Major Garrett of Fox News broke a story on the 9th that revealed that the Hillary Clinton campaign had admitted to planting questions at a Newton, Iowa town hall meeting. Garrett reported that the Clinton campaign promised that planted questions would not happen again, but this isn't something new for the Clinton campaign. Hillary has controlled the media with an iron fist yet few from the media have complained about it. And now, only a few MSM sources seem interested in this tale. Why is this story being ignored by the major media outlets? Worse, why do they allow Clinton to hamstring their ability to cover her without complaint? And, remembering how they reacted in 2005 when they thought the Bush administration planted questions, why are they letting Hillary slip by untouched?
Shouldn't it be big news that a candidate refuses to allow candid questioning on the campaign trail? Of the incident, Garrett says, "In a state where the caucus is held sacred and the impromptu and candid style of the town hall meeting is held dear, Clinton’s planted question may come as a great offense to Iowans." But, Iowans shouldn't be the only ones who should find Clinton's actions disturbing.
If that weren't bad enough, on the 10th, Garrett found another Democrat that reported to him that back in April he had also been approached by the Clinton campaign to ask a canned question at an appearance.
This is a rather unseemly action by the Clinton campaign and a perfect example of her desire to control every aspect of her image and her desire to squelch any sort of independent questioning, even from her supporters, that she has no control over. This is part and parcel to her ruthless control of the media as reported before on Newsbusters (See Here) and as has been seen since she first began to run for Senate. Clinton rarely allows candid interviews, nor submits herself to open forum questions unless she knows the questions ahead of time.
So, the question is, why is the media letting her get away with this? Few of the other media outlets out there are going with the Garrett story and they certainly aren't complaining about her tight control over her appearances and the questions she is asked by the media. In fact, some of them have expressed their admiration of her manipulation of the media. (See this Anne Kornblut storyHere)
Anyway, so far the reporting on this has been quite muted. Now, what sort of reaction would any candidate but Hillary receive at the hands of the MSM if that candidate had planted questions at appearances or had refused to allow the media to ask questions that weren't submitted to them for approval ahead of time? Wouldn't such a candidate deservedly be in for a scolding? After all, how can we trust such a candidate to handle the tough situations they'll face as president if they can't even take a spontaneous question from a supporter at a campaign stop?
Of this newest outrage against open and honest campaigning, Andrew Malcolm mentions the question planting on one of the L.A. Times blogs called Top of the Ticket. The AP also has a small story about it and so did MSNBC on their First Read blog, with the MSNBC blog finding yet another example of the Clinton team trying to plant questions. Also, ABC covered it.
It is early in this story, I suppose, but it seems odd that such an explosive story is not getting legs. Keep your eye on this one to see if it gets more attention. Somehow, though, I feel it will stay on the blogs and not get out wider.
Lastly, I'd like to say this: where is the wacko left who called Bush a "fascist" for his desire to control or ignore the press? Isn't Hillary displaying just such a tendency by refusing to allow the media to ask candid questions of her? Where are all those on the left worried about the media being controlled so?
Now, let’s contrast this situation with how the press reacted when they imagined that the Bush administration “staged” a questions and answer period with soldiers in Iraq in 2005. Newsbusters covered the outrage that the MSM expressed then and it was uproarious, the press (especially the TV media) in high dudgeon over it all.
The story led the NBC Nightly News with host Brian Williams and was featured prominently on ABC and CBS, as well. Naturally, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann also went apoplectic over the supposed "staged" and planted questions. All the papers covered this story, as well. One could not escape the coverage that week, in fact. Further, the news broke that day and was everywhere within hours. This Clinton story is days old and the MSM is barely paying attention.
Of course, it turned out in 2005 that the questions were not planted, it was just that the soldiers gathered were given a chance to practice their on-air efforts while the satellite feed was live making the MSM imagine that it was all a sham spectacle. In other words, the MSM jumped to unsupported conclusions.
Still, the point is they went national and fast with their faux outrage over Bush's supposed question planting. Yet what do they do with Hillary's actual and admitted planting of questions? Where is the outrage and questions of legitimacy for Hillary?
Shhhh. Mums the word.
(Stoptheaclu.com has a great round up of the conservative blogs covering this)
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"Why is this story being
November 11, 2007 - 03:03 ET by mattm"Why is this story being ignored by the major media outlets?"
That's a rhetorical question, right?
Not only do they plant questions, they plant hecklers to which they can respond with prepared witty remarks. BJ did this several times in '92 and '96 and now it's Ms. Sir Edmund Hillary Rodham's turn.
"Why is this story being
November 11, 2007 - 08:40 ET by DontFeedTheTrolls"Why is this story being ignored by the major media outlets?"
Perhaps this story wouldn't be ignored if someone (hint, hint) pointed this out to the Obama and Edwards camps. After all, it is unfair to them too, not just to us great unwashed.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Where is the news on Clinton?
November 11, 2007 - 03:11 ET by kgWhy, swept under the media's rug along with the scandals, illegal campaign
finances, corruption, private records, halted investigations, etc., etc.
Common practice
November 11, 2007 - 03:13 ET by KC MulvilleThe media won't report it because it would expose how often they get manipulated (wink, wink) by the campaigns. They know what the campaigns are doing, but when it fits in with their own agenda, they go along for the ride.
What's even more frustrating is that the media actively and deliberately shields Hillary from tough questions. It's like the villains in James Bond movies ... the give Hillary an easily escapable situation and look the other way.
Ah, the joy of the thought of
November 11, 2007 - 03:27 ET by ReformedLib Re-FormedConMe going to a Hill appearance, fawning over her, carrying an "I LOVE HILLARY" sign, batting my eyes at her people, and finally being asked to shoot her a softball question.
Then blasting her with just one of the many questions we'd all love to ask. Even if the media nixed it, I'd have hubby there with the camera, taping it all. I would sign up for a YouTube account just for the pleasure of posting such a juicy bit.
One can dream, can't one?
Don't do it !!
November 11, 2007 - 10:05 ET by Apollo77Be Careful RL-Re-C !! Don't do it !
They'd surely whisk you away to a scary place far from the light and comforts of day... We'd probably not see you or your family again for some time and when we did, you'd have a glazed look in your eye and be only a shell of the person you once were..
We love having you here...Don't do it!! We've lost too many good people to the dark side !!
Seriously though... it does sound awesome and delicious !!
PIAPS
November 11, 2007 - 03:53 ET by jmad627What are the the LMSM going to do when/if, may heaven help us, her thighness gets elected? My guess is that her first year in office, may heaven help us, the LMSM will continue to blame President Bush for everything, but what about after that? She would I predict have the longest press honeymoon afforded the POTUS. Will this be a new new era in press coverage of the chief executive? Will the glowing reports, or under reporting of events continue? When the going gets tough, as it surely will, are the facts of these be under reported, or out right ignored, and will the press work harder on excuses for her, and/or searching for scapegoats instead of the truth?
Believe me I shudder as typed these questions.
Hold back some of the good stuff!
November 11, 2007 - 05:06 ET by Parker1227Its too soon to take out Hillary. We'll just end up going against Obama.
Although watching Hillary do a full-out "Howard Dean" would almost make it worth it.
Signed,
Karl Rove's evil twin brother.....bruhahahaha!
Sorry, I Disagree
November 11, 2007 - 19:40 ET by Del DolemonteIt's never too soon. This is the most important Presidential election perhaps in our lifetimes, not just because of issues such as national security/war on terrorism but also the Supreme Court seats in play.
The "objective" media did all they could to get their boys into the White House in 2000 and 2004. Both times they very nearly succeeded-they got to within several hundred votes in Florida in 2000 and within a couple of hundred thousand votes in Ohio in 2004.
And since the media is MUCH more in love with Hillary than they were with Gore in 2000, or Kerry in 2004, they will do everything in their power to see she gets elected. She's their last shot to relive their youths. To them, Bill and Hill are their generation's John and Jackie Kennedy. And this is probably Jackie's last chance.
There are actually people
November 11, 2007 - 05:46 ET by Andrew H.There are actually people who believe her "campaign" when they say that they will stop planting questions. Hillarious.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
KOOL-AID ALERT...
November 11, 2007 - 15:57 ET by danybhoyHillary is NOT talented enough to think on her feet in a political forum. Everything must be managed to the smallest detail if she is to sell herself as someone worth voting for. Whatever you think of Bill, he can work unscripted as well as anyone, this ain't true with Hillary.
I was wondering if the writer's strike would hurt her campaign...maybe not, I think Hillary will end up being her own worst enemy at some point, & I don't believe the MSM will be able to cover her @$$ when it happens. Some will believe anything she says, others like me, won't believe anything she says.
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
Some in Hillary Clinton’s
November 11, 2007 - 05:55 ET by Andrew H.Some in Hillary Clinton’s Party…
Some people booed the boy scouts who brought the colors to a political convention.
Some people think that every youngster ought to be taught about homosexuality early—regardless of how parents feel about whether it is appropriate in say, kindergarten.
Some people think it’s just dandy to confiscate more income from other people under the threat of jail.
Some people believe it is okay to kill a baby at term.
Some people are against domestic drilling for oil, construction of new coal fired, oil fired or nuclear power plants and construction of new oil refineries must never be permitted. We’re left with wind and water but not much for the SUV’s parked outside John Edward’s place.
Some people believe the military should be a social experiment and place for change even if its fundamental purpose is to kill people and break things.
Are some people pushing hate crime legislation because one life is worth more than another? Perhaps to those pushing such legislation… how about every life being important?
Some people believe in government interference with media, especially the radio.
Some people believe international relations must be defined by the United Nations. America’s interests must be secondary considerations in every case.
Some people write signs that say, “We support our troops when they shoot their officers.” That’s would not be a good thing for the family of military officers.
Some people delight in burning or defecating on the American flag. Defecation should be a private thing, shouldn’t it?
Some people believe in more laws and not fewer to make sure our lives are controlled.
Hillary Clinton and for that matter the Democratic Party is what they are, they’ll do what they say they’ll do and in no case is that more freedom. In every case freedom is in jeopardy with these people.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
WIARHSI now has its
November 11, 2007 - 07:02 ET by motherbeltWIARHSI now has its counterpart WIARHDI....What if a Republican had done it???
The MSM would be all over it like white on rice. They would never let it go. Every mention of the candidate's name would be "X, who was widely criticized for planting friendly questions at a campaign event...." Every day would be more drip, drip, drip... "the X campaign continues to grapple with the fallout from the planted question"......."the questions about the (planted) question are not going away...."
So True
November 11, 2007 - 19:43 ET by Del DolemonteCaptain Ed has a couple of threads about this story going on over at Captain's Quarters. The pro-Hillary squirrels are out in force, of course. These are the same people who were complaining when Bush did the same thing. Now, when their own hero is caught, they don't criticize her for doing it-they just deflect by saying that since Bush did it, it's OK for her to do it.
These are also the people who blasted Bush for invoking 9-11 in a campaign ad, but now that Hillary is doing the same thing it's irrelevant.
CNN covered it.
November 11, 2007 - 08:00 ET by sembyCNN covered it.
Wasn't President Bush raked
November 11, 2007 - 08:15 ET by sublight68Wasn't President Bush raked over the coals a couple of years ago when he met and took questions from the troops overseas, questions the MsM screamed had been planted?
If I remember correctly, the questions weren't planted and the soldiers weren't instucted in what to say or ask. Rather, they were just encouraged to practice asking their questions (ones they came up with on their own) in advance so they would be more comfortable when the lights came on.
Hey!!! You are right. That
November 11, 2007 - 09:12 ET by Warner Todd HustonHey!!! You are right. That was in 2005!!! I HAVE to add that to this story!
Thanks for remembering about that!
It's quieter than the Hsu story
November 11, 2007 - 10:58 ET by JayTeeIf Hillary's pant suit drops in Bill's Bedroom, will he hear it ?
It's so Quiet, you can only see the story on Fox.....one wonders that if the Huge audience of Fox News starts seeing/hearing a Hot story, how they will assume it's a hot story at MSM without really watching.
How is Hillary going to survive a Dem/Repub debate ? I don't think she can handle the Truth.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
Planting questions
November 11, 2007 - 11:51 ET by JackrvIf I remember correctly, one soldier admitted to asking a planted question.
It was planted by the reporter covering the session.
Jack Van Nostrand
I think you are remembering
November 11, 2007 - 12:05 ET by Warner Todd HustonI think you are remembering a question session with Donald Rumsfeld where a soldier was put up to asking a question by a reporter.
Reporter planted GIs question for Rumsfeld
...A conversation?
November 11, 2007 - 11:56 ET by directorblueHillary and her sock-puppets: "I'm not just running a campaign... I'm having a conversation."
Major Garrett
November 11, 2007 - 12:25 ET by pbthinkerIs Major Garrett one of the best news people around, or what? I remember him, during Katrina, actually finding out that most of the news, coming from New Orleans, wasn't credible and actually finding good sources to find out what was really happening.
We could use another 100 of this guy, in the MSM, then the media would be turned around in a heartbeat. Watching him, I don't believe he has an agenda, but he is willing to go after both sides and follow the story where it leads, no mater where it leads.
As far as the MSM goes, look for them to downplay this issue, even look for a story that reports that "everyone does it" and show examples.
Democrats: Specializing in "high tech lynching" since 1987.
Plant This
November 11, 2007 - 12:59 ET by BarkerHere's just one question I want to 'plant': "Mrs. Clinton, do you even have a driver's license, and when was the last time you actually drove a car?"
5 tough questions for Hillery all of NH wants to know
November 11, 2007 - 13:30 ET by VinncyGQuestion 1 - That a lovely pants suit - How Much??
Question 2 - You say your very familiar with the kitchen - Whats your favorite cookie recipe?
Question 3 - Immigration is a serious issue in this country - Whats your favorite color??
Question 4 - Some people have serious concerns about terrorism under a democratic presidency - Do you like eggs over easy or hard boiled?
Question 5 - With Iran and other middle eastern countries as well as terror organizations looking to obtain or build their own nuclear weapons - What effect will this have on tourism in the area??
History repeating
November 11, 2007 - 18:40 ET by celatorThis episode of Hillary "planting" questions in an audience reminds me of a similar episode in the '90's at the University of Maine when Hillary was there to promote her nationalized healthcare scheme.
Here's what happened and I heard it myself on the radio. It looked like very few people were going to show up to hear Hillary yap about her healthcare program, so her staff went to area nursing homes (I am not kidding), rounded up busloads of the elderly, in wheelchairs or other wise, and loaded them up on busses to take them to the auditorium so it would look lilke there was a packed house. Once they got there many of them were handed pre-written questions to ask Hillary when she opened it up to Q and A. The whole thing was to be broadcast on Maine Public Radio.
Apparently, these poor old souls didn't show enough enthusiasm for Hillary when she came on the stage and so the applause from them was rather weak. Some probably had no idea who she was or were too weak to applaud. At the time we had a US Congressman named Tom Andrews, a wildly leftist politician who today heads some socialist group or other in Washington. Anyway, Andrews was present and sensing that these old timers were not showing enough respect for her majesty Hillary started screaming at them (all caught on the microphones and broadcast) to SHOW SOME RESPECT and start applauding as hard as they could. Yikes! Someone realized Andrews' comments went out over the air and suddenly there was no sound. They got caught.
A great moment in history completely unreported by the MSM. I laugh every time I think about it.
Andrews
November 11, 2007 - 19:51 ET by Del DolemonteAndrews runs a group called "Win Without War" that was supposed to stop the war in Iraq. That worked out real well, didn't it?
Right now, their website still has a blurb saying that the guy who just got confirmed (by Democrats) for Attorney General shouldn't be confirmed. I guess they're too lazy to take it down.
Their other recent activities have included challenging the facts that the Iraq surge is working, along with going after your two Senators from Maine.
http://www.winwithou...
That's the guy
November 11, 2007 - 21:45 ET by celatorDel..
Thanks for the info. I had forgotten which group Andrews headed. They sound pretty normal ;+]. He always seemed pretty much outside mainstream politics even for the Portland democrats. He's still at it, it seems.
Planted question
November 12, 2007 - 11:45 ET by JackrvThank you sir.
That was it.
Jack Van Nostrand