Well, last night CNN presented a Republican presidential debate that featured some of the most inane questions I've ever seen in such a forum (and I'm not just talking about the "this or that" questions, which, in a truly just world, would get CNN sued by Jellyvision). Really, CNN, with the economy in the toilet and the U6 number somewhere around 17%, you think one of the most pressing issues of the day is the degree to which each candidate is pro-life? It's as if CNN tried its hardest not to mention any issue that might present the Obama administration in a bad light, while at the same time keying in on issues designed to trip the candidates up.
And let's not forget that anchor John King, in the absence of a bell or light to signal the candidates that their absurdly short 30-second time limit had been reached, took it upon himself to grunt "uh, uh, uh" in a way that, from what I seem to recall seeing, has already been made into a backbeat for some Youtube video. (Finding that is an exercise for the reader, 'cos I heard more than enough of it last night. Seriously, imagine some guy grunting for two hours. Yikes.)
So, after a debate that may as well have been presented by your local community access channel for all the preparation CNN didn't do, what did it do for an encore?
Why, CNN took its journalistic integrity and impartiality and flushed them. How else would you explain this headline?
(screenshot of an actual CNN headline; courtesy The Daily Caller; used under Fair Use)
Yes, CNN said "wingnut", a term of scorn frequently found in lefty blogs and tweets, none of which I feel the need to link.
CNN has since changed the offending term (without comment, of course) to "goofy", as can be seen in its article. Is this really any better?
Maybe a more important question is: why is CNN still relevant, and especially, why do Republicans treat it as such, given its ever-more-apparent MSNBC-like slant? It's amazing how much it has done in just 24 hours to destroy its reputation.
(H/T: Moonbattery, The Daily Caller)