Here’s an example CNN’s disclosure approach in practice. On Feb. 17, during his daytime program, CNN lead political anchor Wolf Blitzer turned, as he often does, to the 2016 race. Hillary Clinton, noted Blitzer, was engaged in a tight race against Bernie Sanders, as polling indicated a “dead heat” in Nevada (which Clinton eventually won). The esteemed anchor introduced a pair of commentators to hash things out: “Let’s bring in our CNN political commentators, Democratic strategist, Maria Cardona, and Republican strategist, Tara Setmayer.”
The “Democratic strategist” contributed this comment when asked what had happened to Clinton’s vanishing lead in Nevada. It must be quoted in full:
I think what happened is we have a real primary on our hands. I’ve been saying from the beginning is actually great for the Democratic Party. Look, her campaign absolutely needs to focus on the fact that she needs to continue underscoring her message of lifting barriers for everybody, of making sure that this economy works for all communities of color. The speech she gave in Harlem yesterday was fantastic.
And those, I think, are the themes that will resonate in communities like Nevada, which has a lot of Latino voters there. Latinos have traditionally been backing her, and I think will continue to back her. And is she needs to continue to focus on this message of economic prosperity for everybody. That’s where I think she’ll start to get the younger voters and also focusing on how to it actually get things done as opposed to just talking about what everybody likes and sounds good. But how are you going to deliver for everyday Americans. That’s where I think her strength is.
It’s right there that Blitzer might have said, Viewers should know that you and your colleagues, Maria, have various financial ties to the Clinton campaign and groups seeking to assist it. Instead, Blitzer passed the baton on to Setmayer, and the context-deprived discussion continued.
The minimalist disclosure is ho-hum outrageous — which is to say that it’s an outrage made routine by prevailing TV industry practices. And even though CNN and others wouldn’t comment to Fang, there’s some on-the-record material in the history books. Eons ago in cable-news time, CNN launched a rebooted version of the old warhorse fight show “Crossfire,” anchored by the likes of Newt Gingrich, Stephanie Cutter, Van Jones and S.E. Cupp. The program covered a range of topics, and in so doing got itself in trouble. The nouveau “Crossfire,” for instance, welcomed Sen. Rand Paul as a guest — a guy to whom Gingrich had steered money. CNN issued this blog a statement over the matter:
Crossfire hosts have never been required to disclose their contributions regarding guests on the show because their political support and activism are there for all to see. It’s obvious they support liberals or conservatives.
Especially liberals or conservatives with whom they do business. Of course, it isn’t obvious.
The very same networks that deploy commentators with stakes in their topics also bill themselves as independent voices. Without extensive and detailed disclosures, viewers may well assume that everything they hear is untainted by cash (unless, of course, they have the Erik Wemple Blog archive memorized).
The only thing that’s “obvious” is the inability of CNN and its competitors to distance themselves from Beltway green. The networks want to fill their airtime with players — people who have been on the inside of campaigns, who have racked up countless TV appearances, who continue to receive whispers from other players in Washington. Just so happens that these players make a living in ways that strip the independence and objectivity out of everything they say on air. No wonder news outlets are hesitant to make all necessary disclosures.