Talk:C-SPAN

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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: viewer@c-span.org . It can't hurt to ask.
--Polynova 09:02, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] C-SPAN Community Closing

C-SPAN is a true blessing of the 21th century, just before the elections

On September 24, 2004, C-SPAN also become famous for another outstanding community coverage:

http://www.c-span.org/community/index.asp?Code=Community


COMMUNITY HOMEPAGE Welcome to the C-SPAN Community! Use this site to direct your participation in Community forum discussions and other viewer interactivity. Share thoughts, exchange views, and get educated on a range of public policy issues.

C-SPAN's Community is Temporarily Closing As of Friday, Sept. 24, C-SPAN's Community will go off line while we make changes to the software supporting C-SPAN Alert and the Community. When the Community returns, it will have a new look and feel that should make your participation even better than before. To participate in the new Community, you will need to register as a new user with a new password and screen name.

Also, if you want to receive the daily C-SPAN Alert, you'll need to re-register on the Alert page. As before, we will ask community members to review the discussion etiquette guidelines.


Keep your eye on C-SPAN.org for the return of the C-SPAN Community!

CONTACT COMMUNITY MANAGER Do you have questions, comments or concerns about community? Do you want to report a community disruption? Email the community manager at manager@c-span.org or use the COMMUNITY FEEDBACK FORM

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.215.75.17 (talk • contribs) 22:09, December 26, 2004.

[edit] Seems like many more are needed to get the C-SPAN hisory correct??

Seems like many more are needed to get the C-SPAN hisory correct?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.215.75.17 (talk • contribs) 22:43, December 26, 2004.

[edit] More on voiceovers

<voiceovers> One of the most famous "voiceovers" was when ABC had to get C-SPAN to _not_ voiceover Rafsanjani, instead use his own interpreter, as was decided on before that Rafsanjani-ABC contract. Luckily C-SPAN participated in the legal solution, by airing both the voiceovered version and the not-voiceovered version, on prime-time, the way the contract was almost written.

Unluckily, not a tape commercially available, nor internet-archived by C-SPAN, due to ABC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.215.75.17 (talk • contribs) 22:51, December 26, 2004.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] balance of C-SPAN, Wahington Journal and Book-TV

The Book-TV(C-SPAN2) balance is funnier, in terms of what is aired, internet-archived and what is not. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 194.215.75.17 (talk • contribs) 13:17, January 7, 2006

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Latest Link spelling accusations and allegations

heritage is now spelled as hertiage by C-SPAN, according to their website. http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=heritage+image


rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter062306_hertiage.rm (does not work)

but a minor correction actually works, including the Rush Limbaugh, talking from the ROnald Reagan Building and others.

rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter062306_heritage.rm

This time it was mainly fun, but sometimes it is much more difficult to figure out what really went worng with the C-SPAN, post-2004 modern links.

[edit] Allegations of a dysfunctional search engine

Since september, 2004, the use of the C-SPAN search engine has more and more resulted in, even for simple search objects like "Bush":

The search engine is unable to complete your search.

You may want to try one of the following:

   * Check the spelling of the search terms.
   * Try alternative search terms.
   * Try more general search terms.
   * Try removing some search terms.
   * Try using the Advanced Search page.

[edit] Keep your eye on C-SPAN.org for the return of the C-SPAN Community!(as of 2004)

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/-/s/Talk%7EC-SPAN_7d8c.html"