This further shows the dishonesty and duplicitousness of outfits like CNN. They have an agenda to push, but are afraid of revealing that they have an agenda to push.
Posted at 2007-11-29 07:01:57 [PermaLink]Yes, they should cry foul because it is foul. The people asking the questions hid their identities and true affiliations. That's no way to run a democracy.
Posted at 2007-11-29 07:02:33 [PermaLink]I'm with Damian on this one. A question is a question, regardless of who asks it. I'm tired of presidential candidates running to be the president of the members of their party, not the president all Americans. If a Republican candidate won't even answer a Democrat's questions during a campaign, what does that say about what he will do once elected?
Posted at 2007-11-29 08:13:46 [PermaLink]"If it's a fair question, it's fair regardless of who asks it."
Really? Then why not have the general ask about toys or the mom ask about gays in the military? This is identity politics, and who asks the questions does make a difference.
There are now about 5 Democratic activists who have been identified as plants asking questions. If it doesn't matter who asks the questions, then why bother planting people? Why pretend to be neutral when asking the questions, yet in reality be working for Hillary or Obama?
It does make a difference and it's sleazy.
Will CNN plant Republican activists during their Democratic debates? If it is OK, why not disclose it?
Posted at 2007-11-29 09:53:03 [PermaLink]i agree with those who said it is a "big deal" - or at least, a "concern."
it is a conflict of interest to have activists working for hte opposite party, hiding their identities behind "mum of two" generica, ask questions of presidential candidates...
it demonstrates either reckless negligence on the part of the producers who selected these clips (or more likely) active bias.
RH
It's not honest, it's not journalism, it's CNN.
Posted at 2007-11-29 11:47:47 [PermaLink]Best line yet...
"the CNN-YouTube debate format tends to yield two types of questioners: plants and nuts:" [External Link]
It is true that any presidential candidate should be able to state their position on the questions of the day, at any time.
On the other hand, in a debate format, it is not really fair to be told you are debating one group of people,i.e. your republican opponents, when in reality you are also being debated by democrats for Clinton.
There will be a time for Clinton (if she is the successful democrat pick) to debate the republican candidate on the issues. Why does her campaign get to make a pre-emptive strike, raising issues in a manner to discredit opponents? That is not fairness. Neither is it fair to have CNN, which hosted the debate working behind the scenes to discredit one or more of the republican candidates just because they are hand in glove with Hillary's campaign.
Is the purpose of the televised debate to help voters become better informed about their choices, or to help the news network score points through what lowers journalism to "reality television".
Promoting a debate format as the average joe's chance to quiz the candidates, and then secretly stacking the list with partisans makes what may be a "fair question" completely un-fair.
When CNN had a Democratic Party "debate”, a few weeks ago, they also planted a number of Democratic Party activists. Does anyone REALLY think CNN would have planted Republican activist at either “debate”? In both “debates”, the Clinton News Network called the plants “undecided voters”. Yeah, sure…
Of, course, none of this matters, a question is a question; as long as a Democrat asks it.
And the Democrat homosexual activist asked Republicans about the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that Bill Clinton implemented. Why would he ask Mrs. Clinton about her husband’s policy? A question is question. What a farce.
"If CNN was deliberately choosing Democrats to post questions at the Republican debate, while shielding the Democrat candidates from Republican questioners, that's different."
Am I missing something here, Damian? How many stealth Republican operatives have been uncovered asking questions to Democrat candidates during their CNN/You Tube debate? The answer wouldn't be "zero," would it?
If no Republican operatives have been exposed as phony "undecided" voters asking Dem candidates tough questions, but several Dem operatives have been caught doing exactly that, then why are we giving CNN the benefit of the doubt in the "deliberate" department?
The problem, as I see it, is that the town hall meeting format has been hijacked by the parties that are supposed to be the subjects of the meetings.
It's not the question being asked that's corrupt; it's the perception in the mind of the viewer that it's Joe Nextdoorneighbor that's asking it.
And that's the whole point of doing the subversive thing in the first place.
"I'm tired of presidential candidates running to be the president of the members of their party, not the president all Americans."
I would agree with this statement if this were a debate taking place before the general election; however, they are not running to be the president of all Americans--yet. They are running to be the presidential nominee, in this case, of the Republican party. The parties get to decide who they want to run, not the entire country.