Clinton surrogate Chris Cuomo…but it’s OK, everybody’s doing it.
Mainstream broadcast news media’s all-in, full-throated support for Hillary Clinton and biased coverage of Donald Trump is pervasive and disgraceful, but since they all enable each other and have successfully isolated Fox, nobody whom anyone pays attention to is going to call foul, and as this abandonment of journalism ethics is gathering momentum. nobody can stop it, either. Trump was attacked far and wide for saying the election was rigged; and who knows what he meant (who knows what he ever means?), but when a democracy’s journalists cover the campaign by acting as relentless partisan advocates for one candidate, that’s one way to rig an election.
It is shocking how openly this is being done. One has to wonder how the networks will ever be trusted again, or how they can return to ethical norms.
I witnessed a case in point this morning, earlier this week, as CNN’s Chris Cuomo debated one of Trump’s picked-out-of-a-hat surrogates—it doesn’t matter which one; they are all so pathetic that I refuse to use up my dwindling brain cells to store their names—about Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” comment, whether it was fair, and whether Trump had standing to object to it. Cuomo took the position of a Clinton apologist and supporter and Trump opponent, aggressively and without nuance. He even spun like a Clinton hack, but one with a video library, at one point “proving” that Trump advocates “hate” by showing an edited montage of various well-publicized statements, none of which definitively indicated that Trump is in fact hateful or a bigot. They did, however, because Cuomo, the supposedly neutral host, said they did, as he adopted Clinton’s talking points. Trump’s designated hack was pretty effective in countering Cuomo’s points, but he was negligent in not calling out Cuomo on his shamefully open partisanship.
Imagine: CNN has the gall to present another show, “Reliable Sources,” that purports to be a journalism ethics watchdog, even as the entire network mobilizes to swing the election with this kind of epic journalism ethics breach.
[ADDENDUM: This post was completed and almost ready to be posted when I ran out of time, as I was in the middle of a stretch taking me to four states (well, three and D.C.) to do seven two-three hour legal seminars in eight days (with the eighth day being devoted to air travel). Since that time, just two days ago, the news media’s pro-Hillary bias has intensified, as it has descended into full panic mode over the dawning realization that the awful candidate and human being they have hitched themselves to may actually lose to Donald Trump. This, unfortunately, ramps up my cognitive dissonance to possibly toxic levels. Trump must not become President of the United States, but boy oh boy, would it ever serve the arrogant and unprincipled Democrats, journalists and Hillary Clinton right if she lost to the most unfit, unpopular and unqualified opposition in U.S. history.]
Ethics Alarms 
I believe I saw the same segment with Chris Cuomo this morning. Cuomo was almost frothing at the mouth arguing with the Trump surrogate (the name I can not recall). Paul Begala, the Clinton surrogate, was in the mix also, with a big grin on his face and not having to say much of anything. Cuomo was doing all the heavy lifting for him and HRC.
No fan of Trump myself, but it was disgustingly biased and worse yet… a meaningless discussion of the so called “birther” conspiracy and whether or not Trump has or has not “taken ownership” of this conspiracy. Who cares?
Real issues? I kept waiting but no, none to be seen anywhere on CNN this morning.
Sad, corrupt and disgusting.
Still anything but a fan of Trump… a blowhard buffoon… but I agree with you: It would serve them right if they help to elect a blowhard buffoon through their misguided efforts. And if it is a wake-up call for the return of competent and ethical journalism, maybe it would be worth it.
No fan of Trump myself, but it was disgustingly biased and worse yet… a meaningless discussion of the so called “birther” conspiracy and whether or not Trump has or has not “taken ownership” of this conspiracy. Who cares?
People who don’t want a paranoid conspiracy theorist in office should care.
Trump literally began his career in politics by investigating Obama’s birth certificate. He ultimately promised that he had big news to reveal about it. He never revealed anything. Every single interviewer should have been asking him about this since the beginning of his 2016 campaign, and they shouldn’t have stopped until he admitted that he never had anything, and that Obama was in fact born in the United States.
It would serve us ALL right if he became President. We, as citizens of this country, as consumers in this country, as cultural morons of this country, we all must own this catastrophe whether we are part of the cause or part of the apathy. There is, however, a new 1% — those, like Jack, who keep shouting into the whirlwind that the emperor has no clothes.
Is Cuomo any worse than Donna Brazille (sp?)? As a blatant apologist for Obama, Hillary and anything Democratic Party-oriented, Brazille single-handedly got me off all the Sunday talking head shows… She isn’t a commentator, analyst, or anything but a former Democratic campaign manager, so what right does she have, and why should viewers put up with, either Brazille or the networks pretending otherwise?
Or, hmmm, Maybe Stephanopolous hosting a new analysis show… Or interviewing critics of the Clinton Foundation’s activities when he was a donor to and fund raiser for same…
Oh, he’s much worse. Brazile, whatever the heck she is, at least doesn’t pose a a professional journalist. At worst, she’s a partisan pundit who is allowed to pretend to be objective.
Donna Brazzille is the new DNC Chairperson who took over when DWS was pushed out. If Ms. Brazille is hosting a show rather than just being an invited guest then it shows bias, otherwise we should expect the DNC spin from the DNC Chairperson.
Cuomo is **much** worse? I think they’re all the same. Being one thing and posing as another: it doesn’t matter what the ‘one thing’ is. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…
E, isn’t Donna Brazile the temporary head of the Democratic Party? Since Debbie W. Schultz was finally shamed off the stage. CNN, the Clinton News Network is a joke. I still what to know whether the people they have host their shows actually pay for the privilege. I bet people Anderson Cooper and Cuomo and Elliot Spitzer have to spend some of their trust funds to get those seats. I bet a lot of those positions are sold to the highest bidder.
Other Bill: Just goes to show how long ago I bailed on all those people! I only know what she did between campaigns, I guess. My general point still stands, tho. Honestly, I don’t think these people pay for the privilege. I think it’s worse: they are paid very well to toe the ideological line, which they love to do anyway.
I just think the fact Brazile is the head of the Democratic party underscores your point. CNN never ceases to amaze. What an operation.
Jack,
This sure doesn’t read like a finished article. For those of us who don’t watch CRAP-TV, there’s no context for anything you or Cuomo said or attempted to rebuff.
But then, you said it was true, so it must be.
-Neil
What part of…
Cuomo took the position of a Clinton apologist and supporter and Trump opponent, aggressively and without nuance. He even spun like a Clinton hack, but one with a video library, at one point “proving” that Trump advocates “hate” by showing an edited montage of various well-publicized statements, none of which definitively indicated that Trump is in fact hateful or a bigot. They did, however, because Cuomo, the supposedly neutral host, said they did, as he adopted Clinton’s talking points. Trump’s designated hack was pretty effective in countering Cuomo’s points, but he was negligent in not calling out Cuomo on his shamefully open partisanship.”
..confuses you? Sometimes I think you go out of your way to be obnoxious. When I wrote it, instants after watching it, there was no link or video. Returning to the 99% finished piece after being out of town, I don’t have time to go on a crap hunt.
Yes, because I said it was true. I do not store the names of Trump’s assorted appointed fools, but fool or not, a pro and con debate where the interviewer takes anti-Trump/ pro-Hillary is absolutely over the line into partisanship. That was what I saw, that was what happened. The post itself is to chronicle a continuing phenomenon, and not independently significant. For the pint it was designed for, it is finished.
Jack,
What position of a Clinton apologist did he take? There are several. Which controversy did he “spin”? What sorts of clips did he show of Trump? Well-publicized? They’ve ALL been well-publicized. How were they misrepresented or taken out of context?
Are these not valid questions a person reading your extremely brief summary might not wonder.?
-Neil
Jack,
Neil’s estimation of this article is entirely correct. You didn’t prove–or even provide any evidence for–any of your assertions against Cuomo in this article.
He even spun like a Clinton hack, but one with a video library, at one point “proving” that Trump advocates “hate” by showing an edited montage of various well-publicized statements, none of which definitively indicated that Trump is in fact hateful or a bigot.
For this to be effective, you’d have to at least explain what those statements were. Was it his statements about banning Muslim immigration? Those were certainly bigoted. As was his insistence that a judge recuse himself for being Mexican. As were his opening remarks that “Mexico isn’t sending their best.” Calling these statements bigoted isn’t spin or partisanship–it’s using the dictionary definition of words, and we’d be better off if more reporters used the word “bigotry” to define statements that match the dictionary definition of bigoted.
No, Chris, it is that it isn’t the place of the news media to be an anti-Trump advocates. Why is that so hard to grasp? Cuomo, as proof, hauled out all the familiar clips, like the early speech about illegal immigration—edited, I may ad—to assert the false but conventional wisdom that saying that Mexico is “sending” us rapists via illegal border-crossing is the equivalent of saying all Mexicans are rapists. he didn’t say that, and that speech contains no evidence of xenophobia or racism whatsoever—so why is Cuomo spinning it like a partisan? That was the point, and the only point. Here we have a Trump spokesman, I don’t care what his name is, and a pro-Hillary spokesman—CUOMO!—rebutting him. Cuomo can be a moderator (with opposing spokespersons on both sides) or an interviewer, but he CANNOT be an adversary—and that’s what he was.
And no, Chris, it is you who don’t know what bigotry is, or bias either.
Was it his statements about banning Muslim immigration? Those were certainly bigoted
1. He never said that…he said he would halt Muslim immigration “until we figure it out.” That’s not bigoted in any way. Lazy, vague and stupid, perhaps, but not bigoted. 2. The position that it is irresponsible to let in a large population that contains terrorists and there is no easy way to decide which is not bigoted, and makes more sense than the Obama position of pretending ISIS has nothing to do with ISLAM.
“As was his insistence that a judge recuse himself for being Mexican.”
How about sticking to the facts? Trump never “insisted” on any such thing. He said that he thought the judge should recuse himself because of likely bias. That’s not bigoted by any version of the word. Trump is roundly detested by Mexicans and many Mexican-Americans, and feels that a judge of Mexican heritage would naturally be negatively inclined toward him. That’s not bias or bigotry, it’s ignorance of how ethical judges work. Trump would say the same about an Irish judge if Trump had insulted the Irish, or a veteran judge who was a prisoner of war, base on Trump’s comments about McCain.He’s simple-minded and assumes everyone is as petty as he is. That’s not bigotry, and the media outcry that it was was an embarrassment, as it is now for you to repeat it.
“As were his opening remarks that “Mexico isn’t sending their best.”
Worst of all. Absolutely not bigotry in any way. When Castor emptied the prisons and sent them on flotillas to the US, could we say, without being bigited, that Cuba “wasn’t sending us its best’? If a nation has a “best,” how is distinguishing them from the law-breaking border-jumpers “bigotry”?
Calling these statements bigoted isn’t spin or partisanship–it’s using the dictionary definition of words, and we’d be better off if more reporters used the word “bigotry” to define statements that match the dictionary definition of bigoted.
No, calling these statements “bigotry” is just dishonest and wrong. I appreciate the fact that you want the news media to operate under your own biases, but that’s not what ethical journalists are supposed to do.
Beyond question, Trump has proven that he is a misogynist and a sexist. The evidence that he is a racist, a xenophobe or a bigot does not exist, except that the news media keeps repeating it.
ADDENDUM: The evidence that Trump is a racist could hardly be slimmer. Unless, of course, that’s what you want to believe: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2016/07/nyt-columnist-nicholas-kristof-asks-is_24.html
It’s hard to even look up since you didn’t want to “waste brain cells” remembering the names of any of the principals.
Cuomo is a disgrace because he is stumping for Clinton, but also because he isn’t too bright. He is the CNN version of Sean Hannity and just as dumb.
It is fascinating that the mainstream media have abandoned all attempts at objectivity. Witness: The litany of media talking heads swooning over Clinton’s ability to ‘power through’ her recent pneumonia diagnosis was interesting. Talking head after talking head celebrated her grit, her strength, her stamina, her determination to ‘power through’ it, almost as if they took a note from the DNC and the Clinton Campaign. Today, NPR told me that Clinton hit the campaign trail after 3 days of rest and recuperation. (Hmmm . . . 3 days. That sounds familiar. Where did I hear that turn of phrase? Didn’t somebody rise from the dead after three days? Wait. I know. Jesse Jackson took three days off to resurrect his image after a lovechild came to life. Yeah, that’s it. Jesse Jackson.) Those Democrats sure do love their biblical imagery.
jvb
Jack writes: “Since that time, just two days ago, the news media’s pro-Hillary bias has intensified, as it has descended into full panic mode over the dawning realization that the awful candidate and human being they have hitched themselves to may actually lose to Donald Trump. This, unfortunately, ramps up my cognitive dissonance to possibly toxic levels. Trump must not become President of the United States, but boy oh boy, would it ever serve the arrogant and unprincipled Democrats, journalists and Hillary Clinton right if she lost to the most unfit, unpopular and unqualified opposition in U.S. history.”
Having read a good deal of what you think about Trump I have been moved to accept it largely. I have said as much. But I am coming round to another opinion which is similar to your conclusion, but for different reasons. (That it will *serve them right*). It starts with the qualification he is certainly not qualified and has many defects. Yet he has been *called forth* out of the American mind and soul and he is there, performing a specific role. Trump as Hegelian manifestation. Put another way, Trump has done more for people who think like I do, or who have commonality with some aspects of what I think, or who come forward in consonance with Trump in certain areas (this is hard to speak about because there is, there is indeed, the ‘dog whistle’ aspect to Trump), and for this reason, for ‘us’, he is a boon. So, I opine that there is a whole aspect to this ‘America’ which has been pushed out to the margins and therefor cannot participate, but that it WILL now begin to participate, and this will upset various different apple carts.
I cannot very well visualize what Reality will look like with Trump as president, though I have tried. But I wonder now if a Trump victory, and a subsequent failure (or the crisis caused by his presence) might not redound to the benefit of *your side*? (if that side is conservative republicanism as I gather it is). It will allow the now in crisis Republican Party to retool and come back on-line. Now, it seems to be and is described by some as nearly an appendage of the Democratic establishment. I know for a fact that Trump’s presence and activities have been a total boon for *my side* and those I respond to and admire. (And thus ‘Alizia as Evil Interloper’).
I have come to understand that what I desire (or *my side* if indeed it is a ‘side’) is for polarization in American politics to increase toward the breaking point. I have come to understand and embrace in some ways a whole narrative which cannot be expressed, one because no one desires to hear it nor will tolerate it, yet the essence of it is that America needs to reconnect with a Guiding Idea, but that ‘americanism’ is not it.
That America is failing. I think this is a true statement and I hope that no one will decide to kill the messenger for saying it. Am I wrong to understand that vast and important (dramatic) changes are presaged?
The American that I want to be in and participate in must become far more ideological, and obviously I mean that as empowered and driven by right wing ideas that are true right-wing ideas: ideological, intense and capable of regenerating the culture that I wish to participate in.
So, I am conflicted about what *should* happen. But I cannot say with absolute certainty that Trump will not have or cannot have positive effects, though he is a negative agent in many senses.
“Put another way, Trump has done more for people who think like I do, or who have commonality with some aspects of what I think, or who come forward in consonance with Trump in certain areas (this is hard to speak about because there is, there is indeed, the ‘dog whistle’ aspect to Trump), and for this reason, for ‘us’, he is a boon.”
Absolutely no one here could write a more damning insult against you than what you just said about yourself.
Well then, I am acting in service to your notion of the right and the ethical.
Seriously though, it must really be tough. I mean, to read such things which seem to turn against so many deeply embedded assertions and assumptions about *things*, about *life*. One must reject them just as certainly as one steps on a cockroach.
And yet I assert that I function within an intelligible ethics, and all my positions can be articulated and explained. The discourse to expound the ideas takes some time though, and that time is a barrier.
I do very well understand how strange and outrageous some aspects of this is. Get used to it though, all of this will be matters of discourse in the years to come. This is one thing I can say with certainty.
Alizia,
Can you write ANYTHING which isn’t knee-deep in abstraction? A Hegelian Manifestation — of what? Moreover, almost none of what you wrote directly responds to or compliments any of Jack’s main points.
-Neil
I almost get the impression that you don’t value abstraction. I’d likemto think of it as the vantage of a bird’s-eye view.
I prefer to use the idea of the ‘meta’ to describe my approach. Meta-politics, meta-ethics, etc.