Despite controversial comments and GAO investigation, Bill Bennett reportedly joining CNN as political analyst
SUMMARY: CNN has reportedly hired conservative commentator Bill Bennett despite a controversial comment he made in September 2005 on his radio show, when he said that "it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime ... you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down."
The weblog TVNewser has reported that CNN has hired radio host and former Reagan administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett as a political analyst. Specifically, in a December 30 post, TVNewser reported that "conservative talk show host Bill Bennett will become a CNN political analyst early in 2006." CNN's hiring of Bennett would come despite Bennett's controversial September 28, 2005, comment on his radio show, when he said that "it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime ... you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." CNN would not "confirm Bennett's new role at the cable news channel," according to a United Press International report.
K12 Inc., a company from which Bennett resigned in the wake of the controversy over his comment, is currently part of an investigation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, which is looking into K12's involvement in a project that received an improper multimillion-dollar grant from the Department of Education during Bennett's tenure at the firm. Meanwhile, during some of his television appearances, Bennett has continued to comment on administration education policy and the No Child Left Behind Act without mentioning the grant, which was awarded while Bennett still was part of the company.
CNN's reported new hire has also repeatedly engaged in misinformation in his television appearances on Fox News, where he previously served as a contributor. He would replace outgoing conservative columnist Robert D. Novak, whose contract was not renewed by CNN. (Media Matters for America had urged CNN not to re-sign Novak.) Novak appeared on CNN only once after the network suspended him in early August for using vulgar language and storming off the set during the August 4, 2005, edition of Inside Politics. As Media Matters President and CEO David Brock noted when he urged CNN not to renew Novak's contract, the conservative's "credibility as a CNN contributor [was] severely compromised by [his] contradictory statements and accounts [of his role in the Valerie Plame case], as well as by his complete lack of candor on the issue of his involvement in the outing of Plame."
As Media Matters first detailed, Bennett's September 2005 comments came in the context of addressing a caller's suggestion that the "lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30 years" would be enough to preserve Social Security's solvency. Bennett dismissed such "far-reaching, extensive extrapolations" by declaring that if "you wanted to reduce crime ... if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." He added that aborting all African-American babies "would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do," then said again, "but the crime rate would go down."
Bennett later defended his remarks using the false claim (later repeated by his radio show's distributor, Salem Radio Network) that his comment was based on a 1999 Slate.com online discussion between Steven D. Levitt, co-author of Freakonomics (William Morrow, May 2005), and right-wing columnist Steve Sailer, in which Bennett claimed that Levitt "discusse[d], as I did, the racial implications of abortion and crime." But Levitt did not. In fact, in the Slate debate that Bennett cited, Levitt said the opposite of what Bennett claimed: "None of our analysis is race-based because the crime data by race is generally not deemed reliable."
Many public officials condemned Bennett's remarks. In a September 30, 2005, letter to Salem Radio Network, Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-MI) and 56 other members of Congress demanded the suspension of Bennett's radio show, writing that "[w]hile we all support First Amendment Rights, we simply cannot countenance statements and shows that are replete with racism, stereotyping, and profiling. Mr. Bennett's statement is insulting to all of us and has no place on the nation's public air waves." That same day, White House press secretary Scott McClellan stated that President Bush "believes the comments were not appropriate." CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley reported on that evening's edition of NewsNight that, among Republicans, "there is some off-camera fuming. 'Look,' said one top Republican, 'it was goofy and it was inappropriate.' "
Bennett later attacked his critics, claiming his comments were embarrassing to them because of their support of abortion. On the October 5 broadcast of the nationally syndicated Focus on the Family radio program, Focus on the Family founder and chairman James C. Dobson suggested that the reason "the left has reacted so viciously to you [Bennett] is that their own abortion movement is rooted in racism." Bennett agreed and expanded on these remarks by stating that "this is the sort of thing, I think, that was probably in their minds. On a conscious or subconscious level, that had something to do with the viciousness of the attack. In using this noxious hypothetical, I hit too close to what they believe, not what I believe." Bennett further stated on the October 5 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto that "I guess the irony is, I'm the pro-life guy. I don't advocate abortion for anyone, any group. ... And my critics are pro-choice, pro-abortion, but we'll clear the air."
But to many, Bennett's views on abortion were not the issue. As Media Matters wrote at the time:
Bennett and his defenders have seized on Bennett's original statement that it would be "impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible" to actually abort all black babies. But that isn't the issue; of course everyone understands that Bill Bennett doesn't want to abort all black babies. The issue is that Bennett, upon thinking "crime rate," immediately thought of black people. The issue is that Bennett thinks and speaks of crime as an issue of race.
Similarly, Conyers wrote in his weblog that "what they [right-wing critics] miss is not the abortion 'hypothetical' -- as absurd and tasteless as that is -- but Bennett's suggestion that African Americans are synonymous with crime. It is a text book case of stereotyping and racism, and cannot be explained away."
Media Matters for America has noted other instances of claims by Bill Bennett that amount to conservative misinformation. For example, appearing on the February 3, 2005, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Bennett falsely claimed that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt would have supported private accounts for Social Security. He stated that "Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the guy who established Social Security, said that it would be good to have it replaced by private investment over time. Private investment would be the way to really carry this thing through." As Media Matters documented, Bennett's claim was apparently based on a distortion of a Roosevelt quote by Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume. Bennett also falsely claimed six times on the November 21, 2004, edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday that former President Clinton committed "perjury" or a "felony" for lying under oath.
Also noteworthy is that Bennett has repeatedly appeared on cable television to comment on Bush administration education policies. However, Bennett never disclosed that he was the chairman of the board of directors and a shareholder (as of October 2005, he reportedly owned less than 5 percent) of K12 Inc., which was a partner in a project that received $4.1 million from the Department of Education -- which Bennett headed during the Reagan administration -- through grants made under the No Child Left Behind Act's Voluntary Public School Choice program. At the time of the company's founding, Bennett said he would receive a salary from K12 for his "significant" role there [Washington Post, 12/28/00]. The grant funded an "online-learning academy" in Arkansas, which K12 worked with the state department of education to create.
According to a July 28, 2004, Education Week report, (noted by The Carpetbagger Report weblog) the department's "decision to award $4.1 million over the past two years ... to a project involving Mr. Bennett's company raises questions about whether the privately held, for-profit K12 Inc. benefited from political connections." The report quoted an unidentified employee "who has knowledge of how the department decided to make the grant to K12" stating, "Anything with Bill Bennett's name on it was going to get funded." The report continued:
An Education Week review of federal and state documents, as well as information from sources familiar with the grantmaking process, shows that K12 and its Arkansas partner received the grant despite the fact that one project that independent reviewers rated higher was not funded. The choice of a lower-rated proposal over a higher-rated one in the department's competitive-grant process is highly unusual, according to sources inside and outside the department. The project received approval from political appointees even though some employees inside the department questioned whether it fit a basic criterion for the program: that the students benefiting from the grant attend public schools.
Education Department officials acknowledge that the office of the deputy secretary of education chose to finance the Arkansas-based project even after department employees who managed the competitive-grant program initially recommended a slate of 10 projects that did not include the online school.
[...]
One [federal Education] department employee contends that officials of the current Bush administration acted out of political interests in making the Arkansas award and failed to follow the congressional intent for the grant program or the department's procedures for awarding competitive grants. "Anything with Bill Bennett's name on it was going to get funded," said the employee, who has knowledge of how the department decided to make the grant to K12. The employee asked not to be identified.
[...]
The $2.3 million grant for the Arkansas Virtual School technically went to the Arkansas Department of Education, which worked with McLean, Va.-based K12 to establish an online-learning academy. The federal department renewed the grant in 2003, giving the Arkansas project $1.8 million more, according to James Boardman, the state education department's assistant director for information and technology.
[...]
The K12 program was not on the list of 10 grantees proposed by the program's staff, which based its recommendation on independent peer reviewers' grading of all grant applications, according to the source familiar with the grant. The Arkansas project was not on the list because it did not score high enough in reviewers' grading of all the proposals submitted to the department.
According to records obtained by Education Week under the Freedom of Information Act, peer reviewers gave the Arkansas Virtual School's proposal a score of 95 on a scale of 115, ranking it 11th among the 13 selected for funding.
The office of William D. Hansen, then the deputy secretary of education, chose to add K12 and other projects, said Ms. [Susan] Aspey of the department.
The grant was announced by the Department of Education on October 4, 2002. The GAO opened an investigation into this and other Education Department grants on November 19, 2004. The investigation had been requested on October 21, 2004, by Rep. George Miller (D-CA), who cited the July 28 Education Week report.
Despite having been part of a company that received revenue from a project funded by the Department of Education, Bennett has repeatedly appeared on cable television and provided his opinion on the administration's education policies and on the No Child Left Behind Act:
- From Fox News' January 28, 2003, State of the Union speech coverage, which featured Hannity & Colmes co-host Alan Colmes:
COLMES: Aside from the top of the speech here, which hasn't gotten enough attention, he talked about jobs. You know 181,000 jobs were lost in 2002, 1.6 million in the last two years on Bush's watch. He talked about the standards of our public schools. Yet, he hasn't funded as much as some say he should. He cut $90 billion from our No Child Left Behind Act. So, you know, I see some places where he's falling short that don't match the rhetoric. What's your take on it?
BENNETT: Your perspective, obviously.
COLMES: Obviously.
BENNETT: He increased spending on education dramatically. I think the first part of the speech so far in the commentary has been underrated. Obviously, the Iraq part was the most important. But these are very dramatic initiatives, particularly the AIDS initiative in Africa.
- From CNN's January 20, 2004, State of the Union speech coverage, which featured CNN anchor Paula Zahn:
ZAHN: Bill, let's move on to what else the president is expected to address this evening. He's supposed to lay out a number of expensive projects, from the ongoing efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan --
BENNETT: Right.
ZAHN: -- to a very expensive space initiative. Do you have concerns about the fiscal responsibility of this president?
BENNETT: Well, some. I'm one of those persons who thinks that limited government is a -- is a -- ought to be a reality, as well as an ideal. But one has to say about this president that he's a big president. I mean, he thinks big and he acts big. And in the most important ways, that's very positive. He's done so on issues of war and peace. He's done so on foreign policy.
He's taking on big issues. Look at the immigration. He's not afraid of the third rails of politics. I could see some more restraint on some of the spending. I wasn't particularly happy about the Medicare. I think some of the education spending, an area I know pretty well, isn't necessary. But this is a historic presidency. This is a guy who paints in very bold strokes, takes everything on and is not backing off. And I think we're going to see that tonight in the State of the Union.
- From the November 4, 2004, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
COLMES: Look, you said in your piece that we just mentioned a moment ago, President Bush, you say, now has a mandate to affect policy that will promote a more decent society through both politics and law. What law or laws do you want to see enacted to promote the so-called more decent society?
BENNETT: Well, the things he talked about today would be a good start. Another one would be in the area of education, giving parents more say so their values have more say in the education of their children.
Discussing the then-debut of his Morning in America radio show on the April 2, 2004, edition of CNN's Inside Politics, Bennett commented that he would be talking about education policy on the new show:
BENNETT: Well, to be engaging and interesting, I am a conservative. I guess everybody knows that. But I'd like to be thoughtful about it. I don't want to berate guests. I don't want to make fun of people because they're liberal. I want to hear the argument. I start with a conservative position on most issues. But we want to take a lot of calls and talk to a lot of people. There's not a lot of morning drive talk radio that takes a lot of calls. We do say the most important voice out there is yours. We'll have a lot of guests but we're not going to focus on politics and policy. The focus will be on culture. Culture as it affects the news and politics and policy, but education, too, and the movies and sports. It will be about everything. [Former Sen.] Daniel Patrick Moynihan [D-NY] said culture is more important than politics. Politics can change culture, but culture's more important.
It is incredible that anyone would want to have anything to do with this man!
Bennet's statement made two assumptions:
1) that blacks are somehow more disposed to criminal activity than the rest of the populace
2) that genocide would have measurably beneficial effects
He presents these as FACTUAL assumptions(this would happen if we did that).
Just imagine if Bennet had said something like:
"It's true if you wanted to reduce securities fraud you could abort every Jewish baby in the country and the rate of fraud would go down."
-or-
"It's true if you wanted to raise the aggregate SAT scores you could abort every evangelical Christian baby in the country and scores would go up."
Do you think ANYONE would touch him?
because sometimes what you asked for actually happens. Media Matters mobilized its army to put pressure on CNN to fire Robert Novack. Do I think that had anything to do with what happened? No. I just think it's funny that now Media Matters is mobilizing again to stop Bill Bennett as a replacement. By the way, anyone who has actually heard the ENTIRE conversation Bill Bennett had with the caller on the radio show knows that this entire issue is BS. His comments were obviously taken out of context. The give away on this in the Media Matters quote above is those pesky little "...". That means something is being left out, like the entire context of his conversation. Bill Bennett is not a racist and appears to be a reasonable replacement for Novack to me.
His entire statement was printed. Nor is the context helpful. He still conflated the idea of race and propensity for CRIME, period. A racist bit of stereotyping if I have ever seen one. By the way your shilling is WAY below par.
As much as the left despised Novak, I doubt this is the person MMFA had in mind when they were urging CNN not to renew his contract. Look at the bright side, more material for MMFA.
I recognize him as a traitor for releasing the name of an undercover CIA operative whose job was trying to find and eliminate Sadaam Hussein's so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Great! We now get to listen to yet another white male conservative shill for the Bush Administration. Thanks CNN for finally bringing this rare conservative Republican perspective onto the your corporate cable news channels. I thought we would never get to hear that point of view on TV.
This is extraordinary.
Right at a time when an overtly political use of the privately owned corporate media is tainting Public discourse to an almost poisonous level, and the American People are becoming evermore sickened by this onset; and the vital signs of Truth in the media growing ever weaker; this is what CNN prescribes:
William Bennett?
...there's no longer any journalists looking for work? There's no one in America who CNN could find to provide 'objective' commentary on national politics?
William Bennett?
This is extraordinary.
"Despite controversial comments......." More like as a result of controversial comments, CNN hires Bennett. These cable networks are figuring out that controversy sells and generates ratings and dollars. FOX figured it out awhile ago, that's why O'Reilly remains their #1 rated program.
The talk fest, scream laden programs is apparently what the people want, as well as a little eyebrow-raising comments by hosts and guests. Not to mention websites like these make a living off of controversial comments. Do you think they actually want people like Bennett downsized?
Of course not.
...CNN has truly become "fair and balanced".
If by 'fair and balanced' you mean a completely biased right wing propaganda tool like FoxNews.
Conservative ideals and or imperatives has no relationship with personal values or morals. Bill Benneth may call himself a conservative, but to arrogate vices like crime and violence to a race simply because of the color of their skin, is nothing short of moral bankruptcy. I do not know why anybody should have anything to do with Mr. Benneth, especially CNN.
That's a very solid point, Tommy. Well done.
Re: "...websites like these make a living off of controversial comments. Do you think they actually want people like Bennett downsized?":
There -unfortunately- will never be an end to the sewage that spews from the right-wing discharge pipe. Whack a Novak and a Bennett pops up. There is, regrettably, no chance of Media Matters finding a lack of material.
To suggest that this web site isn't honestly trying to stop the spread of conservative misinformation is simply a cynical, bitter accusation with no evidence to back up the charge.
You cannot possibly be that naive to think that this website's only mission is to stop conservative misinformation. That is absurd. Their mission is to highlight that misinformation, but to think they want it stopped would be committing career suicide........if they, as you say, are out to eliminate it - HELLO, they would be out of a job. I have no issue with this website's mission or their purpose, they have the perfect right and are read by alot of people, myself included.
But to suggest they don't live off of controversial comments by conservatives is ridiculous. They absolutely do.
Right, Tommy, and people who are making a living off of treating cancer don't want there to be a cure because that would be bad for business. The upside to it, that the problem that you are working so hard against being eliminated, is well worth it. Or maybe you also believe that homocide detectives want more murders so that they stay useful, and firemen love arsonists because of the job security, etc, etc. I guess it's naive to believe that people who work against a problem actually don't like the existence of it. Welcome to Tommy's world.
That's about as ridiculous an analogy as I have ever heard, do you have any idea how ridiculous it sounds?
Let me ask you > why all these incessant posts about O'Reilly? The obsession with every little word he utters? The reason, many people here eat it up like a cheeseburger because it makes them feel superior..........O'Reilly is the favorite punching bag of the moment and it makes for good juicy copy - nearly all of what he says here is really not misinformation at all, but rather his whacked out opinions and comments.......MMFA has no interest in stopping his misinformation, because that's not really what it is - and if they intend to silence him, that would be even worse because he has the right to say whatever stupid stuff he says........
So, the O'Reilly's of the world and MMFA's of the world need each other, feed off of each other, and make money off of each other.........that's the irony many of you want to deny, for some lofty higher order that does not exist.
Grow up.
What's so ridiculous about it? They're trying to expose people, which is fighting conservative misinformation. Why do they write letters to news sources calling for action, if they don't want such action to be taken? Reverse psychology?
I think we're seeing a lot of posts about O'Reilly because he's coming more unhinged daily. There is still misinformation, but the suggestion that his "whacked-out comments" are undeserving of attention is ludicrous. Right-wing pundits have been doing this for some time, moving further towards the extremes to make the "balance line" more conservative. It's just as dangerous to the national dialogue as any misinformation.
And you have yet to explain how O'Reilly "feeds" off of MMfA. O'Reilly has stopped referring to MMfA by name. Why is that? If the site is so helpful for him, don't you think he would call them out by name daily, or any other "left-wing smear sites" that cover him? You can pretend that people think of it as the political equivalent of professional wrestling, that they know it's fake but still enjoy it, but people do listen to him and use him as a source of information. People who are looking for an accurate source of information would not waste their time on him after some research here. Why would they?
Your theory is just baseless. You pretend that you can read the minds of people and know what their motives are, but you can't. You are just assuming the worst. There is nothing to back up the belief that MMfA does what it does for any reason besides fighting conservative misinformation and extremism. This may be your coping technique for dealing with the daily demonstration of the liars and extremists that best represent your views publicly, but the rest of us aren't buying it.
Actually that was a very astute analogy Tommy. Many of us do see right wing propaganda as a cancer. It is after all getting people killed. You are suggesting that MM somehow wants right wing lies to continue to dominate the national scene. That is incredibly cynical. And what is with the snotty 'grow up' comment? Do you equate blind cynicism with growing up?
You imply that there could be a day when there is no more conservative misinformation, and that this is somehow a danger to Media Matters, because then they'd be out of work.
My point *again* is that that day will _never_ come, regrettably. Therefore, this site is in absolutely no peril of having no material to work with.
Your accusation that this site is in it to "make a living" off misinformation and thereby use it as job security is cynical and without basis in fact or evidence.
By your logic and attitude, doctors aren't noble or idealistic - they simply 'earn money off of sick people', and have a vested interest in hoping they stay ill, else he or she runs out of patients.
Anybody that works in a problem-solving type business is out to solve those problems, of course. And because their job is a necessary one there will always be problems, in a sense - job security. It doesn't mean you don't do your job, because if you do it could be eliminated.....
My point was because of all the "conservative misinformation" this site was created and is apparently successful. The same could be said of the "liberal misinformation" webistes as well. People from both sides of the aisle will say dumb things that are factually inaccurate or just dumb, of course it will never go away..
You agree, "of course it [misinformation] will never go away..."
Since you agree with me that there will be an unending stream of right wing misinformation, it shoots a hole through your claim that Media Matters is fearful of putting itself out of a job by stopping, for example, Bennett from what he's doing.
ShaBAM!! Good one Dave. ;)
I would assume that when they concluded their mission of eliminating conservative misinformation, those who fund them would reassign them to some other task.
He is a best selling author and a gifted writer. I have two of his books right here and will buy more. He is in no danger of becoming a pauper no matter what happens to this site.
but calling someone else naive is OK?
If you can't stand the heat...
You think there's nothing else they'd be able to do? Get real, I'm sure they're not concerned about being out of a job if the controversy magically stopped.
This talk of conservatives and liberals is so simplistic that I wonder if anybody has ever sat down to think of why and how people came up with this poisonous ideological divide. One of my friends told me that the only time he knows that there is a conservative in the white house is when him and his home boys lose their jobs, and as soon as so called liberals take back office, his home boys get their jobs back. That may seem unsophisticated, but does it ring a bell? Look at Bill Benneth onabortion and crime: He love s the black kids as long as they are not yet born, as soon as they are born, Mr. Benneth says now its okay to get rid of them.
It is disappointing for them to bring Bennett aboard. At least he won't be as inclined to suck uo to Hannity and O'Reilly if he is a hired hand of the competition. Bennett is a bright guy, but he seems to have a tendency to advocate screwball things which discourages people who have hope and good will. The abortion mess he was in was a tempest in a teapot, but he likes to say things which piss everyone off. If you parse what he says it is not all that bad, but by then the damage is done and to many of us he comes across like a Fox News nut case. His mentor, you know, was John Silber, the ex B.U. President, Massachusetts politician and destructive bomb thrower, Silber is too old to do much damage these days, but he lives on in Bill Bennett.
Before Bennett boasts too much about his understanding of education spending, let's understand how irrelevant the US Department of Education was and continues to be. Reagan was going to get rid of it until "A Nation at Risk" became kind of a vitamin. DOE does not really control that much money and how many times do you see a wire story about something an Education Secretary said? It sounds like the "Department of Education" is kind of a "Ministry of Information" a la "1984" but actually it is a vestigial bureaucratic organ. Senior educators who don't work for the federal government know this.
Would someone please let me know a place that I can go to see news on TV. I mean, there ought to be a 24 hour channel on cable that presents news. I realize that there already is the tabloid networks - FOX, MSNBC, CNN, etc., but is there anywhere that actual news is presented?
My advice would be read as many newspapers and watch as many of the news programs you can......most publications and TV channels have an inherent bias to some degree - so if you get your news from just one source you're doing yourself a disservice and most likely not getting the complete, unbiased story.
Take as much in as you can, then form your opinions based not on predetermined ideology, but facts in context and credible sources.
Televisions are for watching DVDs anyway.
Try [link to www.guardian.co.uk]
Keith Olbermann's show is good. Current TV has some news you won't find in MSM.
[link to www.truthout.org] has stories from many sources
I find this rumor of Bill Bennett, a known criminal and racist, being hired by CNN to be very disturbing and I hope this is not true. The NCAAP should make some noise over this crap.
CNN lost my confidence soon after Ted Turner left the captain's chair. CNN is just another brick in the wall these days.
Let me ask any of you this > If O'Reilly suddenly made the following annoucement on this talk show, what do you think the reaction would be here by this website and many of it's readers?
"Due to all the pressure and bad press lately, I am quitting both the TV and radio show and retiring from the public airwaves. This is the last you will hear from me......Good Bye"
Pick one;
1) All right, high fives all around, we finally did it, he's gone for good, we won, Congratulations, whew, we got what we wanted.
or
2) Wait............don't go!!!............
That's easy, it's one. He's a blight on the face of journalism or punditry or whatever class he claims to be in from day to day.
Will you accuse me of being disingenuous? Because I personally would be very happy to see him go away and I think many others here would as well.
I don't doubt your genuineness, perhaps you would like O'Reilly to go away. The point is people yell and scream alot about what they find objectionable, yet if they had to do without it they would miss it terribly, or maybe even their livelihood would be affected negatively..........it's the old saying, "Be careful what you wish for"
Bush doesn't really want to win the war on "terrorism", does he?
He's like having an drunken clown at your children's birthday party -- amusing, but a bad influence on the kids.
Dancing a jig and high caliber celebrations, falafels abounding
Bill:
You really should share your comentary on FOX News not CNN. Fox's standards are so much closer to your own.
Besides people will mix you up with the other Bill--BOR.
i suggest everyone watch the first episode of bill bennet's show, catalog every advertiser then send them an email (be polite) stating you will boycott their products until bennet is gone.
we are in charge, it is about time we exercised OUR POWER OF THE PURSESTRING
Bill Bennett is a fat slimebag with a gambling addiction problem. And that's all I have to say about Bill Bennett.
You want people to believe that because wealth is involved, MMFA would rather Republican deceptions exist?
I would hope you don't feel that way about all of those who are payed fighting something ugly or wrong.
I was already starting to switch because I got hooked on Hardball and the Abrams Report, but I have noticed PAC ads supporting Alito on CNN.If I see Bennit, that will just usher me for good into the arms of MSNBC.I mean it.
No offense I don't get it. Hardball as a source of balanced news is like using a alcoholic to guard the liquor cabinet. Chris Matthews is as much, moreso if you count the recent award afforded to him by this site, likely to spread conservative misinformation than others. Of course, Bennett and BOR will give him a run for the money in 2006.
How about this: no conservatives at all on CNN. They all lie anyway, right? The only point of view that's correct is our own.
Why do these guys get microphone time? Has the intellectual property of this nation gotten so depleted that all we have left are these old pharts getting valuable air time ? I would love to debate young republicans .
Both Libs (oops sorry, Progressives) and Conservatives spin the news their way. That's nothing new. Right-leaning Fox spins it one way, while left-leaning CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, & CBS spin it the other way. And Fox is leading them all.
In reality I dont see any left wing spin on CNN MSNBC or the networks.Nice parroting of the party line though
ALL of us need to watch CNN, note the advertisers, then notify CNN and all advertisers:
"I will be buying your competitor's products because of CNN's intention to hire serial-misinformer and alleged influence peddler former Education Dept. Sec. Bill Bennett.
"These are the reasons why CNN's impending relationship with Bennet will adversely affect your company's reputation and, ultimately, your profit margin.
Then, list some of the reasons posted here and/or provide a link to this page.
I can't do it, because I don't get CNN. I have basic cable only. Why should I pay to support FOX News and all of those other worthless channels. I am, however, noting advertisers on local affiliates of CBS, NBC, ABC and FOX. Much of that programing is national.
After all, CNN gives Coulter a platform to spew her hatred and bigotry regularly. CNN sucks.
Bennett wish he was black. Neocons can't jump.
"He cut $90 billion from our No Child Left Behind Act . . ." - Colmes. "He increased spending on education dramatically." - Bennett. Hmm . . . for a former Education Secretary, BB's listening and basic math skills aren't up to par . . .
And as for CNN's bringing him in, remember that while Clinton was in office, CNN was derided as the "Clinton News Network." They must still be smarting from that characterization, hence bringing in BB and MAnn Coulter . . .
There seems to be a scary new movement on the left to try to limit free speech for anybody with whom they disagree. You guys and the people that work for MMFA aren't liberals at all, because liberals have always been big supporters of free speech. I think that the most accurate description for you guys would have to be neo-liberals. It seems like the attempts that MMFA is making to stifle free speech is almost Nazi like. What's wrong with CNN having one conservative on their network? That station is currently packed with liberals, and hiring one conservative will only make a small dent in the overall ideology of the station.
You've lost all touch with reality. No one is saying they cant say whatever they want. The airwaves belong to the PEOPLE. There is a responsibility to maintain a basic fair level of competence and reliability when engaging in news services. We have every right to tell them what we think when they dont. That is NOT an attack on free speech. That is a demand for our part of the bargain they make when using OUR resource, the airwaves, to make themselves boatloads of money.