Tag Archives: CNN

Any outrage over moderator correcting Trump?

Let us try to balance two similar episodes involving debate moderators.

Then we can wonder: Are we treating them in a “fair and balanced” manner?

In the 2012 debate between Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama, Romney asserted that Obama failed to refer to the attack in September of that year on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, as a “terrorist” event.

Moderator Candy Crowley of CNN corrected Gov. Romney, telling him at that moment that the president did make such a declaration.

Political conservatives went ballistic, saying Crowley had no business interjecting herself into a political debate.

Then last night, Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly asked GOP candidate Donald Trump about statements he has made about women. She told Trump: “You’ve called women you don’t like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals.”

Trump interrupted Kelly, responding, “Only Rosie O’Donnell,” to which Kelly said, “For the record, it was way beyond Rosie O’Donnell.”

OK, did Kelly interject herself into the debate in the manner that Crowley allegedly did in 2012? If so, where’s the outrage — from the right?

And, for the record, both Crowley and Kelly acted appropriately in both instances — in my oh-so-humble view — in setting the record straight.

Perry misses out on GOP main debate event

It was just four years ago, but it seems like a dozen lifetimes.

Rick Perry was the high-flying Texas governor seeking the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. He entered the primary field and rocketed to the top of the heap as an early front runner for the chance to run against President Barack Obama.

Then came the “oops” moment when he couldn’t name the third federal agency he’d eliminate if he was elected president.

Perry dropped out.

Four years later, Perry is no longer Texas governor, but he boned up on the issues. He got plenty of rest. His bad back is healed. He’s running for the GOP nomination once again.

Then he gets punched in the gut. Fox News, which is playing host to the first televised GOP debate this Thursday, relegated TEA Party favorite Rick Perry to what’s been called the “kids’ table.” He’ll be one of seven candidates participating in an earlier debate, but he didn’t make the cut for the main event.

The top 10 GOP hopefuls are there, including fellow Texan, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/08/04/perry-doesnt-make-cut-first-gop-presidential-debat/

Fox said only the top candidates in the polls would be on the prime-time event. CNN, which is sponsoring the second debate, laid down the same ground rules.

This is not the way to run a presidential debate series. I’m sure that’s what Perry and his team believe.

I’m still pulling for him to make the grade in subsequent debates.

All he has to do — in this media and political climate — is say something so outrageous that he gets everyone talking about him.

Candidates looking like horses

horse race

Democrats’ symbol is the donkey.

Republicans’ is the elephant.

Both beasts are looking more like horses, especially as pundits discuss the upcoming 2016 presidential political campaign.

Since most of the chatter is on the GOP side, let’s focus on that one.

How much do we really know about all 16 people who are seeking the Republican nomination? My hunch is not much … at all, if anything. No, we’ve been hearing a lot about polls. Who’s up? Who’s down? Who’s on the move — up or down? What happened to the formerly formidable candidates? How can they get themselves back up again?

Horse-race politics is back with a vengeance.

We keep hearing about it and about how much of a negative influence it has on the nature of the campaign to become leader of the Free World, commander in chief of the greatest military in world history, chief executive of the federal government — all that stuff.

We get fixated on the leaders. Can they keep their lead?

Then we zero in on the statements they make in order to become one of the leaders. That’s been at the top of the discussion list of late. I admit to joining that pack. I’m not proud of it. I’ll try to mend my ways.

But the commentary today must focus on why the media keep covering these campaigns as if they’re races to the finish line.

I’ll blame two of the major news networks for feeding the 2016 version of this frenzy. Fox and CNN are going to be hosts for the first two GOP joint appearances. They set down some ground rules that include poll-driven data: Only the top dogs are allowed.

Don’t all the candidates deserve to be heard? Don’t all of them have something of value to say? Aren’t the media obligated to give them all a chance to state their case before as many people as possible?

Isn’t that what our political system is supposed to foster, a free exchange among all the individuals running for the most important political office in the land — if not on the planet?

That’s not happening. We’re focusing instead on the horse race, which has been the norm of political coverage perhaps since the advent of television as a major information source.

I want to hear more from and about the candidates and how each of them intends to fight the war against terror, keep the country’s economy moving forward … you know, the stuff that matters.

The sound bites that seek to elevate candidates’ polling standing? The analysis from the talking heads about whether so-and-so will be in the debate based on his or her polling?

Honestly, I find it boring to the max.

I might need to take a vow to ignore the polls and concentrate on the policy statements. I now will ponder precisely that. I’ll get back to you.

 

 

 

 

Networks create GOP debate monster

Barack Obama is touring East Africa at the moment, seeking to build some common ground and alliances in the war against terrorism.

Meanwhile, back home, the thundering herd of Republicans are trying to outshout each other while seeking one of 10 spot on a debate stage in Cleveland, Ohio.

The president calls the GOP’s “ad hominem attacks” on U.S. foreign policy “ridiculous” and “sad.”

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-chides-2016-candidates-ridiculous-sad-remarks-115421880–election.html#

I believe, Mr. President, what we’re seeing here is the result of a Fox- and CNN-inspired creation: The candidates are trying to one-up each other, seeking to boost their poll numbers among GOP primary voters so they can be seen and heard among the “top tier” candidates participating in the first two Republican primary debates.

Mike Huckabee said the president’s deal that seeks an end to Iran’s nuclear program will walk “Israelis to the oven,” an obvious reference to the Holocaust. Do you think the former Arkansas governor is trying to make some noise here, trying to become eligible to take part in the Fox-sponsored debate that will take place in a few days?

All the GOP contenders, of course, are trying to derail the current frontrunner — Donald Trump — who’s said so many outrageous things in so many equally outrageous contexts.

Fox said the top 10 candidates’ poll numbers will determine who stands on the debate stage. CNN, which hosts the second debate, is following more or less than same script.

The networks are going to determine who gets heard on national TV.

To get there, the networks are laying the groundwork for candidates to make outrageous statements designed to boost poll ratings, appealing to “the base” of their party.

The GOP campaign has devolved into name-calling, again in the interest of boosting poll numbers.

Oh, my. It’s just the beginning.

 

‘Inside job’ helped free El Chapo?

U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul is on point with an assertion that Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman had inside help when he escaped from that maximum-security prison in Mexico.

The Texas Republican’s contention also adds a serious twist to the difficulty in protecting our territory against foreign enemies. They’re right across our borders.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/14/mccaul-absurd-think-guzman-fled-without-inside-hel/

McCaul chairs the House Homeland Security Committee and he has said that in order for the notorious and highly dangerous drug kingpin to escape from prison he needed help from prison officials. That means Mexican government officials. And that also means we need to broaden our attention to those who would do us harm to those who live on our very continent.

OK, so it’s not exactly a scoop to suggest that danger lurks far closer than the Middle East, South Asia, or East Africa.

McCaul’s comments come after a leading Democrat on the House panel, Filemon Vela, also of Texas, leveled a similar blast at Mexican authorities. So the concern and the fear cross party lines.

“The idea that there wasn’t a complicity and corruption going on when you got a mile-long tunnel underneath the facility is absolutely absurd,” McCaul said on CNN.

Here’s an idea: When the authorities capture Guzman, let’s redouble our efforts to extradite him to the United States, where he and his drug cartel inflict most of their damage. McCaul and others in Congress tried, and failed, after Guzman’s first escape from maximum-security.

Let’s also hope the authorities can capture this monster quickly.

CNN anchor ‘misspoke’ about Dallas PD shooter?

This likely will be the last thing I’ll say about this, but I must ask: How does one “misspeak” the words that CNN anchor Fredricka Whitfield uttered in describing James Boulware, the man who laid siege to the Dallas Police Department before a police sniper shot him to death?

http://news.yahoo.com/cnn-fredricka-whitfield-dallas-police-shooter-courageous-brave-210006543.html

Whitfield went on the air the other day and said Boulware was “brave and courageous.” He assaulted the PD in an armored van, opening fire on police officers.

The criticism erupted. Whitfield went back on the air a couple of days later and said she “misspoke” when she used those words to describe Boulware. The media called her statement an “apology.” It really wasn’t.

My understanding, though, is that when you misspeak, you insert incorrect verbiage into sentences intended to convey another message. What did she intend to say about Boulware? Was the word “brave” uttered instead of — as a friend of mine noted — the term “brazen”?

Now I’m trying to figure out a word that sounds sort of like “courageous.” I can’t come up with one.

She misspoke? No, that’s not what I’d call it.

 

Whitfield apologizes for ‘brave’ remark … I guess

Fredricka Whitfield has more or less apologized for a comment she made Saturday about the guy who stormed the Dallas Police Department headquarters.

The CNN anchor had called him “brave” and “courageous,” drawing a stampede of criticism.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/cnn%e2%80%99s-fredricka-whitfield-apologizes-for-calling-dallas-gunman-%e2%80%98courageous-and-brave%e2%80%99/ar-BBl8L1N

Today she said something quite different: “Yesterday during a segment on the Dallas police department attack, I used the words ‘courageous and brave,’ when discussing the gunman. I misspoke and in no way believe the gunman was courageous or brave,” Whitfield said.

Well, I guess there’s an apology in there somewhere.

The man was shot dead by a police department sniper. He’s been identified as James Boulware, who opened fire on the PD from an armored van.

Whitfield said she “misspoke.”

I’ll just ask one more question: What did she intend to say?

‘Courageous and brave’? Not even close

CNN news anchor Fredericka Whitfield needs — I think — some lessons in how to use the English language.

She attached the terms “courageous” and “brave” to describe the actions of a man who laid siege to the Dallas Police Department headquarters building before he was shot to death by a police sniper.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/cnn-anchor-calls-dallas-attack-brave/ar-BBl6wpK

My goodness. My head is spinning over that.

The diver of an armored van opened fire on the police building. He was committing at least two serious felonies: attempted murder and firing a gun in the city limits come to mind most immediately; there might be a dozen more criminal acts involved here. She said: “It was very courageous and brave, if not crazy as well, to open fire on the police headquarters, and now you have this scene, this standoff.”

Huh?

The terms “courageous” and “brave” are intended to put a positive description on one’s actions. The actions of this guy never — not ever — should be labeled in the manner described by this news anchor.

Fox News’s power is overrated

I want to share this link with readers of this blog.

It comes from Jack Schafer, senior media writer for Politico. com and it offers an interesting analysis of the power that Fox News has — or doesn’t have — on the rest of the media and the voting public.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/fox-news-liberals-118235.html?hp=t1_r#.VWNDQFLbKt8

Schafer’s analysis is most interesting in that he relies heavily on the thoughts of a known political conservative — Bruce Bartlett — to make the case that Fox’s actual power overrated.

Bartlett has served as a key policy guy for Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and remains devoted to his political principles. He believes Fox is hindering his party’s effort to advance and to return to the White House. Fox News, he contends, is appealing to the narrowest wing of the GOP.

Schafer notes an element of Fox’s strategy that I found quite interesting: “One thing Bartlett gets absolutely right in his critique is how Fox seized on the repeal of government censorship of the airwaves (also known as the Fairness Doctrine and the equal-time rule) to create a news outlet that would cater to the country’s underserved conservative audience. You don’t have to be a Fox fan to credit the network with reintroducing ideological competition to the news business, which began to fade at the midpoint of the 20th century.”

I don’t watch Fox News routinely. Maybe I should. It leans away from where I lean; I suppose the older I get the more vulnerable I feel when my blood pressure elevates as the veins in my neck start throbbing. For that matter, I am having trouble watching MSNBC these days, but for a vastly different reason: MSNBC’s predictable liberal slant has become boring.

Schafer takes note of “reliably liberal” New York Times columnist Frank Rich’s assessment of Fox News: “The median age of a Fox viewer is 68, eight years older than the MSBNC and CNN median age, and its median age is rising. ‘Fox is in essence a retirement community,’ Rich writes, and a small one at that! ‘The million or so viewers who remain fiercely loyal to the network are not, for the most part, and as some liberals still imagine, naĂŻve swing voters who stumble onto Fox News under the delusion it’s a bona fide news channel and then are brainwashed by Ailes’s talking points into becoming climate-change deniers,’ he writes.”

The bottom line is that Fox News isn’t the political juggernaut its viewers think it is.

This is a most interesting analysis. Take a look.

 

More ‘lies’ from O’Reilly

Bill O’Reilly is a serial liar, according to one of his former colleagues at Fox News Channel.

OK, that doesn’t surprise a lot of folks. What’s a bit surprising to me is that the allegation of lying comes from Eric Burns, who was a host of “Fox News Watch” for a decade until 2008, when the network let him go.

I’m not sure if Burns is spitting out some sour grapes here, but he did tell CNN’s Brian Stelter that O’Reilly long has been known to embellish his credentials, if not lie outright about what he reported on.

The clip attached to this link is about 8 minutes long. It’s a highly interesting critique on O’Reilly’s time at Fox and whether his bosses and colleagues at the network expect much from him. Burns said no, they don’t.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/03/ex-fox-host-tells-cnn-olbermann-was-right-all-along-fox-is-a-cult-and-oreilly-is-a-liar/#.VPy5tRDsw1s.twitter

Why is this such a big deal? Well, maybe it’s not huge. But in the media world, O’Reilly has become cable the biggest star on cable “news,” although I use the term “news” guardedly where it involves O’Reilly or, for that matter, Fox News in general.

About the time Brian Williams got suspended by NBC for fibbing, er, lying, about being shot down in Iraq, O’Reilly came under criticism for his reporting from the Falklands War “front” in 1982 when, in reality, he never set foot on the island territory when British forces landed to take it back from Argentine forces.

Williams got suspended — and likely won’t get his news anchor job back — while O’Reilly’s ratings have soared, as Burns told Stelter on CNN’s “Reliable Sources.”

That seems to be the aim at Fox: ratings. Burns said the network is giving O’Reilly a pass because the more he comes under fire, the more his rating soar. Burns suggested to Stelter that’s a likely consequence of the audience that tunes in to Fox. He calls Fox News watchers “cultish.” Watch the clip and listen for yourself to what he says.

It’s interesting that in all the discussion, I didn’t hear a mention of what now-Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., has called O’Reilly over the years. Back when he was a mere political humorist, Franken would refer the Fox News host as “O’Lie-ly,” which enraged O’Reilly so much that to this day he refers to Franken by his former “Saturday Night Live” character, Stuart Smalley.

Whatever the case, the interview with Eric Burns is worth your time.

Well, at least was worth my time.