In an interview with POLITICO, Lamb set the record straight on Republican Senator Saxxby Chambliss' (Ga) accusation that C-SPAN is the source of America's do-nothing-congress.
It's interesting that Lamb's speaking up, but strange because he really didn't have to. It's not like anyone's calling for the cameras (which aren't owned or operated by C-SPAN) in the House or Senate chambers to be turned off. It's just one idiotic senator (who's appeared on C-SPAN no less than 599 times according to a C-SPAN tweet).
Chambliss actually has a point (Lamb admits this), because it's true that members of congress tend to grandstand using the cameras to woo their constituents. However, Chambliss' argument as a whole is stupid & any democratically-minded person would disregard it - his office did. It's not the cameras' fault Congress can't accomplish anything meaningful.
Lamb's revolutionary idea of showing American's their elected representatives at work, is a sacred & invaluable institution.
As I understand it, C-SPAN is a private, non-profit organization whose operating budget derives from cable subscribers. Where packages like ESPN cost about $6 per cable subscription - C-SPAN collects pennies. National cable provider executives sit on C-SPAN's board of directors, although they have no decision-making authority on daily operations.
Why would the cable execs do this? Because Brian Lamb convinced them that C-SPAN serves to benefit the American public.
If you read about Brian Lamb's recent departure as CEO, you probably saw the moronic mish-mosh videos of Lamb talking to the Auto-Tune-the-News kids or responding to fans of the reclusive race-bating shock-jock Michael Savage. The latter of which is actually a great video & probably will go down as one of the best TV news segments in television history.
I had the opportunity to ask Lamb why he stopped hosting C-SPAN's flagship morning news program Washington Journal, and he said something very interesting: "the people who call in are not the ones who love, they're the ones who hate."
This struck me as a little bit sad and it forced the follow up question: What's a specific example that comes to mind talking about callers' hate? He told me about a C-SPAN media scandal (can something be totally boring & totally exciting at the same time?) that took place in 2005 over a Booknotes segment regarding the Holocaust. #herewego
Lamb said nothing hurt him more than being called anti-semetic after his employees attempted to open a discussion on a British libel suit concerning a Holocaust denier.
C-SPAN contacted pro-Israel author Deborah Lipstadt to share her side in the libel debate against neo-Nazi sympathizer David Irving. When Lipstadt was told that her views would be broadcast to "balance" (C-SPAN's word) Irving's view with her own, she called C-SPAN anti-semetic.
If C-SPAN - an institution founded on the simple idea of broadcasting public affairs in their entirety - cannot open a discussion on Israel, than no one can attempt to do so. The program finally aired on April 5, 2005 with a totally unusual and outstandingly notable disclaimer/interview conducted by C-SPAN.
Pro-Israel zealots are consistent in their actions to suppress those ideas they oppose. We see this with Lipstandt and her nemesis Irving (one of her book's title extolls him by name) or with Dershowitz on his campaigns against "self-hating jews" (Dershowitz's ugly term) like Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein & Media Matters, and don't forget his fatwa against former President Jimmy Carter.
Even Lipstadt voiced her opposition to the Austrian imprisonment of Irving, when she said: "I am uncomfortable with imprisoning people for speech. Let him go and let him fade from everyone's radar screens...Generally, I don't think Holocaust denial should be a crime. I am a free speech person, I am against censorship."
Brian Lamb devoted his life to the belief that ideas are something to be spread - whether or not you agree with the ideas being presented. YOU are the person to decide what the truth is - NOT the producers of the broadcast.
How can we allow people to learn if we stifle the debate by censoring ideas - however extreme?
Lamb's legacy of providing gavel-to-gavel coverage of the House & Senate to every home in America with a cable box is a venture to be admired, not admonished.
No comments:
Post a Comment