Passing this along from the Times political blog …
November 16, 2007, 12:54 pm
Questions about Carville and CNN
There are very few political analysts more closely associated with the Clintons than James Carville, who was a key adviser to Mr. Clinton in the 1992 campaign.
So it’s no surprise that Mr. Carville’s appearance on a round table after last night’s CNN-sponsored Democratic debate is arousing some morning-after controversy.
“Would it kill CNN to disclose that James Carville is a partisan Clinton supporter when talking about the presidential race?” wrote Daily Kos. “Would it kill James Carville to disclose that he is a partisan Clinton supporter when on the air talking about the presidential race? Apparently so.”
Last night, Anderson Cooper of CNN introduced Mr. Carville, who appeared alongside panelists David Gergen and J.C. Watts, as a “former presidential adviser.”
And Mr. Cooper made one attempt at a disclosure: “I should point out David Gergen was an adviser in the Bill Clinton White House,” he said. “As, of course, was James Carville.”
But he didn’t point out that Mr. Carville is also an informal adviser to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.
Last night, Mr. Carville praised Mrs. Clinton’s performance along with the other panelists. “I agree with David and J.C.,” he said at one point. “I think that Senator Clinton’s people have to be — and Senator Clinton — have to be pretty pleased tonight that they certainly reversed a trend. We will see where it goes from there.”
And he was pointedly critical of Mr. Obama’s debate performance. “I think he might be even slightly intimidated, that he thinks Senator Clinton is more experienced than him, a little more hungry than he is,” Mr. Carville said.
There is also a fair amount of criticism of CNN’s overall conduct of the debate, especially Wolf Blitzer’s questions.
We put in a call to CNN and will update this post when they get back to us.
-
Recent Comments
Eric on Pay Per View Journalism Michael on Pay Per View Journalism Jess on Self-Made Reporters Jess on Pakistan’s fight for pre… wolffethics on un-full disclosure
November 18, 2007 at 11:16 pm
This is an interesting story. On the one hand, I don’t see a huge ethical dilemma regarding not disclosing how intimate Carville is with the Clintons. He is entitled to his opinions. Of course he would have a slant toward Hilary, I expect that, but no more than any other person who may favor her over Obama. As a Hilary supporter, is it relevant to mention that I have never been involved with the Clinton administration? I don’t think any of that information really makes a difference. Mentioning that Carville was a “presidential adviser” is enough to hint where his biases may lie. There is enough media coverage of Obama’s and Clinton’s campaigns to get both sides of the story. Carville might have even been a good choice of a person to include in the debate because of his close ties with the Clintons because I expect he should know a lot about them, their policies and Hilary’s potential as a competent president. Also, if Carville’s background was explicitly disclosed, he might have been marked in a negative way, framed by the network as biased and his arguments may be diminished. I prefer to let words stand as their own and the audience can decide for themselves how they want to view the situation. As members of the media, we shouldn’t always dumb down things for our audience — have a little faith that the public can actually think for itself.
November 18, 2007 at 11:30 pm
… but how is simply providing the viewer with full context dumbing down? It’s one thing to allow the viewer to make a decision or judgment about what she is hearing. At the same time, it seems to be the responsible and honest thing to do, to give a person’s full credentials, particularly if that person is, in effect, representing one of the candidates.
It would not put Carville in a negative light. It would simply put him in a full light. And that can never be bad.
cw