any of the major networks OTA.