Brian Lamb was VERY Pissed with the NYT's report on US Spying on Americans

Did you catch Neocon Brian this morning? He had the NYT's article on spying all highlighted in blue where they stated... are you ready?... That they were relying on unnamed former government officials and ex intelligence officials who were upset at the administration's abuse of power so they spilled. ANONYMOUSLY!! Can you imagine?? Brian was so put out about it he quizzed on of his guests as to how reliable an article is if they rely on this sort of information. HA HA!

Brian fails to mention he regularly reads that moonie rag the Washington Times which always relies on unnamed sources! What a fucking hypocrite.

Lamb is the one that exposed the phone banks and language lists the right wing uses on his show and for general purposes.

Starring those sage academics from AEI? Sorry , he has to do a lot more than a "see how unbiased I am" spot to make amends for his reich wing slant.

"Not being a liberal doesn't make him a Neocon" does not even make sense! :eyes:

He should at least try and be impartial. If you watched Fridays regularly you would notice he is anything but, with regular appearances by his buddies from AEI and The Heritage foundation. IMO he is a neocon because he offers them a podium weekly.

He's not a liberal. He's not a conservative.

He's not a Neocon, a term most often used to describe folks like Bill Kristol. It's a gross exaggeration to use this term in reference to Lamb.

recently released a reported that shoed CSPAN skewed significantly to the right.

to most people.

Jawohl!

pissed that the NYT held on to the story for a year?

Losing our Compass
BRIAN LAMB

’90s Brian Lamb is founder of, and ubiquitous commentator on, c-span.

’60s Lamb grew up in Lafayette, Indiana, got into broadcasting as a high school DJ, and hosted a local tv dance show while at Purdue. Graduating in ’63, he went into the Navy. In 1968, he worked for the Nixon campaign, then returned to radio after the election. Concluding that too little news was being broadcast by the tv networks, Lamb set up a bureau to feed information programs to local cable outlets. But the project was ahead of its time; technology was lacking.

The ’60s were a "growing-up" period for Lamb. As a naval officer, he worked on the periphery of power, and what he saw disillusioned him. "We gave out a lot of misinformation getting us in and a lot of misinformation getting out." During the ’60s the country "got out of whack. I tend to think they are when we lost our compass. A tremendous amount of distrust was created. I don’t think my generation will ever get over it."

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.16183/article_detail.asp

I stumbled upon this gem from Cokie Roberts, who laments the "loss of patriotism" in the 60's:

<"The people who prosecuted the war in Vietnam and protested the war both did a disservice in terms of patriotism," Roberts suggests.>

So what exactly DID you have to do to be a patriot in the 60's, Cokester?

She lives not far from me in the house she grew up in.

So, in the sixties, she went to a fancy pants university and prepared to marry a Harvard grad. Things were tough all over.

Somehow, Tommy Boggs avoided the draft.

Amy Goodman was doing a show on the protests in Vietnam and I wanted to know what happened to some of the most outspoken critics. I was surprised to read that Thomas Jones is now a successful Wall Streeter and no longer an activist.

This is the only site I've found that has any info on Brian Lamb's political affiliations - I know he loves Ann Coulter and tends to be very conservative at times.

He's okay with domestic spying on citizens outside of judicial or legislative review, but upset that someone talked about it.

See, this is why anonymous sources are necessary; something the CONservatives would like to obscure. Sources remain anonymous because they justifiably have something to fear from official retribution when official misconduct is aired. Keeping a source anonymous when a powerful person wants to engage in some casual character assassination of someone down the totem pole is not.

"He's okay with domestic spying on citizens outside of judicial or legislative review, but upset that someone talked about it."

They're OK with Abu Ghraib, but upset that the pictures got out. They're OK with secret prisons, but upset that they were reported on. They're OK with Gitmo abuse, but upset that Newsweek reported on it. They're OK with Bush deserting the military, but... you get the idea.

Clearly they are concerned entirely with PR and marketing rather than substance in everything they do. Look how they marketed Bush's Iraq War - with lies. Look how they marketed the Boy King for president - with lies.

This is the way the New Christian Republicans operate. Get used to it!

He is too funny.

At least they had a conscience & acted on it. If more people would do this, we could get rid of the horrible jerks in power. So again, thank you!:thumbsup:

Tammy

Geez . . .

They HAD Bush nailed for wearing a wire during the debates and wouldn't run it.

They KNEW Rove and Libby outed a CIA agent, but let Rove lie about it for a year and run free to push Bush back in office.

He's awesome. If it wasn't for him, we wouldn't have cspan.

That is why we have Reich Wing Fridays on C-span with Brian Lamb hosting. Lately the Reich wing effect has blossomed into other days of the week as well. C-Span has sucked lately.

I think they tilt a little to the right but I'm certainly glad they exist. Life without C-Span is unimaginable for me. For that, I have to give Lamb credit.

Brian may be conservative, but there is nothing wrong with that. As long as they try hard to keep cspan balanced, I'm all for it. But it's good that some of us continue to contact them telling them they are pulling to the right and organizations such as media matters surveying their network for six months and determining they have more right wing guests on, that should keep them on their toes. Because if we didn't do that, it really would benefit the republicans. We really should thank Brian for working hard at being the real fair and balanced network.

on guests, topics and calls.

Or, maybe you're watching some other CSPAN?

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2764

Failing at Its "No. 1 Goal"
Lack of balance at C-SPAN’s Washington Journal

By Steve Rendall

Since 1979, C-SPAN has provided an invaluable service to viewers with its no-frills coverage of congressional hearings, press briefings, demonstrations, book readings and other political events. By presenting public affairs with a minimal intrusion by hosts or reporters, C-SPAN has gained a reputation as a frictionless conveyer of raw political information to the public.

No I had not seen this sfexpat! Thank you! It certainly confirms what anyone with an ounce of common sense could see for quite some time now...

<snip>

Despite C-SPAN’s stated goals, Extra!’s study found Washington Journal skewing rightward, favoring Republican and right-of-center interview subjects by considerable margins over Democratic and left-of-center guests. The study also found that women, people of color and public interest viewpoints were substantially underrepresented.

<snip>

Out of the 205 partisan guests, Republicans outnumbered Democrats nearly two to one (134 to 70): Republicans accounted for 65 percent of Washington Journal’s partisan guests, while Democrats made up 34 percent. No representative of a third party appeared during the study period.

<snip>

When opinion journalists from all outlets were included, the right-leaning bias was nearly as strong: 32 right-of-center journalists appeared, vs. 19 left-of-center reporters (even counting editor Peter Beinart, the New Republic’s pro-war editor, as being on the left). Perhaps this tilt to the right could be rationalized if right-wing magazines were distinctly more popular than their counterparts on the left, but the reverse seems to be true; Mother Jones and The Nation both best National Review’s circulation numbers by a wide margin, and The Progressive outsells the Weekly Standard and American Spectator.

Given this pattern, it’s not surprising that right-of-center and centrist think-tanks dominated Washington Journal’s 75 think-tank guest slots during the study period. The conservative American Enterprise Institute and the centrist Carnegie Endowment for International Peace were the best-represented think tanks, providing 10 guests each. The centrist Brookings Institution had seven guests, followed by the Heritage Foundation and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, two conservative groups whose experts each appeared five times. Among left-leaning think tanks, only the Center for International Policy provided as many as two guests.



Reich Wing Fridays with Neocon Brian Lamb is a reality!

but he's fronting, for sure.

is that right-wing think tanks and partisan journals are more numerous, better funded and more aggressive than their counterparts on the left, and that we're still looking for our Richard Mellon Scaife. If you want to blame all of that on C-Span, fine, but ask yourself where else you can watch Marion Berry call Adam Putnam a howdy-doody nimrod at 10:20 p.m. on a weekday night before you start trashing Lamb's network again.

I'm trashing Good Citizen Lamb. :)

They show us Congreess Unfiltered, and let us know things that would never get around the usual media filters.

Also, CSPAN regularly shows liberal and progressive gatherings and speakers that would also never achieve visibility without CSPAN.....They do the ame for the right wing too, but that's what democracy is about.

Just because he personally may be a cranky conservative, we should appreciate what he has done with CSPAN.

The man is a BASTARD. He IS NOT on our side.

she's not talking about all three c-span channels/shows.

Lamb is on W.J. as host every Fri. and every Fri is a bushgang love fest.

freakin' "Editorial" about the Iraq election, BUT they had "just" an article about it. :eyes: Then we had 3-4 freepers call in and RAIL against the NYT for NOT HAVING A EDITORIAL ABOUT THE IRAQ ELECTION!!!#$%% HOW DARE THEY????? :eyes: For Lamb, THAT was by design and he got EXACTLY the reaction he was after. Bastard.

As an aside......why the hell does Randi Rhodes LOVE, LOVE, LOVE Brian Lamb??????:puke::puke::puke: I just can't put my finger on that one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1992635#1992782

asshat.

in love with him. Said she wants to marry him. Also said he told her he listens to AAR every day.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.