The DNC: Inside the Bubble and the View on the Tube From Outside

I noticed an interesting fact on the media walk-through information we were given for the DNC back in July, 2008, in preparation for the convention.

The tv network in charge of the network pool (pooled footage) for the DNC is...wait for it...FOX NEWS. (Networks all cooperate to designate one network the sole provider of all raw footage inside the Pepsi Center because otherwise it's more expensive and redundant for all networks to each have a camera.)

I thought this was intriguing and did a little digging. Just how is the network pool determined? Is it through bidding, random, some other process?

So far, I've asked the head of Media Logistics for the DNC for an answer and the DNC point person for the network pool. No response. But two interns for CBS who have been on-site helping to pre-produce CBS' coverage for the past two weeks told me that it's a lottery. The network that draws the winning straw pays for everything. They place and direct the numerous cameras inside collecting footage. The other networks participate knowing they'll have to return the favor for another such huge media event. (For example, ABC News won the network pool for the RNC. All the other networks will be getting their footage from cameras and operators paid for by ABC tv.)

So there doesn't seem to be any adulteration of the process that would allow a conservative news network to cover a convention of liberals.

Or is there?

If I find anything else, I'll update.

But I have to say, we inside the Pepsi Center and the MOMocrats stuck in traffic (avoiding another clash between Denver police and protesters) are inside a bubble. I've had no time to watch tv news coverage.

So what I want to know is this: what do YOU the viewers think about the television coverage so far? Do you detect any bias? Does it seem "fair and balanced" in that special Fox News way, or is it truly fair and balanced? We all know that when you focus on something, when you cut away, when you zoom in, when/how you allocate cameras to highlight protests or give minutes to other kinds of stories...all these subtly shape what we see and understand.

For example, if Bill O'Reilly's producers are asking for certain kinds of "coverage" inside the Pepsi Center for a show he's doing later, then does it affect what goes into the general network pool? It hadn't occurred to me before that there might be a way to shape what's seen in an overtly partisan way, but being responsible for the network pool could be one such way given the constraints of Fox News' budgetary and editorial decisions. Where they put resources might affect what you see.

Readers, let us know. Be sure to give specific examples, so if I need to follow up I can do so.

Cynematic also writes at P i l l o w b o o k.

Comments

[Sharon]

I am in Maine watching on PBS station MPBN. I like their coverage and commentary. Charlie Rose is doing extended coverage right now. I think I will stick with PBS throughout the convention. I don't have cable so my choices are limited.

[Natalie]

Hmmm, not sure I'm understanding the whole network pool thing, but I do know that our local Fox (not cable Fox) station is the only network station NOT broadcasting the DNC right now. It worked out nicely for me while I was on the treadmill, since I got to watch Prison Break instead (sorry, I don't do politics OR sports when exercising), but I thought it was interesting. I'm not sure if that even relates to your question, but since you were talking about Fox and all...

[Sarah Granger]

I found the MSNBC coverage to be very good Sunday as I watched while packing. They supposedly have had more election coverage than any other news network.

[Nina]

Watching on PBS too since I don't have cable. Like the coverage so far although the political commentators don't seem as "smooth" as the CNN guys I'm used to watching.

[Catherine]

I'm watching the live feed on Dish Network in order to avoid all the commentary. It's the next best thing to being in the bubble.

[cynematic]

C-SPAN's supposed to have good coverage. I know they're even doing the stand-up thing of offering CC license clips for bloggers to use. CNN also has a live feed, supposedly.

I'm so glad to hear the wide range of news sources you all rely on aside from horrible Fox News. (Makes sense, as you're all pretty well-informed!) This is why I thought you might be interested in the Fox tv network pool situation.

Natalie, where are you writing from, and I wonder when (if) your local Fox affiliate will show DNC proceedings?

[Helyne]

Yes, there was definitely a bias in the pool coverage. I believe even the C-SPAN coverage may have had the same pool info from the floor. I trolled around different stations during the Convention for comparison purposes.

During Michelle Obama's speech, there was little coverage of any smiling, happy pale faces on the floor. Lots of shots of people looking bored or talking to someone during the speech, at a time when people inside were talking about how electrifying it all was on the floor. LOTS of shots of women in full Hillary regalia before and after.

[Jo-Ann]

When you said Fox News, I immediately became nauseated. Literally nauseated. I really have lost any faith at all in the system these past eight years so when I hear something like this, it's like another punch in the gut.

Here is what my husband and I commented on last night (before I knew the fox news thing). Lots of shots of black women in the delegation and not much else. Also, a real focus on the Hillary stuff. The Hillary stuff was really annoying me (and I am a Hillary supporter) because I really thought the commentators were making way too much out of it - fishing for a story that was only minimally there. But judging from another post here, maybe it is a bigger deal than I realized?

There's likely more, but my mind is spinning as it's almost time to pick up from the first day at school and I don't want to be late. : )

[Baffled American]

"It hadn't occurred to me before that there might be a way to shape what's seen in an overtly partisan way..."

Really? So when Katie Couric marched off the 2000 Election set because she had just said the F-word on air, that didn't strike you as evidence of partisanship? Or the fact that multiple networks admitted attempting to sway that election by calling Florida before its polls closed in the western part of the state... that wasn't partisanship? I guess you're just new to the game.

[cynematic]

Baffled American, you must not read my personal blog, where I've repeatedly ripped the NYT, among other news organs, brand new assholes for their piss-poor coverage of the run-up and execution of the Iraq war. Among a billion other things.

So you syntax-trolled on an inartful phrase. Sorry.

What I should've written (after 14 hours of DNC'ing) is this: "It hadn't occurred to me before that there might be a way to shape what's seen in an overtly partisan way **using dominion over the video feed**, but being responsible for the network pool could be one such way given the constraints of Fox News' budgetary and editorial decisions."