Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

CNN Bans Clinton Supporters Carville and Begala from Primary Coverage

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 10:15 AM on January 25, 2008.


I think this was definitely the right call.
sjamescarvilleandpaulbegalalarge

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Election 2008 in your
mailbox!

 

The problem first emerged way back in March. On the "Situation Room," James Carville, a contracted CNN political commentator, offered some relatively mild criticism of Barack Obama. Carville said the Illinois senator was "less-than-impressive" at a recent health care forum, adding, "[Obama] needs to get up to speed on a couple of these issues."

Under most circumstances, that would hardly have raised an eyebrow. But Carville had just issued fundraising solicitations on behalf of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, which he'd already endorsed. Pressed on the conflict of interest, Carville conceded that he would be "cognizant" of appearances, and would disclose his preference to CNN viewers when criticizing Clinton's Democratic rivals.

He added, however, that if he was transparent about his bias every time he was critical of another Democrat, it would make for "horrible TV."

Greg Sargent reported last night that, 10 months after this issue first arose, CNN is benching its Hillary-backing analysts.

I've just learned that CNN has told top Dem strategists James Carville, Paul Begala, and Robert Zimmerman -- who are CNN mainstays but are all Hillary supporters -- that they will not be doing any more political analysis on the network until the Democratic primary has reached a conclusion.

I'm also told that this move came after the Obama campaign repeatedly complained to high level officials at CNN about the presence of Carville and Begala on the network. [...]

Sam Feist, CNN's political director, also confirmed the decision to me. "As we got closer to the voting, we made a decision to make sure that all the analysts that are on are non-aligned," Feist said, adding that the decision had been made around the start of December. "Carville and Begala are two of the best analysts around and we look forward to seeing them on CNN plenty of times in the future, once the nominating process has ended."

Clinton backers can still appear on the network, but as on-air surrogates.

I think this was definitely the right call.

The first hurdle, of course, was a straightforward question of disclosure and transparency. By any reasonable measure, if a political commentator is actively supporting one candidate, and criticizing that candidate's rival on CNN, viewers should be made aware of the conflict of interest. By this standard, Carville, Begala, and Zimmerman were in good shape.

The second hurdle, which was much tougher, was one of too many hats. If Carville appears on Larry King on a Wednesday as an official Clinton campaign surrogate, and then appears on Thursday on the Situation Room as an objective Democratic analyst, it makes for awkward journalism. These guys have two hats -- candidate supporter and neutral observer -- that can't be worn at the same time, but they've been doing just that for nearly a year.

There's also the complete disregard for balance. CNN has been offering election coverage with three unabashed Clinton backers, and no similarly aligned supporters of Edwards and/or Obama. It certainly doesn't look right.

Greg noted, however, that the decision is at least somewhat controversial inside the network.

"People inside CNN are surprised," one person involved with CNN programming told me. "No other network buckled to this political pressure. CNN has removed from its lineup top analysts who know about the national political scene."

I think this person's partially right, but the points are unpersuasive. For one thing, a network like Fox News will feature enthusiastic Giuliani boosters on the air, but Fox News is a propaganda machine with no credibility; CNN needs to aim higher. For another, Carville, Begala, and Zimmerman are competent experts on the national political scene, but I'm quite confident CNN can find professional journalists who aren't aligned with a specific candidate to offer viewers equally strong election analysis.

Either way, it's an interesting move. Kudos to Greg for the scoop.

Digg!

Tagged as: clinton, obama, cnn, carville, begala

Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.


Obama Expands on Economic Plan, Emphasizes 'J-O-B-S'
Obama struck an optimistic yet pragmatic tone in a policy speech on the economy today.
Post by Steve Benen. October 13, 2008.
McCain Makes the Case Against Himself
Next President "won’t have the luxury of studying up on the issues."
Post by Faiz Shakir. October 13, 2008.
7-11 Store Poll Shows Big Obama Lead
A poll at 7-11 convenience stores shows Obama at 59.68 percent and McCain at 40.32 percent.
Post by Steven Rosenfeld. October 13, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The phrase springs to mind...
Posted by: zipper696 on Jan 25, 2008 11:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"With friends like these, who needs enemies?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Too bad MSNBC
Posted by: cajel2 on Jan 25, 2008 11:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
doesn't follow the same rules. They would have to take Chris Matthews off the air.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Too bad MSNBC Posted by: morris1030
» RE: Too bad MSNBC Posted by: Sissy
Good
Posted by: Tompatriot on Jan 25, 2008 1:30 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The worst hacks are Carville and Begala. I can't stand listening to them. Thank you CNN.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Good Posted by: compu
If every news organization followed suit...
Posted by: Declan on Jan 25, 2008 5:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We might have an intelligent national conversation concerning the election and the issues surrounding it, rather than the blather that we're subjected to by pundits with their personal axes to grind. Of course FOX news would then have to sign off the air until after the election. Hmmm...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They were placeholding for Clinton in 2004
Posted by: Marjorie G on Jan 25, 2008 6:27 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Which colored all their criticism and motives. Woodward's book spoke of Carville telling Mary the election night strategy, who told Dick, who told Blackwell, then provisionals somehow became less. The only state ordered and allowable look at ballots. Carville has never denied this, or been asked.

Criticized the Kerry campaign to people, the audience, who didn't know, but were offered through their agenda. Muddying the messages, even when they were given policy and talking points.

Adds credence when you consider Bill, himself, having a diverting book tour, and never criticzing Bush (or pushing change). Few Democratic surrogates, were they told to stand down? Kerry had to do the heavy lifting.

Imagine Bill as half the advocate for Kerry, on the truth, than he is in attacking Obama with lies.

Kerry is the champion of open government and the Clintons protectors of the Bushes. Although there are merits to a Hillary candidacy, do we want Bill back, and was it worth the wait?

The party infrastructure, poll sites, and election safety were DNC and McAuliffe responsibility.

All of them could have prevented Bush, but Bill needed his do-over. Beyond selfish.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CNN is Anti-Hillary
Posted by: janelynne on Jan 25, 2008 7:33 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Banning Hillary's team should prompt CNN to censor Anderson Cooper, and all the CNN pundits who take cheap shots at Hillary every day of the week. When CNN goes up for licensing, the GOP controlled FCC should deny the license because CNN is not serving the public interest. Will they? 64% 0f Americans say they don't trust the media's handling of the election.

The anti-Hillary movement cuts a wide swath across MSM. The latest version of the news cycle propagated by the majority of the televison press concentrates on how Bill has been talking too much, has been too critical of Obama. The talking heads are preaching that Bill ought to stop talking.

This is Obama's pathetic position. It proves that Barach simply cannot negotiate a race against a woman who is married to an ex-president. What will Obama do on the world stage when he gets confounded by competing interests? What will Obama do if the MSM stops being his body guard and turns on him? Obama is trying to win the nomination for President by crying foul. He seeks to win on technicality. Obama's weakness is that he hasn't the policy depth to win by being the superior candidate. He cannot win unless he eliminates the competition.

The strange part is that Obama is getting propped up much as the media propped up GW against Gore. The media portrayed Gore as a wonk who sounded dumb. When Gore clearly won the debates, the same media pundits declared Bush the winner. Meanwhile Bush didn't know where Czechoslovakia was. Does anyone besides me remember any of this? The media manhandled the voters. The media knocked out Gore.

When you watch the actual footage of Bill's remarks, Bill Clinton is either responding to cat calls from across the room, or analyzing Obama's remarks from the Democratic point of view. The infamous speech that Barach made which rhapsodized Reagan, (and belittled Bill Clinton by name) gets cover from the media. The media have falsely aired the remarks Obama made the following day. When Barach started getting heat over his clumsey and naive statement, he switched into damage control the following day. The media deliberately conflates the two speeches and peddles the reformation to the public as what Obama actually said. This is dishonest on Barach's part, and certainly media's part.

Pack journalism is loaded in lockstep and reports on itself. We saw this with Gore, we saw this with Howard Dean, we saw this with Kerry. And we saw it with Dan Rather. There is a movement afoot to shape the perception and knock out Hillary. Who is afraid that she will win?

Our freedom of speech is being suppressed and the implication is that the media honchos believe the American public is as stupid as it ever was. They fooled us once, and they are going for it again. This has the earmarks of dirty tricks at the hand of network front offices. Or the White House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: CNN is Anti-Hillary Posted by: jeanna
» RE: CNN is Anti-Hillary Posted by: koolwoman
» RE: CNN is Anti-Hillary Posted by: Sissy
» RE: CNN is Anti-Hillary Posted by: JonA
All our candidates will be swift-boated.
Posted by: Marjorie G on Jan 25, 2008 11:09 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The billionaire group will raise $250 million just to make our candidate unappealing. To make Congress just as obstructionist. We can't blame our own for what thegroup smears and media repeats.

We also can't believe it. I don't want another mischaracterization of the candidate and the campaign as we had of Kerry in 2004.

All are vulnerable for different reasons. We fight back. All of us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHO THE HE@@ IS THE "WE" YOU ARE REFERRING TO BECAUSE.....
Posted by: Turiye on Jan 26, 2008 12:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....it sure as hell isn't me. I am in my 50's, voted straight Dem ticket everytime, yet the persons up there are NOT MY CANDIDATES.
While Dennis will be very busy fighting for us not WE I shall use my #2 pencil and___________
write him in, if you don't vote he can't win.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And then there's Dick Morris!
Posted by: JDorsch on Jan 27, 2008 6:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Am I being oversensitive?

It seems to me that Repubs get different handling than Dems when it comes to TV ground rules. As far as I can determine, the networks pussyfoot around Repub spokespersons, and generally tone down what's said about Dems so as to not raise the Repub's accusation of being liberal.*

The party of the elephant is quick to call out any perceived bias towards it, while donkey chasers fall into lockstep with networks who don't want any perceived bias towards liberalism.

Yesterday, I "accidentally" fell into the web of Fox News during a program in which Dick Morris (yes, the wife cheater who taught Bill Clinton how to "triangulate" Repub "issues) analyzed the Clintons's current M/O against Obama.

His revelation was that Bill was raising the race card by trying to turn the SC Afro/Amer citizens against Barak. Morris is such a slime bag that I don't know if he corrently analyzes this situation or if he himself is on the staff, or will be by election time, of another Repub candidate.

And of the course the Fox commentator did not ask any probing questions but was positively gleeful because Dick had found another way for Repubs to hate the Clintons one more time.

*For years I've wondered how the Repubs can accuse the media of being liberal but I now understand that Repubs make this charge because unless the commentator or program does not twist objectivity into good words for the Repubs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CARVILLE AND BEGALA ARE MAYBE TOO TALENTED TO BE
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Feb 1, 2008 11:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
wasting their time on CNN. The United States has moved so far right no one seems able to find the center any more. There is no particular necessity to give equal time to a mean nasty right wing. It is stupid to continue to let the wealthy and the powerful run this country. So much of CNN is so warped I find it nearly as difficult to watch as Fox was. Fox, of course, is in the past tense. For me the internet is rapidly replacing TV.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]