CNN has come in for quite a bit of criticism for allowing Democratic operatives and supporters to pose questions at the Republican debate. The most egregious plant was the Keith Kerr (BG, USA Ret.), an “openly gay man” (now that he has retired from service) who serves (or has served) on one of Hillary Clinton’s campaign task forces. He asked about the US Military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. He was flown to the debate by CNN and allowed to ask a follow-up question.

When a “Red-faced Anderson Cooper” was told about this oversight, he sputtered that he didn’t know and if he had known, Kerr’s affiliation would have been disclosed or the question wouldn’t have been allowed. This begs the question, “If bloggers can determine affiliation within minutes using Goggle (who owns YouTube), why can’t a large professional news organization like CNN and co-host YouTube?”

CNN and YouTube characterized their questioners as ordinary and undecided Americans. It appears that perhaps a third of the questioners actively supported different Dems. Again, why can bloggers find this out, but CNN can’t?

CNN latest spin is that they focused on the questions and not the questioners, then something derogatory about anybody who questions the questioners and not the substance of the questions. Yeah, I know. This doesn’t make sense to me either. I have two problems with this line of illogic. The first is that the questions came from “undecided voters” or “ordinary Americans”. With so many democratic supporters asking the questions, this statement may be seen as a lie.

The second, and arguably the more important point of contention, was the point made by Mara Liasson on Fox News Special Report (the Panel discussion) on Wednesday. She said that she covered both CNN/YouTube debates and questions presented to Democrats were different in tone and nature from those presented to Republicans. Democratic questions were friendly and sympathetic to the Democrats, while the Republican questions were confrontational and accusatory to the Republicans.

Additional Links:

• Michelle Malkin: CNN’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy
• Mara Liasson’s bio

Submitted by normally non-blogging Advised by Wolves

WaPo woefully predicts A Downturn We Don’t Deserve.

Meanwhile, an AP business writer says Index Points to U.S. Economic Expansion.

Each has a 50/50 chance of being right. Who has the clearer crystal ball? And when did journalism start making use of psychic predictions?

The latest act in the global comedy that is “global warming” is provided by Chris Goodall, a “leading environmentalist”, author of How to Live a Low-Carbon Life and Green Party parliamentary candidate for Oxford West & Abingdon.

Mr. Goodall says that growing and raising food for human consumption has become so energy-intensive that a walk to the corner shop contributes to global warming: 

Food production is now so energy-intensive that more carbon is emitted providing a person with enough calories to walk to the shops than a car would emit over the same distance.

Goodall is apparently comparing apples to oranges, or in this case olives to oil. While he counts up the carbons emitted to grow crops and raise cattle for people power, he only counts the carbons emitted by driving the car — not those emitted in drilling, refining and transporting gasoline and diesel.

But the UK Times refers to Goodall as “the latest serious thinker to turn popular myths about the environment on their head.” That is because Goodall is fighting what the UK Times likes to think is the good fight:

Cattle farming is notorious for its perceived damage to the environment, based on what scientists politely call “methane production” from cows. The gas, released during the digestive process, is 21 times more harmful than CO2 . Organic beef is the most damaging because organic cattle emit more methane.

Simply cutting out beef, or even meat, however, would be too modest a change. The food industry is estimated to be responsible for a sixth of an individual’s carbon emissions, and Britain may be the worst culprit. …

The ideal diet would consist of cereals and pulses.

And so the spotlight shines on a nut from Oxford West & Abingdon. This is what happens when the crackpot falls on the side of the biased media.

Professional writer and admitted lefty, Dr. John Barnes, took a look at the writings of the New Republic pseudonymous “Scott Thomas”. His expertise leads him to conclude:

Based on a mix of semiotic analysis and my seat of the pants experience as a frequent reader of professional and near-professional writing by new writers, my guess is this: I think “Scott Thomas” is actually an MFA writing student, or a recent graduate of such a program, probably with some military experience – he may be serving in some non-combat specialty in Iraq – probably from one of the elite MFA programs, the twenty or so from which college creative writing faculty and small-press staff come disproportionately.  I also think I know how his piece came to be published in New Republic, in outline if not in detail, and that story will also be somewhat instructive and revealing.

The entire article is a little long but surprisingly interesting as Barnes deconstructs the writing style. Then he takes a look at the editor that chose to publish the unknown author. Dr. Barnes is a straight shooter.

HT to non-blogging Advised by Wolves.

. . . have never been spoken. Kathryn Jean Lopez says severed heads beat report cards to the truth:

Nailing down a clear picture of the war in Iraq is a work in progress in Washington, D.C. Making it harder is the national media, which is misrepresenting what is happening at boot level, softening the face of the enemy.

If the public cannot get a true view of the brutality and horror the enemy is capable of, then how can it be expected to reasonably assess our involvement?

Reuters whines that more “migrants” are dying because the US border security is getting so tight that they are being forced to take more dangerous routes.

In other news, “home guests” are being viciously cut because homeowners are locking their doors, forcing them to gain entry by breaking windows.

Rusty Shackleford thinks so. After examining the evidence, so do I.

Today’s must read is penned by Leo, who asks, Michael Yon is there…where are the rest of the “journalists”?

The New York Times notes (in the Politics section, not an op-ed):

The five justices who turned the Supreme Court around last week and upheld the ban on “partial birth abortion” had much in common.

All are men. All were nominated by conservative Republican presidents. And, it was widely noted, all are Roman Catholics.

Did their religion matter? Should it even be discussed?

At which point the Times dedicates the rest of the column discussing just that.

I find it interesting that the Times thinks it’s OK to suggest that the religion of Supreme Court Justices may influence them, yet Gonzales firing attorneys for being political appointees is an action too horrid to consider.

Hypocrisy, thy name is MSM.

On the day after the tragic shooting at Virginia Tech, CNN poses a question on their web site. This screen shot was taken at 12:20 today (click image for full sized pop up).

The poll was gone by 2:15, but I thought that CNN polls usually stayed up a day. Why was this one taken down so soon?