View Full Version : GOP debates only on cable?
Hmmm.......I find this hard to understand. Why not on free TV? I don't have cable. Seems like it should be available to all Americans.
iris lilies
8-6-15, 8:22pm
Hmmm.......I find this hard to understand. Why not on free TV? I don't have cable. Seems like it should be available to all Americans.
Broadcast tv, free to all Americans with a tv, couldn't be bothered to organize this event. It's just ruffian Republicans, you know. The mainstream liberal news stations don't care and actually have some interest in keeping you away from this information.
We are going over to my friends later this evening to watch round 2 of the debates.
ApatheticNoMore
8-6-15, 8:55pm
Or it's not a profitable (in terms of advertising revenue) use of their broadcasting time based on their predictions. In theory they have some kind of public interest mandate, in reality ... only if such were enforced.
I sometimes advocate reading transcripts if they can be found if one really wants to know. Debates allow a lot of slickness that the written word on the page doesn't. Of course I wonder is any of the dozen GOP candidates have a charisma bone in their body, so there is that ... :laff: Obama had a little charisma, slick Willy a lot that's where I'd advocate transcripts to avoid being taken in entirely, if people have no charisma to begin with though ....
I see it as indicative of how out of touch they are of their target market(American Voters) and new voters they may convince. Cord cutting has been happening for years!
http://www.businessinsider.com/cord-cutters-and-the-death-of-tv-2013-11
Sounds like one couldn't watch it live over the internet either?? Another indicator.
Free broadcast tv seems to have stricter censorship than cable. With a loose cannon like Trump, who knows what more hate speech he will begin spewing.
I have not seen broadcast television in YEARS. Most people I know have Roku/AppleTV etc no matter their political leanings.
rosarugosa
8-7-15, 12:27pm
We only have free broadcast TV. That explains why DH couldn't find the debates last night.
FOX could have at least had the decency to allow people to watch the live stream of the debate on their website without the paywall. I understand it's a cable channel, but some exceptions should be made for civic matters. It's not like they would need to lower the paywall for all of their broadcasts, but government debates should be free and open to all citizens.
I guess Megyn Kelly found out what kind of hate speech Trump could spew in her direction. Impertinent ****!
The mainstream liberal news stations don't care and actually have some interest in keeping you away from this information.
Of course the Democratic debate(s) will likely be on broadcast network(s). On the other side I thought it interesting that FOX put the debates against Jon Stewart's final show. No chance for a rebuttal, no chance that young liberal audience would hear the rebuttal, very little chance that the young liberal audience would be watching the debate instead of the Daily Show. And a lot of the one's who wanted to watch the debate would have to go somewhere since so many are "never evers" in that group when it comes to cable.
I see it as indicative of how out of touch they are of their target market(American Voters) and new voters they may convince. Cord cutting has been happening for years!
http://www.businessinsider.com/cord-cutters-and-the-death-of-tv-2013-11
Free broadcast tv seems to have stricter censorship than cable. With a loose cannon like Trump, who knows what more hate speech he will begin spewing.
I don't think broadcast TV is out of touch with their viewers, I think their viewers are mostly out of touch with real life. Have you seen what's on the networks now?
Free TV does have stricter rules than cable. Partly because its free. Subscription channels let you decide whether you like their brand of TV or not then pay or don't pay based on that.
Free TV does have stricter rules than cable. Partly because its free.
Mainly because they are broadcast over public airwaves, which government uses as a means to control content, if they wish. The FCC could declare that only educational or civic programming is allowed. Fortunately, the government cannot easily lay claim to private networks such as the major cable providers, although net neutrality may eventually solve that problem.
I'm a little surprised broadcast Fox did not see fit to air the debate. DW wanted to watch, though, and, on Apple TV, we found that "Sky News" was carrying the debate in its entirety. I'm not sure if that's because it was the first or they thought it was important or it's just a way they fill a 7x24 news cycle.
Rosa jumps up & down & waves hand over here to speak on behalf of broadcast-only households: Our household is certainly out of touch with TV. We almost never watch it, and that's why we go the free route. DH actually unplugged it a few months ago, so we wouldn't be paying to keep that little blue light lit on the conversion box. When/if our circa 1990 TV dies, we probably won't replace it. So we're truly not sitting around watching Gilligan's Island re-runs. :)
iris lilies
8-7-15, 7:13pm
I guess Megyn Kelly found out what kind of hate speech Trump could spew in her direction. Impertinent ****!
Actually, I thought that she WAS a little snit last night, and many of the questions lobbed to Trump and others were stupid, gotcha types. Let the candidates practice for those with their staff.
huckabee was smooth, Donald was Donald, Cruz was good. Unlikely I will vote for any of them. Rand was pretty awful, too bad because he's my guy.sorry I missed Carly, she was said to be very good.
I watched it on Sky News online out of the UK. A link was posted on another forum I frequent.
Actually, I thought that she WAS a little snit last night, and many of the questions lobbed to Trump and others were stupid, gotcha types. Let the candidates practice for those with their staff.
huckabee was smooth, Donald was Donald, Cruz was good. Unlikely I will vote for any of them. Rand was pretty awful, too bad because he's my guy.sorry I missed Carly, she was said to be very good.
I've only seen clips of it, so don't have much to go on. I imagine all the questions were scripted well in advance (probably by someone other than the questioner), and didn't cover much of substance. Donald shouldn't have taken the bait; by the time this is over he'll be feuding with half the country.
I did agree with Rand Paul's "Get a warrant!" He's absolutely right about our freedoms being eroded.
LOL!! I've had AppleTV for years and I think I clicked on Skynews once. Forever ago.
This thread is the first time I've heard anyone mention it.
I guess it worked quite well for FOX since it had a "staggering 24-million viewers", and "Nielsen: 16% of US homes with TV sets tuned in", and also according to Nielsen data, "making it the highest-rated primary debate in television history".
We only have basic cable TV, so we weren't able to view it, but there were plenty of talking heads and clips to go around after the fact.
Right after the 2nd debate, I was able to watch some snippits of it on my cell phone, on foxnetwork dot com.
Trump is something else. Yes, I agree with him on a number of things, but man.....he would tick off so many nations, we'd probably be at war all the time. Oh.........we are already.
Trump is something else. Yes, I agree with him on a number of things, but man.....he would tick off so many nations, we'd probably be at war all the time. Oh.........we are already.
If the war machine ground to a halt there would be significantly less people who could afford to join Trump's exclusive clubs. In all seriousness I can't imagine any scenario that has Donald still in the race, at least as a Republican candidate, six months from now. I think he's a good diversion for the GOP as the rest of the field gets parred down. Its inevitable that some of the others will implode with stupid statements or newly discovered skeletons from their closets, but as long as Trump is blustering away in front of every camera around they can just fade away quietly without embarrassing the party. I doubt its intentional on his part, but Trump is the best smoke and mirror candidate the GOP could ask for at this stage of the cycle. Once the field is down to three or four contenders I'd be really surprised if he's one of them.
The worrisome thing is how people just cling to what they know, i.e. celebrities. They don't go out of their way to become familiar with real contenders.. that's how many politicians get elected. Not saying any of the following didn't deserve it, but they definitely had a distinct advantage over the non-celebrities: Ronald Reagan, Sonny Bono, Jesse Ventura, Al Franken, and now Donald Trump. Plus he has the refreshing "tell it like it is" quality that people crave (he has definitely usurped Chris Christie's campaign slogan).
So, would I be surprised to see Donald Trump in the White House? Not as surprised as I should be.
ApatheticNoMore
8-11-15, 2:08pm
There's transcripts now:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/06/annotated-transcript-the-aug-6-gop-debate/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/06/transcript-gop-aug-6-undercard-debate/
I'm not really sure what that second link "undercard debate" is but anyway.
Not saying any of the following didn't deserve it, but they definitely had a distinct advantage over the non-celebrities: Ronald Reagan, Sonny Bono, Jesse Ventura, Al Franken, and now Donald Trump.
Incumbency itself is a powerful name-recognition tool. Sure, it makes more headlines when Jesse Ventura runs for Governor of Minnesota than when Skip Humphrey did (same year; apparently the Humphrey name/legacy itself was not enough). But incumbents get a lot of little perks that have the effect of helping them stay in office through several elections.
Plus he has the refreshing "tell it like it is" quality that people crave (he has definitely usurped Chris Christie's campaign slogan).
Apparently on a reddit forum last week (?) there was a discussion of Trump's candidacy. The surprise out of it is that a number of prospective voters are "cross-shopping" Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders because there's the perception that they're the only two candidates who cannot be bought and, therefore, will call it like they see them. I see their point. But I think it tells me more about the other candidates than it tells me about the voters.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.