Why would CNN have to disclose that, it's common knowledge.

Oh I hardly think it's that common. You and I know it... but I'm sure there are plenty of folks out there who don't know who Carville is at all!

Besides, anytime you have a political operative, especially someone who's credentials and connections might impact their opinions, you must expressly state them. Not only is Carville a close friend... he's also a max-donor. That should have been mentioned from the get go.

Yes full disclosure in the media would be nice.

I'd prefer that the things that aren't COMMON knowledge be fully disclosed. Wouldn't you?

Of course... but "common knowledge" isn't always as "common" as it should be. As I said before, I'm sure there are plenty of people who have no idea who Carville is.

For example... last week there were a few of us standing around... and a television playing CNN (I think) was on. Someone over heard that congress was going to be talking about "water boarding." Of the people there, I was the only one who could explain that it wasn't a type of "surfing."

"Common knowledge" isn't always common. Can't always assume.

As for the link you posted... I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at.

So with waterboarding all over the news everywhere and in most cases, fully explained, these people had no idea what waterboarding is. Obviously oblivious. And these same people have no idea who Carville is but somehow you think if CNN explained it all in detail, these folks would get a sudden clue?

I doubt it. You cannot inform the people who choose to stay ignorant.

And the article I was trying to link was similar to this one (though more indepth, but you have to sign up at NYT to read it, you might get kicked out of the RED club if you sign up though :))

But it does show a deliberate act by Fox News and Rupert Murdoch to LIE in the face of "not common knowledge" about a candidate and his connections. Hardly the same, since this is obscure information, in fact Judith Regan being the once-lover of Kerik probably has some real damning inside information.

I'd like to think of myself as more informed than the average American, and I didn't know that Carville was a contributer to Clinton's campaign.

I know who he is. I watched the debate. I'm following the election race, but that was one thing I didn't know about. They could have taken 5 seconds before the round table to say "In the interest of full disclosure, Mr. Carville is a close friend of the Clintons', and has contributed to Hillary's campaign." Quick, easy, painless, and most of all ethical.

Well... her information is very alleged... and she is hardly a reliable source. Remember, she was fired and attacked for her horrible decision to green light that OJ book. Additionally, she was fired for allegedly making anti-Semitic comments in the office.

Here's another take on it from Fortune magazine and CNN:



But that's really neither here nor there... it's fodder for another thread perhaps.

The people I work with aren't so much ignorant, as they are uninformed. They have other things they're concerned about... politics not really being one of them. And in all honesty... there are a lot more of those people than there are of us.

And in television, you have to air on the side of caution. That's why they always (for example) say "Don't try this at home" on Mythbusters. Most people already know they attach rockets to their car... but just to be safe, and to CYA... you gotta do it!

If television didn't have to do that, why would they even bother introducing the candidates? We all know who they are... they could just start the show standing there!

She slept with Kerik. I'll bet she has more info than she's letting on, but we shall soon find out.

You can look up contributors on the net. I don't think it's the obligation of CNN to disclose or not disclose who contributes to what. We'd never get to the news if that list were made. You know, like Halliburton (among so many others) was never disclosed during Bush's initial race by any media. That was something we had to find out the hard way...way later, after the war started and Halliburton benefitted extensively. How is it NOW the job for the media to disclose but not during a Republican's run?

How is Fox requesting someone to LIE not pertinent?

Just because something is crappy, and has been crappy for a long time, doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed.

Bill Kristol and George Will are allowed to comment on a weekly basis on national morning television...

KRISTOL HELPED ESTABLISH PNAC!!!

come on...

tards.

First, your reference to Halliburton doesn't hold up. Halliburton (or their CEO) wasn't brought in as a commentator after a debate, to give their opinion about Bush, and not disclosed as a supporter. Carville was. He was brought in a "Democratic Strategist" not a "Clinton Supporter." Thusly, his opinions were clearly slanted to support one particular candidate. That's what people from the other candidates (Edwards, Obama, etc) are all kinds of upset.

Second, this isn't a Right/Left struggle, like you seem to want to make it. This is a Left/Left fight... with people accusing CNN of being in the tank for one particular candidate, not necessarily one particular party.

Third, the alleged lawsuit is not pertinent because it has nothing to do with the CNN debates, and we're not talking about FOX. Furthermore, the connection to FOX is tenuous at best. There is no evidence yet, just claims... and to present it as such, when so many of the claims are in clear dispute, is misleading and wrong.

Come on, Dolly... you're better than this. I know you're firmly planted in the 'hate Bush' - 'hate FOX' - 'hate Republicans' camp, but this isn't about that. You gotta focus... you're letting your anger get in the way of your intelligence.

I thought from watching the debate, that CNN showed a pretty obvious Clinton/Obama leaning. Did anyone else notice how many times they were shown in a shot together compared to other candidates? The rest of them were usually shown singularly or with several others.

So I can't say I'm surprised that they had Carville on and didn't say he was a campaign contributor, but I think they should have taken a few second to point that out to their viewers.

Indeed, just because you didn't know it before doesn't meen you do not want to learn about it.

True, but why does it only get called to be fixed when it's the democrats? I'm no fan of either party, but I'm really sick of the one-sidedness.

Mostly it is because the democrats are complaining, and rightly so.

one sided? because no one is calling out giulliani on his corrupt nature and friends...
Don't feel attacked just because this is the first time in 8yrs that the democrats have had a chance to be properly corrupt like the rest of us.

I think you kind of hit on it. The Dems are getting called out now, because they haven't been for the past eight years. When the other party is in charge... and then becomes really disliked... all you've got to do is lay low, only occasionally popping up to lend your support to the anti-administration position.

However, ever since the Democrats took control of congress, they've had more to be responsible for... and are starting to get called out publically for the things people don't like.

It's like that guy in your office who constantly complains and complains about how bad management is. And then gets a promotion, becomes management... and is suddenly doing all those things he was complaining about before! It's a lot easier to be the one complaining, than it is to be the one with the reigns.

No, one sided because it's always a big mountain out of a mole hill when dems are called out but when Republicans are called out it's swept under the carpet. If that wasn't this case this President would have been up on impeachment icharges a long time ago. Yet we'll impeach a dem president for having an extra-marital affair.

Because with an administration this corrupt, the prez comes on tv and lies and tells everyone the terrorists will win if we put Skooter in jail or question Gonzales too much or make Cheney explain himself. There is so much OBVIOUS corruption here and no one does a damn thing about it. No one posted the story on Guiliani, but we get daily stories on who is contributing to Hilary's campaign and whether she's a lesbian. Those are such non-issues, yet a [potentially] corrupt man runs and not a freaking peep about it.

Just so you know, it's not about dems and pubs, it's about fairness. I heard a commentator mention after one of the pub debates how silly it would sound to have a President Huckabee. I'm not a Huckabee supporter, but that's the most inane reason to not vote for someone.

These campaigns are no longer about the issues, they're about who slings better mud, who has a juicier rumor to spread and who can make the biggest stink from a pile of nada.

I also practice what I preach. I got sent the article on Guiliani. I happen to have some business interest in some of the people involved and so I googled up some information. It doesn't look that good, but who knows? I didn't depend on Fox News to come clean nor on Regan to be telling the truth (though from what I read, she most likely has some veracity). I wouldn't rely on CNN coming through with every detail. Fact of the matter is Carville has been around for ages, he's been on Bill Maher's show and admitted freely he is a friend and supporter of the Clinton's. He also is a democratic strategist. In fact here's the wikipedia blurb. Hardly subversive stuff here. I mean it's n the very first sentence!

Please read this, this is how I feel.

Nothing wrong with that... although, there are rumors he is planning a run for the White House himself. Could be his platform, right there.