Top Story
There used to be a time, not to long ago, when the major networks would delay, cancel, or rearrange theirs schedules to accommodate a White House request for a Presidential news conference or speech. There was no question whether the speech was "newsworthy." It was simple because it was the president.
Now, the major networks, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, are not sure an address by President Bush tonight at Ft. Bragg will be newsworthy. So far, only ABC has agreed to the primetime address. The cable news channels will all cover the speech with extensive analysis and commentary.
In meetings that began last week, network executives and bureau chiefs were not convinced about the newsworthiness of an address so far from the Oval Office. Some are concerned that the White House could turn the speech into a political rally.
The networks are on the wrong side of this issue. During the Clinton administration, the networks jumped at the chance to put Bill Clinton on television. It did not matter what the subject was or whether it was newsworthy, it was Clinton.
With a Republican White House, the networks want to control the message not have the message controlled by the President. Is this another example of the liberal-bias at the networks? Only partially, a change in the primetime schedule is costly. Sponsors need to be compensated for missed commercials and the ratings for a presidential speech are not stellar.
Nevertheless, a speech by the president on a topic as important as Iraq should be covered by the major networks with no thought to newsworthiness or political agenda. It is, after all, a speech by the president.
Tags: TV Networks, Iraq
--
Other Stories
The long-awaited Supreme Court decisions on the display of the Ten Commandments did not resolve the issue. Instead the court sent a mixed message to proponents and opponents of the displays.
In the Kentucky case, the Court ruled that the framed copies of the Ten Commandments hung in two courtrooms did violate the "establishment" clause of the Constitution. The Court said the displays had an overtly religious intention. In the Texas case, the Court ruled that the Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the State Capitol in Austin Texas represented neutral, legal intentions.
In the Texas case, the Court ruled in a similar fashion to a Maryland federal court which ruled last week that a Ten Commandments display in a Frederick, Maryland, park was constitutional.
Proponents and opponents of the display of religious material say the decision by the Court does not resolve or clarify the issue. It is likely that future cases will end up before the high court in future terms.
Liberals Frustrated Over Court's Split Decision -- 06/27/2005
Tags: Supreme Court, Ten Commandments
--
While Monday's news concentrated on the controversy over the Supreme Court's decision on the dsiplay of the Ten Commandments, many Americans and some lawmakers are still concerned over last week's decision that would allow a city to seize private property for a commercial interest. One lawmaker is, however, taking action.
Sen. John Conyn (R-TX) has introduced legislation that would prohibit the transfer of private property without the owner's consent if federal funds are used or if the purpose of the seizure is economic development rather than public use.
"It is appropriate for Congress to take action...to restore the vital protections of the Fifth Amendment and to protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against unreasonable government use of the power of eminent domain," Cornyn said.
"This legislation would declare Congress's view that the power of eminent domain should be exercised only for 'public use,' as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment," Cornyn said. "Most importantly, the power of eminent domain should not be used simply to further private economic development."
Conyn's legislation would clarify that "public use" does not include economic development.
Outrage Lingers Over Property Rights Ruling -- 06/28/2005
Tags: Supreme Court, Eminent Domain
--
Following Monday's refusal of the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from reporters who refused to reveal their sources to a federal grand jury, a federal appeals court upheld a civil contempt finding against several other reporters.
Former nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee filed a lawsuit against the government saying that it violated the Privacy Act by releasing information about him to reporters. According to Lee's attorney's the identity of the sources is critical to his case.
The appeals court ruled the lower court did not abuse its discretion in its finding of contempt for four reporters. The four reporters are H. Josef Hebert of The Associated Press, The New York Times' James Risen, Robert Drogin of the Los Angeles Times and Pierre Thomas, formerly of CNN and now of ABC.
The appeals court did reverse the contempt citation against New York Times reporter, Jeff Gerthm saying there was sufficient evidence to sustain such a conclusion.
The reporters could face fines of $500 per day for refusing to answer questions about their sources.
Contempt Finding Upheld Against Reporters
Tag: Wen Ho Lee
--
There could be an update later today, but there will be no Briefings or Updates from June 29 through July 2 or 3.
No comments:
Post a Comment