Posted on 07/28/2002 5:51:31 AM PDT by leadpenny
Mark your calendar!
Broadcast times (Eastern) are 8 and 11 PM and 6 AM the next morning.
Oh yes, I'll remind you.
Of course, that simpleton Brian Lamb will have to flood the show with Liberal DNC callers who use his insipid "Independent" line who will begin their call with:
"Good Morning. I want the audience to know I have been a life-long Conservative, but...........................
Of course Booknotes is not a call-in type program. At the end of each program they used to put the date on the screen when the hour-long Booknotes had been taped. His sit-down with Ann Coulter has probably already taken place.
I am glad C-SPAN is giving Ann Coulter some air time, but her book is #1, so I would expect nothing less.
Brian Lamb was instrumental on C-SPAN changing its call-in format. I am given to understand he sought this change for the following reason: his liberal guests began to scream bloody murder, because they were being challenged too frequently by callers.
Now C-SPAN has this ridiculous Conservative, Liberal, and Independent format, which is abused and rarely enforced. Moreover, it makes a mockery of what C-SPAN said was its original charter.
Ann might even get to finish a sentence on this show.
Brian Lamb was intrumental in creating C-SPAN some 25 years ago. He is obviously one of my heroes. Like Don Imus, I think it is impossible to tell where Brian Lamb is coming from politically, although, I understand, he was a low level employee in the Nixon Administration after leaving the Army as an intelligence officer. As for the lines split the way they are, I think it gives the libs enough rope to hang themselves. Most C-SPAN viewers know the score, and in the end, the democrat and seminar callers make themselves look foolish. IMO
You know that posting a thread about Ann Coulter requires that it include pictures. It's in the Free Republic MOU.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see that as a problem. Just more hangin' rope.
and bold.
Whatdaya bet we'll have some pics before 11 Aug. ;-)
Whatdaya bet we'll have some pics before 11 Aug. ;-)Good bet!
From:
Ann Coulter to be on Donahue tonight
Posted on 07/18/2002 2:01 PM Pacific by my_pointy_head_is_sharpTo: MeeknMing
Ann cleaned Dono-who's clock. She put him in his place. She.. you get the drift. ;-) She did a great job, and made us proud. Here's some screen captures, courtesy (and special thanks to)hole_n_one
Ann Coulter IN PEOPLE MAGAZINE THIS WEEK AS MS. RIGHT (INCLUDES PHOTOS)
PEOPLE MAGAZINE | 7/29/2002 | LYNDA WRIGHT
Posted on 07/22/2002 2:01 PM Pacific by TLBSHOW
From:
Ann Coulter, it's time to meet the truth police
Chicago Sun-Times | July 22, 2002 | RICHARD ROEPER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Posted on 07/22/2002 11:48 AM Pacific by Chi-townChief-- snip --
'I love to pick fights with liberals' [Ann Coulter]
Electronic Telegraph | July 19, 2002 | Toby Harnden
Posted on 07/18/2002 7:28 PM Pacific by Map Kernow
C-SPAN Booknotes LinkIn California time, that would be:
Mark your calendar!
Broadcast times (Eastern) are 8 and 11 PM and 6 AM the next morning.
Oh yes, I'll remind you.
5 and 8 PM and 3 AM the next morning, right?From http://www.booknotes.org/Program/?ProgramID=1988:
August 11, 2002
Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right
by Ann Coulter
The immutable fact of politics in America is this: liberals hate conservatives.
Ann Coulter, whose examination of the Clinton impeachment was a major national bestseller and earned widespread praise, now takes on an even tougher issue. At a time when Democrats and Republicans should be overwhelmingly congenial, American political debate has become increasingly hostile, overly personal, and insufferably trivial. Whether conducted in Congress or on the political talk shows, played out at dinners or cocktail parties, politics is a nasty sport.
At the risk of giving away the ending: It’s all liberals’ fault.
Cultlike in their behavior, vicious in their attacks on Republicans, and in almost complete control of mainstream national media, the left has been merciless in portraying all conservatives as dumb, racist, power hungry, homophobic, and downright scary. This despite the many Republican accomplishments of the last few decades, as well as the Bush administration’s expert handling of the country’s affairs in the wake of the worst attacks on American soil and of the war that followed.
With incisive reasoning and meticulous research, Ann Coulter examines the events and personalities that have shaped modern political discourse the bickering, backstabbing, and name-calling that have made cultural mountains out of partisan molehills. She demonstrates how the media, especially, are biased and usually wrongheaded and have done all in their power to obfuscate the issues and the people behind them, bending over backward to villainize and belittle the right, while rarely missing an opportunity to praise the left.
Perhaps if conservatives had had total control over every major means of news dissemination for a quarter century, they would have forgotten how to debate, too, and would just call liberals stupid and mean. But that’s an alternative universe. In this universe, the public square is wall-to-wall liberal propaganda.
Refreshingly honest and unerringly timely, Slander continues where Bernard Goldberg’s number one bestselling Bias left off.
—from the publisher's website
Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right
Publisher: Crown Publishers
Web Site
Right! And, Thanks.
Looking forward to this one.
Thanks!
C-SPAN had a broadcast during the "Crime Bill" debate where a representative from Handgun Control Inc. was presenting his worldview on firearms and gun control. Brian Lamb gave him about 15 minutes of uniterrupted air time, and then they took phone calls from viewers.
I remember this show because I was on business in Dallas TX--and the whole bar was watching the program. The first few callers were all over the guy from HCI--challenging his statistics, asking him to cite his sources, and provoking him with their opposing views.
After something like 10 hostile callers in a row, the HCI guy started to get very upset. He turned to Brian Lamb and asked for "some balance here!"
The next caller was even more in his shorts, and told him something like: "Military firearms in the hands of citizens freed this nation sir!
The HCI guy went off on Brian Lamb again, this time very, very, very upset.
Soon after that, I saw C-SPAN change its caller format.
I have not heard that but now that you mention it . .
Could be because the way he does Booknotes he goes into the author's life, where and how they write, etc. I did hear somewhere that in the 20 years of Booknotes, only four have taken two sessions. One of those being Sam Tanenhaus on Whitaker Chambers.
Earlier you mentioned something about C-SPAN's original charter. The only thing I believe they have self-chartered is that C-SPAN must cover the House and C-SPAN2 must cover the Senate when they are in session. Everything else, Booknotes, BookTV, Writer's Series, Presidential Series, etc. is just gravy.
As far as I know, each cable operator pays $.05 per month per subscriber to fund C-SPAN. I just try to get my money's worth.
I used to work in DC--and one thing I learned was that some in that town don't like it very much when ordinary folks know the score. They would much rather the word come down from on high (meaning them--of course).
By the way--you sound like a very nice person.
An escapee, eh?
. . . and one thing I learned was that some in that town don't like it very much when ordinary folks know the score.
And it makes some nervous too.
As for your last comment, I've been trying to hit on this gal at work. I think I'll use your reply in my resume. Thanks.
I remember it reached it's zenith when Newt and the boys took over. Quite frankly I bet in the backrooms of C-SPan someone had a talk with them to tell them to stop since they were were feeding a revolution/inserection and to stop it. The passion was certainly there. America was pissed and wanted change. Not that I avocate a revolution, but do you remember the passion in peoples voices, where is it now? I think people hav given up, and given up on the GOP.
Have you also noticed to GOP has been balless as well after these changes? Interesting. They will loose it all soon (house and senate) if they don't start standing for something, the base like me just might stay home. You can't talk about ideas anymore, you are a racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobe, Ann Coulter is right! Maybe that is why the GOP seems so balless
I saw an experimental format for a day or so after the politically correct Dems. Pubs. Others lines were insituted. I believe it was regional but it had to be related to a media story. it was pretty good, similar to the old format i.e. what was in your paper today, It ran for a day and that was it, damn shame.
C-Span thinks to consciously be fair, and I don't doubt their good faith (at least, not very much). But the Fairness Doctrine was disasterous for conservatives; it was the reason talk radio was suppressed until Reagan arranged for or allowed the FD to lapse.The conceit of enforced objectivity is directly at odds with the philosophy of the First Amendment. The fundamental problem of the Fairness Doctrine is that "fairness" is really "absence of bias"--an unprovable negative. Since it can never be proven, defending against bias charges (such as Slander itself) is a Sisyphusian task; each new charge must be independently taken on. (and of course, often the charges are actually true, which makes disproving them even harder!)
Yet the charges are disposed of: they are assaulted with the propaganda power of journalism. Ridiculed, sidestepped, distorted into straw men and destroyed. In operational terms, they are ignored.
Under the First Amendment, which assumes free access to printing by any interested citizen, that tactic has no legal consequence. However, that legal situation is modified by the acceptance of the FCC, which created broadcasting by censoring competition in radio transmission. In so doing the government logically has exactly the task that the First Amendment banned Congress from--deciding "fairness" in publishing.
How then has the FCC decided the issue of fairness? By reference to the consensus of print journalism. But as we have seen, print journalism is legally unregulated; print journalism does not even have the authority of a witness under oath, subject to the laws of perjury. Yet the FCC and the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold law assay, de facto, to assign journalism the authoritative voice of a jury.
All its vaunted legal independence notwithstanding, journalism (print and broadcast) manifests a patent herd instinct. Even those who buy ink by the barrel, it seems, fear to pick fights with others who buy ink by the barrel. So the media outlets compete on the quickest delivery of the most gripping telling of the hardest-to-ignore reports, but they do not compete on the basis of telling the whole story, and telling it accurately.
The whole truth, in context, takes time. The whole truth, in context, is usually less dramatic than the first breathless accounts. The whole story may, in fact, prove to be a tempest in a teapot. Consequently it is the conservative who is more inclined to take the time to get to the bottom of things--and write a nonfiction book. The journalist has moved on by then to other stories, and if new information on an old news story comes out in a nonfiction book, maybe the journalist will discuss the book. But if so, the journalist assumes that journalists are the objective ones--and the writer either confirms journalistic prejudice (the negative angle which made a profitable news story) or is presented as a conservative wingnut.
Or, in the case of the Stacy Koon verdict, the jury was presented as the wingnuts. The first jury saw the entire video of the arrest of Rodney King, and heard an explanation of everything. Journalists, OTOH, edited the tape down to the best case to be made for police brutality, and asked how anyone could justify that. Essentially propagandizing for the riot that followed the verdict.
Slander points out many well-documented examples of anticonservatism; I propose a non-conspiratorial explanation for the reality Coulter describes. The Fairness Doctrine assumes Slander away. C-Span basically operates under a self-imposed Fairness Doctrine--and wonders why unregulated callers ran 5-to-1 conservative.
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.
