CNN's idea of balance

[Syrinx]

Whenever CNN has a discussion or "debate," they usually have, for some reason, three panelists.

Almost invariably, those three slots are filled by (1) a hard-right, tea-bag type, (2) a "no labels" centrist or right-leaning "Democrat," and (3) David Gergen -- who they pass off as a political agnostic that has served both Republican and Democratic presidents.

They portray Gergen as a middle-of-the-road guy, despite his record, overseeing Nixon's speech-writing staff that included the likes of Ben Stein, Bill Safire and Pat Buchanan, and helping to push through the Reagan agenda that ruined America.

They insinuate that he's middle-of-the-road because he worked in the Clinton White House, during Clinton's days of triangulating capitulation, and Dick Morris' bouts of literal and figurative toe-sucking.

So when we see a political discussion on CNN, the participants are usually a tea-bagger, a Blue Dog, and another tea-bagger helpfully disguised.

Thanks CNN, for being so fair and balanced! :hi:

[upi402]

1. Exrta! by FAIR tracked pro and anit NAFTA pundit hours during the NAFTA "debate"

It was crazy lopsided, like 8 to 1. The fake anti-NAFTA pundits and the 'man on the street' interview were supposed to qualify for anti NAFTA balance.

Both CNN and Gergen were part of that corporatist push. As was the best Republican ever - Bill Clinton!

The reason why.

[ixion]

2. Indeed. They are as 'fair and balanced' as FAUX for all practical purposes

and one of the reasons I stopped watching broadcast infotainment.

[baldguy]

3. I've got a new rule: no more Republicans.

Republicans have nothing new to say and nothing to add to such discussions, and everything they sat consists of spin, propaganda and outright lies. If a Republican is on a panel, 75-80% of the time is spent correcting and refuting the RW "points" presented. The objective of the show is not to inform, but to entertain - and I'd frankly be more entertained by a second-rate clown than a pasty white guy in an old gray suit.

[Syrinx]

4. just saw another example that I think qualifies

It was a program that was hosted by Ali Velshi. The topic was "civility and the economy." :shrug:

The panelists, three of them, were the founder of the Memphis tea party, former right-wing media darling Arianna Huffington, and... David Gergen.

I'm not really sure what to make of Arianna. She mostly seems to say the right stuff these days, but I find it difficult to shake the memory of her, back in the day, castigating Bill Clinton for being a far-left liberal.

But even if you accept her as a liberal convert, she was still outnumbered two to one.

[SoCalDem]

5. Can we even name the progressives we heard little (or nothing) from, for DECADES:

(on tv & radio).. newspapers & magazines don't really count for much, since most people form their opinions from what they are MOST exposed to.....

There WERE (are?) many progressives/liberals still around, but when they dare to step over that line, their corporate bosses cut them loose.

We may see them if we seek them out & pay to hear their lectures, or we may pay to buy their books, but they were not given the opportunity yo host 3-hr radio shows 5 days a week, or to host multi-hour tv shows.

At best, one or two or them may slip past media censors when they win a prestigious award, or if a host fights hard enough to get the, on, but even then, they are greeted with a screaming-head format where they are interrupted every 7 seconds by other "guests", and in the end their presentation suffers, since real ideas take more than a 2-word slogan parroted over and over.