By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Networks ABC and NBC will stream President Trump’s upcoming address to the nation on their digital platforms, rather than broadcast it live on their main channels, although ABC News will provide anchored coverage and a special report will follow on NBC. This decision reflects a network practice of evaluating the subject matter and context of presidential addresses, having previously opted against airing speeches from other presidents. The President has indicated the speech will focus on “election integrity,” potentially raising doubts about past elections or addressing upcoming midterms.
Read the original article here
The decision by NBC and ABC not to carry Donald Trump’s primetime election speech has sparked considerable discussion, highlighting a complex interplay between journalistic responsibility, public service broadcasting, and the ongoing political landscape. This move, while perhaps surprising to some, is not entirely unprecedented, as broadcast networks historically weigh the substance and context of any potential broadcast, and have previously declined to air speeches from various presidents, including those from Biden, Obama, and Bush. The core of the issue seems to revolve around the networks’ perceived obligation to avoid amplifying what many consider to be election lies and denialism, particularly from a figure like Trump.
Many believe that legitimate news organizations have a duty to refrain from platforming what are seen as fascist rhetoric and baseless conspiracy theories, especially concerning election integrity. The idea of major news networks collectively refusing to broadcast Trump’s election-related narratives is seen by some as a positive step, forcing a pause on the dissemination of unsubstantiated claims. Even Fox News, often seen as a sympathetic outlet, had not yet committed to carrying the speech, further underscoring the hesitancy among some media giants. The broadcast networks opting out is viewed by some as a significant statement, a “big fuck you” to the former president’s intentions.
However, there’s a concern that even without a live broadcast, the media might still inadvertently legitimize or “sanewash” Trump’s claims through subsequent reporting and summaries. The worry is that headlines could still focus on accusations of stolen elections without adequately contextualizing the lack of legal proof or framing it as a means for Trump to satisfy his own ego, rather than as objective reporting. Some anticipate that CBS, unlike NBC and ABC, will likely carry the speech, a decision some find disappointing and a potential deviation from responsible broadcasting. The call to use “wallets to vote” suggests a desire for consumers to boycott entities perceived as enabling Trump’s agenda.
The potential for Trump to leverage this decision as further evidence of “leftist propaganda” from the mainstream media is a significant concern. He may use the refusal as fuel for his narrative that the public is being denied “the truth.” This reaction is anticipated, and it underscores the polarized environment in which such media decisions are made. The less exposure his “desperate lies” receive, the better, according to this perspective. The sentiment of relief from those who are glad the networks are not airing the speech is palpable, suggesting a desire to limit the reach of his rhetoric.
There’s a sentiment that news organizations should prioritize reporting facts over what is described as “insane rambling and lies.” The idea that Trump has a limited vocabulary and an inherent inability to tell the truth leads some to question the value of giving him primetime airtime at all. For some, the refusal to broadcast is a clear indication of standing up to him, a move that is met with praise. The notion that he might threaten to revoke broadcast licenses is seen as a predictable, yet ultimately insignificant, reaction given the networks’ decision.
The debate also touches upon the fundamental purpose of news organizations. Some argue that if there were genuinely new, substantiated evidence regarding election fraud, it would have been presented through more established legal channels. Therefore, giving primetime to rehashed, unproven claims is seen as unnecessary. A more constructive approach, some suggest, would be to broadcast the speech but immediately follow it with extensive fact-checking, discussions of lost lawsuits, legal repercussions for lawyers involved in his claims, and charges he himself faced related to alleged election interference.
The refusal by NBC and ABC is seen by some as a principled stand, a move that demonstrates a commitment to ethical journalism. The suggestion that Comedy Central could “MST3000 the shit out of” the speech, turning it into a mockery, highlights the level of disdain some feel towards its content. The contrast is drawn with ABC’s past actions, which some perceive as having sided with Trump by settling a lawsuit rather than fighting it, suggesting a perceived inconsistency in their stance. The overall sentiment leans towards celebrating the decision by NBC and ABC as a responsible act in a challenging media environment.