CNN defends vetting of debate questioners:
“It’s interesting to see our critics really focusing on the questioners, but not really focusing on the questions. You haven’t heard them say that these were not useful questions.â€Â
Stephen Green (VodkaPundit) at PJM:
Mostly what I noticed wasn’t the bulge of their holsters, but the obviousness of CNN’s agenda.
Other questions were just plain silly.
“Richelieu” at The Campaign Standard:
So, a good night for for the lowest denominator, a bad night for the GOP. America got to see a vaguely threatening parade of gun fetishists, flat worlders, Mars Explorers, Confederate flag lovers and zombie-eyed-Bible-wavers as well as various one issue activists hammering their pet causes.
Ramesh Ponnuru quoted that at The Corner.
The folks at Redstate, in calling for heads to roll at CNN, also suggested:
One or more of the Republican candidates should demand a do over wherein we can have a substantive debate about substantive issues that exclude CNN’s agenda, which is clearly out of touch with the Republican party, and the drivel we saw from YouTube.
I would suggest that “out of touch” and “drivel” might be interpreted as “not useful questions.”
Roger Simon at Politico:
In fact, much of the questioning was more like baiting than real inquiry.
There were two questions about guns, a question about whether every word of the Bible is true, and whether the Confederate battle flag “represents the symbol of racism, a symbol of political ideology, a symbol of Southern heritage  or is it something completely different?â€Â
Gosh, I am glad that we are getting to the really important stuff, what with the primaries starting so soon and all.
The serious issues directly affecting the daily lives of ordinary citizens were barely touched upon at all.
Then there is round-up at the Caucus blog at the New York Times:
And some Republican activists and bloggers list broader complaints about the CNN/YouTube debate, denouncing the video topics chosen from the 5,000 or so submissions. Some bloggers slammed CNN for seeming to reduce Republicans to guns, gays, the Bible, and oh yeah, the Confederate flag.
(We actually questioned the latter one last night  what was that about?) And just to note, some members of this site’s Open Caucus, a roundtable of voters from across the country, expressed their disappointment, too, that such hot-button incendiary questions were posed while major issues like health care, education, energy and Iran, etc., were not asked of the candidates.
(Jacques Steinberg reports on CNN’s response to its critics in Friday’s Times.)
From Robert Bluey this morning:
At a time when CNN had an opportunity to shine as host of last night’s Republican presidential debate, the network faltered. Today conservatives are left with yet another example of bias at the highest level of the media establishment. It’s another sad example of how liberals deliberately portray conservatives as gun-toting, Bible-thumping and gay-bashing bigots.
I had high hopes for CNN in its role of selecting questions for last night’s debate. The network had nearly 5,000 to choose from  plenty to get a good representation of a variety of issues. Instead, we heard three questions about guns, a topic of significance to the GOP, but was it really that important to ask three different questions? There was also a question attacking trade, another about the North American Union, a silly question about The Holy Bible and two each on abortion (here and here) and homosexuality (here and here). By the time Anderson Cooper got around to introducing a question about the Confederate flag, I was flabbergasted.
Mr. Bluey’s upset was shared by several others, including Patrick Ruffini, David All, NewsBusters.org.
It seems that CNN spent about as much time researching the criticism of its televised trainwreck as it put into vetting the people they put at the controls of the train. It also appears that the network’s spokespeople have no idea that the content of the selected questions says every bit as much about their biases as the questioners they promoted — though CNN could have discovered it by canvassing the blogs discussing the “debate.”
Then again, it does appear that CNN does not have what the YouTube generation would call “mad Intartubes skillz.”
Update: It appears that Rush Limbaugh also thought a debate amongst Republican candidates leading up to Republican caucuses and primaries should feature questions about the issues which most concern Republicans, rather than reflecting CNN’s stereotype of the GOP. So add the radio to the list of technologies CNN has yet to master.
Who knew that expressing interest in the exploration of Mars was “vaguely threatening”? Huh.
I was traveling and I caught the last part of a movie on HBO (too cheap to have HBO at my house).
It was Luke Wilson and Maya Rudolph and it was about a future where everyone in America was fat and really stupid. They had killed all the crops by watering them with Brawndo – their version of Gatorade. CNN would be the perfect network for that fictional world. Does anyone know the name of that movie?
” It also appears that the network’s spokespeople have no idea that the content of the selected questions says every bit as much about their biases as the questioners they promoted â€ ”
Fish don’t know that water is wet.
#2
Idiocracy
We all must remember that CNN is the station that did a one hour interview with Paris Hilton. Yes all those important questions.
“Fish don’t know that water is wet.”
Gee, thanks. Now I’m gonna spend all day wondering what I don’t know about air.
For both CNN and those few who are trying to downplay this:
I was one of those people who laughed about the planted questioners at Hillary’s events. While it was inevitable that the outrage merchants would make hay and the campaign would bob and weave, the incidents only briefly lighted an all too common practice. After all, these are partisan events and everybody is attempting to make it as positive to the particular candidate as possible. If you are outraged about this practice you’re swimming naked and futiley against the established riptide.
What is becoming clear about CNN’s conduct with regards to this debate is a whole other kettle of fish. If CNN had sole editorial control over the questions asked, then they are responsible for the content and tone of the questions. One should have an overwhelming expectation of journalistic evenhandedness (I know, rapidly becoming an oxymoron) in the framing of questions that will educate voters as to the positions of the candidates on topics of importance. Instead CNN delibrately (IMHO) elected to slant the the questions and misrepresent the questioners as “undecided voters.”
This was truly a shameful exercise by a news network that just can’t understand why they trail Fox News by so many viewers.
This whole event is amusing when looked at through the prism of this:
I’m sure this event will do nothing to sway the views of the true believers.
Good post Karl.
Carin – That really highlights the irony of the Dems being too scared to debate on Fox.
If you were a Democrat campaign strategist, and you wanted to fish for some sound bites to use against your future Republican opponents, what kind of questions would you try to sneak into their primary debate?
Anybody want to bet that none of this reappears in the general campaign?
Deceitful little SOB’s, they are.
#6: Why is there air? It’s for blowing up basketballs and volleyballs! (/Cosby)
“Hi, welcome to Costco, I love you.”
Mike Judge movie. Some pretty funny stuff in there.
“If you were a Democrat campaign strategist, and you wanted to fish for some sound bites to use against your future Republican opponents, what kind of questions would you try to sneak into their primary debate?”
My thoughts exactly. CNN participated in several set-ups for General Election campaign advertizements. And . . . they knew it.
Fish don’t know that water is wet.
(eyes Brain suspiciously)
And you’d know this how, exactly? Fish don’t “know” much of anything. They work off instinct mostly, which doesn’t require thought. I never saw anybody teach a fish any tricks, for example. Roll over, fetch, jump on command, that kinda shit. Doesn’t work.
Believe me, I tried. Oh lord, how I tried…
And despite all of our outrage, there will be no consequences for this. None.
Seriously,
anyone who considers themselves a fan of CNN, claims there is an objective mainstream media in America, or actually thought this was not calculated by the Left, is blithely enjoying an intellectually dishonest election cycle. Again.
This kind of predictable, inane production, creates a fundamental perception that the YouTube user base is incapable of handling an open discourse, rather than CNN TYPICAL, closed, limiting questions to Republicans.
I’d wager my lot that they’d throw the Dems a night softballs.
Why should the GOP ever have anything to do with CNN in the future?
rather than reflecting CNN’s stereotype of the GOP
That’s it for me. I don’t think they actually were trying to be deceitful, I think this is how they see Republican voters and issues. I believe this is them trying to be fair, and that’s really horrifying.
As for the Gen, his question, and their flying him in– that was obviously an editorial point they were wanting to make. Why it had to be made in the debate, I’m unsure. Anderson Cooper did a similar thing during the Democratic You-Tube debate with the black minister and his support of gay marriage.
Everybody knows the rumors surrounding Cooper, and I’m certain these are issues he finds of great relevance. My question is– why can’t he come out and make the statements himself? Why bury his editorial in campaign questioners- he has a huge following and a platform to speak.
That is a good question. Why would any Republican even give them the time of day anymore. At the very least, there is an easily explained basis for not conducting business with someone that has shown their lack of good faith in conducting that business previously. All of the campaigns should just cutt off access to the CNN folks, not answer their question, and not appear on their shows.
May Bee – Did CNN really fly that minister and the Colonel into these debates. It seemed like quite a coincidence to me that on the questions about homosexuality, they just so happened to have the person in the audience that asked that question, and gave them more follow up time than the candidates were given to actually answer the question.
Precisely. In other words, CNN made, again, an ass of itself: The rabid Dems in attendance are chronically unrecoverable, the Republicans simply laughed, and nobody got a damn thing out of it. Unless I miss my guess, that’s typically not how a sophisticated, unbiased, nuanced organ of the Press should want to conduct itself on the national stage.
You know, journalism in the spirit of Edward R. Murrow or some such shit.
Good stuff, Karl. Best guest commentary here, as always.
Laura Ingraham had on one of the CNN folks this morning, and he said that there was no agenda apart from trying to choose those questions that would be most important to Republican voters, and that he had NO IDEA what the fuss was about.
Allow me to offer an analogy.
An old white lady decides to invite the new black couple across the street to dinner. She decides to prepare a meal that black people would enjoy. When her guests arrive, they see the spread, ask “what the hell is this?” and turn and leave, obviously insulted. The old white lady is stunned. Why would they be insulted? After all, she prepared food that she knew black people love: fried chicken and watermelon.
JD- I don’t know who paid, the rumor is that CNN did.
Yeah, it is really a huge coincidence, isn’t it?
I find it revealing on so many levels.
After the last debate for the Dems run by CNN and the plants there, I came down to the basic choice about CNN: are they deceitful or incompetent.
Anderson Cooper removed all doubt with his answer: it is both.
Who said there weren’t any truthful journalists left?
Now this is funny:
John Edwards Mocks Republicans For Being Afraid To Take Questions From Democrats
Yes, that John Edwards.
Everybody knows the rumors surrounding Cooper, and I’m certain these are issues he finds of great relevance.
HA. My wife has forever said that she thought Anderson Cooper was gay. Some women have acute gaydars, she’s one of them.
The same John Edwards who sends his wife out to fight his battles for him, and whose party refuses to debate on Fox? That John Edwards? No. You must be joking me. They do not have that much audacity, do they?
They do not have that much audacity, do they?
Of course they do, and why shouldn’t they? They have organizations like CNN willing to cover for them.
On the plus side, I think there are very few people left who don’t understand what a sham our 4th estate has become.
According to Howard Kurtz: He said CNN never spoke to Kerr and had Google, which owns YouTube, bring the retired general and about a dozen other questioners to the debate because their videos were likely to be used, although no decision had been made.
So CNN had Google pay for both Kerr and the pro-gay marriage black minister (and others) to fly to the debates. They were both allowed extra follow-up time.
Wouldn’t Anderson Cooper do more to change public opinion (and therefore political action) about gay people if he just came out himself?
What stops him from doing so? At least then he wouldn’t have to hide his own agenda by making sure there are ringers in his debate audiences.
Everybody knows the rumors surrounding Cooper, and I’m certain these are issues he finds of great relevance.
And notice, the questions didn’t even come in the form of say the anti-gay marriage knuckle-dragging caricature CNN portrays conservatives. Both “gay” questions substance was from the Liberal gotcha model. That’s because CNN can’t fathom their are democrats against gay marriage or “open” gays in the military and many republicans for it, and so they set about picking questions that reflect CNN’s point of view. And so again, the substance of the questions collectively were out of touch and not even close to the kind of info one would use to select a president.
This from an instaLink
Did Kerr tell CNN he was a member of Log Cabin R’s? Or is this a mistake and they are mixing in the Obama supporter who insinuated he was a LCR?
If it’s not a mistake than it would be a lie on Kerr’s part and straight out of the “pretend to have once been a conservative” playbook.
No, he didn’t. He said “I want to know why you think American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.”
And according to the LA Times:
Again, no, he didn’t. He asked why the candidates think our troops are not sufficiently professional. The correct answer would have been that the premise of the question is ridiculous.
Pablo
Thanks for the link. I really got a kick out of the “longtime Republican” who is going to vote for Edwards and the idiots saluting him/her for crossing the party line to do what’s right for America.
What a circle jerk.
BTW, an important point in tsk9’s quote that shouldn’t be missed: Kerr is also a national co-chairman of the Clinton campaign’s Veterans and Military Retirees for Hillary Committee.
So it’s not just the LGBT steering committee that he claims to have merely lent his name to. It seems CNN is behind on reading Hillary’s press releases.
I don’t know Pablo, that list of generals looks like a bunch of “take no prisoners, kick ass and take names, shoot first ask questions later, kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out” type hellions. Except maybe Wes Clark. He’s a big pussy.
Is it just me but is that kist top heavy with what appears to be Pentagon Wonks and medical professionals?
I seem to remember many field heavy officers were less than enthusiatic about the Clinton’s support of and attitude towards the military.
But I could be allowing my “Thugishness” to get the better of me.
[…] noted in Part 2, all sorts of folks noted that CNN seemed fond of questions that reinforced CNN’s stereotype of […]
I realize the topic involves CNN but I can’t stop visualizing Benny Hill.
I heartily apologize to the ghost of Edward R. Murrow or some shit.
I said something about that to RTO and he told me about a national guard acquaintance of his that had said, “I’m leaning towards Thompson, but my other choice would be Richardson.” apparently he wasn’t that familiar with Richardson and changed his mind once RTO enlightened him. so it’s not outside the realm of possibility though, why you’d show up to a debate that ill informed i couldn’t guess at.
One name on that list really popped out at me:
Yeah, that Ron Dellums.
Note to Google: Are you the only ones bidding on this? ,
Pennsylvania State Medical Board. ,