"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
Why did CNN hire Castellanos, who has a history of using "racially charged" tactics? And why won't it note he's advising McCain?
On CNN this week, Republican strategist and CNN contributor Alex Castellanos responded to criticism of a joke that referred to Hillary Clinton as a "bitch" by saying, "[S]ome women, by the way, are named that and it's accurate."
That a CNN contributor would refer to Hillary Clinton -- or any other woman, for that matter -- as a "bitch" on air is obviously grossly inappropriate in its own right. But it also raises the question of why CNN hired Castellanos as a contributor in the first place.
Castellanos is best known for creating a 1990 television ad for Republican Sen. Jesse Helms that is considered one of the most racially inflammatory political ads ever produced. Here's how The New York Times described the ad on September 15, 2000:
In 1990, he created for Mr. Helms what is widely viewed as one of the most racially charged political commercials ever, with white hands crumpling a job rejection letter while a narrator criticizes Mr. Helms's black opponent, Harvey Gantt, for supporting "racial quotas."
A February 9, 1992, Washington Post article noted that Castellanos "followed the quota ad with one that accused Democrat Harvey Gantt, who is black, of using his minority status to obtain a television station that made him a millionaire. Gantt disputed the charge." The Federal Communications Commission reportedly said that contrary to the ad's claims, race was not a factor in awarding the station license to Gantt and his colleagues.
An October 7, 1994, Atlanta Journal and Constitution article explained that the Helms ad was not the only Castellanos commercial that has been criticized for "injecting a racial element into campaigns":
Some of Castellanos' work has been criticized for injecting a racial element into campaigns, such as an anti-quota commercial he made for Helms in 1990 that showed a pair of white hands opening a job rejection letter, or anti-welfare spots he made for Mississippi Gov. Kirk Fordice. He also worked on George Bush's successful 1988 presidential campaign, which produced the ad about furloughed prisoner Willie Horton.
And in 1996, the Houston Chronicle reported that Castellanos created an ad "similar" to the Helms ad for Republican Sen. Phil Gramm's campaign against his Mexican-American opponent.
Castellanos' history of "racially charged" campaigning should have been enough to prevent CNN from hiring him as a contributor. But considering the timing, Castellanos' hiring is all the more appalling. Castellanos apparently joined CNN as a contributor in March of this year. (March 4 was the first time Castellanos was identified as a contributor; during earlier appearances, he was identified simply as "Republican strategist.")
So, with Barack Obama within reach of becoming the first African-American major-party presidential nominee in U.S. history, CNN decided it would be a good time to hire as a contributor the maker of what is considered "one of the most racially charged political commercials ever."
That is a shockingly bad decision.
And as the presidential campaign unfolds, it looks worse and worse. Just this week, the Politico described "[t]he main obstacle standing between Barack Obama and the White House" as follows:
What began as a demonstrably false attempt to cast Obama as a Muslim has now metastasized into something far more threatening to the likely Democratic nominee. The spurious claims about his faith have spiraled into a broader assault that questions his patriotism and citizenship and generally portrays him as a threat to mainstream, white America.
That's the political environment in which CNN decided to hire Alex Castellanos as a contributor. Obama opponents are attempting to portray him "as a threat to mainstream, white America" -- and CNN hires a contributor who is best known for portraying a black candidate as a threat to white America.
But there's another problem with Castellanos' appearances as a CNN contributor: Castellanos is actively advising John McCain's presidential campaign.
On March 25, washingtonpost.com's Chris Cillizza reported that Castellanos is a member of the "McCain Ad Council" -- a "group of advisers ... [who] will serve as outside thinkers and strategists to the [McCain] media effort."
Not only has CNN hired Castellanos as a contributor despite his history of racially inflammatory ads, CNN has not disclosed the strategist's relationship with the McCain campaign during his appearances -- even when he favorably compares McCain to Obama.
During CNN's Democratic primary coverage on Tuesday, for example, Castellanos said: "Barack Obama contesting John McCain on foreign policy and on strength. I think that's John McCain's turf." On The Situation Room that same day, Castellanos declared national security McCain's "territory," adding, "McCain is the one who's got years of experience, the military background, the credibility in military and foreign policy affairs. So, I think, for McCain, it's certainly playing on home -- the home field advantage there." Viewers were given no indication that Castellanos is an adviser to McCain.
Nor were they told of his role in McCain's campaign when Castellanos suggested it is appropriate to call Hillary Clinton a "bitch." Or when he defended John McCain from charges that he had flip-flopped: "I think Senator McCain's position has been steady and constant."
CNN viewers weren't told that Alex Castellanos is advising John McCain when Castellanos said the North Carolina Republican Party's anti-Obama ad -- an ad McCain claimed to oppose -- raised "a fair question to be asking Barack Obama":
WOLF BLITZER (host of The Situation Room): Do you think it's despicable what the GOP in North Carolina is doing running a supposedly this ad linking Democratic candidates in North Carolina, not only to Barack Obama, but to the Reverend Wright?
CASTELLANOS: I think there's frankly a little hype going on here. There's nothing in that ad that hasn't run on every news network in America, including this one, time and time again. Senator McCain nevertheless has said no, it shouldn't be in the campaign.
I think the question it really raises is are the people that you find in Barack Obama's life, are they the same kind of people you'd find in a Barack Obama administration. That's, I think, a question of judgment. That's a fair question to be asking Barack Obama.
They weren't told that Alex Castellanos is advising John McCain when Castellanos said of Obama and Jeremiah Wright: "Obama is saying he supports someone whose statements put him way out of the mainstream of most American thought." Or when he accused Barack Obama of "elitism."
In fact, CNN viewers have never been told that Alex Castellanos is an adviser to John McCain. Not once.
Contrast that with the cable channel's treatment of James Carville and Paul Begala. CNN said that Carville's and Begala's ties to Hillary Clinton must be disclosed during every one of their appearances on CNN. CNN president Jonathan Klein said of Carville: "He's not on the Hillary payroll, but he's on the Hillary bandwagon, and that should be disclosed as much as we can."
But CNN doesn't apply those standards to Alex Castellanos, who is allowed to praise John McCain and to criticize Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton without it ever being disclosed to CNN viewers, by Castellanos or anyone else, that he is a member of the McCain Ad Council.
So CNN is preparing for the general election by hiring a contributor best known for playing on racial divisions and allowing him to praise John McCain and criticize Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton without ever telling viewers that he is a member of McCain's ad team, in direct violation of the standards CNN laid out for contributors who support Hillary Clinton.
CNN says it is "the most trusted name in news."
















Why did CNN hire Castellanos, who has a history of using "racially charged" tactics? And why won't it note he's advising McCain?
That is a very good question, I do not get CNN and what they are trying to do , this is a man who has made a living lying against political opponents. CNN is IMO going well toward the right as this election gets into its general stage with Castellanos and that chronic gambler Bennett.
Correction...
After CNN began its downward spiral (hiring Beck, Grace, etc.), I thought the "C" should stand for "Crap" instead of "Cable."
I'm now convinced that it should stand for "Crappier."
When Bernard Shaw thinks about what CNN spews in the name of journalism, he probably can't stop throwing up.
Uh oh, MMFA is violating Castellanos's first amendment rights! Every incompetent has the right to a national platform.
Hey Roundhouse, am I premature in asking...
Tex dips in sometimes on threads but I haven't seen any Solon posts lately or Dan Grady.
Come back you guys. To say goodbye if nothing else.
I do wish some of the regular posters on this site could do commentary on CNN instead of the pundit hacks employed despite their illogic, distortions and inability to be objective.
Miss those cats.
I think part of what’s happened is that the charming right-leaning silverbacks (you, Tommy, Jeter2 and others to varying degrees) have had a moderating effect on the general discourse. People are concerned with socializing with them and not offending them or, importantly, indirectly offending their liberal friends. Instead of saying what they really think to whomever they feel like addressing, posters here are first considering the social ramifications.
I see J and T as the MMFA equivalents of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity in getting posters both mixed up and inhibited from asserting the truth as they see it. Some liberal posters have become co-opted into a sort of Jeterized version of Hannitization. They’ve been part ways assimilated into the Tomborg instead of the Limborg[TM Solon] they rail against.
This effect is dispersed with some individuals much more susceptible than others but it has had a generalized effect due to the unaffected not wanting to indirectly offend the friends of T and J (etc.).
I frankly haven't been around much because of so many threads getting stuck on stoopid with Tommy, Jeter and Gov (and others who constantly seek to engage Tommy in long battles that amount to nothing). It's tedious and boring. I am an abstract thinker and this constant repetition of word parsing and one upmanship that goes on on virtually every thread is ludicrous. I still don't know why people engage Tommy when it's clear he often is intending to do nothing but belittle this forum and derail threads. I have zero respect for him. I don't even mind AA too much even though he is not so factual/logical. At least he's good for a laugh once in a while. The other cons like Bruce are okay, but Wesley seems to be drinking too much kool-aid. And SueBOB and her crew are just so linear and literal in there words it's hard to beleive their posts are from adults.
I too miss Solon and Tex. Tex was one of the best sages on this forum. And Solon could give the best and funniest grief to the more wild eyed posters here. I hope he comes back soon.
That "there" sb their.
But having said that I know people get upset with me for not being serious enough or being a class clown. I have to say I am a generalist and once the basic point is discussed the nit pickiness of unimportant details does tend to make me want to either leave or post something irreverant. I just can't be so serious all the time after a topic has been beaten to death in the MSM (and MMFA has to repeat the offending party's misinformation). Also, it gets a little wearinging hearing all the crap that the media perpetuates. It makes me sad for our country. I do care.
I hear ya, JJ. Sometimes I think the sole purpose of some of the bottom rung wingnut posters* is to be so goofy that all you can do in response is throw out insults.
Then they get to pull their indignant act and misspell Ad Hominum.
*If you don't think you belong to this group, you may not.But you may.
“I still don't know why people engage Tommy when it's clear he often is intending to do nothing but belittle this forum and derail threads. I have zero respect for him.”---Julia
As I see it, there are three things which continually sustain this phenomenon (Tommy, Jeter2, and other Rightwing, charming, friendly-guy/political-jiujitsu-artists). Their skill as posters (in their case: eloquence, sophistry, humor, determination, and tactical efficiency as to what fight to pick and how to frame it) and their long established record here at handling every kind of reply lends them dominance in the minds of other posters who ordinarily would tell them off or just ignore them. There is the natural tendency to back down from one’s betters, ones established betters. The mistake in this regard was committed long ago in letting them establish themselves.
The second problem has to do with those who will give aid and comfort to the enemy, so to speak. The uncompromised and unaffected posters who would most effectively challenge them don’t want to if by so doing they would offend their own progressive friends who also happen to be on very good terms with this ‘enemy within’ and who may feel threatened by association and/or feel obligated to help repel the challenger directly or at some future time. The same dynamic occurs with the Mafia and various other social groups in the society-at-large. Alliances with individuals and groups are formed to insulate themselves from effective retaliation for the harm they cause society.
And finally there is a lack of confidence as to what would occur if they weren’t around. Just as the removal of a cancerous body part causes trauma, so too would the nice-guy- Right’s absence at first leave an awkward vacuum. But in time there would grow a new culture here independent of them. And the result of this would be a board far easier and eventually much more popular to read. People wouldn’t have to slog through the pedantic back-and-forth between the same people who suck the energy out of countless threads day after day. This would allow a more elevated debate to evolve. Out of this would flow less inhibited postings and better insights which would in time draw more and more honest commentators---people without the obviously partisan agenda to drown-out, crowd-out, and derail productive commentary and debate. This site would spiral upward (the comments part I mean…. obviously there’s no affecting the actual content which is just a given.).
The American-Right plays politics---even at this micro level--- better than the Left IMO. My instinct is that they are going to continue winning here and that this board will continue to decline. I hope I’m wrong.
See, we know that in the next few years we Democrats have an opportunity to prove our case, while you righties have absolutely nothing to lose. The soul of your band of brothers has been betrayed by a lack of meaningful leadership and vigor. Your GOP is out of creativity, out of ideas and perhaps out of time. We'll see, though. Soon enough voters will show the world the levels of distrust Republicans have earned.
Personally, I'll offend anyone. I offend honestly when I believe I recognize harmful, strict father worldviews being expressed. It's that cold hearted, 'you're on your own,' ideal that I disdain. It inevitably pits neighbor against neighbor in destructive competition for a secure livelihood; it exacerbates the neccessitous man syndrome. If I go too hard or have misunderstood a point of view, I'll admit it. Otherwise, I like to tussle and I have no hard feelings over any of it.
"...I think his effect, beyond irritating people to death, is minimal. He doesn't seem to be changing anybody's mind."---Julia
My point is not about whether or not he changes minds---that's a fair goal if that were all he was up to. My point Julia is that he by irritating those board readers who otherwise might post a comment --- they do not. Who otherwise would consider just reading the board --- they do not. Who otherwise might catch a good comment but due to the crowding out effect of the long pedantic debates --- they do not.
I’m saying the charming-Right here hunts by poisoning the waters. They have damaged and continue damaging the ecosystem/environment for optimal progressive commentary and debate on this board. I believe that absent them, over time, a snowball effect of positive growth would occur naturally as the board became easier to read and people were less inhibited, thereby energizing everyone. Better and more honest commentary and debate would begin to fill the board which would invite more of the same, and so on. This would also result in better insights and ideas, and eventually increased readership.
Bruce
I would also suggest that the friendly neighborhood variety cons on this site get way more respect and tolerance than those Lefties that don't always follow the party line. Every so often Lieberman, Sharpton or Clinton will fly off the handle and a few us of us committed Lefties will call them out on it. You wouldn't believe the venom you get for doing that, they treat you worse than the most committed Savage listener, it's like you have betrayed everything in the world in a mere eight line post. Then a few regulars will swoop to your defense and depending on their popularity level the attacks cease or they get dissed too.
I think the divisive nature of this primary has turned a lot of posters off. The blind loyalty on some peoples part has really opened some eyes and colored the otherwise rational posts they leave. IMHO what is good for the goose is good for ths gander...if Dems use the GOP playbook I'm calling them on it. Popularity never mattered to me anyways.
My comments are in reaction to what I see as a decline in the board due to the loss of people I personally did learn from, who did have the “awesome ideas” you are dubious of.
The nature of the problem I describe is systemic and not amenable to a quick fix. It would take time for a readjustment to occur.
This board is interactive and by its’ nature dependent on good group dynamics to spark ideas and insights. As social animals our best thinking comes out of communication with others. Perhaps this rubs against the grain of some rugged-individualist right-wingers, I don’t know. Perhaps some need to work up their own courage to come to grips with what they are--- lowly humans dependent on others for their very survival and the full expression of their humanity.
To clarify my general argument, my main problem is the intentional (as I perceive it) and superfluous (as I perceive them) postings of the charming-Right which are difficult to effectively counter due to non substantive environmental factors. Comments which are ridiculous and obviously wrong don’t fit my criteria as a systemic problem if they seem genuine and not intended to do anything but express a point of view.
The one token conservative on CNN and Media Matters wants him canned. That seems to be the m.o. for liberals these days. Trying to get conservatives fired or boycotted.
By the way, when CNN's Roland Martin called Juan Williams a "happy negro", Media Matters never objected about that. The double standards never stop here at Media Matters.
Is there any Republican-rigged game you can't get behind?
They also employ mr. bulldog Carville and Paul Begala. And this is the trouble with all these partisan pundits...they're partisan and not objective.
And Nancy Grace is just plain nuts.
I don't have a problem with partisan pundits. I don't even have much of a problem with failure to disclose.
What I don't want is a pundit, partisan or otherwise, who is habitually wrong and never punished for it, or who has no intelligence or expertise beyond the average joe.
Lots of professions have limited high-profile positions. In every profession but "journalism" (and music), only the best fill those positions.
Since CNN is obviously a conservative network by any cursory examination of its actual content, that one token conservative must be very busy.
Steeve's comments:
"Since CNN is obviously a conservative network by any cursory examination of its actual content, that one token conservative must be very busy."
Castanellos isn't a TOKEN conservative, he's one of the OVERT conservatives. Glen Beck, Bill Bennett, etc., are also the OVERT conservatives.
The dis-likes of Wolf Blitzer, Dana Bash, Ed Henry, Miles O'Brien, Carol Costello, Jessica Yellin, THOSE are the BACK-DOOR conservatives, and THEIR conservative Republican leanings have to be DUG FOR.
Technical issues hampered my ability to post this response earlier.
"The one token conservative on CNN and Media Matters wants him canned. That seems to be the m.o. for liberals these days. Trying to get conservatives fired or boycotted.
By the way, when CNN's Roland Martin called Juan Williams a "happy negro", Media Matters never objected about that. The double standards never stop here at Media Matters."
You just made your wings cold very fast. Roland Martin didn't call Juan William a "happy Negro", Dr. Boyce Watkins did, and Boyce Watkins was a GUEST on CNN, he is NOT an employed contributor. Watkins is an African-American Finance professor at Syracuse University, and black talk radio has PRAISED Watkins for calling Juan Williams the "happy Negro". Martin hasn't denigrated any black conservative, even though they deserve it. Martin's colleague at Chicago's black talk radio station WVON-AM 1690 http://www.wvon.com, Matt McGill, called Williams "a buck dancing, self-hating, Yes Massa, Uncle Tom", and the black callers at WVON-AM 1690 all hailed him for it. Williams, like Larry Elder, like many other black conservatives, are justifiably hated and despised in the black talk radio circles.
Now, name the time when MMFA and/or any other progressive web site has called for conservatives to be fired and/or boycotted, and name the people. Since the corporatist conserbative Republican Party controlled news media is controlled by the corporatist conservative Republicans, such efforts by MMFA or anyone else would not only be resorting to very same fascist oligarchic speech beliefs that you conservatives believe in, they would also be strategically useless.
MMFA has a link on their front page, related to this weekly item: "castellanos apologizes"... it's simply a bit of video from CNN... the guy's apology is essentially to say "I was trying to make a point about Sen. Clinton's toughness and strength, which I respect, and I chose the wrong words and the way to say it, and I'm sorry I said it that way, it was the wrong thing, but..."
But what?
Before we note "but what", let's note the good and the bad about this apology: the good is, that the guy didn't take the opportunity to repeat what he said... he could have said "I'm sorry I called her a witch, I shouldn't have called her a witch, I wish I hadn't called her a witch": had he said it like that, it would have been his clever way of saying "witch" again, several times... but he didn't do that, and that's good (unlike the item that cite's beck's apology for something, in which he took the opportunity to do AGAIN the exact thing he's supposedly apologizing for: he airs an out of context remark by President Clinton AGAIN, in supposedly claiming he hadn't done it in the first place)... the bad thing about this guy castellano's apology, is he's sneaking it in during commentary about Sen. Clinton's not-so-strange reference to the length of the Democratic Primary process in '68, but totally strange (bizzare) use of the word "assassinated" in recalling the length of that process in '68 (in recalling that it went into June)... again, this guy castellano is taking the opportunity in commenting on Sen. Clinton's remark, to make it all about him: it's all about his "gaffe" ("you know, the same thing happened to me last week")... and so that's the bad thing about this guy's apology: it's attached like a rider to Sen. Clinton's strange remark... right in the middle of discussing her "gaffe" (or whatever you'd call it), this guy castellano makes it all about him, and takes the opportunity to try and get off his hook ("you know, the same thing happened to me last week")... that's the worst thing about these idiot commentary shows on CNN et al: when they're not platforms for working biased political messages, they're platforms for delivering personal messages, often of self-promotion, and this particular case of castellano's, a message of damage-control and public relations... sure, in trying to get to the bottom of WTF Sen. Clinton was thinking when she said the word "assassinated", it's all about castellano, isn't it... it's his opportunity to say:
"you know, the same thing happened to me last week"
As for the guy's apology, and how it veered into a "but..."
But what?
"But I think Sen. Clinton is in the unfortunate position that, when folks are looking for any way to say that maybe this race should be brought to a conclusion, she may have given them a reason today"
I said above that these political media hacks use these platforms for working biased political messages (which you knew that already), and for delivering personal messages, such as damage-control public relations apologies (such as the one this guy delivered during the "assassinated" remark commentary)... and so there it is, there's the "but what" of this guy's apology: "but Sen. Clinton gave those folks looking for any way to bring this race to a conclusion, people like me, she gave us another reason today... we'll get that witch out of this race"
I think Media Matters is jealous because they are not the only
ones with a deck of race cards to play.
Mary, of course he has all kinds of examples. Like most of the righty posters here, though, he doesn't have time to post them. He's too busy copy & pasting BS, and asking other people for proof.
They used to at least be entertaining in their stoopidity. Come on, wingnuts, bring some game, this is one of the few websites that allows a good unrestricted flow of opposing viewpoints on, and you guys have nothing but old stock.
Dear Col.
You are right, of course. I've noted that many of those that take untenable positions either demand that you provide proof for each and every statement made (and then blowing off those proofs for one reason or another) and/or neglect to post any proof (usually because they have none). A very good (NOT) way to argue.
Irony you are correct. There was also an appearance by Mr Rove this morning on ABC with Stephanapoulis. George pushed Rove on being an "informal advisior" to the McBush campaign. Rove shot back "I would not say that, its more chit chat". Stephanapoulis correctly said "For our purposes you are an informal advisior".
FOX never claims that.
Sorry about my spelling its "advisor". I have not put my contacts in yet ;-).
Have a glorious day everyone.
Irony you are correct. There was also an appearance by Mr Rove this morning on ABC with Stephanapoulis. George pushed Rove on being an "informal advisior" to the McBush campaign. Rove shot back "I would not say that, its more chit chat". Stephanapoulis correctly said "For our purposes you are an informal advisior". FOX never claims that.
That's because GOP-Fox Lies Channel wants Liar McCain to be elected president. So does GOP-CNN, so does GOP-Viacom-CBS, so does GOP-Ge-NBC/MSNBC, so does GOP-Disney-ABC. GOP-Fox is just OVERT in their pro-McCain favoritism, while the rest show back-door favoritism to Liar McCain.
This is not a "shockingly bad decision."
This is a deliberate attempt by the corporate media to cheapen the 2008 race. This will help McLame.
Castellanos is a dirtbag of the highest order. A disgrace to American values. As such, he's highly prized by the neocons.
"This is not a "shockingly bad decision." This is a deliberate attempt by the corporate media to cheapen the 2008 race.
This will help McLame. Castellanos is a dirtbag of the highest order. A disgrace to American values. As such, he's highly prized by the neocons."
8 Homes, your comments hit the target with a perfect 10.
The only amending I will post to your comments is that the corporate conservative Republican Party controlled news media is doing this in a deliberate effort to help Liar McCain get elected. The corporate conservative Republican news media is showing MORE favoritism to McCain this year than they showed favoritism to Bush both BEFORE and during the 2000 Presidential Election when he first ran, and the corporate conservative Republican Party controlled news media showed even MORE favoritism to Bush when he was running for re-"election" in 2004.
With the exception of Roland S. Martin, who in addition to being a CNN Contributor, is also a black talk radio host for Chicago's African-American Talk Radio Station WVON-AM 1690 http://www.wvon.com, CNN is, in my opinion, the Conservative News Network, or even worse, should be called RNCNN (Republican National Committee News Network). GOP-CNN is just as right wing conservative as the Fox Lies Channel, and is trying to become MORE right wing conservative than the Fox Lies Channel.
That's the ONLY explanation for why Castanellos says these things on TV. In part, because GOP-CNN welcomes these comments, and in some cases (but not this one), GOP-CNN and/or its corporatist conservative Republican bosses like Johnathan Klein [Yes, Johnathan Klein is a corporatist conservative Republican], and/or others, may even be parties to and/or are complicit in the creation of and/or uttering of these comments.
The dis-likes of Wolf Blitzer (Blitzer's a right wing Republican), Ed Henry (Henry's a right wing Republican), Dana Bash (Bash is a right wing Republican hate hag), among too many others to name here, are also right wing conservative Republicans, you just have to look harder to find their pro-Republican favoritism most of the time.