tommyo@ihuxw.UUCP (Tom O`Connor) (09/24/84)
Here`s an interesting fact. It seems there may be a conflict between ABC showing a NFL game on either Monday or Sunday night and one of the REAGAN/MONDALE debates! From what I understand, one of them may have to give in to the other. Is this absurd or what. Though many people would rather watch footbal than a debate (how sad), I think ABC should show a little class by choosing the debate to televise. I don`t think they should say "Sorry guys, but we can`t move the football game, so you`ll just have to change your debate day". However, I`ve also heard that something similar is already planned. It seems that next year`s Presidential inauguration may be held on Jan. 21st instead of the 20th. Why? Because the Super Bowl is going to be held on the 20th!! I don`t know of an amendment to our Constitution which changes the day of the inauguration. If this is true, we will technically have NO president for a day. It`s a sad day in the USA when a footbal game takes precedence over the Presidential Inauguration. Shame on you, ABC. Tom O`Connor ihuxw!tommyo
kek@mgweed.UUCP (Kit Kimes) (09/25/84)
I can see no good reason why all three networks have to carry the debates. Do you get ABC but not NBC or CBS in your area? Maybe someone is just afraid more people will watch the football game than the debates. If that is what they choose to watch, I say let them. As for the Inauguration, no where in the constitution does it say that it has to be televised at all. If it is, I as sure it will still have a large share of the TV audience. No one should HAVE to watch it because nothing else is on. Personally, I applaud the independent stations which didn't carry the conventions.
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (09/25/84)
Don't worry about not having a President for a day. The next prexy will take the oath of office on the 20th in a private ceremony, between halves of the Super Bowl I assume. The grand splash in front of the capitol building is just a grandiose display for public consumption and an excuse to party. The behind the scenes ceremony has happened plenty of times before. It doesn't take three networks and 40 million dollars to give an oath of office. T. C. Wheeler
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (09/26/84)
Actually, it looks like a bad night for television either way. -Ron
kaufman@uiucdcs.UUCP (09/27/84)
But since the inauguration is scheduled for noon, eastern time, and the Super Bowl will be on the West Coast, where's the conflict? (unless Reagan gets reelected and wants to phone the winning team).
joe@smu.UUCP (09/28/84)
#R:ihuxw:-98900:smu:18400003:000:874 smu!joe Sep 28 14:47:00 1984 >I can see no good reason why all three networks have to carry the >debates. Do you get ABC but not NBC or CBS in your area? Maybe >someone is just afraid more people will watch the football game than >the debates. If that is what they choose to watch, I say let them. The someone who is more afraid that people would rather watch the football game than the debates is the someone who televises the debates. If one network doesn't televise the debates, it may have an unreasonably high rating during that time. Thus, the other networks probably wouldn't televise them either, and no one would get to see them at all. It would be nice if independents could carry the debates, or perhaps the public tv stations. Or better yet, it would be neat if people would rather watch the debates than the football game. Joe Ramey ...convex!smu!joe Southern Methodist University
andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) (09/30/84)
[]
"It seems that next year`s Presidential inauguration may be
held on Jan. 21st instead of the 20th. Why? Because the Super
Bowl is going to be held on the 20th!! I don`t know of an
amendment to our Constitution which changes the day of the
inauguration. If this is true, we will technically have NO
president for a day."
No, the Speaker of the House will be president for that day. This
happened once during the eighteenth century, when the president-elect
refused to be inaugurated on a Sunday for religious reasons.
Tip O'Neill, president of the US?
-- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!orca!andrew) [UUCP]
(orca!andrew.tektronix@rand-relay) [ARPA]wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (10/01/84)
No, you twits, the next president WILL be sworn in on January 20th, as planned. This has happened 5 times before, since 1900. It's nothing new. The man is sworn in on the 20th and the Hoopala is held the next day in front of the cameras. No big deal. It's been done before. Even before TV. They used to swear them in in March. Remember that? Does anyone know why? Does anyone remember when the date was changed? Does anyone care? T. C. Wheeler
agz@pucc-k (Andrew Banta) (10/12/84)
> I can see no good reason why all three networks have to carry the > debates. Do you get ABC but not NBC or CBS in your area? As a matter of fact (living in a basement apartment and not wanting to pay for cable), I do only get NBC. I don't remember anyone stating that you had to be able to afford it to get the news. I get a little tired of all the lunkheads writing into to anywhere that they feel is appropriate and bitching because some network broadcast a speech by the president, a convention, a debate, the president getting shot, the beginning of WWIII, or any other item that is news-worthy to the entire populace because it pre-empted their favourite show. I get a little tired of people thinking that the world revolves around Dallas, As the Net Turns, or Hill Street Blues. If they'd get out of their easy chair, take a look around them at what goes on, and do something about it, as opposed to living in a TV fantasy world, the world might not be in such sh*tty shape. I recently read a news item where a *13* year old went crazy trying to pull his parents out of an overturned car because *she thought the car was going to explode*!!! Now I have nothing wrong with her trying to get her parents out of the car, although my inclination would have been to call an ambulance squad and let them take care of it properly. She didn't get the idea that the car was going to explode from just out of the blue. Think about it, when was the last time you *didn't* see an overturned car explode on TV? But I guess people are just going to sit around and continue watching TV non-stop, just because it's there, and melted their brains into oblivion with fantasy, fiction, and comedy. A note to the poster of the inserted article above. I realize that I took that line out of context. Even so, I still disagree with the notion that we should let people watch what they want while ignoring important and historic events. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Banta {decvax!allegra!inhp4}!pucc-k!agz Alcohol Design and Application Corp. --- Serving people over 21 years. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I got a little black book with my poems in, Got a bag for comb and my toothbrush in, Got thirteen channels of shit on the TV to choose from. I've got wild staring eyes, And I'v got a strong urge to fly, But I've got nowhere to fly to ... "