Why the downplay?

This is interesting ...

"Networks won't air Bush's primetime speech"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5050891/

My initial reaction was that the networks were snubbing Bush, but then I started to read the article and came across this interesting statement:

The Bush administration has not requested the Big Four to air live the president's address to an audience at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Penn., scheduled for 8 p.m. EDT on the last Monday of the May sweep, a crucial period when networks chase high ratings in order to set ad rates.

In contrast to:

Last May, the Big Four had to reshuffle their Thursday lineups the second week of the sweep to carry Bush's address announcing the end of major combat in Iraq.

What?  

Polls indicate that Joe Public believes the war in Iraq is important and that there needs to be a clear strategy, even though this plan is being announced over a year after we invaded?

Why not preempt TV to address the nation at this critical junction in American policy?

Does the adminstration believe its not worth a fight to gain a more extensive audience?  Do they think they wouldn't win the fight?

Or does the effort to limit screening to MSNBC and Fox News provide cover for the President?  Less people will view the bruised and battered President as he tardily outlines a plan for Iraq.  People are more likely to read and hear about what he said than hear the words from his lips.  (That's if you can focus on what he's saying while you look for evidence of his falling from a bicycle.)

Is this an attempt to filter his often poor delivery and test the talking points of his words?