What would you do without C-Span?

[La_Serpiente]

Praise God for CSpan. At least they aren't biased mother fks. It's our Democrats last hope for integrity in the news.

[mandyky]

1. Yes, talk about fair and balanced, CSpan is it!!

We just got Cspan2 in our cable package, and between the 2 you get all kinds of current events in as an unbiased way as I think is possible.

[KharmaTrain]

2. People Think I'm Nuts

They come into my office and see C-SPAN on for good portions of the day and can't figure out how the hell I can watch the stuff. I find it fascinating...especially when they take the cameras into the conferences (true sausage making on display)

We're lucky to get all 3 C-Spans here (3 is mostly repeats of stump speeches and press confereces), but I wish I C-SPAN would expand their radio. They only have the station in Washington (also online), but I'd like to hear it on college and educational stations around the country.

[RandomUser]

3. don't forget C-span.org

If you can't get access to any of the three c-span channels or are away from a tv. Just go to c-span.org and stream the live video feed with realplayer or windows media player.

[Q]

4. CSPAN can be very slanted at times...

...depending on the host. They're also 'partisan' in subtle ways. I found it to be a very questionable tactic when they began to 'divide' callers into anti and pro Bush* categories.

- I get my 'real' news from 'free speech tv' and world link.

[Cha]

5. I know what you mean...but I thinkk c-span had to divide the

callers between "agree with bush" and "disagree with bush" because when it was the original "Democrats and republicans" ..there would be too many negative calls against bush! So it's kinda good news.

[KharmaTrain]

7. Sorta....Kinda...

The story is that when they were doing stories on * the both the Democrat and Independent lines would fill up with anti-Whistleass callers, and by dividing along Pro and Con Chimpster this would free up the Independent line and make it easier for the screeners to balance out callers. Several of the hosts have mentioned this in the past...usually in answer to some whining ditto monkey.

[Cocoa]

6. they try so hard to be neutral, it's often amusing

I love watching the hosts try to keep a straight face with some of the wacky callers they get. I don't think I could do it, but they do a good job and it's entertaining to watch them do it. :-)

[ProfessorGAC]

9. I'd Like Them To Challenge Facts, More Often Though

I agree that they do an excellent job of forced neutrality.

But, when someone calls in with clearly incorrect facts, i think they should challenge that person to explain his/her sources. Of course, they would have to target the right wingers, since they are much more often factually in error. But, there lefties who call in with bad information. Just less often.
The Professor

[Catherine Vincent]

10. Yeah, they do try hard to be neutral (the moderators)

I praise their efforts. If it was me and some right wing nut called, I don't think I'd be able to hide my facial expressions.

[Cocoa]

8. C-span is better than all the other channels put together

Last night they showed the uncut Alvin Ailey performance in that small room at the state dinner. If that was on PBS, it would have been overproduced and interrupted by pledge breaks. Not really fair to PBS, they have some good arts programs and documentaries, but C-span's uneditedness is a huge plus for me.

Their coverage of the presidential campaign is better in the same way because they don't edit it too much. The most interesting parts are the unscripted parts, and the other channels don't show those parts.