Posted by Jed Lewison on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 5:19 PM Pacific

CNN cribbing FOX's motto: We've got the facts, you decide

Is CNN morphing into FOX? Or has it already morphed? Last night alone was a tour de force of Barack Obama smears.

First, we have Campbell Brown (h/t: debrazza):

Hi, everybody. Tonight, a story that everybody is going to soon be talking about. It is a new line of attack on Barack Obama led none other -- led by none other than Karl Rove. There are those who say, though, that Obama brought this on himself. We're going to look at this from both sides tonight.

Why does she think that everybody is going to be talking about this? Because that's the only way she can justify putting such a filthy discussion on the air? As debrazza suggested, if we're really going to have this kind of discussion, then let's have a 30 minutes discussion on whether or not John McCain is in full control of his faculties.

Next we've got Anderson Cooper:

Look out Imus. Now it's Ralph Nader's turn. He's mixing race and politics targeting Barack Obama accusing him of trying to talk white, in his terms, and ignoring problems in what he calls the ghettos. Did he cross the line? Does he even have his facts straight? We've got the facts so you can decide.

WTF? Not only is Cooper cribbing FOX's "We report, you decide" line, he's also spending 10 minutes of airtime talking about an absurd comment made by crank candidate, simply because he thinks it's controversial.

And finally, when CNN isn't talking about Barack Obama, they trying to boost John McCain's campaign. TPM posted video of a report by CNN's Tom Foreman, taking a look at the extent to which Bush and McCain agree on the issues. Here's an excerpt from the transcript:

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Democrats are trying to make the case. And "Keeping them Honest," John McCain does share many policy points with the president. Arguing for expanding off-shore oil production for example, the president said, it was environmentally safe and the senator echoed.

MCCAIN: It's safe enough these days. Not even hurricanes Katrina and Rita could cause significant spillage from the battered rigs off the coast of New Orleans and Houston.

FOREMAN: On many issues, the two generally agree. They oppose abortion rights and gay marriage. They want a strong border and immigration reform. McCain wants to keep the Bush tax cuts and free trade.

Both men put faith in market forces rather than government for helping people with healthcare and retirement. But there are also real differences.

Notice what's missing? Iraq and the GWOT. As Josh noted in the video, Foreman eventually touched on Iraq, but mostly to argue that McCain saw things differently than Bush.

::: ::: :::

Let me conclude by saying there are two reasons why I'm posting this.

One reason is obviously to call out CNN for its overt bias against Barack Obama and for John McCain. Everybody knows how biased FOX is, but CNN at times can be just as bad. In fact, because some people take CNN more seriously than FOX, it can actually be more harmful.

The other reason has more to do with Democrats and those of us on the left, particularly those who are upset over FISA. Here's an example from the Murdoch-owned WSJ:

"There's an element of distrust now," Matt Stoller, a liberal activist and co-founder of the blog OpenLeft.com, said Monday at an Internet politics conference in New York.

Mr. Stoller said that Sen. Obama's position on the spy bill may not alienate the majority of his supporters, but the issue gives activists "a strong reason not to trust him or give him the benefit of the doubt."

Stoller subsequently penned a stern post titled "The Obama Accountability Movement Begins."

To which I respond: that is both too late and too early. Too late because the primaries were the time to be critical. I say this as someone who was critical of Obama at times (when Edwards, my preferred candidate, was still in the race). Too early because he hasn't been elected president yet.

Chris Bowers today wrote that he was "relieved that Obama flip-flopped, and stabbed progressives in the back, on telecom immunity and FISA." Why?

I am relieved because it seems to have finally done the job is causing the effects of the kool-aid to wear off in blogosphere comment sections. Now, rather than commenters criticizing bloggers for criticizing Obama, the general sentiment is that Obama isn't great, but we need to work to get him elected anyway.

I'm fully confident that Bowers understands it would be completely unacceptable for John McCain to win this election; our country could not possibly make a worse statement than to reward the Republican Party with four more years after the terrible job they have done managing our national affairs.

The only way I can make that square with his other sentiment is that there must be a general sense that Obama has this election in the bag. It sure seems easy to believe that he does, leading by 15 points in not one but two national polls. But on the other hand, on back-to-back days Gallup has had this race tied.

I tend to think that Barack Obama is a dominant favorite, perhaps prohibitively so. But even if there is a 5% chance of McCain winning (in truth, it must be higher), that is 5% too high.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be critical of decisions Obama makes between now and November; if you think some part of Barack Obama's campaign is misfiring, and that it's something that can be fixed, say so. If you disagree with him on some policy, say so.

But those crticisms should not -- must not -- designed to develop a negative attack narrative about Barack Obama, especially not one that plays into conservative hands. It's one thing to criticize him for being too moderate; but attacking his trustworthiness is not cool, not right now, especially when such attacks rely on comic strip characterizations of Barack, and it's even worse to suggest that his supporters didn't really know him, and are just beginning to see who he really is now. (Plus, it's wrong.)

So my bottom line is this: avoid the indulgence of developing narratives against Barack Obama until after the election. Assuming he wins, there will be plenty of time and room to criticize.

But for now, we've got an election to win, and failure is not an option. And if you spend even five minutes watching CNN, you'll realize just how heavily the deck is stacked against us.

CNN cribbing FOX's motto: We've got the facts, you decide

Is CNN morphing into FOX? Or has it already morphed? Last night alone was a tour de force of Barack Obama smears.

First, we have Campbell Brown (h/t: debrazza):

Hi, everybody. Tonight, a story that everybody is going to soon be talking about. It is a new line of attack on Barack Obama led none other -- led by none other than Karl Rove. There are those who say, though, that Obama brought this on himself. We're going to look at this from both sides tonight.

Why does she think that everybody is going to be talking about this? Because that's the only way she can justify putting such a filthy discussion on the air? As debrazza suggested, if we're really going to have this kind of discussion, then let's have a 30 minutes discussion on whether or not John McCain is in full control of his faculties.

Next we've got Anderson Cooper:

Look out Imus. Now it's Ralph Nader's turn. He's mixing race and politics targeting Barack Obama accusing him of trying to talk white, in his terms, and ignoring problems in what he calls the ghettos. Did he cross the line? Does he even have his facts straight? We've got the facts so you can decide.

WTF? Not only is Cooper cribbing FOX's "We report, you decide" line, he's also spending 10 minutes of airtime talking about an absurd comment made by crank candidate, simply because he thinks it's controversial.

And finally, when CNN isn't talking about Barack Obama, they trying to boost John McCain's campaign. TPM posted video of a report by CNN's Tom Foreman, taking a look at the extent to which Bush and McCain agree on the issues. Here's an excerpt from the transcript:

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Democrats are trying to make the case. And "Keeping them Honest," John McCain does share many policy points with the president. Arguing for expanding off-shore oil production for example, the president said, it was environmentally safe and the senator echoed.

MCCAIN: It's safe enough these days. Not even hurricanes Katrina and Rita could cause significant spillage from the battered rigs off the coast of New Orleans and Houston.

FOREMAN: On many issues, the two generally agree. They oppose abortion rights and gay marriage. They want a strong border and immigration reform. McCain wants to keep the Bush tax cuts and free trade.

Both men put faith in market forces rather than government for helping people with healthcare and retirement. But there are also real differences.

Notice what's missing? Iraq and the GWOT. As Josh noted in the video, Foreman eventually touched on Iraq, but mostly to argue that McCain saw things differently than Bush.

::: ::: :::

Let me conclude by saying there are two reasons why I'm posting this.

One reason is obviously to call out CNN for its overt bias against Barack Obama and for John McCain. Everybody knows how biased FOX is, but CNN at times can be just as bad. In fact, because some people take CNN more seriously than FOX, it can actually be more harmful.

The other reason has more to do with Democrats and those of us on the left, particularly those who are upset over FISA. Here's an example from the Murdoch-owned WSJ:

"There's an element of distrust now," Matt Stoller, a liberal activist and co-founder of the blog OpenLeft.com, said Monday at an Internet politics conference in New York.

Mr. Stoller said that Sen. Obama's position on the spy bill may not alienate the majority of his supporters, but the issue gives activists "a strong reason not to trust him or give him the benefit of the doubt."

Stoller subsequently penned a stern post titled "The Obama Accountability Movement Begins."

To which I respond: that is both too late and too early. Too late because the primaries were the time to be critical. I say this as someone who was critical of Obama at times (when Edwards, my preferred candidate, was still in the race). Too early because he hasn't been elected president yet.

Chris Bowers today wrote that he was "relieved that Obama flip-flopped, and stabbed progressives in the back, on telecom immunity and FISA." Why?

I am relieved because it seems to have finally done the job is causing the effects of the kool-aid to wear off in blogosphere comment sections. Now, rather than commenters criticizing bloggers for criticizing Obama, the general sentiment is that Obama isn't great, but we need to work to get him elected anyway.

I'm fully confident that Bowers understands it would be completely unacceptable for John McCain to win this election; our country could not possibly make a worse statement than to reward the Republican Party with four more years after the terrible job they have done managing our national affairs.

The only way I can make that square with his other sentiment is that there must be a general sense that Obama has this election in the bag. It sure seems easy to believe that he does, leading by 15 points in not one but two national polls. But on the other hand, on back-to-back days Gallup has had this race tied.

I tend to think that Barack Obama is a dominant favorite, perhaps prohibitively so. But even if there is a 5% chance of McCain winning (in truth, it must be higher), that is 5% too high.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be critical of decisions Obama makes between now and November; if you think some part of Barack Obama's campaign is misfiring, and that it's something that can be fixed, say so. If you disagree with him on some policy, say so.

But those crticisms should not -- must not -- designed to develop a negative attack narrative about Barack Obama, especially not one that plays into conservative hands. It's one thing to criticize him for being too moderate; but attacking his trustworthiness is not cool, not right now, especially when such attacks rely on comic strip characterizations of Barack, and it's even worse to suggest that his supporters didn't really know him, and are just beginning to see who he really is now. (Plus, it's wrong.)

So my bottom line is this: avoid the indulgence of developing narratives against Barack Obama until after the election. Assuming he wins, there will be plenty of time and room to criticize.

But for now, we've got an election to win, and failure is not an option. And if you spend even five minutes watching CNN, you'll realize just how heavily the deck is stacked against us.

The Jed Report Home Page

© Jed Lewison