Before last week’s Democratic debate in Las Vegas on CNN, Hillary Clinton backers issued “warnings” to moderator Wolf Blitzer. Since a Clinton supporter in a conference call had suggested Tim Russert “should be shot” for pressing Hillary for an answer in the Philadelphia debate, such warnings would be heard. Some suspected Wolf would be forced into aggressive questioning of the former First Lady to assert his journalistic integrity, but others noted he had never had any journalistic integrity in the first place and expected him to roll over and sit like a good dog.
Wolf rolled over, but that wasn’t the story. Although CNN claimed tickets were distributed by the University by lottery and that audience questioners were “undecided voters,” that appears not to be entirely true. The pretense began to crumble when the young woman who asked the inane “diamonds or pearls” question was ridiculed for her vacuity. She defended herself by saying CNN “forced” her to ask the question – they requested several questions in advance from each questioner, including one “light” question. Her main question was on Yucca Mountain, which had already been discussed, so she was asked to use her “funny” question instead, and did so voluntarily.
Dan Riehl of Riehl World View and others began asking questions, and found the young lady was a former Harry Reid intern! Then Dan found another questioner was a former Arkansas Democratic political director, and Jenny Bea of The War Against Political Correctness dug a little deeper and found that ALL of the questioners were Democratic activists.
Now, it shouldn’t be surprising that CNN screened the questions to be asked.
The debate was on national television, and they wouldn’t want some “9/11 truther” nut going on and on about his conspiracy theories until they had to taser him, and the Far Left has no shortage of kooks who would be only to happy to “f-bomb” the candidates over whatever their pet issue is. It only makes sense.
Neither is it a shock that a Democratic activist or two made it through the screening to ask a question. They would be naturally in tune with the issues in a Democratic primary. BUT ~ when ALL of the questioners had ties to the establishment and/or a candidate, describing them simply as “undecided voters” misleads the viewers. These were hardly representative of the electorate – and there is nothing wrong with that in itself. It is the pretense that they WERE which offends.
CNN wanted the best of both worlds: to carefully manage the audience participation, but to give the appearance they were not. Bad show.
So, why are none of the Democratic candidates complaining? Well, none of them was harmed by the audience questions, and they know that CNN is firmly in their corner when the general election comes around. Why point out that one of your main propaganda wings is dishonest?
Strange, though, that none complained about the analysts in the post-debate show. Former Republican Congressman J.C. Watts was the token Republican, James Carville the token Democrat, and David Gergen the “objective” media wise man. The problem is that Carville has worked for the Clintons for 15 years and is still an “informal adviser” to Hillary’s campaign, and Gergen was also employed by the Clinton Administration. They were hardly unbiased analysts.
Perhaps the other candidates aren’t complaining in the hopes of securing a position in Hillary’s Cabinet?