Clinton News Network Plants Questions for Hillary

The Save the Debate coalition — a group founded by conservative bloggers Patrick Ruffini, David All, Soren Dayton, and Robert Bluey which sought to encourage the GOP candidates to participate in the CNN/YouTube debate — issued a statement harshly criticizing CNN:“CNN’s flawed editorial process in choosing the questions asked of the candidates marred an otherwise lively debate and betrayed the trust of the Republican candidates and the YouTube user community. In the most glaring example, a questioner affiliated with the Hillary Clinton campaign was given a soapbox to berate the Republican candidates at the debate — when even a cursory web search of the individual would have revealed his clear conflict of interest.
A YouTube debate should strive to minimize the media filter rather than highlight it. Instead the selection of questions for the Republican CNN/YouTube debate highlighted CNN’s selection bias.
We strongly encourage YouTube and other new media platforms to refrain from working with CNN on future debates.”
 RedState‘s Directors also issued a harsh statement: “This debate was not about Republicans asking the Republican candidates questions. This was about CNN abusing its position to push a Democratic agenda. This has all the markings of a set up and heads should roll at CNN.In the meantime:1.) Republican candidates for President should boycott CNN.2) Republican viewers should boycott CNN until they fire Sam Feist, their political director; and David Bohrman, Senior Vice President and Executive Producer of the debate.3) 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.” Michelle Malkin sees a double-standard: “Had GOP candidates somehow been able to insert their operatives and supporters into a Democratic debate, and had, say, Fox News failed to vet the questioners and presented them as average citizens, both Fox and the GOP would be treated as the century’s worst media sinners.”Hugh Hewitt: “CNN is of course going to the mattresses, just as every MSMer does when the collision with their own bias and/or incompetence arrives. But like Rathergate, the YouTube/BoobTube debate is already a major milestone in the accelerating collapse of credibility of the MSM.”Human EventsJennifer Rubin: “Not that many years ago, CNN was known widely as the ‘Clinton News Network.’ They apparently want to renew their credentials — or expand their services to the entire Democratic Party. This debate placed CNN in the role of director of Democratic media operations. Simply put, it is propaganda to represent the questioners as unbiased and unaffiliated voters when they are not.”Other conservative bloggers think that people are overreacting:Townhall‘s Matt Lewis: “Although conservatives are rightly outraged by the biased questions, I also believe some of the consternation is overwrought…Bad questions sometimes tell us more about the candidates than good ones do. For example, we learned that Mike Huckabee can take a bad question and still make lemonade (if he can do it now, imagine what he could do to the press corps).”Captain’s QuartersEd Morrissey: “CNN’s main failure, and the only real ‘plant’, was General Keith Kerr. They didn’t just allow his question, they flew him to the debate, and then allowed him almost as much screen time as Duncan Hunter to make a speech. Kerr serves on Hillary Clinton’s steering committee on GLBT issues, a fact that he apparently failed to disclose to CNN, who didn’t bother to use Google and spend ten minutes vetting him…The other questioners had ulterior motives in asking their questions…[but] the questions themselves weren’t outrageous and certainly can be expected from the campaign trail, especially in the general election. In this loose format, questions can come from anyone — just like a real town-hall forum — and candidates should be prepared to answer them.”Power Line‘s Paul Mirengoff: “I watched the debate last night and frankly didn’t have a serious problem with CNN except with respect to Gen. Kerr. The fact that a questioner once interned for Rep. [Jane] Harman or for CAIR seems immaterial. The questions reflected a cross section of points of view, some liberal and some conservative, and it was helpful for Republican voters to see how the candidates dealt with them (I thought they did well).”Meanwhile, NRO‘s Ramesh Ponnuru thinks that the controversy over questioners benefits [Rudy] Giuliani: “I said that yesterday was a good day for Giuliani, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. I think today is another one. The buzz among conservatives is about CNN’s perfidy — and not about his answers on abortion and guns. If I were Giuliani, I’d make sure to denounce CNN myself.”http://blogometer.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/11/1130_the_least.html

Advertisements

6 Responses

  1. […] politicalnighttrain added an interesting post today on Clinton News Network Plants Questions for HillaryHere’s a small reading […]

  2. […] Check it out! While looking through the blogosphere we stumbled on an interesting post today.Here’s a quick excerptThe Save the Debate coalition — a group founded by conservative bloggers Patrick Ruffini, David All, Soren Dayton, and Robert Bluey which sought to encourage the GOP candidates to participate in the CNN/YouTube debate — issued a … […]

  3. […] Check it out! While looking through the blogosphere we stumbled on an interesting post today.Here’s a quick excerptMichelle Malkin sees a double-standard: “Had GOP candidates somehow been able to insert their operatives and supporters into a Democratic debate, and had, say, Fox News failed to vet the questioners and presented them as average … […]

  4. […] Check it out! While looking through the blogosphere we stumbled on an interesting post today.Here’s a quick excerptWe strongly encourage YouTube and other new media platforms to refrain from working with CNN on future debates.” RedState’s Directors also issued a harsh statement: “This debate was not about Republicans asking the Republican candidates … […]

  5. While I think that taking such extreme measures against CNN may be a little over the top I definitely agree that this is an issue that needs to be discussed and made known to people who may or may not have seen the debate. In an article published on CNN’s website about the debate, it said that the CNN political team viewed 5,000 videos submitted to be answered, 2,000 more than were submitted for the Democratic debate this summer. This being the case, I find it hard to believe that the videos that we saw and the questions that we heard during the debate were the best that they could do. Some were just good questions asked in weird ways but others were simply a waste of time. It was interesting to see the humorous responses some of the candidates had to the more off the wall questions and cartoons but when I sit down to watch a Republican Presidential Candidate Debate on CNN I expect serious answers to serious questions regardless of where the questions are coming from. This could’ve been a really neat way to allow young people who really care about politics to ask their questions and have themselves heard while CNN turned it into something totally different simply by their choice of questions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: