Tim Rutten: CNN is "corrupt"; wrong about immigration (GOP debate)

Tim Rutten of the Los Angeles Times offers "CNN: Corrupt News Network". He calls CNN "corrupt" for spending so much time on immigration matters, explicitly saying it was an attempt to boost Lou Dobbs' ratings. More on that mostly unbelievable charge below.

...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 the Democratic and Republican parties recently have conceded it... ...In any event, CNN has failed in its responsibilities to the political process and it's time for the leaders of both the Republican and Democratic parties to take the network out of our electoral affairs.

While he's right about that, he falsely believes that immigration isn't an important issue, either per se or to the GOP base. In fact, it's one of the most vital issues the U.S. faces, and if Rutten can't see that it's because he's stuck in his MSM cocoon. And, even if he could see it, his paper's history of covering up for far-left illegal immigration supporters throws into doubt whether the L.A. Times would cover it. And, needless to say, the MSM frequently lies or misleads about the issue, so taking their accounts at face value might explain some of his confusion.

If this was a promo for Dobbs, I'd tend to think that he or his producers would have been involved in selecting the questions in some way. Would the other parts of CNN decide to do a good turn for Dobbs and then not consult him or someone from his staff? While that's certainly possible, I'd doubt it.

And, I tend to doubt that, if he were asked, Dobbs would have selected the questions that were asked. While I understand that Dobbs can't go for the jugular with each guest, since he wants to still get people to come on his show. But, I have trouble believing that he would have selected the question about amnesty, which was directed at just two candidates, including John McCain. Everybody who follows this issue knows that amnesty supporters - like McCain and others - have a habit of lying and not calling what they support "amnesty", prefering to use euphemisms. And, McCain and other candidates have denied that he supports amnesty countless times. So, why ask him to deny it again?

And, the in-state tuition question was almost as weak. I'd be very surprised to learn that Dobbs wouldn't immediately jump on the same points I did; in fact, his January 22, 2007 show featured a segment he introduced talking about the very same federal law as discussed at the previous link (transcript; do a find for "1623").

And, the previous CNN Democratic debate included a CNN-approved lie that slammed Lou Dobbs; I assume that was office politics. Dobbs apparently has his own production staff separate from the rest of their "news" staff; at least one profile of Dobbs indicated that there was tension between the two.

Let me suggest that Rutten learns much more about immigration matters, and then starts looking a bit deeper.

Comments

_Let me suggest that Rutten learns much more about immigration matters, and then starts looking a bit deeper._ Suggest away, but it won't make any difference. For MOST people in the media, the ones who want to keep their jobs anyway, immigration is primarily a matter of RACIALLY SENSITIVE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. Think of it as a giant affirmative action program for the rest of the world. And anyone who suggests that there may be irremediable average group differences, and that the human condition and social problems may, at least in part, be explained by this, as James Watson recently did, gets knifed rhetorically and then loses his job as a result of the injuries. It goes like this: we're all the same -- legal, illegal, whatever, so what's the problem? -- don't be a prig who's totally hung up on the 'law and order' take on immigration, which is just a way to veil racism. Fortunately, LEGISLATORS HAVE JOBS TOO, and, if a lesson can be taken from the recent defeat of attempts at amnesty, will also try to keep them by paying attention to input on this issue from their constituents.

eh, sounds like you've read Coloring The News: America is at a demographic and public policy crossroads. But just when information about its changing national identity needs to be robust, knowledgeable and honest, the ongoing media crusade for diversity has made American journalism weaker, particularly on complex stories involving race, gay rights, feminism, affirmative action and immigration. Encouraging a narrow orthodoxy that restricts debate and affirms identity politics, this crusade has fostered a journalistic climate in which important reporting is often skewed; facts that call into question a preconceived, pro-diversity script get short shrift; and double standards that favor “oppressed” groups over others become the norm. This is the provocative argument that drives William McGowan’s Coloring the News, a brave, searching work that examines journalism’s most controversial issue. Depicting how a well-intentioned attempt to accommodate minorities and minority views has been infected by political correctness, McGowan gives a fascinating insider’s analysis of what stories get reported in the “elite” media and how. Along the way he dissects how the press “mistold” California’s Proposition 209 vote, the alleged “racist” burnings of black churches in the south, the military’s ongoing problems with the integration of women and gays, the consequences of a chaotic immigration policy, and other key stories. McGowan subjects the journalism of the New York Times, the Washington Post and other prestigious news organizations to careful analysis in showing how the quest for “diversity” has influenced not only editorial policy but news gathering itself. The diversity that has seized hold of the nation’s newsrooms does not value true diversity of opinion, he maintains, but instead promotes one-sided reporting-by-the-numbers. McGowan highlights the clumsy bureaucratic instruments some news organizations have institutionalized for monitoring racial, ethnic and sexual fairness. (One of his case histories shows how the executives of the Gannett chain of newspapers have used a system for evaluating their editors and reporters according to how many minority faces appeared in photographs and how many minority voices were quoted in news stories.) He also examines the climate of righteous denial and moral preening that discourages the journalistic establishment from needed self-criticism. Coloring the News is as bold in examining the political impact such skewed coverage has had as it is in showing the sources of this distortion. Ironically, McGowan points out, the crusade has had unintended consequences for the very constituent groups and progressive political causes that diversity was supposed to help. Chief among the casualties are the intellectual and electoral viability of liberalism, as well as the credibility and financial health of the media itself, which have been repeatedly embarrassed by biased reporting and out-of-touch editorializing ro