home

Obama Presser Time Changed: NBC Said Susan Boyle Interview Too Important

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:58:56 AM EST
Tags: Susan Boyle (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

President Obama wanted his press conference on health care tonight at 9pm ET. NBC said no, it's spent weeks getting an interview with singer Susan Boyle which is airing tonight on America's Got Talent. The result: Susan Boyle trumps Obama. Obama moved the time of his conference to 8pm ET.

But, Fox (not the cable news network, the other one) will skip Obama's news conference as the new time conflicts with "So You Think You can Dance."

Here's Susan Boyle on the Today Show this morning. Now let's forget about her and get back to health care.

< Report: ICE Agents Broke Rules and Law in Conducting Immigration Raids | Senate Rejects Thune Amendment on Concealed Weapons >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Presser Time Changed: NBC Said Susan Boyle Interview Too Important | 109 comments (109 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    More proof that the Age of Cronkite (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by shoephone on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:04:41 PM EST
    is over.

    I wasn't planning on watching the Obama press conference because friends are coming to dinner, but NBC deserves jeers for this decision. Preempting a presidential press conference on the most serious domestic issue facing the country in favor of... tabloid cr*p.

    Wow, NBC. You rock.

    I don't know (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:14:55 PM EST
    Maybe O has worn out the welcome mat with his appearances? I may or may not watch. I have a feeling it's just more campaigning, something I can do without.

    This is interesting . . .

    Parent

    did roosevelt wear out his welcome, (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by cpinva on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 05:13:43 PM EST
    Maybe O has worn out the welcome mat with his appearances?

    with his "fireside chats"? they probably, in no small measure, kept the country from boiling over, during the depression. they let the people know that their president was on the job and looking out for them.

    anytime the president has a press conference, or just wants to use his bully pulpit, it's far more important than ms. boyle (with all due respect) or anything else, save a national catastrophe.

    this is why we have a nation full of ignorant people; our media is ignorant.

    Parent

    Seems it's really great, then, that (none / 0) (#93)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 05:46:00 PM EST
    they found an agreeable compromise. Did you read the linked article in the post? CBS was the ONLY network that signed on to the 9 PM EDT airtime for the Obama speech.

    Go click on the link and read the article that fully describes the scheduling problems, who all was involved, and why the outcome the enabled everyone to participate. NBC is airing the Obama speech live along with other networks.

    NBC had a legitimate concern over pre-empting America's Got Talent tonight. It all worked out just fine. Everyone involved is happy.

    Parent

    Roosevelt could not possibly have been as (none / 0) (#106)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:55:22 PM EST
    overexposed as Obama is. Just. Not. Possible. It was also a different time and generation.

    I think because O is so over-branded, "fireside chats" would look like infomercials. One of the downsides of branding  ;) I work in a branded/licensed field, so I've watch/ed that aspect of Obama with interest (both good and bad)

    Parent

    I haven't watched any of them, but (none / 0) (#7)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:23:55 PM EST
    based on what I've seen advertised on the internet, isn't this the 3rd Health Care presser now in as many days?  He had one at the same time HRC had her recent press conference, he had one yesterday, and now another today. The networks need their advertisers, and they don't get to "be back in a minute" during these speeches.


    Parent
    And he's doing a townhall tomorrow. (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:34:23 PM EST
    Yes, he is in hard-sell mode, for sure.  Too bad he's selling cr@p.

    I don't know if I have it in me to watch the production - and I'm not referring to Susan Boyle.

    Parent

    It's hard not to (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:48:19 PM EST
    chuckle at this. Whether someone thinks it's absurd to put entertainment over health insurance mandates from the government doesn't really matter...it can still draw a laugh. Susan Boyle was amazed by the world's reception she got...and, now, she's pre-empted Barack Obama.

    People need downtime. The stress in the country right now is real, and listening to Obama talk about the health insurance he's going to mandate we purchase isn't something that will soothe me.


    Parent

    Apparently (none / 0) (#5)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:17:11 PM EST
    Preempting a presidential press conference on the most serious domestic issue facing the country in favor of... tabloid cr*p.

    Apparently more people are interested in watching "tabloid cr*p" than in O's sales pitch.

    Parent

    Or new cr@p instead (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:31:47 PM EST
    of the same old cr@p.

    NBC is, after all, the home of Chuck Todd, who has some pretty lame ideas about what's important.  See Greenwald for more.

    Come to think of it, NBC is home to a lot of people whose ideas about what's important are pretty lame.

    Parent

    I'm always in the minority (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by shoephone on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:32:01 PM EST
    because I don't watch any of the tabloid cr*p. I don't watch American Idol or any of the reality shows, I don't watch the TMZ entertainment shows, etc. etc.

    But that's just me.

    Yeah, maybe Obama isn't as good for the sponsors, but the decision still speaks volumes about the lameness of the networks, and the country.

    Parent

    Re Apparently (none / 0) (#6)
    by nfstltx on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:21:16 PM EST
    Or perhaps more television executives assume that more people are interested in watching the aforesaid cr*p...

    Parent
    The networks get to collect on the (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:25:05 PM EST
    advertising dollars during the "cr*p".

    Parent
    Cronkite Ratings (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:58:37 PM EST
    Network teevee is there for one reason only, and that is as a vehicle to sell soap. Always has been the case and always will be the case.

    Cronkite had high ratings, but had a special news conference that gripped the national attention like Boyle, taken place at the time of Cronkite's show, he would have been bumped too.

    Nostalgia is pleasant but quite deceptive.  

    Parent

    true enough. (none / 0) (#87)
    by cpinva on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 05:17:01 PM EST
    Network teevee is there for one reason only, and that is as a vehicle to sell soap. Always has been the case and always will be the case.

    however (you knew there'd be one), they also have a responsibility to the general public. those airwaves belong to us, they just lease them.

    Parent

    Hah (none / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 05:38:55 PM EST
    Responsibility to their shareholders.. Short term thinking to make stuff look good so they can max out on bonuses..

    Oh and a bit of meat (cronkite et al) to keep us on the hook...

    Just felt a cool breeze, must have been my portion of the public airwaves...

    lol

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#33)
    by bocajeff on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:11:23 PM EST
    Amazing what happens when you give people choices. Are you longing for the days of less choice?

    Parent
    What a silly comment. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by shoephone on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:19:58 PM EST


    Parent
    Has anyone thought (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:09:01 PM EST
    to ask Susan Boyle her thoughts on Obama's health care proposal?!

    Excellent suggestion. Please compare (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:12:35 PM EST
    and contrast, assuming you know anything at all about U.S. health care.

    Parent
    Even if she doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:32:19 PM EST
    that doesn't stop many of the pundits on TV (or the chairman of the RNC) and it certainly shouldn't stop the greatest YouTube celebrity of all time.

    Parent
    Haven't you heard? Obama (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by dk on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:39:25 PM EST
    wants a "uniquely American" version of health care.  I can't imagine he'd want the networks to broadcast the opinion of a Brit.

    Parent
    If Obama can ignore (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by dk on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:29:18 PM EST
    the will of the majority of Americans who want single payer or some such truly universal health care policy (as opposed to his bait-and-switch plan), then I don't see why the networks can't ignore Obama.

    And do we really need every single network to show the guy prevaricate and dodge answers to questions?  

    The networks aren't preempting him because (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by shoephone on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:34:20 PM EST
    they disagree with his policy on health care. They are preempting him in favor of advertising dollars brought in for tabloid cr*p.

    It is what it is.

    Parent

    Your idea of tabloid cr*p is obviously (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:49:39 PM EST
    other's idea of relaxation and entertainment.


    Parent
    Apparently so. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by shoephone on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:20:40 PM EST
    I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

    Parent
    Well sure. But what's the (none / 0) (#17)
    by dk on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:36:14 PM EST
    reason for carrying it in the first place?  Do you want it mandated that anytime the President wants to, he has the right to be on network TV?  Even if he's just prevaricating and dodging answers to questions?

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by daring grace on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:46:55 PM EST
    I want the networks to cover the public interest presentations of our government--prevarications, and all.

    And then I want their reporters to question and challenge those prevarications at the press conferences, and the post presentation pundits to critically analyze and dissect the prevarications.

    The idea that a prime time press conference is too hard for networks to schedule in the sleepy summer tv season is a laughable prevarication in itself.

    And do I want the president, any president, to get to mandate when (s)he gets to dominate network air time with public issues? More than I want the networks to do so.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#57)
    by dk on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 02:44:58 PM EST
    Would you have wanted Bush on the networks TV 24/7?

    Parent
    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by daring grace on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:15:19 PM EST
    If he had been the public would have seen sooner the Emperor's nakedness.

    Besides, Bush's strategy was to avoid public examination of his policies so there was little danger of All-Bush-All-the-Time happening, except for the very effective surrogate promotion the so called news media did for him anyway.

    Parent

    I don't know. I'd prefer (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by dk on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:18:43 PM EST
    journalists to actually get the news.  Often, sitting in a chair in front of the President and listening to him talk is not the best way to get it.

    And I also don't necessarily see much of a correlation between viewing the President on TV and having an informed populace.

    Parent

    We Deserve Journalists (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by daring grace on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:50:25 PM EST
    Who can do both: confront the politicians and policy makers in the official access moments as well as do the heavy lifting of going out and exposing the flaws and corruptions in pols' work.

    Informed populace seems like a lot to hope for these days. I'd settle for seeing a more engaged citizenry.

    Is the path to this having us glued to every politician appearance on tv? Nope, not what I'm saying. What I think could cultivate this greater involvement/interest by Americans is for the whole process to be treated as if it mattered in the way I suggested above, for a start. Because it does matter.

    I know one thing: the so called news media treating gov't policy and politicians as less 'real' than their own canned 'reality' programming only expands the public's cynical ho-hum when it comes to paying attention to things like health care reform.

     But then, maybe that's the point.


    Parent

    Bush's strategy (none / 0) (#68)
    by dk on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:23:13 PM EST
    is now Obama's strategy.  Now, if the networks, or anyone, had been able to televise these secret visits of health insurance executives to the white house, now, that would be news.

    Parent
    At Least So Far (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by daring grace on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:54:00 PM EST
    Obama is going on tv and making himself available to have questions asked about this, and about anything else we don't like that he's doing or not doing.

    Very un-Bush-like of him.

    But as is so popular to intone around here pols will be pols.

    Now if we just had journalists and media consumers who demanded these questions get asked and asked and asked until they are answered to our satisfaction...

    Parent

    I bet you didn't (none / 0) (#75)
    by dk on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:57:23 PM EST
    even read the article I linked to.

    Parent
    You Would Lose That Bet (none / 0) (#77)
    by daring grace on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 04:09:13 PM EST
    because, in fact, I did read it and other comments here today about this refusal by the Obama admin to disclose the names of health industry people invited to the WH to have input into policy.

    Hence, my pols will be pols comment and my desire to use any opportunity Obama or any other pol provides to question and question and question him/her on things like this in public/on camera/on the record.

    I really thought I was making that clear.

    Parent

    Just Like Bush lol (none / 0) (#79)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 04:11:53 PM EST
    But instead of proposing a health care overhaul, Bush was busy hiding late night visits (and overnight stays?) by none other than Jeff Guckert Gannon, of hooker fame.

    Parent
    Well, if health care overhaul (none / 0) (#82)
    by dk on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 04:35:03 PM EST
    means giveaway to for profit health insurance cmopanies, then I guess your comment makes sense.

    Parent
    Memory Problems (none / 0) (#83)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 04:46:11 PM EST
    I know that BushCo has been out of office for over six months now so I can understand that you could be suffering from memory loss.

    Here is BushCo on Health Care.

    Obama may not be delivering to what you would like, but he is opening up a door that has been solidly shut since Teddy Roosevelt suggested health care for all americans.

    To suggest that he is the same as Bush on healthcare makes you look foolish, imo.

    Parent

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by dk on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 05:37:23 PM EST
    he is opening up a door that has been solidly shut since Teddy Roosevelt suggested health care for all americans

    Who's foolish now?  (IMO, of course).

    Here is Obama on Health Care.

    Parent

    Whatever You Say Boss (none / 0) (#91)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 05:44:07 PM EST
    Yeah I saw the link.

    I guess that means that you believe that Obama is worse than Bush on health care.... pretty hilarious.

    Heathcare is something I know little about nor care too much about.. I have my gazillion dollar rip off policy and never use a dime of it. Would love to dump the insurance companies but I do not see that as a remote possibility for the near future.

    We will be lucky to change the status quo an inch. But that is how it is done... Change with these sort of things is rather a slow process. A lot of habits to break...

    Parent

    Well, since I've been promoted (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by dk on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 05:52:05 PM EST
    (it's nice to be the boss), I guess I'll end with wondering aloud how someone who admits that

    Heathcare is something I know little about nor care too much about

    can come to a conclusion that there's any chance that the status quo is being changed.

    But that's for others besides you or I to answer.  


    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 06:04:14 PM EST
    Seems to me the status quo is changing.

    As for me, I have other priorities in life other than lobbying for health care. Yes, I call my congresscritters, send checks, but all in all I have many other priorities than going to washington and lobbying for health care reform, in my life.

    I can afford insurance, and am relatively healthy. Not sure that much will change for me financially, but I do feel for those who are locked out of the system because they cannot afford it.

    Parent

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 05:54:24 PM EST
    Okay, Ms Know It All - what was Bush's contribution to Health CARE? Exactly what is Obama's plan for Health CARE???

    Point by point. I really want to hear someone who thinks Obama is creating a plan for Health CARE tell us exactly what that plan is. Other than a mandate that we all purchase insurance, what doors is he opening to make sure people who are sick get all the care they require to get better?

    He's working on a Health Insurance Plan. I already have that, but I do not have access to medical care when needed.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 06:09:23 PM EST
    All I know is that Obama has a public option on the table. That is more than I have heard from any GOPer or even conservative DEm.

    I am not a health care industry wonk. Perhaps I am deluded and Bush was a much better force to help raise the standard of affordable health care for all in the US. I just do not see it that way.

    He's working on a Health Insurance Plan. I already have that, but I do not have access to medical care when needed.

    Hate to sound callous, but that is your problem not mine. Hope you do not get sick suffer and die although at least one of those situations is inevitable for all of us.

    Parent

    You don't have to be a health CARE (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:24:53 PM EST
    industry wonk, you just have to be able to understand the difference between Health INSURANCE, which is what is being designed for everyone, and Health CARE, which is not being discussed by congress.


    Parent
    Whatever You Say (none / 0) (#107)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:13:21 PM EST
    Seems to me that Obama was talking about health care and insurance.

    I really do not understand the distinction you are making.

    Are you saying that Obama and Congress are just trying to figure out how to enrich the Insurance cos at the expense of AMericans.

    That is what BushCO said, I think you are either confused or so angry that Obama got elected that you are not following what is going on with health care reform.

    Parent

    Well, you just keep exercising (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:39:11 PM EST
    whatever part of your body you use to think with. Considering how consistently wrong you are, I'm hoping you don't admit it's your brain at work.

    Parent
    Crickets...as expected (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:43:20 PM EST
    You have already stated two really big factors in why your contribution to the conversation is riddled with slams against others, and void of a meaningful thought.

    You DON'T KNOW anything about the subject, and you DON'T CARE what congress does on this.

    Parent

    Isn't Hillary a "conservative Dem"? (none / 0) (#99)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 06:26:54 PM EST


    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#100)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 06:39:31 PM EST
    Her voting record was more conservative than I would like, but not conservative relatively speaking.

    national journal has her at #17 most liberal, Obama #1 for 2007.

    538 ranks Hillary 20th in the 110 congress and 25th in the 109th.

    google

    Parent

    But she was framed that way (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 06:49:33 PM EST
    during the primaries by O supporters, wasn't she?

    I found her to be too conservative in some areas, but more liberal in others. Thing with her was, you had to check on what she was doing as she didn't toot her own horn a lot (iirc) while Sen. She was more low key in the "spotlight" area than I expected.

    Obama #1 in 2007?! UmmK!

    Parent

    Obama Supporters? (none / 0) (#102)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 06:56:36 PM EST
    Well Pols appeal to a wide swath. So any supporter would say that 'Obama or Hillary represents my view'..  If they are conservative, they would say Hillary is more liberal than Obama, if they are liberal they would say Obama is more liberal than Hillary.

    I agreed with BTD 100% on his oft repeated statement that there was not a dimes difference between Hillary and Obama.

    Parent

    The networks are corporate entities (none / 0) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    I think that you do them an injustice by thinking that they wouldn't multi-task on this.

    Parent
    Actually, it's only ONE network (none / 0) (#48)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 02:15:23 PM EST
    and, even then, it's only one of their many broadcasting stations. For those who prefer to watch Obama, every other network is carrying it, as well as MSNBC and CNBC...probably even going to live stream it on MSNBC online.

    I think Obama can handle this non-problem.

    Parent

    links please (none / 0) (#32)
    by bocajeff on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:10:13 PM EST
    for polls showing a majority of people want single payer health care or something similar.

    Parent
    Oh please (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Spamlet on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:27:43 PM EST
    This is old news. Get your own damn links.

    Parent
    Well, there's (none / 0) (#42)
    by dk on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:35:39 PM EST
    this, for starters.  And this.

    That was a quick check on google.  I'm sure there are more.

    Parent

    thanks for the info (none / 0) (#56)
    by bocajeff on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 02:44:47 PM EST


    Parent
    NBC is right (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by zaladonis on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 02:17:07 PM EST
    to protect its revenue.

    These are very hard economic times for media dependent on ad revenue and the Wed 9pm time slot is vital to NBC (and, by extension, the people whose salaries NBC pays).  Has nothing to do with Susan Boyle or any particular show being more important than the President, it's about needed revenue versus what Obama is going to use the hour for.

    It'd be different if Obama had something urgent to tell the nation but all this is is another PR stunt to boost his numbers.  Obama doesn't even have specific health care legislation he's supporting (and asking us to support) yet, it's about supporting him not a completed bill that he's trying to push through.

    NBC is a private corporation (none / 0) (#60)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:02:53 PM EST
    You are very right they deserve to be compensated. To the best of my knowledge we don't currently have any gov't owned and controlled TV stations. Yet.


    Parent
    So it is all just show biz, after all (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 04:10:54 PM EST
    -- sometimes with disposable styrofoam pillars, sometimes with more environmentally conscious real pillars that we get to keep around in the White House for a while.  Got it.  

    I'm so glad (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:29:43 PM EST
    I have plenty of shows DVR'd......

    I have Bravo and the FN (none / 0) (#14)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:33:27 PM EST
    to get me through O's appearances :) OH, and I'm pretty sure my Yankees will be playing!

    Parent
    Is tonight the last group of (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:36:38 PM EST
    chefs on Top Chef Masters before the winners of the previous groups meet in the final?

    It's been fun to watch these pros struggle - must be pretty humbling for them.

    Parent

    Is there no one here... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by sj on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:08:10 PM EST
    ...besides me to stick up for "So You Think You Can Dance"? :)

    I don't care what anyone else says ... it is too a sport.

    Parent

    I will!! (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:14:54 PM EST
    also, that's a live show with audience participation, kinda hard to rearrange things isn't it?

    Parent
    I admit it - I'm hooked! (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:27:49 PM EST
    There are parts of the show that make me a little crazy - Mary Murphy's voice goes right through me! - but I love watching these young people dance.

    Love Janette and Jeanine, not sure I have a favorite male dancer - just think the women have so much more talent than the men this season.

    Parent

    My sister got me hooked (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CST on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 02:11:47 PM EST
    I must admit a lot better than I thought it would be.  Although I can't stand Mary's voice, I mute the tv whenever she starts talking.  I don't know the names, but the girl who did the tango/robber dances the week they cut down to the final 10 is out of control good.

    Parent
    I got into by accident (none / 0) (#55)
    by sj on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 02:44:40 PM EST
    I was channel surfing.  But I'm hooked.  

    That girl is Janette.  She is crazy good.  Her partner for the first 5 weeks was Brandon (who ties with Ade for first male dancer imo).  The two of them together are magic.  Their timing was always right on with the music.  Always.  

    Brandon amazes me really because in the video diaries he's all youth and puppy dog exuberance but when he hits the dance floor he is all business and whatever character he needs to be.

    Wait.  Is this an open thread?

    Parent

    I don't think it's an open thread (none / 0) (#72)
    by CST on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:34:39 PM EST
    but so you think you can dance was mentioned in the post :)

    I agree, their timing was redonkulous every time I saw them.  I just remember that episode in particular because they did a weird dance - and I am not usually a fan of the weird dances, but they were just so good it was shocking.

    I can't decide if I really like Brandon of if I just liked him because of her.  To be determined.

    Parent

    Ellen is on tonight! (none / 0) (#103)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:07:15 PM EST
    Now, if they could just lower the volume on Mary (is that her name)?

    Parent
    YUP! (none / 0) (#21)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:47:09 PM EST
    The women make up 2 of the top 6, which is pretty good since they were outnumbered by 16 more men and they had 2 of the women on the same episode.

    Parent
    I'm very sure (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:06:46 PM EST
    your Yankees won't be on, but you are welcome to catch the RedSox on ESPN.

    Parent
    Encore game on YES (none / 0) (#76)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 04:01:37 PM EST
    @ 7PM  :)

    Parent
    I could have mentioned (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 04:54:48 PM EST
    that you had already won, but that would be against my anti-Yankee nature. Still, I'll either be watching health care or Boston. Both will be high on my list since the Marlin game is almost over.

    Parent
    I know they won :) (none / 0) (#88)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 05:26:38 PM EST
    Doesn't that make B2B sweeps?

    I'll only watch the first half of the game as I'll be on to TCMs at 9 :)

    Parent

    obama (none / 0) (#20)
    by mymy on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:42:04 PM EST
    Has turned into the Muzak Pres.He is on TV so much no one even notices him anymore

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:50:49 PM EST
    you are actually on to something. My guess is, the Obama team started out thinking that Bush was secretive and allowed very few opportunities for the public to see him "live", so their plan was to have regularly scheduled tv news conferences and speeches.

    The problem is, that's great when everyone is in love and thinks your words were spun from angel's wings.  But now that people are questioning you, it looks like a defensive maneuver.  Add to that, after the last two years of Obama literally being everywhere, on every station, on every magazine, on every newspaper and website, people could very well have reached their saturation point.

    Parent

    President Obama has great assets (none / 0) (#50)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 02:17:40 PM EST
    in his cabinet secretaries.   It seems, to me, that these officers should be deployed more extensively to publicly represent administration plans and policies.  With, perhaps, the unfortunate exception of the Secretary of Treasury, these senior officers, in large measure, have been kept under wraps, save for the occasional joint appearances with the president. The timing would seem appropriate in several regards, including concerns for over-exposure,  to utilize more effectively the  exceptional talents of officers like Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu.

    Parent
    Oh, yes, indeed (none / 0) (#52)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 02:22:35 PM EST
    This is the transparency we were promised. Wasn't there talk awhile back about Obama getting his own network channel?

    Parent
    Just out of curiosity, (none / 0) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:58:31 PM EST
    did the networks ever refuse Bush a time slot for a press conference?

    Bush (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:05:51 PM EST
    He gave very few pressers. Not interested, too busy clearing brush or playing golf.

    And while this wasn't as readily apparent until President Obama took office, it's now very clear that the Bush years were all about kicking the can down the road - either ignoring problems or, even worse, creating them and not solving them. This was true of a huge range of issues including the economy, energy, health care, global warming - and of course Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Froomkin


    Parent

    Obama obviously failed to take into (none / 0) (#29)
    by SOS on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:06:52 PM EST
    account the American public's infinite appetite for distractions.

    Or (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:14:40 PM EST
    That health care is not a hot topic for those who have the luxury to watch teevee at 9pm.  

    Most moronic americans, imo, have bought into the idea that we have the best healthcare in the world, and not only would tinkering with it depreciate the 'gold standard' we currently have, but we would all become commies. And everyone knows what happened to USSR....

    Parent

    Perhaps they just don't feel like (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:34:13 PM EST
    sitting through an hour of spin? I can read the transcript later if I want, they can also. The news will be covering the highlights etc. Really, it's not like he's talking for the first time on HIR or that anything groundbreaking has/is going to happen.

    Parent
    But (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:47:28 PM EST
    I can read the transcript later if I want, they can also.
    Why wouldn't the same be true for the Boyle interview?

    Parent
    Maybe it is. But weren't you (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by dk on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:53:53 PM EST
    suggesting that people who wouldn't choose wtching an Obama press conference over an interview of Boyle a) live in luxury; b) don't think health care is a hot issue and c) are morons?

    Parent
    In The Ballpark (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 02:06:56 PM EST
    Although, I was responding to nycstray's point about being able to read the Obama's transcript later as a reason for watching Boyle  instead of Obama.

    Parent
    Not everyone who isn't watching O (none / 0) (#54)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 02:41:19 PM EST
    would be watching Boyle. SYTYCD would be pretty had do deal with in a transcript form  ;)

    I honestly don't think he needs to be on every network. Why can't he just do one of the freebie networks, maybe rotate. We don't need a wall of O every time he decides to speak. Cable, C-span, PBS can fill in as other options.

    And as far as reading him vs watching, I might prefer to read the next morning after relaxing the evening before. And 8-10PM is family time in many homes. I'm sure younger kids don't want to watch O talk about healthcare over watching a fun dance program etc.

    Parent

    My choice is always to read (none / 0) (#59)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:00:43 PM EST
    his speeches...the whistling 's' when he speaks makes me tense.


    Parent
    Interesting, I would have (none / 0) (#58)
    by dk on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 02:51:53 PM EST
    postulated that those watching the Obama presser would be more likely to be the ones living in luxury (and thus less likely to care about health care issues).  As for who are morons, I tend to believe those are spread around all groups.

    Parent
    Agreed. n/t (none / 0) (#39)
    by shoephone on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:25:49 PM EST


    Parent
    Gee, (none / 0) (#31)
    by bocajeff on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:08:54 PM EST
    Obama can still do the press conference. It would still be carried by MSNBC. It still would be covered by Olbermann and Maddow and company. It's not NBC's decision: It's Obama's. He wants the most people possible to watch.

    Big deal. Like it's going to change anything anyway.

    The most people possible to watch (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by SOS on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:16:38 PM EST
    unfortunately know they're screwed and don't need scientific verification to prove it.

    Parent
    Hopefully the choice of networks choosing (none / 0) (#51)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 02:19:20 PM EST
    avertising dollars vs. broadcasting the direction our president is trying to push healthcare will make politicians think twice about giving away our airways for free.  Maybe we the people should get some of that advertising revenue

    What is this NetworkS - plural (none / 0) (#62)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:09:01 PM EST
    theme you are on? It is one broadcasting station of the NBC family of channels that isn't going to air the speech!

    If you have trouble finding a channel where his presser is broadcast, I will look forward to hearing that complaint from you tomorrow.


    Parent

    I would just note (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:15:13 PM EST
    that only broadcast networks, as opposed to cable channels, are required by law to broadcast in the public interest.  Now, I'm pretty sure that doesn't obligate them to carry every presidential press conference, but there is a distinction there.

    Parent
    And, it appears they all are... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:22:25 PM EST
    they simply got the time changed.


    Parent
    Ooops.... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:12:00 PM EST
    All these comments revised what I originally read in the post...

    The TIME GOT CHANGED for the presser so it wouldn't interfere with the SYTYCD broadcast. It appears NBC will broadcast the speech right along with everyone else!


    Parent

    Almost (none / 0) (#69)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:23:16 PM EST
    Fox will not show it on their network channel but will on Fox News.

    Parent
    I thought Fox News Network (none / 0) (#71)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:27:52 PM EST
    was a network channel. Since they have a designated news channel, it seems logical they wouldn't have to shut down other broadcasting on their entertainment channel.

    Parent
    If the broadcast networks have to... (none / 0) (#53)
    by EL seattle on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 02:34:02 PM EST
    ...sacrifice revenue for this public service, shouldn't all the radio stations broadcast it, too?  And the cable TV channels.  TNT, ESPN, HBO, MTV, etc.  

    If they actually want to want to reach as many people as they can, I think that they really should look beyond just the viewing audience of the main TV networks.

    Speaking of health care... (none / 0) (#80)
    by lambert on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 04:25:55 PM EST
    Is the Obama Health Care Plan really better than nothing?

    Black Agenda Report: No.

    Simple answers to simple questions...

    You mean his Insurance Plan, right? (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 04:34:04 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    Haw (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by lambert on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 05:44:31 PM EST
    Yep. Thanks.

    Parent
    Maybe the majority of Americans (none / 0) (#85)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 04:58:57 PM EST
    are cynics like me who believe that the politicians running our country (the Demopublicans) are going to screw us for the sake of corporation just as they always do.  We cynics see no reason to watch the head corporate puppet snake oil salesman try to scam us into believing they are "doing it for us".

    Besides, Susan Boyle is Julia Childs reincarnate:

    Link

    Maybe Susan Boyle... (none / 0) (#98)
    by EL seattle on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 06:12:53 PM EST
    ... can team up with Meryl Streep on a new record?

    After all, even though Meryl's done a couple of musical films lately, I don't think she does a lot of singing in her next movie, so she might be up for a some duet singin'.

    Parent

    You do know that Meryl Streep began (none / 0) (#105)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:34:29 PM EST
    her talented career studying opera, right? She and Susan Boyle would probably be able to do a really fantastic musical duet.


    Parent
    Obama Presser Time Changed: NBC Said Susan Boyle Interview Too Important | 109 comments (109 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment