The Huffington Post’s Jack Mirkinson writes about CNN’s sudden change to it’s political contribution policy…

Gingrich, who is now a “Crossfire” co-host, came under scrutiny from Media Matters for his apparent violation of the network’s rules, which stated that, whenever someone he or his PAC had given money to was a guest on his show, Gingrich had to disclose that fact.

“If Newt is helping fund a candidate and that candidate’s on the show, or being discussed on the show, of course he’ll disclose that,” Rick Davis, the network’s chief ethics and standards enforcer, said. “Disclosure is important when it’s relevant.”

Gingrich didn’t do this when two people his PAC has donated to, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, appeared on “Crossfire” or were discussed on the show, respectively.

On Friday, though, Davis told the media watchdog that his earlier statement was not operative:

We are clarifying the policy and making it clear Newt Gingrich is not in violation. The policy: If a Crossfire co-host has made a financial contribution to a politician who appears on the program or is the focus of the program, disclosure is not required during the show since the co-host’s political support is obvious by his or her point of view expressed on the program.

Apparently, “disclosure is important” is old thinking. The new rules mean that Gingrich could fund a political campaign, have the candidate or politician on his nationally televised cable news show, and not have to tell viewers he was giving the candidate money.

No kidding. What utter claptrap. There are lots of conservatives out there for Newt to be considered a “fellow traveler”. That doesn’t mean that Newt’s PAC is going to donate to them all. He’s only going to donate to some of them. But how are we to know who is “extra special” in Newt’s eyes now that CNN has all but gutted its campaign contribution policy as a meaningful disclosure barometer? We won’t.

Here’s how the optics of this play out: CNN gets reamed for being afraid to ruffle Newt’s feathers. CNN looks like its currying favor with Newt. CNN looks like it doesn’t care about disclosure.


21 Responses to “Revisionism…”

  1. Zucker has calculated that anyone who cares about this doesn’t matter.

  2. I still haven’t seen it. It’s still awful.

  3. Nixon - niila niihpikiiookwa meentwasiaani Says:

    Same ol’ CNN. Only the names are different.

  4. That show might have had a chance if they’d brought in four relative unknowns. Instead, they got two money-stained, soul-free hacks and two pretty faces (souls optional).

  5. Two ex-Obama people who talk like they still work there, and an ex-candidate current-PAC hack. And SE Cupp. Out of four people, they managed one voice who isn’t working for people they talk about. Brilliant.

  6. In Stephanie Cutter, they found a liberal who is equally hated on both ends of the spectrum. That takes some talent.

  7. I commented about this story earlier today in the ‘free for all’ stating pretty much what is said above about the CNN ethics changes; so I’ll just add a couple of bits here the story above has left out.

    Media Matters was the original source of the news that Newt had given money from his PAC to Rand Paul (and Ted Cruz) and not disclosing that information on the program.

    The rest of the story is just as interesting. It turns out Newt donated only a few thousand ($27,000.00) to a small number of chosen candidates, including the two mentioned above, out of a PAC holding $1.4 million.

    Media Matters got its story from a expose in Mother Jones on Newt Gingrich’s latest fundraising scam. Newt has been running these scams for years where he raises a ton of money by promising to give it to Tea Party candidates or some other worthy conservative cause but in reality just gives out a few pennies on the dollar and keeps the rest for himself. It’s a political version of the old cons run by evangelical hucksters.

    To me this is a part of the story that should bother CNN just as much as a few thousand dollars given to a programs guest. Heck he’s not even the only one on the show raising money for possible guests. The fact Newt is a crook, stealing from his supporters, is a much better story than he’s upset the ethics over at CNN by donating to a program guest. What does CNN have to say about that?

  8. Sounds like lawbreaking to me. What’s the DOJ have to say about that?

  9. Nixon - niila niihpikiiookwa meentwasiaani Says:

    The fact Newt is a crook, stealing from his supporters,

    Throw cheating on his taxes in there, and he’d be a perfect candidate for the next opening on Obama’s Cabinet.

  10. Brian Stelter took CNN to task today on Reliable Sources over the Crossfire/Gingrich debate. It’s a bold move by someone who hopes to host Reliable Sources in the future. Makes him the favorite in my books.

    Howie ignored the story and mainly stayed with sucking up to his FNC bosses.

  11. Oh Fritz, Howie missed the chance to bash CNN? How unsuckup of him.

  12. “Howie missed the chance to bash CNN? How unsuckup of him.”

    ^^I think it was more they didn’t want to bash Newt and his scam PAC’s; but that’s just me. Lots of digs at the liberal media today and nothing much bad said about Conservatives and their media. The show should be called Softball Media Buzz.

    Lots of digs at the Republicans today and nothing much bad said about Liberals and their media. The show should be called Reliable Media Bias.

  14. “Lots of digs at the Republicans today and nothing much bad said about Liberals and their media.”

    ^^Cute! You obviously didn’t see the show.

    If Howie ever grows a pair and takes on FNC like Stelter did CNN today you might have a point; and I’d be the first to say so.

    Stelter didn’t have to say what he did today and it’s especially edgy as he’s auditioning to host the show.

  15. ^ I watched the first 20 minutes which was Republican civil war blaming stuff. Probably seem mild to a Fritz, but I found it one-sided and typical liberal Yackety Yack.

  16. “^ I watched the first 20 minutes which was Republican civil war blaming stuff.”

    ^^That’s not one sided larry. It’s what Republicans are saying. They’re just discussing the story and having a bit of a laugh at the Republicans suicide mission. You can’t blame them for that.

  17. Well, it inclined me to turn it off, so I guess I could.

  18. Finally watched MEDIABUZZ. No wonder Fritz was whining about it. Unlike RELIABLE SOURCES the discussion of Cruz dealt with the media coverage of him AND ObamaCare and was appropriately critical of the media, not a political party. Also he showed a clip of a foaming at the mouth Ed Schultz claiming the budget crisis was because of racism and called Ed out for his ridiculous behavior. It was a great show!

  19. Nixon - niila niihpikiiookwa meentwasiaani Says:

    At least Ed hasn’t shot any dogs lately, so you’ve got to give him that.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: