You know, at least one link explaining the courts rejection of cameras would have been nice if you were aiming for the low bar of "Fair and Balanced." You can't really call C-SPAN's own publications on the subject a reliable source on the subject, being the largest potential benefactor of it. posted by pwnguin at 11:27 PM on September 30
God. Is it sweeps week already? posted by twoleftfeet at 11:47 PM on September 30
Meh. Let me know when they show oral arguments on the tee vee. posted by ryoshu at 12:52 AM on October 1
You can't really call C-SPAN's own publications on the subject a reliable source on the subject, being the largest potential benefactor of it.
Did you even read the page? C-SPAN doesn't have commercials/ads, doesn't track ratings or viewership, and is a non-profit public service. How is it not be reliable? That page definitely gives both sides, every single justice's opinion is on it, as well as some other opinions that are linked. If I had linked to TRU TV's bit on cameras in the courtroom, you'd have a point. But C-SPAN, really? What are their benefits? More ad revenue? More viewers? What is the nefarious purpose here? Anyway, if I was aiming for the low bar of "fair and balanced" I'd just sell my soul and work for FOX. posted by IvoShandor at 2:00 AM on October 1 [2 favorites has favorites]
YES!
Doh! I moved and don't have cable anymore. Couldn't justify $60+/mo just for C-SPAN and C-SPAN 2.
Soon, no public money will pay for the federal government, either.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:09 PM on September 30 [2 favorites has favorites]