What is Digg?164 Comments
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -32/+105CNN-FoxNews ..... What's the difference?
They both will spin, marginalized and shut out those who they disagree with.
Watch what they do to Ron Paul in his next debate. - asif5th, on 10/11/2007, -4/+76***** was ***** up man. Every time Gravel was speaking, you could hear Wolf trying to hush him up. Such *****, if you aren't going to let him speak, then don't call it a debate.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -7/+51Yeah. I think we can safely put this "liberal" media to rest. The Media is corporate, pure and simple.
- rlinet, on 10/11/2007, -2/+41What a sham! I am tired of this type of so called debate, rather than each candidate getting their turn to talk about the issue presented. Wolf guided all the pertinent questions to Barack, Hillary, and Edwards. I loved Hillary's comments, that this is Bush's war like she hasn't had anything to do with it, or English should be the National but not Official language, love that double talk. Edwards and Clinton, thanks alot for saying you weren't involved or you were wrong for voting for the war. Tell that to all the parents of Dead Americans and soon to be dead.
Only Kucinich and Gravel maintained their truthful speak.
Shame on CNN for trying to dupe the American voter, by skewing the debate. They looked like idiots rather than a news source. - mikeneilson, on 10/11/2007, -2/+41Did anyone else look at that chart and suddenly become hungry for some Pez candy?
- TheBogie, on 10/11/2007, -1/+37Mike Gravel had the least time, but he was able to squeeze in more ballsy statements in his 5 minutes and 37 seconds than all the other candidates combined.
If the dems could just borrow his sack for 5 minutes, we would be out of Iraq in 6.
Mike Gravel has pure titanium balls. - nixonrichard, on 10/11/2007, -5/+41You know, for all the crap the Democrats gave FoxNews by shutting them out from debates, FoxNews has done a better job with debates than CNN and MSNBC. . . MUCH better. This is the first time I've felt CNN is more into the "good ol' boys" style politics where you pull your punches, wipe their asses, and only point the spotlight at the celebrities in the crowd. CNN just recently apologized for not holding Bush's feet to the fire during the buildup and execution of the Iraq war, and now they're doing the exact same thing with the new round of presidential hopefuls. CNN needs to liberate their balls. Then again, when the public cheers political parties shutting out major news organizations, it gives politicians WAY too strong of a grip on the fourth estate's gonads.
- joshpar, on 10/11/2007, -1/+36Looks like an Obama / Blitzer ticket is on the way!
- zeppyfish, on 10/11/2007, -7/+41Liberal media? The only liberals in the Dem debate were Kucinich and Gravel! I can't imagine anyone really believing the media is "liberal" when the pro-war candidates get so much more airtime! Bizarre.
- baldr, on 10/11/2007, -5/+38I think one of the worst parts of the "Talk Clock" is the fact that Blitzer talked for 13:24! That is more than 10% of the debate. Most of the candidates talked less than him. WTF?
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -5/+38AzBats, I hope Ron Paul's campaign not only does that, but emails and calls CNN on behalf of the Democratic candidates who got shafted last night, as Ron Paul is about to be tomorrow. To ignore this for everyone but one's favorite candidate is rather hypocritical. And if you wait until after the next debate, you will have missed your best opportunity.
I sent an email to Blitzer just now, making it clear CNN was not much better than Fox in this regard. His questions didn't smear the opposite answer to the candidate's actual position, as Fox did. But 3x the amount of time to Obama vs. Gravel is just unacceptable. CNN doesn't get to decide for me whom I vote for, or whom I listen to.
Aside: I thought Kucinich did a much better job with his minimal time (he got almost 2x Gravel). He gets major kudos from me for getting his message clearly across, and I hope get gets a big boost from this. Gravel was clearly pissed off about being ignored the whole time, and though he had some good lines, some of them didn't come through clearly, IMO. - mocheeze, on 10/11/2007, -1/+32Here's my letter I wrote to CNN ( http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form1.html ) :
I'm writing to express my dismay over the unfair distribution of time for all candidates in the Democratic Party debate CNN aired on June 3rd. In this table, one can see the time allotted for each candidate:
Name....Time....# Questions
--------------------------------
Gravel: 5:37... 10 questions
Kucinich: 9:02... 9 questions
Obama: 16:00... 16 questions
Clinton: 14:26... 15 questions
Biden: 7:58...10 questions
Dodd: 8:28... 9 questions
Edwards: 11:42... 13 questions
Richardson: 10:48... 11 questions
Why were candidates like Obama and Clinton given nearly triple the time for response than the paltry 5.5 minutes given to Gravel? It's saddening that he was snuffed out in what is supposed to be a chance for all candidates to be on an even ground. I consider debates to be one of the last actually free and democratic platforms to compare candidates. Now I don't feel like I can trust CNN to deliver facts and news in an ethical manner because of the injustice served at this debate to candidates like Gravel, Biden, Dodd, et. al. (even if I don't like every single one of them).
Even more saddening is the effect this debate's management has on democracy and the American people's right to choose the candidate they agree with most. As a debate host and arbiter, CNN has an obligation to present the news in a fair manner, and they failed utterly in this instance. Have the debates, an integral part of our free election process in America, become nothing more than a ratings bonanza where most well funded and known candidates are allowed to dominate?
Alas, not much can be done now to fix this situation. Perhaps an apology, maybe inviting the snuffed candidates back for more face-time on other CNN shows... but none of these compare to the power and opportunity that a debate format gives to candidates to introduce themselves to the American people.
Before this I was a loyal viewer of CNN's election coverage. This is no longer the case. I'm taking my viewership elsewhere, and will be encouraging my friends and family to do the same. Goodbye CNN. - AzBats, on 10/11/2007, -11/+37It's a ratings game - the bigger 'stars' will get more air time just like the rest of the news day. I hope Paul's campaign puts out something like this also for comparison.
- pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -2/+28the corporate media has already decided who will be our next president.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+23They should give each guy 10 minutes and a chess clock. Use it as you see fit.
- gmason08, on 10/11/2007, -7/+27That is BS on the time imbalance, they did it to RP in both of the (R) debates and this is the second time w/ Gravel. Obviously they try to game the whole process but do they have to be this blatant.
The only opportunity the outsider(not bought) candidates have for national exposure and they totally screw them on time. - pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -2/+20"liberal media", haha. you are funny. in case you haven't noticed, gravel and kucinich were the only liberals there and were relegated to the ends of the stage. ron paul will be sidelined for the same reason, they are not sell outs to the military industrial complex. chickenhawks and fearmongers like guliani and clinton get prime time real estate in our corporate owned media.
- airwalkery2k, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19I watched part of that debate. It looked like Gravel had to fight to get the mic for a good portion of his time.
- akatherder, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18No thanks. I'll let them decide how I feel and tell me later tonight.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16"I don't think they'll be as bad to Paul, he's more in line with the liberal media than any of the other republicans except maybe Guiliani."
I think a lot of people don't know what "liberal" means anymore.
Liberal is a set of ideas and has very little to do with party allegiance. There are liberal Democrats, there are conservative Democrats. There are liberal Republicans, there are conservative Republicans. A single person might be liberal in some respects and conservative in others. Liberal and Conservative aren't teams that you join; they are descriptions of your thoughts and beliefs.
You desperately need to move away from this idea that everything has two sides. Right and wrong. Good and evil. Black and white. The world isn't that simple. By devolving all discussions into polarised arguments about whether you're "liberal" or "conservative" - as if anybody could have just one opinion that applies to all issues - you are destroying the democracy that you claim to hold so dear. - digitalarcanum, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15I watched the debate and it was all absolute *****. The post debate show all the political analysts were saying how Hilary practically won the debate. The bitch was flip-flopping on every issue pushed her way.
Support the war on terror? Don't support the war on terror the next. Don't support the war? Then why the ***** did you vote to support it in the first place? Her ideals when it comes to universal health care are unrealistic: just by making records electronic and changing a few things here and there won't make universal health care free: There will need to be a tax hike to support that. She didn't even have an opinion on the energy problem (i.e. high gas prices)
This debate was framed to make Hilary the star from the very beginning. She was given more time than any other candidate and no, unlike what another political analyst said, she was not the leader and no one up there was looking to her for guidance.
As far as the other candidates go, they got shafted. Dobbs brought up a good point about ending the war, but that was the only thing he was allowed to say the whole god damn night.
I'd really hate to have to give my vote to Hilary in '08, but if it came down to "terrorists terrorists terrorists!" Guiliani and "I agree with everyone and no one at the same time" Clinton, I'd give Hilary my vote. - Pssdoff, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Thats a damn good idea...
- jswan2, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13if you want to let CNN know how you feel;
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form1.html - rarson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10http://www.politicalcompass.org/
I still don't understand how people can filter all of their opinions, beliefs, and values down into a single one-dimensional labeling system of "left/right." - UglieJosh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9You also may have noticed that the three "stars" in the debate (Obama, Clinton and Edwards) were neatly place at the center of the stage while Gravel (the outsider of the crew) was, strangely enough, placed on the outside.
- viviwanu, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12Gravel got the least amount of time? ***** you Blitzer!
- pesh2000, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11@xen0blue
If you think CNN is as leftist as you can get, you have no understanding of the political spectrum at all.
"Mother Jones", "Democracy Now", maybe "The Nation" is leftist. There isn't a major network in the US that comes close to being leftist. - vblvbl, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11We need to do more to rally around Gravel. He's the Ron Paul of the Dems, and man do we need one of those.
- cha0sFB, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Next time they might as well just give him the 5:34 consecutively and then let him leave. I bet everyone in the whole place would be dumbfounded.
- rarson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7From the Wikipedia entry on "big lie":
"The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." -Joseph Goebbels
Written in 1941, and uncannily accurate 66 years later. - KarmaPoIice, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Blitzer is a selfish prick.
- chrgrose, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Did you guys see how much Joe Biden borrowed from Gravels performance in the first debate? I thought it was laughable..
- rarson, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9"...making it clear CNN was not much better than Fox in this regard."
CNN is NO better than Fox News. Just because I tend to agree with what they're saying more than Fox doesn't mean that they're still presenting accurate, unbiased news.
It sucks, I really can't stand watching ANY of the news channels. I hate them so much, I skip over them, which means I'm uninformed. But I guess informing myself with ***** information (or a barrage of sensational fluff news stories) isn't any better. - CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9and who told you that Obama, Clinton and Edwards are the frontrunners? You're giving the media complete control over your decisions.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8If it was me, I probably would have taken one of my 10 second response times to make a point about my one 10 second response time. I might even say goodnight. But I don't think that would go over very well at all.
Given how far to the left his chair was, all by himself, I'm not sure anyone would have even noticed if he got up and left. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6@rarson - you so need to be modded up!
I agree with you 100%. The problem is that there isn't enough money to be made if there are 4 political parties.
What I'd like to see FOR ONCE is a JOINT TICKET - with a Democrat President and Republican Vice President (or vice versa). THAT would be amazing and it could help things get accomplished in all political directions. - picciano, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8I wish it were that simple. I believe public radio has its own biases. I think the best approach is to listen to as many sources as possible, especially those that you tend to disagree with.
- mdesjardins, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Dennis Kucinich is the man, I'll probably vote for him in the primary. Unfortunately, even if the whole country agreed with him, he's probably not tall enough, nor attractive enough (compared to a stylish pretty-boy like Edwards), to ever be elected.
- cquinnd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6"I wish it were that simple. I believe public radio has its own biases. "
They do, but they freely admit to those biases when they are pointed out to them, and try to work for a more balanced viewpoint - even going so far as to solicit opposing commentary.
You could always get the guys from "Car Talk" to moderate, if you really want an unbiased approach. (They'd favor any candidate who can do thier own oil change). - Swift2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I don't mind. Let Jon Stewart host it.
- drjson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5The debate was terrible through and through. Aside from the unequal time, so many questions were leading or just horribly phrased. Why end multiple questions with "Was this a mistake?"; why ask what would you do with Bill Clinton, an obvious question you want Hillary to answer and direct to another candidate; why have people raise their god damn hands? There was a whole 5 minutes in that debate where I learned something about the candidates and it was because Wolf shut his mouth and let people go back and forth on their Healthcare plans a little. Even then he was letting the middle 3 go on and on without letting dodd or gavel get in. Atleast he finally let Kucinich in on the "debate".
These debates are more and more dog and pony show, less and less any kind of "debate" to be seen. - CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I also like Kucinich. It's too bad that he's not better looking and doesn't have an easier name to spell/pronounce.... because sadly, those two things are very important come election time.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5While they both share the distinction of being different from the regular more-of-the-same candidates, they are idealogically polar opposites. Gravel wants a huge government that does everything for everyone right down to wiping your nose when its runny and Paul wants a tiny government that nobody ever hears from except in extreme emergencies like being attacked by another country.
- galacticdoom, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10It's a giant lie - the "liberal media" concept is a deceptive one - created by corporate media to invalidate other media sources. Similiar to the "big lie" in Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Lie - CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5it gets the message across clearly... so I say that it's a good chart.
- BrianNowhere, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5The whole thing was obviously Blitzer letting some candidates get away with droning on and on so that when he went to the next candidate the alloted time for the question was running short. ***** boring ass Bill Richardson ( Barney Rubble will be his running mate) was the worst offender in abusing his time.
Fox news was ridiculous in their debate, especially when Britt Hume spewed out an over-excited simulated "news report" about a ticking time bomb scenario. That was embarrassing to all of us. I don't know how anyone thinks FOX did a better job than CNN.
I think the PBS people like Gwen Ifill and Jim Lehrer do the best job with debates and bring a sense of decorum and fair play to them. The Cable News shows are just not good at this. They are just naturally too sensationalist in their approaches
But I still think Blitzer and CNN did a better job than Brit "helmet-head" Hume and FOX news did. - indio007, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Can Blitzer win New Hampshire? He had ample time in the debates to give his position on the issues but I still don't know where he stands. Thankfully for his campaign he is a network anchor and will get more "facetime" with his constitiency.
VOTE Blitzer 2008!!!!!!!!
Paid for by AIPAC - artfuldodga, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5it made me sick to watch this... did you see where they had gravel positioned on stage? he was almost falling off the thing FFS. and when they did a panoramic view of the candidates, gravel was not in the picture... ***** UP.
- Bossy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6They are going to host "Faith and Politics" tonight with special guests: Obama, Clinton and Edwards. I mean... what the *****?
It's not about Gravel or anything but it's sad how things are going for this country. ***** right before your eyes... and you are not able to do anything else.
***** YOU CNN. - greenamp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4The whole "debate" was a total ***** joke anyhow. One of the questions was, "How would you use former Pres. Bill Clinton in your administration?" Who the ***** cares!
And all the time they spent BSing about their fictitious health care plans. "My health care plan has such and such!" "Oh yeah, well mine does too plus it has such and such too!"
Bunch of jokers. -
Show 51 - 100 of 146 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is