Much has already been said about the CNN-You Tube republican debate. Another angle has been offered up by the Los Angeles Times. While I have often said that the LA Times is the illiterate cousin of the Jayson Blair (New York) Times, they are free to offer rampant speculation about CNN’s motives, since at least they are not claiming that their theory is fact. Granted, they do not claim it is theory either, but with the LA Times one can only ask for so much in terms of quality. Like a blinking VCR that is right at noon and midnight, the LA Times did offer a very interesting train of thought in addition to the standard consensus that CNN is merely anywhere from incompetent to corrupt.
The entire article is above, but here are some portions of it.
“CNN: Corrupt News Network
A self-serving agenda was set for the Republican presidential debates.
The United States is at war in the Middle East and Central Asia, the economy is writhing like a snake with a broken back, oil prices are relentlessly climbing toward $100 a barrel and an increasing number of Americans just can’t afford to be sick with anything that won’t be treated with aspirin and bed rest.
So, when CNN brought the Republican presidential candidates together this week for what is loosely termed a “debate,” what did the country get but a discussion of immigration, Biblical inerrancy and the propriety of flying the Confederate flag?”
Ok, so the topics could have been better. That is agreed, but so far that would not be corruption by itself if the democrats also had to face such questions. They don’t.
“According to CNN, its staff culled through 5,000 submissions to select the handful that were put to the candidates. That process essentially puts the lie to the vox populi aura the association with YouTube was meant to create. When producers exercise that level of selectivity, the questions — whoever initially formulated and recorded them — actually are theirs.”
Ok, fair enough. Executives are responsible for the content they put on the air. Again, the issue is planted activists, right? The LA Times finds a more sinister motive.
“That’s where things begin to get troubling, because CNN chose to devote the first 35 minutes of this critical debate to a single issue — immigration. Now, if that leaves you scratching your head, it’s probably because you’re included in the 96% of Americans who do not think immigration is the most important issue confronting this country.”
This is where things get a tad hairy. The overall American public is not freaking out over immigration, but what about the republican electorate? I honestly do not know the answer to this. I myself have found that those that are obsessed with illegal immigration are a vocal, but small, minority. Yet they speak so loudly that it is hard to tell if they are a majority of the republican electorate or not. Rupaul has fervent supporters, but he is absolutely a gadfly with a fringe following. What about the illegal immigration voters? Maybe I am losing touch, and maybe my pulse is not in tune with the mood, but I am not convinced the illegal immigration issue truly is as powerful as some make it out to be.
“So, why did CNN make immigration the keystone of this debate? What standard dictated the decision to give that much time to an issue so remote from the majority of voters’ concerns?”
Ok, enough with the suspense. Survey says…
“The answer is that CNN’s most popular news-oriented personality, Lou Dobbs, has made opposition to illegal immigration and free trade the centerpiece of his neonativist/neopopulist platform. In fact, Dobbs led into Wednesday’s debate with a good solid dose of immigrant bashing. His network is in a desperate ratings battle with Fox News and, in a critical prime-time slot, with MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. So, what’s good for Dobbs is good for CNN. In other words, CNN intentionally directed the Republicans’ debate to advance its own interests. Make immigration a bigger issue and you’ve made a bigger audience for Dobbs.”
This is a very serious charge. While all networks consist of people that have agendas, this accusation by the LA Times has every employee of CNN from Wolf Blitzer to Anderson Cooper to be taking their marching orders from Lou Dobbs. It is one thing to slant reports due to personal ideology, which is bad enough. Yet could correspondents actually be forced to tailor their broadcasts due to the agenda of one other correspondent?
MSNBC is a left wing network, but there is no evidence that Keith Olbermann has his agenda disseminated to Glenn Beck or Joe Scarborough. Fox News is right of center, but apparently Alan Colmes does not get his marching orders from Rupert Murdoch.
Again, this is speculation, and while there is no direct evidence of this, it is not farfetched.
Lou Dobbs is not just any correspondent. He is one of the highest ranking CNN executives.
Some would say that because immigration is a big deal in the republican party (if that premise is accepted), this justifies spending so much time on it. The LA Times offers a reasonable dispute for this.
“That’s corruption, and it’s why the Republican candidates had to spend more than half an hour “debating” an issue on which their differences are essentially marginal — and, more important, why GOP voters had to sit and wait, mostly in vain, for the issues that really concern them to be discussed.”
The problem with this is that the major candidates have very minor disagreements on the War on Terror, which IS a major issue among all Americans, primarily republicans. Nevertheless, the issue was ignored.
Another problem is that Lou Dobbs is not a one trick pony. He is almost a two trick pony, perhaps one and a half tricks. He obsesses about outsourcing, which to my knowledge, was not asked by the questioners. If Dobbs were pulling the strings, surely outsourcing would be part of the debate.
The LA Times article brings up the disgusting practice of delving into the candidates’ religious convictions well beyond policy issues, but I want to stick with the Lou DObbs theory because it is a new wrinkle.
CNN is sinking in the ratings, but most people deeply concerned about the illegal immigration issue are republicans. Democrats want them registered to vote as quickly as possible. Since republicans mainly watch Fox News, Lou Dobbs may not be seeing increased ratings from his rantings. This does not mean he is acting out of sincere convictions. He could very well be a demagogue. I have no idea. I just think that it does not seem to translate into news gold. Sadly enough, as much as it enrages me, Fox News strikes platinum with stories like Natalee Holloway and the various Petersons who kill and are killed, which no candidate will or should ever get asked about.
The Lou Dobbs connection could be any one of the 3 C’s: Coincidence, Correlation, or Causation.
At the risk of making things even more complicated, the LA Times itself is not actually the writers of this article. It is the work of one columnist for the paper, that being Timothy Rutten. He is considered the “champion of ethics” of the paper, but Robert Byrd is the “conscience of the U.S. Senate.” Labels mean nothing. The Jayson Blair Times has an ombudsman, who I suppose eats bananas like the compliance officer in the movie “Boiler Room.”
Timothy Rutten has been interviewed by Hugh Hewitt more than once. Hewitt is a conservative. This would explain why a liberal organization like the LA Times would dare criticize CNN. Is he the LA Times’s version of William Safire? I cannot say this for a certainty. On the other hand, Rutten gets lambasted for defending the New Republic in their corrupt involvement with the Scott Beauchamp affair.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/10/018882.php
So between all the conjecture, innuendo, theory, speculation, and other synonyms of those five dollar words, I have offered you everything but answers.
I am not an advocate on this one. I am merely a fourth C…a conduit.
Let the debate begin Wild West style…one blogger to another.
eric
As a matter of fact myself and the whole country was aware of this crap long before most bloggers today were probably born.
They even made a movie pertaining to the antics of the media.
“Network” (1976) is director Sidney Lumet’s brilliant criticism of the hollow, lurid wasteland of television journalism where entertainment value and short-term ratings were more crucial than quality. Paddy Chayefsky’s black, prophetic, commentary/criticism of corporate evil (in the tabloid-tainted television industry) is an insightful indictment of the rabid desire for ratings. Indignation toward the network executives by an unbalanced news-anchorman (Finch) is manipulated by ruthless VP programming boss (Dunaway) for further ratings. One of the film’s posters correctly proclaimed: “Television will never be the same.”
I’m mad as hell ! And I’m not going to take it anymore !
I have faith in the American people — the VOTERS — that they aren’t the ignoramuses the MSM believe they are. How many more times do we have to read and hear network news mangle and morph the truth before every clear-thinking person snaps up a club and pitchfork and “storms the castle” and demands honesty?
Tanya’s right. I’m for manning the pitchfork and storming the castle! We deserve honesty from the MSM but until we make that perfectly clear, we aren’t going to get it. It is comforting to know though, that FoxNews gets more traffic than any other News network in the world. Comforting, but it’s not enough!
Lets all throw our TVs out the window !
I think the CNN debate the other night was a total farce. I think what set it apart from the usual liberal bias is how blatant it was.
Typically, news organizations have at least attempted to disguise their liberal bias as far as hard news was concerned. CNN at least gave the appearance of being fair, but now they have taken the mask off.
They just blatantly rigged the GOP debate and could care less what anyone thinks about it. They chose questions that as liberals, they felt Republicans should be talking about. So instead of real Republicans getting to ask their candidates questions that are of concern, it became about pushing the liberal agenda of CNN.
Since the Presidential Candidates have yet to actually debate anything, I find the CNN Debacle to be nothing more than business as usual. CNN choose questions meant to embarrass the candidates in the townhall forum, not enlighten the public on anything meaningful.
I have given up any hope that we will ever see a real Presidential Candidate debate. The format would be too hard for them to work in soundbytes and the general public would be too bored with a real Lincoln-Douglass debate.
CNN did the same thing to the Dems – with those stupid questions about drivers licenses and merit pay for teachers, neither of which are within the pervue of the office of the president. All the networks, CNN included, ask stupid hot-bottun questions of all the debators of both parties. there is nothing more nefarious going on here than typical corporate media ratings hunts. To think otherwise is to be paranoid, and media illiterate.
JMJ
Jersey.
The point is that CNN is doing everything we all know about. They pretty much exposed themselves as a result of a lack of being subtle and being stupidly greedy.
Its already common knowledge among any reputable news source what CNN did with Kerr.
But to put out a bunch of questions to steer the veiwership to Dobbs because their ratings need help is just flat out BS to likes of which we have never seen before.
It has nothing to do with paranoia. It has to with people like me and the the ones who commented above as being sick and freeking tired of being treated like idiots.
We all know the news corporations have played games for years to get veiwership. But when they do it at the expense of peoples wantingness to have facts so as to elect the right candidate they are basically raping ius of the right to an honest description of those candidates. And we cant get that when they do this crap
But they’re telling us all to get f****d.
When they set the debate so as to draw viewership to another of their programs, we have hit a new tactic in media dishonesty.
All the networks do it, Micky. This is not exclusive to CNN, nor is CNN any better or worse about it. This is just selective baiting of the mythical “liberal media.”
JMJ
You dont get it . do you ?
Slanting stories by selective editing and exposure time is one thing.
Steering certain topics and questions to presidential candidates so as to boost the veiwership of CNNs other programs is a new low that NO OTHER NETWORK HAS DONE YET !
So no ! All the networks do not do it !
Putting a bias spin on some politicians statements or sex life or whatever is common place, I accept that.
But we want to hear from our candidates on an even platform.
And debates are the best way to do that instead of some sterilized speech.
They should be asked questions from those who the answers matter to most. NOT THE OPPOSITION !!!!!!!!!!!! That just wants to see them slip. They can do that fine on there own without any help..
And” We the people” should have media that will present our candidates in a debate that is all about nothing but answers and not some cheesy program executives wish to boost his ratings.
By all means , all these networks will always do what they have been doing as I pointed out in my first post . But at a certain point some material should just be F*****g off limits. like presidential debates.
CNN crossed the line.
All the commercial networks do it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply blindly by partisan ideology.
JMJ
God you’re thick.
They dont all do what CNN did !
And it is precisley your ideaoligy that gives this behavior a pass.
Because the majority of our print and televised media is supported by liberal partisan ideoligy.
Fox screws up and you and your buddys at your blog get all ripe an indignent with FOX.
But when CNN does it ! Oh its alright, they all do it.
But the fact is (get it , FACT) that not all of them do it. Because what has been done has never been done before ! Jeez.
“lets pull questions from the selection of 5000 that pertain to immigration so they’ll all watch Lou Dobbs later.”
That is abuse of our trust and the media and the election process that has not been surpassed by any coniving programing executives yet in history.
Once again. The people and myself above are voicing legitimate anger at these tactics.
We are not idiots ! We know news is slanted, we get it Jersey ! Honestly, we really get it.
We are not all as dumb as you would like to think we are so stop repeating the same point over and over again. Are you aware of what is being said in Erics post ?
At all ?