CNN busted for representing as a regular, undecided “swing voter” a woman who served as the Arkansas Democrats’ director of political affairs.
This isn’t the only questioner whose background CNN chose to omit, either. I can give them a pass on another one Dan dug up just because you can’t expect them to know everything about a questioner’s history. But how about a questioner who’s appeared on their own network previously in his official role as leader of an interest group? Think that might be worth a mention? Eric Scheie is all over it. If Fox News tried passing off a local community leader who’d been on the network before in a quasi-expert capacity as some “random†Joe Citizen pitching special-interest softballs at a Republican debate, the nutroots supernova would be visible from the Andromeda galaxy. As it is, they’ll very feebly feign ignorance as to why we should care.
Here’s the video of Khalid Khan  and yes, it’s the same guy. According to the woman who got stuck with the dopey “diamonds or pearls†question, the question about Yucca Mountain that she wanted to ask “was APPROVED by CNN days in advance.†If CNN knew “days in advance†what the questions would be  and more importantly, who the questioners were  why didn’t they do a cursory background check to see whether, oh, let’s say, any of them had worked for the Democratic Party before or had appeared on their own network as a spokesman for an interest group?
I mention this only to distract attention from my own enormous scandal, of course.
Scandal? What scandal?
Sounds like that couple in Florida, who were Democrat operatives, who intercepted and publicized that embarrassing cellphone call a few elections back. MSM identified them merely as “concerned citizens”.
brings some clarity to this issue, at least if you’re Cap’n Ed. Otherwise, not so much.
That was weird…
should be…
Cap’n Ed brings some clarity to this issue, at least if you’re Cap’n Ed. Otherwise, not so much.
Update: And right on cue, the left wonders what the big deal is. Like I said in the earlier update, the big deal (and it’s not a “big†deal) is that people watching the debates assume the questioners have no agendas. If there’s some reason to think that they do, that fact should simply be disclosed and the problem is solved. I repeat, let Fox try something like this vis-a-vis Republicans and see what happens.
See, those lefties just get the yawnsies at the convenient moments, don’t they?
ABOUT ONE BILLION $$$ worth of Time-Warner, CNN’s parent, is owned by the Saudi Royal Family. Hillary would be a good choice for Islamists, because she can be ‘influenced’. She also seems to lack a clear understanding of right from wrong. Hamas has already endorsed her
Um, that’s like less than 2%, no?
Time Warner wouldn’t even do what AOL wanted when AOL actually owned them. They do what they do cause they want to, not cause someone tells them to. They’re very willful.
CNN, the most busted name in news. And they wonder why media credibility is in the toilet…..
Gee, I can’t imagine….
happyfeet – you did notice the part where CNN spent years licking Saddam’s boots and hiding his trash to maintain “access,” didn’t you?
They’re only willful when the “authority” is tolerant and won’t harm them. If the authority is a thug, they bow and scrape.
Because they’re cowards.
Oh – you’re right – but they wanted to bow and scrape for Saddam is what I think. They’re getting involved BIG in the Middle East on a corporate level, the second link is key … and they’re only going to get more and more enmeshed, so you can bet Warner Bros films and tv will be told to be on good behavior, and forget about Time magazine etc. and CNN.
Hillary plants questions and questioners. CNN plants questions and questioners. No story. Move along.