CNN: Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave, When First We Practice to Deceive

In case CNN's executives and flacks think they've done a heckuva damage control job and put this battered debate baby to bed, here's a checklist of contradictions and disparities coming out of their mouths.

DID THEY, OR DIDN'T THEY?

Nov 28, St. Petersburg Times: "Gotcha questions were eliminated. So were most that seemed like they came from Democrats...."

Nov 30, Los Angeles Times: "CNN officials said that in the Democratic debate [four months ago], as in Wednesday's Republican encounter, they had not attempted to determine the party or ideology of the questioners."

MR. KLEIN VS. MR. KLEIN

Nov 30, New York Times: "Jon Klein, the president of CNN's domestic networks... said that a small group of producers had conducted basic searches on the questioners picked as finalists, including whether they had made donations to an presidential campaigns."

Nov 30, New York Times: "'We were looking for questions that would help Republican voters decide amongst the candidates,' Mr. Klein said. 'We didn't particularly care who was asking the question'...."

MR. KLEIN VS. MR. FEIST:

Nov 30, Los Angeles Times: "'We were looking for people who were interested enough in the process to ask a quesion,' Sam Feist, CNN's political director, said Thursday. 'We didn't inquire about people's ideological beliefs, and that wasn't relevant.'"

MR. FEIST VS. MR. FEIST:

Nov 30, Los Angeles Times: "CNN's [political director Sam Feist] said conservative commentators did not complain when questioners who shared their political ideology had videos aired during the Democratic forum in July."

MR. KLEIN AND MR. FEIST VS. MR. BOHRMAN:

Nov 21, New York Times: "'There are quite a few things you might describe as Democratic 'gotchas,' and we are weeding those out," [CNN Washington bureau chief and executive producer of the debate David] Bohrman said. CNN wants to ensure that next Wednesday's Republican event is "a debate of their party."

MR. BOHRMAN VS. MR. BOHRMAN:

Nov 30, Los Angeles Times: "A review by the Los Angeles Times of the debate... four months ago found that the Democratic presidential candidates also faced queries that seemed to come from the conservative perspective.... During that session, one video questioner asked the candidates to choose between raising taxes or cutting benefits in order to save Social Security. Another demanded to know whether taxes would rise 'like usually they do when a Democrat comes in office.' A third featured a gun-toting Michigan man, who in an interview Thursday said he had voted twice for President Bush, who wanted to know if the Democrats would protect his 'baby' -- an assault rifle he cradled in his arms. Another questioner from that forum who seemed to have clear conservative credentials was John McAlpin, a sailor who asked Clinton: 'How do you think you would be taken seriously" by Arab and Muslim nations that treat women as second-class citizens'? McAlpin's MySpace page features pictures of Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York mayor and Republican presidential candidate. It depicts Fox commentator Bill O'Reilly as a friend, while offering a caricature of a bearded, turban-wearing 'Borat Hussein Obama' -- a derogatory reference to Obama, the Democratic candidate who as a youth attended a Muslim school."

Hey, CNN. When in doubt, just remember Crisis Management 101: Get your story straight, and get it out fast -- and right -- the first time. Have a swell weekend.

Comments

[MikegATC]

If only CNN would occasionally spend as much time weeding out partisanship in their on-air analysts as they did scrutinizing John Q.Public maybe(BIG MAYBE) they would be more worth watching.

[Rule Of Law]

CNN has been co-opted, as has the whole of the MSM, including even NPR and PBS on really bad days. When you have godammed bloody control over everything the public sees, why should you care?

Well some people do...and courageously made their own news last night. Of course you won't find it in the MSM...So how do we get our message out when the CNNs of the world control the airwaves...

We start by resisting this Regime and the enablers of the Fed by demonstrating against their policies and very presence, as the students at Cornell did just yesterday. You won't find it in the corporate MSM, but watch it here, then act!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxTcPM9HxBQ
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-siegel/creative-rebellion-corne_b_74892.html

[realpolitic]

Imagine a Republican candidate for President having to answer a question from someone who disagrees with him on some issues. Has Bush set a standard that only the converted may enter the tent? I mean, what is so fragile about the Republican message that outsiders can not question them? Are they some cult where you need a secret password to talk with them? As long as a question is not an obvious qotcha question, then "let freedom reign" as the nutty Sean Hannity says.

[WhitemoonG]

Nice job Marty. It's not often that we see events or issues and come to the same or similar conclusions, but I will give credit where credit is due.

This isn't about Republican hypocrisy. Whether or not some are or are not in general, has nothing to do with this travesty. This has nothing to do with Republicans supposedly wanting and needing softball, etc. Separate issue.

This is about CNN advertising a debate involving private citizens, who are thoughtful, engaged, and as of yet undecided voters, providing a good assortment of questions posed right between the Republican's eyes.

Instead, we find that a large portion of questioners are everything BUT "undecided." They were long established Democratic activists and declared supporters of a Democratic candidate.

Nothing wrong with that obviously, it's the American way. But to have these as "undecideds" is either very deceitful or VERY NEGLIGENT.

SpaceyG, it took people 5 minutes to identify these political activists via the internet,

And, we're supposed to believe that CNN couldn't figure that out just as easily, if not more easily? CONVENIENT NEGLIGENCE!

Good thing for CNN they aren't doctors!

They are either extremely sleazy, or incompetent beyond belief. No real journalism there!

[SpaceyG]

Oh fer chrissake. I started my career almost 20 years ago in news production with a lot of the folk who are now at CNN and elsewhere, including David Bohrman. I had the honor and privilege of re-connecting with David and others while at the St. Pete debate. These are not people who have made careers out of deception and lies; save that for the politicians. These are the best professional people in news gathering on the freakin' planet. They've worked their entire lives bringing innovative journalism to life, much like some of the folk at HuffPo. When Bohrman says a human error was made, then believe him. A human error was made. Nothing more, nothing less. To go about declaring dedicated news professionals as practitioners of deception and lies is slanderous on your part, and only displays gross ignorance of the broadcast news-gathering process. Hell, it just displays ignorance about not only the inner-workings of PROFESSIONAL journalism overall, but ignorance about overall human fallibility. Best keep to the freebie stuff here, Marty hon. God forbid you were ever put in a place of extreme responsibility and leadership in the most complex, high-tech, pressure-ridden, news-gathering situations imaginable; you too might occasionally make a mistake. Or many.

[AnotherTry]

If CNN's YouTube debate was such an affront, why is Nico Pittny of Huffington Post on CNN's International Correspondents show defending the debate format?

[AlexFrank]

Well said, Marty. When it comes to the burgeoning field of "infotainment", CNN takes a back seat to no one. To everyone who appreciated this blog, I suggest a look a Tim Rutten's superb take in today's LA Times, "CNN: Corrupt News Network ¦A self-serving agenda was set for the Republican presidential debates." The link:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/business/newsletter/la-et-rutten1dec01,1,2183723.column

[Mark701]

There are only a few types of questions that CNN should screen, namely, those from someone who is obvioulsy insane, rude questioners and repetative questions. Any screening beyond that is partisanship.

[ClevelandTom]

In all the criticism from both Dems and Repubs, I have yet to hear any commentator answer one fundamental question about the YouTube debates:
Why should anyone expect CNN to screen questions based on the questioner's political affiliation? If their question is pertinent to the election process, isn't that enough?

Aside: Does anyone really think that the guy who called his M-16 "my baby" and asked the candidates about gun control during the Dem YouTube debate was a Democrat?

[truth101]

The failure of AC to have a single question
about global climate change was
AWESOME, meaning the entire debate seemed
superficial.

The failure of AC to have a single question
about the Peace Conference in DC was
AWESOME, meaning the entire debate was dated
and in the main irrelevant to world affairs.

Ditto HEALTH CARE INSURANCE.

conclusion...THE REPUBLICANS GOT A FREE RIDE
AS THEY COULD JUST REPEAT ALL
....THEIR BS ABOUT IMMIGRATIN AND ABORTION..

LA LA LA LA KEEPING EM HONEST...RIGHT

[EileenMac]

Thanks Marty for your cogent and diligent efforts. Unfortunately, it will not change CNN or the direction it has gone. The sad part is that for those of us reading and writing here, you are just confirming something we already know, and CNN and the masters they serve have already dismissed as "collateral damage".

The second group of American voters, those who are either too apathetic, uneducated or terrified, to think for themselves, will follow the instructions they are given in these political advertisements, and vote for the pre-selected choices of the military industrial political complex.

And the third group...the "in-crowd" of the predetermined candidates and their supporters, and those who are paying for the rent in the WhiteHouse, and the seats in Congress, well, they really dont care what you or the rest of us writing here think.

And that is why, no matter WHAT you think of him and his policies, the ONLY candidate who is NOT part of this "in-crowd" and will lead according to the Constitution and his conscience, is Ron Paul.

[dora_rice]

that includes Blitzer.

[MinerSam]

And what about the reinvention of Reagan! Who slept every afternoon and confused history with movie plots. Who after running on and castigating Carter for a 69B deficit proceeded to grow it to $279B.

Fact is that since George Washington the US has acrued $9TRILLION IN DEABT. And that 70% was under 3 Repblican presidents: Reagan, BUsh 1 and Bush 2. And that 40% of American Tax dollars are going to pay off the interest on the Republican debt. I don't see that on CNN!

[MinerSam]

What about during non-debate periods.

When Democrat after Democrat was proposing one thing after another about how to handle changing events on the ground in Iraq: Such as Levin insisting that the Suniis neededed to be included in the constitution with regard to their sharing oil revenues, or when Kerry proposed putting more special forces in while pulling back from going after IEDs. Whether it was Biden's push for loose Federation or others talking about moving more troops into Afghanistan etc. etc.

What did CNN or NBC/GE Tim Russet say? quote "But the Democrats have no plans for Iraq."

Or FOX and CNN "reporting" that "John Kerry wants to take ALL of our troops out of Iraq" whereas what he had just proposed was replacing daily IED disarmers with 40,000 special forces.

This not to mention GE/Newscorp/Time Warner etc. giving the Swirftboat Liars For the War in Vietnam TENS OF THOUSANDS IN FREE advertising with hardly if at all a single mention that their leader was never in Vietnam at the same time as Kerry was, and had been put up to discrediting him by Nixon 35 years ago (FOR WHICH NIXON HAD ALREADY APPOLOGIZED TO Kerry for)...Never a mention that when John Warner was head of the Navy that Nixon had asked him to investigate Kerry AND THAT HE CAIM BACK saying that Kery's record WAS PRESTINE. Not a word from CNN or any other.

And when CNN did report TRUE FACTS in the lead up to the 2004 elections Paula Zhan COUCHED THEM AS "Democratic Talking Points"...during a time when the ONLY Democratic Talking was "We can do better."

This is not new. And furthermore, it would seem that Republican Propaganda is being stepped up now by the The Republican Controlled Media because the Republican controlled FCC is about the pass more favorable consolidation laws for them, that would allow them to control MORE OF THE AIRWAVES!

[freon500]

Rather than spewing acid remarks in the attempt to communicate my frustration with CNN I much rather come here to the Huffington Post and read Marty Kaplan's Blog and all the great comments. You guys really say it very well. It's great salve for an ailing spirit. Thank you!