CNN’s Candy Crowley did an unspeakably bad job moderating the debate. More has been said in recent days about her awful job than what either candidate had to say. While the best the liberal media can seem to muster up is a, “Well, she didn’t do that badly,” it seems even her boss, CNN’s Managing Editor Mark Whitaker has to put a little salt on these grits to make them palatable.
Whitaker wrote an email to the CNN staff, equipping them with excuses for Crowley’s performance and ways to spin the unfair treatment afforded Governor Romney.
Yeah, it’s always the mark of a job well done when your boss has to circle the wagons and issue an email to all coworkers, issuing plausible excuses to defend the job you did.
Courtesy of Breitbart.com, the email reads,
“Let’s start with a big round of applause for Candy Crowley for a superb job under the most difficult circumstances imaginable. She and her team had to select and sequence questions in a matter of hours, and then she had to deal with the tricky format, the nervous questioners, the aggressive debaters, all while shutting out the pre-debate attempts to spin and intimidate her. She pulled it off masterfully.
The reviews on Candy’s performance have been overwhelmingly positive but Romney supporters are going after her on two points, no doubt because their man did not have as good a night as he had in Denver. On the legitimacy of Candy fact-checking Romney on Obama’s Rose Garden statement, it should be stressed that she was just stating a point of fact: Obama did talk about an act (or acts) of terror, no matter what you think he meant by that at the time. On why Obama got more time to speak, it should be noted that Candy and her commission producers tried to keep it even but that Obama went on longer largely because he speaks more slowly. We’re going to do a word count to see whether, as in Denver, Romney actually got more words in even if he talked for a shorter period of time.”
I don’t really know where to begin, so I’ll just dive right in:
Whitaker starts off by congratulating Crowley for managing to select questions. As she knew the liberal talking points that would favor Obama, let’s hold off on the praise; a high school freshman in a government class could figure out what questions to ask that would favor the liberal.
And as for the “pre-debate attempts to spin and intimidate her,” I think he’s referring to both campaigns’ attempts to get her to do what a moderator is supposed to do, and nothing more.
The reviews on Candy’s performance have not been positive. Even the liberal shills at The Washington Post have condemned her performance. Her partisanship was so indefensible, any news outlet that wishes to even maintain a scrap of ethics are admitting the inappropriateness of her meddling. Even Politico’s Mike Allen has abandoned the sinking Crowley ship. That’s saying something…
Whitaker then goes into explaining that the staff are to excuse Crowley’s false information she interjected into the debate by offering a plausible excuse- that she may have been right if viewed through the flimsiest, most ambiguous and loosely-constructed context. I just know that if I were going to interrupt a presidential debate, I would have my facts straight before I opened my mouth.
And lastly, Whitaker then comes up with a defense to excuse the inequitable time allotted to each candidate by coming up with the excuse, and then hoping the facts will support it. And these people are supposed to be journalists?
Crowley’s indefensible behavior at the debate was bad enough. But now we must suffer a conspiracy within CNN to try and defend the indefensible position? I say throw her out and let her land in whatever garbage pail Dan Rather got thrown into.