Tag Archives: CNN

Moderator deserves a good word

161004220339-elaine-quijano-cbs-780x439

Elaine Quijano has earned a good word on this morning after the vice-presidential “debate.”

The CBS News correspondent/anchor didn’t do a great job refereeing the exchange between Democratic nominee Tim Kaine and Republican nominee Mike Pence.

As I look back on it after a good night’s sleep, my conclusion is that itĀ wasn’t totally her fault. She sought to reel in the fellas, sought to keep them answering the questions, she sought to avoid the constant interruptions that were initiated by the amped-upĀ Kaine.

She got caught in a buzzsaw of campaign rhetoric, throwaway lines, talking points, insults and, oh yeah, the occasional policy differences that emerged from the candidates.

I want to echo something I heard last night from the post-“debate” analysis about the best question of the evening. It dealt with candidates’ religious faith and how it informs their public policy.

Both men exhibited clear understanding of faith and explained in clear and concise language how it works for them in their public life. Bravo to them both for ending the evening on somewhat of a civil note — and bravo to Quijano for the question.

As we’ve been seeing, though, in these joint appearances, the media moderators are becoming a bit of a distraction. Dating back four years ago when CNN’s Candy Crowley corrected GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s incorrect assertion that Barack Obama didn’t call the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism, media and politicians have been waitingĀ for future moderators to interject themselves into the political dialogue.

Quijano, unfortunately, became part of the story again last night.

From my perch out here in Flyover Country, though, I believe sheĀ delivered a creditable effort at staying above the fray. I only wish the candidates would have done a better job of focusing on the issues at hand.

Moderators should, uh, moderate

NBC NEWS - EVENTS -- Decision 2012 -- Pictured: Lester Holt -- (Photo by: Michele Leroy/NBC/NBCU Photo Bank via Getty Images)

Call me an old-school fuddy-duddy.

Lester Holt of NBC News has a big task ahead of him Monday night. He gets to moderate the joint appearance between Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

I liken his role to that of an athletic event referee. The best officiating jobs are done by those you don’t notice.

Accordingly, some of the chatter leading up to the event has been whether the moderator should correct candidates’ misstatements.

I’ve thought about this for about the past four years and I’ve concluded that Holt should not interfere. He should not interject himself into the storyline. He shouldn’t become part of the story … as CNN’s Candy Crowley did in 2012 when she corrected a statement that Mitt Romney made about whether President Obama had declared the fire fight at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya to be a terrorist attack.

That wasn’t Crowley’s job.

Her job then — and Holt’s will be Monday — was to ask questions of the candidates and to let them correct each other if and when the need arose.

If the moderators were to correct the candidates, then how do they determine which misstatements they let pass and which ones do they correct?

I prefer that they not make the call.

Of course, given the nature of social media these days, a non-call also would become “news.” Commentators no doubt would make them have to answer for their decision to let the candidates’ statements go unchallenged.

Sigh …

Still, my old-school tendency leads me to believe the moderator’s job isn’t to become a fact-checker. It is to be a referee. The best refs are those we don’t notice during a competitive event.

CNN crosses ethical line

corey

Right-wing critics of the so-called “liberal mainstream media” like to pound on CNN for its alleged bias against conservative politicians.

That’s their opinion, I suppose.

Then we have this bit of news: Former Donald J. Trump Republican campaign manager Corey Lewandowski — who is being paid by CNN to provide political commentary — also is being paid by Trump’s presidential campaign. Lewandowski is set to receive another half-million bucks by the end of the year.

Trump fired Lewandowski and then offered a handsome severance package on his way out.

This is so very wrong on so many levels.

There is supposed to be a line that separates media organizations from partisan political activity. Many cable and broadcast news networks have hired former political hands to provide commentary. They come from both political parties and they represent all manner of philosophy, principle and partisan bias.

The Lewandowski matter, though, is markedly different.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/corey-lewandowski-set-to-collect-nearly-dollar500000-from-trump-campaign/ar-BBwyRL0?li=BBnb7Kz

CNN often is criticized by right-wing pols and operatives. They refer to the network derisively as the “Clinton News Network.” Lewandowski’s compensation from an active Republican presidential candidate would seem to silence that criticism. It’s not likely.

Meanwhile, Lewandowski is going to offer his political analysis on the air while being paid by one of the candidates about who he is commenting.

Talk about not passing the “smell test.” This dubious coziness stinks to high heaven.

Trump now must decide: Do I show up to debate Hillary?

AAiuBxc

I cannot believe some media outlets are actually asking this question seriously.

Is Donald Trump going to agree to debate Hillary Rodham Clinton now that we know who will moderate these three events, orĀ will he back out?

Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, has agreed to face Republican nominee Trump who, apparently, hasn’t yet agreed formally to show for any or all of them.

It seems that he wanted to see who the networks would select as moderators. Now he knows.

NBC’s Lester Holt will moderate the first one; ABC’s Martha Raddatz and CNN’s Anderson Cooper get the second one; Fox News’s Chris Wallace gets the third one.

All are capable journalists. All are tough-minded.

And all of them, apparently, have had some “issues” with Trump.

Thus, we get the question about whether the GOP nominee will show up.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-wanted-to-%E2%80%98see-who-the-moderators-are%E2%80%99-now-that-he-has-will-he-debate/ar-AAiu2ho?li=BBmkt5R

The tempest over his feud with Fox’s Megyn Kelly is going down already as a serious back story of this amazingly unpredictable campaign. Trump didn’t show up for a debate when he learned Kelly would be one of the co-moderators. His absence obviously didn’t harm his nomination chances.

Trump has bitched about moderators before. All of the journalists named as moderators have questioned Trump hard on some of the answers he has given. Will his notoriously thin skin prevent him from being questioned yet again?

He’s also griped that the debates were scheduled opposite televised NFL games, which he said would drive down viewership of the debate — which, quite naturally, he alleges is a conspiracy to get Clinton elected.

The only thing I can surmise if Trump were actually to refuse to show up for any of these three joint appearances is that some of the conspiracy theorists are right about one thing: Trump is throwing this election because he truly doesn’t want to be elected president of the United States.

Moderators become part of the campaign ’16 story

03moderators-combo-master768

Admit it if you dare.

You’ve been wondering who would moderate the three joint appearances scheduledĀ with Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

Now we know.

Lester Holt of NBC will do the first one; ABC’s Martha Raddatz and CNN’s Anderson Cooper will co-moderate the second; Fox’s Chris Wallace gets the call for the third one.

This normally wouldn’t be a y-u-u-u-u-g-e deal, except for what happened in the first GOP gathering in 2015 when Trump bristled openly at the first question posed by Fox News’s Megyn Kelly, who had theĀ “gall” to ask Trump about his previous statements about women. You know, the “fat pigs” stuff.

Trump didn’t like the question. Not only that, he kept up the feud through much of the GOP primary campaign, refusing to participate in a later event moderated by the same Megyn Kelly.

He demonstrated a preposterous level of petulance.

He made the media the issue, which plays well with the Republican base, given that they hate the media, too.

Moderators aren’t supposed to become part of a political story. This year they have been. Remember, too, when CNN’s Candy Crowley in 2012 corrected GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s assertion that President Obama didn’t refer to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror.

Oh, but this is a new era. Trump has ensured that the media will become part of the narrative because, as he discovered, the base of his party’s voters love gnawing on that red meat.

Will he go after Holt, or Raddatz, or Cooper or Wallace?

Or, will any of them provoke a fiery response with a question that Trump deems to be untoward?

Gosh, I’m getting all tingly now just waiting for it.

Trump loses ‘brown-skinned’ supporter

trump_supporter_cnn

Another mystery has emerged along the Donald J. Trump presidential campaign trail.

It involves a young man who supported the Republican presidential nominee. The young man, Jake Anantha, attended his first-ever political rally in North Carolina the other day.

Then he got tossed out. Trump’s security boss booted out Anantha for — and this is Anantha’s version of it — no apparent reason.

Anantha, whose father is of Indian descent, says he got tossed because he has “brown skin.”

Anantha said he tried to explain to the Trump security goon that he was just there to listen to his guy, Trump, and that he is a supporter. The security guy didn’t believe him, Anantha said. So he kicked him out.

Why is this a bigger deal than usual? Well, Trump keeps saying he’s going to win 95 percent of the African-American vote, despite only polling about 1 percent among black voters at the moment. Anantha, though, contends he was thrown out of Trump’s rally only because of the color of his skin.

How is Trump’s outreach to people “of color” going to work in that context?

Granted, we’ve only heard Jake Anantha’s version of the story. Not a peep has come just yet from the Trump campaign. The security guy isn’t talking. Neither is the candidate. Same for Trump’s new campaign CEO, Steve Bannon, who came to the campaign after posting some seriously racist-sounding commentary while working for Breitbart.com. Is there a connection? Hmmm. I don’t know.

Some answers, please. Mr. Trump? Mr. Security Guy? Anyone?

Oh, there’s one more thing.

Jake Anantha no longer supports Trump.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/292069-trump-supporter-says-he-was-kicked-out-of-a-trump-rally

War gets a new face

This little boy is likely to become the new face of humankind’s ability to inflict inhumane pain and suffering.

He is a 5-year-old Syrian boy whose home was bombed in an airĀ strike in the city of Aleppo, where the youngster lives with his parents.

A CNN anchor broke down and cried today when she reported on the youngster’s wounds and on the carnage that’s occurring within his country.

The boy’s name is Omran Daqneesh.

I don’t know at this moment whether he is alive. Nor do I know the fate of his parents.

The Syrian civil war has killed at least a quarter-million people. The Islamic State is seeking to toss out the government of Bashar al Assad. The Russian air force is supporting Assad. The United States opposes Assad’s government and is working to destroy ISIS.

Who dropped the bomb that obliterated Omran’s house? We don’t know. It appears to have been a Russian air strike.

Will the image on the video attached to this post do anything to end the violence? Probably not.

It’s worth looking at this video, time and again, just to understand the hideousness of war and the irreparable damage it inflicts on the world’s most defenseless victims.

‘Patriot’ tosses out the ‘t-word’ to media

Original caption: Benedict Arnold.  Treason of Arnold.  He persuaded Andre to conceal the papers in his boot. --- Image by Ā© Bettmann/CORBIS

I can think of few things worse to call someone than a “traitor.”

“Child molester” comes to mind. So does “murderer.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/12/trump_rally-goer_to_cnn_reporter_i_am_a_patriot_and_you_are_a_traitor.html

But the guy noted in this video link has decided that he is an “American patriot” and that a CNN news crew comprises “traitors.”

He uttered that epithet at the end of a Donald J. Trump campaign rally where, I am guessing, the Republican Party presidential nominee had some unkind things to say about the media.

The barbs Trump likely slung at the media got the requisite cheers from the crowd.

And then itĀ produced this response from the self-described “American patriot,” who also felt the need to offer the middle-finger salute to the camera crew.

Nice …

Everyone’s entitled to their opinion.

TV news ‘contributors’ need to come clean

hillary

Even as a longtime print guy — someone who earned his living writing for newspapers for more than three decades — I remain quite respectful of broadcast journalists and their craft.

I say that even as broadcast journalism is morphing into something few of us barely recognize from the days when we broke into journalism three, four, five decades ago.

The cable and broadcast news networks now are full of “contributors,” pundits who often come to their new calling from the partisan political world.

An online report brings to light a fascinating and troubling trend in the TV coverage of the presidential campaign. It is the absence of full disclosure by political pundits to the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/25/tv-pundits-praise-hillary-clinton-on-air-fail-to-disclose-financial-ties-to-her-campaign/

Viewers are listening to “contributors” such as, Stephanie Cutter, say that Hillary Clinton has done “nothing wrong” in her presidential campaign. They do not hear Cutter — or her employers at CNN — reveal that she has financial ties to the Clinton campaign.

CNN recently hired former Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski as a “contributor.” It didn’t reveal that Lewandowski was still getting paid by the Trump campaign even after he was let go as its campaign manager.

The broadcast and cable news outlets are full of these contributors, though, who have some form of financial connection to Clinton.

Honestly, I am troubled in the first place by all these political hacks who find themselves offering analysis on the state of the campaign. My own preference would be for the networks to rely more on think tank types, journalists who make their living offering such analysis and perhaps academics.

Sure, they need to be “telegenic” and be able to present themselves and their views in a cogent and understandable manner.

Does any of this pro-Clinton slant — and the financial connections to the candidate herself — doom or candidacy? Should it? No to questions.

Consumers of news and analysis, though, would be served far better if the contributors revealed their own financial interest in the candidate they are praising.

Party ‘disunity’ surfaces … within the Democrats!

dem chair

It appears that party unity is as elusive a commodity among Democrats as it is among Republicans.

Just as the Democratic Party is set to convene its presidential nominating convention in Philadelphia, the party chair — Debbie Wasserman Schultz — submitted her resignation effective at the end of the convention.

Eh? What? You mean … ?

Schultz, it turned out, doesn’t think much of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s chief primary foe, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders. Some e-mails got leaked in which she refers to Sanders as an “ASS” and not a real Democrat.

As they say … oops!

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/wasserman-schultz-wont-preside-over-dnc-convention-226088

Will this blow over? I reckon so — to the extent that Republicans led by GOP nominee Donald J. Trump will allow it.

I’m quite sure Trump and his followers will take to social media to let us all know about the “rigged” system that allowed Clinton to be nominated this week for president. They’ll remind us that Sanders got the shaft. They will possibly concoct conspiracies where none exist.

Party chairs don’t usually resign on the eve of these big events. Thus, the timing of Schultz’s resignation all by itself makes it a big story.

It was so interesting to me that during his acceptance speech the other night, Trump took a few moments to extol the virtues of part of Sanders’s message, the part about income inequality and Wall Street influence.

So, in that moment, “the enemy of my enemy” became “my friend,” in Trump’s view.

Donna Brazile will take over the party chairmanship; she’ll have to give up her gig as a CNN “contributor.” But, as a one-time Republican operative who “contributes” to ABC News, Matthew Dowd, noted this morning, Republicans might rue the day they wished for Schultz’s resignation. Brazile will take charge — immediately! — and will reorganize the party apparatus quickly.

In the meantime, the hunt for “party unity” will continue. So, you see, Democrats and Republicans have something in common after all.