cspan-crawler v1.1.2

cspan-crawler will crawl a c-span video page for you and return the complete transcript in the form:

[
  {
    timeStart: "",
    speaker: "",
    text: ""
  },
  {
    timeStart: "",
    speaker: "",
    text: ""
  },
  // ...
]

Example results:

[
  { timeStart: '00:17:35',
    speaker: 'Jamal Greene',
    text: 'OF -- WHAT APPEARS TO BE DISCRIMINATION OPENLY AGAINST PARTICULAR MEDIA OUTLOOKS, BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE PRESIDENT AND WE TALK ABOUT THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS ROOM, THERE IS DISSEMINATION THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. -- DISCRIMINATION THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. THE PRESIDENT DECIDES WHO GETS TO ASK QUESTIONS AND IN WHAT ORDER. IF YOU HAVE A DOCTRINE THAT SAYS YOU MAY NOT ...'
  },
  { timeStart: '00:18:06',
    speaker: 'Floyd Abrams',
    text: 'DISCRIMINATE ON NEWS ORGANIZATIONS ON THE BASIS OF WHO YOU LIKE AND WHO YOU DO NOT LIKE, PUT ASIDE THE DUE PROCESS QUESTION. THEY SAY "JIM ACOSTA, THE REASON WE DID WHAT WE DID IS BECAUSE WE DO NOT LIKE YOU, HERE IS YOUR NOTICE, HERE IS YOUR HEARING, YOU HAVE TO CONTEST THAT, YOU LOSE --" -- AT SOME POINT, YOU HAVE TO CONFRONT WHAT KIND OF FORUM THIS IS, RIGHT? >> YEAH, YOU DO, AND A LOT OF THIS STARTS OUT IN FAVOR OF A PRESIDENT, AND THIS ONE, FOR THE FIRST TIME, MANAGED TO DO IT IN THE WAY MOST LIKELY TO LET HIM LOOSE A CASE, BUT IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THAT WAY. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE PRESS CONFERENCES. IT SEEMS TO ME CLEAR THAT HE COULD DO THAT. THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS, EVEN UNDER A BROAD FIRST AMENDMENT READINGS, A GREAT DEAL OF AUTHORITY OVER. HE DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE PRESS CONFERENCES, HE CAN LEAK TO WHOEVER HE WANTS, HE CAN CALL ON WHOEVER HE WANTS, AND HE, THEY, CAN MAKE RULES, WHICH LIMIT THE QUESTIONS, AS THEY APPEAR TO HAVE, TO LIMIT THE QUESTION TO ONE PER PERSON, THEY CAN MAKE A RULE, NO FOLLOW-UPS. THE REASON THAT IN THE TIME AFTER THE PROMULGATION AND RELEASE OF THESE RULES THAT THERE ARE STILL FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS OF SARAH SANDERS, FOR THE MOST PART, IS THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO THEM. SO THIS IS NOT -- THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT, IN A CIRCUMSTANCE LIKE THIS, PROVIDE ANYTHING LIKE A FULL OPEN DOOR. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL ARE NOT INVITED. IT IS MEMBERS OF THE PRESS WHO ARE. AND THE PRIMARY WAY THAT THE PUBLIC WILL GET INFORMED IS THAT IF THE PRESIDENT SUFFICIENTLY ABUSED HIS OR HER POWER, JOURNALISTS WILL STOP COMING. SUPPOSE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE PRESIDENT ONLY CALLED ON A FEW CONSERVATIVE JOURNALISTS. THERE WOULD BE A PRESS REVOLT, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE IT WOULD TAKE LONG BEFORE THE LARGER ENTITIES WOULD SAY AND TRY TO LIVE BY WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. "WE ...'
  },
  { timeStart: '00:21:03',
    speaker: 'Alex Abdo',
    text: 'ARE NOT GOING TO COME ANYMORE IF ALL YOU ARE GOING TO DO IS TO CALL ON A, B, AND C. " SO THIS SITUATION, I THINK, IS ONE WHICH AT LEAST IS LIKELY TO BE WORKED OUT BY POLITICAL, CULTURAL RELATIONSHIPS, PUBLIC OPINION REASONS, AS IT IS BY THE FORCE OF LAW. >> A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A BLANKET OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND POLITICAL NORMS. I THINK MANY PEOPLE HAVE HAD A REALIZATION IN THE PAST TWO YEARS THAT MANY OF OUR, WHAT WE THINK OF AS CHERISHED CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITIONS ARE IN FACT NO MORE THE NORM AND MAY NOT BE SAFEGUARDED BY CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE. AND I WOULD SAY IT IS TRUE THE PRESIDENT COULDN\'T OR THE WHITE HOUSE COULD LIMIT THOSE BRIEFINGS IN A WAY THAT WOULD BE LIMITING OR ABANDONING THEM ALTOGETHER, BUT IF, FOR EXAMPLE, EVERYONE ASKS A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, BUT ONLY ...' },
  { timeStart: '00:22:20',
    speaker: 'Floyd Abrams',
    text: 'CNN GETS KICKED OUT FOR ASKING A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, THAT MIGHT BE A VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT\'S REQUIREMENT OF ANY PUBLIC FORUM BEING ENFORCED, BUT SHORT OF THOSE VIOLATIONS THEM OF THE PRESIDENT COULD DO A LOT TO UNDERMINE ACTUAL EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ONCE YOU\'RE IN THE ROOM, BUT IT WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME MAKING THE ROOM ITSELF, YOU KNOW, TILTED TOWARD ONE OUTLET OR ANOTHER. FLOYD: SUPPOSE PRESIDENT OBAMA HAD CHOSEN, AS HE ...'
  },
  { timeStart: '00:22:55',
    speaker: 'Nadine Strossen',
    text: 'DID NOT, NOT TO CALL ON ANYONE FROM FOX NEWS, OR SUPPOSE PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE A DECISION -- AS HE MAY WELL MAY -- NOT TO CALL ON ANYONE FROM CNN. I DO NOT THINK THERE IS A LEGAL REMEDY FOR THAT. I DO NOT THINK THE COURTS WILL SAY THIS IS NOT CONTENT NEUTRAL, CONSTANT ROOTED, AND I STILL THINK THE COURTS WOULD BE UNLIKELY TO INTERVENE. ALEX: I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT. NADINE: I DO. IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR ALL OF THE COMPLEXITIES OF FIRST AMENDMENT LAW -- AND MANY THANKS TO DANIEL\'S FOR TRYING TO SUMMARIZE IT -- THE BEDROCK PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING THAT WHOLE COMPLEX BODY OF LAW IS VIEWPOINT NEUTRALITY. GOVERNMENT ABOVE ALL ELSE MUST NOT FAVOR OR DISFAVOR PARTICULAR VIEWPOINTS, ...'
  },
    // ...
  ]

Installation

$ npm i cspan-crawler --save

Usage:

const crawler = require('cspan-crawler');

async function foo(){
  let url = "https://www.c-span.org/video/?454506-1/york-city-bar-association-hosts-forum-freedom-speech"
  let results = await crawler.crawl(url);
  console.log(results)
}

foo();