Some debate "don'ts" for CNN's Blitzer, Malveaux, Roberts, and Brown
November 14, 2007 2:47 pm ET
According to a November 12 entry on CNN.com's Political Ticker blog, the November 15 Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas will be moderated by CNN host Wolf Blitzer and will feature questions from CNN anchors John Roberts and Campbell Brown, while White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux "will facilitate audience participation." On the assumption that CNN really does want to offer viewers of the November 15 debate "serious," "specific," and "precise" questions, Media Matters for America offers the following suggested "don'ts" for Blitzer, Roberts, Brown, and Malveaux:
- Don't contradict your own reporting and suggest that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "cash[ed] in" on a stock deal in which he lost $13,000.
- Don't say that Obama's position on Pakistan is "very much in line with what" President Bush says regarding Pakistan.
- Don't contradict your own reporting -- again -- and say that Obama, in following legal requirements to count purchasers of his campaign merchandise as campaign contributors, is "apparently using some creative math" and "overselling his grassroots support."
- Don't misleadingly crop quotes when challenging a candidate's consistency on a particular issue, as NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert did on the November 11 broadcast of Meet the Press, when he suggested that Obama has "not been a leader against the [Iraq] war."
- Don't tell Obama that "[i]t's difficult to say that you're against the war and at the same time not say that you're against the troops."
- Don't suggest that former Sen. John Edwards' (D-NC) work "for financial markets" might "contradict his anti-poverty message."
- Don't adopt GOP framing and ask Edwards about his "flip-flop" on Iraq "to win the vote."
- Don't ask about former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's (R) "pretty interesting" quip that "[w]e've had a Congress that's spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop."
- Don't compare the "liberal woman" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) to French Socialist Party presidential candidate Ségolène Royal, or suggest that the election of "conservative male" Nicolas Sarkozy as president of France will in any way benefit former New York City Mayor Rudy Giualini's (R) bid for the U.S. presidency.
- Don't misrepresent exchanges from past debates, as Russert did during the October 30 Democratic debate when he asked Clinton, regarding Social Security: "Why do you have one public position and one private position?"
- Don't ask whether Clinton -- but not former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) -- is "going too far" and "politicizing 9-11" in her campaign ads.
- Don't purport to cite written documentation while misrepresenting it, as Russert did during the October 30 debate, when he falsely claimed that a letter written in 2002 by President Clinton "specifically ask[ed] that any communication between" him and the first lady "not be made available to the public until 2012."
- Don't base questions on premises that contradict available polling data, such as whether the Clinton campaign -- while leading all other candidates in head-to-head matchups -- is "feeling desperate."
- Don't hold Democratic and Republican candidates to differing standards regarding the Iraq war and the budget -- for example, by repeating Republican attacks on Obama and Clinton for voting against an Iraq supplemental funding bill without noting that Republican candidates have also voted against Iraq supplementals.
- Don't attribute the "weird" 1994 chart created by Sen. Arlen Specter's (R-PA) office to then-first lady Clinton's proposed health-care program.
- Don't fail to disclose that your husband is an adviser to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
- Don't promise "the kind of political insight and analysis that you simply can't get anyplace else," or "serious," "specific," and "precise" questions, then ask the candidates to respond to a series of questions by raising their hands.
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
I have never heard Obama say he supports Musharaf and his anti democracy movement so There is no relationship between the two views.
Is there anything that these debate questioners ARE allowed to ask? I mean, besides their Thanksgiving turkey recipes?
none of the dems pledge to pull out the troops in 3 months. you cant ask them about the war. vote for someone who is consistent on his record and on what he says. vote for someone who will pull all the troops out immediately and change US policy. the initials of this man are R.P.
Yeah, he's strong on Iraq. Iraq is not the sole determining issue for the long-term security of America.
Ron Paul would be a nightmare for America. Fences. Walls. Private armies and the rise of militias. A return to John Burch paranoia. No workers rights, buyer beware. Liberty for the wealthy and economic slavery for the rest. That's libertarianism. No thanks, Ron Paul is terrible.
WOW !!! You must live in a vacuum. All the calamities you attribute to the election of Ron Paul as president, we have today. You don't think the corporations are using the military as their private army? Come out of your cave.
Not defending corporations here, but I think you've gone a little far out on that point.
So we have lost OSHA? We are a deunionized nation? No more EPA? CDC?
Seriously, we do have in our country right now, much of what mentioned earlier. But if you think what I mentioned is a deplorable picture of America then don't vote for R.P. because it won't get any better for anybody.
Yes, and with Ron Paul we'd keep going domestically full speed in that horrible direction, although we might keep habeus corpus and more rights.
The only way Paul is better than the neo-con Bushco is foreign policy.
Libertarian's have a strange view on global interactions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they have a isolationist kind of view on the rest of the world?
Ron Paul is not bad on the war, the only semi-sane man on the GOP stage ON THIS MATTER. As for the rest, he's not someone any Democrat could possibly back. Stormfront.org has no problems with him, though.
As well they should'nt, "white pride nationwide" is something i dont think the democratic nominees would stand behind. even if i would.
the initials of this man are R.P.
Yoy of sourse are referring to Ru Paul, the cross-dresser - right?
We all know that the debates are not about the candidates. They are about the moderators and their cable channels. I used to debate. I studied logic and ethics. It doesn't appear that any of the moderators have. No one can answer the history of the world, the end of the war in Iraq and the solutions for long-term reform of Social Security in 60 seconds.
Barack Obama has revised his estimate for the lenghth of time it would take, logistically, to remove our troops from Iraq. He consults all the time with current and former Pentagon military as the campaign moves on. He said he would do it in 12 months. He revised that to 16 months just recently based on conditions in Turkey and Anbar.
I suggest that you actually follow details and not get your information and opinion from talk shows.
Yeah, because when you eliminate all the false premises, and dishonest or misleading questions, then what else is there to ask?
Well of course, because any question that challenges Democrats into telling us what they are actually for is by nature "dishonest, misleading" and ripe with "false premises".
So which of those above questions do you consider to be fair and honest?
You're arguing hypothetical questions that haven't even been asked? Wow, you really are argumentative.
I was making a general point about this silly thread and these directives by MMFA toward CNN, it was not a specific breakdown of questions not even asked yet.
Let's wait until they're asked, OK? Then you may have some point.
Weren't you just arguing that the same list of hypothetical questions constitutes the sum of every possible question that can be asked?
I was responding to Clams who said there wasn't much left to ask because of all the misleading and dishonest questions.
I was talking about before your response to Clams.
So I am supposed to respond to a different statement instead of the one directly above my post, or something like that???
Holy ****. Nevermind.
I can keep knocking, but it's obvious no one's home.
I guess not. The point is this entire thread topic is absurd. "Do's" and "Dont's" for the moderators of a Democratic debate as directed by a leftwing website....if you see can't see anything ironic in that, sorry.
"Do's" and "Dont's" for the moderators of a Democratic debate as directed by a leftwing website....if you see can't see anything ironic in that, sorry.
It's advice. If they fail to listen, they will be exposed for these specific errors and bias. Right here for all to see, even before they said it. I think that's the point. Do you see how the post is signed? This isn't that hard Tommy.
So MMFA is in the advice business now too?
Wow, and I thought they were to monitor and analyze and cover misinformation.
They're just being preemptive. Smart move on MMFAs part.
So it's a threat then?
Only to paranoics.
Absurd advice according to you.
TOMMY:
Perhaps you didn't notice, but EVERY claim has been a topic for "THE MEDIA", and every topic mentioned is based on misinformation manufactured by the Republicans and their supporters.
Republicans, OF COURSE, want a debate entirely about TravelGate, FBI files, investments in Tyson Chicken, Hillary's "temper", perhaps even ask her about that rumored lamp-throwing incident.
Ask about all those dead people who knew the Clintons at one time. Hit Edwards for his loud and pushy wife, and his expensive haircuts. Maybe ask him to respond to be referred to as "the BRECK GIRL".
Yup, the Republicans have their list of questions designed to put those damn Democrats ON THE SPOT. Unfortunately, NONE of those "Hannity-approved" questions tell us a thing about any of the candidate's qualifications for the presidency, they are all designed to embarrass and smear.
Russert relied on bad and wrong information to grill Hillary, and was constantly inviting the other candidates to take their shots AT Hillary. It was a loaded game.
So, the INFORMATION provided in this thread topic is a review of the top ERRORS and BLUNDERS the Media has been engaging in lately, and the "warning" is a recognition that if the Media ... in this case CNN ... continues to trade in Republican Talking Point coverage of the Democrats exclusively, that they will be dealing in areas already debunked.
Sheesh. Taht's a total cheap shot. And it's not really a good point at all. It IS a recap of previous misinformation after all. And it's not like these guys are forbidden to write the occasional opinion piece. (And this was cleary that - an editorial.) Seeing how the right wing noise machine opperates (spouting nothing BUT opinion, typically based on misinformation, and devoid of any objective analysis) I'd say it's pretty hypocritical to deny MMFA an occasional editorial, especially one based on previous misdeeds of... well... YOU GUYS.
Wolf Blitzer is left wing?????????????????
Um, it's called sarcasm. I was sarcastically replying to your question: "Is there anything that these debate questioners ARE allowed to ask?"
Clams,
It's a simple matter of "Don't ask. Don't tell".
:-)
Why is it that somebody always has to explain every thread to you? MMFA posted a number of misleading and dishonest questions from prior debates as a way to illustrate what Blitzer should avoid doing in the upcoming debate. You then acted as though all Blitzer had left to ask was about turkey recipes. Then you implied that the dishonest questions weren't dishonest at all, merely "challenging."
So the obvious follow up to that is to ask you exactly which of MMFA's "don'ts" you think is in fact an honest and fair question. So again, which of those questions would be fair and honest ones?
That's too hard. It's easier to crumple up the list and wipe your backside with it instead of being specific.
Come back from LaLa land and you answer a real question instead of wasting your time pumping up MMFA's reason for it's existence, which I have no interest in hearing, your interpretation again and again, it's boring.
Do you believe that Russert's question to Hillary regarding illegal immigration was fair and honest?
Because that is where this all started.
Gee, could you be any more transparent in your attempt to dodge the question? I'll simply ask you a third time and then I'll give up. It's a very simple one. You claimed that MMFA didn't leave Blitzer anything to ask apart from turkey recipes, and then you categorized their list of dishonest questions as merely challenging. So for the final time, which of the above "don'ts" is simply challenging and not actually dishonest?
And you dodged a real question that has already been asked, and expect me to comment on one that has never been asked?
You are slipping Clams, my god......even for you that is borderline hysterical. I cannot believe what I am reading.
Go home sweetheart.
Again, do you see those words that are highlighted in blue? You are supposed to click on those. The questions have been asked, and they are being brought up again now as way to prevent them from being repeated. I realize that you always need to be led through these things at a remedial pace, but this is getting silly.
And as I said, if they are asked, like when it really happens, then they worthy of discussion.
Until then, you will have to live in your land of hypotheticals by yourself, or anyone who cares to join you.
They aren't hypotheticals! Do you even know what that word means? You were the one who characterized them as "challeng[ing]" questions, as opposed to dishonest questions. And they, in fact, have already been asked. So step up already and point out exactly which of those questions are fair, honest and challenging.
One last time. The debate has not occurred yet, so any questions asked are hypotheticals, or pure speculation.
As I said, I will not argue whether questions not yet asked are fair or honest, that is a waste of time and totally ludicruous. I am sorry if you can't see it.
It's obvious which Tommy is in here today...
Not the time traveling one, as he's refusing to comment on future events.
And not the imagineering one, as he won't even imagine those future questions.
All of his superpowers seem to disappear when it's convenient.
Cute. I imagine a scenario that has already taken place. but I won't argue about events that have not......and I am the inconvenient one?
Wow, now that's rich.
You were just discussing events that were supposably transpiring in the future just yesterday.
Was I demanding debate on events that have yet to occur?
No, but that certainly didn't stop you from making up events that are destine to happen in the future to support your point when you had nothing else left to prop it up.
If you think it's fine for you to use possibilities of what might be in the not too distant future, based off present events and then turn around and lecture someone else for doing something that is very similar (except for the fact that they about 10 times more examples to support them) then I really don't know what to say to you. Sometimes I think you just like to argue just for the sake of arguing.
MMFA is asking a legit question/ making a legit point based on the past behavior of the individuals in question. If Wolfie and CNN cannot ask fair questions during their day job as journalists, then why shouldn't the assumption be that they might be unfair druing the debate?
What do you judge things on? Normal people do so on past and present behavior.
Jeepers, Tommy. For someone who thought this thread was a waste you sure posted enough in it. It's always strange to read your musings here. For someone who obviously isn't a MMFA fan you sure spend a lot of time on the site. Do you eat at restaurants where you hate the food just to complain? Go to movies you don't want to see to boo? Get into traffic jams just to blow your horn?
Tommy just wants attention. Good or bad, he doesn't care. His first post is always crafted to force a response, then he can post all day on almost every article just to argue. It's all too easy when you are posting anonymously into little boxes.
The solution here is..for all who read this...DON'T TAKE THE BAIT.
TOMMY:
You DO realize that these Presidential Debates are ENTIRELY about hypotheticals about what these people would do IF they became President? In the future? And their answers involve projecting into the future?
Your "I won't discuss things that haven't happened" dodge would render the presidential debates moot! Duh!
Also, the questions cited above (as "warnings" to Blitzer) ARE hypotheticals for the Las Vegas debate, but ALL have been asked BEFORE. They are NOT mere hypothetical questions, they have a history of HAVING BEEN asked. And they are all unfair, based on errors, and ultimately irrelevant to presidential qualifications. THAT is why Blitzer was "warned" ... such questions are a waste of time.
I don't know if you're being purposefully obtuse, or if you really have trouble comprehending these concepts.
If you have no interest in MMFA, why do you hijack every thread with your mewling and puking?
You know how the right wing gained some power with the media? By putting them on notice, by pushing back. We're just following your lead, although, we're not asking for anything but fair treatment. If you want to watch suck-up political campaign contributions masking as journalism, watch FOX. Particularly Rudy Giuliani. And wait for them to ask Rudy about Bernie Kerik.
I love this one...
"Don't say you're providing analysis you can't find anywhere else, and then ask the candidates to respond to a series of questions by raising their hands."
Now, that's frikkin' funny! ! Nice job Media Matters
Can't ask that either. Could you imagine the media frenzy that would develop if it is revealed that Hillary doesn't cook?
Do you actually read the articles, or just the headline, and then answer with the daily talking points? Wouldn't you make exactly the same sort of conditions for a Russert or Wolf-led GOP debate? "No leading questions," "no construction of a past stance from creative clipping," things like that, are things that we should all demand of our political journalism.
Yes. They're allowed to ask the same softball-type questions they would ask the RepubliKKKan candidates.
Tommy....stop...just stop.
One thing about conservatives is that they are tight-lipped. Go look at the pictures! Richard Avedon told me this once, and he knows faces.
They are tight-lipped because they are always on alert to not spill the beans, the secrets, the lies. Tomorrow's talking points.
CNN does it by restricting the questions, and treating the "problem" as an unfriendly witness, rather than open up space for an essay answer. Big News is still in true-false, multiple choice mode, usually transcended by adolescence.
Kind regrards,
David
Tommy:
After watching the debate in Vegas last nite, I now understand how desperate the Democrat Party is to find a qualified candidate.
That collection of bozos and dimwits, and doofuses couldn't lead a group of girl scouts - let alone the greatest nation on God's green earth.
HAHA!
HEADLINE: Drudge reports that Blitzer was warned not to attack Clinton, MMFA Reports Drudge Falsely Claimed this, then MMFA warns Blitzer not to attack Clinton!
I love it!
Read that actual MMFA report again.
Drudge claimed that it was a "Clinton insider" or that Clinton's people were trying to intimidate Wolf Blitzer into not attacking Clinton. Chris Matthews then repeated that claim as though it were fact.
It's still ironic.
Some debate "don'ts" for CNN's Blitzer, Malveaux, Roberts, and Brown
Are these "suggestions" or orders?
;-)
Don't count on CNN to do any of these things...!
So this qualifies as conservative misinformation? I wonder how Media Matters would respond if Hannity did a monolouge like this before a Republican debate.
Congratulations Media Matters - you have exposed yourselves to be the political hacks that you deny you are.
"So this qualifies as conservative misinformation"
Obviously it does. Each of those "don'ts" is linked to a specific instance of conservative misinformation. You see those blue letters? You're supposed to click on them.
Obviously it does not. You cannot put up questions that have not even been asked and then act as if it's conservative misinformation.
That is absolutely ridiculous. Even for you.
Actually, those questions have been asked. They are not hypotheticals. They are being used here as a list of things that should not recur in the upcoming debates.
So, Campbell Brown's marriage disclosure has already been asked at a previous debate?
Really, where?
Well, for starters, that isn't a question and the upcoming debate will be her first, so of course it hasn't been asked at a past debate. Wow, you really got me there. Although it is amusing that you would attempt to play "gotcha" with that example, considering that in the other thread devoted to the topic you agreed with MMFA that CNN should disclose the information.
Hey, you were drowning, I tossed you a raft and you didn't use it, don't blame me.
They are being used here as a list of things that should not recur in the upcoming debates.
Why not wait until or if they occur before putting a thread up?
Is MMFA now doing Preemptive Strike Conservative Mis-Information that might occur but hasn't yet?
Must be very little else out there for them to gripe about if they are resorting to this....
"Why not wait until or if they occur before putting a thread up?"
You seem to be confusing the words "occur" and "recur." Again, the questions have already occured, and MMFA has documented and corrected the misinformation. This post collects them all as a list of things that should not recur. Either you two are complete idiots or you're just pretending in order to be difficult.
You call us idiots because we won't debate questions that haven't been asked yet?
Perhaps you'd like to debate who the winner of American Idol 2008 is now, too?
Sorry Pearl but the debate hasn't occured yet, so the questions have not been asked in that forum.
I'd say nice try. But you flunked.
Yeah well, Blitzer and CNN have already covered the stories in MMFA's list so the genie is out of the bottle.
It's reasonable to ask CNN to not continue the erroneous stories into the debate before the debate takes place.
Since you're so famous for reprinting this site's mission statement, please point out the part where MMFA says it will issue directives to media outlets on which questions are appropriate to include in future debates?
I might be willing to do that if I thought you would understand but I know you won't so it would just be a waste of time.
In other words, you can't.
That's not what I said at all.
Well then give me the chance to understand it, please.
No thank you.
Entering into a discussion with you is like trying to discuss something with somebody on the edge of senility or with someone who doesn't have a basic enough grasp of the english language to understand the printed word.
If you had just said that this is outside their mission statement, you wouldn't look so foolish in trying to wiggle out of something that doesn't exist.
Don't blame me for being senile.
That's not what I'm doing at all.
Have somebody read my posts to you ok?
Sorry Pearl but the debate hasn't occured yet, so the questions have not been asked in that forum.
Are you talking to me?
No Pearlene that post was for Clams, who I call "Pearl" when he starts acting like a 6 year old by name-calling.
He hates being called Pearl, which is why I do it...hey I can act like a 6 year old too!
;-)
No Pearlene that post was for Clams, who I call "Pearl" when he starts acting like a 6 year old by name-calling.
So the way you deal with that is to call him names like a six year old?
No wonder you debate like a kindergartener. When do you plan to graduate from "I know you are, but what am I" to "I'm rubber, you're glue?"
"He hates being called Pearl, which is why I do it..."
Really? Are you so wrapped up in your petty name-calling that you actually believe that? Not only do I not "hate being called Pearl" (In fact, I really couldn't care less what you call me), but I've never noticed you calling me Pearl before. It seems as though you've invented an entire petty history of rivalry between us that only exists in your mind. How sad.
"Why not wait until or if they occur before putting a thread up?"
Jeter, just as cops bust criminals and try to prevent crime, MMFA busts misinformation and premptively points out those with a history of engaging in BS.
I'm not saying that the moderators are going to heed the advice here, but the debates will have a larger audience than MMFA, so pointing out any dum-ass questions afterward will just be a bonus for you. What's the harm in a little predicting?
Hi J2 ...
Media Matters has decided to be PROACTIVE. I notice many posts here are making negative comments about it.
Being proactive is a good, positive and can be a very effective new tool for MMFA. This kind of dishonest questioning has already happened in recent debates so this is not that unfounded.
To ACT before a situation that has already happened before, happens again? I think it's a smart tool to utilize. Media Matters behavior is up to Media Matters. It's much better than being REACTIVE after what you know is happening, happens again and again. Instead of being PASSIVE, Media Matters has decided to be PROACTIVE.
I know Conservatives don't like this and to that I'm singing "Jimmy Crack Corn and I Don't Care!"
And after all of those negative comments I hereby am the first to say...
Thank You Media Matters!
Thanks for not being afraid to be outside the box and for being proactive in this situation. There are millions of honest questions to be asked. It's all up to you, CNN.
A late happy Vets Day to you J2 even if you aren't a veteran.
- Sam I Am -
Well stated WC.........and then Clams wants to debate these questions as some relevance to anything other than the paranoia that is inside his head.........incredible.
So this qualifies as conservative misinformation? I wonder how Media Matters would respond if Hannity did a monolouge like this before a Republican debate.
In your alternate universe if Hannity could come up with a list of misleading or downright erroneous stories like MMFA has he should comment on them.
Hannity's bias is completely obvious. When he moderates a debate on Fox (Ha!), the same basic points would stand for him. Or do you think it's okay for him to ridicule Ron Paul and suck up so much to Giuliani? What kind of idiot world do you live in?
Briefly: <b>stop lying</b>, and <b>no playing "gotcha"</b>. Of course, without those elements, none of the slated moderators would be employable in the Corporate Media, much less as moderator, so maybe we should change the format to one in which the candidates pair off, and actually debate one another? I'd give a quarter to listen to Clinton v Kucinich, with no Media interpreting (spinning?) what I had heard; and some of Edwards' proposed programs might make it through the "Breck Girl" disdain that otherwise seems to obtrude whenever the Media covers him.
Congley,
Although we disagree on most things, I feel your proposal has merit.
I may be wrong, but I think I remember hearing on the radio that in the Lincoln Douglas (Senatorial) debates, the first candidate would have an hour to talk, then the second candidate would be given 90 minutes to counter and finally the first candidate would be then be given the last 30 minutes. Lincoln and Douglas took turns going first and held seven debates.
Now that would be interesting.
Congley? My apologies to Conley.
Not a problem - typos happen.
Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Check Edition:
With this whiny little topic, MMFA has truly become a parody site. And I don't mean a good one like TheOnion. Nope. MMFA has finally revealed the true nature of this site - you guys want only liberal, pro-Democrat messages in the media. And if any independent, fair and balanced question gets asked you guys are going to just pee your pants.
I want you guys to really listen to what I'm about to say - If an MMFA group really took power in the USA, it is the same mentality that sent people to 're-education' centers in Vietnam (after your side "won"), Cambodia (again, after your side "won") and Communist China (where your side controls).
Why? Because the far-ultra-left just cannot allow any dissenting view to exist.
That's why I'm a conservative.
I like freedom.
I like tolerance.
And I like diversity OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION.
"And if any independent, fair and balanced question gets asked you guys are going to just pee your pants."
Well, since Tommy won't answer the question, I'll ask you: Which of the above questions is "fair and balanced"?
Justice and Truth in the USA - FACT CHECK EDITION:
Ok, you asked me to mention any of the points from the topic. Here is one at random -
Don't ask about former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's (R) "pretty interesting" quip that "[w]e've had a Congress that's spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop."
Now - please tell me, first, why does MMFA think that a question like this might be asked? And, second, why a "quip" might be "out-of-bounds"? Is it simply that you MMFA-types had your funny bones removed a long time ago?
Are you guys really that thin skinned? I mean, George Bush may not be the brightest Prez we have ever had, but he knows how to take a joke.
You still didn't answer the question. The question is not fair and balanced. The "question" you discuss in your post is a smear disguised as a question. So, again. Which one of the questions listed do you find "fair and balanced"?
So it would be "fair and balanced" if a debate moderator asked George Bush why he spends money like a retarded monkey? I mean, it's just a joke, right? And apparently Bush can take a joke, so it's a fair and balanced question, right?
Bush "takes a joke" by sending you to Guantanamo.
Yeah, knows how to tell em on national tv too, doesnt he?
Like when he was looking for all those WMDs under the television cabinet in the White House, while young americans were being blown to bits in Iraq.
Har, de, har, har....very funny.
Show me where Republican candidates have been asked similar questions or as probing as the ones shown here.
I doubt anyone here minds probing questions on an equal footing across all candidates of all denominations. Debate should be fair as people will choose your future leader partly based on what they hear. Therefore they should make the choice based on fair and balanced debate and not skewed to make one candidate look worse than any other.
What's that, Justy? I can't read your post. All of the words are blacked out and garbled to censor you.
Not really, I think it's there in its entirety. Now go to Newsbusters or Freerepublic and see how many liberal posts they let on there.
Makes you re-think those comparisons to those awful totalitarian places, eh? Those are Republican wet dreams.
"..And if any independent, fair and balanced question gets asked you guys are going to just pee your pants."
I'll partially agree with you on this one.The literal pants-peeing may not happen as much as it would among Republicans, with their demographic skewing towards elderly incontinence and weird fetishes, but many liberals would be pretty excited to see decent questions.
I'm not holding my breath.We can probably expect the same conservative crap as in the past.
Uh oh, is Drudge going to portray this as an attempt by MMFA to intimidate CNN?
Johnny, I think a few posters have already tried to make that stretch.
Poor CNN, they're being asked to run a debate properly.
CNN is getting debate directives on an upcoming Democratic debate from a website that wouldn't print anything unfavorable about a Democratic candidate if their life depended on it..........and they have the nerve to possibly consider the incredibly biased source and compile their own questions.
Sounds like something I read in 1984 ?
If you don't know if it sounds like something you read 23 years ago, how does anybody else?
Why don't you start a website where you issue suggestions to CNN based on your belief that media is liberally biased and see how many people flock to it? Why would MMFA skewer Democrats when it is Republicans who spout the conservative misinformation?
You should read your posts outloud before you post them. It may help you stop posting such ignorant drivel. I mean, really, how many times has it been pointed out to you that this site is here to highlight CONSERVATIVE misinformation. Not misinformation in general.
No - but he may use it to link MMFA with the Clinton Campaign - or even to claim that Media Matters IS the Clinton campaign. Hmmmmm!
You're fading out Tommy! Pull out! Pull out!
Could you state your above as a question? Please take your time.
CNN is getting debate directives on an upcoming Democratic debate from a website that wouldn't print anything unfavorable about a Democratic candidate if their life depended on it..........and they have the nerve to possibly consider the incredibly biased source and compile their own questions.
Like this makes any sense at all.
CNN is getting debate directives on an upcoming Democratic debate from a website that wouldn't print anything unfavorable about a Democratic candidate if their life depended on it..........and they have the nerve to possibly consider the incredibly biased source and compile their own questions.
Like this makes any sense at all.
Johnny, Tommy seems to be saying that CNN has already seen the MMFA item, and is ignoring it.But how does he know this? I think it's all coming together now. after a quick refresher of The_Time_Machine.Wikipedia provides some of the following clues;
"...the concept of time travel using a vehicle that allows an operator to travel purposefully and selectively..." as Tommy's prognostications seem to only be effective at seeing what he wants to see.
"The book's protagonist is an amateur inventor or scientist living in London who is never named; he is identified simply as The Time Traveller. "
Tommy bristled at being asked about his occupation, maybe due to chronic unemployment as an inventor.Says he lives on the Westside of L.A., could be the West End.
"His machine produces a sense of disorientation to its occupant, and a blurring or faintness of the surroundings outside the machine."
Nothing to add.
"His journey takes him to the year 802,701 A.D., where he finds an apparently peaceful, pastoral, communist,[1] future filled with happy, simple humans who call themselves the Eloi."
Uh oh. Happy Communists.And simple, like moonbats.Must...go...back in time.. to... stop!
"The Eloi are about four feet tall (~120cm), pink-skinned and frail-looking, with curly hair, small ears and mouths and large eyes."
Kucinich was abducted by Tommy, or is working for him.
"Males and females seem to be quite similar in build and appearance."
Traditional gender roles - topsy-turvy!
"They have high-pitched, soft voices and speak an unknown language."
Sorta like Mexicans.
"They appear to be quite unintelligent and child-like and live without quarrels or conflict."
Hmmm... confusing. While they have some of the characteristics of conservatives, they're lacking the violent tendencies.
OK, now that I've gone back and seen that The Time Machine was about the Idle Rich and the working class both devolving into subhuman species, I've got it figured out-
Tommy is a fictional character trying to prevent the destruction of the human race as predicted by the Conservative plan to eliminate the middle class.That's why he puts so much effort into making his arguments so ridiculous. He's warning you conservatives, and reassuring the liberals.
Close, Tommy?
you're too funny HBL...
:)
Don't blame me for being senile.
- TOMMY / Wednesday November 14, 2007 05:26:46 PM EST
Wouldn't dream of it. I know it's beyond your control.
Wow, so now Media Matters wants to bully Blitzer into asking soft ball questions to Hillary. Looks like Rush was right.
How on earth would MMFA "bully" Blitzer into anything? In one breath, we are told how meaningless and useless and misguided this site is and then MMFA is capable of strong arming a network into doing its bidding(right in plain view). So which is it, irrelevant or all-powerful.
"How on earth would MMFA "bully" Blitzer into anything"
Kind of like they tried to bully radio stations into censoring conservative talk show hosts post Imus. I did say that they "tried" to bully Blitzer. I didn't say that they would succeed. They most likely won't.
Rhino,
You're funny. All MMFA does is highlight the misinformation. If other's acted upon this new information by demanding that the irresponsible media figure correct himself, or apologize, or be fired, that is up to the free citizens of this country, but MMFA did NOT and I repeat this for clarity sake, DID NOT "bully" anyone into anything.
In fact, I think of MMFA being the one who stands up to the bully. The conservative media has been pushing liberals and their ideas around for far too long and finally we are getting up, dusting off, staring this bully in the eye and saying "Enough"
Looks like Rush was right.- RINO Hunter
...when he thought "I'll bet there's enough gullible bedwetters out there to make me a rich man!"
Yes we're thoughly"what ever Rush said." I mean how do you argue with that. If Blitzer dares to defy the will of the site, well I'm split between UPS ed wedgies or spit wads. Which do you believe properly convays the true fighting spirit of good old MMFA?
This is by far one of the best pieces from MMFA. It should be posted in every "news" room in the country and all anchors required to memorize it. Congratulations on a fine overview of a major problem within the media. My viewing and reading has become a "defensive" measure instead of a learning tool. Edward R. Murrow would be ashamed of many of the people sitting in newsrooms around this country. Ed had what so many lack: (for want of a better word, and you know what I WANT to say) testicles. Damned good show, MM....!
Don't pile on!!
whannnnn-whannnnnn
Proudcon, I'm starting to compile my Neocon - to-English dictionary. I'm still waiting on "Fostered", but would appreciate some help with "whannnnn-whannnnnn". Were you phonetically hollering at your gardener?
If they wanted questions thatrepresent the American people's interests then they would allow the public to choose the questions. CNN/YouTube has the means to do it, they just don't. See video: CNN YouTube Debate Videos Should Have Been Voted On
See VIDEO: U.S. Citizens Speak: Bush, Don't Strike Iran!
Thank You ! Media Matters !
Media Matters has decided to be PROACTIVE. I notice many posts here are making negative comments about it. It's driving the Conservative posters here and others totally nuts.
Being proactive is a good, a positive and can be a very effective new tool for MMFA. The dishonest questioning has already happened in recent debates so this is not that unfounded.
To ACT before a situation that has already happened before, happens again and again? I think it's a smart tool to utilize. Media Matters behavior is up to Media Matters. It's much better than being REACTIVE after what you know is happening, happens again and again. Instead of being PASSIVE, Media Matters has decided to be PROACTIVE.
I know Conservatives don't like this and to that I'm singing "Jimmy Crack Corn and I Don't Care!"
And after all of the negative comments I hereby am the first to say...
Thank You Media Matters!
Thanks for not being afraid of being outside the box and for being proactive in this situation. There are millions of honest questions to be asked. It's all up to you, CNN.
- Sam I Am -
"And I like diversity OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION."
And that's why rhetorical questions and dishonest premises that happen to come straight from GOP talking points are just fine, because they're "diversity"?
What a maroon.
All of these questions HAVE been asked before. That's the whole point. The post is to draw attention to stupid, misleading, or obviously biased questions that have been asked in the past in an attempt to prevent similar questions in the future.
Ok, I'll bite. Maybe Tommy isn't just acting dumb. Maybe he really doesn't understand that these questions have already been asked, and the MM list is a list of debunked talking points that don't qualify as real "questions". Let me put it in a way he could only misunderstand if he's trying to misunderstand.
[On the March 7 [link to transcripts.cnn.com] color="#0052a3">edition of CNN's The Situation Room, anchor Wolf Blitzer teased a report on Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) purchase of stock in two companies whose investors included Obama campaign donors, by asking, "Did the Democratic presidential candidate cash in on his relationship with some big political donors?" ]
Tommy do you agree that this rhetorical question was misleading, given that Wolf explained later in the same report that Obama actually lost money on the deal?
Tommy,
Justice and Truth in the USA - FACT CHECK EDITION:
There are some of the questions that ALL Americans want asked -
QUESTION FOR HILLARY:
Thank you for taking the first question tonight. And, before we begin I just want to say that since Halloween is over, you can take the witch costume off. Sorry, I thought that was just a costume. Anyway, here is the first question - Aside from your failed Health Care "Reform" in the 1990s and a lackluster career in the Senate, what do you think qualifies you to be the next Prez of the USA?
QUESTION FOR OBAMA:
The next question is for you - and again, thanks for taking time off of writing your next autobiography to join us tonight. And I'll ask you this question - Aside from a few years as a junior Senator, and some experience with "Chicago-style" politics, what qualifies you to be the next President of the USA besides just, to put it bluntly, affirmative action?
QUESTION FOR EDWARDS:
If you could stop preening and stroking your hair, let me ask you this question. Your only experience was as a one-term Senator who bought his way into office off the money he made as a shyster lawyer. Why should you be the next Prez?
QUESTION FOR THE REST:
Why are the rest of you minor candidate losers still hanging around? Your 15 minutes of fame is up, so please go home.
----------------------------------------------
I hope that CNN takes MY advice for tonites debate!
QUESTION FOR justicetruthus8276:
Were you just born stupid, or have you made achieving ultimate stupidity your avocation for life?
Ok, if any of you care to actually do some actual journalism and READ, (notice the blue, it's a link. Click it.) then you'll notice that Media Matters is very much correct in posting this, these questions HAVE already been asked, and any references to these questions in the up and coming debates will be misinformation that serves only to smear the subject of the question.
So stop being a**holes and do something with yourselves.
Perhaps all the canidates can respond to inane questions from the moderators with a simple....
"Well, (insert moderator name here), Thats a cute non issue question and it has been obsessed over by the right wing media, however, why don't you ask me a question on the issues that are important to all Americans or where I stand on certain issues rather than about...(insert inane question here) "
Actually put the Mods on the spot with their stupid questions.
I have honestly believed that the Dems have gotten by with the easier questions, "How would you use Bill Clinton, Ufo's, Do you agree with Spitzers plan for NY drivers lic. which could have easily been answered Y or N.
Republicans - Would you torture for info -hypothetical bombs going off. Iran, Iraq, Illegal Imm.
When Dem's go on Fox for debate I will again have respect for them.
Or what?