Two days ago, Hugh Hewitt was able to interview Steve Grove, director of news and politics for YouTube. Mr. Grove was on Hugh Hewitt to be interviewed because CNN was getting ready to televise a debate of the candidates for the presidential nominee for the Republican Party. YouTube, an internet based video posting service, was a co-sponsor of the debate and was set-up to supply questions submitted from all over the United States. The presumption was that if people who were not in attendance, the audience would not be stacked and further, the questions would not be either … a true and open “town hall” style question and answer debate.
In the interview, Hugh’s suspicions that the people set up to run the debate might alter this presumption of openness of the debate came through as he began to ask Steve Grove questions while Mr. Grove was pushing through a list of talking points. What Hugh was able to ascertain through his interview process was that the staff at CNN would be in control of what questions from YouTube would be prepared for airing and that YouTube had received about 5,000 entries.
Hugh was interested in the process as to how these decisions were going to be arrived at and IF these decisions were going to have any balance.
This was posted Tuesday at Hugh Hewitt’s blog website -
Posted by: Duane R. Patterson Tuesday, November 27, 2007 at 8:24 PM
On July 26th of this year, Hugh warned against the wisdom of GOP candidates participate in a CNN/YouTube debate format.
As you listen, ask yourself if you trust CNN and YouTube to put together an honest, thoughtul and fair debate between the GOP presidential candidates.
We now know that the debate was stacked with Democrat party partisans asking their pre-selected and CNN vetted question via YouTube video snippets, and further, some of the people featured in the aired YouTube question were actually in the audience at the debate … so WHY the YouTube ruse?
This from Machille Malkin -
In a now richly ironic interview with Wired.com before the debate, David Bohrman, a CNN senior vice president, explained why videos were picked not by popular vote, but by supposedly seasoned CNN journalists: The Web is still too immature a medium to set an agenda for a national debate, he claimed. “It’s really easy for the campaigns to game the system.” “You’ve seen how effective the Ron Paul campaign [supporters] have been on the Web,” he noted. “You don’t know if there are 40 or 4 million of them. It would be easy for a really organized campaign to stack the deck."
This from Hot Air –
Debate questioner is affiliated with Hillary’s — and Kerry’s — campaigns; Update: Plantmania!
posted at 11:09 pm on November 28, 2007 by Allahpundit
As incredible as it may seem, given all the flak they took for not vetting questioners after the last debate, CNN not only approved a question from someone affiliated with the Clinton campaign without identifying the affiliation, they invited him to the debate so that he could ask a follow-up.
One of the lefty blogs whined after my post about the last debate that those crazy wingnuts shouldn’t be surprised to find former state Democratic Party officials asking questions at what was, after all, a Democratic Party event.
Should I not be surprised to find a Democratic campaign operative — not just from this campaign but from the last one too, per the end of this post — asking questions at the Republican debate either?
Just identify the guy, CNN. His question’s perfectly fair. And, apropos of nothing, Hunter’s answer is awful.
Update (Bryan): Not that we need anymore proof, but Kerr’s name appears in this Clinton press release. It’s about halfway down the list.
Update (MM): Another one…and another one…and another one…
We at MAXINE ask, why do we need Anderson Cooper and CNN to moderate the debate? Why not just issue political operatives from the various campaigns of the opposing political party a microphone and have them run the debate … that’s right, with the General in the audience to field a follow up question, CNN already did!
More evidence of democrat operative questioners from Michelle Malkin.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
The Amazing Kreskin
By having YouTube be the resource for most of the questions, the sponsoring "News" organization brings a level of deniability and a removal of responsibility for being professional and journalistic. In short, CNN allows itself to be politically partisan.
"CNN - The Most Trusted Name In News". Yaa, Right!