Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CNN Tries to Blunt Romney Criticism Over Candy (managing editor email)
tmz ^ | 10/17 | tmz

Posted on 10/17/2012 5:23:14 PM PDT by RummyChick

CNN's Managing Editor sent an email around the office today, praising Candy Crowley and trying to blunt criticism that she was unfair to Mitt Romney.

The email -- sent by Mark Whitaker and obtained by TMZ -- is almost a series of talking points to address Candy's critics.

Here's the full email:

"Let's start with a big round of applause for Candy Crowley for a superb job under the most difficult circumstances imaginable. She and her team had to select and sequence questions in a matter of hours, and then she had to deal with the tricky format, the nervous questioners, the aggressive debaters, all while shutting out the pre-debate attempts to spin and intimidate her. She pulled it off masterfully.

The reviews on Candy's performance have been overwhelmingly positive but Romney supporters are going after her on two points, no doubt because their man did not have as good a night as he had in Denver. On the legitimacy of Candy fact-checking Romney on Obama's Rose Garden statement, it should be stressed that she was just stating a point of fact: Obama did talk about an act (or acts) of terror, no matter what you think he meant by that at the time. On why Obama got more time to speak, it should be noted that Candy and her commission producers tried to keep it even but that Obama went on longer largely because he speaks more slowly. We're going to do a word count to see whether, as in Denver, Romney actually got more words in even if he talked for a shorter period of time."

TMZ broke the story ... some honchos at CNN want the criticism to go away, even though it's shining a light on one of their most high-profile personalities -- and you just can't buy this type of publicity.

Read more: http://www.tmz.com#ixzz29baPORBb


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cnn; cnncoverup; lie4dnc; lie4obama; lielielie

1 posted on 10/17/2012 5:23:17 PM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

http://www.tmz.com/2012/10/17/candy-crowley-cnn-presidential-debate-controversy/

http://www.tmz.com/2012/10/17/presidential-debate-question-asker-mary-follano-still-undecided/


2 posted on 10/17/2012 5:24:50 PM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

She’s simply another of N libo-bimbos.

Where N is almost an uncountably large number.


3 posted on 10/17/2012 5:25:09 PM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Are they going to count “uh” in their word count?


4 posted on 10/17/2012 5:26:03 PM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

The media is lying about Obama lying about his lying.


5 posted on 10/17/2012 5:29:09 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

6 posted on 10/17/2012 5:31:11 PM PDT by Brandonmark (2012: Our Hope IS Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
Say what you like, but Candy, by deciding she was a “fact checker” instead of a moderator really messed up. Her feeble attempt backfired and all the spin, lying and flimsy excuses are not going to exonerate her. Whatever little bit of credibility she may have had is gone. Her, Dan Rather and Olberman are cut from the same cloth. She really didn't have a lot to lose because she was nothing from the start.
7 posted on 10/17/2012 5:43:22 PM PDT by Gertie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Pretty thin skinned in the face of real, fact-based criticism if they have to stoop to counting the words spoken by each person!

And the everlasting question that makes all of us beat our head against the nearest wall: “Why do the Republican candidates always agree to debates with liberal MSM moderators? Why?”


8 posted on 10/17/2012 5:45:59 PM PDT by leapfrog0202 ("the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery" Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick; fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican; Impy; GOPsterinMA; randita; Sun; LdSentinal; ...

Candy left a sour aftertaste on the American people.


9 posted on 10/17/2012 5:46:24 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (Muslims are a people of tolerance, life,and peace, and if you don't agree, they'll murder you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Well that would work except for the fact that we all saw Candy being unfair to Mitt.

Sombody needs to let CNN’s briliant managing editor, Matt, know that when you watch TV you actually might notice what you are watching.


10 posted on 10/17/2012 5:48:05 PM PDT by rod1 (CTLY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
"...Candy and her commission producers tried to keep it even but that Obama went on longer largely because he speaks more slowly. We're going to do a word count to see whether, as in Denver, Romney actually got more words in even if he talked for a shorter period of time."
Yes we should compensate for an inarticulate, ill prepared candidate who needs time to think of excuses for his miserable job performance to date. I assume that there are people out there who buy this rubbish but I sure hope they're not voting.
11 posted on 10/17/2012 5:52:57 PM PDT by Timocrat (Ingnorantia non excusat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rod1

Yes. ‘Are you going to believe what I am telling you or are you going to believe your lying eyes and ears?’


12 posted on 10/17/2012 5:53:52 PM PDT by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
On why Obama got more time to speak, it should be noted that Candy and her commission producers tried to keep it even but that Obama went on longer largely because he speaks more slowly.

That is just too damned funny and desperate.
13 posted on 10/17/2012 5:54:08 PM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

CNN has a multi-million dollar appeal languishing in Obama’s stacked NLRB (NLRB Case 05-CA-031828).
the administrative-law judge (an Obama donor) already ruled against CNN in 2009 .
Their appeal has since set before the 4 member NLRB board: 3 of them Obama appointees.

Of course Managing Editors don’t talk about these matters...


14 posted on 10/17/2012 5:54:32 PM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
We're going to do a word count to see whether, as in Denver, Romney actually got more words in even if he talked for a shorter period of time."

Each "uuuhh" counts as its own word.


15 posted on 10/17/2012 5:56:41 PM PDT by dead (It ain't over until the phone lady sings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

16 posted on 10/17/2012 6:08:25 PM PDT by dead (It ain't over until the phone lady sings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
The solution for CNN is to come up with a prizes.

That's what biased failing newspapers have - prizes to replace the trust and respect of their readers that they used to compete for...now, it's 'prizes'. I don't believe anyone has ever received a Pulitzer for reporting on something that backs a conservative idea... so think of it as a prize for liberals.

Cable networks like CNN and MSNBC could do the same - award prizes to people like themselves - and like Candy - people known for being biased against Republicans. But not just biased - biased while telling the world they're objective. Authentic people don't qualify.

Anyhow CNN could hand out prizes until the 2,000 liberal elites in the country are their only audience.

Go for it CNN - if you believe Candy was fair, you're ready for the 'prize' scam...

17 posted on 10/17/2012 6:10:16 PM PDT by GOPJ (Candy picks ALL questions to ask from the hundreds submitted - Citizens are stage props.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: leapfrog0202

18 posted on 10/17/2012 6:23:19 PM PDT by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Actually its good that any sane American gets to witness this. I’ve been following the comments on Yahoo News for the last few weeks. Its been about a 3-1 advantage for Romney at least.


19 posted on 10/17/2012 6:26:14 PM PDT by tflabo (Truth or Tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

I’m voting for Candy of the CNN Party!!! She was so Smart and presidential! Candy is dandy! Goooooo Candy!!! :)


20 posted on 10/17/2012 6:29:56 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SERKIT

Did you know Tiny Tim made some very favorable comments about Jesus? I doubt the new age TM pacticing Crowing Candy would do the same.


21 posted on 10/17/2012 6:30:53 PM PDT by tflabo (Truth or Tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Whitaker is as sleasy as Crowley. last night in trying to explain herself after the debate she conveniently mosquoted Obama as having referenced “These acts of terror...”, and now Whitacker tries to pretend that Obama’s claim at the debate was simply that he had referenced “an act or acts of terror”, rather than so identifying Benghazi.

Slimy.


22 posted on 10/17/2012 6:34:36 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tflabo

Yes. And you are right.


23 posted on 10/17/2012 6:39:50 PM PDT by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Every time I hear Candy Crowley mentioned I immediately think of Miss Piggy or a predatory fat porn star.


24 posted on 10/17/2012 7:12:15 PM PDT by RetiredTexasVet (The law of unintended consequences is an unforgiving and vindictive b!tch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
She failed in the most fundamental job of time-keeping.

25 posted on 10/17/2012 7:14:44 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your teaching is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012
On why Obama got more time to speak, it should be noted that Candy and her commission producers tried to keep it even but that Obama went on longer largely because he speaks more slowly. We're going to do a word count to see whether, as in Denver, Romney actually got more words in even if he talked for a shorter period of time.

A word count !?!?! Are they going to count all the Umm's and Ahh's as words.

One of the peeps in the Frank Luntz focus group said it best "If you ask Obama the time of day you would get 'Partly cloudy with a 30% chance of rain"

26 posted on 10/17/2012 8:59:14 PM PDT by TheShaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
The most telling event during debate # 2 was when Candy Crowley said she leaped “instinctively” to defend Obama’s position on the terrorist attack in Benghazi on Sept 11, 2012.

Since when does an “impartial”, “professional”, “reporter” leap to anyone’s defense “instinctively”?

Wonder if CNN will replay that little bit of “telling truth to power”?

27 posted on 10/17/2012 10:49:27 PM PDT by Nip (TANSTAAFL and BOHICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson