http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/04/success_cnn_def.phpSuccess! CNN Defines James Carville As Hillary Supporter
April 05, 2007 --
So it looks as if CNN -- or James Carville, or both -- listened to the loud and grating noises some of us were making about CNN's failure to identify Carville as a Hillary supporter (rather than an independent analyst) when he goes on the network and discusses the Presidential race or criticizes her chief rival, Barack Obama.
On The Situation Room last night, CNN finally did identify Carville as a Hillary backer -- and not a moment too soon, because Carville was on the air to discuss Hillary and Barack's fundraising numbers. From the program:
SUZANNE MALVEAUX: Joining me for today's "Strategy Session" are Democratic strategist James Carville and Republican strategist Michael Steele.
Let's, first of all, start off with the numbers. Let's take a quick look at these numbers. We have got Clinton at $26 million, Obama at $25 million, Romney at $21 million, Giuliani, $14 million, Edwards, $14 million, and McCain, $12.5 million.
Let's start with you, James.
You said that you do not advise Hillary Clinton or her campaign, but that you publicly are a supporter.
JAMES CARVILLE, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: That's right.
MALVEAUX: They must somebody really nervous. Are they nervous today?
CARVILLE: Well, I suspect that that's -- $25 million is a big number. You can slice it, dice it any way that you want to. I don't know. Nervous? I think they live nervous. I have never been in a political campaign myself that I wasn't nervous.
So it seems likely that Carville and CNN made a decision -- almost certainly in response to criticisms like those here, here, and here -- to disclose this connection more clearly. That's good. As Atrios would say, Reward Good Behavior.
But here's the important point: The Good Behavior here isn't merely the disclosing of the Carville-Hillary link. Rather, it's that CNN showed that it's capable of listening to -- and hearing -- criticism. One thing that's frustrating to those of us who spend time tossing water balloons at the citadels of the big news orgs is that all too often, the professionals behind the walls appear not just unwilling to entertain criticism, but entirely incapable of hearing the substance of it. The defensive position too often is some variation of the idea that because they're taking a hammering from both sides, that they "must be doing something right," or alternatively that they needn't bother trying to separate out the valid criticisms from the bogus ones. So when a big news org makes the decision to actually hear the case being made against it, let alone adjust its behavior in response to it, that's a good thing, however limited the adjustment.
Look, who knows how long this'll last and obviously it's not any kind of grand victory; it would be nice to hear from a more diverse group of analysts. But it's still good, Goddamn it, in its own tiny way. Now, please stick a sock in Glenn Beck's maw. Thank you.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
