The Origins Of C-Span

[ThomWV]

A caller into the Washington Journal program gushes with phrase for the Cable companies because they pay for C-Span. This, for our caller, is a sign of the goodness of Corporations. The host and Republican guest nod in sage agreement. It is the largess of corporate American that brings us this national treasure.

In a pigs ass.

No so long ago, in living memory, it was the policy and law in this country that equal time had to be given to candidates for public office on the public airspace. It was a requirement of licensing and relicensing and compliance was monitored. This applied to stations broadcasting over the airways but the same regulation would soon be applied to up and coming cable. C-Span, which was the brainchild of Brian Lamb, was a way around the fairness doctrine for cable companies. Faced with this regulation Lamb pitched the idea that if all the companies would pay into a fund he would then create a network for them which gave 24 hour a day coverage to competing political views. This relieved the companies of the requirement to air competing views on their precious channels and air time. C-Span is the substitute for the equal air time that used to be required on broadcast TV.

[KharmaTrain]

1. C-SPAN Has Always Misled Viewers

F.A.I.R has done some good stories on the history of C-SPAN, Lamb and its right wing bias. As you state, the network was a placebo for the large cable companies to comply with the "Public Service" requirement in their franchise agreements. Many of these franchises were consolidated and the rules no longer apply, but C-SPAN still goes on...funded by the major cable companies and still favoring a right wing agenda.

Lamb worked closely with Gingrich and others in creating an "alternative media" in the 80's...with Gingrich taking to the House floor every evening reaching viewers via C-SPAN and then flooding the C-SPAN talk shows with "experts" from the AEI and Heritage Institute. This is the only network that uses the Washington Times as a "credible" news source and the F.A.I.R. report shows how biased the network has been over the years.

[KoKo]

2. Do you have a link to one of the F.A.I.R. articles...some folks might

like to read more. I heard that caller this morning on C-Span and just about spewed my coffee!

[KharmaTrain]

4. Here's Their Report From 2005

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2780

I usually lose it when the host attempts to say the network is balanced...especially when roll out the AEI or Heritage Institute sockpuppets and astroturfers. They had Barbara Comstock on the other morning...that lady needs to be beaten with sticks. Lamb will bring on Coultergeist for an hour, but you rarely see a Joe Connason or Paul Krugman on there.

Happy New Year...

:toast:

:hi:

[KoKo]

10. Thanks!

And the same back attcha.:hi:

[onenote]

3. a little education

Not sure what the source is for your post, but as a practicing communications lawyer with nearly 30 years experience, let me try to provide a different, and I think more accurate, view.

First, while the "fairness doctrine" was repealed in 1987, the "equal opportunities" rule and the "reasonable access for federal candidates" rule remain on the books and are still complied with and enforced. (I answer questions about the rules from communications companies on a regular basis). The application of those rules to broadcast television is clear and well-established. With respect to cable, the situation is a bit more ambiguous. To the extent that a cable operator has "local ad avails" on a national network and sells an ad to one candidate, the operator is required to make an equal amount of time available for purchase by opposing candidates. If the operator runs a movie on a channel that the operator directly programs and that movie features someone who is running for office, equal time also has to be offered to opposing candidates. What is less clear is the responsibilty of the operator for ads sold by national networks or "uses" of those networks by candidates where the operator does not directly have control over the content. In 2000, the FCC expressly declined to rule on a request by A&E for a declaration that equal opportunities rules do not apply to a cable network, stating that "the Commission has not considered whether cable network programming such as the programming produced by could, under any circumstances, be deemed cableast origination material." During the California governor's recall election, SciFi Channel stopped running movies with Arnold out of concern that it would trigger equal opps obligations, but other networks continued to run Arnold movies. I should add that the FCC currently is considering putting out for comment a proposal that might serve to clarify this issue somewhat. As for the "reasonable access" requirement (which requires broadcasters to sell time to federal candidates during specified pre-election periods), it is a statutory provision that, by its terms, only applies to broadcasting and not to cable.

While the cable industry's motives in creating, funding, and carrying CSPAN served the industry's self-interest, it had nothing to do with avoiding equal opportunities or reasonable access obligations. Nor did it have anything to do with the fairness doctrine, whose application to cable prior to its repeal was as muddled as the application of the equal opportunities rules (i.e., on its face, it applied to "origination programming" presented by the operator, but not necessarily to programming under the editorial control of a third party). Moreover, if you search the various court and agency rulings leading up to and finalizing the repeal of the fairness doctrine, you'll find no references to or reliance on the existence of C-SPAN as part of the rationale.

As noted, the creation of C-SPAN served the cable industry's self interest. It did so in several ways. First, it distinguished cable from broadcast television by providing a type of content -- the proceedings of the House (and then the Senate) that were not otherwise available. It allowed the industry to point to a "public service" type of programming to offset claims that it was providing smutty movies on channels such as HBO and Showtime. It helped provide a response to demands for "public access" channels. And, of course, it ingratiated cable with government at a time when the industry was heavily regulated and fighting battles against broadcasters who had very strong ties to their local congresscritters.

[KoKo]

5. Thanks....for the background...but what C-Span has become

still means it's an outlet fo the more Conservative Think Tanks and Newspapers to be aired. And, C-Span has increasingly become more biased since Clinton's second term and Bush II. In the early days at leas Brian Lamb seemed to try to offer more diversity in his interviews and covered much more about how our government works and history that in the last decade.

Our media regulations would be due for a big clarification...would you agree?

[onenote]

6. I agree that the current regulatory situation does not adequately protect the public interest

I didn't address the issue of whether CSPAN tilts rightward because that wasn't brought up in the OP to which I was responding. Personally, I never watch C-SPAN except when it is covering the House or Senate in session, or hearings or agency proceedings. To the extent FAIR's study shows a lack of balance in C-SPAN's other programming, my sense is that some of it is due to a lack of balance in government. For example, the FAIR study notes that its guests are disproportionately white males. This is true. Its also true that white males occupy a disproportionate number of "seats of power" in DC. FAIR also seems to take fault with the disproportionate number of journalists appearing on the network, compared to representatives of other industries. This strikes me as an odd complaint. On the other hand, the disprortionate distribution of guests between Democrats and Republicans, while partially explained in the past by the fact that repubs held both houses of congress, the White House and thus controlled all of the agencies as well, is troubling and something that C-SPAN ought to address.

As a disclaimer, I should acknowledge know a number of the top C-SPAN officials personally (although not Mr. Lamb) and they are generally fair minded individuals. To the extent that I feel comfortable discussing their political views, I would say that while they are less progressive than the average DUer, they are also not raving RWer. Moderate, independents would be my characterization.

[ThomWV]

8. I stand very well corrected. Thank you. Your last paragraph is key for me.

You summed it up well. Let me try to redeem myself by saying that in each case that pointing to a 'public service' type of programming as an offset was common to each of us.

Thanks!

[onenote]

9. No problem.

Peace.

[rasputin1952]

7. CSPAN has been a great experience for me, regardless of

how it began or is currently run.

They have covered, in entirety, political items that would normally have been off the beaten path and never shown otherwise. Seeing the pomposity of many in Congress has been a real eye-opener, and if the majority of Americans spent an hour of viewing time a day, they would gain a pretty good knowledge of just how incredibly absurd some of the "moments" are.

I have learned that an incredible portion of those who serve in congress are not just incredibly ignorant, but also incredibly stupid. The first time I saw JD Hayworth(R-AZ), thankfully defeated last election, I was astounded that the man could actually parse together some words that made a sentence. He is unbelievably stupid, and yet served, I think 3 or 4 terms. (caveat, I moved from AZ to NE) which brings me to my present day Rep, Fortenberry(R-NE), who makes Hayworth look like he had some sense. To watch these people make complete fools of themselves is actually a delight, and if voters actually spent some time looking at what they send to DC, things might change dramatically.

Then there are things like Book TV, debates, numerous and sundry officials discussing a myriad of topics, (I first saw Karl Rove on CSPAN at the beginning of the bush I situation. GHWB had the presence to fire him as being a man w/o scruples).

All things considered, CSPAN has been very educating, but like all things, one must have a discerning eye and be able to sift out the gold from the trash.

[monmouth]

11. Thanks for this post. Again, DU has educated me...n/t