Commentary on CNN Faux Debate

[CharlestonChad]

What CNN has done with the last 2 debates brings to a new low our political process, they are reinforcing the idea that there is no point in trying to inform yourself.

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly...pedcolumnists/cnns_virtual_reality_353672.htm

You're completely right kathiann. We should do everything in our power to prevent politicians from answering hard questions that they don't have a scripted answer for. God forbid we might get a glimpse of their personality, intelligence, or moral values.

 

[midcan5]

What is funny about the hullabaloo over the questions is the fact the answers rarely match the question. And that is true for both parties, the answers are scripted or slogans and often trail off into pure rhetorical BS. Newt Gingrich who I generally disagree with, says the debate should be between candidates, that would be real interesting, but do you think they would agree.

good site on this stuff

http://rhetorica.net/bias.htm

 

[Mr.Conley]

Jillian, I have no doubt that if the debates were handled exactly the same way by FOX, you'd be ranting and raving that FOX was colluding with the RNC. I'm not, I expect politicians to act like what they are. I guess we don't agree with what the media role should be.

You never answered the question...

"I'm kind of wondering why it's such a big deal. Did the guy lie about his service? Nope. Did he lie about being gay? Nope.

The people who brought us the swiftboat liars really shouldn't be complaining. Now... if he had lied about, oh, say, one of the candidates having sex with him, then I'd be more sympathetic.

Seriously, though, why all the feigned outrage over somethig that's really nothing."

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You never answered the question...

"I'm kind of wondering why it's such a big deal. Did the guy lie about his service? Nope. Did he lie about being gay? Nope.

The people who brought us the swiftboat liars really shouldn't be complaining. Now... if he had lied about, oh, say, one of the candidates having sex with him, then I'd be more sympathetic.

Seriously, though, why all the feigned outrage over somethig that's really nothing."

You are aware of course that the Republican party condemned the swiftboat group. Bush told everyone to ignore them and told the Republican party to not listen to them. But of course that was just more of his secret mind control, practicing reverse psycology, he tells everyone not to do it in the hopes they will do it, right?

 

[CharlestonChad]

You are aware of course that the Republican party condemned the swiftboat group. Bush told everyone to ignore them and told the Republican party to not listen to them. But of course that was just more of his secret mind control, practicing reverse psycology, he tells everyone not to do it in the hopes they will do it, right?

If you believe the republicans were sincere in denying the swiftboat group, then I have some beachfront property in florida you might be interested in.

 

[Gem]

I can see both sides of this debate. A few points:

- I think that people who think that CNN just slipped in not finding out all that they could about the general are either naive or willfully looking the other way...come on, the man is a retired U.S. general who is openly gay...a Google Search probably could have brought up enough to get started on. I think its highly suspect that CNN got caught with its pants down several times in that debate NOT giving the viewers all the information it needed to make an informed decision.

- That being said, the generals question was still a valid one - sure, it was a bit heavy, handed and "sir, when did you stop beating your wife" but a good question nonetheless...and even if he is a Clinton operative...the Republicans should still have to answer his question.

This is similar to Clinton's hissy fit to a man who asked her a question at a campaign stop when she was asked a question she felt was a plant from her competition (ironic, since this happened prior to her little faux pas with planted questioners). Charles Krauthammer stated something to the effect of "Here's where Hilary went wrong. Even if it was a plant - so what, it was a decent question...she should have smiled, said that she heard that one frequently and that she was happy to answer it again..."

The Republican candidates...even if CNN had deliberately stacked the deck with heavy-handed questions from Democratic operatives...should be prepared to answer questions from those who DISAGREE with them just as much, if not more, than they are prepared to answer friendly questions from their "constituents." Yes...CNN should have disclosed....Yes, the candidates should answer the questions regardless.

What disturbs me about the conversation here, however...is the automatic name-calling "whiner" "stop crying" "babies," "snivelling," etc...simply because some here dared to mention that CNN should have disclosed the backgrounds of the questioners. No one here was crying or whining...they were pointing out that a MAJOR NEWS ORGANIZATION that this nation has to trust to provide with honest, accurate data...DROPPED THE BALL...and, in their opinion...if the major news network had been Fox rather than CNN...that there would have been more of a hullabaloo...this isn't whining...its discourse about the media's role on the election process and how dangerous relying on the major media as a sole source of news can be. You can say that it isn't a big deal...but at least be prepared to discuss WHY it isn't a big deal, rather than slamming those you disagree with with silly taunts.

 

[Annie]

You never answered the question...

"I'm kind of wondering why it's such a big deal. Did the guy lie about his service? Nope. Did he lie about being gay? Nope.

The people who brought us the swiftboat liars really shouldn't be complaining. Now... if he had lied about, oh, say, one of the candidates having sex with him, then I'd be more sympathetic.

Seriously, though, why all the feigned outrage over somethig that's really nothing."

Once again, the onus is on CNN, which was to be hosting the Republican Candidates for the Primary Debates-not for general election. I didn't watch the youtube one in July that I believe Jillian brought up. If that was stacked, I don't know about it. Then again, how many were watching in July?

Now however, late November, people are watching and trying to make up their minds. Few people take the interest most of us do, on either side, indeed most would probably find as all weird or at least political geeks. Those same people get most of their news from television, saving their computer time I suppose for gambling, porno, or whatever.

When a 'news' station fails in such a way, not once, but twice within a couple weeks, sorry coincidence becomes overwhelming.

 

[CSM]

You're completely right kathiann. We should do everything in our power to prevent politicians from answering hard questions that they don't have a scripted answer for. God forbid we might get a glimpse of their personality, intelligence, or moral values.

Well, you will at least get a glimpse of their speech writer's personality, intelligence, or moral values....