Is Brian Lamb (Washington Journal) a rethug?

[Used and Abused]

He seems to be very impatient with anti-Bush callers.

[cornermouse]

1. Yes.

And it took less than a minute of listening.

[alphafemale]

2. Yes. But the C-Span channels are still the one of best things to happen

to create an informed public.

[cornermouse]

3. But how long can you stand to listen to him?

If you have cable or satellite, there are other channels which also inform.

[alphafemale]

17. He's fine. And C-Span/W. J. is one of the few things I miss about cable

Washington Journal is much better than the dreck on most other morning shows.

[tx_dem41]

20. In general, I like W.J., but I cannot stand the phone call-ins...

on either side. Too much shallowness and misinformation being disseminated from both sides. Give me more time with journalists and experts (and give them some limited time to answer questions from callers).

[alphafemale]

28. Yeah. The call screening could be better.

How many times do we have to clean out the lint tray from each side?

You almost see the host's eyes glaze over each time (insert your favorite conspiracy theory here) is mentioned.

The hour and format attracts the fringe to call in though.

Maybe even have the hosts ask the questions, ie:

Chris from Miami,FL asks...

This could also help people who have intelligent questions, but get tounge tied and flustered under the stress of being broadcast.

[tx_dem41]

29. Good suggestion....

I always feel sorry for the hosts during this segment. I would be displaying my vast array of sarcastic facial expressions!

I can imagine what they say off camera, after each show.

[0007]

40. Hope your not saying that CNN, FAUX or MSNBC are news worthy?

[cornermouse]

52. What are they?

More seriously, I don't watch them.

[0007]

60. that's good!

[latteromden]

4. Honestly? I couldn't care less. He founded C-SPAN. It does not matter to

me whether or not he's a Republican, he founded C-SPAN, for heaven's sake, if that's not wonderful, I don't know what is.

He claims to listen to both sides of talk radio, as well. But really, does it matter? Without him, you wouldn't even be watching Washington Journal.

[cornermouse]

5. C-span 2 is discussing Bush and his "faith-based" initiative

right now. There's also FSTV, otherwise known as Free Speech TV, if I'm correct, talking about Iraq with multiple sources, some foreign.

[latteromden]

6. Thanks for the schedule update - or are you trying to tell me that

discussing faith-based initiatives makes C-SPAN biased?

I'm not trying to be flippant, I actually don't understand the point of your reply.

[cornermouse]

10. I'm trying to point out that C-span can be good at times,

but it is not the only option available and that if they become too irritatingly rightwing, there are other options. For instance, FSTV has begun discussing Bush's approach to human rights. I find that preferable to listening to what'shisname cutting off democratic viewers, extending republican viewers and making a point of our "increased safety" by reading a comment about WMDs in Iraq and then repeating it to make sure we understand...

I don't have to put up with him or his point of view.

[latteromden]

15. Well, me, I personally like watching things like discussions about

faith-based initiatives. That's the beauty of C-SPAN. You get both points of view. One day you might see a right-wing program, and the next program might be, oh, the Green Party convention.

And I've never heard of FSTV. I have three C-SPAN channels and the International Channel for public affairs. There's not a whole lot of choice.

[cornermouse]

16. On satellite, its tucked away in the 9000 series

of channels, 9415 to be precise.

Added: Also, the republicans are pretty consistent in their group thinking. The fact is that after a while you can pretty well predict what they're going to say; the exception being when they manage to find a position that is even more extreme.

[tx_dem41]

18. I pretty much see the first 45 minutes of Washington Journal as a waste..

of time, whether its biased or not (I don't really see any bias BTW). I just don't get anything out of the callers(Repub or Dem). Why not have the journalist who wrote the main story on instead during that time (after the initial 5-10 min review of headlines)?

[bpilgrim]

25. zactly

it's like listening to talk radio when you got a hankering for REAL news and informed opinion.

:hi:

peace

[alphafemale]

22. "I don't have to put up with him or his point of view."

True that.
You can still use that OFF button.

The "Clockwork Orange" style forced viewings of FOX are tabled in a House Committee.

/sarcasm.

[cornermouse]

30. Or I can change the channel instead of simply turning it off.

It is still all right to point out that there are alternatives, isn't it? (Sarcasm right back at you.)

[alphafemale]

33. There are other networks that carry full HR and Senate coverage?

Really?

Edit-Title line typo

[bpilgrim]

39. it's interesting what they leave out, also

really...

and that is a form of censorship as well.

FYI: not every house/senate hearing gets full coverage, either.

peace

[alphafemale]

43. I'm glad for the access C-Span provides.

I'm not going to p-ss down a gift horse's throat.

[tx_dem41]

45. Lol....thats a new phrase to me....and a good one!...n/t

[alphafemale]

Thanx. That was one of the phrases my Dad used to say. He was great.

:7

I never realised how many phrases he was mixing until my teens.

[bpilgrim]

47. me too

but i'm not going to ignore areas where i see room for improvement, and i am even more concerned with programming that actually provides a great deal of value as i don't won't it to head in the direction ALL the rest of our media has.

after the past 4 years of this nightmare we need to demand and expect the very highest standards from our media, who is entrusted with the most serious responsibility of all, keeping us INFORMED.

peace

[tx_dem41]

51. Agreed....thats what the free market is for.

The FCC does have a role but its areas of enforcement also touch closely with the First Amendment.

[bpilgrim]

53. not an UNREGULATED 'free market'

i will NEVER support that rw wet dream.

look what has happened to teeVee and radio since we stopped REGULATING them, wall-to-wall RUSH and his clones :puke:

then look at all the corporate GRANDTHEFT in the past 4 years in the ENRONOMY :crazy:

peace

[cornermouse]

48. And if I had the time to watch Full Coverage, I might

consider wasting it that way. The few nuggets of value made publicly available via C-span aren't worth the time spent. (Do you really think those Congress people are NOT aware of the cameras at all times?)

That's why they leave whenever they seriously want to discuss something. Example: the Omni-spending Bill prior to Christmas recess when they all got up and ran out of the room to some closet over the sneak attack via the IRS.

[alphafemale]

57. It's easier than going to DC to watch over them in the balcony isn't it?

Even if not perfect, it has helped give truth to the term "Open Government."

[cornermouse]

59. Interesting. Do you think we have open government now?

[tx_dem41]

7. Do you think that the "faith-based" initiative should not be...

discussed?

[bpilgrim]

9. not by the state

that's fer sure... this is AMERICA where separation of church and state is the law of the land not to mention one of our founding traditions.

peace

[tx_dem41]

12. I said "discussed"....not implemented. n/t

[bpilgrim]

19. and i said... NOT by the state

which is the ONLY reason why the news PROGRAMMING is currently discussing this CRAZY plan and it is GROSS :puke: and SCARY :scared:

peace

[tx_dem41]

21. Yes ....and through its discussion....

we will convince people that it is gross and scary.

I don't see how you are equating CSPAN and the STATE. I thought that CSPAN is funded by the cable operators (by law, yes...but not funded directly by the state).

[bpilgrim]

23. i am not equating it with the state

i am noting that they are providing PROGRAMMING on this insidious issue and unless they are pointing out how wrongheaded and against the law of the land they are only subtly PROMOTING IT and i don't like that.

granted i am not watching this particular show but going on recent past experience (past 4 years) they are probably treating it as a noble idea that should be treated as a reasonable policy proposal.

FYI: having our programming paid for by unregulated corporations is what got us into this mess to begin with :scared:

peace

[tx_dem41]

24. Well...since you aren't watching the program and are only assuming..

this is a pretty silly argument. I thought you were watching it.

[bpilgrim]

26. thats your prerogative

nice discussing with you :hi:

peace

[onenote]

32. and having programming controlled by the state would be good? n/t

[bpilgrim]

35. having news programming, paid for by corporations, regulated

would DEFINITELY be a GOOD thing.

guess what OUR prized public airwaves got after the death of the fairness doctrine RUSH :puke:

peace

[onenote]

37. and who is doing the regulating?

Michael Powell?

onenote

[bpilgrim]

41. no one

thats the PROBLEM...

remember, when we had the FAIRNESS doctrine, we had more diversity and balance on the airwaves.

peace

[tx_dem41]

42. Who enforced the Fairness doctrine? n/t

[bpilgrim]

44. the FCC, with their authority granted to them by weTHEpeople - n/t

peace

[tx_dem41]

46. The FCC is comprised of political appointees.

I guess there is no perfect system though.

[bpilgrim]

50. not everyone

and they have to follow the LAWS of the land which are put in place by our reps... unless no one cares anymore or chalks it up to 'no system is perfect' then we are all doomed.

peace

[tx_dem41]

54. Not to quibble...

but all five commisioners are appointed by the President.

http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html

At the same time, I realize there are many career bureaucrats working for the FCC that are not political appointees.

[bpilgrim]

55. the FCC is RUN by more than 5 political appointees

AND they are charged with MANAGING the FCC in COMPLIANCE with the LAWS of the land written by OUR reps... just to be clear.

peace

[tx_dem41]

56. Which I said in my post.

But, the ultimate voting authority is by political appointees.

I guess I'm cynical, but I have more faith in people than I do in the State (yes, even after this last November!).

[bpilgrim]

58. my simple point is UNREGULATED institutions or businesses is BAD

you and i are regulated why shouldn't corporations especially the ones supposedly serving the public interest and ones as CRITICAL as our INFORMATION outlets.

also i don't believe all gov is bad though it certainly needs to be regulated to... by weTHEpeople.

i believe deeply in america and it's system of checks and balance and will fight to restore them and not cave to RW wet dream fantasy.

don't through out the baby with the bath water!

peace

[bpilgrim]

8. who controls the MSG should ALWAYS be a concern

always consider the source... no intel outfit worth it's salt would pass-up an opportunity to shape the MSG and especially to establish a presence via a respectable 'news' outlet.

it certainly makes me nervous, this should be a publicly funded fully independent news outlet, especially considering where we are at today.

:hi:

peace

[alphafemale]

11. Hear. Hear.

I can't imagine NOT having full coverage of the House and Senate.
(plus all the other things C-Span bears silent witness to.
protests, forums, debates, etc.

If not for Brian Lamb you might not have it.

[Pepperbelly]

13. Brian is impatient with EVERYONE.

He's kinda grouchy. I watch WJ every day and I truly do not have a clue about Lamb's personal convictions. I can easily pick out things he says that I do not like and just as easily point out things he's said that I do like.

He has a very low tolerance for crazy MFers and is quick on the button with them and just as quick to call their crazy asses out on it.

[stanwyck]

14. He's the old guy on the porch

yelling "You kids get off my lawn!" It's just how he is. I haven't watched CSPAN since the election. I used to watch Washington Journal every morning. I just can't handle the reality of knowing I live in a country where the voters elected a man as empty as Bush. I am so dispirited at what our great nation has become, that I'm continuing my denial by limiting my exposure to the opposition...and that includes Washington Journal.

[nascarblue]

27. They're all rethugs...How many times do you see true lefties on there?

NEVER.

[alphafemale]

31. On C-Span?

Or Washington Journal?

Washington Journal is probably about as centrist as you can get.
Meaning, they go in with the intent to be objective.

So...predictably.

Those decidedly Right or Left see them as biased to the "Other" side.

C-Span though is a gem.
The ability for most people to tune into what is happening in the legislature at any moment is priceless.

[bpilgrim]

34. depends on the host...

"So...predictably.

Those decidedly Right or Left see them as biased to the "Other" side."

and there is definitely an establishment bias, even on Washington Journal, though compared to the other stuff out there it certainly would appear 'centrist' to most Americans.

the only show that i saw on teeVee that i would consider 'centrist' was NOW.

:hi:

peace

[RafterMan]

36. Here's a nice answer he gave

Q: Why did you start C-SPAN?

A: It's not what most people think it was. My interest in starting C-SPAN (in 1979) was that I thought that three commercial television networks controlling what we saw was unfortunate. I was angry about it, as a matter of fact. I kept saying to myself, "Why are we watching only three television networks? And the same newscast every night? And the same lead story and the same breaks for commercials?" When I first got in it, I said, "We need more information." It was that simple. I didn't feel strongly about covering the House of Representatives. That just turned out to be the vehicle with which we were able to start this place.

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/steigerwaldqa/s_284533.html

How can anyone argue with that?

[0007]

38. I've noticed that, but then again it is hard to know exactly where

Brian does indeed stand, to the right or left. I think it is a job that would drive most people completely nuts. They do maintain fairly well, all of them at c-span

[indepat]

49. His Repukedness oozes ceaselessly with arrogant contempt IMHO

[flordehinojos]

61. yes.