Why do cable news channels talk over everything at the conventions?

Here's something you probably didn't see last night: my senator, addressing the Democratic National Convention in prime time. Now, you may not care what Claire McCaskill had to say, but you'd think CNN would at least take a passing interest. Instead, as a reader wrote me this morning, "we were subjected to the bloviations of Wolf and company. Unfiltered coverage indeed."

When it comes to covering the political conventions, in fact, the cable news channels are really no improvement over the broadcast networks. They'd still rather listen to themselves talk than the people up on stage. They just do it longer.

I don't get it. These channels (not just CNN) spend millions of dollars schlepping people and resources to an event and then spend 95 percent of their time not airing it. If someone tried that during the Oscars, they'd never work in that town again.

Well, we're told, that's because a political convention is nothing but one long infomercial and people wouldn't want to watch that. What an asinine argument. Almost every TV channel out there airs infomercials and people do watch them. In fact, infomercials are one of the few truly broadcast TV programs still out there. An amazing range of people watch them, from those who get caught up in the product to those who find the mock enthusiasm of the presenters hilarious to those independent voters who sorta don't watch infomercials except when they do, and then sometimes, darn it all, they find themselves buying the product.

Conventions spew out tons of information that don't really need mediating -- you either get it or you don't -- and they serve the purpose of getting everyday people (not just journalists) thinking about the fall campaign. How is that not newsworthy? Why do you need Wolf Blitzer talking over every minute of it?

I'm not saying don't talk over the convention program. But really, it's not as though there was wall-to-wall speechifying going on up there on stage. John Legend and the band must have played for at least 30 minutes last night, in prime time. That talk-show thingy that Sherrod Brown and others were doing -- that went on too long, but a few minutes of it wouldn't have killed CNN (or MSNBC, which I was watching at the time). I mean, I'm sure it doesn't measure up to spending a few minutes more listening to David Gergen, but ...

As for the senator's speech, the one I've embedded above, probably the less said about that, the better. She was more McCaskilly in this brief exchange with the Star's Dave Helling yesterday in Denver:

Still, CNN could've jumped in at the halfway point of her speech (I'm sure they had her script) to at least give people a flavor.

But no. There is this insistence on talking over everything. Everyone except C-SPAN and PBS does it, and it's ridiculous. Jimmy Carter may be older than Methusaleh and reading off a script, but he's JIMMY CARTER, for heaven's sakes! Give him some air time.

And yeah, I'll feel the same way next week, too.

P.S. And by the way, if CNN was worried about holding onto audience while Jimmy Carter was speaking, you know what it could do? It could CHANGE SOME OF THEIR DAMNED CRAWLS that had been running since 7 o'clock that morning! Did you know that the Democrat Convention first had a platform in 1840 -- and it was less than 1000 words????

UPDATE: Harry Shearer responds to this article, plus more clips from Day 2 that you didn't see

Comments

[CPav]

I didn't mind Claire's speech as much as you seem to. But I was outraged that not only did the networks not carry it, but the local news station that has a newscast at that hour (I'm across the state from you) showed the first couple minutes, then cut away.

Of course, it's a Fox affiliate, but the locals are usually pretty bipartisan.

[Bill Woody]

I concur whole-heartedly. I hate being told what I just saw or heard. I am not some mouth-breathing idiot. Check out PBS for the pure show.

[Andy]

Weren't you, just a couple of articles down, praising MSNBC for their prime-time "sizzle" instead of focusing solely on the steak?

I certainly could have lived with less of CNN's commentators trying to find new ways to say, "This is boring." Still, I'll take the "there's a button on your TV" approach. You already know that PBS will carry nearly all of the speeches, leavened with minimal commentary. C-SPAN will have gavel-to-gavel and no commentary. If that's what you want, you know where to get it. (Most networks are now streaming it live on the websites, too.)

[nellaselim]

Mr. Barnhart, I am somewhat surprise at your comments. You should well know by now as indicated by a few of your articles that television media has become corporatized and today is more about selling products than about providing the public with quality shows and news broadcasts. Even in many popular TV shows the product placements are fairly obvious. Corporate media attempts to appeal to the broadest segment of its audience in order to maximize advertising revenues so of course it mutes and minimizes political discourses which would alienate part of the television audience. Surprise. Surprise

[Thomas]

Of course, if the networks showed more of the show, more of the show would be produced for television. Do you think that they'd have let Jim Leach talk on network primetime? No, they'd have expanded M. Obama's speech, and added, say, George Clooney.

[Rich]

I agree. Every speech is dissected. It is so annoying. I love C-SPAN because they give you the information for YOU to determine. Why should I surrender my brain to Sean Hannity when he has his own fraudulent objectives.

[Stan2008]

The majority of media coverage has been terrible. I cannot believe the Missouri TV stations did not broadcast Senator McCaskill's speech. Missourians should be extremely proud of McCaskill quick rise to a high status position within the Senate and as part of Senator Obama's campaign

Washingtonian's Best & Worst of Congress

http://www.washingtonian.com/blogarticles/people/capitalcomment/9097.html

Senate
Rising Star

1. Jim Webb (D-Va.)
2. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
3. John Thune (R-S.D.)

Rachel Maddow made an important point yesterday about maybe the media was doing things wrong if Pres Clinton was the major source of discussion on Thursday rather than focusing on Senator Biden.