The Anchoress

The internets are abuzz with the story of CNN’s major bungle in allowing a “Hillary plant” into the audience of last nights GOP debate. Blue Crab Boulevard calls it Shillgate.

What are my thoughts about it? Tim Robbins may have had his “chill wind” but I feel instead a hot, dry breeze across a desert barren of ideas, ethics or the common courtesies and witty artfulness that used to make politics fun. The bad and the ugly seem overpower any small good. While you’re enjoying the music of the Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain, here’s what folks are saying:

At Wizbang, Kevin writes:

Anderson Cooper would have you believe that a network that could select this question, find that 13-year-old Romney quote, create the trap for Romney (which he fell face first into), and (presumably) fly Kerr to the debate, could not type “Keith Kerr, retired Colonel” into Google and find the link to the Hillary Clinton press release, which prior to the debate appeared in the first 10 results for that search? Yeah, right…

Newsbusters supplies a big chunk of transcript. They also have Joe Scarborough suggesting that it is total crap for CNN to say it did not know it had a Hillaryplant in the fold.

Glenn Reynolds opines:

JUST HEARD A LENGTHY NPR STORY ON THE YOUTUBE DEBATE, with a live followup from Mara Liasson — and it omitted any mention of the planted question issue. Hmm. If Fox hosted a Democratic debate and many of the most pointed questions turned out to come from Republican activists, but Fox didn’t disclose that, do you think it would pass unremarked?

Vodkapundit’s Steven Green points out that CNN’s own agenda colored the proceedings:

Another question came from a very self-important sounding YouTuber, who wanted to know which of the candidates believed “every word” of “this book,” with his camcorder floating ominously above a copy of the Bible. Now, I’m no Christian, but even I was offended. The question wasn’t an honest inquiry—it was a set-up to see which candidate would step up and make himself look the most like a fundamentalist Christian bigot….

He concludes:

For the future, I’d like to propose what I call the Algonquin Round Table Debate. No moderator, no stopwatches, no buzzers or red lights, no YouTube, and, please, no Anderson Cooper or Chris Matthews. Instead, put all the candidates around a big table, ply them with first-rate food and liquor, and just let them talk and argue with one another until—or beyond—last call. Now that, for Democrats or Republicans, would be an event worth watching.

Now THAT sounds like heaven. Does anyone remember Tim Russert’s MTP Christmas program from 2001, where he simply had Rudy Giuliani, Laura Bush and Cardinal Theodore McCarrick seated around a table, talking? It was some of the best live television I had seen in a long time - an old-fashioned, thoughtful exchanges of ideas. I’d love to get my hands on a copy of that.

Rick Moran says:

Well, at least the candidates were probably all Republicans. As for the questioners, that’s a different story…We were told that there were 5,000 videos submitted for this debate. Are we supposed to believe that CNN couldn’t find actual, like, you know, REPUBLICANS TO ASK THEIR OWN GODDAMN CANDIDATES A QUESTION?

Patterico:

I’d caution folks not to overstate the case. Unless there is clear evidence that the campaigns themselves were involved, I’m reluctant to call these “plants” by the campaigns. The clear truth is bad enough: many of these folks had clear ties to Democrat campaigns that CNN should have discovered and disclosed, but didn’t. It’s now happened, not once, but twice. It should be a terrific embarrassment to CNN.

Ed Morrissey, quite predictably, has the most reasoned and reasonable take on all of this, and points out that questioners need not have been Republicans:

Bad journalistic practices? Definitely yes. But does that negate the questions themselves? I don’t think so. The CNN/YouTube format closely parallels that of the traditional town-hall forum. For the most part, attendees do not get vetted at these events either, nor should they. After all, while a primary usually involves voters of one party, the entire nation has a stake in the selection of the nominees. If Hillary Clinton held a town hall in my community, I should have an opportunity to question her about her positions on issues without pledging a loyalty oath to do so.

The questions asked don’t seem particularly outrageous.

Just so, Cap’n, but CNN’s overt agenda-driving does cast a pall over all media. Bookworm writes:

If anyone wonders why the American people regularly rank the media below lawyers and used car salesmen when it comes to career respect, they should look no further than these types of shenanigans.

Don Surber says CNN had promised no gotchas.

Advertising Age:

I don’t know that it’s necessarily wrong to have opponents show up during these forums. But the problem for CNN is that it didn’t do the same for the Democratic YouTube debate…

Ace says this is CNN pulling out all the stops for Hillary

Betsy says journalists could take research lessons from bloggers.

Sue at J’s Cafenette So, what’s new?

AJ says it’s all staged, and badly.

Fausta has the best question.

Gateway Pundit is rounding up

Michelle Malkin has the definitive dig on all concerned.

Jay has a load of links you can wade into.