Ted Turner, June 18, 2002:
Turner: 'So who are the terrorists?
I would make a case that both sides are involved in terrorism."
Posted on 11/30/2007 3:33:40 AM PST by billorites
TWICE NOW, CNN has aired the opinions of an avowed Hillary Clinton supporter without telling viewers that the supposedly impartial commenter is an advocate of the leading Democratic candidate for President.
This is bad journalism.
During Wednesday night's Republican debate, sponsored by CNN and YouTube and hosted by CNN's Anderson Cooper, CNN aired a pre-recorded question by retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr. The general asked whether the candidates supported allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military. But Kerr was not an impartial questioner. He is a national co-chairman of Veterans and Military Retirees for Hillary.
He also was on John Kerry's National Veterans Steering Committee in 2004. He told CNN he was a member of the Log Cabin Republicans, an organization of homosexual Republicans, but his history of Democratic Party activism suggests he has other leanings.
And CNN did more than just air his recorded question. The network put him in the audience and then asked if the candidates answered the question to his satisfaction. That kind of attention given to a man who has lent his name to two Democratic presidential campaigns raises suspicions.
After the CNN-sponsored Democratic debate last month, Cooper presented James Carville as an impartial analyst. He did not disclose that Carville is an informal adviser to Hillary Clinton's campaign. Did he know that? If not, why not?
Clinton was not the only Democratic candidate whose supporters were able to plant hostile questions at Wednesday night's debate. Columnist Michelle Malkin reported yesterday that one questioner was a declared John Edwards supporter and another a declared Barack Obama supporter. Another, who asked about tainted toys from China, works for the United Steelworkers union, which supports Edwards.
CNN did a terrible job vetting its questioners. Why? At the Republican debate in New Hampshire on June 5, which this newspaper co-sponsored, the network did a careful job, although one plant did get through. We discovered after the debate that a questioner who asked a hostile question of Mitt Romney was a volunteer for John McCain's campaign. (We don't believe Sen. McCain had any knowledge of this.)
All citizens should be able to ask questions of the presidential candidates. But when presenting people as impartial questioners or analysts, CNN has the duty to do its best to ensure that they are truly impartial. It has not done so in recent weeks, and for that its credibility takes a hit.
CNN is the Clintons’ water carrier.
Ted Turner, June 18, 2002:
Turner: 'So who are the terrorists?
I would make a case that both sides are involved in terrorism."
NH is such a land of the Independent Voter that this CNN plant may end up costing Hilde big time in the primary.
I don’t understand what the problem is with all of this. During the democrat debate, questions were asked by left-wing supporters posing as independents. The republicans got the identical treatment—questions were asked by left-wing supporters posing as independents. What could be fairer?
So what happens if a Republican attends a Hillary event in NH and asks negative questions of her? What I have in mind are:
1) Will your administration be as corrupt as that of your husband?
2) If you can’t control your husband’s philandering, how can you control the country?
3) Finally, what are your qualifications for president and what have you done in government thus far in your life, aside from the health care fiasco?
These are, of course, questions raised by Republicans all the time.
I’m wondering if I would be drawn and quartered after being dragged from the event by security.
STOP WATCHING CNN AND STOP BUYING FROM ANY COMPANY THAT ADVERTISES WITH THEM. MAKE THEM PAY DEARLY FOR THEIR LACK OF INTEGRITY.
Calling McCain-Feingold, calling McCain-Feingold. I assume you two will have the gumption to require CNN to shut down for the 3 month period prior to the next election since it is nothing more than a Clinton mouthpiece.
The Most Trusted Name In News.
CNN unmasked.
On one hand the Clinton News Network never has played fair and balanced. On the other hand, anyone running for POTUS should be able to field any question posed.
Oh, you silly thing. You’d never be called upon to ask anything because you aren’t on the list.
They did a fine job of vetting Republican Plants. None of them made it through.
Pray for W and Our Victorious Troops
“STOP WATCHING CNN AND STOP BUYING FROM ANY COMPANY THAT ADVERTISES WITH THEM.”
Can you link to a list of advertisers?
I never watch CNN so how would I know?
I see it only when passing through an airport, but I can’t
stand to watch it.
I never understood why decent people, including freepers, always seem to watch these stupid cable outlets like CNN, PMSNBC, or even the news on the alphabet slimeworks.
Obviously many are watching as it is always reported on here.
Ted has always been a serious nut job but I’ll forever link him to Hanoi Jane.
Two turds floating around a small bowl refusing to go down.
Who is to say that they didn't do exactly what they wanted to do?
ML/NJ
Exactly!
These are the questions that the CNN reporters would have loved to ask, but had to use these phony 'average people' under the cloak of objectivity, to get them in.
The type of questions were asked to divide the GOP over marginal issues (Confederate Flag, Bible) and to make them appear as a Party controlled by right wing 'extremists', while Hillary is a 'moderate' by comparison.
Shot while escaping.
“I don’t understand what the problem is with all of this. During the democrat debate, questions were asked by left-wing supporters posing as independents. The republicans got the identical treatment—questions were asked by left-wing supporters posing as independents. What could be fairer?”
I agree. There was a difference though.
The Demo Candidates responses to those questions were mostly weak, and middle of the fence, were only lightly applauded (by paid applauders), and hard to even understand.
The Republican candidates responses were mostly decisive, earnest, honest, and received well by all.
“This is bad journalism”
Nonsense.
They aren’t journalists, they are advacates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.