Talk:C-SPAN/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Who does the voiceovers for C-SPAN?

Who is the man who does the voiceovers for C-SPAN? (You know, "This Sunday on America and the Courts, we'll play the ...:") —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AaronSW (talk • contribs) 13:02, June 11, 2004.

C-SPAN has several announcers, both male and female, who do voice work for them. In a conscious attempt to minimize the attention that on-air talent receives, no one at C-SPAN identifies himself on the air. Since they won't spill the beans, I won't either.

You may try e-mailing them directly: [email protected] . It can't hurt to ask.

--Polynova 09:02, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's probably one of the hosts of Washington Journal or The Communicators or their other original series. Also BTW they don't answer viewer mail, it says so right on the website. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sentence fragment removed; inappropriate tone

I removed this from the coverage section, speaking of British Parliament: "(whose more spirited and raucous proceedings are often an entertaining contrast to the more ordered and somber sessions of the U.S. Congress)" While I fully agree, the tone seems wrong.--Jkiang 06:35, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Website videos

The C-SPAN website videos I'm trying to watch are all but inaccessible, their line can't even muster a poor 5 kbps, the video stream breaks constantly.--Jerryseinfeld 17:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

http://www.xi-soft.com/default.htm

http://www.streambox.com/ (old, the original,probably does not work with C-span anymore)

http://www.metaproducts.com/default.asp

Me using Offline explorer, Pro, but that is not free nor gratis.

http://www.q-and-a.org/Program/?ProgramID=1042

URL snooper gives the rtsp-link

rtsp://video.c-span.org:554//archive/qa/qa091205_wales.rm

In general, the c-span web-pages list the rtsp-links at the very end, use "view source" or something similar.

Btw, the c-span servers always do everything they archive perfectly, bit-by-bit, however, their streaming-and-alive stuff is obviously a matter of who and what is trying to capture it.

Additionally, their servers support "turbo-play" (rtsp and realplayer), one can download at 3-6-10x speed (for what they archive)

Additionally, additionally, realplayer supports 12 hours of "PauseLive", that is, it records 12 hours of, for example, C-SPAN, and one can watch it later on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.215.75.17 (talk • contribs) 03:01, September 26, 2005.

Allegations of bias

I am requesting that this page be protected. The user with an IP address of 65.90.31.131 recently added a section to the article called Allegations of bias claiming that C-SPAN has a conservative, rather than a liberal bias or no bias at all. The new section mentioned a study by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) which provides a comprehensive statistical overview of the network's tendency to prefer conservative guests on its Washington Journal program. Linking to this study by FAIR is fair, so to speak, because it provides statistical and verifiable evidence of its claims.

Unfortunately, the other portions of the new section by 65.90.31.131 are not quite so even handed. The rest of the section uses weasel words to make its claims that C-SPAN favors conservatives. It uses terms such as "critics charge" (which critics?) "Other complaints have been raised" (who is making these complaints?). Where is the statistical evidence that C-SPAN pairs liberal guests with "hostile" conservatives in its original programming?

If 65.90.31.131 or someone else can point to a study or consistent evidence of a conservative bias (remember: No original research is allowed on Wikipedia), then it would probably be fair to mention it in the article. Until then, I am asking that this section be protected until a compromise can be sought out. --Rookkey 03:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Response: The section never claimed C-span had a conservative bias; it simply noted the accusations that it does. These accusations have been around for a long time - C-Span likes to pat itself on the back that it's "fair and balanced" but some beg to differ (I'll get to who in a sec). So the article is intended to add that part of the story. I did not add the "according to critics" stuff, which you characterize as weasal words. But rather than those (which are just ways for an author to engage in sock puppetry), I think they are good distancing words. They make it clear that what is being said is by critics and implicitly makes one take it with a grain of salt. It's like saying "Bill Clinton says he didn't do it." That sentence doesn't mean Clinton didn't do it; it means he just says he didn't. So I think the distancing words of "according to critics" or however we want to phrase them are good.

You also complained about evidence, but I think I have cited a number of items from several of C-Span's original programming that adequately support why the allegations get made. If I may say so myself, I think the material on the 25th anniversary show is particularly strong. You might say I need more links to the websites (which will back my evidence), but that is a technical issue, not one going to veracity. If you are interested in improving the article, you could have added some yourself instead of calling for its wholesale deletion.

Lastly, the people who make these charges are, with the internet, even easier to find. Again, if all you want are cites to people making these charges, let's add some (what is the approach for articles touching on accusations of liberal bias in the media?). The point is to want a good article, not protect C-Span from its critics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.90.31.131 (talk • contribs) 19:13, January 1, 2006.

Response from Lgrove56:

Thanks for sharing your reasoning. The question for me is the appropriate way to apply the accepted guidelines of Wikipedia to this issue. Chief among these is verifiability. To quote from the guidelines: "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher" (Emphasis in the original.)

Clearly, the FAIR study meets that threshold for inclusion. But the other assertions attributed to unamed critics do not. Nor do any individual examples cited by the author(s) of this section. If this low threshold were acceptable, this section could become extraordinarily long as individual authors posted examples of bias as they saw it.

It seems to me the best approach (short of protecting the page, etc.) is to simply add the FAIR study as an external link. Comments? Lgrove56 03:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement that it should only be an external link. However, 65.90.31.131 has put it back in the main article. We may have to get an admin involved. --Aaron 04:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine and proper to mention the FAIR study in-line. I don't see a problem with the article the way it is now, and 65.90.31.131's edits seem constructive to me, taken in random samples. I don't see a big problem here.

Perhaps those who do see a problem should edit the assertions which offend them into what they believe is NPOV form and see what happens instead of requesting protection. —James S. 04:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way to trim this down? The section comprises 40% of the article and comes from a press release from a highly biased source. DTC 00:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I consider Nrcprm2026's latest edit to be a good step in the right direction. However, I'd really like to see more cites (at least one more, anyway) for a section of even this cut-down size. I just think it's too much text to rely on a single organization's criticism, IMHO. Also, I should note that I do intend at some point to add something regarding the criticisms conservatives have about alleged liberal bias on C-SPAN's part, to balance this out. However, I doubt my addition will be more than a single short or medium-length paragraph, as the only major complaints I hear from the right consist of disagreements over how C-SPAN handles its call-in shows. --Aaron 06:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that conservatives have a problem with the call-in shows. Before they instituted their policy of different phone numbers for different political persuasions, they had about two right-wing callers for each leftist. I believe it was FAIR which pointed this out years ago, and C-SPAN responded pretty quickly with the seperate phone numbers. So on that basis, I think FAIR has a pretty good standing when it comes to critiquing C-SPAN. Usually FAIR gets their data from Lexis/Nexis database searches, so it's often pretty objective. The right-wing counterpart of FAIR, Accuracy in Media (AIM), doesn't have anything on C-SPAN beyond a blog post from 2004 complaining about a communist U.C. Santa Cruz guest, and no allegations of general bias. —James S. 07:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

FAIR originaly pointed this out in November of 05, C-Span has had seperate lines for callers for at least 18 months now. The criticism section is not proportional with the critics. DTC 23:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you have the timeline right? If you look again you might see that FAIR's initial count of caller's preference was much earlier. Please let me know if I'm wrong. --James S. 00:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

A search of FAIR's website with the words C-Span and bias only reveals the 2005 report. There are more hits than just the report, but of all the links, only the November 2005 report allgedges any bias against C-Span. DTC 00:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

FAIR is a blatantly left-wing organization; they are in no way objective. That is not to say that they are incapable of providing honest facts to back up their opinions, but they are not themselves objective. As for AIM, I consider them to be largely a bunch of kooks, so it's not them that I'll be looking to for evidence no matter the subject. The Media Research Center is far more mainstream conservative, IMHO, and a million times better at documenting their claims than AIM. --Aaron 00:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

So, does the MRC have any complaints about C-SPAN? --James S. 00:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This writer watches C-Span regularly and has no political affiliations. A personal observation is that C-Span is somewhat biased toward right-wing politics, not in the sense of Fox News, but far more subtle because of its format of not expressing its own opinion. C-Span regularly pairs right wing and conservative guests against moderates, and rarely fields left wing liberals. One will also observe C-Span moderators are less inclined to ask conservative/right-wing guests to substantiate claims no matter how ridiculous.

For instance, this morning on Washington Journal (WJ, May 31 2009), Pat Buchanan was given a full one hour to posit his views including arguments against President Obama's supreme court Hispanic nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. Buchanan completely ridiculed as kindergarten Sotomayor's second-in-class finish at Princeton, claiming that her excellent performance was based on "children's books" and "Pinocchio" (Watch the video here ==> http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/05/31/HP/A/19236/Washington+Journal+Entire+Program.aspx ). C-Span moderator Steve Scully failed to call Buchanan out on this ludicrous statement, allowing him instead to proceed in advancing preposterous non-sequiturs. Not only did C-Span also fail to field a guest with opposing views, it is uncommon for them to allow a full one hour to a single guest on WJ; most of all, a guest in the ilk of Buchanan whose professed stock-in-trade is the propagation of offensive and polarizing right-wing positions.

C-Span does this often, therefore the charge of bias is legitimate from the perspective of this long-time viewer of C-Span programming. Merlin1935 (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

linkspam with a C-SPAN, historically correct and important C-SPAN link??

http://www.c-span.org/community/

from a history point of view, there have been more changes through the C-SPAN years on internet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.215.75.17 (talk • contribs) 04:33, December 31, 2005.

I'm sorry! I completely misunderstood your edit. I've undone my revertion. You'll probably want to fix the formatting of your link and clean up the text a bit so others aren't confused: has the Community portal been closed since 2004, or was it closed this year (2005)? Can the format of your edit be made to look like the other history section entries? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikeblas (talk • contribs) 04:51, December 31, 2005.

yes, it was closed in 2004. The earlier "community" was called something like "we the people" and disappeared, probably, because some members figured out how to upload large enough semi-binary-text-files to crash that C-SPAN server. (please correct if and what I remember wrong) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.215.75.17 (talk • contribs) 04:59, December 31, 2005.

note, C-SPAN has a "proud" and "ancient" history on internet but that includes closing down "C-SPAN communities" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.215.75.17 (talk • contribs) 05:03, December 31, 2005.

Thanks for the explanation! Let me suggest this text for your submission, which will fit the content of the article, the Wikipedia Style guide, and be a little clearer:

[[September 24]], [[2004]]: C-SPAN's Community is "temporarily closed". [http://www.c-span.org/community/]

-- Mikeblas 10:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Great, english is not even my third language. However, anyone who knows how "C-SPAN and Internet" started?? I kind of remember (while in USA) first just "the program-schedule" on internet, but then, 3-4 years later, I listened to C-SPAN real-audio using the global internet, 16kbps (before there was any ADSL stuff). There should also be a fairly interesting history on how C-SPAN "battled" the "local cable companies" for the cable-channels for C-SPAN2 and 3 (one part of that story, "digital must carry", how the C-SPAN2,3 channels were "moved around" so that many "cable-consumers" could not access them??) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.215.75.17 (talk • contribs) 05:31, December 31, 2005.

Anyway, now all of C-SPAN is available on 100-128kbps internet, all over the globe (except if somebody does something to make it inaccessible). Another interesting (his)story is that "really broadband", although 16kbps is still more than enough for C-SPAN. C-SPAN "pod-casting" is actually something very old, except for the iPod-people. "Must Carry" was more interesting in the 1990s http://www.mustcarry.org/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.215.75.17 (talk • contribs) 05:49, December 31, 2005.

Protected

Anons, please discuss what you want here. Wikipedia is not the place for Original research or essays. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 22:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've responded at the protection request --James S. 23:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are valid, but it doesn't mean the article should not be unprotected. When we protect, we are making no judgements as to who is right or wrong. My comments above where not making a judgement on this. From what I saw, it was anons pasting comments in that was the crux of the problem. But if I felt like that was the entire problem, I would've semi protected the page. It's an edit war. The who's and the what's aren't that important for our purposes. Discuss what you want here, not in the edit summaries. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. As you can see above; I have been discussing the controversial section here. I'll post to current surveys. --James S. 23:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys: never been in an edit war before. Seems like fun. Aaron: thanks for the clean-up. I am one of the anons; I think there might be another but I can't tell. Anyway, I see 5 sources, only 4 of which are usable. Two FAIR reports, one on Booknotes and one on Washington Journal; the Washington Post ombudsman's quote (there is no reason a source within a source should not count also); and guests' comments (I know Randi Rhodes made a passive-aggressive comment about not knowing she was being paired with Janet Parshall, and I have heard other guests crack wise about it on-air). The 5th is simply the community of people I have heard complain about the bias, which being hearsay is inadmissible. I imagine the same situation is true for bias allegations against mainstream media - I do believe that complaint is indeed made, but it is likewise hard to verify that kind of gossip. [Incidentally, Wikipedia should have a policy for a source that is legit but evades verifiability, much like the "capable of repetition but evading review" standard for hearing cases in federal court(the classic example is pregnancy, which is over before you can make it to appeal)]. Anywho, with those 4 sources (at a minimum), I think much if not all the stuff can be supported. Perhaps it needs to be organized more linearly, to follow those 4 sources, and I'll take a whack at it. Deleting even the acknowledged sources seems counterproductive though. I don't agree that including these allegations makes it POV, not with the idea that since FAIR is a left group (as MRC is right), its points can simply be chalked up to partisanship. My main goal is to convey what I believe is the very real sense among some that C-Span tracks conservative. I think it's fair to note these types of complaints for CNN or the NYTimes, and likewise I see no problem doing so here.

Parts of the "Allegations of Bias" discussion on this page provide an example of the problems created by the inclusion of the lengthy "Allegations of Bias" entry in the main article: the tendency of the section to become a soapbox, not a citation of external sources. For example, the FAIR study does not mention any program other than Washington Journal. I originally suggested that the FAIR study be cited solely as an external link. Another option would be to rename the section "Criticism" (instead of "Allegations of Bias"). This is how this topic has been dealt with at PBS. The implication would be that the section should include only references to external criticism of C-SPAN, without embellishment. Lgrove56 02:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that there are two different FAIR studies, right? One about Booknotes, one about Washington Journal? Also, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, so solely having links to external sources without talking about it in the article does not further that goal, IMHO. It is an avoidance, I think. Lastly, the PBS page you cite as a model contains the very things you complain about here, such as "critics say such-and-such." I have no problem with it on either page because I believe critics really do say those things.

You are correct, there is another study mentioned on FAIR's website. I couldn't find the study itself, but it dealt with the Booknotes program and was published in 2000. Your point about the PBS site is well-taken. What I like about the PBS section is that each "line" of criticism is reduced to only a few sentences. I suggest a model similar to PBS as a compromise to resolve the issue in the C-SPAN article.

So, my proposal would be to create a Section titled "Criticism" with text to the effect of: "The media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting has issued studies criticizing Washington Journal and Booknotes for what FAIR sees as a guest list that "slants right"." Seems to me this is sufficient Lgrove56 01:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless there are any additional comments on this topic, in a few days I will ask that the page be unprotected. Once unprotected, I will edit the main page along the lines discussed in my January 18 post. For those who are interested, the CNN article handles descriptions of criticism in much the same way as PBS, except that an entirely new article has been created to list them: CNN controversies and allegations of bias. Lgrove56 22:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I was just planning on posting again today. I like the line system you suggest. It seems to be the standard way for these sections in other pages. I see there being three lines: one for more conservatives than liberals, one for giving liberals hostile interviewers, and one for pairing neutral guests with conservatives.

Would you agree that the FAIR studies only document the first of the three lines you mention? And if so, would mentioning the FAIR study as I suggested above be sufficient? If not, will you suggest an edit? I suggest we avoid undocumented (or "lightly" documented) criticism in an attempt to keep "original research and essays" -- on both sides -- to a minimum. Lgrove56 15:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but I think there's adequate documentation for the first and third lines. The Fair studies support the first, and the quote by the Washington Post ombudsman used (fortuitously) in one of the Fair studies supports the third. I'm sure there's more quotes like that from guests (I've heard them) but without further access to transcripts, it's pretty hard to substantiate. But it's a representative quote so it's usable. So as a compromise, I propose a section called "Allegations of Bias", with two distinct paragraphs, one on the first allegation, one on the third (each a few sentences long - not overdone).

In the interest of moving forward and reasonable compromise, I won't object to your two paragraph proposal described above. I agree with the post below that if all sides don't work to maintain this compromise, we'll be back at square one. So let's both keep an eye on it. Thanks for working this out. Lgrove56 15:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Belatedly, I have just made edits to the article, in an effort to reflect the compromise reached above. Lgrove56 02:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

FAIR

The FAIR comments currently provide close to half the content of the article. Considering that this is the only criticims of C-SPAN that I have seen performed by a notable organization, is it fair that it constitutes such a large portion of the article? As stands, the comments by FAIR grossly tilt the POV of the article, and should be drasticaly trimmed. DTC 23:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

24%, by character count, is not "half." I already trimmed the section at your request. --James S. 00:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I was looking at the wrong one. Still, 24%, is disproportionately long considering A: the source, far left biased interest group, B: lack of corroboration, this is the only real claim of bias made against C-SPAN. DTC 01:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Corroboration? Nobody, not C-SPAN or either of the right-wing media watchdog organizations mentioned above have questioned the results. The methodology is clearly stated: "To test C-SPAN’s claims of fairness, Extra! studied Washington Journal’s guestlist, tabulating all 663 guests that appeared on the show in the six-month period from November 1, 2004 to April 30, 2005. Guests were classified by gender, ethnicity, party affiliation (if any) and occupation.... European-Americans [guests amounted to] 88%... (According to the U.S. Census, [they comprise] about 70%).... 80% male [guests].... Republicans outnumbered Democrats nearly two to one...."[1].

What, do you think someone is going to say they miscounted? --James S. 02:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would not be the first time. Also you are taking FAIR's study "at face value", a laughable calim to be sure. As far as no one challenging it, it nonsense. Does evey person and every organization that comes under criticism from an handfull of political hacks have to defend themselves from the charge?. This is not notable enough to take up this much space on this article. DTC 02:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

there are more influential white people in America than minorities????? Stoned Trey 02:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. So do you think the non-influential people shouldn't be on TV? If so, you might have a future in Russian and Chinese broadcasting. --James S. 03:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting note about the FAIR study is that they do not identify or attempt to classify journalists, which is laughable for tow reasons: Individuals like Seymour Hersch, and Walter Pincus who have appeared on Washington Journal and although given no party affiliation are decidedly politically motivated individuals, and journalists comprise the bulk of the guests on Washington Journal. DTC 14:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Journalists accounted for nearly a third of all guests (215, or 32 percent), the largest single occupational group on Washington Journal’s guestlist. The establishment-oriented Washington Post, with 20 journalists appearing as guests, was the most visible outlet, followed by the Capitol Hill–focused Congressional Quarterly with 12 and the right-leaning Washington Times with 10. USA Today and Time each provided eight guests, while five represented the Christian Science Monitor. --171.64.133.77 20:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk page cleanup

Just for the record, I've gone back and cleaned up this page to make it easier to read (giving categories to 2-year-old comments, retrosigning unsigned comments, etc.) since there's going to be a discussion here. Nobody's words were altered in the cleanup; I just put everything into 2006-era standard Wikipedia discussion order. --Aaron 00:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Nick Gillespie a conservative?

I'm sorry, but that dog just doesn't bite. Anyone who has read or heard his work knows he is a genuine Libertarian and not just a traditional conservative hiding behind that label to avoid criticism. I mean for God's sake, go read Reason on its website, which is about as critical of this administration as Mother Jones or The Nation. Sure there are some aspects of his philosophy that I and many traditional liberals would disagree with. However, market beliefs alone do not make a person conservative. On values/social issues, I'd say he is about as liberal as they get, putting him squarely at a -9 or -10 on the y-axis of the political compass. One must ask in today's political climate, what matters more to conservatives: economic or social/values issues? I respectfully request his name be removed from the list of "obvious" conservatives appearing alone on the 25th anniversary call-in show. --Dragon695 21:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Your comment makes an excellent illustration of the problem with C-Span: the intellectual debates on the right get full treatments, such as libertarianism vs. social conservatism, while similar debates on the left are ignored or shortchanged. Witness one of the two solo "liberals", Christopher Hitchens, who has written he doesn't think John Kerry should be president of anything. Thanks for that representative sampling, Brian. How 'bout just having two slots for conservatives, one of whom wants to impeach Bush? I'm sure you'd think that was nice and fair. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.90.31.131 (talk • contribs) 16:43, January 28, 2006.

Remove protection?

This article has been protected for over two weeks now, which is an extremely long time by wikipedia standards. Considering the lack of discussion on the talk page, and the legitimate need to fix minor errors and add information, I am going to request unprotection. Calwatch 20:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion may have been at a slow pace comparatively, but it was continuing. I will pledge not to change the bias section until we settle on an agreeable version, if the others will. Otherwise, we'll be bacl at square one and it'll get protected again.

Bias Section

As is, much of this section is a verbatim rip-off from FAIR's website. [2]Also, it has still not been explained why one report from a hyper partisan source is allowed to dominate 40% of this article. Ten Dead Chickens 16:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Three paragraps based off of one hit piece from not-so-FAIR, should not even constitue its own section, I simply trimmed one of the more redundant paragraphs. And describing Bozell as "right wing" is most certainly POV as a link to both Bozell and the MRC are provided. FYI, his interview of Mapes was very fair and cordial. I would also appreciate you not following me from article to article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The MRC is right-wing, so I fail to see how describing it as such is pov. If you find a review that describes the interview as fair and cordial, please add it to the article, as it would be an excellent counter-point to the FAIR complaint. Gamaliel 19:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Is right wing according to you, they don’t describe themselves as such, so its POV to include it in the article, especially when the link to both Bozell and the MRC detail their political affiliations. I actually watched the interview, and you can too through CSPAN's website, unless you just want to take FAIR's word for it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you accept the term "conservative"? They describe themselves as such and even run the "Conservative News Service". As for the debate, I take your word for it that it was fair, but WP:NOR would prohibit us from using your conclusion. That's why I suggested a review. Gamaliel 19:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I never included any of my own personal inclusions into the article. The reason I removed the one paragraph was because FAIR's main points were already summarized in the preceding paragraph. Let me ask you again, for the record, do you think that one report from a highly partisan source deserves it own subsection in an article? Think carefully now, precedents will be set. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of including your own personal conclusions. I am suggesting that your conclusions are correct and we find a source to document that. Gamaliel 19:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that a source exists for such a non-event. I doubt that the show even had more than a few thousand viewers. But, as to my question do you think that one report from a highly partisan source deserves it own subsection in an article? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me also note that the account makes little sense unless you know who the players are. Your version reads A complained about B because of C with no explaination of what's going on. Gamaliel 19:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And that is what the respective links are for, anyone interested can go to them for more information on the subject. And again: do you think that one report from a highly partisan source deserves it own subsection in an article?Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Intellectual property allegations

The section regarding C-SPAN's enforcement of intellectual property rights, as well as some very unsophisticated statements about the text of the Constitution are a shambles. I have deleted the two most incorrect statements. For example - Feist v. Rural Electric Telephone, not the text of the U.S. Constitution, addressed copyrightability of facts, and the text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 states - in full - "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." See, e.g., Copyright Clause. I'm sure many more will need to be corrected after I have a chance to vet this article. For now, I'm putting anyone who is interested in this section of the article on notice to be mindful of WP:NPOV and WP:V before editing this. And, of course, read 17 USC before writing something about what it says.--BradPatrick 22:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info/links ;) and sorry for derivative un-sophistication :)... Brad I don't think C-SPAN is "discovering" these audio video documents rather they are already published under the public domain by the US government. The question which has not been tested (as far as I know) is whether their re- transmission of these public domain documents in their entirety constitutes an expression of an idea or just a republication of a public domain piece of material. I wonder if content being encapsulated by factual information or a trade mark is comparable to the Feist v. Rural Electric Telephone case you mentioned.

Irregardless of the legal standing of the above issues I think there is still the issue of fair use. C-SPAN is leveraging their position of power to issue vague legal threats that shut down sites for usage that would otherwise be fair use. Because these small sites do not have the backing of a team of layers they have to simply capitulate to C-SPANS "requests" and a threshold for fair use is set artificially low. It seems deeply problematic for a "democratic" system to have one organization controlling access to audio video records of our government proceedings. --Mdale 19:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

unneccessary language

In 2005, the left-leaning media watchdog group Media Matters for America took issue that L. Brent Bozell, the head of the right-leaning Media Research Center

no need to use the words . they are both media watchdog related companies and that's enough information for the reader. the words 'left-leaning' and 'right-leaning' assumes there's an issue when there isn't. --Uwaisis (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Prank Phone Calls

C-Span has been known for the amount of prank phone call's it gets. Proof=Youtube and several other video hosting sites with videos of the Prank calls, im pretty sure you can search for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.154.176 (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

mwahaha! did you all see the little addition i made to the page? In the spirit of these prank callers of which you speak, of course! long live howard stern! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.175.59 (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

C-SPAN illegal RTSP-protocol, random illegal packets, their new Helix DNA 9.9 Servers

A totally silly isssue of very randomly streaming in the wrong protocol, even for archived files.

rtsp://video1.c-span.org/project/iraq/iraq062008_mclellan.rm

Yes, it is true, try it, rtsp://video1.c-span.org/project/iraq/iraq062008_mclellan.rm , but it could be worse.

http://www.c-span.org/community/

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.215.75.17 (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC) 

Why isn't C-SPAN3 on satellite?

Does anyone here have any idea why C-SPAN3 isn't on DirecTV or Dish Network? Its one of the few channels I miss since I left Comcast and got DirecTV (and no I'm not switching back, don't even get me started on why). Also whenever I watch a live show online the video also stops and buffers every 2 minutes (even though I have cable internet) so it's a total waste of time to watch it that way.TomCat4680 (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Factually inaccurate claim in lead

Conversation transferred from my talk page and User_talk:TomCat4680#CSPAN

Good hello. I've reverted your revert and here is why. The sentence in question claims that "All programs on the C-SPAN networks are unedited, uncensored and commercial free, with very few voice over announcements." That statement is factually incorrect. First, all programming is edited, all of it, when the dozens of hours of raw footage gets cut down and placed in a certain order for airing that process is called editing. Even live events are edited by producers in a control room switching camera angles. Second, the programming is censored, all of their call-in shows use a time-delay of about 10 seconds to screen out profanity and nonsense callers. Third, commercial free, almost all programming is subject to commercial breaks (the commercials are all for other CSPAN shows or about CSPAN itself but they are still commercials). Fourth, voice-overs, in reality much of the programming on CSPAN utilizes a disembodied voice-over, the notable exceptions being hosted interviews and the live House and Senate coverage (although when they are voting or having a quorum call or when CSPAN takes calls from viewers the voice-over is used). Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok first of all its C-SPAN. Second there's no commercials (root word commerce) meaning they don't sell air time to advertisers. Third the voice overs are not "embodies" they're actual people. When they show Congress they leave the mic open instead of talking during down times, giving the viewer a feeling of actually being there. Fourth there's no delay either. Watch this youtube video to see several examples of profanity. You have obviously never watched the channel and I'm putting my edit back up.TomCat4680 (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookie. I'm puzzled though, the things you bring up were already addressed in my comment on your talk-page. Yes, profanity sometimes makes it on-air but I assure you that there is a time-delay on the call-in shows. that's why they ask callers to turn down the volume on their sets and listen through the phone or they will be out sync with the program and leave several seconds of dead air. Yes, the Congressional sessions are open-mic, but they do not always leave it open during down time, they often take calls during votes/cloture motions or occasionally they will show what's airing on the companion channels. In the broadcasting industry, when you hear a voice and the speaker is not in view it is called a disembodied voice-over; whenever you see an archival clip on C-SPAN and hear Brian or the others speaking or when Congress is voting and you hear a voice telling you what is coming up on the network or what is airing on the companion stations you are hearing a disembodied voice-over from C-SPAN. As for commercials, advertisements would have been a better choice of words on my part; C-SPAN shows advertising, the advertising is all for C-SPAN but it is advertising. Come to think of it, they do air commercials; they show spots for their Congressional Handbook that mention both the price ($19.95) and the store to purchase it from (the C-SPAN website). So, again, I posit that the claim in the lead is incorrect and should be reworded or excised. Also, please assume good faith and don't make such silly claims as "You have obviously never watched the channel". You know nothing of my background, I have been watching the network since 1980 and have been a regular caller to Washington Journal for the past 15 years. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok how about "it offers uninterupted live coverage of the House, Senate and other public affairs events"? and "it does not allow external advertising from businesses"?TomCat4680 (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Much, much better, thanks. I would perhaps change "allow" to accept but yes, this looks great. L0b0t (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

ok accept it is. I'm glad we worked this out civily. Sorry I made that assumption about you earlier. SPAN on SPANNY!TomCat4680 (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries at all. It's always nice to meet another fan of the true reality television. Who needs strippers trying to sleep with washed up rock stars when we can watch old white men spending our hard-earned money. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

God I hate hate hate hate hate untalented drunk college students and D-list celebrities that will do anything to get on TV. Good debate going on in the Senate, as always live on C-SPAN2. I hope they pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 soon, the economy needs relief fast. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, I live in Brooklyn and have some workshop space down in Red Hook. The cast of this season's Real World were often seen around the neighborhood, crowding out our local watering holes, making asses of themselves, and narrowly avoiding altercations with some of our seedier neighbors. L0b0t (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)