Bush: In the details

A.D. Freudenheim, The Editor

At 9pm tonight, President George W. Bush will address the United States to, presumably, explain his (evolving) plans for the thus-far elusive victory in Iraq. Interestingly, TV Guide's online listings give a little bit of insight into the President's speech: if users place a mouse over a particular TV listing, the system provides a quick summary of the program. Presumably, this information is provided by the networks themselves -- and if so, let's look at what some of the biggest networks each say about tonight's speech:

• ABC's blurb: "President Bush outlines his plans for Iraq." Wow, minimalism par excellence, but hardly likely to attract audiences -- and they don't mention a news anchor.

• CBS's blurb says: "President George W. Bush talks about his plan for Iraq. Katie Couric anchors coverage." Straightforward, if brief -- and the anchor note is presumably intended to encourage particular viewers to choose CBS.

• CNN writes: "President George W. Bush unveils his revised strategy for the Iraq War, which is expected to include an increase in the number of U.S. troops serving in Iraq." Well, good old CNN comes through in the clinch, with adequate detail that reflects the key issue of the speech (and the moment).

• FOX notes: "Coverage of President Bush's address on the Iraq War. Shepard Smith reports." You might expect more from the President's unofficial news mouthpiece, no?

• NBC summarizes thusly: "President George W. Bush discusses the Iraq War. Brian Williams anchors coverage." Similar to CBS in mentioning the anchor, but "discusses the Iraq war" seems to elide the presumable point of the speech, namely, the President's plans.

• PBS' NYC affiliate WNET's blurb: "President George W. Bush unveils his revised strategy for the Iraq War, which is expected to include an increase in the number of U.S. troops serving in Iraq." Hmmm, that looks suspiciously like the CNN blurb. Either way, at least it notes the key details.

Compare these one or two line descriptions to the 4+ lines for entertainment programs, the dramas and sitcoms that generate the most interest from audiences. What does any of this mean? I suspect that, to some degree, it just reflects our country's general disinterest in such speeches and the events that surround them -- and the networks' collective sense that there's more money to be made in programs with advertising (absent from Presidential addresses, at least thus far) then in mere policy-setting politics.