« Ted Kennedy gets fat book advance | Main | Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ »

Whoops, There Goes Another Democratic Plant

It's been over a full day since the CNN/YouTube Republican debate, and I think it's time for a full roundup of the identified plants in the questioning:

1) Retired Colonel Keith Kerr, staffer on Hillary Clinton's and John Kerry's campaigns.

2) Adam Florzak, aide to Senator Dick Durbin. (Correction: Florzak worked with Durbin's staff on Social Security reform, but was never a part of Durbin's staff.)

3) Mark Strauss, announced Bill Richardson supporter.

4) David Cerrone, announced Barack Obama supporter.

5) LeeAnn Anderson, United Steelworkers Union activist -- which has endorsed John Edwards.

6) "Journey," another announced Edwards supporter.

7) Ted Faturos, former intern to Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA).

8) David McMillan, aspiring TV writer whose biggest schtick is his satire as "the blind black Republican" and attendee of Barack Obama fundraisers/.

8 of 34. Just under 24%. And a ninth was a former intern for CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, but I'll give that one a bye.

(Most links shamelessly stolen from Michelle Malkin's superb roundup and comments therein -- I just simplified the dickens out of them.)

There's an old saying -- "never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence." (Some versions say "stupidity," but the "incompetence" fits better here.)

Here is CNN, "The Most Trusted Name In News." And after they got caught with a bunch of Democratic operatives and activists posing as "average, undecided voters" and lobbing softballs at the last Democratic debate, they go full-tilt into the Republican debate and almost a full quarter of the questioners have either committed themselves to a particular Democratic candidate or -- in McMillan's case -- made it abundantly clear that there is no way in hell they'd vote for a Republican.

I defy anyone -- anyone -- to say that this was an accident, a coincidence, a quirk, a happenstance.

Pay special attention to Colonel Kerr. Not only has he appeared on CNN numerous times in the past, they thought so highly of him that they flew him in to the debate and granted him more time to speak on his issue than any of the candidates. They even dug up a quote from Mitt Romney from 13 years ago to use in conjunction with Kerr's question.

But they couldn't find out that he had lent his name and credibility to Hillary Clinton -- just as he had to John Kerry four years ago.

Nor could CNN find out about the other seven questioners cited above.

As has been noted in too few places, the questions they posed, for the most part, were good ones. And while it might have been uncomfortable for the candidates to face them, I'm all in favor of making candidates uncomfortable.

But the way CNN arranged this -- and didn't disclose any of it until they were busted, live and on the air, by William Bennett -- means that any actual substance at the debate has been overshadowed by their own outrageous misconduct.

If there is any justice in this world, this will spell the end of CNN as a credible news source.

But then I thought that would happen after they admitted that they'd suppressed news of Saddam's atrocities after they were threatened -- both with loss of their "access" and, sometimes, their physical safety. And that didn't happen then, either.

I'm going to predict that this, too, will have no lasting consequences.

But god dammit, it should.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/25720.

Comments (39)

I for one have not,will not... (Below threshold)
tj:

I for one have not,will not watch cnn. have you ever got a look at nancy grace? :)

I liked the one about CNN =... (Below threshold)
JAT:

I liked the one about CNN = Clinton News Network
I turned off CNN right after the first Gulf War.

Peter Arnett and Christiane Amanpour hacked for Saddam Hussein during the war. Baby milk factory, civilian causalities, and actual false reporting so they could continue to cover Iraq before Saddam was sent into hiding like a filthy rat. These and many others are my main reason for turning off CNN for good.

The only thing CNN has cred... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

The only thing CNN has credibility over is MSNBC but not by much. Fox News is where I stay. I always hear the republican side for sure, but they always have a democratic or liberal representative. ww

8 of 34. Just unde... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
8 of 34. Just under 24%

I thought a debate within a political party was to help voters within the party determine who their nominee would be by seeing the contrast between candidates.

Having someone ask questions that never ever had the intention of voting in a Republican primary was a waste of a legitimate question from someone who would have voted in that primary. Those questions should have been reserved after the nominees from both parties were determined.

24% of those having actual ties to Democrat candidates by pure coincidence out of 5000 questions submitted have greater odds than power ball lotteries. I'm not buying the "we didn't know, we're just incompetent" bullshit.

And I know just besides myself, everyone immediately thought "and Democrats boycotted Fox News because of perceived bias?"

And someone better tell Lee Ward over at Wiz-Blue there was more than one plant. I would do it myself but I don't have the patience to register to comment before he determines my comment is worthy.

From Wiz-Blue:

but now the right is shedding tears over the revelation that one of the questions in last night's debate came from someone who has ties to Hillary Clinton's campaign
Published: Nov 29, 07 01:30 PM

And Gee, published after the others were discovered.

Be kind, joe. It's understa... (Below threshold)

Be kind, joe. It's understandable in Lee's case. "Lie" and its variants ("liar," "liars," "lying," and so on) is such a huge part of his limited vocabulary, it was inevitable he'd start fabricating his own stuff -- and even believing it.

Although I have to confess it was that sort of fraudulent dismissal of the matter that helped me to motivate an actual tally of the posers...

J.

I say: Bring it on!<p... (Below threshold)
Eric F:

I say: Bring it on!

While the Democrats keep getting softball questions, the Republicans take on the hard ones and grow.

Let them send their worst. :)

I'm sure you know Kerr was ... (Below threshold)
Ali:

I'm sure you know Kerr was on CNN re: the same subject, so how could they not know?

The Printess guy with his son re: black on black crime also has another vid on youtube stating people like 'the next president of the United States Barack Obama', re: Powerful black Americans helping with the same subject under Jena 6 title. May not have been an endorsement, maybe a status point. Pretty good video considering. Found it after the debate.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lUcZoq_u_Ko

Yep, sounds like another undecided Republican voter.

Although I have to... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Although I have to confess it was that sort of fraudulent dismissal of the matter that helped me to motivate an actual tally of the posers.....J.

Good one. Now those venturing over there will have to question their lying eyes.

I wouldn't hold my breath a... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

I wouldn't hold my breath about Wizbang Blue's reaction.

The same people who are terrified of what might be asked if their candidate went on Fox News aren't going to criticize the stacked deck that CNN provided for the "other" party. Their concept of an "even" playing field is a stacked playing field. If the questioners were openly and accurately identified, then people would start asking why the Democratic candidates weren't being asked questions by supporters of Republican candidates.

Facts, however, are facts. CNN got 5000 entries. Out of that they picked 30 and of those 30 they misprepresented 24% (minimum) of who those questioners were.

*Note: Now, some will say "But they didn't now who those questioners were ....". That's a worse indictement of CNN in my opinion. They are a freaking NEWS agency. If they honestly didn't know the background of the questioners (including one who has apparently appeared on CNN previously) then they would have be beyond incompetent.

There's nothing wrong with the questions. I suspect there may have been better ones, but the ones asked were OK.

There is even nothing wrong with having Obama, Clinton, or Edwards supporters asking questions of Republican candidates in my opinion. There is also nothing wrong with Clinton, Edwards, Obama, etc being asked question by McCain, Romney, Guilianni, etc supporters either.

What was wrong was CNN claiming the questioners were anything but what they actually were.

CNN was either dishonest or incompetent. There were no other choices.

I was flicking channels and... (Below threshold)
Pretzel_Logic:

I was flicking channels and saw Edwards talking to Olberman. It was something like "whats the big deal? They cant answer questions from democrats?? how are they going to govern?"

This from the first guy to jump off the Fox News debate. These people are as arrogant as arrogant gets. I for one believe they will get another rude awakening in '08. Some Americans are that stupid, but most arent.

I suppose the f... (Below threshold)
Civil behavior:

I suppose the fact that Grover Norquist asked a question given that there were 4999 other people who don't have the access to republican candidates doesn't bother you in the least.

Whether a person has leanings to another candidate does not preclude the idea that substantive debate amongst informed and prepared canidates for the presidency might possibly sway a person to their camp. In your narrow minded world that could never happen.

The fact that there was no actual substance was more the problem other than Huckabee who would make a dang fine preacher (yes, I know) means that the republican field must find other ways to explain away their vacuum. Thus the "plants" were to blame. I would have laughed out loud uproariously for the hour plus I watched had it not been for the fact I felt so bad that this is the best the party had to offer. Pathetic.

Remember the earlier debate... (Below threshold)
Apollo, Seattle/USA:

Remember the earlier debate when Chris Matthews asked (seriously) whether it would be a good thing if Bill Clinton were back in the White House.

They just don't get it. They think that these silly Republicans actually believe that they can possibly be elected.

By the way, Huckabee is not electable. He is the media's flavor of the week and they know that he can not beat Hillary and are doing all that they can to give him free air time. I mean, a guy who illegally took gifts, wanted to give scholarships to illegal aliens and fought to make it easier to register to vote without proof of citizenship? He is NOT a contender, but he could do some damage.

What was the hardest question the demoncrats got from CNN? What type of biofuels do you like the best? Diamonds or pearls? I know that Hillary's campaign planted all of the questions, but they could have at least acted like there was a hard one.

media bias. Remember who started CNN, Mr. Jane Fonda hisself...

Iowa, do not fall for the huckster. Huckabee is not presidential. We need you to do the right thing. Mitt or Rudy. Nobody else can beat Hillary.

I still say BRING IT ON. <... (Below threshold)
epador:

I still say BRING IT ON.

If you can't stand the worst CNN can throw at you, you'll never make it as POTUS.

I'm going to predict tha... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I'm going to predict that this, too, will have no lasting consequences.

But god dammit, it should.

Umm, don't watch CNN. What other consequences could there be?

Actually, I don't think CNN... (Below threshold)

Actually, I don't think CNN deliberately chose these questions because they were by Democratic activists. (Though their flying in of Kerr might be evidence against that.) Instead, I think it's selection bias.

Look, CNN thinks they are centrist, moderate, middle of the road and objective. They want to have the debate questions be centrist, moderate, middle of the road and objective. So therefore, they pick people asking the questions they would ask. But since, in contrast to what they think of themselves, CNN is actually staffed with a bunch of socialists, progressives and greens, they got the questions asked by the socialists, progressives and greens, and those were of course the ones asked by Democratic activists.

I still don't trust CNN as far as I can comfortably spit a rat, but I think that this is evidence not of their duplicity, but of their bias.

I wonder how many other Dem... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

I wonder how many other Democratic activists questions got weeded out because they had donated to a Dem (the one check CNN says they did) ?
This was no accident, CNN clearly went shopping for semi clean "undecided voters" with a liberal axe to grind. In reality it just makes the GOP field stronger. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
The Dems haven't had to lift a thing thus far and are really totally unprepared to fight a hard campaign for undecided voters. Their preaching to the choir campaigns (normal for primaries of course) will not prepare them for the real show while the GOP field has been in a hard fight all along, the CNN nonsense just being the latest example.

Does anyone know how many q... (Below threshold)
SAHMmy:

Does anyone know how many questioners at the YouTube democrat debates were asked by republicans?

The LA Times went back and ... (Below threshold)
The Other Ed:

The LA Times went back and took a look at the Democratic YouTube Debate and lo and behold, many of the questions were submitted by conservative "Plants":

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-youtube30nov30,1,6572347.story

I know it's hard for you folks on the Right to support free speech, just look at 7 years of Bush's staged events that you had no trouble with, but maybe we should just expect our politicians of all stripes to be prepared to answer all legitimate questions.

Is there a problem with that?

"CNN, "The Most Trusted Nam... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

"CNN, "The Most Trusted Name In News." , my sides hurt from laughing so hard.

That might be *their* tag line but the rest of the country just got another reminder why they are universally known as the "Clinton News Network".

FWIW the 'questioners' were alleged to be "undecided *Republican* voters", not Democrat plants asking questions of the candidates.

What it boils down to is they have been exposed again attempting to steer the direction of political events in favor of the party, idea's and people they support.

Does anyone know how man... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Does anyone know how many questioners at the YouTube democrat debates were asked by republicans?

It doesn't matter to them. Loyalty oaths are becoming standard procedure anything involving Republicans. Apparently they wanted CNN to ask each questioner "Are you now or have you ever been associated with the Democratic Party."

What I can't figure out is why, when nobody on the right is objecting to the questions themselves, and many have said that they were fair (Malkin, of all people, said they were "coherent and well-framed"), is there such an uproar about who asked the questions. If the there is no problem with the questions, who cares who asked them?

Is it just to move people's attention away from the answers the Republicans gave? Just need something to be outraged about on a slow news day?

The Other Ed,That ... (Below threshold)
Conservachef:

The Other Ed,

That is an interesting article. I notice that it mentions One (1) questioner with visible Republican leanings.

The article you mention makes a great deal of noise about the TYPE of questions asked, and only passing mention of the affiliation of the questioners. (A tip of the hat to Jay Tea for getting a mention!)

So you give an article that finds 1 Republican-affiliated questioner at the Dem debate. Jay Tea, Malkin, and others find EIGHT (of 34) Democrat-affiliated questioners at the Republican debate. One of which was flown in and given a chance to rebut the candidates!

That is hardly the ... many of the questions were submitted by conservative "Plants"... that you mention. Granted, the questions had a conservative leaning, but they (like some of the questions at the Republican debate) were decent questions. What bothers most of us on the right, is the "undecided voter" mask that was so easily pulled off these people. Say that they are Dem or Repub fans, and have the question. Then let the viewers decide if the question was a fair one, knowing ALL the facts.

Is that so scary?

I'm looking for this entry ... (Below threshold)
Jen:

I'm looking for this entry quoted in the LA Times, has it been edited?

--Jay Tea was one of several to complain, writing at the blog Wizbang: "Those were good, solid questions. But CNN, by playing by completely contradictory standards for its questioners at debates, betrays its bias: the Democrats get to stack their questions to make their candidates look good; the Republicans find themselves having to squirm and evade, or give concrete answers that won't make some people very happy."--

Because I think that's just brilliant logic. The questions are "good" and "solid", but they have some weird talismanic quality because of the identity of the questioner that forces the poor Republicans to squirm, evade, and give crappy answers. There's just something that comes through in a question when the person asking it owns a John Edwards T-shirt...

This is really simple. *If there isn't anything wrong with the question, then there isn't an issue.* The questioner doesn't matter. Look up "ad hominem" on wiki.

I've seen this complaint in... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I've seen this complaint in a number of places as well: "the questions are fine, but they didn't come from undecided voters as promised." What I have yet to see is anyone providing this promise that all questions would come from undecided voters. The WaPo gave us this, which a lot of people are breathlessly pointing to:

The debate format is the same as it was for Democrats in July. CNN's political team will review the submissions and choose about 40 videos. David Bohrman, the network's Washington bureau chief and the mastermind behind the format, said he heard from two campaigns -- he would not name which -- expressing concerns about the selection process and the perceived liberal bias of CNN, dubbed by many conservatives the "Clinton News Network."

"Some of the Republican candidates don't trust us. They're not completely convinced that we're going to wean out the Democratic 'gotcha' questions," Bohrman said. "But I've been very clear from the beginning: This will be a Republican debate, and the goal is to let Republican voters see their candidates."

He does say they weaned out "gotcha" questions, but doesn't say a word about undecided voters. Was this promised? When and by whom?

So, will jp2 be haunting Wi... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

So, will jp2 be haunting Wiz-Blue demanding a correction of Lee's posting?


...crickets...

Mantis, I've seen at least ... (Below threshold)
Jen:

Mantis, I've seen at least 5 separate rationales for the outrage, they shift like the rationales for invading Iraq. There shouldn't have been non-Republicans asking questions! (Uh, why not? These are candidates for public office, citizens and voters shouldn't ask them questions?) Well, ok, it's ok for non-Republicans to ask questions but it should have been disclosed! (What's to disclose, no one said only Republicans would be allowed to ask questions?) Well, they should do it for the Democrats too! (Uh, they did, we're just able to handle questions on guns and taxes without the blogosphere exploding, evidently.) But one of them was sort of affiliated with Hillary and they obviously planted him there! (After they'd issued a press release? Pretty subtle plant.) But CNN violated its own rules about no one affiliated with the campaign would ask a question! (Ok, but did it affect THE QUESTION, because that is presumably the rationale for the rule, right?)

The right wing had no problem with the questions until it found out that some of the questioners had not signed loyalty oaths, or whatever it is they wanted them to do. If anyone, anyone, wants to explain why the identity of the questioner matters when there isn't anything wrong with the questions either individually or as a group, I would be happy to listen. John Cole has a standing invitation on his blog to submit which question of the debate was unfair. Either way. Let's clarify, what, exactly, has those panties in a wad.

Mantis,This issue ... (Below threshold)
Conservachef:

Mantis,

This issue got me to thinking about the Dem's refusal to go on a Fox news debate. I recall some argument that since Fox news is a Right Wing mouthpiece, none of the Dem primary voters would be interested in it. (I'm not looking to debate the merits of Fox news, its just that this reminds me of that situation.)

Using that thought, what do you think about this issue? Democrats asking questions at a Republican primary debate, and vice-versa?

I think it's a valid point- Dems should be at (D) debates, and Repubs at (R) debates, but then again, I also agree that if the question they ask is good, then the question should be heard.

Well, I for one think the D... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Well, I for one think the Democrats are cowardly for not participating in FOX debates and said so on this blog when it happened. It seems to me that a candidate would want to reach out to any audience as big as FOX's, and going on a somewhat partisan news channel would show they are confident in their positions.

As for voters asking questions of candidates of the opposing party, I think that even if you consider that undesirable in a primary debate, which I don't, there is really no way to prevent it if you are allowing question submissions from the general public. And the fact is that many states have open primaries, and even those that don't cannot prevent those who will vote for one party from registering with the other party for the primary (Virginia GOP loyalty oaths notwithstanding).

To insist on party loyalty from anyone who might ask a question, complete with background checks and the like, is pretty creepy if you ask me. Not to invoke Godwin or anything, but....

Mantis,Good point ... (Below threshold)
Conservachef:

Mantis,

Good point about the general public questions allowed in debates.

I've always thought the open primaries are an interesting thing. (Not that I've given it a whole lot of thought, just a little.) In my locality, I can vote in either party primary. The problem I discovered this year, was that I wanted to vote for someone on each party ballot. (Not for the same position- say Chancery on the D ballot, and Sherrif on the R ballot, for example.) I really had to prioritize my primary vote and decide who I was most enthusiastic about, and hope for the best on the others.

Sorry for the tangent. In any case, I'm off to lunch.

"they shift like the ration... (Below threshold)
Eric F:

"they shift like the rationales for invading Iraq."

That's crazy talk. There's always been a slew of reasons for invading Iraq--even before it happened. That your eyes and ears were closed to them is beyond our control.

Here's the deal: Like it or not, we have the right to free speech just as much as anyone else on the political spectrum -- and that includes pointing out when we find people from the other party potentially playing underhanded tricks.

As I said earlier in this thread: Bring it on! Meanwhile, your guys (and gal) can run from a FNC debate faster than Norman Hsu in a manhunt.

For those of you attacking ... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

For those of you attacking Republicans for questioning the questioners backgrounds ....

You are still ignoring (or perhaps avoiding ;-)) the point that has been repeatedly made.

Why did CNN not simply state the truth?

"This question comes from an Obama supporter ..." etc., etc.

If there is no reason to hide it or promise that it wouldn't happen - and I personally would welcome candidates being asked questions by other parties' supporters - then the obvious should be simply stated.

Like the old adage "it's the coverup, stupid", CNN's either incompetent vetting or dishonest agenda caused them to not state what has been proven to be the obvious.

The next obvious question then is "If they lied about one thing, what else have they lied about?"

CNN was the loser in this debate.

I am not AVOIDING anything,... (Below threshold)
Jen:

I am not AVOIDING anything, I am questioning the premise for why you think the identity of the questioners matters if you think the questions are fair. Do you understand that distinction? CNN is not LYING to you if it doesn't tell you something that DOESN'T MATTER and that they never claimed they would tell you. CNN also did not say: "This question comes from someone who owns 2 cats!" "This question comes from someone who owes way too much money on their credit cards?" "Please note that this question is being asked by a black person!"

As for the FOX debate thing, it's a little different, isn't it, given that the entire network's bias is clear, that the network was founded specifically because Murdoch wanted to counterbalance what he thought of as liberal bias? That's what Air America was, I wouldn't blame the Republicans if they didn't want to do a debate on Air America. FOX's allegiances to Guiliani are well documented and a large part of the reason for this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/15/mitt-romney-wont-partici_n_72908.html


So yeah, the Democrats are ... (Below threshold)
Eric F:

So yeah, the Democrats are afraid of coming onto the most-watched news station.

Cool. Thanks for the clarification!

Jen, first of all calm down... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Jen, first of all calm down. This is just an internet discussion. Nothing to get so hyper about ....

There is a simple reason for questioning the questioners. I don't need CNN to decide for me if that information is important or not - I am perfectly capable of making that decision myself. If it doesn't matter to you if information is withheld by news entities because they have decided that you don't need to know, then that is certainly your right. However, some of us do not need someone to act like parents and filter information for us.

Of course, if CNN decided that we didn't need to know that information - as you have implied - then it is clear that they, in fact, have lied about the situation. At least in regards to Kerr, they claimed that they didn't know about his affiliation with the Clinton campaign prior to his appearance. If, as you have implied, they knew about all the questioners background, but decided to without the information, I would certainly question what else they had withheld.

Also, CNN lied if they ever identified a questioners as anything but what they were. No, they didn't have to say anything, but if they claimed someone was an "undecided voter" who was not, then they did lie.

As to Fox News, I'm sorry, I can't take seriously for President someone who can't face Brit Hume to answer a question. I would personally prefer a root canal to listening to Bill O'Reilly or Hannity and Colmes, but I would not be "afraid" of them.

Okay, I am trying as hard a... (Below threshold)
Jen:

Okay, I am trying as hard as I can to get my head around why political affiliation is relevant to a question if the question is fair, and nobody's helping me. Saying that CNN is just filtering information is not helpful because it doesn't explain why the information would be useful -- how does it change how the question should be answered? In the Democratic YouTube debate and the town-hall-style debates I've seen, I have never seen anyone preface anything with "This is so-and-so who is a registered X and is voting for Mr. Y". So if CNN were to do so here, it would be a new thing, right? Did anyone watching the debate comment at the time that CNN should be providing this information? Can you link me to one live blog entry saying that CNN should be providing these "disclosures"? Can you explain why those disclosures would change anything if the question is fair? Can you explain why the difference in the outrage that CNN did not say the person's party affiliation and also did not say what kind of car they drive?

"Of course, if CNN decided that we didn't need to know that information - as you have implied - then it is clear that they, in fact, have lied about the situation."
I'm not implying anything about what CNN knew or didn't know because I don't care, I don't think it's important. If CNN knows that someone has four kids and that you didn't need to know that in order to listen to their question, did they lie to you?

if they claimed someone was an "undecided voter" who was not, then they did lie.
Did they? Why the "if"?

"I would certainly question what else they had withheld."
These are folks submitting questions to people running for public office. They are not applying for security clearance at the DOD. Exactly what information about them do you think you need to know and have disclosed in order to determine whether or not a question is o.k.? Do we need to tap their phones, what?

As to Fox News, I'm sorry, I can't take seriously for President someone who can't face Brit Hume to answer a question. I would personally prefer a root canal to listening to Bill O'Reilly or Hannity and Colmes, but I would not be "afraid" of them.

It isn't a question of being "afraid", it's a question of having respect for journalism and impartiality. Given FOX's clear allegiances to Giuliani, I wouldn't go on if I were Romney, either. How can he be sure that they're going to give him a fair shake? He can't, and he shouldn't. I don't blame him a bit. And exactly how many journalists is Bush "afraid" of? I think he's down to maybe a couple of pundits he'll talk to, because their questions are along the lines of "were even you surprised by how well the surge has been working?" You wanna talk about afraid...

To insist on party loyal... (Below threshold)
Brian:

To insist on party loyalty from anyone who might ask a question, complete with background checks and the like, is pretty creepy if you ask me.

Creepy indeed. But not new.

I have discovered that the ... (Below threshold)

I have discovered that the next debate will be held on the Home and Garden Channel.

Jen, it would be helpful if... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Jen, it would be helpful if you could focus a bit. You were the one who said:

CNN is not LYING to you if it doesn't tell you something that DOESN'T MATTER and that they never claimed they would tell you.

Your statement certainly IMPLIES that you believe CNN deliberately chose not to release information because they considered it irrelevant.

If they KNEW that the questioners political affiliations as you have implied, then they lied because they subsequently said that they did not know the political affiliations of at least one of the planted questionors.

Now you ask:

Saying that CNN is just filtering information is not helpful because it doesn't explain why the information would be useful -- how does it change how the question should be answered?

Who claimed that it would change how the question should be answered?

I certainly never did.

Anyone who watches the news regularly knows that news networks give us a huge amount of information. We don't "need" ALL the information that is broadcast on a daily basis, but they keep broadcasting it nonetheless.

Are you really advocating the news networks should sit down and ask before broadcasting any story if people really "need" to hear that news?

While you may be comfortable with your news being censored, I would prefer to hear it and decide for myself - even if it means filtering out stories about Paris Hilton and Britanny Spears.

Now, suddenly, you are asking:

So if CNN were to do so here, it would be a new thing, right?

Well, of course it would be for CNN. As I recall, they failed to point out in the Democratic debate that at least one of their questioners was a supporter of Clinton already. They also failed to mention that both on-air post debate commentators were former highly placed Clinton adminstration officials.

One might surmise from that that CNN has clear allegiances to Clinton and Edwards and Obama should not go on CNN because - well, how would they know CNN is going to give them a fair shake?

As to this paragraph you stated, Jen:

"I would certainly question what else they had withheld." These are folks submitting questions to people running for public office. They are not applying for security clearance at the DOD. Exactly what information about them do you think you need to know and have disclosed in order to determine whether or not a question is o.k.? Do we need to tap their phones, what?

You aren't helping your argument much with a cut and paste that misrepresents what I said.

The statement that I ACTUALLY made was this one:

Of course, if CNN decided that we didn't need to know that information - as you have implied - then it is clear that they, in fact, have lied about the situation. At least in regards to Kerr, they claimed that they didn't know about his affiliation with the Clinton campaign prior to his appearance. If, as you have implied, they knew about all the questioners background, but decided to without the information, I would certainly question what else they had withheld.

The Fox News debate questi... (Below threshold)
Indy pennant:

The Fox News debate questions came from the Republican Party. The You Tube debate questions came from the public. What's the problem? The Generals question was a valid and important question. Would the question have been acceptable if it had been asked by a Log Cabin Republican? Of course it would, so what's the difference. My God man, what's going to happen when these guys start getting asked tough questions? Damn boys, drop the sippy cups and sack up.

Republicans ARE answering t... (Below threshold)
Eric F:

Republicans ARE answering those questions. Democrats are taking a lot of softball ones.
And certainly no Republican questioner got to stand up in front of an audience and preach.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy