Major Broadcast networks opt out of Obama immigration speech

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
One would think after your Fail in the TM/GZ thread, and now the Brown/Wilson thread, you'd not spread it (Fail) around to other threads. But hey, it's the Internet, obviously do as you please...
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,503
50,659
136
Let me get this straight: The "not liberal" news media decides to not EDIT: air Obama's speech on a massive political development that a large % of Americans would find highly objectionable, which just so happens to be timed with the Ferguson info expected tomorrow and just so happens to be on the night of the Latin Grammys, and that's not an indication of liberal news media bias? Buwhahaha!

Wait a minute. Just so I'm clear, you're saying that Obama decided to give a major speech but was doing to in the secret hope that people wouldn't actually listen to it and so a decision not to air the speech is actually further evidence of media bias? LOL.

I have to admit it, I'm impressed. Just when I think "there's no way these idiots can declare THIS part of the librul media conspiracy" you outdo yourself.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,503
50,659
136
Well they all carried it anyway except ABC lol

So wait, does that mean that according to chucky2 the media isn't biased in obama's favor now?

I'm excited to hear about how the decision not to air it and the decision to air it are both evidence of media bias.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
Wait a minute. Just so I'm clear, you're saying that Obama decided to give a major speech but was doing to in the secret hope that people wouldn't actually listen to it and so a decision not to air the speech is actually further evidence of media bias? LOL.

I have to admit it, I'm impressed. Just when I think "there's no way these idiots can declare THIS part of the librul media conspiracy" you outdo yourself.

Well, one would think such a major announcement would warrant all the major networks carrying the speech. By not carrying it, a decision was made to not make a big deal/as big of a deal than something of this magnitude would normally be given. I guess one could make the argument that the entity in the US called Politician has been committing treason for so long regarding this issue that the level of disgust among the public has reached oversaturation and thus is background disgust noise. Ahh well carry on Nick, always good to see you work... :biggrin::thumbsup:
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,503
50,659
136
Well, one would think such a major announcement would warrant all the major networks carrying the speech. By not carrying it, a decision was made to not make a big deal/as big of a deal than something of this magnitude would normally be given. I guess one could make the argument that the entity in the US called Politician has been committing treason for so long regarding this issue that the level of disgust among the public has reached oversaturation and thus is background disgust noise. Ahh well carry on Nick, always good to see you work... :biggrin::thumbsup:

Hahaha, classic.

It's always interesting to see what kind of knots you tie yourself up into in order to avoid uncomfortable thoughts. It's definitely the first time I've ever seen someone try to convince themselves that the networks were biased in FAVOR of the president by saying they weren't going to broadcast a major speech of his.

Never change, chuck. Never change. :)
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Well, one would think such a major announcement would warrant all the major networks carrying the speech. By not carrying it, a decision was made to not make a big deal/as big of a deal than something of this magnitude would normally be given. I guess one could make the argument that the entity in the US called Politician has been committing treason for so long regarding this issue that the level of disgust among the public has reached oversaturation and thus is background disgust noise. Ahh well carry on Nick, always good to see you work... :biggrin::thumbsup:

ouch. did you hurt yourself?
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,078
136
Weird, they been sucking Obama butt since he first announced he was running.

And we all know the liberal media loves the idea of more illegals as well as making current illegals into legal immigrants.

Somethings up, I know they're still liberal. So why no Obama-love?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,095
30,038
146
Really?

because it seems perfectly normal to me. I think it's perfectly normal for news agencies and broadcast companies to NOT air something that is a net dollar loss. People will tune out Obama and go to the cable stations lickety-split.

Obama doesn't make them $$... he is not popular anymore. period.

It's almost...like...the republicans want the government to dictate what corporations can and can't do!

:hmm:

Oh, I'm sure this was on PBS, no?
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
well duh, do you think they want the people to know that 10 million illegals just got free food, rent, healthcare, and education on the taxpays dime?
I bet it'd still be cheaper than bailing out crooked banks that were already swimming in money.
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,633
263
126
No network coverage except Fox for the illegal immigration announcement but all networks broke into broadcast for live coverage and Obama's speech/reaction to the Ferguson grand jury's decision to not indict the police officer. They know what draws ratings.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,078
136
No network coverage except Fox for the illegal immigration announcement but all networks broke into broadcast for live coverage and Obama's speech/reaction to the Ferguson grand jury's decision to not indict the police officer. They know what draws ratings.

I'm betting Obama is glad for a little distraction. Thats the real reason for his involvement in something that is clearly not a federal matter.
 

Pulsar

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2003
5,224
306
126
Looks to me like it just might be that Obama doesn't want the speech seen by anybody but the Hispanic audience.

It's Obama's choice on which night to make his speech.

It's his choice how long the speech would be (a short speech just result in a minor delay to programming).

It's his choice not to request that his speech be aired live.

He's given umpteen speeches and had no problem requesting they be televised live by all the networks. This seems abnormal to me.

Fern

Occam's razor. The simplest answer is likely the truth. The scheduling appears intentional in order to minimize exposure. It'll be drowned out by Ferguson completely.