NYT: "Clinton Friend’s Role Sets Off Intense Criticism of CNN and a Re-examination"
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 06:10 AM by ClarkUSA
CNN must have gotten flooded with furious emails from the netroots. Yes!
'Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton prepared for a battle with her Democratic rivals at the CNN-sponsored debate on Thursday night. She did not have much to fear from the postdebate round table... Mr. Carville’s presence aroused the fury of rivals and bloggers. They called it a conflict of interest and criticized CNN.
“Would it kill CNN to disclose that James Carville is a partisan Clinton supporter when talking about the presidential race?” Markos Moulitsas wrote on his liberal blog, Daily Kos. Mr. Moulitsas drew hundreds of comments.
Tom Reynolds, a spokesman for Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who is also seeking the Democratic nomination, said: “What you saw last night lacked full disclosure. The average viewer out in middle America may not know the inside-the-Beltway connection.”
The criticisms were among a series against CNN for how it managed the debate, a two-hour event in Las Vegas...Voters and commentators wrote online about how the audience cheered and booed, the way the CNN hosts reframed audience questions and whether it was correct to demand yes-or-no answers to complex questions...'
4. Well, in many cases universities ARE hosting the debates.
And NPR has hosted too--but don't look at THEM as the Be All and End All--they're infested with GOP stooges these days. It's why their programming fucking sucks.
The networks are taking turns, and that's fine. Gives their news divisions something to do. It is also an interesting "compare and contrast" exercise in how each network handles the process.
The 'offense' took place in the pre and post debate chit-chat. I don't waste my time with that crap, I don't need some big fat talking head to tell me what I am going to see or what I just saw.
I'd gather, that since CNN got their ass handed to them, they won't pull that crap again if they do any more hosting. There's nothing wrong with having partisans on--in fact, they can add details that others don't know--but the old 'full disclosure' is what people have a problem with.
was the most entertaining of the two. I do not appreciate tearing at one another like that. However as this race is shaping up. it would appear to be a poker game. (winner take all of course.) and a sound strategy is to let the chip leaders go after each other. the raucousness of the Nevada crowd fueled a greater debate I think. Pa was too straight laced, numbing in comparison.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.