It sure passes the "probable but unproven" test

This seems to happen with some great regularity. From CNN’s Town-Hall Snafu by Robert Verbruggen. It is not just CNN of course, but they do seem especially inept.

Actually, I now see that the original reporting is from Did CNN Stack the Audience Against Bernie Sanders at His Town Hall? by Jacob Weindling.

The bigger problem here is that we find ourselves in a confusing situation thanks to cable news not adhering to basic standards of journalism. (Unfortunately, that’s an evergreen sentence.) When I watched the town hall live last night, this question seemed completely normal and well within the bounds of what Bernie was brought there to talk about, but now that it has been revealed that the question was asked by an intern at a major lobbying firm, you cannot help but wonder about the intent behind this, as well as CNN’s role in selecting this questioner while not disclosing her workplace.

Again, Bernie's campaign issues with sexual harassment are a major storyline going into 2020 and given that he still hasn't completely addressed it, he should be asked these questions. The problem is that when the question comes from an intern at a major DC lobbying shop—and that fact is not disclosed—you cannot help but wonder who really asked that question of Bernie. And a closer look at Cassidy & Associates' financial partners paints a picture of a group that really, really would not enjoy a Sanders presidency.

If it was just this one questioner, we could chalk it up to a mistake, or an acknowledgement that CNN reasonably didn't believe that an intern needed to disclose her workplace. But this wasn't just one questioner. There were a bunch of audience members who are far more active in politics than CNN disclosed. Watching the town hall live made it seem as if these were just folks from all walks of life, when in reality many of these supposedly innocuous questioners were political operatives in one way or another, as this thread revealed.

— CNN called Tara Ebersole a “former biology professor” when her LinkedIn page lists her current job description as “Chair, Baltimore County Democratic Party” since 2016. Further, her husband was part of Hillary Clinton's leadership council in Baltimore in 2016.

— Abena McAllister was labeled “an active Democrat,” which is far less descriptive than the Charles County Democratic Central Committee's description of her as their Chair.

— Yunjung Seo was simply called a “George Washington Student” by CNN, despite her LinkedIn page saying she also works for the Katz Watson Group, a fundraising and consulting outlet.

— Michelle Gregory was simply listed as a “Maryland voter” by CNN, but a cursory Google search reveals her to be much more active in politics than just voting.

This isn't CNN reporting. This is CNN conducting a campaign to discredit a candidate they don't like. We are seeing the New York Times doing something similar with Kamala Harris, the candidate they support with puffball pieces and hard hitting inquiry on her party opponents who look like they might be a challenge for her. The NYT is campaigning, not reporting.

Campaigning not reporting is in the DNA of CNN and its contributors. Recall CNN commentator Donna Brazille sharing the debate questions with the Clinton campaign in advance.

Then there was the staged Muslim Peace rally in London (which CNN denied was staged). Never got to the bottom of whether this was CNN staging or a Breitbart set-up of CNN, but it looked more like the former than the latter.

CNN creating the narrative #FakeNews pic.twitter.com/nwxizDhTED

— Mark (@markantro) June 4, 2017

Then there were the multiple accusations that CNN screened its town hall participants after the Parkland shooting to ensure there were only gun-control enthusiasts in the audience.

Now in all these instances there is at least some element of he-said-she-said. There are relatively few instances, such as as with Donna Brazile, where there is frank acknowledgement. But the pattern is longstanding and bolstered by a couple of personal instances.

I cannot recall when or who but there have been at least three occasions in the past fifteen years where I have seen a CNN national report on something in Georgia where they are interviewing a "man in the street" person on some issue. Except in each of those instances they weren't just any man-in-the-street. In each case it was persons associated with some Democratic campaign or candidate or advocacy group. Not a spokesperson, but someone deep in the campaign who you wouldn't recognize unless you knew them, or knew of them, personally. The first time I just assumed it was the product of a mistake. Some central national producer calls an affiliate in Atlanta asking for an articulate person, the local affiliate asking around and getting someone they didn't know but took at face value. That was a charitable interpretation.

In archaeology, there is an adage, "“One stone is a stone. Two stones is a feature. Three stones is a wall." The spirit of the adage seems applicable here.

CNN was choreographing and campaigning, not reporting. They were relying on nobody knowing or recognizing the relatively anonymous second or third tier local activists.

When there is a pattern to the accusations, when there are some isolated proven instances, and when you have a couple of examples from personal knowledge, it doesn't rise to "beyond a reasonable doubt" but it sure passes the "probable but unproven" test.