As media scandals go, the flap over CNN’s use of Hillary-friendly Democratic questioners at last Thursday’s debate probably won’t rise to the level of full scale nuclear annihilation, where the network becomes so radioactive that it disappears from cable never to be seen again.
That might be what it deserves. And if life were fair, the next glimpse we got of Wolf Blitzer on television would be as a weatherman in Minot, North Dakota, wearing stupid hats and sponsoring contests for viewers on how much snow would fall for the month.
But life isn’t fair and multi-billion dollar corporations just don’t up and disappear no matter how seriously they transgress against the trust viewers place in their integrity as journalists. Hence, CNN will continue, albeit with a lot more scrutiny directed its way and a definite loss of credibility that it will have a hard time earning back.
To put it succinctly, CNN blew it. Everything about that Las Vegas debate – from the distribution of tickets, to the choice of moderators and commentators, to the absolute control of questions asked by audience members, to their agreement to pick Democratic operatives as “average voters” to ask questions – stinks of rank partisanship and boosterism for the Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton.
It is impossible to imagine any other network now or in the past behaving in such an arrogant manner.
Consider:
- 2000 tickets were available for the debate with 1000 going to UNLV (on whose campus the event was held) and another 1000 going to the Nevada Democratic party. It appears that the NDP packed the house with Hillary supporters while only 100 students from UNLV - younger voters more disposed to supporting Obama or Edwards – were allowed tickets while the other 900 apparently went to faculty and staff of the University.
While CNN was not directly responsible for this gaming of the audience, they might have made an effort to make the ticket distribution fairer. Especially in light of what occurred when CNN used that audience to ask questions of the candidates.
- How did a Democratic operative from Arkansas end up asking a question at a debate in Nevada? This question is especially relevant since CNN vetted and approved each question from the audience that was asked.
- Why did CNN allow an anti-war activist hardly your “average voter” – to make a statement about not attacking Iran in the thinly disguised form of a question from the audience?
- Why didn’t CNN disclose James Carville’s connections to the Clinton camp during the post debate wrap up?
And those are just the obvious questions. Among others, one could also ask about Wolf Blitzer’s choice of questions and his tone toward Clinton (a might too deferential?) considering the threats issued by Hillary staffers toward him in the lead up to the debate.
All of this raises the ultimate question; is CNN surreptitiously promoting the candidacy of Hillary Clinton? Even asking the question seriously damages CNN’s credibility. To cross the line from journalism to political advocacy is something the left accuses Fox News of doing. Will Democrats now refuse to appear on CNN as well? Will they forgo appearing in any more debates on that network?
Media bias is one thing. What CNN is accused of doing is something entirely different. Throwing the weight of a multi-billion dollar corporation with such a large political presence on the media landscape behind a candidate would be almost unprecedented. Not since the national news networks worked to bring the Nixon Administration down has there been such a blatant attempt to influence the opinion of the American people regarding a single politician.
The network may see Clinton’s candidacy as a great story – first woman president and all that. But is that any reason to cross the line and advocate her nomination and election? Given the economics of the news business, we certainly shouldn’t put it past CNN to play this kind of game. Face it; a Hillary presidency would be more interesting than a Giuliani or Romney presidency. More people will watch CNN during a Clinton tour in the White House than any other candidate running in either party, including Obama. It wouldn’t be the first time “bottom line journalism” was practiced by a network. And it probably won’t be the last.
How badly does this damage Mrs. Clinton? Watch the polls over the next 10 days or so. Even with weak opponents like Obama and Edwards, if Clinton loses any ground, it could be significant in that she will start reminding people just how the Clinton’s operate – the ruthlessness, the “win at all costs” attitude that marked her husband’s years in politics.
The American people may very well not want to relive those years when scandal after scandal rocked the White House and people got royally sick of the machinations by both parties. But until someone emerges to challenge her, Hillary Clinton will be the one to beat for both the Democratic nomination and the presidency.
11:45 am
Don’t forget to mention the real Khalid Khan. There’s this from Classical Values: http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/11/just_a_few_ordi.html
11:47 am
Debate Tonight May Focus on Latino Voters…
Democratic presidential candidates debate in Las Vegas Thursday night….
1:33 pm
I would provide all the links but they are available on other blogs already to be duplicated but lets take a look at the Diamond Girl for a moment.
She was brought into the country illegally at age 6 by her mother from Mexico and is now naturalized. She was an intern for Harry Reid.
The Muslim gentleman was the PRESIDENT of the Islamic Society of Nevada.
I believe you need to review the Move America Forward link, she was mentioned in the context of the anti-war group NOT Move America Forward.
3:27 pm
Can we now stop calling Blitzer Wolf? Maybe Poodle or Peek?
8:04 am
I think you’re off-base. CNN screwed up the ticket distribution, Hillary’s people exploited the opening. So what? You’d prefer a president who didn’t know how to exploit opportunity?
As for CNN being in the tank for Hillary, nah. No case can be made for that on the basis of this debate. Blitzer’s always been an idiot.
CNN’s alleged pro-Clinton bias is at best a minnow beside the whale of Fox’s overt advocacy of Giuliani. Sean Hannity appeared at a Giuliani fundraiser, Giuliani has recieved more airtime on Fox than any other GOP candidate, and NewsCorp is accused by Judith Regan of having tried to silence her so at to protect Rudy. Where’s the CNN equivalents? Blitzer misses a follow-up on licenses? Come on. Blitzer never fails to miss a follow-up.