Pelosi says no to C-SPAN request on floor proceedings

[seriousstan]

WASHINGTON -- Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi cited the need to preserve the ''dignity and decorum'' of the House as she rejected a request Friday that C-SPAN operate its own cameras in covering the chamber.

The public service network has provided gavel-to-gavel television coverage of House proceedings since 1979. But the House leader has kept control of the cameras, with coverage generally limited to tight shots of the speaker or the podium.

The situation is similar in the Senate, which C-SPAN has televised since 1986.

C-SPAN's chairman and chief executive told Pelosi, D-Calif., that under this arrangement, cameras are prevented ''from taking individual reaction shots or from panning the chamber, leaving viewers with an incomplete picture of what's happening in the House of Representatives.''

Brian Lamb wrote Pelosi on Dec. 14 that media cameras long have been permitted to cover committee hearings and that for a dozen years or more independent cameras have been allowed into the chamber for joint sessions
and joint meetings in the House.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/election/ci_4887745

[bambo53]

1. I fear it's gonna be the same old shit

just a different colored bag.

[aquart]

3. Thank you for your concern.

[Captain Hilts]

6. No, it's not the "same old shit." And there's a difference between Reps and Dems. nt

[Toots]

55. I have yet to see any real difference but I keep hope

Cuts in funding for the war is off the table, Impeachment is "off the table" but there may be a increase in minimum wage as long as more tax cuts for the wealthy are passed....:shrug; yep big difference...

[Seeking Serenity]

2. I want openness!! (n/t)

[pacalo]

12. I'm with you. But I have to caution you -- here's a sample of what we'd see with more openness...

At the time when Clinton's witchhunt trial was going on, Ted Stevens' senate desk was situated right behind the podium where Majority Leader Trent Lott stood to speak. During several times that the C-Span camera was focused on Trent Lott at the podium, Ted Stephens was seen (1) sleeping with his chin on his chest and (2) going for the gold (& I mean, he was really going at it).

No kidding.

[Seeking Serenity]

13. Good! I wanna see it!

As repulsive as it might be.

I the House leaders (to be) are uncomfortable that the public might see the House as it is, i.e. rarely even half full while debate is going on, members napping, etc., then maybe they'll be embarrassed enough to get their act together.

[pacalo]

21. I totally agree. I'm all for keeping them on their toes.

[The Wielding Truth]

33. What you want to see will be a bias view from sponsors of CNN. Nancy

is right on this. Control should be held by the order of the Speaker and not the corporate sponsors.

[MonkeyFunk]

49. CNN

has nothing to do with this.

This is C-SPAN, which has no corporate sponsors.

I'd much rather have cameras in the Oval Office.

[Me-Oh-My]

65. Ummm C-Span

is provided BY THE CABLE companies, as a part of the PSA duties.

http://www.c-span.org/about/index.asp?code=About

"CORPORATE INFORMATION
C-SPAN is a private, non-profit company, created in 1979 by the cable television industry as a public service. Our mission is to provide public access to the political process. C-SPAN receives no government funding; operations are funded by fees paid by cable and satellite affiliates who carry C-SPAN programming."

Sounds like they are suservient to the cable industry.

[orleans]

28. "going for the gold" ? what the hell is that? n/t

[diane in sf]

41. nose gold! (eom)

[conservdem]

56. self delete as question was answered as I read further

[Kutjara]

4. We can't have Americans seeing footage of all those...

...empty seats and sleeping Congresspeople. That would undermine the dignity of the Chamber.

[nam78_two]

5. That was disappointing.nt

[Captain Hilts]

7. It prevents preening and showboating by individual members. nt

[ChazII]

8. This decision stinks

:(

[pocoloco]

11. The decision was a no brainer!!

You want fair and balanced go watch your fox channel!!

[ChazII]

32. Sorry, I misread the intent of Sen.Pelosi

I am for the cameras taking reaction shots, as well as viewing the many empty seats. I don't have cable so I do not get to see C-Span.

[stillcool]

9. "Dignity and Decorum" would be better...

preserved if these people did the people's business in public, rather than behind closed doors with lobbyists.

[annabanana]

10. Good.. It prevents C-Span camera operators from being

editors of what we see and don't see. This was a good move on Pelosi's part.

[Seeking Serenity]

14. As opposed to ostensibly public servants

being the editors of what we see and don't see?

Screw them. They have a vested interest in hiding the unvarnished truth.

If my congresscritter or yours is sleeping in the chamber, let C-SPAN show it. Maybe that might rouse them enough to actually doing their duty on our dime.

[annabanana]

16. My point was that C-Span is not a disinterested interlocutor. .

They are a pointedly conservative concern. If a democrat and a republican picked their nose at the same time, who do you think they'd show?

[Tellurian]

22. I agree- any changes to the way things are run are suspect

for the time being. Pelosi may make changes, but they should be at her discretion.
And certainly NOT by any media reps.

[ShortnFiery]

15. I concur ...

When CSPAN covers political events by certain groups, I note that sometimes the CSPAN camera operator tended to do all sorts of "close up" shots on the prettiest members within the audience. It makes me giggle and claim, "Gee that camera operator ain't getting ANY!" :P

I too want open hearings but the "showboat temptation" to focus on the most popular members is a valid one. IMO Pelosi made the right decision. :shrug:

[Occulus]

24. Bollocks

This was a HORRIBLE decision. I WANT TO KNOW WHO ISN'T THERE. I WANT TO KNOW WHO IS SLEEPING THROUGH SPEECHES AND THUS NOT BEING PERSUADED FOR OR AGAINST. I WANT TO SEE MEMBERS ROLLING THEIR EYES SO I CAN QUESTION THEIR DISBELIEF.

Ideally, there would be a camera with a live internet feed focused upon each and every seat in the chamber. However many seats = however many cameras. I WANT A LIVE FEED ON EACH SEAT, ANBD I WANT TO BEABLE TO SELECT WHICH SEAT I'M VIEWING.

I am very sorry, but you're wrong enough to shout about.

[annabanana]

29. but since we are NOT going to get a camera on each seat . .

and since we are not NOW, OR in the near future going to get to select which seat we are viewing..

It is best not to cede control of the only camera in the room to a potentially partisan operator.

[greccogirl]

37. Bad move. Editors of what we see? With no coverage

no one sees anything.

[annabanana]

38. No one is suggesting taking the existing cameras out. . .n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

50. There will be the same

coverage you've always seen. Nothing is changing.

[NoodleyAppendage]

17. The question to be asked is why is assh*le Brian Lamb only asking for this now?

Dems take the House and all of a sudden CSPAN needs more access? F' that. Lamb has no other agenda other than to push pro-Repuke nonsense and play camera "gotcha" with Dems.

J

[Judi Lynn]

18. There was an article posted recently which said that the Republicans

REFUSED this when they took control. I'm sure that's correct.

There's no reason Democrats should knuckle under and take it in the shorts on this.

The focus should be on the legislation. PERIOD.

[NYC Liberal]

19. Actually, he tried to get it in1995 too, after the Repukes took over

"Lamb said in an interview he was ''very disappointed'' by Pelosi's decision. He said he tried unsuccessfully to change the policy when Republicans gained control of the House in 1995 and thought this would be another good opportunity because Pelosi has stressed that this will be the most open and ethical Congress in history."

[NoodleyAppendage]

20. Translation. He expected Dems to cave where Repukes did not...well, tough sh*t.

Lamb can spill his crocodile tears elsewhere...

J

[pokercat999]

39. Translation: He expected dems to be more

responsible than repugs with less to hide and more responsive to the public. Too bad he was wrong and it's the same old shit.

[conservdem]

57. I am afraid you are correct.

[Contrite]

23. Brian Lamb is highly suspect IMHO

Definitely agree with Pelosi on this

[Occulus]

25. Why can't we have a camera for each seat?

Individual cameras, embedded in the ceiling, focused on each individual seat.

Why? Expense? That objection, from a body that controls trillions of dollars?

PLEASE.

[lovuian]

26. Its OK to have cameras on the Public but not cameras

in the House

Pelosi is very naive
Cell phone cameras can pick up alot too :)

[SoCalDem]

27. I only want to see the EMPTY seats shown when they all give their

'special' speeches.. Those are usually the GOOFIEST things, and i fear that the casual watcher, might not realize that they are talking to themselves, just to get their precious words into 'the record'.

I also do like the idea of a "panning" camera (no close ups.. to prevent mugging). people need to see how many of their reps are NOT there..

[sofa king]

52. I think that's already SOP.

If I remember correctly, years ago they changed the coverage so that speakers in an empty chamber had to have at least one long-shot to show they were speaking for the cameras (and the Congressional Record) alone. But even if they don't do that anymore, it's still missing the point.

Whether you visit Congress or work there, you're supposed to shut the hell up and keep your attention fixed on the person controlling the floor. That's exactly how the cameras work right now--better than a lot of the Members of Congress behave, I'll admit, but that's fine by me.

I think the idea of letting the media control the cameras in Congress is a very, very stupid idea. The day after that idea goes through, the C-SPAN editor will be having dinner at Ruth's Chris with whichever Congresscritter wants to put the hit on the other Congresscritter. And the day after that, it'll nothing but nose-picking, hose-running, fly dropping and sleeping, gavel to fucking gavel with no attention whatsoever on what's being discussed on the floor.

That's how DC works: sell your influence to screw over the other guy. The second C-SPAN gets influence, they'll sell it: legally, fairly, within the rules... or not, but sell it they will, simple as that. Pelosi is wise to recognize that basic if unfortunate fact.

[sendero]

61. I would love better coverage..

... but we're not going to get it from the likes of CSPAN. If you have 50 cameras, someone has to edit it all down. Whoever does the editing, controls the message.

CSPAN controls the edit? I don't think so - Pelosi has proven she's nobody's fool once again.

[Bukowski Fan]

30. On Washington Journal this morning

Pedro read the letter that Pelosi wrote to Lamb. She said that although she was denying full camera access in the house (which sucks IMO), she was looking into Lamb's other request that the individual votes by members would be shown, instead of just the party totals, which I think is a far more important thing.

[Vidar]

31. Desire for secrecy: another black mark for Pelosi.

[The Wielding Truth]

34. Lay off Nancy and get some common sense. Keep it simple. If you let

CNN have creative control on the cameras, the chambers will turn into commercial time for corporate sponsors. The attention will go to the lobbied choices. The podium is the focal point. Lets leave it that way.

[pokercat999]

40. Fixed wide angle cameras would solve the problem.

This is just plain wrong of the new speaker. It's obvious she is part of the problem with congress.

[The Wielding Truth]

42. Wide angle? Yea, and Nancy's a problem?

Well I'd rather have her as a problem then any Rep held House. Let's move along now. We have better things to do!

[pokercat999]

43. We do have better things to do. One major thing is

to hold dems to a higher standard than ever before.

[The Wielding Truth]

48. Okay, but there's a big world that needs attention. Let's get cameras

out there and helping hands.

[conservdem]

58. Good points your making.

[MonkeyFunk]

51. Again

this has nothing to do with CNN.

It's C-SPAN, which has no corporate sponsors.

[NYC Liberal]

53. Secrecy? I don't see any secrecy here.

I haven't heard many complaints around here about CSPAN's coverage before. It's just going to stay as it ALWAYS has.

Sheesh, we won both houses of Congress on Election Day, the new Congress hasn't even been sworn in and already there's complaining.

[Puglover]

62. Wow

let's hear your black marks against Pelosi.

[Rainscents]

35. She is right on in her decision!

If she allow this, MSM media will use against Dems!

[leQ]

36. at first i disagreed with nancy on this, but after reading all the posts, i changed my mind. (eom)

[robcon]

44. It's all about the speaker.

"tight shots of the speaker or the podium" are all they will allow.

[Vinca]

45. I agree with Pelosi.

There are times C-SPAN appears quite partisan. If they had been in control of the cameras during the reign of terror over the past few years I'd probably feel differently. But they haven't and I'm afraid their cameras might be used to create a negative image of Democrats.

[conservdem]

59. Does the cameras "create" the negative images, or

would it be the Representatives themselves creating the image and the cameras just capturing it?

[Vinca]

64. The person behind the camera picks and chooses what to show.

If you have Jack Murtha nodding off and Denny Hastert picking his nose, which do you opt for? If your own, personal agenda is Democratic, you pick Hastert. If you're a 'puke you pick Murtha. If the camera is in a fixed position, as it is now, you see neither, which is better than seeing just one.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

46. So let me understand, there will still be camera coverage as before?

Nancy is only denying a broader coverage that would pan to different faces and scenarios going on in the chamber? And these chosen scenarios would be under the control of CSpan?

If this is the case, I'm with Pelosi.

[leesa]

47. I think people should know that nobody is there and no one is paying attention.

But people watching C-span already know that, so does it matter?

[eagler]

54. Now let the Republicans scream for the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

NT

[hollowdweller]

60. I think they should have let them.

I understand the concern about gotcha journalisim but I think the best defense is to have your shit together all the time. It's in the public's best interest IMO

[LisaM]

63. If partisan fairness were guaranteed, it might make sense

But anyone running the cameras could put forth an agenda (e.g., someone could be absent with a really good excuse and yet it would seem as if they weren't working, etc.).


Showing a roll call of votes, OTOH, I completely support.

[Roland99]

66. How hard has Brian Lamb pushed the GOP for the last 6 years for the very same thing?

[PBass]

67. Smart choice by Pelosi

Allowing cameras free reign would result in more "gotcha" politics which we already have too much of. The House would turn into a media circus, which would make the new Congress worse than ever IMO. You'll have Congresspeople rolling their eyes, covering their ears, "acting out" just to get on camera because lets face it, the media loves controversey more than they love good government.

If you want to see whose seats are empty, just check the attendance records. Focusing a camera on an empty seat is dumb. First of all it's lousy television (boring), second of all there is no way to know if someone skipped a day at work or is merely elsewhere on the floor.

As it currently stands, I often see CSPAN cameras focus in on bored-looking audience members during conferences and political speeches, and I wonder "Why in the hell do I need to see that? Show the person who's talking!!!"