Diamonds, pearls, and planted questions?

The very last question in last night’s debate for Democratic presidential candidates was probably the dumbest of the year.

MALVEAUX: Maria, would you stand, please? Give us your full name.

Q: Maria — (inaudible) — and I’m a UNLV student. And my question is for Senator Clinton. This is a fun question for you. Do you prefer diamonds or pearls? (Laughter.)

CLINTON: Now, I know I’m sometimes accused of not being able to make a choice. I want both. (Laughter.)

MALVEAUX: Do we get to ask any of the other candidates or, I suppose, just Senator Clinton? (Cross talk.)

Q: It’s the only thing shiny up there.

MALVEAUX: Okay, thank you so much.

BLITZER: All right, so on that note, diamonds and pearls, I want to thank all of the Democratic presidential candidates for joining us….

Now, as regular readers know, I’m not a prude when it comes to frivolous questions. Sometimes, off-the-wall inquiries can force candidates to be creative on the fly, and think quickly on their feet.

But this was just dumb. Worse, it was insulting — the first credible woman presidential candidate in U.S. history is fielding a question about her preferences in jewelry? Please.

What viewers at home did not know, however, is that Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked about this wanted to pose an entirely different question — but CNN “encouraged” her to go with the “diamonds or pearl” question.

Marc Ambinder reports on Luisa’s comments in response to criticism she received after the event. Apparently, she wanted to ask about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, but CNN pushed her in a different direction.

“Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN,” Luisa writes. “I was asked to submit questions including “lighthearted/fun” questions. I submitted more than five questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in advance.” […]

“CNN ran out of time and used me to “close” the debate with the pearls/diamonds question. Seconds later this girl comes up to me and says, “you gave our school a bad reputation.’ Well, I had to explain to her that every question from the audience was pre-planned and censored. That’s what the media does. See, the media chose what they wanted, not what the people or audience really wanted. That’s politics; that’s reality. So, if you want to read about real issues important to America–and the whole world, I suggest you pick up a copy of the Economist or the New York Times or some other independent source. If you want me to explain to you how the media works, I am more than happy to do so. But do not judge me or my integrity based on that question.”

It’s probably worth noting that CNN has played fast-and-loose before. Remember this one from 2003?

A college student who asked the Democratic presidential candidates at a debate whether they preferred the PC or Mac format for their computers says the question was planted by CNN.

The news network acknowledged Tuesday that a producer went “too far” in telling Brown University student Alexandra Trustman what to ask.

Josh Marshall concludes, “Can we just close down CNN?”

  • Great … now I got that song stuck in my head.

    I really, really want to be surprised in outraged over this. But for some reason, it doesn’t shock me in the least.

  • So, according to the vestigial media, it is OK for it to plant questions, deceiving the public as to the actual nature and source of the question, but not OK for the politicians generally subjected to such deceit to plant questions. Interesting.

  • For me this is grounds to make the Biggest Stink Ever. These debates are dumb -cable news is attempting to get into the “RealityTV” Business – Russert is no better.

    Calling into question their motives and credentials would put the onus back on these news outlets to prove they are credible and not doing what it looks like they’re doing.

    If I were running Hillary’s campaign, I would (very publically) approach the League of Women Voters and ask them to (once again) act as organizers for these events, as there appears to be no other credible outlet.

    And it would behoove the candidates to get together and refuse to participate in any more CNN events.

    These aren’t debates – they are baiting matches and soundbite fests.

    A lot of people are deciding who to vote for based on this fakery.

  • Window dressing and titilation – key elements of 21st century corporate journalism. Nuclear waste is by far a back seat question inlight of the importance of Hillary’s gem choice – go figure! Regarding CNN, the Queen of Hearts would no doubt say, “off with their heads!” -Kevo

  • Is CNN attempting to make Fox look serious? Pathetic.

    But while I just thought it was stupid, my wife almost immediately said, “That’s offensive.” I wonder if women will be angrier about this than men. It wouldn’t surprise me, and I think such a reaction would be understandable.

  • The only thing more appalling than CNN is that everyone over at Eschaton is blaming the young woman. Sheesh.

  • and interesting to note the comparison to the hillary-posed question about global wwarming (since no one else was asking about it); to the one planted by cnn — ‘diamonds or pearls’ — which is not only condescending as hell, but reminds everyone of the icky ‘boxers or briefs’ question those many years ago….

    that really is quite remarkable considering that cnn did how many segments on the hillary-posed question.

  • “Complete Nitwits Network…insulting your intelligence around the globe. Unless you came over from Fox News, in which case, you’ll feel right at home.”

    I think if I had been that young woman, I would have left the “light-hearted” question off my list altogether; I’m sure she’s regretting that she didn’t.

  • Maybe CNN’s shareholders are dumbing it down hoping to lure Fox viewers? (or are they hoping Fox will seem better in comparison to “convert” the heathen liberal?)

    I hate Microsoft, but it’s going to be hard to stay away from MSNBC if this keeps up.

  • Maybe someone who’s asking questions at the next debate should “forget” the question they were supposed to ask, and instead ask the candidates why today’s media sucks so bad.

  • Oy vey!!!!!!!!!! This seriously irritates me. This was supposed to be a serious debate. It’s one thing if the forum is inherently lighthearted, in the manner of “Rock The Vote” (the forum in which Bill Clinton famously faced the question as to his underwear preference). But to have this happen on CNN, during a nationally-televised debate during which voters gather the information that will influence their decisions . . . this is more than just an insult to women. It’s an insult to all Americans!

  • Is it possible that Rupert somehow also has a controlling interest in CNN? How else can we explain this death spiral, this mindless determination by CNN (Beck, etc.) to become more mindless?

  • While CNN definitely deserves a ton of heat, I’m going to have to agree with some of the folks over at Atrios’ place — Maria could have gone ahead and asked whatever the hell she wanted, but didn’t.

    What was CNN going to do if she asked the Yucca Mountain question, have security toss her out on her ear?

    Yes, I realize it’s probably a bit nerve-racking to know you’re being watched by millions of people as you pose a question to the potential leader of the free world. But if she cared as much as she’s trying to make out on her MySpace page, the time to act was then.

    She could have stood up and made a stand, right there and then, against the corporate media.

    She could have been a bloggers’ darling, perhaps on the left and right, for having the temerity to ask a substantive question against CNN’s wishes.

    She could have maybe, just maybe, poked them in their image-is-the-only-thing eyeball hard enough to make them finally snap out of their daze and start acting like journalists.

    Instead, she folded like a twenty-cent tent and asked one of the most insulting pieces of fluff questions ever brought up at a presidential debate.

    While CNN deserves to get whatever it does for this crap (along with Blitzer changing a general appointee question into an abortion one), I can’t say this young woman is without blame.

  • The only thing more appalling than CNN is that everyone over at Eschaton is blaming the young woman. Sheesh.

    I can see why.
    The way I see it Luisa had three choices:

    1) Say no.
    2) Say yes and then go ahead and ask a hard question of her choosing.
    3) Say yes and then obediently ask their fluff question.

    She choose obediency to the media powers that be.

    Frankly my dears…
    I am sick to death of obedient Americans who will gladly trade in their souls for a chance to appear on the idiot box.

    Got no compassion for them.
    At all.

    Looky:

    To have a stupid media you must have stupid viewers.
    To have stupid viewers you must have a stupid media.
    Which came first: Luisa or Chris Matthews?
    What you answer doesn’t matter…
    Because we got is just this: a loving self-perpetuating clusterfuck.
    Going no where…
    But down the tubes….

  • oh come on – she can’t be more than early 20s, and theoretically could still be in her teens. she is on national television. everyone here sounds so sure that they could not only keep their wits about them but weigh all of the consequences and do the courageous thing in that split second – and could have done so at her age.

    lets get over ourselves, shall we?

    at least she is pulling off the veil after the fact, which has the potential to do a lot of good. give the young woman a break.

  • RacerX: Wouldn’t it be more to the point to ask how a candidate hopes/plans to get around the media to get their message out on any issue, given that the media does in fact suck major wang? I mean, the question of why the media sucks in interesting and all but it seems kind of academic. If there’s such a thing as a mediaologist, maybe they care. What I mainly want to know though, is what the hell can we do about it?

  • What was CNN going to do if she asked the Yucca Mountain question, have security toss her out on her ear? -Mark D

    Tase her.

    Seriously, though, I agree. We get the republic we deserve. If little miss UNLV is too afraid to stand against CNN, then we are losing.

  • Along with Bush, Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, Gonzales and pretty much everyone else involved with this administration, let’s put the entire media behind bars and start anew. I salivate a the idea of a Jeffersonian candidate right now.

  • I don’t think CNN should be soliciting the “lighthearted/fun” questions. Is the problem that conservative audiences will ask idiot questions but Democratic ones won’t unless prompted for those dumb questions? The question made the questioner sound like she was making fun of Clinton and calling her an elitist. I hope consevatives can get over their prejudices of liberals and realize one day that Hillary Clinton is just a regular chick who just happened to excel in life. If there’s anyone in public life who obsesses over diamonds and pearls, my guess is it would be Condaleeza, who is known to be an avid shopper/shoe afficianado, and is known to own an abnormal, deviant number of pairs of shoes.

  • To add to my point about blaming Luisa, who was after all one victim, it is correct that she could have refused to cooperate. But to focus on her, rather than CNN, is, well, Malkinesque. At least it surely sounded that way.

  • To add to my point about blaming Luisa, who was after all one victim, it is correct that she could have refused to cooperate. But to focus on her, rather than CNN, is, well, Malkinesque. At least it surely sounded that way.

    That’s why I waited a bit and really, really tried to make it clear that I understand how hard it would have been for her to do so.

    I also never, ever posted that I wouldn’t have folded like a nickel tent. I very well may have (although I’m kindofa dick who likes to stir up crap in real life, so who knows).

    Also, I don’t see her as any sort of a “victim.” The “victims” in this case are the American people who keep being presented with nothing but crap questions during debates that are a worthless joke.

    I’m super-duper glad she pulled the curtain back. My lament is that she waited until after the fact. I guess it’s a case of “better late than never,” and I get that. It’s just … well, she had a GOLDEN opportunity and didn’t take it. Guess that just bums me out.

    One last thing: We on the left are complaining about her asking a softball question instead of standing up to the media and asking a substantive one. If this were a Republican debate and we were all on the right, it wouldn’t be an issue unless the “planted” question involved anything BUT fluff. Malkin and her hordes would be storming CNN as we speak for daring to ask a candidate a question about policy.

    So at least we have that going for us …

    🙂

  • I agree with zeitgeist. Unless she is really unusual, her heart was probably pounding so hard about being on national tv that she didn’t even hear herself speak.

  • I understand, Mark. I do think, though, that she was a victim of abuse of authority along with the rest of us who were deprived substantive debate. She thought she was a participant in an honest, substantive proceeding, and they used her. And I know from experience, as well as study, how difficult it is for most people to resist authority, even when they know they should. (See, e.g., the literature on participants in inhumane experiments or on those who have a false confession coerced from them.) And blaming people who are, basically, on our side — I mean, she wanted to know about Yucca Mountain — is kind of a waste, anyway.

  • David in NY–
    I’m really not trying to bash the poor young woman. Seriously. That wasn’t my intent.

    Again, I was just disappointed is all.

    For once, I want to see someone, ANYONE, stand up to these asshats and prove how useless they are … for someone to take out national political discourse away from the Village Idiots who run it … for someone to make it crystal clear that a majority of Americans want substance, no matter what some ratings guru thinks we want.

    But I guess it was not to be this time.

    And I sincerely, to the bottom of my heart, hope no one on our side is pulling a Malkin on her.

  • I think I’d really liked to have heard the following exchange:

    “MALVEAUX: Maria, would you stand, please? Give us your full name.

    Q: Maria — (inaudible) — and I’m a UNLV student. My policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship, and my question is for Senator Clinton. Instead of my Yucca Mountain question, CNN has requested that I ask this fun question of you. Do you prefer diamonds or pearls? (Laughter.)

    CLINTON: Journalists can be like that at times. Please, Ask what you wanted about Yucca Mountain, I’m sure all of us up here would agree that such important issues deserve to be discussed. We’ll let Mr. Malveaux and his collegues debate the merits of diamonds vs. pearls on their own time.

    But honestly, I assume that before choosing who gets to ask questions, the debate organizers carefully consider how obedient the questioner is likely to be. Someone who is likely to take control of the debate away from the organizers is highly unlikely to end up with a microphone in front of them in the first place.

  • What was CNN going to do if she asked the Yucca Mountain question, have security toss her out on her ear?

    After they tased her and, using the FCC mandated time delay, edited out her question.

    It’s so easy to second-guess someone after the fact. CNN wanted a fluff question, they would have asked it themself if necessary. Blaming the young woman is akin to shooting the messenger.

  • “That’s politics; that’s reality.”

    NO NO NO!! That’s not “reality”, THAT’S BULLSHIT!

    Then again, it’s arguable whether politics has anything whatsoever to do with reality these days anyway.

    What a load of sexist horseshit. What was CNN going for, a bunch of giggle girls making infintessimal-talk about shallow consumer idiocy like jewelry. And then maybe pat them on the head afterwards?

    Jeez, it’s also slandering young people as well as women too… as if college students were all mindless morons concerned about jewelry and shit. This fine young woman wrote a wonky paper on Yucca Mountain, and obviously knows a LOT about the subject, but CNN didn’t want that, they wanted her to ask a Paris Hilton wannabee question instead.

    What a load of crap.

    Kill your television.

  • Hillary’s planted questions have been going on for months, and the only amazing part of the story is that the media has taken so long to pick up on what has been happening with her campaign. When Hillary spoke at the Quality Inn/Highlander in Iowa City on April 3, 2007, she arrived late and kept the crowd waiting for about 40 minutes as she huddled in a back room with Johnson County (Iowa) and Des Moines party functionaries. Once she was introduced by Johnson Co. Supervisor Sally Stutsman and former Iowa First Lady Christie Vilsack, she gave her prepared speech and then took about a half-hour’s worth of questions from the audience, which surrounded her on four sides with Hillary at the middle of the indoor open square space.
    To put on the appearance of herself as the family values/loves kids candidate, about midway through her Q & A session Hillary took a rather long and highly scripted question which a schoolgirl spent about a minute reading from a piece of paper she (the girl herself) held, as the girl faced in the direction of the media risers and their cameras. The girl had been positioned in the front row, at the center of her quadrant of the audience. After Hillary gave her “isn’t that cute” response, evidently imitated from the style pioneered by Art Linkletter half a century ago, she resumed taking questions from adults.
    Finally, after another 10-15 minutes of Hillary ignoring children, Christie Vilsack rose and interjected, “it’s almost time to go, time for one more question.” On that signal, Hillary went straight to a schoolboy located in the front row, middle of the audience, 180 degrees opposite from the schoolgirl. Once Hillary gave another “isn’t that cute” response to the boy with his back to the cameras, the Q & A was indeed over, and the crowd started dispersing.
    The whole thing was as patently contrived at the schoolkids who provided “happy Chinese children” background for Nixon on his historic trip to China, viz. kids who had their jump ropes and hair ribbons confiscated as soon as Nixon left his outdoor appearance site. So, I went to look over the kids in the Quality/Highlander audience a little more closely. The girl and her mother were rewarded by having their picture taken with Hillary. The boy was wearing a Hillary staff badge. Just prior to this event, Hillary had promised ex-Gov. Tom Vilsack, who was there with Christie, that she would help him retire his campaign debt from his recently failed presidential bid. –END–

  • Comments are closed.