CNN fell down on the job vetting questions for Republican candidates. While the questions were lame, to say the least, the blatant lack of honesty in revealing the identity of the questioners calls into question both CNN's and the DNC's moral standards.
We all know the democratic crop of 2008 Presidential hopefuls is lame, to say the least. They will promise anything to anyone, hoping their camp followers will blindly swallow it and vote for them--as their party did with the pie-in-the-sky 2006 elections with promises they haven't been able to deliver.
And, we all know that with the exception of Fox News, no one else, least of all CNN, even attempts to pretend they are fair and balanced in their reporting. In fact, they most blatantly are not fair and balanced and lean decidedly left.
The Presidential hopefuls (Democratic ones anyway) shake in their tiny shoes at the mere thought of appearing on FOX News and, while stamping their little feet, state they won't appear on FOX. Because they're afraid. Back in June, FOX News boss Roger Ailes was quoted as saying,
"The candidates that can't face Fox, can't face al-Qaeda. And that's what's coming,"
This was in direct response to the Dems fear of facing viewers in a debate on FOX News Network
Now, why would the Dems be afraid to face FOX? After all, don't they all tout how tough they are and how they'd be so "tough" on terror? So why afraid of FOX?
They are also paranoid.
While the Dems won't appear on FOX out of fear, the Republicans will appear when and where asked. They may not all be the greatest of candidates (there are several I don't agree with in many areas) but they certainly aren't afraid to face a network.
The CNN YouTube debates scheduled for November 28, 2007, were scheduled for Republicans. We are not yet in the general election. Each party has their own debates so constituents can get a "feel" for the candidates and the stand each candidate is taking on issues important to constituents.
It has come out in recent weeks, however, that most of the Dem candidates can't handle unscripted questions, Hillary Clinton being chief among them. So there have been scandals regarding "plants" at the Dems debates to ask typically "softball" questions of the candidates so they don't have to struggle so hard to find a believable answer.
They went a step further for the Republican YouTube debates and actually planted several "questioners", presumably hoping to trip up the candidates with unscripted, potentially embarrassing questions.
The most prominent of these plants was an employee on Hillary's GLBT council, Ret. Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr, a gays in the military lobbyist. What was rather funny, though, was the question regarding don't ask, don't tell. A policy implemented by Bubba himself.
Among other "plants" in the CNN garden? "Journey" aka "Paperserenade"--John Edwards supporter (also in love with Anderson Cooper); David Cercone--Barack Obama supporter; LeeAnn Anderson--John Edwards supporter and Pittsburgh Union Activist; Yasmin--former CAIR intern (all of the above courtesy of Michelle Malkin here and here); Adam Florzak--Dick Durbin supporter (courtesy of Power Line.com here); Ted Faturos--former Jane Harman intern; David McMillan--John Edwards supporter (both of the above exposed at Jason Coleman.com here and here). More are coming in periodically.
Oh yes, my sources are blogs. I have found blogs generally have the scoop before the newspapers.
Now, why is this such a big deal?
Several reasons. One, this was a Republican debate. It was not a general election debate. You don't see the Republicans invading dem debates. So, props for general rudeness to the dems.
Two, the whole idea was an attempt to embarrass the Republicans. Well, it was shown no matter how ridiculous the question, the Republicans at least make an effort to think on their feet. They don't have to be in total control with each individual question. It also shows the Republicans aren't afraid to go onto any particular network based on a paranoid delusion of perceived bias.
Three, the dishonesty of it. It actually would have been okay if the questioners had said something along the lines of, "I'm so and so, I'm a democrat and I'm leaning towards this democratic candidate. How would you win my vote or persuade me to vote for you based upon this question".
That, at least, would have been honest on the questioner's part.
But there was no honesty on these questioners' parts. It was a complete attempt to deceive. And CNN was complicit in this deception. That much was obvious from Cooper's lack of surprise when Kerr's actual status was pointed out to him by Bill Bennett.
Nor would CNN be attempting to justify this deception as they are now trying to do with so called "damage control"--with quite so much defensiveness (here in Politico's "CNN Defends Vetting of Debate Questioners).
Dishonesty and paranoia--thy name is 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate.
I personally cannot stand CNN. I honestly do not know how it became so popular in America. But to be fair, I don't think much of Fox News either.
Over the last 10 years, I am amazed at the incredible polarization of politics and media in the U.S. Everything is about the left vs. the right and somehow that swallowed media and journalism along the way.
When I compare Canada to the U.S., it's amazing the difference in media coverage. Sure, Canada has networks that are regarded as being Liberal or Conservative, but for the most part they are not extreme either way.
When a non-American looks at the way politics gets reported through the media in the U.S. it's truly staggering.
To me, politics has really meddled with journalism too much in the U.S.
While there are still many establishments that have not dropped objectivity into the ballot box, there are also some networks out there where the content can only loosely be referred to as "news."
@Chris Hogg
I personally cannot stand CNN. I honestly do not know how it became so popular in America. But to be fair, I don't think much of Fox News either.
Over the last 10 years, I am amazed at the incredible polarization of politics and media in the U.S. Everything is about the left vs. the right and somehow that swallowed media and journalism along the way.
When I compare Canada to the U.S., it's amazing the difference in media coverage. Sure, Canada has networks that are regarded as being Liberal or Conservative, but for the most part they are not extreme either way.
When a non-American looks at the way politics gets reported through the media in the U.S. it's truly staggering.
To me, politics has really meddled with journalism too much in the U.S.
While there are still many establishments that have not dropped objectivity into the ballot box, there are also some networks out there where the content can only loosely be referred to as "news."
Great post Chris.
I also agree with Miss Beth that CNN blew it. However, Fox is anything but "fair and balanced" IMO.
I also agree with Miss Beth that CNN blew it. However, Fox is anything but "fair and balanced" IMO.
What network/news program do you believe to be fair and balanced?
This is a perfect example of what I was talking about because no matter who you say, there will be someone who says your choice is incorrect, being either too liberal or too conservative.
@Chris Hogg
What network/news program do you believe to be fair and balanced?
This is a perfect example of what I was talking about because no matter who you say, there will be someone who says your choice is incorrect, being either too liberal or too conservative.
I don't think any of them are truly fair and balanced. They all have their biases, IMO. It's to be expected to some degree since journalists are human... However, some don't even seem to try to be impartial any more.
Personally, I like to compare several sources. By gathering facts this way, I can learn what one outlet reported that another didn't. I can combine the facts I find and then form an opinion.
I also like foreign sources sometimes, to see what people outside looking in think...
@S.H. Mills
I don't think any of them are truly fair and balanced. They all have their biases, IMO. It's to be expected to some degree since journalists are human... However, some don't even seem to try to be impartial any more.
Personally, I like to compare several sources. By gathering facts this way, I can learn what one outlet reported that another didn't. I can combine the facts I find and then form an opinion.
I also like foreign sources sometimes, to see what people outside looking in think...
Is there a source that you favor?
I have the same habits and I enjoy reading multiple perspectives on certain issues.
However, I admit that if the news is Canadian, I trust one source -- for the most part. That is the big difference, I guess because I find most networks to be quite objective.
I actually enjoy reading about U.S. politics from the American perspective and then the exact same through a Canadian prism. The difference can sometimes be substantial.
This Op-Ed from Fox News is a perfect example, IMO, of twisting facts:
--------------
FOXNews.com's Roger Friedman reported that Rosie O'Donnell was hosting a big charity dinner the other night and suddenly blurted out the following words:
"George Bush is a war criminal," she said.
That was it. She stopped there. But after that what is left to say, except maybe, just maybe, a reason?
Frankly, I can't wait for the next Democratic debate, which are usually George Bush bash-athons.
Bush is a war criminal because he ordered an illegal invasion and brought chaos upon the world. OK, so how come The New York Times is the latest of the mainstream media to finally admit — today — that the surge is working and life shows some signs of normality in Iraq?
Now that ABC, NBC, CBS and Newsweek have made the same admission, is the disastrous war still a talking point for the Dems? Just asking.
-----------
This writer attempts to tie NYT's admission that the surge is working and life shows signs of normality in Iraq, as reason why George Bush is not a war criminal. This is apples and oranges, because Rosie's claim was that Bush is a war criminal (I assume) because he started war in Iraq.
Just because the NYT says things are getting better now (which, BTW, Fox News does not link to in its article so how do I know the NYT said that?), it has nothing to do with Bush being a war criminal. They are two different issues. If the NYT did report this, I think that is irresponsible because there are a lot of conflicting reports on this issue and Canadian coverage of Iraq paints a much darker picture of the current situation.
Also, Fox says the mainstream news has finally admitted that the war in Iraq is doing well and things are calming down. If that isn't spin I don't know what is. Fox reports things are normalizing at the same time the LA Times reports numbers could be totally unreliable, saying "Iraqi officials have been reporting far higher civilian death totals than those reported by U.S. forces, and aides to American commanders now acknowledge that the U.S. military probably had been undercounting such casualties."
And it continues with this:
Even with about 160,000 troops still in Iraq, the United States' own record-keeping has been controversial, with Iraqi sources and international observers often reporting much higher levels of civilian casualties.
This type of reporting by the LA Times seems to be far more balanced. I know there will be people who say it's not.
IMO, Fox is one reason why I think some American media outlets are dangerous and some poison public minds with complete nonsense.
Yes, it's an Op-Ed on Fox's site but the issues are tied together by the Fox writer which, IMO, is irresponsible journalism. Fox News seems to increasingly rely on these types of reports and they put a lot of Op-Ed content on TV and online which is blurring the lines between Op-Eds and real news. Fox is not the only network guilty of this.
So as a citizen in America, I would have a serious problem with mainstream media's twisting of facts to support an argument. What happened to the days of reporting the facts and letting society decide?
Of all the networks, Fox has been the only one making any attempt at presenting both sides. They may be more right leaning over all, but the alphabet networks have no attempt at presenting both sides.
Only here lately have they reluctantly offered any good news coming out of Iraq.
During the Clinton years, had they engaged in the same level of "investigative journalism" that they did during the Nixon years, who knows what they might have uncovered?
@Chris Hogg
Yes, it's an Op-Ed on Fox's site but the issues are tied together by the Fox writer which, IMO, is irresponsible journalism.
It is. And, I believe Fox has gone too far in blurring the lines between actual news and commentary/opinion. "Infotainment" is not journalism. It's fine to offer it, but distinguish between the two.
So as a citizen in America, I would have a serious problem with mainstream media's twisting of facts to support an argument.
Indeed. Some are not as obvious about it but they manage to slant stories, even if by omission.
What happened to the days of reporting the facts and letting society decide?
I don't mean to pick on Fox either, because they are not the only ones, but that is another one of their slogans... one I would like to see put into practice (by all): "We report, you decide."
Um, why are we talking about FOX? The topic of the article was CNN's screw up in not vetting it's questioner's and the inherent dishonesty both in CNN's procedures and in the dishonesty of the questioner's themselves by not revealing they were democrats asking questions at a republican debate. Something that might not have been so ill-thought of had they simply qualified who and what they were before asking the question.
@LewWaters
Of all the networks, Fox has been the only one making any attempt at presenting both sides. They may be more right leaning over all, but the alphabet networks have no attempt at presenting both sides.
Only here lately have they reluctantly offered any good news coming out of Iraq.
During the Clinton years, had they engaged in the same level of "investigative journalism" that they did during the Nixon years, who knows what they might have uncovered?
Of all the networks Fox is a joke. Everyone knows that Roger Ailes, their boss, is a long time hit man for the far Right and that Fox is simply the propaganda wing of the Republican party. They only make the very poorest of attempts to give themselves the patina of "objectivity" by bringing on only the most "tame" and weak "Liberals" they can find--people of in the mold of Allan Colmes.
Even most conservatives I know are ashamed to cite it as a source.
@MissBeth
Um, why are we talking about FOX? The topic of the article was CNN's screw up in not vetting it's questioner's and the inherent dishonesty both in CNN's procedures and in the dishonesty of the questioner's themselves by not revealing they were democrats asking questions at a republican debate. Something that might not have been so ill-thought of had they simply qualified who and what they were before asking the question.
"Vetting" their questioner's? Are you joking? What do you think was going on--a pep rally for the Right?
Frankly ALL the questioners should have been Liberals. If the Republicans are so lame that they can't field any but soft ball questions from their fellow Conservative then how are the Republican candidates fit to stand up to world leaders who do not share their ideology?
You seem to forget that if, God forbid, one of these bozo's were to be elected President, that they would have to try to govern a country in which there are a large number of people who do not agree with them. If they want the job they had better figure out how to talk to them.
And you seem to forget at least the Republicans made the effort to answer--the dems didn't even have the courage to show up at FOX (since you all want to spin FOX).
Nor did you address that it really wouldn't have mattered had the questioners properly identified themselves prior to asking their question--which they deliberately didn't do.
@MissBeth
And you seem to forget at least the Republicans made the effort to answer--the dems didn't even have the courage to show up at FOX (since you all want to spin FOX)....
Phree and Lensman: I think MissBeth has a point here. If the Dems are too afraid to go on Fox it does say a lot about them.
Politicians seeking to be president should not be afraid to face the public, and that means ALL the public through every venue. Choosing where you appear seems pretty bad to me.
Good point, and point well taken MissBeth. I agree with you.
@Chris Hogg
Phree and Lensman: I think MissBeth has a point here. If the Dems are too afraid to go on Fox it does say a lot about them.
Politicians seeking to be president should not be afraid to face the public, and that means ALL the public through every venue. Choosing where you appear seems pretty bad to me.
Good point, and point well taken MissBeth. I agree with you.
Sure, they should go on.
Unlike the Professor, I do not focus on the "party", I focus on the indivduals own policy. I say there ALL WIMPS, on both sides...except for Kucinich (D) and Paul (R), the rest are actually one group of rich friends who all have the same agenda, IMO.
There are only two candidates that would end the Iraq war immediately.
@MissBeth
And you seem to forget at least the Republicans made the effort to answer--the dems didn't even have the courage to show up at FOX (since you all want to spin FOX).
Nor did you address that it really wouldn't have mattered had the questioners properly identified themselves prior to asking their question--which they deliberately didn't do.
They chose not to go on Fox because their presence would lend a sheen of respectability to what is essentially a propaganda effort. If they were to go onto Fox it would be an endorsement of that network's claim to respectability, a claim that they cannot corroborate any other way.
@Chris Hogg
Phree let's debate this issue of why the Dems don't go on Fox. What are your thoughts?
Do you support any politician who is too afraid to face the public through a certain venue?
Don't you think that if they had gone on Fox it would have give that tawdry network an air of respectability that they have not earned? People looking at that would think "Fox must be a real news network, they hosted a real debate."
Has Bush granted an interview with a propaganda outlet for Al-Qaeda?
So, should those questioners have identified themselves as Dems (at a Republican debate) prior to asking their questions--somewhat in a manner I suggested in my article, which most feel would have been fine? Or was it okay to not reveal their own agenda, thereby lending an air of even more deception to the debacle?
To refresh, I suggested they simply should have said something along the lines of: "I'm so and so, I'm a Democrat and leaning towards this candidate. How would you try to persuade me to change my leaning based on this issue" type thing.
I personally would have been fine with something like that, had the questioners been honest enough to identify themselves as such; it also would have taken any suspicion from the Dems planting questioners and put the sole responsibility square on CNN's shoulders for not doing their research. As it was, it seemed to paint the entire debate as a complete and total farce.
@lensman67
They chose not to go on Fox because their presence would lend a sheen of respectability to what is essentially a propaganda effort. If they were to go onto Fox it would be an endorsement of that network's claim to respectability, a claim that they cannot corroborate any other way.
That is a fair opinion, but it's still the potential president. Regardless of spin, what does it say about the leader of the world's only superpower that he/she is too afraid to address all their people? The right wing is made up of people too, and they deserve to hear the other side of the coin.
Also, it's the Dems' responsibility to defend their actions and platform the same way the Republicans have to. You might not like it as a viewer, you might hate the party, but they need to be asked tough questions from people who do not agree with their stance.
IMO, this hurts the Dems and is one of the reasons Fox slants so far right. Without the presence of Dems, what is there left to report? If they won't come on to debate or talk, it's left up to the commentators which is dangerous.
I cannot imagine a democracy where the right-wing only appears on right-slanted shows, and the left-wing only appears on left-slanted shows.
That is not journalism, that is not objective and that makes for a very uninformed public.
Fact remains, lensman, they didn't go on FOX, they stated what their "fears" were, and they're not going to have the luxury to pick and choose who they speak to if they're leaders of the free world. Plain and simple. They refused a venue out of fear, by their own admission.
Not a good example if they want to lead an entire country instead of just half of it.
@Chris Hogg
That is a fair opinion, but it's still the potential president. Regardless of spin, what does it say about the leader of the world's only superpower that he/she is too afraid to address all their people? The right wing is made up of people too, and they deserve to hear the other side of the coin.
Also, it's the Dems' responsibility to defend their actions and platform the same way the Republicans have to. You might not like it as a viewer, you might hate the party, but they need to be asked tough questions from people who do not agree with their stance.
IMO, this hurts the Dems and is one of the reasons Fox slants so far right. Without the presence of Dems, what is there left to report? If they won't come on to debate or talk, it's left up to the commentators which is dangerous.
I cannot imagine a democracy where the right-wing only appears on right-slanted shows, and the left-wing only appears on left-slanted shows.
That is not journalism, that is not objective and that makes for a very uninformed public.
I don't think I made the point clearly enough. The Democrats did not say that they were afraid to address all the people, simply that they were not prepared to do so in a bordello. They did not want to lend their good names to help bolster Fox's creditability. Right Wingers were free to ask questions at the real debates so no one got suppressed.
Fox would slant far Right whether the Democrats were there or not. Roger Ailes was a propagandist not a journalist and he is looking for ways to make his propaganda operation seem as though it was an actual news network. It is not the Democrat's job to help him.
Real news networks ask tough questions from both perspectives so we are in no danger of having Democrats only go on left leaning shows.
@MissBeth
Fact remains, lensman, they didn't go on FOX, they stated what their "fears" were, and they're not going to have the luxury to pick and choose who they speak to if they're leaders of the free world. Plain and simple. They refused a venue out of fear, by their own admission.
Not a good example if they want to lead an entire country instead of just half of it.
As usual your statement is "truth lite." The Democratic candidates were quite articular as to why they did not go on Fox--they did not want Fox to gain a fake respectability from their good names!
Regardless of your personal feelings about FOX and Ailes, the fact remains the Dems didn't show, they were quoted (and no, I can't find the quote at the moment, I'm working on a motion) as stating they were afraid it would be too biased against them...
Fear...and they didn't show. They refused to address half the nation from fear.
Why are they afraid? And why would they only be willing to address half the nation?
And, once again, why no answer to my question regarding the questioners at the CNN debate, which was the topic of this article?
@Chris Hogg
I respectfully disagree. They are not endorsing the network in any way. They are doing their job by addressing the public through journalists.
Fox was free to send "reporters" to the other debates and there were questions from right wing voters at the real debates so Republican hatchet man Roger Ailes is just going to have to find some other way to dress up his propaganda outlet to resemble a real news network.
@MissBeth
Regardless of your personal feelings about FOX and Ailes, the fact remains the Dems didn't show, they were quoted (and no, I can't find the quote at the moment, I'm working on a motion) as stating they were afraid it would be too biased against them...
Fear...and they didn't show. They refused to address half the nation from fear.
Why are they afraid? And why would they only be willing to address half the nation?
And, once again, why no answer to my question regarding the questioners at the CNN debate, which was the topic of this article?
You apparently can not understand English. They were not "afraid," they simply did not wish to give Fox the air of respectability that their presence would have conferred. Just for the record candidates of both parties are not giving interviews to the supermarket tabloids either--and for exactly the same reason!
@MissBeth
And the answer to my question regarding the questioners in the CNN debate--as asked above, per the article written on--regarding their credibility?
CNN is a world respected news outlet--Fox is not. They meet standards of journalistic integrity that Fox has not even heard of and they have the respect of other news organizations world wide.
In terms of cumulative (Cume) Nielsen ratings or "unique viewers", CNN rates as America's number one cable news source.
CNN has more outlets world wide, and is trusted in more countries and by the leaders of more countries than any cable news network there is.
You may not like that fact but it is simply one you are going to have to live with.
lensman, your argument is so stupid it is beyond belief. Fox is a "real news network" because it both reports news (whether it be slanted to the right or not) and it is a network. I think we all know by now how you feel about them. Just because they slant their news to the right does not mean they are a joke or a propaganda wing of the Republican party. That is just your opinion.
As to the topic at hand, I total agree that if this person (the retired army person) was there due to his participation in the Clinton campaign, he should have identified himself as MissB points out and then I don't think that anyone would have had a problem with it. But then again, when has Hillary ever been fully above aboard about anything?
@lensman67
CNN has more outlets world wide, and is trusted in more countries and by the leaders of more countries than any cable news network there is.
You may not like that fact but it is simply one you are going to have to live with.
Never trust the guy who has to keep reminding you to trust him!
CNN--"The Most trusted name in news". Now theres some propaganda!
Still waiting for your answer lensman--I asked something very simple--should the questioners have identified themselves and lent more credibility to themselves or not?
I do understand English quite well--you interpret the Dems refusal to go on FOX one way, I another. I am entitled to that as are you--that doesn't mean I don't understand English, it means I have a different take.
@Carolyn E. Price (gohomelaker)
lensman, your argument is so stupid it is beyond belief. Fox is a "real news network" because it both reports news (whether it be slanted to the right or not) and it is a network. I think we all know by now how you feel about them. Just because they slant their news to the right does not mean they are a joke or a propaganda wing of the Republican party. That is just your opinion.
As to the topic at hand, I total agree that if this person (the retired army person) was there due to his participation in the Clinton campaign, he should have identified himself as MissB points out and then I don't think that anyone would have had a problem with it. But then again, when has Hillary ever been fully above aboard about anything?
Damn. I hate having to help lems, but he is absolutely right about FOX. Well sort of...they are a real network, but there are a propaganda network, plain and simple. Sorry GHL.
And then theres the movie "Outfoxed" which explains the system inside News Corp. How every journalist working for FOX receives daily memos, on what report on and how to report it.
phree, honest to god who gives a sh*t about who owns the network, what their end game is or whatever. I simply said that Fox is a "real news network", period. Everyone who owns any company has an end game even you.
* An act of two or more parties working together to combine in such a way as to achieve a particular result often one of harm or inconvenience to a third party. Secrecy is not necessary for there to be a conspiracy. However, some 'unknown' may be involved.[1]
* A group of people who make an agreement to form a partnership in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member and engage in planning or agreeing to commit some act.[2]
* An act of working in secret to obtain some goal, usually understood with negative connotations.
A conspiracy theory usually attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, pop cultural or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret, and often deceptive plot by a covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories imply that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.
@MissBeth
Still waiting for your answer lensman--I asked something very simple--should the questioners have identified themselves and lent more credibility to themselves or not?
I do understand English quite well--you interpret the Dems refusal to go on FOX one way, I another. I am entitled to that as are you--that doesn't mean I don't understand English, it means I have a different take.
I hazarded the guess that English may have been your second language since I had fully answered your question on a previous post and you had simply ignored it. I was afraid you may have been struggling with the unfamiliar words.
I see no reason why anyone needed to "identify" themselves simply to ask a question. What's the matter, are you afraid that a question from a Democrat might be too hard for them to handle?
It was the question not the affiliation of the questioner, that was important, thereby making your entire article seem rather whiny. If the Republicans can't handle questions from Democrats then how are they going to handle the stuff foreign leaders are going to throw at them?
Our politicians, I cannot speak for any other nations' politicians with any accuracy (maybe), are a national laughing stock. So are our alleged journalists.
There is a code of conduct in journalism that "they" have "forgotten".
Compare that to the current crop of journalists anywhere in the world.
What the Dementedrats did the other night on CNN was, is and always will be unethical. Then again, having witnessed our politicians blather about for the last 50+ years, the worst of them have amassed in the Democratic Party which isn't democratic one bit...it is the Party of Intolerance of others.
The GOP Debate was for the GOP Primaries. It was NOT a GOP Debate for the DNC primaries, plain and simple.
It shows their great fear of election cycle '08. Period. So far, there have been 8 "plants", one of which was a question in regards to gays in the military which was critical of Bill Clinton's enacted policy.
@Carolyn E. Price (gohomelaker)
phree, honest to god who gives a sh*t about who owns the network, what their end game is or whatever. I simply said that Fox is a "real news network", period. Everyone who owns any company has an end game even you.
Are you okay?
I care about who owns the network when that very man (who is a douchebag) admits that HE CONTROLS THE NEWS! ( News Corp is not just FOX BTW)
@MissBeth
So, should those questioners have identified themselves as Dems (at a Republican debate) prior to asking their questions--somewhat in a manner I suggested in my article, which most feel would have been fine? Or was it okay to not reveal their own agenda, thereby lending an air of even more deception to the debacle?
To refresh, I suggested they simply should have said something along the lines of: "I'm so and so, I'm a Democrat and leaning towards this candidate. How would you try to persuade me to change my leaning based on this issue" type thing.
I personally would have been fine with something like that, had the questioners been honest enough to identify themselves as such; it also would have taken any suspicion from the Dems planting questioners and put the sole responsibility square on CNN's shoulders for not doing their research. As it was, it seemed to paint the entire debate as a complete and total farce.
Yes, transparency would increase their credibility.
@Carolyn E. Price (gohomelaker)
lensman, your argument is so stupid it is beyond belief. Fox is a "real news network" because it both reports news (whether it be slanted to the right or not) and it is a network. I think we all know by now how you feel about them. Just because they slant their news to the right does not mean they are a joke or a propaganda wing of the Republican party. That is just your opinion.
As to the topic at hand, I total agree that if this person (the retired army person) was there due to his participation in the Clinton campaign, he should have identified himself as MissB points out and then I don't think that anyone would have had a problem with it. But then again, when has Hillary ever been fully above aboard about anything?
Calling an argument "stupid" does not lend creditability to either the question or to you. If you choose to believe that Fox is a real news outlet then you are probably also convinced that the old Pravda under the Soviet Union should have been accorded the same status as well as the National Enquirer and the rest of the supermarket tabloids.
Fox's head is a well known Right Wing operative and if you are not able to detect the bias simply dripping off their "news" then I have doubts as to your judgment.
The General has, by his decades of service to this country, earned the right to be heard that most of the Chicken Hawks on the Right could never even hope to match. If they could not handle his questions then they are not fit to be president.
Since I am not a Hillary supporter I do not feel it necessary to attempt to speak for her.
I hazarded the guess that English may have been your second language since I had fully answered your question on a previous post and you had simply ignored it.
I didn't see the answer so please re-post it.
So, it's okay, in your opinion, to be deceptive when asking questions--no one said republicans shouldn't answer questions.
You're arguing in circles--all I wanted an answer to: was the deception appropriate in not properly identifying themselves. Your argument also goes back to the fact the republicans did their best to answer the questions while the dems refused to show themselves on an entire venue.
So what I'm picking up from your circular arguments is it's okay for the dems to bail on fully half the nation and it's okay to deceive viewers by not properly identifying themselves before asking a question of a republican candidate at a republican debate--even though they're democrats and this is not yet the general election debates.
@Ed Boston
And that says all that we need to know about you!
Well we all know all we need to know about you by the fact that you run from a theological debate when you realize that you are matched against someone who has actually read, and more importantly, understood the Bible.
@MissBeth
I didn't see the answer so please re-post it.
So, it's okay, in your opinion, to be deceptive when asking questions--no one said republicans shouldn't answer questions.
You're arguing in circles--all I wanted an answer to: was the deception appropriate in not properly identifying themselves. Your argument also goes back to the fact the republicans did their best to answer the questions while the dems refused to show themselves on an entire venue.
So what I'm picking up from your circular arguments is it's okay for the dems to bail on fully half the nation and it's okay to deceive viewers by not properly identifying themselves before asking a question of a republican candidate at a republican debate--even though they're democrats and this is not yet the general election debates.
That about sum it up?
I am afraid you are the one chasing their tail. The Democrats do not have to lend their good names to help bolster Fox's sagging creditability.
I don't remember there being an ideological litmus test for the Right to ask questions nor do I recall any of the Right Wingers being forced to state their political affiliations before being allowed to ask questions. Despite what you want to believe, there was no deception in simply asking questions.
If the Republican candidates feel that they should only have to answer questions from Right Wing sycophants then they are admitting defeat.
@phree
Perhaps you would research the North American Union...
You mean, like the fact that Duncan Hunter sponsored legislation against it?
As a result of these concerns, Rep. Hunter is a cosponsor of H.Con.Res. 40, introduced by Virgil Goode of Virginia. This resolution expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should not enter in the North American Union or engage in the construction of a super highway system (a.k.a. NAFTA Super highway) with Mexico and Canada.
I've been pretty much out of the loop for 2 days, but the irony and transparancy is so obvious. I watched a small portion of the debate and I said to my wife "they went and got Moonbats to ask these questions". I just didn't know who those Moonbats were, but they were totally obvious! Great article Miss Beth, and keep up the great work!
@Ed Boston
I've been pretty much out of the loop for 2 days, but the irony and transparancy is so obvious. I watched a small portion of the debate and I said to my wife "they went and got Moonbats to ask these questions". I just didn't know who those Moonbats were, but they were totally obvious! Great article Miss Beth, and keep up the great work!
So the General was, in your book, a "moonbat" simply because he violates your prejudices?
@lensman67
Well we all know all we need to know about you by the fact that you run from a theological debate when you realize that you are matched against someone who has actually read, and more importantly, understood the Bible.
Pastor indeed!
I was waiting for that remark, and let me say 2 things!
1) That has nothing to do with the this thread or this topic!
2) If you would take the time to read, I've been busy with other things, and I haven't been on my computer hardly at all in the last two days, thus defending myself against the likes of you was nowhere in my list of things to do!
@Ed Boston
I was waiting for that remark, and let me say 2 things!
1) That has nothing to do with the this thread or this topic!
2) If you would take the time to read, I've been busy with other things, and I haven't been on my computer hardly at all in the last two days, thus defending myself against the likes of you was nowhere in my list of things to do!
@lensman67
They chose not to go on Fox because their presence would lend a sheen of respectability to what is essentially a propaganda effort. If they were to go onto Fox it would be an endorsement of that network's claim to respectability, a claim that they cannot corroborate any other way.
Edwards, at least, cited what many Democrats had long said privately but had been unwilling to say aloud, given Fox's large megaphone: that the network is neither fair nor balanced, but tilts right. Neither Obama nor Clinton chose to characterize Fox in withdrawing.
This quote was taken from an article located here.
We just called the CBC to let them know that we're looking forward to their debate with CNN but we're not going to participate in the proposed debate with Fox. There's just no reason for Democrats t
Email
Print
Share
Op-Ed: CNN, How Does Your Garden Grow?
Chris Hogg
S.H. Mills
