CNN Flack Sez I'm "Pretty Infuriating"

Marty Kaplan
Huffington Post

CNN spokeswoman Christa Robinson wrote HuffPo's media relations vp saying that my post about how the CNN/YouTube Republican Debate was rigged was "pretty infuriating."

So I had to wonder: had I been inaccurate or unfair?

For example, my post cited what CNN Washington bureau chief David Bohrman, who's executive producing the debate, told the New York Times blog The Caucus: that YouTube videos "asking the candidates to defend their opposition to gay marriage and abortion" would not be asked.

"Those kinds of 'lobbying grenades' would be disqualified by the CNN selection team, Mr. Bohrman said. 'There are quite a few things you might describe as Democratic "gotchas," and we are weeding those out,' Mr. Bohrman said. CNN wants to ensure that next Wednesday's Republican event is 'a debate of their party.'"


Was Mr. Bohrman misquoted by the New York Times? Hard to believe, since here's what a St. Petersburg Times reporter now writes about the question-screening process, based on his exclusive access to the CNN inner sanctum:

"The group -- about 10 people -- began whittling down the 5,000-or-so video submissions. Gotcha questions were eliminated. So were most that seemed like they came from Democrats or went on for too long."

So if that's what CNN is doing now, surely they applied the same rules to the previous CNN/YouTube Democratic Debate? No gotchas, no questions from Republicans, a debate of their own party?

(Continued here.)