CNN anchors wondered: "How dignified could [a filibuster] be?" and "Will [Alito] get the fair vote that the president has been asking for?"
On CNN, anchor Miles O'Brien suggested that a Senate filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. would not be "dignified"; anchor Wolf Blitzer wondered if Alito will "get the fair vote the president has been asking for."
In covering the Senate Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearings regarding Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s Supreme Court nomination, CNN anchor Miles O'Brien commented: "And the Senate, of course, is a dignified place, but there's also talk about a filibuster. So how dignified could that be?" Later, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer asked: "Will the Supreme Court nominee get the fair vote that the president has been asking for?"
From the January 9 edition of CNN's American Morning:
MILES O'BRIEN: Well, you talked to [ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee] Senator Patrick Leahy [D-VT]. And "dignified," I believe, was one of the terms that came up there.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN (CNN anchor): Right.
MILES O'BRIEN: And the Senate, of course, is a dignified place, but there's also talk about a filibuster. So how dignified could that be?
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN: We'll see what happens. That's ahead this morning on American Morning. We're back in just a moment.
Later, Blitzer introduced CNN's live coverage of the hearings, asking: "Will [Alito] get the fair vote that the president has been asking for?"
BLITZER: Happening now, our special coverage of Samuel Alito's confirmation hearings. It's almost high noon in the Senate hearing room here in Washington. The showdown over Judge Alito is about to begin. Will the Supreme Court nominee get the fair vote the president is asking for? This hour, senators give their first hints at how tough the questioning will be.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Senate is a "dignified place"? Has Miles not seen video of Ted Stevens' (R-Alaska) little temper tantrums?
And the "conservative misinformation" is ...
??
Those were not reasonable questions?
Those were biased questions.
Loaded, biased questions. Questions for which ANY answer lends credence to the erroneous GOP talking-point that the filibuster is unwarranted and undignified.
Republicans, with their constant urination on the Constitution, wouldn't know dignity if it...spied on their phone conversations!
Does the name Jean Schmidt ring a bell? How about Duke "Flag Wrap" Cunningham?
Dignity! Bah! That's fer Frenchie liberals!
Biased or leading questions/statements are can be just as misleading and hurtful as simply getting the facts wrong. The statements by these morning TV hosts lead the viewer to believe that a filibuster is undignified and that the democrats are being unfair. Both statements are false and misleading.
An outiright lie can be countered....it can be debunked....
There is nothing that can be done about chitchat between pundits. If you ever want an overdose of this subtle (and sometimes obvious) bias, watch Fox & Friends.
As a news producer, I can tell you that this is obviously biased-latent language that for some reason goes unpoliced in cable news, as is apparently the habbit. It may seem weird to you, but I believe MMFA exists for this purpose: to highlight and bring attention to such language that easily finds its way onto airwaves and hopefully, to restore some form of restraint on behalf of anchors, producers, reporters and writers. To break it down, filibusters are -- albeit rare -- just another method of congressional operation. For O'Brien to suggest whether or not it's "dignified" is opening up a forum for debate, which is no place for an anchor to do so during a supposed un-editorialized newscast...especially when casually slipped into a teaser.
The same would go for Blitzer's reference to the "fair vote" that Bush wants for Alito. If Blitzer framed this statement as though it were repeating Bush's language, ie: "will Bush get the 'fair vote' as he puts it?", then it would be okay. "Fair vote" from an anchor implies an emotion -- a position, merey by its wording, as technical as it may seem, which really doesn't jive with the conventions of broadcast news anchoring.
The conservative misinformation is in the language, as subtle as it might seem. But the larger picture to keep in mind is that these sort of things happen so often that it becomes necesary to police it.
Hey left have you stopped beating your wife?
Golly Gosh, morning personalities, we wouldn't want to upset BushieCo. Only BushieCo is allowed to upset policy, people and propaganda. You information outlets stay out of it! You want to keep Dick Cheney smiling, don't you?
Make me wonder how people on the right cry a liberal media bias. C'mon, .....CNN seems almost as bad Faux?
Every morning I have to sit through "American Morning" (Either this or FAUX news) and watch these two people slip their opinions in- it is on at work. It is infuriating the subtle and not so subtle ways they advance the administration agenda- to me they are much more insidious since FAUX preaches to the already converted.
I can't imagine how such unimaginative lickspittles can call themselves "journalists". I guess "anchor" is an appropriate term considering how much of a weight around the neck of public discourse these people have become. With very few, very specific exceptions, I have completely given up on broadcast news. Newspapers aren't doing much better. The far right and corporate interests have done such a complete job of terrorizing the journalistic profession that all the heart, all the courage, all the independence has gone out of the news media. It's easy to have a big mouth when you're being paid to keep the Bush administration afloat, but the few men and women of journalism that are still willing to tell the truth are quickly being put out of business, to the detriment of our republic.
they're called "newsreaders" - though even that may give them too much credit.
we call these people lying scumbags.
Where is the right-wing misinformation?
When discussing the possibility of a fillibuster, I do not believe O'Brien said anything about one party or another? If it gets to a fillibuster we know how both sides start attacking the other.
The same goes with Wolfe Blitzer. I don't think MMFA has targeted him as right-winger, (but I may be wrong.) The term 'fair vote' as we all know refers to a vote on the Senate floor, nothing more, nothing less.
The statements by these morning TV hosts lead the viewer to believe that a filibuster is undignified and that the democrats are being unfair. They are infusing a conservative bias onto a topic that is purported (from a "worthy" news source) to be presented in an unbiased manner = as damaging and hurtful as relaying false information. And, I'd be willing to bet you that most viewers watching CNN in the morning do NOT know what a "fair vote" means vis-a-vis congressional lingo.
What is fair is that either side use any or all of the procedural rules available to them, including, but not limited to, a filibuster. To imply that a "fair vote" is the only "dignified" possible outcome is ridiculous. Just to call it a "fair" vote is misleading - a vote should be fair on it's face without qualifiers, but you could call it a fair process if you wanted to be unbiased. In this case a fair process is the result if all of the rules are followed, period. If it takes 2/3 to stop debate and the rescumlicans can't get 2/3? too bad. There's a reason that our founding fathers set it up this way.
Correct; I agree with your observations concerning rules of procedure, the 'fair vote' and 'dignity' nonsense, the rule that a super-majority is required to close debate, and the reason for that rule.
Please allow me to add...
The super-majority required to close debate (to pass a 'cloture motion') is three-fifths of those Senators voting, and the rule that requires that super-majority is Senate Rule 22; easy to read and to understand, and found here [link to rules.senate.gov]
As for the reason for that rule, for requiring that a super-majority of U.S. Senators are required to close debate and bring the measure to a floor vote...
...if more than two-fifths of those Senators voting (more than 40 U.S. Senators) have collective reservations enough to refuse closing debate on the measure; reservations enough to insist on continued debate; then perhaps the measure in question has something to it of concern; certainly enough to concern more than 40 U.S. Senators who wish to be heard further on the measure, and perhaps enough concern to get the attention of
The People of the United States of America
to whom these matters, and these measures, are of great concern; and to whom both government and the U.S. Senate are Constitutionally obliged, by Law and by Oath; obliged to
We the People
...and so if more than 40 Senators wish to continue debating, then let them; and if the People of the United States are invited into this debate, then so let it be.
The Constitution of the United States: it's not just a good idea, it's the Law.
And the requirement that a super-majority is necessary to pass a cloture motion is also not just a good idea, it's in the Standing Rules of the U.S. Senate:
it's Senate Rule 22.
Only if we keep fighting the good fight. Otherwise it's going to be nothing more than toilet paper for King George IV.
OK, here we go -
Again:
It is a "fact" for right-wingers that the mainstream media has a liberal bias. That "fact" has made its way into the mainstream media itself, and has colored their work for the past several years.
I'll go out on a limb here and speak for MMA: one of the missions of this organization is to document the many instances of conservative bias - intentional or otherwise - that pervade the MSM.
This item is yet another example of how the words of so-called "journalists" are often skewed heavily in the right's favor. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of examples of this now on this website.
And if so many of these examples exist, it is not possible that the MSM has a liberal bias. For if they did, these items would not be here.
Q.E.D. 'Kay?
This is further proof that CNN is now the Conservative News Network.
Their bias is almost as bad as FOX News, which is the propaganda arm of the Chimpy Regime.
A filibuster isn't "dignified"? What kind of crap is that?
Biased, pro-Bush crap, thats what.
How "dignified" is it for a "journalist" to swallow whole a GOP talking point?
I would say not at all but obviously many of them don't feel that way. They have had plenty of practise in doing this though so they must quite good at it.
Will the citzens of the US ever get an appointee who is actually interested in protecting their Constitutional rights? How undignified, nay impeachable, would it be for a President to appoint someone interested in destorying the Constitution -- by avdocating absolute executive power that they (both parties) -- have or will have taken an oath to protect?
Here's why these comments are biased (despite their lack of party reference):
In the first clip, the implication (through use of a rhetorical question) is that a filibuster is somehow "undignified." However, a filibuster is just a congressional tactic or procedure, no different in use than a roll call or a committee meeting. Making a blanket statement about a congressional procedure, especially off-the-cuff like this, seems odd. I imagine few people would see the filibuster in "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" as undignified, nor did many Republicans see judicial filibustering as undignified when they used them against Democrats. Its a procedure - it has no dignity or lack thereof. However, it *is* a current Republican talking point that the Democrats are somehow acting undignified or impolite by using the filibuster, by "not giving the nominee an up or down vote." Believe what you will about this argument, but in this case, the journalists are clearly supposing a side - that there is something wrong, something "undignified" about Democrats using one of a thousand legitimate Senatorial procedures.
Likewise, Wolf Blitzer, by asking if Alito will receive the "fair vote" the President wishes, is implying that the blocking of that vote (either in committee or through a filibuster) would somehow be "unfair." But unfair to whom? Judge Alito, who surely knows that there are many, many stumbling blocks on the way to Supreme Court confirmation? President Bush, who knows the same? Harriet Miers, who was denied her own "fair vote?" The Democrats, who find themselves in an unfair situation wherein they don't have as many votes as the Republicans? The implication, again, is that a filibuster is undignified/unfair. It isn't - its a method whereby the minority party prevents itself from being completely pushed around by the majority party. Democrats use it now because they are in the minority. For most of the last fifty years, when Democrats were ascendant, Republicans used it. For Wolf Blitzer to suggest that the filibuster is unfair reflects a current Republican talking point and is, therefore, a biased statement.
Thats why its a problem. It doesn't have to mention a party by name to show support, even off-the-cuff support, for their policies and spin.
Sen. Patrick Leahy {D-VT} said it best, as a guest on the Ed Schultz show, regarding Bush's hope that Alito's confirmation hearings are "dignified:" "I don't need a lecture from the President on dignity . . . I was here [in Washington] before he was, and will be here after he's gone . . ."
He knows a thing or two about how "dignified" the Bushies are.
Remember what Dick Cheney said to him on the Senate floor? And how he "felt pretty good about it" afterwards?
Very "dignified," Dick.
like when we had an impeachment over lying about an extra-marital affair? congress under the republicans has had all the dignity of o'rielly and limbaugh, in other words none. and cnn is rapidly catching up. blitzer is a limbaugh fan for those unaware. he had the porky pundit on one day and he said "when i was listening this afternoon as i always do..."
I am so tired of those pretty faces with their post-lobotomy smiles. When did perkiness replace journalistic ethic?
I don't think a filibuster will be necessary. I am not convinced Alito has the votes or will get them.
It all depends on whether the moderate Republicans can see through Alito's apparent duplicity on Roe V. Wade as well as affirmative action and presidential power.
Conservatives prefer Alito because of his statements during the Reagan Administration. It is the basis for much of his support, although they may vigorously and falsely deny it, IMO. However, he wants to be able to have it both ways, by denying those views to moderates and liberals. He simply should not be allowed to have it both ways.
The term 'fair vote' as we all know refers to a vote on the Senate floor, nothing more, nothing less.
Where was Miers' "fair vote"?
Oh, that's right. She didn't get one because she spooked the far Right elements of the GOP into thinking she wasn't the activist judge they wanted. Can't have that. Nooooo. Nosiree...
No "fair", "up-or-down" vote for Miers. We'll just quietly tuck her away and hope no one notices...
CNN stopped becomming a responsible news network the moment the Fascist News Channel became a serious competitor.
Ted Turner was right to call his old network "the channel that focuses on the pervert of the day" (i.e. Scott Peterson, Chandra Leavy, Natalie Holloway etc.)
A longtime CNN news reporter who quit just a few months ago told the Columbia Spectator that CNN is no longer a responsible news network and that was the reason why she quit.
now that Miers is out of the way and Alito in, the Republicants can return to their "up or down vote" talking points... apparently that talking point didn't apply to Harriet...
Does anyone care what Miles O'Brien's opinion is about the US Senate?
The Senate lost all dignity when they do their midnight votes to pass their pork spending and and shut out the Democrats from negotiations of laws such as the REAL ID act.