Carville & Begala: CNN anchors working as Kerry campaign advisors

[Dynasty]

There are probably other articlers about this issue. But, I figured a Bill O'Reilly article would stir the pot most.

Bill O'Reilly's New York Daily News article (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/231413p-198727c.html)

James Carville and Paul Begala, famous for leading Bill Clinton's 1992 Presidential campaign, joined John Kerry's campaign as unpaid advisors while holding onto their anchor jobs on CNN's Crossfire program. Even though Crossfire is all about healthy partisan debating, I can't understand why CNN would allow campaign advisors to stay on as hosts.

[Utah]

Can you imagine if O'Reilly and Hannity were Bush advisors. Liberals would go beserk.

[B-Man]

Yet people on this forum would have you believe there is no liberal bias in print and television media.

Fox News actually is fair and balanced compared to CNN, the New York Times and most of the mainstream media (which is so blatantly biased toward the left).

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
There are probably other articlers about this issue. But, I figured a Bill O'Reilly article would stir the pot most.

Bill O'Reilly's New York Daily News article (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/231413p-198727c.html)

James Carville and Paul Begala, famous for leading Bill Clinton's 1992 Presidential campaign, joined John Kerry's campaign as unpaid advisors while holding onto their anchor jobs on CNN's Crossfire program. Even though Crossfire is all about healthy partisan debating, I can't understand why CNN would allow campaign advisors to stay on as hosts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy. Because of the format of the show. Crossfire is a highly partisan debate between Liberals and conservatives. No one has to try and be objective so there is no possible conflict of interest. The added publicity of these two working for one of the nominees is a bonus for the program.

[Ed Miller]

Easy. Because of the format of the show. Crossfire is a highly partisan debate between Liberals and conservatives. No one has to try and be objective so there is no possible conflict of interest. The added publicity of these two working for one of the nominees is a bonus for the program.

Crossfire is the Jerry Springer of political talking head shows. The whole point is for the hosts to scream ridiculous, over-the-top, partisan "Yo mama" jokes at one another... presumably in the name of entertaining a somewhat lower-brow CNN audience.

Begala, Carville, Carlson, and Nowak (and Springer, for that matter) are all clearly intelligent people. But you wouldn't know it by watching the show. Like Miss Cleo, it is for entertainment purposes only.

I like it.

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
The added publicity of these two working for one of the nominees is a bonus for the program.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the blatant bias of CNN is exagerated by this and, therefore, ratings will continue to plummet.

[andyfox]

They're not anchors jobs. The anchormen/women broadcast the news as the "stars" of The News. Carville and Begala are not news broadcasters, they are hosts of a political talk show and they don't hide their politics. The show's name explains that the participants are partisan.

All news is, by definition, biased. I expect that Fox betrays the conservative views of its owner and that CNN betrays the liberal views of its owner.

And if Kerry is getting advice from Carville and Begala, it's no wonder he's fallen behind. I wonder what, exactly, an unpaid advisor does.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Crossfire is the Jerry Springer of political talking head shows. The whole point is for the hosts to scream ridiculous, over-the-top, partisan "Yo mama" jokes at one another....... Like Miss Cleo, it is for entertainment purposes only.


[/ QUOTE ]


Given the name of the show [crossfire] and your proposition that it is for entrainment purposes only, I think the participants should be armed. 'Assault weapons' would be my first suggestion but butcher knifes, meat cleavers, shotguns (note that a shotgun is not an 'assault weapon'), whips, chainsaws, swords, maces, and sledgehammers could also all be employed for the purpose of persuasion.

Now that is entertainment.

I simply make the suggestion and pass on.

-Zeno

[Cyrus]

We should have you stuffed. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ QUOTE ]
"I can't understand why CNN would allow campaign advisors to stay on as hosts."

Easy. Because of the format of the show. Crossfire is a highly partisan debate between Liberals and conservatives. No one has to try and be objective so there is no possible conflict of interest. The added publicity of these two working for one of the nominees is a bonus for the program.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was that too tough to figure out by yourselves, fellow posters? (I guess it was.)

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
We should have you stuffed. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ QUOTE ]
"I can't understand why CNN would allow campaign advisors to stay on as hosts."

Easy. Because of the format of the show. Crossfire is a highly partisan debate between Liberals and conservatives. No one has to try and be objective so there is no possible conflict of interest. The added publicity of these two working for one of the nominees is a bonus for the program.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was that too tough to figure out by yourselves, fellow posters? (I guess it was.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I thought it was pretty obvious too. That's why the first word in my post was "easy" as in easy to figure out. However, none of the previous posters to me had a clue. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Utah]

Actually no. Regardless if they are partisan or not it crosses a big line. Tell me where it ends. For example, would it be okay for O'Reilly to work for Bush? He is after all only a commentator. What about Krugman for the NYT.

Also, even if someone is biased, you expect him to tell the truth and be critical of points when their party makes a mistake or does something wrong. However, when the commentator or anchor works for the other party you have destroyed any notion of a real discussion. The shows simply become political adds.

I cant believe that you dont see a problem with advisors for the major parties working for the news networks. Its simply a very very bad idea.

[nicky g]

So it's a big no-no for commentators on a talk show that deliberately and openly goes out of its way to get openly partisan commentators to advise a campaign, but it's fine for a lifelong partsian spin doctor to be put in charge of all operations of an entire news network? I see.

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually no. Regardless if they are partisan or not it crosses a big line. Tell me where it ends. For example, would it be okay for O'Reilly to work for Bush? He is after all only a commentator. What about Krugman for the NYT.

Also, even if someone is biased, you expect him to tell the truth and be critical of points when their party makes a mistake or does something wrong. However, when the commentator or anchor works for the other party you have destroyed any notion of a real discussion. The shows simply become political adds.

I cant believe that you dont see a problem with advisors for the major parties working for the news networks. Its simply a very very bad idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously have never watched the show. It's bunch of political hacks all putting their spin(lying) on the issues. No one takes what they say seriously.

[Utah]

I am more concerned with the bigger issues surrounding a news network employing advisors to the major parties. I am not concerned crossfire will become corrupt.

[Utah]

Actually yes.

In the first case - there is a direct conflict of interest. In the second case there isnt.

Also, neither event speaks to each other. They can both be wrong.

[elwoodblues]

Just curious, what's the conflict of interest? On crossfire they are hired to give one-sided political spin. As a campaign advisor they are hired to give one-sided political spin.

[nicky g]

"In the first case - there is a direct conflict of interest."

I don't think so; those people are open about their political views and are only responsible for what they say, in a clear context of partisan debate. They're effectively spokesmen for a point of view. The issue is balancing them so that different points of view get equal expression. In the second case, that person is in charge of everything that gets said, including, crucially, news pieces that are presented as fact rather than argument.

"Also, neither event speaks to each other. They can both be wrong."

I thought I remembered you arguing there were no concerns about possible bias relating to Ailes being in charge of Fox, but if I'm wrong I apologise.