CNN Debate Team Comes Up Lame
As soon as last Thursday’s 128-minute Democratic presidential debate concluded, CNN called on two analysts—part of what the cable channel has dubiously and incessantly branded “the best political team on television”—to interpret what had just transpired for the several million viewers at home.
Not surprisingly, James Carville, one of Bill and Hillary’s closest friends, and David Gergen, a Clinton (and other) White House alum, agreed that it had been a winning night for Hillary Clinton. Apparently, Harry and Linda Bloodworth-Thomason weren’t available.
The use of Mr. Carville, and to a lesser extent Mr. Gergen, provoked some criticism, with watchdogs griping that CNN didn’t properly disclose its conflicts. But disclosure isn’t really the issue. The question is why, given the endless supply of eager political pundits who are unaffiliated with the Clintons and every other campaign, CNN ever offered such a prominent spot to Mr. Carville and Mr. Gergen in the first place.
Not that it was the only insult to viewers last Thursday.
Once the gold standard for all-news television, the Cable News Network used the night to make a convincing argument that it should never again be entrusted with a presidential debate.
The network’s journalistic crimes are legion, starting with how the debate—which, at least in theory, is supposed to serve as a public service to voters—was promoted. In full-page ads, CNN cast it as pure sport, a boxing match in which “the gloves will come off.” Really? How would CNN know ahead of time that that this would be a contentious forum, especially after most of the previous debates had been tame, unless they were planning to force conflict?
There was also the warm-up act, a full-hour of Lou Dobbs fulminating against illegal immigrants and reading letters from adoring and sycophantic viewers, all presented by CNN as some sort of debate preview. This is the same Mr. Dobbs who has done little to quell talk that he himself wants to run for President next year. (Not that this came up on CNN, either.)
It got worse when it was time for the actual debate. First, CNN persisted with the prize-fighting motif, with moderator Wolf Blitzer playing the Michael Buffer role and calling the candidates to the stage individually, like boxers entering the ring. Then Mr. Blitzer introduced Campbell Brown, John Roberts, and Suzanne Malveaux, fellow CNN personalities who would join in the questioning.
“They are part of the very best political team,” he informed viewers.
As the candidates were fitted with their microphones—shouldn’t that have been done backstage?—Mr. Blitzer awkwardly handed off to analyst Gloria Borger, who stuck with the boxing imagery as she told viewers which candidates could be expected to come out “swinging” in the public policy forum they were about to watch.
If CNN was intent on giving America a fight, it could have at least tried to put on a fair one.
But the audience at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas was slanted heavily in favor of New York’s junior senator. One of the first questions of the night, from Mr. Blitzer, sought to incite a tangle between Barack Obama and Mrs. Clinton. Mrs. Clinton used her turn to criticize Mr. Obama’s health care plan, but when Mr. Obama began, loud shouts from the audience distracted him and viewers at home.
So pro-Clinton was the crowd that Mrs. Clinton needed only to pause for a beat during an answer and the audience would fill the vacuum with raucous cheers. Meanwhile, when Mr. Obama and John Edwards sought to engage Mrs. Clinton, they were shouted down.
Conspiracy theorists will say that CNN had packed the crowd for its old friend. But the audience imbalance, like the inclusion of Mr. Carville and Mr. Gergen, was more an indictment of CNN’s incompetence. The network farmed out the distribution of tickets without insisting on any kind of balance. The resulting Clinton rah-rahing was both distracting and misleading to viewers.
Similar incompetence was at work in the framing of questions. Time and again, candidates were presented with simplistic hypothetical scenarios and told to pick one side. They were invariably presented false choices—human rights or national security?—but if they failed to provide direct answers, they risked looking like typically evasive politicians.
And nothing but incompetence can explain why CNN decided to end on a “cute” question, prodding a UNLV student—who had hoped to quiz the candidates on the Yucca Mountain issue—to inquire if Mrs. Clinton preferred diamonds or pearls.
Knockout stuff.
Steve,
Incompetence and "bias" is what the national electorate observed.
CNN has a reputation and that reputation has been validated, by....CNN.
Theresa Boulart
Political Consultant
KatrinaAlliance@aol.com
I stopped watching CNN over a year ago because I felt that they could no longer run a worthy news channel, instead focusing on alarmism, opinion, entertainment and graphics, and repeating stories. Most of the daily news covered is paltry repeating at best. Even their own investigative journalism is hardly that. It has gotten much worse since it's inception.
As far as I am concerned, I put them in the same status, as Fox News. They do their viewers a disservice.
Because of this and what I see as CNN talent making their opinions of candidates known (both with words and without (I can hear tone and interpret boy language) as well as the way they organize these events to the better of their favorite candidates, to the staged questions.
They do not deserve to host these debates any longer.
That was the most ridiculous debate I have ever watched. The debate was set up to favor queen hillary. The debate should be recalled because she didnot really win. Shame on you CNN, you are a bias news channel. Americans were watching this closely and will show it by their votes in the primary. This debate turned be off from voting for hillary, Obama will get my vote. I don't trust her. CNN is trying to shove a candidate down our throats and I dislike it. Yes, I would like to see a woman president, but hillary is not the one. She has too much BAGGAGE.
The "debate" was absolutely terrible. WB and his team should sit in a corner for the rest of the campaign. I do not think CNN wanted to promote Clinton, I personally think they wanted to make all the three "top" contenders look bad. They were pretty successful. The disrespect to the other candidates was unforgivable. CNN is not interested in issues, only headlines and scandal. I hope the League of Women Voters can put on some real debates -- with both parties.
They only gave Dennis Kucinich 5 minutes 37 seconds to present his case. He was successful in winning my vote. Like Rep Kucinich, I have always been against the Iraq War. I like the fact that he read the Patriot Act and voted against it. He wants to guarentee a woman's right to choose while reducing the need for abortions through education and birth control. Every voter wanting to reduce the number of abortions should find Kucinich a breath of fresh air. He also continues to support health care for everyone...NOW. Why should I, a progressive leaning independent voter, cast my ballot for anyone else?
Regarding the "other candidates," they are a waste of time. Only the top 3 should be allowed. Without them there would be time enough for thoughtful answers and replies. I only watched to see Edwards and the two candidates the media are shoving down our throats; the other candidates are ineffectual comic relief. By the way, I'll only vote for Edwards and if he's not nominated, I'll vote for the latest Republican version of Satan and then emigrate.
It was a disgusting display of network bias. Will never watch another CCN "debate" again.
When was CNN the "gold standard" of anything?? Since its inception, it was criticized for being chock-full of B-S. The only good thing the network ever did was simply carry the Challenger explosion live, and have three people on the phone all night in Baghdad for the first night of the Gulf War in 1991. Since then, it's been 100% full of crap. You want the real gold standard of television journalism? Watch the Newshour, Frontline, Now, 60 Minutes and ABC's World News. Those programs have never strayed from the highest standards.
Missed your analysis of the MSNBC debate. I hate the fact that these networks don't ask substantive questions but this debate was FAR more professional and balanced than the MSNBC devbate when many of the questions were softballs thrown at Hillary's opponents begging them to attack her. Tim Russert and Brian Williams were more focused on getting Hillary';s opponents to repeat their criticism of her thatn asking substantive questions that viewers would like to know.
This reminded me of the Lazio/Clinton debate when Ruseert asked Hillary to apologize to rebuplicans for defending her husband on some random talk show but failed to ask Lazio to apologize to the people for wasting our tax dollars with the whitewater witchhunt. Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, Kiran Chentry, Dana Bash. and Rick Sanchez are all examples of how CNN could care less about it's brand as a serious network but don't let NBC News off the hook on this one!!!
HACKS!
Everything about this debate just goes to show that CNN is full of a bunch of partisan HACKS, And everyone of those Dem's on that stage are bunch of bigger HACKS & LOSERS. What more could you expect from these 1960's Retread Politicians?
Everything is the fault of President BUSH, and I do mean EVERYTHING if you listen to these windbags. Hey guess what - We still had poverty during the Clinton years, American soldiers were still dying all over the world, The World Trade Center was also hit at the start of his presidency, and did nothing for next 7 years about it.
Everyone currently running for the office of president with the exception of Fred Thompson is a Liberal thats right I said everyone. There are no real conservatives out there so there is nothing to fear from the so called RIGHT in this election. Take your PICK!!
African Americans should also take note the M.L.K was a Republican, as well as Jackie Robinson. The Republican party has done well by the African American peoples advancement in today world in direct contradiction of what some Democrats might have to say on the topic. Too bad we can not ask J. F. Kennedy as to why he felt the need to SPY on M.L.K, but I think it might have to do with fact that he was in close contact with the Communist Party of Russia.
Nobody is Perfect - But people can forget or neglect what they choose. Bill Clinton - Did Lie, He Did Cheat, And he lost his lic. to practice law, if Hillary is elected that would mean the possibly of 28 years of Bush / Clinton rule of this country do we really want that!?!?!?
If President Bush is such a dummy and is considered the DUMBEST President that every lived, then how is it a man like this could lie to all the senators, and congress, fool them into this war, and then the American people reward them with the powers of the Executive Branch of Government? Am I the only one who finds that to be obscene?!?!
Why should we give any democratic presidential hopeful that voted to support Bush policies concerning a combat role Iraq and feels betrayed or lied too by the dumbest, lame duck president every the keys to the Oval Office & Our Homeland Security????
All Politicians are Cheats, Crooks, Liars and bunch more less than perfect traits I got that, that is why I'm telling you no matter who you vote for this year, you will be voting for a Liberal so perhaps you might want to look outside of the usual suspects.
A final thought - ALL of These debate formats are horrible, debates should be an hour long (Commercial Free) be head to head, yes this would mean many (dozens) more debates but that would be most beneficial to the American Voter and really put these candidates out there.
This so-called "debate" was a debacle! It should have been called "The Clinton/Obama Fawn Fest." The audience should not have been allowed to boo any candidate, nor cheer unabated. It is totally inappropriate for an audience to be allowed to insert itself into the dynamics of a debate. And Blitzer was clearly intimidated by Hillary, thus allowing her to rebut ad infinitum, while, for example, Edwards was not allowed to respond to Clinton's accusation of "throwing mud." A preponderance of the questions went to Clinton and Obama, with other candidates getting about half the time, or less. This despite Blitzer's comment that they'd all get plenty of time to talk. This was a joke of a debate.
Personally, I think each 2-hour debate should focus only on a narrow range of topics, say, one on foreign policy, the war on terror, and illegal immigration; one on the economy, healthcare, and job outsourcing; one on energy, the environment, and global warming; etc. The each candidate could really explain his/her polcies on these issues, rather than the soundbites. And, NO questions about interpersonal quibbling, polls, etc. The issues matter, not the horserace!
remember cnn is clinton news network, this debate proved it, blitzer said before the debate that no one was threatning him and he was going to ask tough questions, what a big fat lie, he did everything he could to help hillary, no follow up question when she just answered NO to the drivers licence question when she had said she did support it, and that last question about pearls and diamonds, what kind of stupid question was that, they wanted to end by making her look funny and human, it was all staged, and these are not questions where we can really learn what she stands for, cnn has lost all credibility, and by the way the audience was mostly her supporters, Senator Reid's son is her campaign chairman in vegas, so guess who got all the tickets that were passed out??????? very rude when edwards was booed, and the crowd should not have been allowed to do that. shame on cnn...!!!!
That may jave been the silliest political debate among potential presidential nominees in which ALL the candidates seemed more intelligent than the CNN "news" people.
But how, I ask in awe, did Wolf Blitzer, demanding yes-or-no answers to complex problems, avoid asking "Have you stopped beating your (spouse/partner)? Yes or no!"
Te level of questioning reflected the level of CNN's version of trivia, exempified by Blitzer's daily show, during which he announces which stories are "important." I find that handy because some of the items are rehashed news already broken elsewhere or are not important. Wolf cues me when to turn off the sound.
May I take this opportunity to thank him?
Watching the News Hour on PBS is literally an antidote to soap-opera newscasts. (Hey, what is Fox News for, anyway?)
May I verify "Mort Young?"
S'me!
-- Mort Young
Where can someone find unbiased news.
And I'll buy you your ticket.
You Obama guys are so emotional, just because Obama was not able to defeat Hilary in the debate, you attached CNN moderators. They did what was fair, they asked the right and real isuues. But when all the media, mostly black, praise Obama for doing nothing but talking ,promising to unite all, pretending to be so nice to all (showing to be a gentleman last night but snubbing Hilary last 2 nights ago), you praise CNN.
Hilary represents effective experience and compassion! Remember she is a very good mother, ask Chelsea.
You guy will get what you deserve if vote Obama, another nice guy like Bush. What a naked ambition, Obama wants to be President, after only 2 years in the senate, no deeds but talk. Let him prove himself first by action, maybe with his potentials he will be. Show some respect to older people who had helped us in the past.
Caroline Kennedy daughters like Obama ,so she endorse him. She is a good mother too, but that is not our issue, we want a President who will be effective and had the experiences to handle a tough and changing world. WE want tested, innovative solutions to our problems in health care, economy,etc.
Vote Hilary for President!
Penis Pills
It was a disgusting display of network bias. I'll never watch another CCN "debate" again.
how to make penis bigger