Did anybody... *talk* to anybody else before they decided on this Obama stadium thing?
Or was this just one of those "Hey, let's get a blimp!" moments, and nobody was there to say no?
By Moe Lane Posted in 2008 | DNC | Obamafiles | Things to Do In Denver When You're Broke — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Because I don't think that this is what the Democratic Party (note noun) wanted:
Networks may limit convention coverage
Obama’s decision “makes it enormously more expensive,” said Paul Friedman, senior vice president at CBS News. “It does add to the overall question of how the networks should cover what is a non-news event.”
Major television networks are considering curtailing coverage of the Democratic National Convention after Monday’s announcement that Barack Obama will accept his party's nomination in a Denver stadium.
According to several broadcast executives, the networks will still cover all the major speeches. But beyond that, all options are open as they look for savings to balance out the anticipated costs surrounding the stadium event. The acceptance event is an unexpected departure from the traditional convention hall format for which they have spent months planning.
Network executives expect Obama’s relatively late-breaking decision to speak at Invesco Field at Mile High, a 76,000-seat football stadium, could add hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to already cash-strapped news divisions. Each network has budgeted millions to cover the political conventions, but that spending is already accounted for in specific costs ranging from hotel rooms to staffing to building convention platforms.
For most networks, any additional outlays for the convention would come out of their 2008 campaign budget.
The article goes on to discuss various ways that the networks are thinking of saving cash at this late a date - and reading between the lines, they're actually already inclined to find any handy excuse to cut back convention coverage, probably because these things are usually as dull as dishwater. Unfortunately for the Democrats, the networks want to cut back coverage as being not a good ROI: cutting back because they don't have enough to cover sudden expenses inflicted upon them by a third party is about as aggravating to them as it would be to you, me, or anybody else reading this.
As witnessed by the pull-quote above. Allow me to clue in the Obama campaign: when somebody at Paul Friedman's level permits his name to be linked to a comment like that, it's a subtle hint. Paul Friedman would like somebody from the Obama campaign to give him a call. Somebody who is not an intern.
And he'd like to be getting that call first thing in the morning, thanks.