ABC "Vote 2004" DOG

Just watching World News Tonight on News 24 now (not something I often do at 1.40 in the morning, I have to say), but on the two occasions I over the past few weeks I've seen it, the regular ABC DOG has been replaced by an ABC Vote 2004 DOG.

Why?

Often this does not at all relate to the story - they are talking about the Middle East at the moment, for instance - and the election itself is over a year away.

I know that the broadcasters typically get coverage going properly in January, but October just seems utterly ridiculous.

Can anyone offer a reasonable explanation - other than US networks being sh-t - as to why ABC have elected to use it now, rather than in 12 months time?

The story you're referring to provided an analysis of the impact of the current Middle East situation on the Presidential election. In many ways the credibility of the Bush administration will be decided by America's success in Iraq. (Nobody over here is worried about the validity of intelligence reports...we have better things to do than whine and moan.)

It's also a convenient way to advertise ABC News coverage of the Election.

I dont see what your problem with it is.

That DOG was put on over a month ago, to also coincide with the California recall election - to recall and elect a new gov. for 2004, hence why the vote 2004 DOG is barking early.

It's no different from NBC putting the Olympic logo under their DOG/BUG a year before the olympics, or any other Olympic broadcaster for that matter (CBC, Seven, etc...)

Well, I wasn't making reference to that particular story, actually. Although, I did not follow it with great attention, perhaps you are right. It is particularly hard to imagine any American news organisation running a foreign news story these days without it having to have some sort of relevance to the United States.

It is not a convenient way to advertise coverage of the election. Why on Earth would anyone in their right mind advertise a programme (sorry, program) that wasn't actually going to be shown until next November?!

It is also my understanding that the US networks title their coverage by the date the election itself takes place - i.e. 2003 for California, 2004 for national - and not the date the inauguration takes place. Were that the case, it would have been Election 2001 and not Election 2000. You Vote in 2003 for California, not 2004.

My problem with it is that it's just barmy. There's no logic to putting it there. Maybe if they put it up for stories that related exclusively to the US election next year (even though it is far too early to produce an accurate report about anything impacting the US elections, even it seems on election night for the US networks) but quite what the Kobe Bryant case has to do with Election 2004 is beyond me.

It's silly, it's pointless, it's... ohh, American. What a coincidence.

Doesn't really justify it, though, ED.

Do broadcasters really think we are so dedicated to our televisions that we actually plan our viewing a whole 12 months in advance?

As is this statement.
As far as presentation is concerned, US networks smash the UK networks hands down. (Does not include cable channels)

don't forget that its a long road till we actually get to the General Election in the US. The Democratic primaries start in January so that's why they wrap the whole process up in "Vote2004" slogan.

Precisely, so I wouldnt exactly say its pointless.

I know they typically start covering them in January - and indeed mentioned it in my post.

But it's October.

January is still months away.

It IS pointless. Tell me ONE useful purpose it serves.

Do you really think there are any Americans out there (well, there probably are) who think ABC aren't going to be providing coverage of election 2004?

Do you think they will base their decisions on who has had their funny little logo up for the longest amount of time.

Do you seriously think it's actually going to make ANY difference to viewing habits?

It's a silly idea, stupidly implemented.

So much anger, so much venom and hate. Relax mate...goodness. You'll have a heartattack sooner than later. Chill...everything is gonna be alright. Its just a DOG. You've made your point. You dont like anything. I'm sure we all understand you on that. Attention everyone C@T dislikes most things. But Lets not upset him as he might have a friggin' brain anurysm. Just nod and smile.....sheesh!

Coverage has already started in the run up to the New Hampshire and Iowa caucases. They are covering the national debates and the run up to the conventions. My word.