ABC Tries To Limit How Other Networks Report On Debate; Networks Ignore ABC

from the ah,-copyright dept

About a year ago, there was a push by some to get both the Democrats and the Republicans, along with the various television networks showing any Presidential debates to agree to freely license the content of any debate afterwards for any kind of media coverage. While some agreed to this, others did not. In fact, with last week’s Democratic candidate debate, it appears ABC tried to take the issue even further. It demanded that other networks show less than 30 seconds of debate clips the night after the debate. This is quite similar to the restrictions MLB and the NFL have been trying to put on reporters as well. ABC claimed that it needed to do this because it delayed the broadcast of the debate on the west coast until later in the evening. First, people on the west coast aren’t stupid. They know the debate already happened. Pretending it didn’t isn’t going to change much. Second, it seems ridiculous that ABC time-delayed the debate in the first place. But, most importantly, restricting how others can report on a news event seems pretty pointless — and, indeed, the other networks basically ignored ABC’s demands and broadcasted as much as they wanted to of the debates.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: abc

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “ABC Tries To Limit How Other Networks Report On Debate; Networks Ignore ABC”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

I mostly agree but dislike the comparaison with the MLB and NFL. While I personnally don’t agree with their tactics, professional sporting events are mostly for entertainment, and some argument can be made on how they should be reported.

But when a political event happens, that could shape a country, and indeed maybe even the world, it would be irresponsible to give a single corporation any kind on control on how the news can and/or should be reported.

jonnyq says:

I don’t know what time the debate started, but it may have started so early that it would have been inconvenient for the west coast to watch (i.e. lower ratings), so there’s the reason for the delay.

And of course they want to limit the coverage of the debate until after it airs on the west coast or people might just not watch (i.e. lower ratings).

ABC wasn’t trying to trick the west coast into thinking it was live.

I agree with your premise. Obviously people that want to know about the debate can find out regardless of whatever restrictions ABC tries to put on coverage, but you seemed to miss those points.

nipseyrussell says:

its nothing but a disgusting disgrace that there is private ownership over any part of the process of electing the president of this company. corporate sponsorship like any other tv show? networks preventing anyone from doing anything with footage? for shame on the US.
Additionally, WTF was that debate???? i suppose its a mixed blessing, anything to prevent that abortion of a debate from getting into the hands of other countries and further embarrassing us should be a good thing.
all around: disgusting

Dirk Belligerent (profile) says:

ABC means....

Awwwww, Barack Cracked!

What the Obamessiah’s slavering fans need to understand is that if their favored candidate can’t withstand the gentlest scrutiny about his long-term associations with racists and domestic terrorists, and can’t square away his militant anti-gun, extreme pro-abortion, and Marxist economic theories and states that he doesn’t care if cutting taxes raises revenue when he can’t punish achievement in the name of fairness, WTF is he going to do when pressed by foreign terrorists and dictators seeking to harm America and our allies? Are they going to cry that North Korea and Iran are being meanieheads?

LBD says:

Re: ABC means....

Sarcasim, right?

Democratic Party members don’t really give a shite about socalists, right?

Communists (who belive in violent uprising) are one thing. But Democratic Party members tend to be socialistic.

So either you’re a batshit insane republican (As batshit insane as the militant vegans) or this is a joke

Anonymous Coward says:

Yeah, I agree!! We’re doomed if Barack gets elected. What we need is a Super Bush x2!

Under his excellent leadership we’re all much richer, the economy is growing at record rates, all the other countries in the world love us, he’s brought peace and democracy to the middle east without a single wasted American life, he has condemned all forms of torture, he’s preserved America’s right to privacy, everyone has health care, home ownership is booming, our schools and their funding are doing better than ever!! The list goes on and on and on….

Washii (profile) says:

ABC means....

If you don’t think that Republicans aren’t socialistic as well, then you aren’t looking at the majority of farm areas. Most all are Republican, and quite a few of those people will support more socialistic measures.

You know why? Quite a lot of our farmers (and some large, -profitable- corporations) are supported by socialism. But shhh. They don’t want to think they’re Commies and rise up in arms.

And finally: Why do you believe Communists ‘believe in violent uprising’? China and Russia don’t count.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: ABC means....

…. Since China, Russia, Korea, Vietnam (though that’s honestly never been communist just allied with china) Cuba… Do I really need to go on? Please, name a Communist (not socialistic) country that elected the officials who then totally restructured the country, and no violent uprising was involved? And read the Comunist Manifesto too. And don’t just read the lines, read between the lines. Bonus points if you can read it in the native language (I can’t). Good ideas some. Bad ideas others. Violent terminology throughout.

Anyway the difference between a socialist and a Communist in my mind is a socialist wants to work within the system to make things better, and slowly move things. Communists want a new system, a specific one.

Also, note my comment on ‘batshit insane’ republican. Normal republicans are somewhat socialistic… But the bat-shit insane ones are not normal republicans. most normal ones don’t like talking about the batshit insane one, just like batshit insane democrats arn’t really acepted by the general group.

(For an example of a bat-shit insane democrat, I present you with someone I really know: A feminazi (women are superior to the stinky boys), Vegan, new-ageist who keeps trying to convert me to her ways, and attacks me from the left (I’m a lefty myself, but she calls me a conservative. Whatever) For an example of bat-shit insane republican… here’s someone else I really know: a man who’s still fighting the cold war, believes that the bible is god’s literal cold hard truth, claims that the earth is only a few thousand-hundred thousand years old. Believes that all poor are poor because they’re lazy, and that oppression never occurs. He’s a relative of mine.)

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...