The Hollywood Reporter publicized that CNN boasts it hired 40 new political reporters to beef up for the 2016 campaign. What was less factual was the argument that CNN is the “neutral” or fact-based channel in cable news. They reported CNN Washington bureau chief Sam Feist “hopes the network's comparatively neutral status on the political spectrum will work to its advantage in a race with no incumbent.”
As NewsBusters' Tim Graham reported, CNN's Washington Bureau Chief Sam Feist bragged that his is the only network "that hasn't picked sides in this election," and that viewers responded to CNN's credibility by making it the most-watched cable news channel on election night.
Of course, this begs the question of why viewers haven't turned to CNN on most other nights but regardless, Feist's claim of non-partisanship doesn't hold water. Indeed, CNN's own Howard Kurtz warned in July of a media double standard favoring President Obama that is apparent "to many people."
Below are some of the worst examples of CNN's liberal bias during this election cycle, beginning after Mitt Romney became the clear Republican challenger to President Obama on May 2, when candidate Newt Gingrich dropped out of the race.
Tommy Christopher at Mediaite embarrassed himself in a servile interview with CNN Washington Bureau Chief Sam Feist, who, we’re told, “explained how preparation and perspiration helped deliver the night for his network, and cemented their brand, as they see it: the network you can trust.” Is this an interview, or a commercial? Even Mediaite reported Fox News easily won the night in prime time. CNN only won if you keep counting until 2 am, or about three hours after the election was called and Republicans went to bed or flipped to sports.
Then Christopher let Feist claim – against all evidence – that at CNN, “our network is the only one that hasn’t picked sides in the election.” Forget Piers Morgan, forget Soledad O’Brien, or Carol Costello, or Candy Crowley “moderating” a debate in Obama’s favor:
CNN, a network known for its regular liberal bias, touted its supposed objectivity versus its competitors in a new ad which premiered on Tuesday evening. The ad graphically associated Fox News with the Republican elephant and MSNBC with the Democratic donkey, and claimed, "If you want to keep them all honest, without playing favorites, the choice is clear: CNN, the worldwide leader in news."
Yahoo! News's Michael Calderone, in his Wednesday article on the new ad, quoted from CNN political director Sam Feist, who claimed that their ad "simply states the obvious: We're the one cable news channel that doesn't advocate for one political party or the other." Calderone continued that "CNN's nonpartisan anchors have struggled against their more opinionated counterparts. Campbell Brown acknowledged her 8 p.m. show's low ratings against Fox News' Bill O'Reilly and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann in her May announcement that she was leaving the network."
[Video of the ad below the jump]
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.
CNN is defending its job in vetting questions for last night's debate, reports Politico's Kenneth Vogel:
The retired general who quizzed Republican presidential candidates about gays and lesbians in the military was not the only person linked to a Democratic presidential candidate who got to ask a question at Wednesday’s CNN/YouTube debate.
CNN also aired questions from supporters of Democratic candidates John Edwards and Barack Obama.
And that’s fine by the network, which is standing by its question selection process and lashing out at critics who say the debate demonstrated CNN’s liberal bias.
“We’re focused on the questions, not the questioners,” said Sam Feist, CNN’s political director.
There might be something to that approach. As our own Brad Wilmouth reported, the questions largely pressed the Republican field from the right.: