During Dem debate coverage, will CNN's Campbell Brown disclose her husband's role in Romney's campaign?
According to a November 9 Broadcasting & Cable article, former NBC News anchor Campbell Brown will "make her debut" on CNN as a "panelist" during the November 15 Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas, moderated by CNN host Wolf Blitzer. Brown, who was hired by CNN in July, is married to Dan Senor, a former adviser for the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq who is now reportedly serving as an adviser to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Given Brown's role in the upcoming Democratic debate, will CNN disclose her husband's link to Romney's campaign?
According to the December 12, 2006, edition of National Journal's The Hotline:
Dan Senor, reported by CNN to have joined Romney's communications team, won't play an official role in the campaign. He's been informally advising Romney on foreign policy and helped to set up meetings with experts in the field, but he will not be paid by the campaign as a consultant.
The Washington Times reported on August 6:
Advisers to Sen. John McCain of Arizona include Robert Kagan, co-founder of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC), while former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's policy team includes Norman Podhoretz, a founder of the neoconservative movement, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney gets advice from Dan Senor, who counseled L. Paul Bremer III, the Coalition Provisional Authority administrator in Iraq.
CNN should absolutely disclose it.
They should but they will not.
"During Dem debate coverage, will CNN's Campbell Brown disclose her husband's role in Romney's campaign?"--MMFA
No.
(did I get that one right?)
I do not think they will, they should but they wont.
During Dem debate coverage, will CNN's Campbell Brown disclose her husband's role in Romney's campaign?
Well um um... let me consult my crystal ball ;-)
Seriously guys why don't you just put in a call to CNN, & tell them to please include this info so we don't get a thread about it in a few days.
I a few days or a few every day?
LOL. Exactly, run it by them first, please!
If MSM would watchdog themselves, then I could get on with penning my memoirs.
Use a computer. It's much faster than a pen.
Yeah, it's this site's fault when journalists can't act ethically.
Johnnie-B-Goode
Are you suggesting that Campbell Brown hasn't acted ethically? Gee as far as I knew the debate hadn't occurred yet...
Seems you guys are jumping the gun all over the place..
MMFA now projects future Conservative MIS-information & ethics of the media.
Is that in their mission statement?
They are just getting a head start. She should disclose it or CNN should but they wont.
I have to wonder, why would CNN choose someone to help moderate a debate who is married to an opposing candidate?
Honestly, I wouldn't want Bill Clinton asking questions of the Reub . . . wait just a minute, let me ponder this one . . .
I have to wonder, why would CNN choose someone to help moderate a debate who is married to an opposing candidate?
Um Rick which candidate is Campbell Brown married to?
Ok, I'm gonna guess you mis-wrote that ;-)
I do agree that just like those that are related to someone at a network can't be eligible for contests or any other offers the network is promoting, that Brown probably shouldn't be doing a debate, Democratic or Republican.
Even if she were the most ethical journalist out there, she shouldn't be eligible.
SAVE DEMOCRACY !! VOTE FOR AN INDEPENDENT
END THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM!!
CNN should disclose this as soon as it starts. My question also , why is she being given a forum for this?
Will Sean Hannity disclose his role in raising funds for Giuliani?
No because Hannity is a hack.
I believe Campbell Brown is hired as an anchor/journalist. Hannity is a partian commentator. Big difference.
Hannity is a hack, you can say it .
Sue, That wasn't the point, the poster was comparing this disclosure situation with Hannitys, and they are vastly different because of their different functions within their network.
Hannity's "hackness" is not the issue.
But, it would be if he were asking questions of opposing party candidates.
Sueeld Tommy is right, this has nothing to do with Hannitys "bias". Hannity is no tthe anchor on FOX he is a commentator paid.
I'll tell you what, look it up and you won't find another news organization that has this policy.
Quite the opposite columnists, cartoonists, etc. (people who aren't straight reporters) have been censured or fired for supporting a political candidate publicly.
Nothing Fox "News" says changes this fact.
It's clear Fox News has no journalistic ethics.
Am I supposed to argue with you?
Yeah that's what Fox says but they're wrong too.
It is but not in this context. Even a commentator is ethically obligated to disclose any connections of the sort Hannity has with Guiliani if he is interviewing or commenting on him
Of course a columnist is required to disclose a conflict of interest.
This is just one of the reasons Fox News isn't a legitimate news organization.
We'll be finding out just how unethical they are unless they find a multimillion buck sum to keep Judith Regan quiet the way they did with Andrea Mackris.
FOX is not a serious network, so it should not even be compared to the Brown situation.
Yeah, but it tries to portray itself as one and should be called on its bs.
Of course so , that is not an argument but the comparison is invalid
From the planet Pars? Tommy, are you traveling in time and space?
(Don't worry, I'll get bored of this soon)
Indeed. Will she??
I would guess no. If that's the case, she ought to recuse herself from the panel or be removed from it by CNN.
It could be that Brown's the most unbiased person in the world. But it doesn't matter.
At what point does warning against preconceived misinformation become political activism? This is the second stiry like this within the last hour.
I believe this is filed under "monitoring possible future conservative misinformation, or what may happen in furthering the conservative agenda"
It must be in the mission, we just missed it.
If it hadnt happened in the past that this kind of conflict of interest went unreported you would have a point. It HAS happened so putting it out there that we expect them to comply with basic journalistic ethics is not unreasonable
"At what point does warning against preconceived misinformation become political activism?"
I don't see any "warning" that there will be misinformation in this item.
I do see a question: will the Romney connection be disclosed? That's hardly what could be called "activism".
so...because her husband is a hack and a romney supporter, she is not credible? i guess if her husband steals a care mmfa will send her to jail too. i guess mmfa wants carville to be fired because his wife is a neocon.
why is this here?
She needs to disclose this possible conflict of interest. Its just that simple
Just from the little I read above, I think it is stretching it to say Campbell's husband is affiliated with the Romney campaign.
A decent point of contention. I think it is enough of a connection to disclose. He says he is advising them and setting up meetings for them. To me that is enough. Also when in question they should err on the side of disclosing such connections. If there is reason to THINK there is a conflict it should be covered by disclosure. Your point however is a reasonable argument. Were he working for the campaign there would be no question
"why is this here?"
It's a question.
Will her connection be disclosed or won't it?
If she was on a Republican debate panel and was married to a Clinton consultant, you can be dam sure the right-wing would be asking the same question.
Just like you are entitled to ask questions, so is everyone else here, including the site itself .
While we are at it, perhaps each journalist should disclose their voting records, annual income, campaign contributions, and plastic surgery bills too. :-)
That is being disengenuous. This kind of possible conflict of interest is supposed to be disclosed. That is basic journalistic ethics. You seem to be pretending it is nitpicking. It isnt.
Why should they report their income ? Or their plastic surgery bills ? (Or their hair dye bills, for that matter, since it seems most of them are egregious offenders. NOTE TO DYERS: DYE YOUR BROWS TOO !!)
Now I do think that disclosure of campaign contributions is fair.
Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Check Edition:
I just wanted to note - for the record - that this latest "outrage" has not actually occurred. But this non-event does illustrate how much MMFA wants to whine about something so bad that you guys cannot even wait.
I only hope that MMFA is consistent and will point out that Russert, Stephanopoulos, and many other liberals in the media once worked (and often seem as if they still are!) for the Democrat Party.
I only hope that MMFA is consistent and will point out that Russert, Stephanopoulos, and many other liberals in the media once worked (and often seem as if they still are!) for the Democrat Party.
So when Russert ambushed Senator Clinton in the last debate he was working for the Democratic Party? Also please use the correct term its DEMOCRATIC , not Democrat. Rush tell you to say that?
Justice and Truth in the USA:
Actually, Russert ask some tough, but fair questions. This whining about being "ambushed" is just part of a Clinton strategy to curb the media. Michael Crowley (in the liberal NEW REPUBLIC) does a great job explaining this Clinton strategy in Bunker Hillary.
Please read it.
Do not tell me what to read.
Don't read this reply. :-)
Sorry , I have a short fuse today, I have a cold . ;-) And its thanksgiving next week , and my husbands sister and her husband are coming. Yikes!!!!!!!
Doris,
I thought it didn't sound like the regular you. I for one started popping Zicam this morning in hopes it lives up to it's advertisement.
I hope you feel better soon and have a wonderful and fun Thanksgiving with your relatives!
The same thing HAS occured in the past. Like when Andrea Mitchell would report on Bush administration economic policy without mentioning she was married to Greenspan or Hannity not mentioning he was part of a Guiliani fundraiser. I call this one for YOU being a partisan hivemind shill
Still to ignorant to even KNOW the name of the largest political party in the US I see.
Part of the problem lies in the fact that the term democratic is also an adjective. One could also say the Republican Party is a democratic party.
Time to get over it. Everyone knows which party is being referred to when one says Democrat Party just as everyone knows GOP refers to the Republicans.
I think I recall a time or two when you have made up your own names for Republicans have you not?
I have said "Repugs" ;-)
"Part of the problem lies in the fact..." etc. etc.
Sorry, but No Sale on that one.
The use of Democrat Party is, at the very best, a lazy parroting of someone who uses it incorrectly on purpose.
It's really childish, and I'm surprised that an intelligent grown-up would defend something befitting a fifth-grader in a playground.
I'm sure there's nothing more the right-wingers would enjoy than having the "Democrat" Party meekly succumb to and get over being called by the wrong name repeatedly. But that's not going to happen.
Dave,
I liken your response to tilting against windmills.
Go ahead, but I think it is a waste of time. I doubt if you'll slay any dragons.
Personally, I refer to the Democratic Party by it's given name. I simply get bored by everyone getting all huffed up over others who might not be so careful.
I find it a bit disingenuous that so many people get bent out of shape over leaving the "ic" off the party name when in any given thread you can see a dozen or more references where those on the left severely mutilate the Republican Party name. And in many cases, by the same people.
I suggest you just look at it as shorthand similar to Dems, cons, GOP, libs, progs, etc.
"so many people get bent out of shape over leaving the "ic" off the party name"
Members of the Republican Party, including Bush-numerous times, do it exactly for that effect.
If you knew that, and then said what you did above anyway, one could almost think you were being disingenuous yourself.
It isnt up to YOU what I get over. You have NEVER seen me gratuitously use other names for the Republican party, that is NEVER other than in the context of an answer to someone doing the same to Democrat party or some variation of that. I am sure you would like to see us just let this smear go, this false frame. Get used to the FACT this isnt going to happen. I will call this BS EVER TIME I CHOOSE TO and YOU will NEVER tell me how to post.
Solon,
Please excuse me. For you, who has repeatedly refered to Republicans as RepubNAMBLAcans or something similar, I find your post outrageously funny, not to mention unadulterated hypocrisy.
You can rail all you want. I do not care.
Yes you have and EVERY TIME that was in response to a bastardization of the name for Democrats so NO It isnt hypocrisy and I never needed your permission to do ANYTHING. I will always be the judge of what I post. Meanwhile you can feel free to TRY to be the protocol moniter here. I dont recall anyone ever asking you to do so.
I can't speak for everyone, but I'd rather be referred to as a "DimBulbocrat" or something similar, rather than the passive-agressive-like "Democrat Party".
Saying "Democrat Party" repeatedly, knowing the effect, is deliberately just this enough to be annoying and disrespectful, yet not maligning enough to be called a purposeful slur.
It's tossed-out by those who don't have the ballz enough to use a true slur, and by those who -when called on it- can always say it was a mistake or "I just wasn't being careful" or "what are you getting 'bent out of shape' about?". Just enough wiggle room for deniablity.
It's cowardly and childish, and it would be like continuously calling it the "Republecan" or "Republicin" party.
I'm with you on that point, Dave, and have commented on it before.I prefer a straight-up insult to the half-assed matter-of-fact slur dropped into the middle of a post.
The posters who try to sneak by with those submarine insults (usually not as clever as they think they are) are the ones that whine the loudest about the response to them. As you pointed out, they tend to fake ignorance of their obvious passive-aggressive shots.
And that's when,after being called on their sneaky cowardly attacks, we get to hear;
"Where's all that liberal tolerance I'm always hearing about?", as if anybody ever made a case for tolerance of bullsh*t.
AA,
When a President of the United States purposefully calls the Republicans something other than Republicans, you have a beef ;). Until then.....
"outrage"
What "outrage"? Please direct us to the passage in this item in which this "outrage" is demonstrated. Because all I see up there is a simple question, I doubt you'll be able to.
Btw, as others have enlightened you about, it's Democratic.
Dave,
I guess referring to your Party as Democrat tics you off?
:-)
"I don't care if you sleep with elephants as long as you don't cover the circus."--former NY Times editor, Abe Rosenthal
What a classic line
Solon,
I would agree that it's a classic lion but I don't want to be accused of being a hippocrite. :-)
Thank you, AA
It's nice to see a conservative with a sense of humor!
Did someone else mention this yet ? Senor is a Faux News "analyst" too, so even before he hooked up with Romney his affiliation with the Repoopiebutts was clear.
Btw, Campbell and Danny have a nice fluffy spread of their Manhattan condo in In Style Home magazine. It's forced retro.
The larger question is this: will CNN disclose the fact that ALL OF THEIR QUESTIONERS ARE REPIGLICANS ? To date every single one of the 'debates' that have occured, every one, has been 'moderated' by REPIGLICANS. Not one of these 'debates', not one, has had a Democrat ASKING ANY QUESTIONS.
How did she get pregnant? Is she going to have another geesus? What happened to abstinence? Another set of value voters? Don't do as I do, do what I tell you to do? Did they have a conversation about abortion before going ahead with birth? Or did He say to her, we are having this baby!