Posted on 10/05/2001 10:28:30 AM PDT by Pokey78
Remember when CSPAN was a program that offered view points heard no where else -- with callers around the country reflecting the views of middle America.
Those days are gone.
Now, 9 out 10 of CSPAN's media guests are establishment, anti-Republican liberals. And CSPAN's morning media discussions are nothing more than a rehash of what's "news" in the left-wing press.
Meanwhile, New York radio host Bob Grant has complained how CSPAN has gone "down hill" as liberal callers get preference to go on air.
You can tune into CSPAN any morning and discover how the callers are nothing more than a shill for the liberal establishment.
Take this morning's program on "Assessing the Media" hosted by CSPAN chief Brian Lamb.
The program was nothing more than a rant against Israel, U.S. policies and Pres. Bush.
One caller who did make it on was able to query Lamb. the caller wondered what was going on with CSPAN, and why so many CSPAN callers that make it on air are anti-Bush callers -- when polls show strong support Bush from 70 to 90 percent of the American public.
The real answer, of course, is that CSPAN puts more of those callers on -- and rejects calls that more adequately reflect the public's view.
But Lamb didn't say that.
When one caller called in to blame U.S. support for Israel, and our policies to go after Saddam Hussein, as the cause of the Sept. 11 disaster, Lamb took a moment to praise the caller for his "original" thinking on his question -- and other questions the caller had asked on previous shows. Apparently, he is a CSPAN regular -- the type that CSPAN likes.
Another caller, a Bahamian woman, wanted to talk about Israel's racism.
Still, another caller said they were a strong supporter of Israel but .... You got it, she went on to blame Israel for our woes.
When so many callers claim the are "pro-Israel" but then blame if for everything including the common cold, and when so-called "Republicans" say they voted for Pres. Bush and then go on to knock him, it has to make a reasonable person wonder.
When another "Independent" caller telephoned Lamb today to criticize Bush -- and then revealed she was a subscriber to the ultra-left Mother Jones magazine -- it didn't seem to faze Lamb.
Lamb agreed with her that the Washington Times was "conservative" but when she asked Lamb how he would label the Washington Post or the New York Times -- Lamb responded they didn't have a label, they were just simply "not conservative."
And that answer means that Brian Lamb is just not honest, or too frightened to call a liberal spade, a liberal spade. Who is he kidding?
Obviously not the many viewers turning off CSPAN.
I remember one time I called in, after he just read a piece about Clinton being on the air so much; I made a comment about how tired I was of hearing that voice; there was a split screen; the head of the Iowa Republican Party had a big smile, and Lamb was frowning . LOL!!
Ever since their change in "lines" their call-ins have been irrelevent, as they're rigged.
i agree that not a dime of taxpayer funding should go to any "public" radio or tv, and while you only imply it, c-span doesn't get a dime of taxpayer money
the cable-satellite public affairs network is completely privately funded by the industry
that said, they have gone totally into to the toilet since 1994 -- you could tell from the unscreened calls on their single line (since changed) what was going to happen in the '94 election -- it's become a parade of wimpy hosts taking vapid and tiresome calls, and hasn't been worth watching for many years
Its kind like those IDIOTIC "Town Hall" meetings that PMSNBC has every few nights. With 90% of the public supporting President Bush, these PMSNBC "Town Hall" meetings always comprise of 50% Arabs and 60% liberals. They anything but representative of the makeup of the American people.
IF this were a focus group or poll paid for by a marketing company or political candidate, they results would be tossed in the garbage because the results are faked.
So of course, these PMSNBC "town hall" meetings breakdown into PC feel good sensitivity sessions.
Well put. I used to watch them all the time while getting ready for work. I noticed that they were gravitating left after the 1994 Republican takeover of the Congress. 1996 election coverage was bad, but the leftward tilt became really noticeable during the 2000 campaign. I cannot bear to watch them any more.
I've written several complaints to Lamb, but I've never received an answer. I figure that either the leftward tilt is deliberate, or he just doesn't care. Susan and Connie are the most biased hosts, and the more I complained about them the higher they were promoted in the organization.
Agreed. Another indicator besides the vapid liberal shill callers is that tapes of conservative events get aired weeks after the fact during off-peak hours (if at all), while liberal events are, more often than not, broadcast live and repeated ad nauseum.
I only watch CSPAN now when I'm channel surfing and happen to see an interesting interview taking place.
Did you see that PMSNBC Townhall Meeting lastnight on the airline pilot gun carry issue? One of the panelists asked the rep from the pilot's union if he would "shoot through a flight attendent" to kill a hijacker, and from that point on the issue was framed by the host as "So do you think pilots should be allowed to shoot flight attendants?" ARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!
One called into Fox shortly after 911 and after saying she was a 'military brat who was once evacuated from South Korea' said she didn't want her Army son to go to war 'If Bush wants a war he can send his daughters."
The Foxies were fooled. But there never has been an evacuation from South Korea.
CSPAN is the underbelly of American call-in programs and the left dominates it.
They lie to get on Republican lines and Lamb lets them get away with it.
All paid for, don't forget, with your cable or satellite fees.
And the industry is entirely funded by cable and satellite customers.
Is complaining to cable providers worth the effort?
Your extensive coverage of the anti-American rally in Washington D.C. on Saturday followed by your selection of Natalie Goldring to lead off your Sunday program was disappointing. It is obvious that the wacko hand-wringers have found a good vehicle to present their twisted anti-American agenda.
In the past, C-SPAN provided a valuable service to the American people. Sadly, the call screening on Washington Journal now seems to promote the opinions of a few dissident activists instead of the views of the vast majority of American citizens. I don't know where you dug up Natalie Goldring but please bury her again.
Count me as a former viewer of C-SPAN.
(signed)
I actually have developed a knee-jerk reaction. I was watching PMSNBC last night and saw that it was coming on; complete with a contingent of idiot NYU students. I quickly turned it to FOX News. I saw the first one or two of these things and quickly learned how biased they are. I am glad I missed last night's exercise in intellectual laziness.
ET TU, BRIAN? The equal time call-in policy has converted C-Span from a let-it-all-hang-out disseminator of public opinion to a time release spansule for politically correct pap. The media seems unable to visualize any social organization in which people don’t have to line up or take turns. Neither could Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
Back with the link!
There is an Andy Rooney thread today which supports this assertion.
I watch C-Span and 60 Minutes as much as I watch Jerry Springer. Although I have more respect for Jerry Springer than I do for the likes Brian Lamb, Don Hewitt, Mike Wallace, and Andy Rooney.
Oh yes, absolutely. Until digital cable came along, cable companies were dropping C-SPAN and C-SPAN2 left and right to make room for regular cable networks that the viewers actually wanted. If enough people complain, they definitely will listen.
I would rather sit and stare at the wall.
Hey! There are plenty of conservative NYU students; I was one of them. In fact, it was an NYU professor that finally helped me open my eyes to the inherent flaws of liberalism during my first freshman semester.
Big lie, Mr. Lamb. Another press emporer stands naked and unaware. Not a pretty sight. Seeing that a pen is mightier than a sword, wouldn't it be prudent to disarm the delusional?
I think that the main problem with C-SPAN recently is those stupid questions that they ask listeners to respond to for at least the first hour. These questions seem to bring all kinds of idiots out of the woodwork. Sure, most of the idiots are of the DemocRAT persuasion, but what's new.
I believe that one reason why C-SPAN does this is that they have difficulty getting journalists and some politicians on their program because they get harrassed. Brian Lamb has mentioned this a number of times. I myself have harrassed a number of these, by e-mail or snail mail. They've got no guts. They think that they should be able to sit there and spew all kinds of idiocy and nobody should be able to challenge them.
As far as bias is concerned, Brian and most of the hosts and hostesses do their darndest to stay unbiased. The one hostess who I detect is biased is the red head, Connie Brod. She's the one that thought Condit was a Republican a couple of weeks ago. She's obviously a Yellow-Dog DemocRAT - or an idiot. Or is that an oxymoron?
I too am disturbed that they keep referring to the NY Times, Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, and the Baltimore Sun, but I recognize that they do this because these newspapers are readily available in DC early in the morning. They do use the Washington Times quite a bit but just how many "conservative" or non-liberal daily newspapers are there? One thing that all of the hosts/hostesses (including Brian) do that bothers me is mention the ownership of the Wash. Times and New York Post (, but never the ownership of the liberal rags (Sulzberger, Graham, etc.).
All of that said, I do find myself watching it less and less as time goes on. It's a shame. It's a neat concept and you won't find any commercial network doing it.
see my #12
it was some time after the '94 election that they split calls into 'rat, republican and independent, and that spelled the end of any usefulness of their call-ins
i think it absolutely is, as the 'rats aren't likely to be calling in to tell them how great it is that they carry c-spin
the squeaky wheel is always more likely to get whatever oil is available
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.