Per CNN and the New York Times:
“We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor,” Lauren Pratapas, a network spokeswoman, said in a statement.
“CNN never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate,” Ms. Pratapas wrote.
It's strange that the CNN spokeswoman made
both those statements. One or the other statement having been issued...okay...but both? Excuse me?
- How the hell can Mrs. Brazile have obtained the question if the second statement is true?
- Just how uncomfortable can CNN's management be if the second statement is not true for they'd have somehow had to have allowed her to obtain the question?
Another bothersome thing is that CNN, like other cable news networks, perhaps ABC, CBS, and NBC too (I don't watch them), CNN pays "plugged-in" individuals to appear as editorialists in discussions about news events, or more accurately, the most salaciously sensational snippets of news stories. Those editorial discussions seem to comprise more of the programs' content than does actual reporting of news, that is, the "who, what, when, where, how and factual background/contextual information" pertaining to events, and that preponderance of commentary over objective and unselective presentation of events makes most cable news useful only as background noise worth having on only because they report information somewhat rapidly when new snippets come available. All the same, paying insiders to sit as commentators seems tantamount to the
National Enquirer paying "whomever" for a so-called news (gossip) story, and, frankly, much of the commentary strikes as little but gossip. (To CNN's credit, the news they do actually report does strike me as being accurately reported, and that's doubly so for the printed web-news version of CNN. I don't have a problem with CNN in that regard.)
Moreover, that cable news organizations do spend so much of their on-air time with commentators yammering on and on is a big reason for why I make a point of watching
PBS Newshour everyday; they routinely spend 5-15 minutes fully covering a story, but they cover fewer stories per episode and there's not much editorial content in the show. I don't really care what anyone thinks about the news until I have collected a pretty full set of facts about the events themselves and formed an opinion of my own. At that point, it's mildly entertaining to watch the pundits to see whether any of them concur with me, but even so, I don't care what they think or whose position they represent.
Getting back to the matter of Mrs. Brazile, she too, per the
New York Times, made some question-raising remarks:
- From time to time I get the questions in advance.
- CNN “never, never” shared advance questions with her ahead of debates or town hall-style events.
Her two remarks above, combined with those of the CNN spokeswoman leaves unanswered this question: Who the hell gave her the question?
- Did Mrs. Brazile get it from the town hall audience member who submitted it? If that's so, there'd have been no way for her or the audience member to know whether the question would be asked.
- Did Mrs. Brazile get it from someone at CNN? That seems the only "normal" way for her to know the question would likely be asked during the town hall debate.
- Does the DNC have their own hackers? Or maybe a 3rd party hacker gave her the question? Both those possibilities are pretty unapt, but it's not impossible.
Obviously, I don't know the answer any more than does anyone other than Mrs. Brazile and her source.
To close, I want to point out an issue I have with so many speakers on matters political, and that is that they all are "loosey goosey" with their claims and presentation of information. With regard to Mrs. Brazile's sharing a debate question with others, Donald Trump said, "
Speaking of draining the swamp, Donna Brazile did it again,” WikiLeaks today, she gave the questions to a debate to Hillary Clinton." Now here's the thing: she didn't give the question to Hillary Clinton. She gave it to John Podesta and Jennifer Palmieri, both of whom work on the Clinton campaign. IIRC, at the time Trump learned of Mrs. Brazile's having shared debate info, the info she'd shared consisted of one question, not more than one.
Is it plausible that either of those individuals shared the info with Mrs. Clinton? Of course it is; it's even probable. That's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is one I made above: people playing the game at this level need to be factually accurate and precise if they expect to be believed. It's not as though Trump could not have said, "...She gave a debate question to John Podesta, Mrs. Clinton's campaign manager."? That would have been no less damning/damaging for Mrs. Clinton, the DNC, Mrs. Brazile, and Mr. Podesta, and it'd have been 100% true, and Lord knows
Trump could stand to boost his quantity of truthful statements.
