Redstate

By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2008 | CNN | Hillary Clinton | Media Bias | Not Coming Clean — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The first is "curious." The second is "omission":

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton prepared for a battle with her Democratic rivals at the CNN-sponsored debate on Thursday night. She did not have much to fear from the postdebate round table.

Among the experts trotted out by CNN to comment was James Carville, a Democratic strategist and CNN commentator who is also a close friend of Mrs. Clinton and a contributor to her campaign.

Mr. Carville's presence aroused the fury of rivals and bloggers. They called it a conflict of interest and criticized CNN.

"Would it kill CNN to disclose that James Carville is a partisan Clinton supporter when talking about the presidential race?" Markos Moulitsas wrote on his liberal blog, Daily Kos. Mr. Moulitsas drew hundreds of comments.

Tom Reynolds, a spokesman for Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who is also seeking the Democratic nomination, said: "What you saw last night lacked full disclosure. The average viewer out in middle America may not know the inside-the-Beltway connection."

A CNN executive conceded that the cable channel should have more fully disclosed Mr. Carville's past and that it was discussing how to handle such situations.

The criticisms were among a series against CNN for how it managed the debate, a two-hour event in Las Vegas that ran nearly 15 minutes late. Viewers criticized segments like the opening, when candidates bounded onto the stage in a style reminiscent of a sports event.

Voters and commentators wrote online about how the audience cheered and booed, the way the CNN hosts reframed audience questions and whether it was correct to demand yes-or-no answers to complex questions.

Maria Luisa Parra-Sandoval, a student who asked Mrs. Clinton whether she preferred diamonds or pearls (Mrs. Clinton answered "both"), said she had prepared a list of more serious questions but had been directed by CNN to ask her trivial question.

More here. And so it goes with our punditry class. We are about to enter into one of the most consequential Presidential elections in recent history, one that will help shape the nature of the war on terrorism in which we are engaged. Meanwhile, one of the most powerful and influential news organizations out there has decided to stack its commentariat deck in favor of Hillary Clinton, not be upfront about it and tell audience members to ask her trivial questions about whether she prefers diamonds or pearls instead of asking her about, oh, more important matters.

Gosh. And people are somehow still surprised that the Blogosphere has risen up as an alternative source of news and information.