CNN - Another Media Misdemeanor

Let's see -- last week CNN hosted a Presidential debate for the Democrat candidates, and the "public participation portion" was infested with Democrat activists asking the questions of the candidates.

This week, CNN, along with YouTube, hosted a Presidential debate, this one for the Republican candidates, and the "public participation portion" (the entire debate) with YouTube video questions, was infested with Democrat activists asking the questions of the candidates.

Hmmmmm . . . maybe there is something to that Harvard media bias study that concluded, among other findings, that CNN is the most openly hostile to Republicans.

A video question on gays in the military was asked by a retired military officer, Retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr, whose solid connection to Hillary Clinton's campaign was popped last night before midnight by Kenneth P. Vogel on Politico. The former General initially lied to Vogel about his connection to the Clinton Campaign, as did the Clinton campaign.

From Politico's report:

. . .
Kerr told CNN that he had not done work for the Clinton campaign, and CNN
verified before the debate that he had not contributed money to any candidate,
the broadcaster said in a blog post after the debate.

Kerr told CNN he is a member of the Log Cabin Republicans and was representing no one other than himself, CNN said.

On Thursday, Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer said the retired general "is not a campaign employee and was not acting on behalf of the campaign."

A Nov. 11 press release retrieved from the website of the nonpartisan magazine Campaigns & Elections lists Kerr as one of nearly 50 co-chairs of "Veterans and Military Retirees for Hillary."

Clinton’s campaign did not respond to an e-mail asking about Kerr’s role
in her campaign or whether he was acting on behalf of the campaign.
. . . .

And today Michelle Malkin has the complete wrap-up on who the various plant questioners were in last night's CNN - YouTube "debate" free-for-all format.

Given the fact that, to some extent, the CNN Cable network had their reputation on the line in terms of allowing plants to misrepresent themselves on their debate programming after the latest Democrat debate they hosted, you would think the producers would have done a little better job of screening those asking the questions.

Nope.

This time, it is clear they did exactly what they intended to do -- give free air time to misleading, and in the case of the former general, lying questioners -- ersatz Republicans -- each of whose sole purpose was to try to embarrass those in the field of Republican candidates, by hitting them with "gotcha" questions. But don't completely fault the questioners for trying -- hey, they're partisans!

Blame CNN for failing miserably to handle it with any sense of fairness at all.

This is an old story with CNN. The pattern probably began a long time ago, with an earlier "innovative" election participation technology that was popular at the time -- the "call-in" show.

In the 1992 Presidential race, CNN's Larry King brazenly allowed known Clinton political operative and Communications Director, George Stephanopolus, to be one of several "just folks" call in questioners on his show, Larry King Live. Stephanoplous then proceeded to harangue the sitting President with a totally misleading and accusatory question about Iran Contra.

Though the senior Bush immediately objected on air to King on the grounds that it was an obvious ambush question by a plant from the other side, King insisted that Stephanopolus had a right like anyone else to "call in," and he allowed the call. The damage was done.

Of course, no doubt the call came from the Clinton "war room" -- the one which Stephanopolus himself set up -- where they had the distinct advantage of using a bank of telephones to be sure at least one call got through. Or, perhaps more likely, the Clinton team simply coordinated with Larry King, a known Democrat partisan, to set up the call in advance.

Either way, however, CNN openly participated in the ambush at some level. And, in that instance they arguably succeeded in helping skew the election process.

Participants in the new media, however, are time after time exposing the partisan nature of the old. The problem has been, and continues to be that the old media partisans still have the advantage of getting in the sucker punch. And they don't do such a hot job of covering one others' media misdemeanors. They tend to ignore or lightly gloss over the stories.

Only Fox News Channel covered it as an actual news story, although CNN contributor, Bill Bennett interjected the exposure of Clinton team's military questioner, and Anderson Cooper later weighed in with an apology, acknowledging Bennet's role.

Oh, don't expect too much coverage of the CNN story from ABC News, whose President is George Stephanopolous.

Today's ABC Good Morning America video recap on the debate by Jake Tapper still up on the ABC site in the late afternoon of November 29th, makes no mention at all of the controversy over the series of Democrat plants. And there is not even one word of mention about the Clinton Campaign's intrusion with General Kerr's question, which, as we noted, was exposed last night.

Jake's entire take was that the Republican debate was about "personal attacks," and that the campaign was "only going to get nastier."

Quick, Wolfy Needs Our Help!

Folks, as you know, the CNN Democrat Presidential contenders debate in Las Vegas will be off and running in just a few hours! Bet it did not occur to you that talking heads like Wolf Blitzer -- especially Wolfy -- may need our help right now!

No doubt you're aware, reports indicate that Wolf was warned by the Clinton Campaign to go light on Hillary and not try to "pull a Russert" by asking her tough questions, or pressing her for answers! Of course, that really means that Wolf will need to ask some hard questions to avoid being tagged forever as a complete sell-out weenie! The one thing that a top level talking head cannot afford is to be disrespected by both the right and the left!

Just ask Tucker Carlson over at left-leaning MSNBC!

Well, as you also know there is a writer's strike on! That's right! Who is going to write Wolf Blitzer's questions for him, huh? He can leave it for the rest of the panel to ask the usual fascinating questions of Hillary . . . questions like, "Has powder blue always been your favorite color?"

But Wolfy has to hammer home at least a few tough ones, or else he'll be the one remembered as the "potted plant" from this evening's debate.

For that reason, we've jotted out few quick suggestions for him. They're really in rough draft shape, but I assume he can edit out what he doesn't like, no?

The only other thought we had is that reports state the recent Harvard study showed that CNN is very, very left wing -- "the most hostile to Republicans." No doubt the writers there are as well. Group Think, you know?

That means he may be unfamiliar with the focus we've taken, and perhaps the style as well. Hey look, nobody is perfect! At least we tried to help the poor guy out!

So, if you can think of a few quickies to add, please do! And more importantly, if anyone has an e-mail address for Wolfy, please be sure to forward this link on to him, along with any additions you might want to make. Just copy us for the file as a courtesy, if you would.

Thanks! Whew!

So, at last, here are our 10 suggestions, arranged by subject matter, for questions that Wolf Blitzer might ask Hillary Clinton tonight!


Experience:

Senator Clinton . . .You have repeatedly said in earlier debates, that you are the most experienced of the Democrat candidates for President. But your critics note that you have never run anything, never made a budget, nor have you ever been responsible for the lives of tens of thousands, or even millions of citizens and residents. And, you never served in the military, though you reportedly once thought about it. They also note that as First Lady, you failed miserably at those few things you personally became involved in, such as health care and the travel office. Even so, one could argue that you are more experienced than some of the would-be candidates on the dais with you . . . some, but perhaps not all. Would you please turn to Governor Richardson, who has actually run a federal government department, and who is now the Governor of a State, and please explain to him exactly what makes you more experienced than he is to be the President of the United States, and the Commander-in-Chief of all of our military forces?


Campaign candor -- Two questions:

a) Mrs. Clinton . . . A spokesman for Senator Barack Obama quipped to the New York Times in a story published today, that since it took you, "two weeks and six different positions to answer one question on immigration, it’s easier to understand why the Clinton campaign would rather plant their questions than answer them." Would you please take the opportunity right now to respond directly to Senator Obama, or would you be more inclined to just let that one sit out there unanswered?

b) Mrs. Clinton . . . when specifically did you first hear that your campaign was planting questions with audience members, and who exactly did you hear it from? Has anyone who participated in the planting of such questions been removed from your campaign, and if so who, and when?

Immigration:

Senator Clinton . . . you and one of your potential opponents on the Republican side, Senator John McCain, both voted for the so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" package that was before Congress recently, which went down to defeat. Since that time, Senator McCain has noted that we have really had a genuine national debate on the immigration question, and that he now understands and agrees with those who say that we must first deal with the question of border security before we can implement any broad provisions that would automatically enhance the status of the millions of illegal immigrants currently in our country. Do you agree with him? Would you also be in favor of firmly securing our borders before passing such status provisions?


Health Care:

Mrs. Clinton . . . critics of your national health insurance policies point out that in jurisdictions that have taken a more socialized approach, such as you propose, that it is common for individuals to be stuck in long waiting lines, or hampered by lengthy waiting periods of time for sophisticated procedures, such as MRIs. Suppose that, under your system, your daughter suddenly developed a condition that required an MRI, but she was forced to endure a long "waiting period" for the procedure. Where would you take her to get around that problem, as many foreigners often do now when they come to the United States for treatment? Canada? Great Britain? Cuba?

Iraq & War on Terror -- Two questions:

a) Senator Clinton . . . now that another month has passed, in Iraq few could deny that our military has made considerable additional progress on the ground in defeating al-Qaeda and it's affiliates. Do you think that the time may now have come for you -- and the rest of the candidates here as well - to publicly apologize to General Petraeus, in your case, for specifically implying to his face that he was a liar when he gave his testimony?

b) Senator Clinton . . . you recently said that you would not vote for any more money to support the troops in Iraq without a withdraw schedule attached. Now it appears that the President's surge strategy is working well, and specifically without a congressionally-mandated withdraw timetable. You want to be Commander-in-Chief. You also voted for the authorization for this war. If you were the Commander in Chief, would you invite Congress to put specific timetable limitations on your ability to do your job? And if not, why do you want to do that to the current President, whose strategy is now quite clearly working without any such timetables?

Campaign Finance:

Mrs. Clinton . . . I assume by this time that your campaign has finally identified all of the donors "bundled" by Norman Hsu, and if so, how many were there exactly, will you publicly release a complete copy of that donor list? And if you have returned all of the money, how many came back to you in "voluntary donations" from those specific donors? And, what about the so-called "dish-washer donors"? Does that sit well with you, or are you troubled by the fact that a substantial number of minimum wage workers, many of whom cannot even speak English, are somehow each coughing up a few thousand dollars to contribute to your political campaign?


Press Relations:

Mrs. Clinton . . . The New Republic has just published a lengthy and very, very unflattering piece by editor Michael Crowley about your campaign's media strategy -- Bunker Hillary: Clinton's Strategy for Crushing the Media -- addressing questions like, and I quote, "the Clinton camp's reputation for fearsome omnipotence is its treatment of media figures who cross them." Just in the past few days, unmistakable comments and pieces have been published that have been interpreted as "warnings to me" not to try to "pull a Russert" in this debate and ask you tough questions. Did you or your spokesman Howard Wolfson know anything at all in advance about any veiled threats from your campaign for me to go easy on you with my questions? And do you condone any such actions?

And, finally, not to bring up old news, but tough is tough:

Mrs. Clinton . . . have you forgiven Monica Lewinsky in your heart for having taken advantage of your husband's, shall we say, weakness -- the one you specifically identified years ago as having arisen in his childhood out of the conflict between two strong women raising him, i.e., his mother and grandmother?

Sputnik - Half a Century Ago

(Update: 10/04/2007, below)

In two days, we will commemorate an extraordinary technological marker in our modern history, the launching of the first man-made satellite into space, Sputnik I, by the Soviet Union. It happened fifty years ago, during the long-planned International Geophysical Year, or IGY, an eighteen month long scientific endeavor highlighting eleven geophysical, or "earth" sciences. It was an achievement that at the time quite electrified the world, and initiated an international competition that became known as the Space Race.

A recently retrieved copy of the article that appeared the next day, October 5th, in the New York Times, gives a good indication of the surprise and concerns that the launch immediately raised. It included quotes, for example, from scientists assuring people that the satellite could not be used to drop atomic or hydrogen bombs from the sky! Viewed in the context of the Cold War, which had really begun a decade earlier with the Truman Doctrine responding to Soviet aggression in Europe, that launch was seen as a startling wake-up call within the United States, and a propaganda coup for the Soviets.

The Times article noted the immediate Soviet boasts:

It said in its announcement that people now could see how "the new socialist society" had turned the boldest dreams of mankind into reality.

So it was on October 4, 1957, that the Soviet Union launched its Sputnik I, or literally, "co-traveler-1" a small man-made satellite, into earth orbit. It was the first such man-made earth orbiting satellite ever. The Soviets wanted to be first, and had scaled back plans for a more sophisticated device, settling on a small satellite with no mission payload. It transmitted radio signals for 22 days, when it went silent on October 26, 1957. The small satellite, approximately 23 inches in diameter, plus antennas, stayed in orbit until it re-entered the earth's atmosphere on January 4, 1958, almost four months later. It was small enough that in passing over it could be viewed by ground observers only with the aide of field glasses.

Two months after the first launch, the Soviets successfully launched a second, and significantly larger earth orbiting satellite, Sputnik II, on November 3, 1957, one with a mission payload and a female dog named Laika on board. Because of mechanical problems associated with a block not separating properly, it was many years later publicly revealed that she likely did not survive more than a few hours because of over-heating. But they had put the first living animal in space, paving the way for manned space flights. Sputnik II was large enough that it could be seen with the naked eye. Newspaper accounts at the time record the excitement of observers checking for scheduled "pass overs," and then watching it as the bright yellow moving star passed overhead.

Sputnik I had not been the first time a man-made rocket had reached what we call space, which begins about 62 miles above the surface of the earth. That had taken place years before.

In 1944, a V2 rocket was launched from Peenemünde on a vertical test shot sub-orbital trajectory to an altitude of 176 km (109 miles), well beyond the 100 km (62 miles) altitude generally considered to be the border of space (see Kármán line).

And earlier in April of 1957, the United States Navy had launched a "satellite" payload to an altitude of 126 miles. But Sputnik I was the first object to reach first cosmic velocity, or the speed that is required for an object to achieve earth orbit from the earth -- approximately 17,500 miles per hour. It moved slightly faster than that, and over its entire lifetime traveled a total of about 60 million miles.

Meanwhile, the failure of the United States to be the "first" in space, set off a public debate here, and further highlighted embarrassing "mis-launches" of rockets in the Vanguard series. Most notable, for obvious reasons, was the attempted Vanguard launch on December 6, 1957, made in the wake of the Sputnik launches. It only made it about four feet in the air and then dropped back, crashed, toppled and exploded on the launch pad. It was viewed by the public right on TV, for everyone to see. The "payload" itself fell free and the slightly damaged satellite can still be seen at the National Air and Space Museum.

The United States quickly switched rockets, and finally successfully launched its first satellite, the Explorer I, aboard a Juno I rocket on January 31, 1958.

Radiation recordings from that Explorer I satellite were later confirmed to have detected an enormous radiation belt, charged particles in space held in place by the earth's gravitation, later named the Van Allen radiation belt.

The discovery of the Van Allen Belts by the Explorer satellites was considered to be one of the outstanding discoveries of the International Geophysical Year.

The satellite instrumentation for Explorer I had been designed and built by Dr. James Van Allen from the University of Iowa. Though the batteries went dead in a matter of months, Explorer I stayed in orbit for over 12 years.

One of the previously ill-fated Vanguard series of satellites was finally launched on March 17, 1958, with the TV-4 satellite, a remarkable technological achievement, one that continued to transmit data until years later in 1964. In fact, the satellite itself is still in orbit today, and is expected to last in orbit for a total of 240 years!

For the world back them on that early October day, fifty years ago, a remarkable change took place, and the space race was off and running. Very much on people's minds was the concern that the Soviet Union had somehow gained an insurmountable lead in the development of Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles, or ICBMs. The Soviets took every opportunity to promote their "technological superiority" around the world. People even speculated about whether the "mysterious beeping" of the radio signals from Spitnik I was some form of secret code! President Eisenhower was queried repeatedly at his next press conference about the national security implications of the launch. And three years later in the Presidential election of 1960, an alleged "missile gap" was a hot issue.

But as we look back now, having clearly outpaced the Soviet technology, and outlived both the Cold War and the Soviet Union, what is clear is that the communications revolution that emerged from those first satellite launches, is what still completely dominates our world.

Ten years ago, the New York Times published an on-line presentation commemorating the Sputnik I launch, including many of the stories and a chronology from the time. It is well worth paging through today.


Update: 10/04/2007 pm -- The BBC also has an on-line version of their story from that day. The on-line version also has an interesting chronological feature, "Timeline: Space" also worth checking.