ABC "Vote 2004" DOG

If the British electoral system was simular to the US one, in that election dates and goverment office terms are set, then i am sure that something like this would happen on the British networks.

In fact, in farily broad and much shorter timescale terms, it does. When the 2001 general election was declared, at the top of the next hour, Sky News changed their on-air idents, theme package and graphics. Simularly, the BBC's Vote 2001 chevron type V logo started appearing all over BBC News graphics.

Thank you for clarifying. Most news divisions use their on-air graphics as a means to advertise their coverage and the US networks have a longer time period to cover. So i makes sense they want to hype their coverage when the days wind down to the actual election. After all it only happens every 4 years.

Well, OK, rather than aggressively pointing out that you are wrong, I'll do it in more measured tones.

It is not the case, chiguy (to respond to your points first), that I dislike "everything", rather I dislike pointless exercises in promotion that actually have no relevance to the viewer whatsoever.

There is a huge difference between what Sky did and what ABC are doing. Sky went into their election presentation when the election was officially announced. Unlike the United States, a general election date here is usually the subject of much speculation, and not at a time set in stone. Sky started their graphics four weeks prior to election day... ABC are starting 13 months ahead. That is just silly.

The campaigning (and fundraising by consequence) has got underway, but not to the extent that it merits a DOG being put over your news programming for the duration of every programme.

ABC actually say it is "a reminder to all Americans that democracy is dependent on active citizen participation." Which sort of says it all, really. ABC thinks its viewers are thick. If they have to be reminded that the principle of democracy is reliant upon active participation, there is something very wrong somewhere. Or could it be that's just corporate bullsh-t, that's been prepared in time for a number of queries from US newspapers? I think so.

The fact of the matter is this: had ABC (like CBS and NBC) not introduced a new DOG, it would have made absolutely no difference to their coverage whatsoever. It is a gimmiky, pointless little device that serves no useful purpose; that is why it should not be there.

Well the fact that you even noticed it shows that its effective. The whole purpose of DOGS.
You still dislike everything.

Your assertion that I dislike everything is, again, incorrect. And I think, given that I have spent a significantly longer amount of time with my personality than you have, I'm best placed to make judgements about it.

I noticed the DOG, yes, but I did not think "Oh, ABC will be providing coverage of Vote 2004" or "democracy is reliant upon active participation". I thought "what's that doing there?" and "how silly".

I imagine the latter responses are more common than the former.

haha!

I agree. It's advertising. And we've already shown that this advertising is getting noticed.

Well I think it's a damn good idea - not enough people vote in this country, and then spend the next 5yrs moaning about the PM (I think the national average is 50/60% - I remember some areas being as low as 40% at the last general election) - so if the US is anything like this country then it's a damn good job someone is telling them how it is!

S

On the sensationally 'Fair and Balanced' Special Report with Brit 'Mr Republican' Hume they are covering the Democratic nomination race very heavily. There have also already been debates between the candidates, and George Bush has held fundraising dinners to boost funds. So, the campaign is underway.

However, to put a dog on a news programme that perhaps only covers the election for say 2 mins a night is pointless, I agree. On politics shows, but not on general news ones.

Yes... but how is a DOG going to help? A DOG does not "tell it like it is". It doesn't tell anybody anything. People aren't actually going to be voting on a President for another 13 months.

And do you really think that when people see it they suddenly feel inspired to vote? Don't be ridiculous, for crying out loud.

[quote="c@t]
And do you really think that when people see it they suddenly feel inspired to vote? Don't be ridiculous, for crying out loud.[/quote]

Stand back everyone his brain is getting ready to pop

If you have an issue with me, please take it into a Private Message conversation; I'm sure the rest of the forum doesn't want to be bored by your irrelevant commentary.

Well you seem to have issue with anyone that disagrees with you and respond in a very nasty way. Personally attacking people in a way that is completely unecessary. I hope you will learn to lighten up. : As far as private messaging you, I'd rather not. I'd prefer to have witnesses. You might attack me from behind.