YouTube didn’t earn the AllahTube and DhimmiTube nicknames for nothing!

(Photoshop credit – Jawas)

***

More coverage on the Bcast.

And make sure you click here for must-see video:

Injured Palestinian girl: Hamas is the cause of all wars

And more: Noah Pollak on what YouTube doesn’t want you to see.

***

Flashback: Inside the world of Google’s censors.

Been there. Done that.

Writes National Post’s Kelly McPharland: “As the Keynesian revival sweeps the policy establishment, here’s a fine antidote. It’s a video on the Keynesian myths behind the global push to crank up government spending and the size of government to stimulate the economy. In less than 8 minutes, Dan Mitchell, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, explains why it hasn’t worked in the past, and won’t work now. Complete with graphs, but best of all is Mitchell’s crisp, clear and steady delivery.”

Always glad to call attention to incisive conservative content on YouTube.

Several weeks ago, I spoke with GWU law professor Jeffrey Rosen about my curious experiences with YouTube’s mystery censors. Longtime readers will remember the battle over “First, They Came.” For the past two years, my attempts to re-upload the little video about the Mohammed Cartoons and violent jihad were blocked. Other users were able to upload it, but it was blocked from my personal channel. Lo and behold, after Rosen inquired about it, the video is now available again.

As of Nov. 16, 2008, the clip was still banned. Here’s the cached screenshot (click for full-size):

As of Nov. 30, 2008, it has magically reappeared on my channel, with the option “Embedding disabled by request” — which, um, I did not choose.

Curiouser and curiouser. Wonders never cease!

Here’s the relevant part of Rosen’s piece on Google’s gatekeepers in the NYT, but make sure to click through and read Rosen’s entire piece for a penetrating look at GooTube’s inner chamber of content censors and their global impact:

Last May, Senator Joseph Lieberman’s staff contacted Google and demanded that the company remove from YouTube dozens of what he described as jihadist videos. (Around the same time, Google was under pressure from “Operation YouTube Smackdown,” a grass-roots Web campaign by conservative bloggers and advocates to flag videos and ask YouTube to remove them.) After viewing the videos one by one, Wong and her colleagues removed some of the videos but refused to remove those that they decided didn’t violate YouTube guidelines. Lieberman wasn’t satisfied. In an angry follow-up letter to Eric Schmidt, the C.E.O. of Google, Lieberman demanded that all content he characterized as being “produced by Islamist terrorist organizations” be immediately removed from YouTube as a matter of corporate judgment — even videos that didn’t feature hate speech or violent content or violate U.S. law. Wong and her colleagues responded by saying, “YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone’s right to express unpopular points of view.” In September, Google and YouTube announced new guidelines prohibiting videos “intended to incite violence.”

In addition to Lieberman, another outspoken critic of supposed liberal bias at YouTube and Google is Michelle Malkin, the conservative columnist and blogger. Malkin became something of a cause célèbre among YouTube critics in 2006, when she created a two-minute movie called “First, They Came” in the wake of the violent response to the Danish anti-Muhammad cartoons. After showing pictures of the victims of jihadist violence (like the Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh) and signs declaring “Behead Those Who Insult Islam,” the video asks, “Who’s next?” and displays the dates of terrorist attacks in America, London, Madrid and Bali.

Nearly seven months after she posted the video, Malkin told me she was “flabbergasted” to receive an e-mail message from YouTube saying the video had been removed for its “inappropriate content.” When Malkin asked why the video was removed, she received no response, and when she posted a video appealing to YouTube to reinstate it, that video, too, was deleted with what she calls the “false claim” that it had been removed at her request. Malkin remains dissatisfied with YouTube’s response. “I’m completely flummoxed about what their standards are,” she said. “The standards need to be clear, they need to be consistent and they need to be more responsive.”

I watched the “First, They Came” video, which struck me as powerful political commentary that contains neither hate speech nor graphic violence, and I asked why it was taken down. According to a YouTube spokesman, the takedown was a routine one that hadn’t been reviewed by higher-ups. The spokesman said he couldn’t comment on particular cases, but he forwarded a link to Malkin’s current YouTube channel, noting that it contains 55 anti-jihadist videos similar to “First, They Came,” none of which have been taken down. (“First, They Came” can now be found on Malkin’s YouTube channel, too.)

The removal of Malkin’s video may have been an innocent mistake. But it serves as a reminder that one person’s principled political protest is another person’s hate speech, and distinguishing between the two in hard cases is a lot to ask of a low-level YouTube reviewer. In addition, the publicity that attended the removal of Malkin’s video only underscores the fact that in the vast majority of cases in which material is taken down, the decision to do so is never explained or contested. The video goes down, and that’s the end of it.

One of our YouTube goes Dhimmi videos is still blocked from YouTube and falsely labeled “This video has been removed by user.”

Here’s the screenshot as of 11/30/08 12am:

This one is also blocked with the same false label.

***
On a related GooTube note, the court case of proud mom Stephanie Lenz, who has been threatened by rock star Prince and Universal Music Group for posting a short clip of her baby bopping up and down to Let’s Go Crazy” in her kitchen, is proceeding. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (which helped me successfully fight off another baseless UMG takedown attempt over my Akon video report) took up Lenz’s cause. All the latest is here.

***

Flashback: YouTube’s slippery slope

Flashback: Google bows to China

The China-Google protest logo album

More China-Google protest logos

Sam Kazman, CEI’s general counsel, e-mails:

Michelle:

As you might know, two weeks ago we released a 60-second public service spot criticizing Al Gore’s proposed energy policies. We posted the ad on YouTube and began broadcasting it in several cities with a small ad buy totaling $30 thousand.

Most of the ad consisted of stock footage which we purchased and a bit of footage that we shot. But, based on our legal research concerning fair use, we took, without permission, 7 seconds of video from an 8-minute documentary created by a trade association about bringing electricity to a town in Haiti. The association itself had posted the full documentary on YouTube. The association also gave us a DVD of the documentary for free, from which we took the actual footage that we used.

The trade group is now claiming copyright infringement, and just got our ad pulled off YouTube with a takedown notice.

We think we satisfy every Fair Use criterion there is: educational purpose; miniscule amount of material used; no impact on the copyright owner’s market (since they themselves give away the DVDs and posted the film on YouTube); transformative use, etc…

…What’s really going on is that this group, which gets significant govt. $, has a politically correct image on global warming that they think we somehow threaten.

Coincidentally, Gore is now reportedly 1-2 weeks ago from launching his mega ad campaign to raise the profile of the global warming issue. Frankly, I’m not sure that’s physically possible.

Our press release on the dispute, with a new link to the disputed ad, is here.

Here’s the CEI video via blip.tv:

More:

CEI’s public service ad on the importance of affordable energy was unveiled on March 11. The ad documents the hypocrisy of jet-setting global warming alarmists who advise others to reduce their energy use and points out the vital need for more energy in the developing world. The ad, which aired in a dozen cities in the last two weeks, comes just before Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection launches a $100 million ad campaign for his global warming proposals. Electric co-ops receive massive government subsidies, and the association’s move appears motivated by global warming politics.

“NRECA’s claim of copyright infringement is without merit,” said Competitive Enterprise Institute General Counsel Sam Kazman. “Our use of this miniscule amount of material – from a film which NRECA itself posted on YouTube and distributes freely –meets every criterion of Fair Use. It seems the association’s real goal is not to protect its copyright, but to protect its politically correct image on global warming.”

James V. DeLong, noted intellectual property scholar and Vice President of the Convergence Law Institute, stated of NRECA: “They’re trying to suppress important political speech, which lies at the core of Fair Use.”

I hope CEI files a counter-notice. Will keep you up to date.

Make sure to watch the vid. And make your kids watch it, too.

***

Update: Yes, indeed, CEI has filed a counter-notice. Here’s the letters exchange between CEI and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association :

FIRST LETTER FROM NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION

From: Steiner, Tracey
Sent: Thu 3/13/2008 6:04 PM
To: Sam Kazman
Cc: Lavigne, Patrick
Subject: UNAUTHORIZED USE OF NRECA-OWNED VIDEO FOOTAGE

BY EMAIL, FACSIMILE & FIRST CLASS MAIL

Mr. Sam Kazman, General Counsel
Competitive Enterprise Institute
1001 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 1250
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Kazman:

The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) learned through your March 11, 2008 press conference and related announcements that Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is intending to launch a major advertising campaign focusing on the impacts of global warming policies. Your broadcast advertisement, “LightBulbs,” contains 10 seconds of footage copied from an NRECA-owned video.

As you know from speaking with NRECA’s Director of Media Relations, Patrick Lavigne, this video footage features NRECA International Limited’s rural electrification efforts in Haiti. This 2006 video, for which NRECA claims ownership and copyright protection, has been posted on the www.nrecainternational.org web site, as well as on YouTube, among other places. We have circulated hundreds of copies of this video, and shared it with U.S. Congressional members, our donor organizations (USAid, etc.) and many within the international cooperative community.

Imagine our surprise and distress to find the most compelling footage from our video incorporated in a CEI advertisement. Not only did CEI did fail to obtain permission from NRECA to use the footage, but the video posting on our web site contains a copyright notice, so there can be no justification for CEI’s infringement of the video.

We demand that you immediately do the following:

* Remove NRECA’s footage from your advertisement;
* Notify and provide replacement advertisements to all media outlets to which you have provided the original LightBulbs
advertisement; and
* Publicly announce the availability of the replacement
advertisement through a press release, notice on your web site and any
other appropriate venue.

NRECA will be sending takedown notifications pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, in order to have the infringing material removed from the Internet.

Please confirm in writing that you will comply with this letter by March 18, 2008. If you fail to comply with this demand, we will not hesitate to take all appropriate actions to enforce our copyright in the video and are in consultation now with our intellectual property litigation counsel.

Sincerely,
Tracy Steiner
NRECA Senior Corporate Counsel

CEI RESPONSE, emailed Fri. 3/14/08 9 am

Dear Ms. Steiner:
Your letter overlooks the plain fact that CEI’s use of your footage is valid under the fair use doctrine, as set forth in the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. section 107, in relevant court rulings, and in the Documentary Filmmakers’ Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use (2005). Our use satisfies every element of that doctrine:

1) it involves an incredibly small amount of footage: by my count, seven seconds of film from your 7:36 documentary. (You claim we use 10 seconds, but we needn’t quibble at this point) We used no more footage than was necessary to make our point;

2) our use is for a nonprofit, educational purpose;

3) because your film is a documentary rather than a work of fiction, there is more leeway for fair use of excerpts;

4) our use has no adverse impact on any commercial market that may exist for your documentary. In fact, there may well be no such market, since NRECA has deliberately posted the full documentary on YouTube and is distributing the DVD without charge. (That is how I obtained the DVD we used. Contrary to your letter, by the way, neither the DVD nor NRECA’s YouTube posting carries any copyright notice);

5) our use is transformative, since we are using footage about a rural streetlight to illustrate a different point than that of your film—specifically, the impact on developing countries of global warming-related restrictions on energy use.

Based on these elements, courts have upheld the fair use of significantly longer pieces of footage. See Hofheinz v. AMC Productions, Inc., 147 F. Supp. 2d 127 (E.D.N.Y., 2001); Hofheinz v. A & E Television Networks, 146 F. Supp. 2d 442 (S.D.N.Y.,2001); Monster Communications, Inc. v. Turner Broadcasting Sys. Inc., 935 F. Supp. 490 (S.D. N.Y. 1996). (As some of these cases indicate, CEI’s ad may be protected not only as fair use, but as de minimus infringement as well.)

Are you aware of any court ruling, statute or other legal basis that suggests that CEI’s action does not constitute fair use? If so, please bring it to our attention and we will reconsider our position. If you have no such basis, be aware that any attempt by you to restrict our fair use rights (such as the takedown notices that you threaten in your letter) may well be malicious, opening you up to monetary sanctions under section 512(f) of the Copyright Act.

As I told Mr. Lavigne, we are willing to credit NRECA for the footage, through notices on our website and in our YouTube posting. From my conversation with him and from your letter, however, I gather that, for certain reasons, NRECA wants no association with CEI’s film. But if you are concerned that our use of your footage somehow implies your cooperation or endorsement of our position, that could well be handled by appropriate notices as well.

I am out of town today, but would be glad to discuss this further with you on Monday.

Sam Kazman
General Counsel
Competitive Enterprise Institute

CEI RESPONSE TO SECOND LETTER (Mar. 20)

Dear Ms. Buckingham:

In regard to your letter of March 18, I’d like to respond to several of your points.

1. You state that CEI’s ad “is a purely commercial endeavor” whose “true purpose… is to raise funds for” CEI. This is an outlandish characterization. The ad was intended to highlight and stir debate over Al Gore’s energy-restricting proposals and it has done that, receiving over 16,000 hits on YouTube as well as significant media coverage. The ad contains no fundraising pitch. It directs viewers to our website, where they can find a huge amount of original material on global warming and other issues. (CEI, by the way, has been involved in global warming issues for over a decade.).

It’s true that our website screens have a small button soliciting support for CEI, and that CEI, like the vast majority of nonprofits, relies on its activities and reputation to gain financial support. You imply that, for this reason, all nonprofit activities are “purely commercial”. By this logic, nonprofit organizations would essentially be barred from claiming that they were engaged in nonprofit activities under the Fair Use doctrine.

2. You claim that the seven seconds used by CEI are the “heart” of NRECA’s video, and that without that footage the video “would have no meaning”. This is simply incorrect. NRECA’s eight-minute video is a highly informative account about bringing electricity to a Haitian village. It contains a number of interviews with those involved in this endeavor and many scenes about the village and the work. Absent the seven seconds that we used, the video would, for all practical purposes, be just as informative.

Consider NRECA’s other electrification video about southern Sudan. It does not have a similar scene; there is footage of people applauding some diplomats, but not of a crowd cheering as the lights are turned on. But you could hardly characterize the Sudan video as “having no meaning” because it lacks such a crowd scene, could you?

Just as importantly, the point is irrelevant. In the Harper & Row case that you cite, removing the “heart” of the work at issue was impermissible because it destroyed the commercial market for that work. But here, as you agree, there is no commercial market for the NRECA video. This brings me to my final point.

3. You argue that CEI’s use injures not NRECA’s ability to market its videos, but its “ability to compete … in the marketplace of ideas” by fostering the mistaken view that NRECA endorses CEI’s views.” As far as I can tell, this incredibly speculative injury has no connection to the concerns of the Fair Use doctrine. I would greatly appreciate any court rulings you might have to the contrary. You give the example of the “comments” section of our YouTube posting. I have gone through those comments, and I have not found a single reference to NRECA. In fact, in following discussions of our ad in both the press and on the internet, I haven’t found a single mention of NRECA.

If you are in fact concerned about your supporters thinking that CEI’s use of seven seconds of NRECA footage somehow implies NRECA’s endorsement of CEI, it seems that this could easily be remedied in several ways, such as a notice by CEI on its YouTube posting or a letter from NRECA to its supporters. I would be happy to discuss this with you in more detail.

Sincerely,
Sam Kazman

China has blocked access to Google News and YouTube in an apparent attempt to stop the spread of video footage related the rioting going on in several cities in Tibet, including the capital Lhasa. Demonstrations in the city started on March 10, a day commemorating the anniversary of a 1959 uprising against Chinese rule after which the spiritual leader of the country, theDalai Lama, fled to India.

China has said the Dalai Lama is to blame for rioting in the country, and puts the civilian death toll at 13, while adding that police and security forces have also suffered casualties.

The Dalai Lama has denied involvement in the rioting, and said he has “no such power to stop it,” in a video of a recentnews conferenceposted on his Web site.

“Whether the Chinese government admits it or not, there is a problem,” he said “The Tibetan nation, an ancient nation with an ancient cultural heritage, is actually dying.”

China’s decision to block access to the sites follows similar government censorship of protests by Myanmar. Last September, Myanmar cut off Internet access entirely to block people from viewing pictures and videos or sending them out of the country. Some analysts at the time said the protests likely spread through the help of the Web, in addition to winning global condemnation of the violent crackdown on protesters there.

Two videos about the situations in Tibet posted on YouTube by the user Amdo2007 both appear to show peaceful demonstrations. Thefirstshows a public gathering, including Tibetan monks in their distinctive saffron robes, while the secondvideoshows what appears to be peaceful marching.

Some videos, includingonefrom Amdo2007, have been “flagged by YouTube’s user community” so that users have to verify they are 18 or older by logging in or signing up. The video shows bodies on the streets, protesters throwing rocks at Chinese army vehicles and other images. It may have the most hits, over 80,000 so far, on the subject.

Here is Amdo2007′s YouTube channel.

And the video of the protest in Lhasa:

Jacqui Cheng at Ars Technica reports on China Internet users’ savvy:

Our own tests this morning with WebSitePulse’s China firewall tester have only yielded a block on youtube.com thus far—the other sites’ home pages (and some specific articles about Tibet) appear to be going through. As we know, though, China’s firewall doesn’t always filter everything all the time, and may be implemented differently in different areas of the country. Sites that appear accessible in Shanghai right now might not be accessible in Beijing, and something that’s accessible in China’s capital may mysteriously “disappear” later on. Researchers at UC Davis’ department of Computer Science found that the firewall would accidentally allow banned terms through about 28 percent of the time, particularly during high-traffic times.

The problem with these arbitrary blocks is that users are increasingly aware of them. Posts made to Danwei.org, a site about Chinese media, show that Chinese Internet users not only know which sites are being blocked at which times, but why. “Youtube is blocked in China as of 22:45, Beijing time. See no evil, hear no evil…” wrote one poster, with others confirming the disconnect and pointing out that it “has a lot to do with Tibet.” Another poster noted in a thread about YouTube and other news sources being blocked, “This govt officials should get a life and deal with reality!”

Given the Chinese government’s fickle attitude towards the filtering the websites of international media, we’ll venture a guess that the block on YouTube will eventually be lifted once the Tibetan dust begins to clear online. But each bit of additional filtering only raises the profile of China’s filtering activities in the eyes of its Internet users. Maintaining the Great Firewall of China will become increasingly challenging as more of China’s massive population gets online.

Information just wants to be free.

Pakistan’s telecommunications regulator said Tuesday it has lifted restrictions on YouTube that knocked out access to the video-sharing Web site in many countries for up to two hours over the weekend.

The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority told Internet service providers to restore access to the site after the removal of what it called a “blasphemous” video clip, authority spokeswoman Nabiha Mahmood said.

Pakistan ordered the site blocked on Friday over a clip featuring a Dutch lawmaker who has said he planned to release a movie portraying Islam as fascist and prone to inciting violence against women and homosexuals.

Mahmood said attempts to access the offending clip on Tuesday afternoon brought up a message explaining that it had been removed on ethical grounds.

She said the authority had posted a complaint through the Web site — a facility open to any registered user — but had not been in contact with the administrators of YouTube.com, which is owned by Internet giant Google, Inc.

While several other videos featuring the politician, Geert Wilders, would remain visible to Pakistani Internet users, Mahmood said the one which was removed had been “totally anti-Quranic” and “very blasphemous.”

She said it promoted Wilders’ upcoming movie, but provided no details about its content.

The authority aimed to restrict the site only in Pakistan, but the move inadvertently cut access for many of the world’s Internet users for up to two hours on Sunday.

YouTube said the next day that it was caused by a network in Pakistan.

“We are investigating and working with others in the Internet community to prevent this from happening again,” YouTube said in an e-mailed statement.

This isn’t the first time a country has blocked YouTube over alleged “insults.” Turkey did it last March.

Internet jihadis who depend on YouTube to disseminate their hateful, murderous filth, meanwhile, are breathing a sigh of relief.

All hail AllahTube! (Photoshop credit – Jawas)

***

Howie at the Jawa Report:

Oh the Irony, an attempt by Pakistan to block Muhammad cartoons on youtube will also block the thousands upon thousands of copies of terrorist propaganda!

Sweet!

I was almost upset that Pakistan blocked Youtube there for a minute. But considering the infestation of pro al-Qaeda propaganda on Youtube and Youtube’s poor performance in removing pro terror users and videos. I’ve decided that the ban will block far more pro al-Qaeda propaganda than videos that are offensive to Islam.

Pakistan is a market where al-Qaeda seeks to radicalize and recruit young Muslims through their presence on the web. Any reduction in the amount of al-Qaeda propaganda available there is welcome in my book.

That’s stalking. (It’s the same pathetic card the Left played during the S-CHIP debate.)

Case in point from a moonbat MyDD blogger:

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!

God forbid!

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”…

I wrote a piece for the NYPost published today on CNN’s horticultural journalism (reprinted below). Filed it before we learned about the CAIR intern. CNN host Howard Kurtz quotes CNN senior veep David Bohrman bleating that they “bent over backwards to be fair.” I quote him below, too. Glenn Reynolds notes that CNN used Google…to buy plane tickets for Plant Number One Keith Kerr and other questioners.

Which ones, I wonder?

I’ll be talking about the debacle this morning on Fox and Friends around 8:15am. (Update – Video here.)

***

IF any more political plants turn up at CNN’s presidential debates, the cable-news network will have to merge with the Home and Garden channel.

At CNN’s Democratic debate in Las Vegas two weeks back, moderator Wolf Blitzer introduced several citizen questioners as “ordinary people, undecided voters.” But they later turned out to include a former Arkansas Democratic director of political affairs, the president of the Islamic Society of Nevada and a far left anti-war activist who’d been quoted in newspapers lambasting Harry Reid for his failure to pull out of Iraq.

Yet CNN failed to disclose those affiliations and activism during the broadcast.

Behold – the phony political foliage bloomed again at Wednesday night’s much hyped CNN/YouTube GOP debate.

Oh, CNN did make careful note that Grover Norquist (who asked about his anti-tax pledge) is a Republican activist with Americans for Tax Reform. But somehow the network’s layers and layers of fact-checkers missed several easily identified Democratic activists posing as ordinary, undecided citizens.

The tallest plant was a retired gay vet, one “Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr,” who questioned – or rather, lectured – the candidates on video and in person about the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that bans open gays from the military.

Funny. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was exactly the policy CNN adopted in not telling viewers that Kerr is a member of Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual- Transgender Americans for Hillary.

Sen. Clinton’s campaign Web site features a press release announcing Kerr and other members of the committee in June. And a basic Web search turns up Kerr’s past support as a member of a veterans’ steering committee for the John Kerry for President campaign – and his prior appearance on CNN in December ’03.

CNN’s moderator, Anderson Cooper, singled out Kerr (who’d been flown in for the event) in the vast audience, giving him a chance for his own filibustering moment. Marvel at it: Not one CNN journalist uncovered the connection or thought it pertinent to disclose that Kerr’s heart belonged to Hillary.

When righty commentator Bill Bennett pointed out the facts to Cooper after the debate, a red-faced Cooper feebly blubbered: “That was something certainly unknown to us, and had we known that, would have been disclosed by us. It turns out we have just looked at it.”

Cluelessness doesn’t absolve CNN of journalistic malpractice. Neither does editing out Kerr’s question (as the network did on rebroadcast, to camouflage the potted plant).

The story is far from over: Cooper and CNN still owe their audience – and the GOP candidates – a bouquet of mea culpas for due diligence and disclosure lapses. Beyond Kerr, Internet sleuths have uncovered several other Democratic activists lurking in the YouTube garden:

* A young woman named “Journey” questioned the candidates on abortion. On her blog (easily accessed from her YouTube channel), she declares herself a John Edwards supporter. Post debate, she immediately posted a video wearing . . . her John Edwards ’08 T-shirt.

* David Cercone of Florida asked a question seemingly on behalf of the Log Cabin Republicans. He had declared his support for Obama on an Obama ’08 campaign blog back in July.

* Concerned mother LeeAnn Anderson asked about lead in toys with her two children in her lap. She is actually a staffer and prominent Pittsburgh union activist for the United Steelworkers – which has endorsed Edwards.

On other questioners, elementary Google searches show that:

* Ted Faturos, who asked about ethanol subsidies, had served as an intern for Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.).

* Adam Florzak, who asked about Social Security, quit his job as a welder and is working with Sen. Dick Durbin’s (D-Ill.) staff on the issue.

* Mark Strauss, who urged Ron Paul to run as an independent, had publicly supported Gov. Bill Richardson in July.

Alternative media platforms – talk radio, the Internet and this op-ed page – have spread these facts like kudzu. But the persistent media double standard is obvious to everyone but the manure spreaders at CNN: Had GOP candidates somehow been able to insert their operatives and supporters into a Democratic debate, and had, say, Fox News failed to vet the questioners and presented them as average citizens, both Fox and the GOP would be treated as the century’s worst media sinners.

Whether through, as one blogger put, “constructive incompetence” or “convenient ineptitude,” CNN has committed journalistic malpractice under the guise of “citizen” participation.

In a now richly ironic interview with Wired.- com before the debate, David Bohrman, a CNN senior vice president, explained why videos were picked not by popular vote, but by supposedly seasoned CNN journalists: The Web is still too immature a medium to set an agenda for a national debate, he claimed. “It’s really easy for the campaigns to game the system.” “You’ve seen how effective the Ron Paul campaign [supporters] have been on the Web,” he noted. “You don’t know if there are 40 or 4 million of them. It would be easy for a really organized campaign to stack the deck.”

What does Bohrman have to say about his crack staff now?

malkinblog@gmail.com

They taught her well:

(Hat tip – American Infidels)

Regarding the “plant”, retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr, that you sent to ask me the question at the CNN-YouTube debate last night in Florida …

Send more!!!

Merry Christmas,
Duncan Hunter

Maybe he can send her one of these gift baskets in gratitude:

***

IBD’s editorial board dubs the political plant network “H-R-C-N-N.”

Snort!

Also: CNN reportedly excised Kerr’s question from the rebroadcast of the debate in the wee hours of the morning.

Looks like they’ve got a lot more weeds to pull.

Concerned Young Undecided Person “Journey” = John Edwards supporter “Journey”

***

Concerned Undecided Log Cabin Republican supporter David Cercone = Obama supporter David Cercone

***

Concerned Undecided Mom LeeAnn Anderson = Activist for the John Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers union LeeAnn Anderson

***

Concerned Undecided Gay Military Retiree Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr = Hillary/Kerry supporter and anti-”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” activist Keith H. Kerr

***
The best thing about Republicans agreeing to do the CNN/YouTube debate is that it created yet another invaluable opportunity to expose CNN’s abject incompetence.

Retired Brig. Gen./gays in the military lobbyist/Hillary-Kerry supporter Keith H. Kerr wasn’t the only plant at the CNN/YouTube debate. The plant uncovering is in full-swing over at Free Republic.

Example: “Journey,” a.k.a. “Paperserenade,” the girl who asked an abortion question, is a declared John Edwards supporter.

You couldn’t tell from the video that CNN aired, where she’s wearing a plain shirt:

But if you click through on her YouTube profile, you see her latest video in response to the candidates’ answers. And she’s prominently wearing…her John Edwards ’08 t-shirt:

In case CNN’s eyesight is impaired:

How, you ask, should CNN have known? Well, on her YouTube profile, this woman links to her personal blog, where her user profile makes her political leanings crystal clear:

Turns out “Journey/” “paperserenade” is also a big slobbering Anderson Cooper fan. She posted this video a month ago exulting that “Anderson Cooper said my name!” during a CNN viewer comment segment. She wrote, “Horrible video, but at least I’ve got some type of recording of this event that has made my week!:”

On her blog, she posted an Anderson Cooper segment from VH1 with the following comment: “Anderson officially had the Best Week Ever for the week of 10/26/07, and looked more delicious than a pic-i-nic basket while doing so. And lookie, I found the video and uploaded it to Youtube for y’all. ”

“Delicious!”

***

Update: And another one…Brian McMurphy at SixMeatBuffet (hat tip See-Dubya) notes that David Cercone, the Pompano Beach, Florida, man who asked the question about Log Cabin Republicans, is a declared Obama supporter.

His video:

Hillary must have shared a bag of her fertilizer with CNN. And yeah, it stinks:

***

Update: And another one…via The Autopsy…The lead toy questioner, LeeAnn Anderson, who appears to be an ordinary mom concerned about her two children, whom she includes in her video, is a prominent Pittsburgh union activist–and aide to Leo Gerard, President of the American Steel Workers Union/John Edwards supporter.

Her video:

If you go to the United Steelworkers YouTube page, you’ll see that Ms. Anderson’s video question is the featured video…along with a John Edwards ’08 icon (click for full-size):

***

“Constructive incompetence” or “convenient ineptitude?”

You decide.

***

More: “Total crap.” Can’t argue with that.

Update: New – Muslim questioner was a former CAIR intern.

Update: CNN on the defensive. CNN’s Glenn Beck comments here.

Update: The foliage keeps blooming…a questioner working with Dick Durbin’s staff and a Richardson supporter masquerading as a Paulbot… and a former Jane Harman intern…and the “Blind Black Republican satirist” (a milder species, but still, all in the same family).

Update: Watch video of the disappearing plants. CNN cuts out Keith Kerr from the debate rebroadcast. Keep pulling those weeds…

Kevin Aylward takes apart Anderson Cooper’s mea culpa on the failure to vet gay military activist/Hillary-Kerry supporter Keith Kerr and marvels in disbelief:

Here’s Cooper’s feeble “we didn’t know” defense.

COOPER: “Bill Bennett earlier mentioned he was getting some reports from friends of his on the Internet that Brigadier General Keith Kerr, who asked a question about gays in the military during this debate, was on a steering committee for Senator Hillary Clinton. That was something certainly unknown to us, and had we known that, would have been disclosed by us. It turns out we have just looked at it. Apparently, there was a press release from some six months ago. Hillary Clinton’s office saying that he had been named to some steering committee. We don’t know if he’s still on it. We’re trying to find out that information. But certainly, had we had that information, we would have acknowledged that in using his question, if we had used it at all.

Anderson Cooper would have you believe that a network that could select this question, find that 13-year-old Romney quote, create the trap for Romney (which he fell face first into), and (presumably) fly Kerr to the debate, could not type “Keith Kerr, retired Colonel” into Google and find the link to the Hillary Clinton press release, which prior to the debate appeared in the first 10 results for that search?

***

Retired gay Brigadier Gen./Hillary-Kerry campaign mouthpiece Keith Kerr = Another CNN potted plant.

Kerr’s question:

The biggest stumble of the night award goes to…CNN.

Update 11:47pm Eastern. PLANT ALERT.

Via Allah, Adam Yoshida blogs about the gay retired Brigadier General questioner…who’s affiliated with the Hillary campaign–serving on her LGBT committee.

He was also on the steering committee of Veterans for Kerry.

I take back my compliment of CNN.

The politics of planting rules again.

Sheesh.

Glenn Reynolds’ advice to CNN: “Suckered by Hillary, again. Try Google, next time. It’s not that hard!”

*Debate vid highlights/lowlights will be here.*

So, who won?

Quick and dirty reaction: Romney looked strong and energetic, with one stumble on the Bible question. Huckabee didn’t harm himself, so he “wins” by not losing. McCain and Thompson were lethargic, with a few lucid moments each.

On the format: Expectations were so low of CNN, it wasn’t hard to exceed them. The questions were almost all coherent and well-framed. And no obvious “plants” that I could detect. If you uncover any, let me know. Another plus: No Suzanne Malveaux.

Update 10:09pm Eastern. Softball for Rudy. You are a lifelong Yankees fan. Why did you root for the Red Sox? I guess this is the equivalent of the diamonds-or-pearls question from the Dem debate.

Romney “elbows” a last baseball line into Rudy’s spotlight.

Update 10:08pm Eastern. Question for Ron Paul. Are you going to let America down by not running as an independent. “I have no intention of doing this. I am a Republican.”

rEVOLution!!!

Update 10:06pm Eastern. Infrastructure question. Ron Paul goes all nutroots. We’re paying troops to blow up bridges overseas while our bridges are falling apart at home!!!!!!

McCain ignores Paul. Promises to veto pork projects and Bridges to Nowhere.

Update 10:01pm Eastern. Question about the Confederate flag. Romney doesn’t recognize that flag. That’s not a flag I’d hang in my room. Reach out to all Americans. There’s one America.

Thompson: He’s free to do whatever he wants in his home. Doesn’t mean he’s racist. But in public, we don’t need to go out of our way to [offend some people].

Update 9:58pm Eastern. Why don’t black Americans vote for Republicans?

Giuliani: We haven’t done a good enough job of reaching out.

Update 9:56pm Eastern. A space question from a guy who wants us to go to Mars.

Update 9:53pm Eastern. Will you embrace support of Log Cabin Republicans? Huckabee says he’ll take all the support he can get. Would he take it? Yes. Would he change his position on gay marriage? No.

Update 9:51pm Eastern. Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr, a retired gay military officer, challenges candidates on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Cooper asks Romney about his past comments that he “looks forward to the days gay men and women can serve openly in the military.” Romney says not in a time of war. Kerr gets several minutes to lobby. Boos from the audience.

Update 9:33pm Eastern. Which candidate will make a permanent commitment to Iraq? From a blogger, Buzz Brockway. Thompson: “We shouldn’t be there any longer than we have to be.”

Paul: Get out of Iraq. Take care of America first.

McCain: Ultimate destination of jihadists is NYC. That is the challenge of our time. I believe we can meet it and defeat it.

Paul: We are the occupiers. Loud boos.

Dan Riehl: “Based on what I’ve seen so far, Huckabee is going to come out of this debate in the top tier. If nothing changes, that may be “the” story of this debate.”

Update 9:28pm Eastern. Waterboarding question from a student in Seattle. Romney doesn’t want to describe precisely what techniques we’ll use. Keep enemy combatants at Gitmo.

McCain lambastes Romney on waterboarding. Gets some applause. Romney and McCain go at it over Geneva Conventions.

Update 9:25pm Eastern. Yasmin from Huntsville asks how candidates will “repair America’s image” because of the Iraq war?

McCain: Fight the Democrats’ plan for a withdrawal timetable.

Duncan Hunter: “I will never apologize for the United States of America.”

Update 9:16pm Eastern. Do you believe every word of this book? (Holds up Bible.)

Rudy hesistates. Mike Huckabee: “Can I help you out?”

OUCH. Elbow Alert. Laughter and applause for Huckabee.

Rudy hesitates. So, yes, I believe it. Not every thing in the literal sense. Like Jonah and the whale.

Romney: I believe the Bible is the word of God.

Do you believe every word?

Romney: Uhhh. Yes. Well…

Hillary stumble alert.

Huckabee: Either you believe it or you don’t. Doesn’t mean you believe we should pluck out our eyes. As the only one here with a theology degree, I don’t comprehend all of it…

Update 9:14pm Eastern. Question for Christian conservative candidates. Where are you on the death penalty? What would Jesus do? Huckabee cites experience carrying out the death penalty. Gives an articulate answer on the difficulty, the thorough review involved. Cooper: What would Jesus do? Huckabee: Jesus was too smart to run for public office. Applause. Tancredo: I would pray to Jesus to give me the courage and wisdom to do the right thing.

Update 9:10pm Eastern. Abortion question. If hypothetically Roe v Wade was overturned and Congress passed a ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it? Rudy: “I would probably not sign it. I would leave it to the states.”

Update 9:06pm Eastern. Black-on-black crime.

Romney: Best thing you can do for a kid is have a mom and a dad. Better education.
Giuliani: Cites NYC record.
Romney: Makes another veiled Bernie Kerik reference. “I was not a mayor. I did not have a police commissioner.”

Ouch.

Update 9:04pm Eastern. Question – tell us about your gun collection.

Thompson: I have a couple of guns, but I’m not going to tell you which ones and where they are.
McCain: I carried a .45 as a pilot. I know how to use guns. Don’t own one now.
Hunter: Family tradition.
Romney: I have two guns in my home owned by my son John. He buys expensive things for me. Huh?

Update 9:00pm Eastern. Question: “How do you feel about gun control?” Duncan Hunter: “I will strongly support the Second Amendment.” Applause.

Another gun question directed at Rudy Giuliani on his comments that gun owners should have to pass a test. “We have to be very aggressive about enforcing the gun laws that exist.” Rudy supports “reasonable restrictions” outlined by Parker opinion. Scattered boos. Decisions will be made on a state basis and will have to comply with the constitution.

Thompson and Giuliani having a civil discussion of Parker.

Update 8:53pm Eastern. Cooper runs a Thompson ad attacking Romney on abortion. Cooper asks Thompson: “What’s up with that?” Thompson is thrown off. Romney takes the offense again.

Update 8:50pm Eastern. A question about lead in China-manufactured toys. Tancredo ties it to trade with China. So does Hunter.

Update: 8:48pm Eastern. Cooper slips in a question about the Politico’s story on Giuliani’s Hamptons subsidies. Rudy deflects. Cooper moves on to showing a Tancredo immigration campaign ad.

Update 8:45pm Eastern. The questions so far are really good. I take back my “circus” remarks. Question about ethanol subsidies. Romney gives a practiced answer supporting ethanol “subsidies.”

Update 8:44pm Eastern. “Ordinary American” Grover Norquist asks candidates whether they’ll sign a pledge opposing tax raises during presidency.

Update 8:41pm Eastern. McCain takes a fair tax question and uses it to challenge Ron Paul’s isolationism. Mixture of boos and cheers. Sustained applause for McCain’s challenge.

Paul gets 30 seconds for rejoinder. McCain doesn’t understand difference between isolationism and non-intervention.

Update 8:37pm Eastern. What three programs would you cut?

Thompson: He mentions Social Security, but he denies that he’ll cut it. He won’t pick three.

Paul mentions cutting the Departments of Education, Energy, and Homeland Security–and the Department of Defense.

Huckabee targets the IRS. Red meat. Applause. Also agrees with revamping DHS.

Update 8:34pm Eastern. Question – What will you do to control national debt and spending? Softball for McCain. He mentions S-CHIP expansion, tobacco taxes. “I have a record of fighting wasteful spending.”

Update 8:31pm Eastern. Question – Does Ron Paul believe in CFR/NAU conspiracies? Paul: Yes.

Update 8:26pm Eastern. Good questions. A young woman asks about DREAM act. Huckabee says his illegal alien tuition bill wasn’t for “special” treatment.

Romney gets to respond to Huckabee. Listening to Huckabee reminds Romney of Massachusetts liberals. Great reasons for doing bad things. “Mike, that’s not your money.” Huckabee: “We’re a better country than punishing children for what their parents do.” Romney responds immediately: “It’s not about punishing…It’s about whether we should be using tax money for illegal immigrants.”

Update 8:23pm Eastern. Next question – an employer with H2-B asks how Tancredo will support guest workers. Tancredo says he won’t support more mass guest workers coming into the country. If I recall, I thought Tancredo actually supported an H2-B program. Checking.

Update 8:20pm Eastern. John McCain’s turn. He denies that shamnesty was amnesty. McCain cites “our failure in Iraq” as a reason people don’t trust the government to secure the borders. McCain complains about “demagoguing.”

Tancredo: “All I’ve heard is people trying to out-Tancredo Tancredo. It’s wonderful.”

Update 8:17pm Eastern. Another immigration question: Will you oppose shamnesty? Fred Thompson gets a chance to speak. “We get to decide who comes into our home. Enforce the border. Punish employers. Eliminate sanctuary cities. We have to cut off federal funding.

Ding! Ding!

Thompson disses Romney for initially supporting shamnesty.

“We’ve all probably had people we’ve hired that probably were bad decisions.”

[Bernie Kerik allusion.]

Update 8:16pm Eastern. Anderson Cooper wants to move on. Romney won’t let him. Romney cites his record opposing driver’s licenses for illegals, supported deportation training.

Update 8:11pm Eastern. Yes! The first question is for Giuliani about his support for sanctuary. Giuliani is giving his stock answer about how his sanctuary policy was not a sanctuary.

As I’ve said before: “Bulls**t.”

Romney is on Rudy like white on rice. Notes the federal lawsuit Giuliani waged. Applause.

Score: Romney.

Rudy follows up with the claim that Romney had a “sanctuary mansion” where illegals worked.

Romney: “You know better than that.”

Update 8:09 Eastern. Oh, geez. The first video is a guy with a guitar. Is there a question here? No.

Update 8:03pm Eastern. The candidates are being introduced. No “elbows” or “edginess” yet.

***
So I’ll start liveblogging the CNN/YouTube circus at 8pm and you can tune it to our live video stream simulcast at Hot Air. We may have a few special guest calls during the broadcast. Not Chuck Norris, unfortunately. In any event, we’ll stay on through the entire debate, which ends at 10, and do 30 minutes of post-debate chit-chat. Here’s your scene-setter:

The Sunshine State takes center stage Wednesday night in the race for the White House as eight Republican presidential candidates face off in the party’s first CNN/YouTube debate.

With five weeks and one day to go until the first votes are cast in the race for the White House, the stakes could hardly be higher. The candidates will be fielding video questions submitted by the public via the YouTube Web site, just as Democratic White House hopefuls did in July.

If you’ve noticed, and it’s hard not to, an edgy battle for the GOP presidential nomination has turned even testier the past few days. One reason for the bad blood is that the Republican race is still very much up for grabs, and the clock’s ticking. Rudy Giuliani’s the front-runner in the national polls, but the former New York City mayor is not the one leading the polls in most of the early primary states. That candidate would be Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor is ahead in state surveys in Iowa and New Hampshire. The Iowa caucuses, which will be held on January 3, kick off the presidential primary season. New Hampshire, which holds the nation’s first primary, votes five days later.

Add to that a new twist in Mike Huckabee. The former Arkansas governor is moving up in the polls in Iowa and is now within striking distance of Romney. “The GOP race is very much in flux right now. That’s why elbows are out,” said CNN Senior Political Analyst Gloria Borger.

Charles Johnson says, “Eh.”

Here are the latest numbers for you poll-watchers.