Fake But Accurate on CNN.
Here is the video of Jill Zimon on CNN. You may not have heard of Jill but she is a very nice person who looks dazzling on TV. She is also a committed Democrat, feminist, and activist within the party.
Jill Miller Zimon
Exposes CNN’s Liberal Bias.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the studio. CNN cast Jill as the “moderate” in a discussion featuring a conservative, liberal, and “moderate.” The little secret remained hidden that Jill is a proud liberal which makes for fake TV and another phony debate at CNN revealing their liberal bias.
To the liberal media, two against one qualifies as a balanced perspective. Add the Democrat announcer into the picture, and they are presenting three Democrats and one Republican for public consumption.
Shame on CNN for intentionally misleading the public once again. Why Jill would participate in such a sham will remain a mystery. Knowing Jill, we assume that the fake portrayal is not her fault and that she has vehemently protested the error.
Among other things, Zimon uses her role as the assumed “independent” to promote the discredited New York Times story on John McCain. Jill glowingly discusses Obama, Clinton, Ralph Nader, and talks a little too much about Dennis Kucinich. She does it all in her usually articulate manner, but the real question is why is she in the wrong frame?
You can read more from Jill at WritesLikeSheTalks.com.
Update: Received email indicating that CNN knew about Jill before putting her on as the “moderate.” As as upstanding blogger, Jill revealed herself to the producers which means that nobody can give CNN the benefit of the doubt about faking out the public.
Hey there -
Yup – I bent over backwards to tell them that I lean left but I don’t
write a ton of partisan stuff. They read my blog – and on and on –
we talked a lot about it. But I also blog regularly at The Moderate
Voice and I was on the show representing TMV – where, again, I don’t
write partisan stuff – that’s not my deal and you know it – why –
McCain – you know very well that you have me on RightPundits because
of my oh-so moderate and thoughtful approach!Now don’t you be
disingenuous my good man.Jill
email reprinted by permission.
The reason this is so bad is that the public will listen to the “moderate” voice more than the partisans. They also associate moderate with independent. As a result, Jill got more airtime than either of the party hacks and her sham identification means she was given the benefit of the doubt as a non-partisan.
And she used that time as the good Democrat to attack John McCain who in reality has great appeal to real moderates and independents. This is why Jill’s participation in this sham is intellectually disappointing, but I recognize that CNN is the real problem here. Nobody should be shocked to find liberal bias at CNN anymore.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:55 am
CNN is really just a joke. I cannot even take their political coverage seriously. On election nights they have Bill Bennett and Ralph Reed on their panel. They really believe that those 2 are indicative of the entire GOP.
At lease CNN Headline News has Beck. Although I think he is an alarmist, at least he provides a different viewpoint than the rest of the network.
Before anyone jumps on me about Fox, all I can say is; Geraldo Rivera, Alan Colmes and Greta.
February 25th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Greta was good on the John McCain story. She must have taken a mini-vacation from Aruba.
February 25th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
McCain – why do you risk your reputation? Please publish the e-mail I sent to you before you published this post. Furthermore, contact CNN yourself if you are such a sleuth.
February 25th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
You should also let RightPundit readers know that you felt I was moderate to the point where you gave me front page privileges last year.
Really – I am not being facetious here. I am really hurt.
If you want to pick on CNN, fine – but do you really have to use me as a foil this way?
That is just really, really wrong.
February 25th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Jill! You were invited to blog here to present a contrarian view, not because you are a moderate! You aren’t a moderate and that is perfectly fine. The idea is you would present a “counterpoint” to a conservative columnist each week.
Eeee, hurt is no good. Tell me how to factually correct the story and it shall be done! I thought it was a fun story, no?
February 25th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Well – let me take it down a notch –
I was very very very sensitive when being vetted by CNN to be as absolutely honest with them – that I’ve been called everything from a neo-conservative to a progressive radical. AND, mind you – I DID mention RightPundits to them and your invitation to me last year to blog here!
Now – yes – you are correct – I recall it that way too re: contrarian point of view but honestly, I thought it was because you felt I was more moderate or maybe your intent was I was liberal in moderation??
I just would have preferred you stick to sticking it to CNN if that’s what you want to do.
I was not ASKED to “play” a moderate. And the fact is, nothing I said was all that great for anyone! Because in fact I am extremely undecided.
What would make it right? Eh – you know – these are comments – people can read them. That’s enough for me.
I think I just would have preferred, I don’t know – maybe somehow not being quite as assertive about my role-playing or something.
The reality is that I am NOT a party activist but I am without question left-leaning. However, in Ohio, everyone is unaffiliated and we like it that way.
So – I just think you went awfully hard on me in an attempt to get at CNN. That’s what hurt.
February 25th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Well you look dashing. I wanted to link you in a way that is intellectually honest because friends on TV are cool. Since I don’t agree with anything you said on the program, and the media bias sticks out like a sore thumb, this seemed the right approach. Media bias is a problem that liberals don’t appreciate because you live in that world. It may not have even occurred to you that the presentation was disingenuous. And your email is a wonderful smoking gun!
And no, I like you as a blogger because you are able to articulate liberal positions well without getting emotional or shallow. That makes you a respected liberal (not a moderate!) who I thought our readers would welcome once a week or so. Left “leaning” Haw!
Psst, go visit http://writeslikeshetalks.com where the current homepage features a plug for progressive talk radio, frustration about Dennis Kucinich news reporting, a Dem presidential survey, and Michelle Obama live-blogging. Love it!
We’ve all been called every name in the book so that doesn’t hold sway. People call me a liberal, RINO, and get this — gay — shhh, but name calling by moronic readers doesn’t change the essence. You are a liberal. Wear it proudly like a scarlet letter.
Anyway, write me privately if I can fix this up better. I thought it was fun. And of course, always happy for my wife to have help with the BlogHer network!
February 25th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
lol – well – unlike me, smirk smirk, you ARE an unabashed partisan, McCain.
So you are going to make your points with whatever material you see as supporting those points. I get that here in the wild west of the blogs.
Michael Goldfarb seems like a decent guy, he was friendly and fun on the show, but if you aren’t happy with how he stood up for, argued for or otherwise represented the right, I suggest you talk to him and/or CNN.
Better yet, McCain – get yourself in the loop for representing the right on such shows.
Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful, I mean, well-spoken, I mean, better than the others, I mean, I know how to work a camera.
High sarcasm level except for the suggestion that you get a better conservative if you aren’t happy with how the one CNN had performed; maybe the pool of conservative bloggers they have to choose from can’t go toe to toe with me.
Maybe your blog post should have been dedicated to picking on the conservative for not doing more?
February 25th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Argh! McCain – there you go again! lol
“Psst, go visit http://writeslikeshetalks.com where the current homepage features a plug for progressive talk radio, frustration about Dennis Kucinich news reporting, a Dem presidential survey, and Michelle Obama live-blogging. Love it!”
I have a post about an event in Columbus for a progressive radio station and a slam on the Plain Dealer for its incessant support for one of Kucinich’s opponents (go read what I wrote about the debate between them – they all are icky! and thank God I don’t live in their district!)
The Dem presidential survey is being done by everyone and their mother – pahleeze – have you see all the outfits doing polls of that race?
And finally Michelle Obama???? I have never written about her – are you talking about a post on the sidebar from Lefty Blogs?
Come buddy – be fair. Did you ever think it’s only because you are so far to the right that I seem more to the left!?
February 25th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Okay – last word, lol yeah right!
It’s hard to get the “faking out the public” if you also want to contend that the bias is so obvious. How can you have it both ways?
PS – It was Oscars night. NO ONE was watching me or the others anyway.
February 25th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Jill, you covered a Michelle Obama rally on Feb. 22nd with glowing praise complete with ooo, photos. That and the rest of your collection of well-written posts is what people expect on a liberal blog.
But I am confused about what you are saying now. Are you trying to claim that you are in the middle despite saying charitably that you are left-leaning and that you accentuated this point with CNN? Or are you agreeing that you were miscast in that role on CNN? Which way do you want it?
February 25th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Jill, media bias generally is obvious to conservatives and has been proven by media watch groups. In this case, the media bias is evident only to those who know you because CNN faked out the audience. Your Democrat bias would not be evident to the viewers of CNN because you were misrepresented which allowed you carte blanche to present your Democrat view as if you were an independent. That is the problem.
February 25th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
No no no – I was never at a Michelle Obama rally! I PROMISE you – I’ve been on my back for four weeks McCain with a hernieated disk. I may have linked to other Ohio bloggers who went – I do a “roots news” thing a lot but I never personally went.
Just to be fair – have you noted how many Conservatives followed and linked to my blog and even blogrolled me because I highlighted how CNN cancelled the Republican debate!? I linked to the petition at least once, maybe twice – for people to sign to get the debate re-scheduled. All true.
And I’m proud of that.
I don’t have much of an agenda, you know that, except women in the pipeline and the MSM realizing its faults. But otherwise – who has time? I cover what I can when I can – but frankly, McCain has been AWOL from Ohio you know.
February 25th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
But McCain – nothing I said evidenced Dem bias – everything I said could be attributed to factual basis of how people in general say they feel – I didn’t even pile on McCain – I said the matter is an issue of hypocrisy if it’s an issue at all. Come on – you know where I live so to speak so it’s easy for you to say what my passions might be – but you also know how I write about things and ask questions – this is why I say you really aren’t being fair.
February 25th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
You asked:
“Are you trying to claim that you are in the middle despite saying charitably that you are left-leaning and that you accentuated this point with CNN? Or are you agreeing that you were miscast in that role on CNN? Which way do you want it?”
I’m not claiming anything. Middle is relative – you know that. Again – check out the bio of Mr. Goldfarb and how far right he is – PNAC and everything. Then check out Jeff Chang and how far to the left he is.
Was I miscast? That’s a weird question to me. I think I sounded exactly correct as a balance so now, I think I was perfectly cast.
I’d be happy to share off the record with you kudos I received from at least one serious GOP party person in Ohio who was adamant that I was absolutely appropriate.
February 25th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
“nothing I said evidenced Dem bias”
Jill, Jill, Jill. In the course of seven minutes you said “oh no” about the Nader run instead of “so what”, called John McCain a hypocrite instead of a role model, criticized George Bush’s administration, and praised Obama throughout especially in your discussion of the upcoming debate. Most of this was done very subtly but unmistakably.
Liberal bias is not necessarily overt and you won’t be able to detect your own bias because we are all somewhat in denial about our limitations. The point is that you were deliberately misrepresented by CNN which gave you a free pass to present a partisan view as if it were “in the middle.” That is true even if you don’t realize that you presented a partisan view, either overtly or subtly. It is like Dan Rather claiming objectivity — he may believe it but he isn’t the appropriate measure.
Sorry about your back.
February 25th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
When you have steadied yourself from spinning, you can read this and write and blog like the honest but conservative blogger I still want to believe you are:
1. On Nader from the transcripts:
So, Jill, let’s start with you. What do you think? Ralph Nader in the race again. Whoopee or oh, no? JILL ZIMON, “THE MODERATE VOICE” BLOG: Probably a little bit closer to the “oh, no.” You know, the independents and the unaffiliated voters that have been drawn out are individuals who are coming out a lot in part because of Obama.
And the independents, the unaffiliated that might normally want to go to Nader, you know, they’re not lacking as much as they might usually be when Nader was a little bit more popular. If we look back at 2000, he still got under 3 percent of the vote. In 2004, he had something like .35 percent of the vote. So, I don’t really think that this is really going to impact too many people, at least, you know, the current people running now.”
Mr. Goldfarb gave the standard conservative talking point – you should be proud of him. You’ll have to say more as to why “oh no” is some secret code for “liberal” that I don’t know about.
2. I didn’t call McCain anything – what I said was that the story is a problem if people look at in terms of whether a candidate’s behavior and words are hypocritical. Whether or not McCain is viewed as a hypocrite is up to the voter – I didn’t make a judgment on him one way or the other.
From the transcript:
ZIMON: I’ll take issue with that, Michael. I mean, I think that the underlying issue about whether or not McCain is hypocritical in his behavior is really what’s at issue. I agree with Michael completely about how “The New York Times” went about bringing up the story and the information behind it. But I also think that people are not happy to have issues raised about whether or not the candidate is being hypocritical in terms of what they are putting out there and how they behave there.
3. I actually never even mention Bush. From the transcript:
ZIMON: Also, when he [Nader] points to how much dissatisfaction there is with the different political parties. You know, what we’re really seeing is a lot of dissatisfaction with Congress and with our current administration. So, to say that people are specifically dissatisfied with the parties and are looking for a third-party candidate isn’t going to fly as much this year as perhaps it has in the past presidential election.
4. “Praised Obama throughout”? Oy vey.
Here’s the transcript, McCain – knock yourself out pulling out all the “praised Obama throughout” lines.
This is your blog and your spin, which I don’t share.
By the way – did you find that post where I say that I was at a Michelle Obama rally?
February 25th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Here’s the post I wrote about the McCain-Huckabee debate being cancelled – please be sure to read all the comments from Huckabee and McCain people and visit the petition which has 11,000 signatures.
February 25th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
This is getting silly. I am starting to believe that you may have some alternative reason for proving that you are not a lefty blogger. CNN isn’t going to read this and your secret is safe with me anyway. They will invite you back because you are charming and smart. But next time take the Dem side because you would be culpable in their deceit.
And I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Guests normally don’t know the label they are going to thrust on the TV in front of your name. But instead of discrediting it as you seemed to originally, you are clinging more and more to that label as your comments continue. Why?
Yes, I found your post about the Michelle Obama rally and gave you the date. This was a short post about another liberal blog that was live-blogging the event. What is your point? The topics covered on your blog are those covered by a liberal blog, which makes sense because you are a self-described lefty blogger running a lefty blog. Why should that be any issue of contention?
Your Huckabee post is a great example. You quoted “Governor Huckabee’s message MUST be heard and we MUST let people know that John McCain isn’t their only choice.” That is the drumbeat found on all of the liberal blogs, for the same reason conservatives are hoping for Hillary success in Texas and Ohio. We don’t want the opposition’s frontrunner to have a clear path. By the way, I looked for it but do not see a single comment from “McCain people.”
February 25th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Jill, first of all, you do look great. There is absolutely no argument on that point. However, it would be a stretch to label you as a moderate.
Having said that, if CNN wanted to have you on and they determined that you represented a middle ground, then fine. It really is indicative of CNN’s overall views, not yours. I would have gone on also even if they labeled me as a moderate Democrat which is entirely possible since I am pro-gay marriage. No, I am not gay, “not that there is anything wrong with that.”
February 25th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
McCain – I know you are trying to make nice – I appreciate it – I do.
But, if you would indulge me, this last comment by you really indicates just how much you do not seem to understand what is key about anyone saying that are moderate or in the middle or independent: being pro-gay marriage has NOTHING to do with being an independent voter. Independent voters simply do not like to align with parties, they look at the issues and the individuals, they are likely to prefer positions held by individuals who occupy several points, that could be far apart, along the political spectrum.
Likewise – being moderate isn’t about having a certain position – it has to do with the lack of partisanship in how you choose who you think best represents your expectations and interests.
Do you see what I mean?
I do see the choices CNN makes – as I would ALL THE TALKING HEAD SHOW’s choices – as exactly as you say here, which I just wish had been the tone of the original post – but maybe that just wasn’t possible without this dialogue, such as it’s been:
“if CNN wanted to have you on and they determined that you represented a middle ground, then fine. It really is indicative of CNN’s overall views, not yours.”
100% AGREE WITH YOU!
Phew. 
February 25th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Ok Jill, that will all make sense when you announce your support for John McCain, the most “moderate” of the candidates. But it is obvious in context that what you mean be being “undecided” on your blog is about a decision between very liberal Hillary and Obama. And you do seem to value the personal appeals that both Democrat candidates are making to you. Prove me wrong, but I am convinced you will not.
I agree with you about labels and such. Communists register as independent voters. So do Nader voters. What is more important are your actual views, which are those of a leftist blogger as you freely admit. That makes you left of center, the extent of which we can argue. Just tell me you aren’t going to allow CNN to misrepresent your views again. That’s all I need to sleep snugly tonight, knowing that liberal bias has been exposed.
February 25th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
May I interrupt this love-spat to comment on the ridiculous post from Blogger McCain? There is no “left wing” media bias and all of those who suggest that there is are liars. Example #1, the Republican political hack Bill O’Reilly of Fox News: The day after the New York Times story on McCain, he told his audience that all of the coverage over at MSNBC that morning had been favorable to the Times except for the “token” apperence of Bill Bennett. However, people who actually watched MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” show knew that the host, conservative Joe Scarborough, was very hostile to the story (and did most of the talking throughout the morning, harping on this issue over and over again), his co-host Mika Brzezinski expressed discomfort with the story, and one after another of the guests from the media said that the story was weak and criticized the Times. O’Reilly is a liar!
So far the only talking heads to offer blanket support of the Times story on any of the cable news shows have been phoney “Democrats” trodded out on Fox News for the purpose of riling up the conservative base, such as appeared on the right-wing Hannity & Colmes show.
Left wing bias! Bah! The FoxNews network is an arm of the Republican attack machine mascarading as a balanced network. MSNBC has a host of conservative hosts and regular analysts. On the oldest of the opinion shows, the McLaughlin Group on PBS, conservatives frequently outnumber the liberal Eleanor Clift 4-to-1.
Conservatives are haters. They believe that a news program is not properly balanced unless it portrays a conservative insulting and shouting down a liberal. How else do you explain the popularity of Fox News, which has no other appeal and which no one watches for “news”?
February 25th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Okay, I used to think that the blog hole reader was just out there, now I know he is completely off his nut. He just named both of the conservative talking heads in the media, O’Reilly and Scarborough. Now, lets name all the zillion other media hacks that are basically liberal hatchet men starting with Dan Rather, Katie Kurich and every other anchor for every news network. In fact, name me a single anchor of a major network outside of possibly Brit Hume in the past 30 years who is a conservative. It is not possible. Name for me the last Republican any major newspaper endorsed in the general election for president in the last 50 years? Drawing a blank? What about a single major American newspaper that does not lean left or have a clear left bias. I can think of one, the Washington Times. Okay, how about a major periodical that pretends neutrality? Time, Newsweek? Ridiculous, I’ll give you the National Review. If you really think the media does not have a liberal bias, you are living on planet nutjob. They are aggregious about how they let liberal candidates slide (Rep. Jefferson, every Clinton scandal) but if a Republican does even blows his nose, all hell breaks loose (Scooter Libby, Tom Delay and any Senator who likes to shake the hand of the guy next to him in the bathroom stall).
Fox may seem like a Right Wing propoganda machine, but that is only because you live in the world of crazies where reality is non-existant. Sean Hannity and possibly O’Reilly (although he claims to be an independant) are the only true “conservatives” on the network. I find Brit Hume to be much more balanced then any of his counterparts. Here is a challenge, go to Westlaw or Lexis-Nexis and search their news transcripts databases and find for me a single instance of Hume being a Karl Rove strong man or even being biased in his news coverage. Alan Colmes, Greta Van Sustren, Geraldo freaking Riveria for crying out loud are unabashed liberals and they are on the hated right wing Fox News network.
The real insidious part of the media is that they all pretend to have some sort of neutrality and that they are just reporting the news. Then you hear Chris Matthews ejaculate every time Obama gives a speech. Yeah, he’s real fair and balanced.
Oh what’s the use . . .
February 25th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
BTM, I will take it for granted that you believe the Wall Street Journal is a “major” newspaper, and that you agree it is conservative and pro-Republican. I will take for granted that you believe there are many talking heads other than Scarborogh and O’Reilly who appear in the media who are conservative, that you see them frequently. And that there are conservative columnists who regularly publish throughout the land, and that conservative opinions are regularly heard on radio, and are published in books. And that many media outlets are owned by conservatives and have conservative editorial policies.
I will also take for granted that you will back away from the claim that no “major” newspaper has endorsed a Republcian presidential candidate “in the last 50 years?” (I won’t bother having fun with you on this point until you define your terms: what is a “major” newspaper?)
In fact, I wonder whether, upon reading your entire post, you recognize that you have dashed off a marvelous piece of indefensible silliness.
BTM, the evidence for so-called “liberal bias” is, for the most part, merely a matter of conservatives whining about the fact that lots of reporters are liberal. And your screed is a case in point.
I recall a “study” that was widely cited by conservatives in the 1980s. The study compared the views of a sample of reporters (who filled out a survey) with a sample of business executives who filled out the same survey. Guess what! The reporters were more liberal than the business executives! The authors of this study made a fortune on the conservative speaking circuit, speaking to an audience who imagined that showing that someone was a liberal was the same as showing that they were a bad reporter.
You need to read Bernard Goldberg’s book Bias: Goldberg shows that reporters give it to Democrats as much as they give it to Republicans.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:13 am
wow – I take a few days off to attend classes and work for a living a Jill and McCain get into a spat!
Jill – you looked Mahvelous – as you always do. I have no problem with CNN bringing Jill into the fray. At least I know there is a thinking Dem out there who recognizes that even though we probably disagree with almost everything politically, that we all have aright to our opinions – and gasp – she actually THINKS about her positions!
McCain – she was on there as representing her moderate blog, but that shows you how far the Dems have gone from center – an unabashed Democrat that isn’t trying to gouge out the eyes of conservatives is considered a moderate.
Keep up the good work, Jill! Now all we need to do is strighten out CNN!
February 26th, 2008 at 5:05 am
McCain in #22 – leftist and left of center are two completely different things – did you take off your thinking cap when you wrote that, my dear? Castro is a leftist, I am left of center.
You are on a warpath with CNN – that’s your battle. I understand better your MO. I’ve only asked to be left out of it because it isn’t about me and I believe you know that too.
But I am glad everyone thinks I looked good! And I didn’t even look like I’m probably 20 years older than the two other talking heads.
FWIW – I never watch Fox, rarely watch MSNBC, only less rarely watch CNN – my favorite is C-SPAN, always. And Bravo. But mostly, I simply don’t watch television. We only own one in my house of five.
February 26th, 2008 at 7:58 am
MBT, I agree. But remember that what is normally done when there is any hint of the audience getting mislead, is that the talking head will briefly explain her bias to the audience before presenting a view. That keeps everything above board. Jill will know to do that next time because of how they presented her, but wouldn’t it be simpler just to take the Dem spot on a panel like that?
February 26th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Until now I had never heard of Jill Zimon. And from what I have seen and heard I don’t believe I have missed anything worthwhile.
February 26th, 2008 at 10:13 am
blog-hole reader yadayada stuff said:
Hahaha! Thanks, Mr/Mz hole, I needed that! Good to have a chuckle in the first part of the day! Don’t need a particular author to tell me to pay no attention to the bias behind the curtain when my own eyes and ears tell me that there certainly is liberal bias in the media as a whole. Perhaps any lying involved is one lying to oneself. Mark Twain was right when he said “Denial aint just a river in Egypt”.
Jill – you figure you’re quite a bit older than the two people that were with you on CNN? Huh. I might have thought some, but not a lot. You don’t look it.
). If that’s what you do I’ll have to check out your blog.
It is kind of interesting to get opposing views without the ridiculous frothing rancor (you don’t have to agree with me – you have the right to be wrong if you want to
February 26th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
McCain – she was asked to be in the Moderate slot. She got her foot in the door and she got her point across. If you were asked to be on CNN or Fox as a moderate, wouldn’t you take the chance? Then you can espouse your views and eventually, you may get that conservative spot that you really like and go for it. BUt you hae to get your foot in the door.
Personally, I am really rpoud of Jill – I don’t agree with her politics, most of the time, although we do agree in some areas, but she has a reason for why she believes as she does, and I respect that. So there! :p
February 26th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Jill,
CSPAN??????!!!!!
How much coffee do you drink in a day?
February 26th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
MBT, if I was asked to represent the “undecided” middle spot on FoxNews, I would start by saying “thank you Brit, but in the interest of disclosure to your audience my blog and views are that of a conservative blog” (or “leans right” in Orwellian-speak). Then I would launch into my views. You see talking heads do that all the time when there is any chance of misleading an audience.
Throughout this I have given Jill the benefit of the doubt that she did not realize she would cast in the role of middling independent (assumed by the audience) but that this was CNN’s fault. Now I see we are page 1 for a search of her name which is kind of creepy but so be it.
I posted this expecting that Jill would also get a hilarious hoot out of being labeled a “moderate” between Democrat and Republican by CNN and quickly share a laugh, but for some reason that did not happen. Lo and behold I am slowly learning there is more to this charade than seemed obvious at first. Of course anyone would accept a TV role, but I wouldn’t do it by intentionally faking out the audience. Neither would you.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:01 am
MDeFl – I agree – CSPAN is as boring as is gets… of course, you don’t get Senate speeches interrupted by talking heads either…
McCain – remember, “foot in the door.” I probably would have siad something, but she was representing the moderate blog, which of, course, I would have moderated my comments to reflect as well. However, if you “don’t behave” you won’t get invited back. Which is whyc I probably wouldn’t ever want to go on CNN – it would probably be an ambush … on the other hand, taking on 3 liberals might be fun….
February 28th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
IM1RU2:
I think you are saying that you would give me the benefit of the doubt and at least judge what I have to say based on watching and listening. I think that’s how it should be. I think McCain has overreached here in order to further the concern he has about CNN. But again, this is his blog and overreaching happens all the time.
I know how it went down, I know I was being, as William F. Buckley, RIP, has said he was taught by his father, intellectually honest. I don’t know what more I can do when I am responding to questions in a dialogue as was going on on the CNN show.
As for the age difference, er, um, yeah – I’m a baby boomer no less. I’m certain those gentlemen are a minimum of 10-15 years younger. MAYBE 20 – I just don’t know.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Thanks, MBT. I appreciate it. Very much. And the feelings are mutual.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
MDefl – I know – CSpan – I’m lame, what can I tell you. But it’s only when I’m on the treadmill trying to stay young looking. Otherwise, I’m listening to…don’t have a heart attack – NPR!
February 28th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
McCain, you wrote:
“I posted this expecting that Jill would also get a hilarious hoot out of being labeled a “moderateâ€? between Democrat and Republican by CNN and quickly share a laugh, but for some reason that did not happen. Lo and behold I am slowly learning there is more to this charade than seemed obvious at first. Of course anyone would accept a TV role, but I wouldn’t do it by intentionally faking out the audience. Neither would you.”
no no no no no – it is not like that. never was – I’ve told you that.
This wasn’t about getting on TV. I informed CNN of everything I write and where they could look specifically because it is their decision as to whether or not I would be appropriate for the show. I would NEVER try to get on TV and anyone who knows me knows that. Actually most people who know me would laugh if I said that I was finessing my credentials or my ideas in order to get on TV. That’s completely inconsistent with who I am and what I do.
Rather, I did what I always do – I give people the information and the places to get information so that they can make a decision. And that’s what happened – they called other people who know my work and those people consider me a moderate.
There are people out there who think I’m a hawk because I receive mail from AIPAC. There are people who think I’m a radical because I worked for Bruce Morrison (a CT rep from the 80s and early 90s who worked in the Clinton adminstration).
Face it – some people, such as myself, don’t implode from the burden of holding views that do not fall into the same pigeon hole every single solitary time.
And I am and have always been totally cool with that.
I will add that, as this thread demonstrates, it subjects one to a lot of questions – you should see some of the threads on my blog in which I’m being bludgeoned with words to “come out” as a Hillary supporter – when I’m not one to begin with. The several in the Ohio male political blogosphere are 100% sure that because I say I’m undecided, and that they are lambasting Hillary supporters, and I am a woman, then I must be for Hillary – otherwise, they are sure, I’d declare my undenying support for Obama.
Now really – and I know MBT is probably laughing, nodding her head and smiling – that is so not me.
I don’t “just go along,” I don’t “just join,” and I don’t finesse.
The only one who is performing a charade is you. You’re trying to stick it to CNN. Go for it. But don’t use me as some willing or duped foil who was just trying to get on TV. That’s ridiculous and pretty low blow to boot.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I didn’t say that. Again,
1) Either, you were miscast in the role because CNN is liberally bias. This was my thesis. A second theoretical explanation for putting you in the wrong frame is they are sloppy and lazy screeners, but you were clear with them so that isn’t it.
2) Or, you wanted to get on TV and therefore stretched your credentials of impartiality. MBT broached this topic as she talked about getting your “foot in the door” which is something that I responded to in #33. Knowing you, that isn’t how I feel and your email makes this point very clear.
I suppose that the more you seemed to repudiate #1, the more #2 seems possible to some of us. But I am with you all the way on #1.
So, let’s agree: You explained to CNN your liberal credentials and regardless of that they stuck you in the role as an impartial “moderate” between Republican and Democrat. This is a good example of CNN liberal bias.
My only criticism of you in this respect is that you didn’t announce your bias on air. But I even gave you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t know how you would be subtitled on the screen.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Hey you know? I bet you could beat Barack Obama if you keep up this unifying stuff!
Agreed BUT (lol you knew that was coming!):
1. I do not have “liberal” credentials. I have credentials. I have a LOT of credentials that put me all over the map – I graduated from a Catholic university, I spent a year in Israel doing volunteer work, I worked for the Reagan justice department for two-three years, and I interned for a liberal congressman.
You call the credentials liberal but the fact is, I’m a bundle of credentials from all along the spectrum, McCain – like I wrote before – I cannot be pigeonholed and that’s part of being “in the middle.”
CNN made the call – I didn’t tell them what it should be.
2. They didn’t “stick me” with “impartial moderate.” They put the words “in the middle” on the screen and when it was my picture, they put “The Moderate Voice” on the screen – that is the name of a BLOG – not that I am the moderate voice (you do know that right? that it’s a blog and that’s the blog’s title? like under Goldfarb and Chang was their blog’s title?).
3. No one announces their bias on tv the way you seem to suggest it’s done. Not on Fox, not on MSNBC, not on any other station. But even if they did, I don’t HAVE a bias. That’s why I am in the middle. I am there to give my analysis and that’s what I did. The listener is smart enough to figure it out, if I have a bias, and if they watch and say, I can’t figure out who she’d vote for, then that again is why…tada – I am in the middle.
Let me end with these fine words someone emailed me after reading this thread:
“What a crock of s**t. You were very moderate, and I would hardly say you spoke glowingly of anyone, much less Nader. At least they got it right that you’re a very nice person who looks dazzling on TV.”
Full disclosure: that person is an Obama supporter who voted for Michael Bloomberg.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
But you are not in the middle. You are a liberal blogger. It is of course “CNN’s decision” but that alone doesn’t give one moral highground to deceive an audience. You see, that is the problem with this. You do have a bias. A liberal bias, which is why you are undecided between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but not undecided between Barack Obama and John McCain. Every human has a bias and brings that reality to the table.
And in this case, again, the audience will listen to you more because you are allowing CNN to misrepresent yourself as the middle, which the audience reads as independent between Democrat and Republican no matter what semantical games you now want to play with the words. So when you launch into your subtle accolades for Obama and not so subtle criticism of McCain, the audience thinks “gee, looks like moderates dislike John McCain and like Obama.” That is phony. You know it, I know it, and CNN knows it. The audience does NOT know your bias, and that is the problem with misrepresenting yourself.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
McCain – you have stated your perspective. I don’t share it – I think there are many others who don’t share, just as I imagine there are plenty of people who do share it.
You call my bias liberal. Others call my bias moderate. Others still call my bias neo-conservative – I kid you not.
I will continue to write what I write and say what I say and if you are unhappy, you know how to express yourself, as I do too.
Thank God for America.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
You don’t share the perspective that a self-described “left leaning” blogger should not be described as in the “middle” on a televised debate? Jill, wonderful you, I love you so don’t be such a phony.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
You have the answer in your comment, McCain:
“self-described” says it all. How I see myself has NO BEARING on how anyone else sees me.
You have no idea what it means to look at something with fresh eyes, to be color-blind or any other kind of blind. Why do you cling so strongly to labels? Why do you want to resist believing that people can honestly and legitimately represent and possess and have an allegiance to multiple point of views? Why do you not accept that even along a continuum, everything is relative?
You can call me a phony all you want, McCain – it doesn’t make me one except to you for labeling that way. I trust other people to watch that clip, read what I write, ask me questions and decide for themselves.
If anything – you are working your butt off trying to paint me a certain way and squish me into some confined box of political ideology that makes it easier for you to make what you believe are arguments.
Go for it. But I won’t have any of it.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Oh – and thanks for calling me wonderful.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
… because your bias has a bearing on your views, and your views were represented in your remarks. You cut down John McCain and praised Obama, just as one would expect from a lefty blogger. You did not present the views of a “moderate” middle in between leans no way person. Now of course you did it very sweetly without malice, which is why I like you, just like William F. Buckley would have done it from the right. but nobody would call him middle just because he sounded reasonable.
So Jill, time to cut it out. Even if your CNN comments did not give away your bias, which they did, what CNN did is still wrong because they knew you might present a biased view. They had knowledge in advance that you are a liberally-bias blogger and still pretended you were in the middle. And you are pretending now too. Bad girl.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
McCain – I don’t take kindly to being called “girl” let alone “bad girl” – I’m not a pet or a possession. Which is why I had to butt in on Michael Goldfarb’s absolutely disgusting line about how it makes McCain cool to suggest he’s getting it on with a younger lobbyist.
I don’t do pretend. It’s sad that you can’t get out of your box to see that not everyone lives in one and only one box.
I learned a few months ago from an Evangelical Christian in Ohio who writes a conservative blog that conservatives look at things as black and white, that they don’t see shades of anything. There is no such thing as a fence – that everyone must commit to something. He taught me that trying to get him to see the myriad variations of how people can see the same instance was as futile as his trying to get me to come down from a fence that gives me a view into multiple facets of the same scene.
You prove his point about the black and white.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Many in the Ohio blogosphere, including myself, once jeered Jill for being “a bit wingnutty”. Given that and your criticism of her I’d say that puts here squarely in the moderate category no?
February 28th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Jill, your shallow caricature of the entire body of conservative thought is simply more evidence of your liberal bias. That is expected from a liberal. On the flip-side, what has anyone taught you about liberals that you would care to share?
And it is true that not everyone lives in a box. Okay, but you live in a liberal box. Why are you pretending otherwise? This thread has now become about YOU since you are inexplicably defending CNN and nobody knows why. Amazing.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:44 am
McCain – that wasn’t my caricature. That was the Ohio conservative blogger’s explanation to me as to why he will and conservatives will never see nuances – there were other parties on the phone call – I’d be happy to have you email him to confirm his conservative world view of conservatives as he explained it to me.
Personally? I can’t believe that people only see things in black and white – even if it’s true, I don’t like accepting it – which is why I’m still here conversing with you because even though you are a poster blogger for this black and whiteness of the way things work, I’m still here showing you how that’s not the case.
You can define me for yourself anyway you choose. But, as W.C. Fields said, “It ain’t what they call you, it’s what you answer to.”
March 1st, 2008 at 7:09 am
[...] was accused this week of being a fake and shilling for liberal views while “allowing” CNN to label me [...]