Evidence suggesting CNN going soft on Hillary

[Archaea]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312003,00.html

Maria Parra-Sandoval, 22, a senior political science major at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said she wanted to ask the Democratic frontrunner where she stood on the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear repository in Nevada, an issue about which she said she wrote a paper as a finalist for a Truman Scholarship.
Instead, she said, CNN's Suzanne Malveaux told her right before the end of the debate to go with the following question:
"This is a fun question for you. Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?"
Related

• Stories
  
  • Victory Dances Swift to Follow Democrats' Las Vegas Debate
  • Clinton Goes After 'The Boys' In Desert Showdown
  Photo Essays
  
  • Las Vegas Democratic Debate

/**/
The question got a big laugh, and Clinton answered swiftly:
"Now, I know I'm sometimes accused of not being able to make a choice.
"I want both."
To a roar of applause and more laughter, moderator Wolf Blitzer closed out the night.
Parra-Sandoval said Friday that she had submitted both the diamonds-or-pearls and the nuclear-waste questions, and both were pre-approved, but she said the Yucca Mountain one was the one she wanted to ask. She said she entered the line about diamonds or pearls because CNN was looking for something light-hearted.
"I had no idea the debate was about to end," she said. "I thought that I was supposed to have both of those questions. ... They told me to memorize both of them, so my impression was I was going to ask both."
Parra-Sandoval said she felt Clinton has waffled on Yucca Mountain and she wanted to hear a clear answer.

I anticipate Dems and Billary supporters will view this as non-credible because it was reported by Fox. However, is anybody disturbed in any small part that a network would encourage the planting of softball questions?

I suppose all the Reps will say it's a bad thing, whereas Cali, Woot, and our other leftist leaning posters will simply depict it as nothing extraordinary.

It bothers me than "journalism" would encourage softballs, and ignore questions, which are especially relevant to Nevadans, namely the nuclear dump.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312003,00.html



I anticipate Dems and Billary supporters will view this as non-credible because it was reported by Fox. However, is anybody disturbed in any small part that a network would encourage the planting of softball questions?

I suppose all the Reps will say it's a bad thing, whereas Cali, Woot, and our other leftist leaning posters will simply depict it as nothing extraordinary.

It bothers me than "journalism" would encourage softballs, and ignore questions, which are especially relevant to Nevadans, namely the nuclear dump.

You sure love to make shit up about me. Maybe I should post an article about controversial subjects and then follow it with descriptions of how most of us will be outraged by it, but Archaea will be content sitting in a corner and eating his own diarrhea.

[Detroitdad]

They had already asked about Yucca Mountain earlier in the debate, had they not? And what is the deal with questioners doing what exactly what is suggested and then complaining about it later?

As for softballs? One or two for levity is not a problem. More than that is egregious.

[non sequitur]

It's not about softballs. CNN, like Fox News, is in the entertainment business. They don't make money unless people watch their shows, and people don't watch their shows unless they're entertaining. Not everything is a conspiracy.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

\

As for softballs? One or two for levity is not a problem. More than that is egregious.

Wow, are you still cluelessly on the Billary Bandwagon? We don't need levity in these debates, damnit. We need real questions, that the candidates are required to answer. Give me a freaking break...diamnonds or pearls?

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

Wow, are you still cluelessly on the Billary Bandwagon? We don't need levity in these debates, damnit. We need real questions, that the candidates are required to answer. Give me a freaking break...diamnonds or pearls?

Yes i am on the bandwagon. I am not ashamed to say it and I am not going to go all derogatory on you about your views.

Debates are fine and dandy and all, but lets be serious, are they all about substance? A resounding hell no. The substantive policy question of yesteryear "Who is your favorite philosopher "springs to mind and there are countless other examples. I am sure that you know the debates are as much a get to know you as they are about substantive policy and positions, which the American public has very little appetite for.

Otherwise, why would the debate analysis be so much about "How did the candidate seem?" Who did you think projected themselves well? Who delivered the strongest performance?

So if ya'll are going to get on your panties wound up your arses about this it just shows that you a) really, really hate Senator Clinton and will find just about any excuse to criticize her b). really, really hate the media and will find any excuse to criticize it or c) really, really hate debates and will find any way to criticize them.

I am voting c on that one, which one do you vote for?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Archaea

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312003,00.html



I anticipate Dems and Billary supporters will view this as non-credible because it was reported by Fox. However, is anybody disturbed in any small part that a network would encourage the planting of softball questions?

I suppose all the Reps will say it's a bad thing, whereas Cali, Woot, and our other leftist leaning posters will simply depict it as nothing extraordinary.

It bothers me than "journalism" would encourage softballs, and ignore questions, which are especially relevant to Nevadans, namely the nuclear dump.

You seem surprised.

[DJRoss]

leading the debates, and sitting on the panels should have their names listed on the screen with their party affiliation, their voting history for the past 3 elections, as well as who they are supporting for President.


To me that is the most disingenuous aspect to these so called debates. If I, a Romney supporter were to lead the debate, would it be fair for me to lob softballs and Mitt all evening while taking kill shots at the rest of the candidates? What about salting the crowd by asking them which way they are leaning right now so I can assure that the crowd is as pro Romney as possible for effect? This kind of thing really is frustrating.

I honestly cannot stand watching these debates. Nobody wants to get down to brass tax and begin hashing out the details. Candidates really don't answer the questions that matter, and the ones they do answer, we already know what their response will be. I say hold the debate in a large venue such as a sports dome or arena. Let people in for free and don't sweat the political makeup of those showing up. Let the questions fly free and clear of any gate keeping nonsense. You could set up a tour of lets say 4 to 6 debates over the course of the Primaries, and make them mandatory for all candidates who are serious about becoming president. No backing out due to scheduling conflicts.

Let the candidates sit comfortably and when questioned stand and deliver. Let the debate run a good two to three hours. Let the questions the public want answered be put into a bingo tumbola and spun around so that whatever comes up is what is asked regardless of how hard the question might be. You don't think this would be entertaining. Please, the ratings would blow away the cardboard crap that passes for a debate today.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by DJRoss

leading the debates, and sitting on the panels should have their names listed on the screen with their party affiliation, their voting history for the past 3 elections, as well as who they are supporting for President.


To me that is the most disingenuous aspect to these so called debates. If I, a Romney supporter were to lead the debate, would it be fair for me to lob softballs and Mitt all evening while taking kill shots at the rest of the candidates? What about salting the crowd by asking them which way they are leaning right now so I can assure that the crowd is as pro Romney as possible for effect? This kind of thing really is frustrating.

I honestly cannot stand watching these debates. Nobody wants to get down to brass tax and begin hashing out the details. Candidates really don't answer the questions that matter, and the ones they do answer, we already know what their response will be. I say hold the debate in a large venue such as a sports dome or arena. Let people in for free and don't sweat the political makeup of those showing up. Let the questions fly free and clear of any gate keeping nonsense. You could set up a tour of lets say 4 to 6 debates over the course of the Primaries, and make them mandatory for all candidates who are serious about becoming president. No backing out due to scheduling conflicts.

Let the candidates sit comfortably and when questioned stand and deliver. Let the debate run a good two to three hours. Let the questions the public want answered be put into a bingo tumbola and spun around so that whatever comes up is what is asked regardless of how hard the question might be. You don't think this would be entertaining. Please, the ratings would blow away the cardboard crap that passes for a debate today.

I endorse this idea, especially about the moderator having to come clean about his/her political leanings.

Politicians are - as Goatnapper would so eloquently say - string pullers. If a candidate wants my vote, he/she damn well better give me a reason to vote for him/her.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It bothers me than "journalism" would encourage softballs, and ignore questions, which are especially relevant to Nevadans, namely the nuclear dump.

Does tainted, right-leaning journalism from Fox bothers you as well? I am not talking about this issue, but in general.

Which news outlet anywhere is not tainted or biased? They all are.

Except, of course, Pravda, which we all know is The Truth....