It seems CNN has been in full banana/apple mode ever since it was recently announced they had hired Sarah Isgur (wait for it) a conservative (gasp!) as a political editor.
The hysterical pearl-clutching meltdown seen on the left after her hiring has been persistent, and the network is now in flailing backtrack mode. The Daily Beast has reported that CNN has been so shaken they reached out to the Democrats to say they have corrected this grievous error.
NEW — CNN tells the DNC that @whignewtons will have no editorial decision-making control over the networks coverage of the 2020 electionshttps://t.co/tF84FZCWyq
W/ @maxwelltani
— Sam Stein (@samstein) February 26, 2019
Since the hiring CNN said Isgur was to be taken off of working any debates, then from working any town halls, and now the woman they hired as a political editor is said to not be involved in editorial decisions. Her job just continues to get easier and easier!
This is some deceptively parsed BS
No "editorial" decision making control is another way of saying that she will have creative decision-making control
In other words, she'll control coverage as a developer but not an editor
— Dander Bogaerts (@Dander_Bogaerts) February 26, 2019
Well, cut the network some slack. They thought it a good idea to have some diversity on its staff, not anticipating the frothing hordes who would be incapable of handling even one differing opionion.
Not to mention, expressing this outrage as if networks have never made these kind of hires in the past is naive, to be charitible. We have to go all the way back to two years ago when Democratic National Chair Donna Brazile was employed at CNN during an election. (Okay, arguably that did not end well, but still…)
Not good enough @CNN. We don’t trust you
— Christine Galea (@chrisgalea) February 26, 2019
So what is she there for then ????
— #TeamKillMonger (@TazAkaPrimo) February 26, 2019
She needs to go away @cnn
— agirlisno1 (@aryastarksmom) February 26, 2019
More action is required here – they demand her scalp!!!!
So she isn’t really an editor and they will happily let her shill for the Republican Party, just not during Dem events. Do I have that right @CNN
— Jory Soderman (@Joryls) February 26, 2019
A cynic might think @CNN is spinning us all.
— Bruce Mirken (@BruceMirken) February 26, 2019
— John Mangrum (@jwmangrum) February 26, 2019
Anyone who thinks this country is turning right does not know or appreciate us on the left and we are seething right now! And we are chomping at the bit!
— Linda1449 (@Linda1449) February 26, 2019
Now?? You are trying to say the left is only seething NOW?!?! It has been rather obvious seething has been the default setting for at least two-plus years.
But why? I mean she's not a Pulitzer or Peabody winner. She doesn't bring years of reporting experience or editorial judgment. Why are they going to the mat for her? Seems to me a shortsighted & narrow view of their duty. I question their judgment, which hurts their credibility.
— tony v. zampella (@zampella) February 26, 2019
Oh really now – THIS is what has you questioning CNN’s credibility?! Someone could have guessed the years of slanted coverage, false stories, and Brian Stelter apologies would have brought you there.
Then WHY THE F was she hired?
She's NOT a journalist.
Just a loony RW partisan @GOP operative.I don't believe @CNN @CNNPR
Neither should @DNC
NO DEBATES or TOWN HALLS on @CNN until she's fired.@CNN damn well not hire any ppl under NDA to #POS45 to pose as "pundits" either.?— Protect Mueller (@ndesigner) February 26, 2019
Okay, now do Andrew Gillum. You know, the former Democrat who ran for governor in Florida, is thought to be a key running mate selection for the 2020 election, and is currently under indictment in Tallahassee.
So the new chief political editor will have no role in the 2020 election coverage?
So what’s her primary function? Collecting a paycheck?
— Peter (@Peter00003428) February 26, 2019
See, this way CNN can say that they have a conservative on its staff, which allows them the chance to then deflect away from accusations of bias. It is rather cagey of them, if you think about it.
