October 19th, 2012
02:57 PM ET

Sneak peek at this Sunday's show

By Cassie Spodak, CNN

The latest presidential debate has dominated the news, whether it was pundits sounding off on “binders full of women” or the role moderators play – but almost everyone agrees it was a very different Barack Obama who showed up on Tuesday.

Nia-Malika Henderson of the Washington Post, Roger Simon of Politico, and Jackie Kucinich of USA Today will discuss the criticism of CNN’s Candy Crowley and her performance as a moderator, as well as how media graded Barack Obama and Mitt Romney’s political sparring.

Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin and Current TV’s David Shuster take a look at how the pundits picked apart the debate. Is the press too focused on theatrics over substance?

Tina Brown, editor-in-chef of Newsweek and The Daily Beast, will discuss the recent decision to take Newsweek magazine all digital and end its print edition. The magazine merged with website The Daily Beast in late 2010 around the same time Reliable Sources host Howard Kurtz joined the site.

Media critic Jeff Jarvis will also give his take on the merger and what it means in the larger scheme of print media and online content.

This Sunday, 11am ET.

Posted by
Filed under: Reliable Sources • Sneak Peek
soundoff (14 Responses)
  1. DevSecOps Solutions

    748125 682183I will tell your pals to visit this website. .Thanks for the article. 49955

    February 17, 2021 at 9:08 pm | Reply
  2. JZ Murdock

    Note that in the Rose Garden speech Pres. Obama gave referred to my Jennifer Rubin on today's show and that is the source of so much attention as to whether the President mentioned "Acts of Terror" in that speech, consider: 9/11 was mentioned in the top paragraph but at the end of that paragraph, Benghazi is mentioned. So the last paragraph is either talking about Benghazi, or both, not just 9/11. In the last paragraph he mentions the four killed in Benghazi, further illustrating he's talking about the most recent attack. At the end of the last paragraph, he mentions "terrible act" calling back to the previous phrase in the last paragraph, "acts of terror". So the President was correct, as was CK, in their contentions that he did indeed (it's right there) say that. How can anyone say that he didn't say that or was talking only about 9/11?

    October 21, 2012 at 12:36 pm | Reply
    • steve

      The President said "I stood in the Rose Garden and I said this was an "Act of Terror " He never said that ! He said "Acts of Terror" in reference to Extremists acts since 9/11/01.


      He also continues to blame the video on the attack , as he continued Hillary's narrative , just earlier from the State Dept.
      "Since our founding , The U.S has been a nation who respects all faiths , we reject all efforts to denigrate the beliefs of others, but there is no justification to this senseless violence "
      Since when was a taking out an Ambassador based on faith ?

      The phrase was the wrong phrase as Obama and Candy implied. It was also out of context . It also never answered the question of why the Ambassador was denied ample security . We should be ashamed that the President stonewalled on an important question, instead of taking opinions whether he said this or that . Candy failed to tell the President that he lied to Romney that no one on his staff politicized or milsled the American public !

      Was a loophole in a Fact check enough to dismiss the debacle in Libya ? I hardly saw someone to the left say "Act of War' or "Acts of War" this President screwed up BIGTIME.

      October 21, 2012 at 1:06 pm | Reply
  3. David Hart

    I have expected the media to put on a full court blitz for Obama as he drops in the poles, but today's show even surprised me. I am a conservative (more fiscal than social), but always watch a mix of cable news shows. This show was my last straw. The entire panel, including Howard agreed that the complaining about CC was due only to Romney loosing the debate (have you been watching the after debate polls, especially those dealing with the issue?). Obama's mention of 'act of terror' was toward the end of his rose garden remarks, and obviously a general hommage to the issue, not a statement about that incident. If that's in doubt, please refer to the non-stop references over the next two weeks.

    If Howard doesn't have room for one divergent opinion on the show, especially on such a topic at this point in an election, he doesn't have room for this viewer any longer. I have deleted my scheduled weekly recording, and will store it's reference somewhere closer that where I put Chris Matthews a few months ago.

    October 21, 2012 at 12:08 pm | Reply
  4. steve

    Steve Kurtz did exactly what the moderator did , lean a segment to the left .

    Steve conveniently left out the TIME CLOCK when he showed the moderator interrupting Romney from continuing, when he demanded equal time.

    Steve or is guests never mention that the by the end of the first 2 questions, The President had a 3 minute advantage on Romney . That's because Candy never allowed Romney to rebut the President's rebuttal , so in essence the President talked 4 times , Romney 3 times. Romney complained to that nature, Crowley shut him up .

    Crowley had a 6 minute talking lead at one point over Romney , how do you explain a 6 minute lead , when each candidate has 2 minutes to talk and there is a TIME CLOCK visible for both the candidate and the Moderator to see.

    Crowley interrupted Romney 28 times to interrupting the President 9 times.

    Crowley Fact Checked incorrectly saying that the President did say "Act of War " when he really said "Acts of War " referring to all extremists acts on Americas interests since 9/11/01.

    The most important question in the debate "Who was it that denied enhanced security and why? ", The President balked on the answer and Candy put her time into the question and deviated the question into a Fact Check . The Moderator NEVER insisted that the question be answered .

    In the end the President spoke 4 more minutes then Romney did , the same advantage he has got in every Debate.

    Town Hall Debates is about giving regular citizens an opportunity to get their questions answered, the Moderator didn't make it her point to have the candidates answer the questions. All the facts say that the Moderator was leaning a toward a certain party . Regardless who won or lost the debate , stating that one Party complains after their candidate loses the debate and blames the moderator has ZERO to do with it . Its like 3 or 4 awful calls are made in a football game , but those calls were ok to be made , since the team won even with the bad calls.

    My observation was that Candy Crowley is an Obama Groupie , she falls just short of collusion with the President and his people, in just happening in having the notes, handy , on the "Act of Terror " statement, which happened to be the wrong phrase said in the transcript .

    October 21, 2012 at 11:51 am | Reply
    • steve

      My apologies his name is Howard Kurtz not Steve Kurtz.
      I should of fact checked ..But then again according to Candy, Steve or Howard is the same thing !

      October 21, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Reply
  5. Sarah Pigeon

    I have two comments about today's show. First, I thought Candy did a great job but for future moderators; I suggest they get a mute button for each candidates' microphone. The moderator asks them to stop three times and turns off the mike if they don't stop. The equal pay for equal work question to Romney was a yes or no answer, a moderator brings them back to get that yes or no for the individual who asked it especially in a town hall. Secondly Romney can not stand on having leadership when he couldn't get his Republican party to drop the plank calling for a right to life amendment to the constitution. It's an archaic position that he accepted to appease the tea party and party extremists but it's a position that will cost him the election. If he couldn't get through to his own people why they need to move their platform into the 21st century on women's rights, then he can not possibly lead this country. There is no legislation Romney sees as yet but if elected a Republican congressman will introduce the bill and then what stance will he take. He'd be delighted to sign it. If he can't stand up to his own party to lead, how can he stand up to China, Iran, or any other country he's promising to take to task.

    October 21, 2012 at 11:31 am | Reply
    • steve

      Sarah did it ever dawn on you that the Moderator leans a certain way ?
      If 90% of the media leans left , why let the right wing candidate speak in equal time ? Shut him up , when the moderator chooses too !

      I also believe that you went off topic afterward, as Candy and the President did ! The topic was about whether the Moderator put her 2 cents in too much !

      October 21, 2012 at 12:05 pm | Reply
  6. Wolfgang Hunter

    Candy C intentionally gave Obama massively more time than Romney (which you failed to mention). You only complained when Romney tried to get something close to equal time (after you eliminated the clock from the screen, which would have clearly shown Candy C's overwhelming bias). Your show is moving even further left than MSNBC. Bring on ONE true centrist guest for a little ballance, and MAYBE your ratings will recover from the tank....

    October 21, 2012 at 11:24 am | Reply
    • Sarah Pigeon

      That's funny Wolfgang because until I read your post I was beginning to feel they were moving more to the right. so I guess my feelings nullify yours and vice versa, they must be walking right down the middle. Good job CNN!

      October 21, 2012 at 11:34 am | Reply
      • Pete Beil

        Yeah Sarah, CNN is really moving to the right. Howard Kurtz from The Daily Beast, Rubin and Henderson from the Wash Post, Simon from Politico, Kucinich a die hard Dem and Schuster a former MSNBC Lib. Hardly moving to the right. For CNN to be considered a reliable news source they need to have representatives from both sides of the aisle. Also your feelings don't nullify Wolfgangs it just shows you're part of the far left.

        October 21, 2012 at 11:58 am |
      • steve

        Could very well be , CNN use to be the best news reporting organization . That died when they became cheerleaders instead of refs .
        I did see Erin Burnett take no prisoners in her questions on Friday night , kudos to her for hitting back on those who stonewall tough questions.
        Perhaps CNN is finally realizing that being a cheerleader brought their news agency to last place in cable news ratings. They also are realizing that the President may lose the election , time to move it back to the middle.
        I wouldn't put them in the middle when Fareed Zacharia avoids confronting issues as to failures of the President. I would not put them in the middle when Soleidad Obrein takes on career politicians , with talking points off a sheet.

        October 21, 2012 at 12:19 pm |
  7. Wolfgang Hunter

    Why not have just ONE guest who's not a radical leftist? Candy C intentionally gave Obama massively more time than Romney (which you failed to mention). You only complained when Romney tried to get something close to equal time (after you eliminated the clock from the screen, which would have clearly shown Candy C's overwhelming bias). Your show is moving even further left than MSNBC. Bring on ONE true centrist and MAYBE your ratings will recover from the tank....

    October 21, 2012 at 11:23 am | Reply
  8. Ken Harrison

    In reference to Ms. Dowd's column in Sunday NYTimes, specifically her quote: "Obama echoed Jon Stewart’s word 'optimal' on “The Daily Show” and sounded aloof about the tragedy in Libya: 'If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.' The mother of one of those Americans, Sean Smith, told The Daily Mail of London, 'It’s insensitive to say my son is not very optimal; he is also very dead.'

    I would argue that Ms. Dowd's opinion is cold and cynical. First, in reading it one would think that John Stewart used "optimal" in regards to the killing of the four Americans. He did not. He was referring to the communications bungling that followed. Second, far from sounding aloof, the President was redirecting the conversation *to* the tragedy. He borrowed the cold "optimal" from Stewart as a rhetorical counterpounch to Stewart's use in reference to the handling of the communications. Third, even as a quote out of context, it is not accurate as she leaves out "and we're going to fix it". Finally, to supply a quote from a grieving mother who obviously did not hear it firsthand (does anyone think she was watching the Daily Show) is ridiculous on its face and quite sad. Don't you suppose some reporter said something like: "Obama said earlier today that "If four Americans get killed, it's not optimal". What do you think of that (grieving mother)? Does Ms. Dowd really have to reach these heights to support her aloof Barry storyline (howevermuch valid)–now that's cold. (You wonder why Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama don't want to get personal in interviews.)

    Full quote:
    JS: "i would say and you would admit it was not the optimal response to the American people as far as all of us being on the same page.
    Pres: "If four Americans would get killed it's not optimal and we're going to fix it."

    October 20, 2012 at 9:37 pm | Reply

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.