Was it just locally here in Boston, or did none of the big three networks carry Bush's speech the other night? Local CBS, ABC and NBC chose to show their designated sitcoms over perhaps the most important talk given by the President this year.
To further rub salt in the wound, when they aired clips on the evening news they showed a generic portion which contained a (not-uncommon) garbling of his words. I say generic, because it was not one of the "points" that Bush hit upon. It was simply one of the few times his tongue got tangled.
I've never claimed that Bush is a great orator, but when a "major" network snubs the President and then shows his mistakes rather than his intent it is sickening.
I heard his entire speech on the radio while working late. It is insulting to know that much of America got its' fair share of light-hearted television comedy and none of the substance that is prompting our probable war. No wonder there is so much resentment to this war: Ignorance is truly bliss.

That was insulting! I didn't even know that he was scheduled to talk. I guess the media truly controls this country!!!!!

If you want your news then there's only one outlet! Turn it to FoxNews and rip the knob off. You'll forget all about CNN,MSNBC,ABC,NBC,CBS and PBS. Although I do like Newshour w/ Jim Lehrer.

You're welcome!

That last post represents the fair and balanced news from the major networks! I always watch Fox!

Charlie

gentlemen, gentlemen,

the whitehouse did not formally ask the networks to carry said address. the reason given by gb's spokesperson was that if all the networks had carried it it may have appeared that the pres was about to declare war on iraq.

btw, the story regarding this was in the ny times the next morning.

"Formally ask?"
The President of the United States, when speaking about an impending war, should not have to roll out the red carpet to the liberal pukes who run the media.
The NY Times is as bad or worse than the TV networks.
Many stations did choose to air the President. Were they asked in a formal manner? Was the radio station I heard the speech on given a written invite with fancy lettering?
Get real. The networks snubbed him because they have a biased agenda. You know it, I know it, and they are not even smart enough to know that they should be ashamed.
The Networks constantly air groups of people protesting this would be war. Why not show the REAL news, which just might explain WHY we may have to lose lives in the middle east?
Blatant partisan manipulation of what people recieve as "news" is not in the best interest of America. With or without an invite.

I think the networks are finally tired of hearing the same stuff from a man who uses words such as "gooder", he such an idiot!!!

Gater,

that was per his highness' people, not the ny times. the times just reported it.

btw, you aren't a lil riled up because of the pats, are you?

};{>

Gone2P, you done made a error in yor ridikulas respnd to the topic! Go and Pee!

"Something to do with people in Glass Houses"! :):)

Charlie

http://www.merck.com/about/cr/mectizan/ )

What do I care, I listened to to it on the radio. Great speech!

He (GWB) could give a speech more powerful than the Gettysburg Address and the Liberals would still second guess him!

It was a great speech by a great leader!

Charlie

Charlie, you are a funny guy.

I know you didn't mean to imply that GWB actually "could" give a speach like the GA. You must have intended to say "In the event that he gave a decent speech,..."

That said, remember, Genghis Khan was a great leader. The value of that is a matter of perspective.

CJ, the fact that your refer to our President as "his highness" shows your bias.
I've said it before: It's OK to dislike our President. But do it for reasons other than your PERCEPTION of his intelligence. EVERY bit of "information" that you get is from your biased media. To fall prey to their manipulations shows the depth from which you think.
And YES, the Patriots do have me in a tizzy...

PM, although many large corps are indeed conservative, that does not by any stretch mean that the folks who run the networks are therefore conservative.
Ownership and operations are distinctly different. And the Big Three (ABC, CBS, and NBC) are truly Liberal in their daily routine.
Look at Fox News. By first impressions it appears to be rather right winged conservative. but upon further review, it is indeed "fair and balanced". It is simply the RELATIVE difference from the other channels that make it seem so far to the right.
Gone are the days of Walter Cronkite telling the news as it occured, not as he deciphers it.
Instead, today we have Dan Rather spewing "we are winning" when it seemed Gore had the lead in Florida.
Big corporations aren't "by definition" conservative. Nor are they Evil. But the liberal news has you believing that they are.
And the Liberal news has convinced you that it's OK to run sitcoms over a Presidential speech explaining the depth of our purpose to remove Saddam.
And you don't mind...

Tailgater. You are right that it is possible for a network to be liberal even if their owners are conservative. What I was thinking about, above, is that the network is profit driven, and will give viewers what it believes they want to see. They are selling what they believe people want to buy. They do this within the boundries of their owner's economic agenda.

I think it is fair to say that they believe that this points to the possibility that people would rather watch a sitcom than the President. I actually agree with you that, no matter what your political and personal taste, that this is pathetic commentary on the general public. Very sad state of affairs.

I don't watch sitcoms (no time), and I get most of my news from the radio (I can listen while I work).

Yeah, but can you whistle...?