Monday, 21 January 2019

Expecting Networks To Give Up Ratings Is Like Expecting Alcoholics To Give Up Booze...

Emily Bell thinks that the US TV networks should have refused to air a speech by The Donald:
The inability of 11 separate network heads to say “no” to Trump caused frustration on a number of levels. It was yet another sign, said some commentators, of the networks not “getting it”, following the normal rules of engagement with a presidency that is abnormal to the point of dysfunction.
Because having a President that screwed the help in the Oval Office wasn't at all 'dysfunctional'..?
Allowing a president noted for his untruthfulness access to their networks arguably put protocol above national interest, or perhaps, more honestly, prioritised ratings over principle.
Funny. I've visited the States, and every TV I saw there had an 'off' switch.

It was ten years ago, though. Perhaps things have changed?
The speech and an accompanying rebuttal by Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer were seen by more than 43 million viewers. Trump remains strong box office.
Hard to see why the networks aren't listening to the likes of you, isn't it?


John M said...

The amusing postscript to this story, which young Emily would have discovered if she's done a little journalism, was that according to Neilsen, the ratings for the "argue about Trump's crappy speech" show on CNN which followed had better ratings than the Donald, which no doubt upset his fragile ego quite s bit.

JuliaM said...


Paul said...

No doubt he'll win again, and we'll just laugh.