Eric Alterman was at CNN Debate & says CNN 'Grinned Up' the Crowd

Altercation
by Eric Alterman

I'm going to do my Nation column this week about last night's debate, but one thing I found particularly offensive, aside from the atrocious questioning, was, from the standpoint of sitting in the audience, the way CNN producers purposely ginned up the crowd to cheer over and over, as if they were pom-pommed cheerleaders at a high school pep rally. This is a ridiculously immature manner in which to conduct an alleged debate on the nation's future, but it also interfered with the debate itself, as a bunch of rowdies in the crowd felt empowered to shout over the candidates' answers. Overall, it was an abysmal performance, but I'll have more ordered thoughts later in the week. I thought Joe Biden "won" the debate by the way, not that it matters... The loser was Wolf Blitzer.

http://mediamatters.org/altercation/index

And usually, the crowd is told to avoid making noise.

Regarding the booing: It is no secret that at the last debate NBC went after Clinton via attack-do-Russert. The theme of that debate was to take down Clinton. Edwards and Obama were handed a silver platter to attack her without rebuff, without fact-checking. And when they were resting, Russert took over. This debate was a response. And perhaps the real-outsideofDU-world, people saw what happened and were going to help maintain some fairness to the process. So, when Edwards and Obama again started their muc-slinging, the crowd said: "not again." This is about democracy, this is about the issues. This is not an all-out-attack show.

The Clinton campaign were the ones who started this blame game against Russert by planting a storyline with Drudge
the day after the debate. Then they put out "The Politics of Pile On" to which the Edwards' campaign responded
brilliantly with "The Politics of Parsing" and then out came the gender card, the swiftboat card, "the boys roughed
her up" card, all of which failed to gain much sympathy in the media or with the public.

I saw the debate and she definitely stumbled. Why not admit it instead of playing the perpetual victim card? For
example, the Edwards and Obama campaigns haven't fed Drudge stories about how Woof attacked them unfairly
and set them up to be attacked by Clinton; Obama's surrogates haven't given the NYT interviews that said Clinton
ganged up on him only because he's a black man; Michelle hasn't gone out on the road complaining that Obama
was lynched by the Old White Politicans' Club in Las Vegas; Liz Edwards hasn't said Clinton tried to smear her
husband by comparing his criticisms to a Republican handbook. I could go on -- the victimization routine offers
endless variation.

As for the real world outside of DU, I posted a Rasmussen poll here this past week which showed 75% of Americans
did NOT think Clinton was"piled on" by "the boys" during the Philadelphia debate.

Obviously, the booing and jeering NV party hacks planted in the debate audience were not part of the real world;
they were part of Hillaryworld.

with his two side-kicks Obama and Edwards, then you have your head in the sand. It was a continuation of the propaganda-as-media taking down the Clintons as they have since Bill Clinton started running for president. And, don't rest easy, because your candidate is next.

The media LIES. The media DISTORTS. The media is counting on you repeating the lies as if truth until our democracy is in the toilet.

It is ok with me if you do not support Clinton. It is not ok with me that you cheer when she as attacked on a "debate," pressure of the likes that neither Obama or Edwards has ever had to endure. In fact, in the most recent debate, with 1/10th of the pressure Clinton had, they both caved.

There's no need to get personal. We obviously disagree as to what happened in both Philly and Las Vegas.
Let's leave it at that.

How does reporting the tactics of the opposition make one a victim?

The audience wasn't held in check which made for a rowdier bunch. The last debate (Philadelphia) was supposed to be the one to "take Hillary down" using Edwards and Obama. The whole process wasn't fair and made Obama and Edwards look like assholes. The audience didn't like the way Hillary was targeted specifically to look bad.

Tim Russert has hated the Clintons for years and he enjoyed putting Hillary on the spot with that immigration question. She wasn't prepared for the question and it wasn't her best response but she admitted it.

This time Hillary hit it out of the ballpark and some on this forum are saying it was rigged. Obama and Edwards just didn't get away with their nonsense this time and the audience clearly wanted things to be fair.

Odd, huh? I mean there was this pompous windbag with a microphone, an obvious crowd favorite, yammering the script to a "T" and the crowd cheered over and over again. Then I was like, "Damn, Hillary is pretty friggin buff!"

as had been thought by many here.

you guys are getting desperate and sloppy.

because this event was rigged in her favor. Had the audience been silenced, I'd love to have seen the 'true' results.

Nothing sneaky about it.

It's one of her strongest states. Nothing more. Nothing less. CNN encouraged people to cheer, and for this same reason people began doing catcalls when their candidates weren't getting questions.

She took Johnny Boy's head off before the crowd ever got into it...

It reminded me of a first round knockout in a big fight where the fighter is knocked out before the patrons even find their seats...

:eyes:

NGU.

DSB

"A bunch of rowdies in the crowd felt empowered to shout over the candidates' answers."

I'm sincerely troubled by the tone that's being set. But if you want to ridicule and belittle my concerns, that's your prerogative.

:shrug:

NGU.

But your disapproval was aimed at my metaphor... I remember when Jimmy Carter said if Ted Kennedy runs against him he would "kick his ass" so I'm not alone in making an analogy between a campaign and a fight...

Oh, when Lloyd Bentsen told Dan Quayle "he was no Jack Kennedy" in their debate and the crowd guffawed at Quayle I don't think any Dems were lamenting that instance of crowd participation...

It's funny... When Hillary loses a debate , many DUers suggest she's an idiot, but when she wins a debate the same DUers say she's cheating...How can she win when the game is rigged against her?

...all three branches of government, yet they were still pissed off 90 percent of the time. What's with that?

Sen. Clinton is in the lead. Ever give any thought to being graceful leaders?

NGU.

But she gets beat up here pretty good... In the MSM it's a bit different... My seat of the pants impression is that CNN, ABC, and CBS are generally friendly toward her candidacy and NBC, FOX, and MSNBC are generally hostile to her candidacy...There is a caveat... There are many personalities in all these outlets so some may deviate from the general tenor... As for Obama and the MSM he's genuinely loved except for FOX...

I got news for you. If her supporters piss off everyone else and she gets the nod, you're going to be knocking on an awful lot of doors all by yourself come next fall.

NGU.

Is my contention that FOX and MSNBC is generally hostile to a Clinton candidacy a function of my paranoia?

When I hear Inanity, O Liely, and Tweety deriding HRC, who am I to believe, you or my lying ears?

I'm saying that your candidate has the runaway lead - despite that general hostility - yet you're still frightened enough to lash out spitefully at your fellow Progressives. Sad.

NGU.

They have the same obnoxious reputation on Daily Kos.

It is said that supporters reflect whom they support. True 'nuff here.

Ever read the TNR story "Bunker Hillary"? It explains alot.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6e01fdce-ad97-4dab-a07d-bf98dc52f681

is beyond me. I wouldn't like it regardless of which candidate was doing it. HAven't we had enough of that the past 7 years? I know I have.

I disapprove of those tactics while I approve of proportional punishement...She took her beating in the press for that...

Where is the evidence that Hillary Clinton "planted the audience"?


She's a smart, tough as nails, capable woman... To suggest that she loses debates because she's an idiot but only wins them because she cheats, is fanciful at best and libelous at worst...

And it's not the question, it's the planting that's so disturbing.

NGU.

"How anyone can approve of planted questions and planted audiences?"

problem, you're enabling the practice to continue. What's that say about you?

"I disapprove of those tactics while I approve of proportional punishement."

-Democrat SinceBirth

Yeah, I really said it's not a problem...

I like the tag team effect... I feel like I'm back posting on the ESPN NBA Message Board ...Keep em coming...

Two against one makes winning so much more fun...

My logic is impeccable... My consistency is beyond challenge...

You're upset because I interrupted your Hillary hate fest with facts...

I don't have a strong view on the planted audience issue, but the refusal of many Hillarians to even admit that the behavior of this crowd was ruinous to this debate is yet another indication they've swallowed whole the in-it-to-win-it mentaliy of their boss.

A beautiful mind is too , errr, genteel, to describe the thoughts that occupy it...

The effects of the crowd were probably as deleterious to the other candidates as the ganging up on Senator Clinton was at her debate...

Alas, we have come full circle... As I said up thread, she had taken John Edwards' head off before the crowd even got into it... That's why I said it reminded me of a championship fight where the boxer is knocked out before the patrons even get comfortable in their seats...

And I suspect if Edwards hits her again I suspect the results will be the same unless she wants to keeps him around to split the HRC vote...

take Edwards head off. but alas in the "Cage match" that followed... Biden sliced the the "top tier" to pieces. graciously. "I Don't know what those people are talking about" in reference to the top threes agreement on "introducing legislation" where legislation already exists! on Immigration.
To me there was no distinguishable "blood splatter pattern" after that.
I agree with the poster, and most of DU. In stating, "I thought Joe Biden "won" the debate by the way."
I made a bet on Biden, there in Vegas, last summer. the odds were holding steady, until Friday morning. So I am not alone.

about Hillary screening audiences and screening questions?

When she claims she has no idea that a member of the audience just so happens to be a plant for her campaign.

If Edwards or Obama had gotten more cheers than Hillary and hadn't gotten booed you wouldn't be saying that.

You saw the "true" results. Now deal with it.

Let's see, what Democrat was helpful to them the LAST time Dems were in office?

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Hmm, I wonder which Democrat was instrumental in expanding media deregulation and has
very strong ties and support from the "no net neutrality" telecom industry?

http://www.mediamouse.org/features/061407bill_.php?print_page=1

convinced that the best way to NOT have to think about reality is by supporting the Clintons and let them BE the Dem party.

And THAT is what sucks. Smiley face fascism is STILL fascism.

That's what's been odd. With Dems in Majority in Congress and the country turning on Bush/Repugs the M$M has gotten even worse in reporting on the Dems. They either ignore Dems or distort and sometimes outright lie about our candidates and their views. They fail to report in depth on any of the Repuglican scandals, firings, corruption and moneygrubbing.

If the tide has turned towards Dems in the USA...you wouldn't know it from watching ANY of the news outlets or the MSM publications like Time/Newsweek/WSJ/NYT/WaPo/USA TODAY/etc.

IF Dems truly are going to take back the WH in '08 and the House and Senate...why isn't the media coverage in alignment with the CHANGE. Instead we still have William Kristol, Podhoretz, and the rest of the Neo-Cons getting a bullhorn to puke out their same old views.

What has changed?

All of a sudden, dominating presidential debates just didn't count any more.

I have been trying to tell this place this is what happened all along yet people refused to believe it maybe now they will wake up to the reality that there was nothing fishy about it whatsoever. hillary just happens to have more support here so her crew was louder. Her support was reflected accurately with perhaps Obama being actually over represented.

So all you conspiracy theorist can maybe now put it to rest finally.

Clearly a crappy way to run a debate but absolutely nothing sinister about the cheering or booing that went on was encouraged by CNN not by hillary or any other candidate.