Jonah Goldberg on CNN'S VIRTUAL REALITY

From the NY Post:

By now you've probably heard that CNN made such a laughingstock of itself at the recent YouTube debate in Florida that it could only have been worse if host Anderson Cooper conducted it in fluent Klingon.

In what was billed as a glorious exercise in democratic do-goodery and civic seriousness, CNN opened its gates to the American people and, to their surprise, the network's relentlessly touted credibility ran out the door like a dog in heat. Nearly a third of the questioners in the debate proved to be if not outright plants of the Democratic Party or other liberal interests, then at least very far from the "ordinary Americans" this whole circus was supposed to be catering to.

The most egregious example is that of retired brigadier general Keith Kerr. The openly gay Kerr touted his admirable military record and then put the GOP candidates on the spot, asking them to explain why someone like him shouldn't be allowed to serve. He was even brought in to the studio audience to ask follow-up questions so as to keep the pressure on. Through a little-known technology (at least at CNN) that some highly trained experts call "Googling," bloggers quickly discovered that Kerr is part of Hillary Clinton's "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered for Hillary Steering Committee" (they have a fabulous parade float). He was also a co-chair of "Veterans and Military Retirees for Hillary" and on the steering committee of "Veterans for Kerry." In short, it's fair to say he wasn't a typical Republican Florida primary voter.

Other questioners included more hacks than a cat coughing up a hairball. Another gay-centric question came from an Obama supporter. A loaded abortion question came from a committed John Edwards partisan. Another on unsafe Chinese toys came from an activist member of the Edwards-endorsing United Steel Workers.

Just as revealing were the questioners who weren't revealed to be plants. For the most part they were a motley crew of conservative caricatures. CNN's typical "ordinary American" (translation: "scary Republican") was a pale, gaunt, twenty-something white dude who looked like he'd spent the last year working in the sunless bunker he'd constructed out of his mom's basement. Several of the videos were reminiscent of the sort of thing investigators discover while searching the home of slain white militiamen after a terrorist attack.

One of these young men was, literally, a bible thumper who demanded to know if the GOP candidates were as committed to "every word in this book" as he was. Another questioner took a brief break from the shooting range to ask about gun control. But he made it clear, as he cocked a shotgun thrown to him from off camera, that the candidates answers didn't much matter because, he implied, they could have his gats when they pried them from his cold dead hands. Another young man asked from the comfortable sovereignty of his dorm room what the Confederate Flag - which hung conspicuously behind him - meant to the men on the stage. Sadly, the guy who played "Psycho" in the movie Stripes was apparently unavailable to record a video. Still, it would have been nice if at least one of the candidates had seized on one of the numerous opportunities to say, "Lighten up, Francis."

So what lessons can we draw from this bonfire of buffoonery? Well, some conclusions are easy. The idea that the Democrats are boycotting debates sponsored by Fox News out of some sort of fidelity to honest journalism is dumber than a box of rocks. At the last Democratic debate hosted by CNN, it was revealed that producers cajoled a young lady to abandon her question about nuclear safety in Nevada and instead ask Hillary Clinton whether she prefers diamonds or pearls. Reach for that Pulitzer, CNN!

Just imagine, for giggles alone, if Fox had run a YouTube debate and it was revealed that Republican activists passed themselves off as, say, a hodge-podge of patchouli-soaked hemptivists, Hugo Chavez-loving limousine liberals and gay interior decorators who asked why we can't give peace a chance and buy the world a Coke. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, Fox would come under some criticism?

Then, of course, there's the perennial complaint about liberal media bias (it's perennial because it never goes away). It's not hard to guess what the producers at CNN think of conservatives. Nobody asked about, say, healthcare or education because everyone - everyone at CNN, that is - just knows the Grand Old Party of troglyditic knuckle-draggers couldn't give a rat's patoot about such things, even though CNN normally treats such issues as the most pressing of concerns for "ordinary Americans." The whack-job questioners no doubt looked and sounded like authentic conservatives to CNN and the plants just happened to ask exactly the sort of serious question the producers at CNN would ask.

But there's a larger and, I think, more interesting point to be made. And it comes from CNN itself. In an official statement CNN pushed back against the critics. "The issues raised .ñ.ñ. [by the] debate were legitimate and relevant no matter who was asking the questions. The vested interests who are challenging the credibility of the questioners are trying to distract voters from the substantive issues they care most about. Americans are tired of that discredited low-road approach." In another statement, they defended their choice of questions from more than 5,000 submissions based upon several journalistic criteria and, with the exception of Gen. Kerr, they stood by their editorial decisions.

Now it takes the kind of chutzpah that usually invites a lightning bolt from above for CNN to not only accuse its critics of taking the "low road approach" but to dare speak as a tribune of the American people, when they failed to even find "ordinary Americans" when it was, literally, their job to do so.

Still, they do have a point, but they may not realize how damning their defense is. First they are saying that these questions are so obvious that it doesn't really matter who is asking them. Fair enough, but doesn't that apply not just to this debate, but to CNN generally? That means the millions of dollars CNN has invested in, say, Anderson Cooper as uniquely talented at asking tough, meaningful or unique questions has been money wasted on a lie. Any pretty face can ask the questions handed to them by their producer. So why not just have Cameron Diaz ask the questions? Who needs puffed up journalists to read cue cards?

But CNN's also saying that their producers were still the ultimate arbiters of which questions got asked. With 5,000 submissions they could cherry-pick whatever questions they wanted. All that stuff about "you deciding," "ordinary Americans," and tearing down the gates was little more than show business. The "ordinary Americans" were simply props for the agenda of the same old people who always get to decide what counts as news and what doesn't. You people who thought otherwise are just a bunch of saps.

And, sadly, CNN is right on both counts.