Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
CNN and the YouTube Debate - the deeper question
Posted by: McQ on Friday, November 30, 2007

You know, in all the brouhaha about the CNN debacle that was the YouTube debate we seem to be missing something pretty basic. And I haven't seen anyone making this point (which doesn't mean the point hasn't been made, I just haven't seen it, so don't bother playing "gotchya"). Reading the CNN statement issued after the debate got me to thinking:
"The issues raised during last night's debate were legitimate and relevant no matter who was asking the questions. The vested interests who are challenging the credibility of the questioners are trying to distract voters from the substantive issues they care most about. Americans are tired of that discredited low-road approach, and throughout this election campaign CNN will stay focused on what the candidates are saying about the pressing issues facing this country at a critical time in our history.
Note the bold line?

Says who?

Says CNN, that's who. It is the network that chose the questions that would be aired. Consequently what aired had nothing to do with what voters found to be the substantive issues of the day, but instead had everything to do with - say it with me - what CNN decided were the substantive issues of the day.

Can you say "agenda"?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
"Agenda."

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.

The depth and persistence of Eastern Liberal Cluelessness never ceases to amaze.
 
Written By: dicentra
URL: http://dicentrasgarden.blogspot.com
So exactly what were the Democrats afraid of in the now-defunked FoxNews debate ?
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Had CNN used Republican activists at the Democrat debate a couple of weeks ago, they would have a defensible position. But they used Democrat activists — people who want to see the Democrats look good — with the Dem candidates and people who want to make the Republicans look bad with the Republican candidates.

Anyone who claims this is fair, proper, or not at all indicative of an agenda is lying to you.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
That was kinda the point I was trying to make in this thread.
Further, and even more damning, is that even taking CNN at their word, that they chose these questions reveals much about their mindset. CNN thinks a question asked by a committed Clinton/Obama/Edwards supporter is representitive of the undecided [republican] voter. The only way one could come to that conclusion, is if one is also and already, a committed Clinton/Obama/Edwards supporter.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
I have always been rather puzzled about these so-called debates. Why are they sponsored by anyone other than the political parties themselves? Why don’t the respective parties organize their own debates, set the format themselves, and invite whichever media organizations they choose? On the other hand, I would not be surprised if noone in the Republican or Democratic parties had the competence to do so.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
It’s back to the "Fake but Accurate" mantra, or the "Seriousness of the charges outweighs the volume of evidence".

Was Dan Rather a consultant to CNN?
 
Written By: Borax Johnson
URL: http://
It’s lovely to watch how the media first decides the story for each candidate then, for the next year, their idea of fair reporting is to do everything they can to reinforce that view.

Some network needs to start doing real work. Keep a running total of how much each candidates’ pandering proposals would cost if implemented (I’d tune in to see those numbers rising daily). Produce a self-contradiction index. Chart how many words each candidate can spew without saying anything concrete. This is the kind of work I think the networks can handle.
 
Written By: Crouton
URL: http://
I have always been rather puzzled about these so-called debates. Why are they sponsored by anyone other than the political parties themselves? Why don’t the respective parties organize their own debates, set the format themselves, and invite whichever media organizations they choose? On the other hand, I would not be surprised if noone in the Republican or Democratic parties had the competence to do so.
Well, that’s what the Democrat did in their debate, wasn’t it?
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
"Well, that’s what the Democrat did in their debate, wasn’t it?"

Obviously I am not paying much attention to the whole election process thus far. It still puzzles me though, how CNN or any other organization has all the candidates and the parties jumping through hoops. It just seems to me that news organizations are supposed to cover events, not stage them.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
CNN will stay focused on what the candidates are saying about the pressing issues facing this country at a critical time in our history.
The Confederate flag?
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
The Left had absolutely no right injecting into the political process of nomination of an opposing party.

Had they pulled this "dirty trick: during the general election debates they may have had a leg to stand on.

This was beyond the pale and cannot be defended or justified.

And while Hillary’s campaign takes the brunt of the heat over the gay general plant, we get "Flare-gate" as a typical Clinton Ops diversionary tactic...(removing tinfoil hat now)
 
Written By: Khepri
URL: http://
On the other hand, if the Republicans are stupid enough to let their opponents set the terms and conditions of their communication with their own voters, they deserve anything they get.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider