MSM journalists and their protectionists don’t like Internet researchers, bloggers, and talk radio hosts doing their jobs for them. They are the anointed dirt-diggers and scoop-holders. If the uncredentialed masses use their tools and methods against them and in opposition to their agenda, that’s not journalism in their biased minds.
That’s stalking. (It’s the same pathetic card the Left played during the S-CHIP debate.)
To fan the flames, Michelle Malkin is doing her usual stalking job on several of the questioners and has uncovered support for some of the Democratic candidates. God forbid!
How dare you or I sit at our computers and type “Keith Kerr” into a Google search engine!
Danny Glover takes down the stalking smear:
Beeton’s attack against Malkin for uncovering and disclosing the political affiliations of the video questioners at last night’s CNN/YouTube debate of Republican candidates is bizarre for multiple reasons:1) Beeton, Malkin and and bloggers of all political stripes routinely use Google to fact-check journalists, politicians and even each other. Smart journalists and politicians do the same. Why is it all of a sudden “stalking”?2) The fact-checking that Malkin and other bloggers are doing is obviously aimed at CNN, not the questioners. The network botched the debate big time, making a mockery of objective journalism, and it deserved to be called out — especially in light of CNN’s pre-debate suggestion that it was trying to moderate the debate in a way that would help Republican voters pick a candidate.3) CNN should have done its own research. Remember, the network has insisted time and again that it must filter the questions rather than bestow that power on the Internet community (including those untrustworthy, pajama-clad loons we know as bloggers) because only CNN knows how to make sure a debate is fair and balanced. Live by the filter, die by the filter when it fails, I say.4) CNN’s partner in the debate was YouTube. YouTube’s parent company is Google. Ironically, CNN could have used the valuable tool created by its partner to conduct the necessary due diligence.5) One of the cardinal rules of the blogosphere is disclosure. Bloggers believe it’s OK to have what some readers might consider conflicts of interest as long as those conflicts are acknowledged. They weren’t in this case, and they should have been.
Tim Graham spotlights CNN’s political director Sam Feist whining about stalking horse critics:
The St. Petersburg Times, the “hometown newspaper” for the CNN-YouTube Republican debate, published an interesting story on CNN’s reactions to conservative criticism. Their list of excuses was extensive, and ridiculous. As far as conservatives are concerned, CNN has two choices: either they were extremely cynical in knowingly placing Democratic supporters into a Republican debate, or they were extremely unprofessional in failing to do five minutes of work to prevent the publicity fiasco of allowing Hillary supporters to try and embarrass her opponents on national TV.CNN is responding by attacking their critics (Michelle Malkin by name) for being stalking horses for Fox News.
They are angry and afraid and hoping that by redefining “doing your homework” as “stalking,” that we’ll just go away.
Message to CNN: Bookmark this site (language warning) and send out this memo before your next “debate” (substitute “broadcasting” for “asking”):
If you don’t, we will.
Your bonus Friday video: “Just Google”…