"Is CNN Ethically or Professionally Qualified" to Host the Debates? LA Times Asks that Question?

Question

Why has CNN turned the debates into a joke.

Here is one small concept that CNN had: We'll have 5,000 youtube people ask questions. Then CNN will decide which questions actually get put to the candidates.

That is exactly the same as if CNN had asked those questions!!!!!!

Anyway....

"
In fact, this most recent debacle masquerading as a presidential debate raises serious questions about whether CNN is ethically or professionally suitable to play the political role ..."


http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-rutten1dec01,0,4122002.column?coll=la-home-center

Answer 1

I think the fact that CNN (corrupt network news) actually edited the rebroadcast speaks volumes of their inability to give an unbiased news report or host a Republican debate.

Answer 2

I haven't seen an unbiased debate yet.

Maybe an online written debate would get some valid answers. Why not ask the internet crowd to come up with issues that concern them - like illegal migration, tax burdens, cost and purpose of war, abortion, unconstitutional spending, etc.

The questions/issues could then be voted on to narrow it down to the top 10 issues of concern.

Then each candidate from ALL parties would have to answer them in detail. This would let everyone know what their stance really is on the issues without all the little kid bickering and name calling they do at the debates.

Then there could be a televised broadcast where people could hear each candidate's response on the issues and what each candidate has to say about other issues - a chance to get to know who might be running our country for the next 4 years - without further questions - just equal time.

Once elected, we could see if they lied to get into office or trying their best to support the issues the way they answered before the election - and have it in writing to compare.

Wouldn't this be more fair to everyone?

Answer 3

lots of individuals do "floor" arguments that are no longer anchorerd in meaning, good judgment or maybe user-friendly elementary experience. they might pivot on any word that reasons an emotional outburst and hop from subject remember to unrelated subject remember. that's incredibly no longer elementary to attempt to communicate with those human beings. they merely make no experience. those infantile human beings frequently lack sufficient intensity theory to have an person communique. you are able to word a loss of concentration once you stare deep interior their eyeballs and word a shallow "glazed" look. they might't relatively be helped because of the fact they lack the kit of intelligence. the proper situation to do is clarify issues purely that they understand and then stay away from severe communicate with them. here is all you ought to properly known approximately crime and victimhood. that's smart to be prudent, and volatile to no longer be prudent. yet no remember the behaviour of the sufferer, it never absolves the offender. A offender is merely one that commits a criminal offense, and everyone who commits crimes might desire to be dealt with as a offender. So if somebody needs to weave a floor argument explaining how the suggestions of ideal and incorrect are subjective, which makes them beside the point, and that the offender behaviour replaced into purely a risk simply by negligence on the area of the sufferer and hence it replaced into the sufferer's fault no longer the offender's, then I propose you tell them that committing any crime is a sin. that's that straightforward.

Answer 4

No, as if they weren't laughable already in news reporting, they are no longer qualified to host the Republican debates. They handpicked the entries to merely jab and jeer at the sitting ducks on stage.

Out of over 5000 entries, it's amazing that they "found" only the ones from hired Democratic nominee campaign bloggers and staff. If that was sheer "luck," they should take those odds to Vegas.

It was a circus, and in my opinion, the GOP shouldn't have ever allowed their candidates to grace that stage in the first place - when the Democratic candidates refuse to debate on FOX.

Answer 5

I must say I would not think so as no one would want to watch because it is CNN. And, only if the questions are from moveon.org and/or Soras himself. A by-partisan network should be the only one to carry any debates.

Answer 6

CNN should hold the Democratic debates and let Fox hold the Republican debates.

There you go.

Answer 7

No. They don't ask debate questions. The question, "Are you black enough?" can only be answered by one candidate, and serves no purpose.

Answer 8

Much more qualified than Fox News was.