RNC Convention

[GeekyPenguin]

Rudey, it was on TV up here a decent amount, but you're right, not as much as the DNC was.

[Peaches-n-Cream]

Storm Field is the son of weatherman Frank Field. Meteorologist Audrey Puente from CBS is a daughter of Tito Puente and a D Phi E.

I think that the networks didn't cover either convention very much. In NYC coverage started at 10 PM. I watched CNN or PBS.

[ZTAMich]

Originally posted by Peaches-n-Cream
Storm Field is the son of weatherman Frank Field. Meteorologist Audrey Puente from CBS is a daughter of Tito Puente and a D Phi E.

I think that the networks didn't cover either convention very much. In NYC coverage started at 10 PM. I watched CNN or PBS.

Ahhh yes Frank and Storm Field! Thank you Cream. Very cool about Audrey.

Rudey & Cream, the three of us SO hijacked this thread and turned it into an NYC news reporter thread LOL

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
See that's exactly how I feel. I just don't get it. I asked DeltAlum this and it had something to do with me being in Illinois. But I don't get why NYC wouldn't.

-Rudey

Very clever, Rudey, but a close reading of "the record" will show that you brought up the Illinois connection -- I simply agreed that it might be the case.

As for the coverage, I mentioned before that each of the three broadcast networks who do news (FOX does it on cable, but not nationally on their on air stations) agreed to devote one hour per evening for live convention coverage. Those hours were scheduled in advance.

Now, if you want to talk about the reason for no gavel-to-gavel coverage anymore, it's easy. It has always been a huge money loser. Cutting back on coverage has been discussed for at least twenty years -- but the News Divisions always won. With the additional costs of covering the war and other things, the money guys win these days. That, and the opinion that there really isn't any news in these meetings -- just highly produced commercials.

In terms of coverage, the parties choose who speaks when. So, here's the math. If the network says they will broadcast from 10:00 to 11:00 PM EDT, and candidate A speaks from 10:02 to 10:55 -- he gets about four minutes of additional coverage. If candidate B speaks from 10:02 to 10:40, he gets about 18 minutes of additional coverage.

The total amount of coverage, at least for ABC, CBS and NBC remains the same. Or roughly so. The cable networks are a wild card. Only CSPAN committed to gavel-to-gavel coverage. Most of the cable coverage I saw consisted of short snippets of live coverage within their standard "talking heads" shows.

I didn't see the end of The President's speech last night, but I heard on NPR this morning that he was interrupted "100 times in his hour long speech." I would guess that the nets went over their one hour allotment for at least some follow-up -- so the GOP probably got a little more coverage than the Dems.

[Rudey]

You give me more credit than I deserve. I know I brought up the Illinois connection and didn't say YOU said it. I didn't even have the intention to try and put it on you with the post you quoted. Call me clever when I deserve it.

-Rudey

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Very clever, Rudey, but a close reading of "the record" will show that you brought up the Illinois connection -- I simply agreed that it might be the case.

As for the coverage, I mentioned before that each of the three broadcast networks who do news (FOX does it on cable, but not nationally on their on air stations) agreed to devote one hour per evening for live convention coverage. Those hours were scheduled in advance.

Now, if you want to talk about the reason for no gavel-to-gavel coverage anymore, it's easy. It has always been a huge money loser. Cutting back on coverage has been discussed for at least twenty years -- but the News Divisions always won. With the additional costs of covering the war and other things, the money guys win these days. That, and the opinion that there really isn't any news in these meetings -- just highly produced commercials.

In terms of coverage, the parties choose who speaks when. So, here's the math. If the network says they will broadcast from 10:00 to 11:00 PM EDT, and candidate A speaks from 10:02 to 10:55 -- he gets about four minutes of additional coverage. If candidate B speaks from 10:02 to 10:40, he gets about 18 minutes of additional coverage.

The total amount of coverage, at least for ABC, CBS and NBC remains the same. Or roughly so. The cable networks are a wild card. Only CSPAN committed to gavel-to-gavel coverage. Most of the cable coverage I saw consisted of short snippets of live coverage within their standard "talking heads" shows.

I didn't see the end of The President's speech last night, but I heard on NPR this morning that he was interrupted "100 times in his hour long speech." I would guess that the nets went over their one hour allotment for at least some follow-up -- so the GOP probably got a little more coverage than the Dems.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
You give me more credit than I deserve. I know I brought up the Illinois connection and didn't say YOU said it. I didn't even have the intention to try and put it on you with the post you quoted. Call me clever when I deserve it.

-Rudey

Just trying to build up your self confidence.

[ZTAMich]

I'm sad the RNC is over.

[Munchkin03]

Originally posted by ZTAMich
I'm sad the RNC is over.

You wouldn't be sad if you lived in Manhattan. The firm I work for needed me to run to the west 30s a few times this week to visit the printer. Not fun. Add to that helping the boy find his way around NYU and Union Square (where the bulk of demonstrations occured), and dealing with thousands of kids moving in for the year, this has not been a very happy island.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Just trying to build up your self confidence.

You love me.

-Rudey

[ZTAMich]

Originally posted by Munchkin03
You wouldn't be sad if you lived in Manhattan. The firm I work for needed me to run to the west 30s a few times this week to visit the printer. Not fun. Add to that helping the boy find his way around NYU and Union Square (where the bulk of demonstrations occured), and dealing with thousands of kids moving in for the year, this has not been a very happy island.

Well thankgoodness I moved to the Bronx...where my 1br costs less than a small studio in Manhattan

[Rudey]

"Senator Kerry says he sees two Americas. It makes the whole thing mutual. America sees two John Kerrys"
From Dick Cheney's speech.

I think these words were great and the way he delivered them were even better.

I don't think the convention has had that much of an effect on votes moving in either direction. This is really going to be an interesting election.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
You love me.

-Rudey

That's over confident. Besides, I already have a wife.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
That's over confident. Besides, I already have a wife.

Let's not make things sexual and break GC rules.

-Rudey
--That's clever.

[Peaches-n-Cream]

Life was pretty uneventful on the East Side of Manhattan. I was in Times Square last night, and there were Republicans galore with a massive police presence. I think that some VIPs were staying at the Marriott Marquis.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by Munchkin03
You wouldn't be sad if you lived in Manhattan. The firm I work for needed me to run to the west 30s a few times this week to visit the printer. Not fun. Add to that helping the boy find his way around NYU and Union Square (where the bulk of demonstrations occured), and dealing with thousands of kids moving in for the year, this has not been a very happy island.

I never even noticed that there was a convention, but I never went above 23rd St.