Open Letter to CNN (Lemon and Burnett)

[NanceGreggs]

TO: Don Lemon and Erin Burnett, CNN

Today I heard both of you comment about Hillary Clinton and the Obamas finally “breaking their silence” with respect to Harvey Weinstein. You both tsk-tsked disapprovingly, implying that there was something untoward about the timing: “What took them so long?”

Well, let me explain something to you – something you both should (and probably do) already know. Hillary Clinton and both Obamas are now private citizens. They are under no obligation to anyone to make public statements about anything. And they certainly aren’t under any obligation to express their opinions in accordance with whatever timeline you have decided is appropriate.

I find it particularly appalling that anyone from CNN – or any other mainstream news media outlet, for that matter – would dare to question what took Hillary, Barack and Michelle five days to condemn Weinstein and his behaviour. The more important question is what took you, and your news media colleagues, so long to speak up about Donald Trump?

Trump’s history as a sexual predator was known long before he launched his presidential campaign. There were countless allegations against him, including an allegation of raping a 13-year-old girl. It was also well-known that he regularly cheated workers out of their pay, used his “charitable foundation” to pay personal debts, boasted about his own donations to charities that were known never to have happened, had ties to organized crime – the list goes on.

Where were you when CNN was airing Trump’s campaign events in full, thereby providing him with an endless stream of free publicity? Where were you when Trump repeatedly made statements that were outright lies that you never even mentioned, no less challenged?

Of course, now that Trump has labelled CNN “fake news”, you’ve all got a lot to say about him. Now his lies, his bizarre behaviour, and his past are considered fair game. But the question arises again: What took you so long? Why did you think it appropriate to keep Trump’s sordid history, sexual and otherwise, off the table until he specifically insulted you?

Harvey Weinstein never ran for president. Donald Trump did. It was your obligation as journalists to inform the public exactly who he was. You didn’t. Maybe you were just too busy talking about Hillary’s emails and Benghazi to mention all of Trump’s past transgressions, including his sexual harassment and/or assaults on women.

As disgusting as Weinstein’s behaviour is, it does not obligate anyone to comment on it, opine on it, or release a public statement about it – especially private citizens. To even hint that Hillary Clinton and the Obamas “took too long” to do so is beyond insulting – particularly in light of the mainstream news media’s behaviour in the lead-up to the 2016 election. It’s not that you “took too long” to even mention Trump’s past history – you simply didn’t do it at all.

And now the self-proclaimed pussy-grabber is in the White House – no small thanks to self-proclaimed TV news journalists who are suddenly appalled that someone didn’t immediately speak-up about something when they could have.


--- NanceGreggs
Extremely Irate US Citizen

[peequod]

1. I harrumph in agreement!

[world wide wally]

2. No shit

[Blue_Roses]

3. So well said and so undeniably

true! Thank-you, Nance!

[onetexan]

8. ditto

so well said. Thank you Nance Greggs.

[iluvtennis]

23. +++++++++++ Agreee and in my opinion CNN reporting/lack there of is one of reason for the orange

shitstain to be in our people's WH.

[BigmanPigman]

4. Ditto!

[pandr32]

5. I am cheering and clapping

[chillfactor]

6. Well done, Nance.

well done.....you stated it beautifully!

[trueblue2007]

7. shared on my facebook wall with website link

EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT

[burrowowl]

9. Well said!

[still_one]

10. Excellent Nancy. CNN was right out there normalizing the racist, bigoted, and sexist view point,

in 2016, along with their insane false eqivalecies, so this is no surprise to me from the network which actually had as a discussion point, "are Jews really human" last year

I am in Spain right now, and the tensions are extremely high, in fact all of Europe is on the brink of a very uncertain and dangerous path. North Korea is brewing in the background that something insane will happen, and the US is being torn apart by a madman, and CNN and others somehow believe that the timing of Hillary and President Obama's comments on Weinstein is somehow the most critical aspect of sexism is Beyond belief, and only reflects the pathetic state of journalism in the US

[LenaBaby61]

11. Thank You OP for saying this ...

I'm SO over the Weinstein thing now.

[oberliner]

12. "As disgusting as Weinsteins behaviour is, it does not obligate anyone to comment on it"

I could not disagree more with this statement.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

20. So who IS obligated to comment on it?

Whoever is on that particular list of people obligated to speak out about it, I fail to find rationalization for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to do so.

[oberliner]

28. Everyone

This kind of behavior should never be allowed to continue. Everyone should raise their voices in condemnation and do everything in their power to shut this sort of thing down forever in this country.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

38. I agree that the behavior should be called out whenever and wherever it occurs

I still don't get the idea that specific persons- aside from those whom know something about such behavior occurring- should be held accountable for saying something.

[oberliner]

43. Many folks look up to Hillary Clinton

And view her as a role model and leading voice in the Democratic Party, particular with respect to women. I think it was important for her to make the statement that she did condemning this behavior.

[ehrnst]

56. She did make a statement.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-entertainment-news-updates-hillary-clinton-shocked-and-appalled-1507658402-htmlstory.html

[oberliner]

58. Yes, exactly

I'm glad that she did.

The sentiment from the OP I disagree with is:

"They are under no obligation to anyone to make public statements about anything."

[ehrnst]

60. What exactly obligates HRC and the Obamas?

That differentiates them from other public figures.

Are you also applying that same rule to the women who were abused by him?

[oberliner]

62. They are role models

As I've said, they are probably the two most prominent voices in the Democratic Party today. I think the seriousness of the issue obligates everyone to speak out, myself included (though not a lot of people care what I have to say on the subject as opposed to HRC and BHO).

[ehrnst]

65. And Jimmy Carter isn't?

Where is this list of those obligated to speak on this?

[treestar]

67. They are not in any office for crying out loud

[ehrnst]

57. Are you also waiting for Jimmy Carter to make a statement? Al Gore? John Kerry?

And what timeline have you held them to?

[oberliner]

59. I support every prominent Democrat who has spoken out on this subject

And I would encourage others to do so.

[ehrnst]

61. But are they "obligated" to? And if not, why the Obamas and HRC? (nt)

[oberliner]

63. See my answer above

Because of their stature and prominence within the leading political party in America.

[ehrnst]

64. But that doesn't explain why you think others like Carter, Gore, etc.

Are not.

See my question above.

Who is exempt from the obligation among those who are admired?

And do you feel this way about the women who were attacked who remained silent until now?

[LiberalLovinLug]

73. I think the word "obligated" is too strong

And I think its somewhat disingenuous for reasons given in the OP and I think it also smacks of desperation by CNN to try as they might to convince any Republicans left watching them that they are not partison against their dear leader. But as to the question, of all prominent Democrats, even if now private citizens, Obama and Hillary be singled out about having a quicker response?

1. Obama was the outgoing President. A two term President. One that most likely also benefited from contributions of Weinstein, as well as the fact that Weinstein could be painted as the epitiomy of the liberal elite of Hollywood. So even the appearance of shying away from criticizing him is taken a certain way. And also living with the reality that Democrats are expected live up to standards that Republicans left in the dust years ago.

2. Hillary definitely benefited financially from Weinstein for her campaign. She also won the popular vote, including large support from women's groups and organizations. And the very obvious comparisons of Weinstein's to Trump's behavior, when that Hollywood access tape was, (and rightfully so), used by her campaign as a hammer on him.

[ehrnst]

74. Then wouldn't that apply to Tom Perez, Bernie Sanders and Ben Ray Lujan

to come out swinging against Weinstein?

Chair of the DNC, outreach director of the DNC, and Chair of the DCCC respectively? Not private citizens, but those in actual leadership positions in the Democratic party?

Not hearing a lot of unhappiness about their lack of immediate response.

[George II]

42. Have you taken to task every seated politician for not condemning Weinstein? That aside....

...(I'd like to see your answer, though) what CNN has done is bashed Clinton and Obama not for failing to condemn Weinstein, but in their eyes the "delay" of a few days before condemning him.

That means, of course, that any other politician who hasn't yet but subsequently does issue a condemnation should be bashed even more, correct?

[oberliner]

46. No, but I respect those who have done so

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are two politicians whom I admire greatly, and I think it was important for both of them to have spoken out in the way that they did.

With respect to CNN, I think they have a lot of hours to fill and like to talk about things that they know will rile folks up one way or another. Usually it's going after Trump (deservedly). My perspective is that CNN"s main concern is getting people to watch commercials between segments and buy products.

The bottom line for me is that Weinstein's behavior coming to light in the way that it did offers an opportunity for a larger conversation on this subject, and, hopefully, the calling into account of more powerful men who have engaged in this behavior.

[kcr]

89. It's not about respecting those who have.

It's about the implication that Harvey Weinstein is somehow our side's responsibility. The RWers are smearing Hillary with that implication and it's sheer hypocrisy because none of them spoke out about Trump.

The truth is behavior like this isn't partisan. Trumpian/Weinsteinian behavior is not something that either side owns exclusively. It exists because it is embedded in our culture. For anyone to claim that any public figure is obligated to speak out against them for partisan reasons is false. In fact, there are some public figures doing so that are blatantly hypocritical, especially in Hollywood. If they aren't owning up to and apologizing for their own behavior, then their speaking out rings false. Much of it rings hollow to me. Many who pay attention know that this is nothing new, and certainly nothing rare, and for so many to pretend they are shocked at these revelations is ridiculous.

[oberliner]

90. Harvey Weinstein is our side's responsibility

We are the side that is actually committed to standing up for women.

We are the side that is actually committed to confronting violence against women. It was, in fact, a key bullet point on the Hillary for America policy proposal on women's rights and opportunities.

We just ran a candidate for president who is famous for standing up at the United Nations and proclaiming "women's rights are human rights."

Of course what Harvey Weinstein did is not new and is nothing rare, but we are the ones who are supposed to be committed to making sure that we are doing everything we can to, at the very least, make it more rare.

[kcr]

92. Like hell he is. I'm sorry, but there is simply no connection.

The Democratic Party is by far the better choice policy-wise for women. But women are still treated horribly, and how people vote has little to do with whether or not they are decent people. You want an example? Every time women speak up about it here at DU? We get "The Gender Wars." When the first woman was nominated as a Dem candidate? It was our worst primary season ever.

[oberliner]

93. There is no greater responsibility for the Democratic Party

Than to address the systematic oppression of women.

The Republicans sure as hell aren't going to.

Things will never change unless we stand up and force that change.

[kcr]

94. It's your definition of responsibility that's the issue.

And your claim that one has to jump right up and denounce a man the millisecond he rapes someone or they're shirking their responsibility is ludicrous. So, now everyone on our side must do nothing but spend their time monitoring the news to make sure they aren't missing a scandal, and no one can accuse them of not denouncing? What nonsense. Stop listening to right wing bullshit.

[oberliner]

97. Our side should be speaking out against the exploitation of women every day

And when an egregious example of such behavior comes to light through the bravery and courage of those willing to speak out against a very powerful and prominent man, we should take that opportunity to bring even more attention to the issue.

[kcr]

98. Strawman alert. No one is saying they shouldn't.

But to accuse someone of shirking their responsibility because they didn't immediately and on someone else's timetable speak out against an individual is a baseless smear. I'm not surprised to see right wingers and others treating Clinton and Obama this way and claiming they're only doing it because they care so much about women's issues.

[ehrnst]

96. "no greater responsibility than to address the systemic oppression of women"

Can you define "address?" And "Stand up?"

And is it different than this?

After graduating from Yale Law School, Hillary became an advocate for kids and families at the Children’s Defense Fund.

As first lady of Arkansas, she helped start Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families.

As first lady of the United States, Hillary led the U.S. delegation to the U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, where she proclaimed that “women’s rights are human rights.” She also advocated for the Family and Medical Leave Act, worked to increase funding for child care, and helped start the National Campaign to End Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

As senator from New York, Hillary championed access to emergency contraception and voted in favor of strengthening a woman’s right to make her own health decisions. She also championed the Paycheck Fairness Act and co-sponsored the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. She fought for legislation to guarantee paid sick leave and paid parental leave for all federal employees.

As secretary of state, Hillary made women’s rights a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/womens-rights-and-opportunity/

Or this?

Women and Girls

We believe the United States must continue to be a strong advocate for the rights and opportunities of women and girls around the world. Elevating their status is not just the right thing to do—it is also a strategic imperative that advances American interests in prosperity and stability. When women and girls are healthy, educated, and able to participate economically, their families and communities prosper, poverty decreases, and economies grow. And when women participate in conflict resolution and post-conflict processes, it improves the likelihood of securing sustainable peace. Democrats are committed to advancing the rights and opportunities of women and girls as a central focus of American diplomacy, development, and defense efforts and will continue to support the United States National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security. We will work to end the epidemic of gender-based violence around the world. We will urge ratification of the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

We will support sexual and reproductive health and rights around the globe. In addition to expanding the availability of affordable family planning information and contraceptive supplies, we believe that safe abortion must be part of comprehensive maternal and women’s health care and included as part of America’s global health programming. Therefore, we support the repeal of harmful restrictions that obstruct women’s access to health care information and services, including the “global gag rule” and the Helms Amendment that bars American assistance to provide safe, legal abortion throughout the developing world.

And please tell us how Democrats are supposed to "force" this change? Seriously - are you talking legally, militarily?

[ehrnst]

95. "Our side" is tasked with eradicating what men in great power do to get sex? This year?

Can you tell me how HRC's candidacy was supposed to address Weinstein's actions towards women?

Can you define this responsibility that you say "our side" is shirking?

Sending private detectives in to any audition or meeting between powerful men and less powerful women?

Women who are not as powerful as Weinstein challenging him and going broke and careerless?

Can you be specific?

[Eliot Rosewater]

52. Yeah, uh huh

Anyway, I am sincerely confused about this entire subject.

I have been a bit distracted with other stuff, didnt both of them come out and say something, very quickly?

And didnt they do something no con ever does ever, let alone right away?

[gademocrat7]

13. Agree completely.

[thbobby]

14. Follow the money

Great post Nance. Just follow the money.

During the campaign, MSM found it very profitable to give Trump air time. They knew he would not appear with real journalists who would call him out on lies, assaults, mob ties, or theft. He never appeared with Rachel Maddow. The MSM also knew that a contested election was profitable. Why do real journalism when "reporting" on idiocy is so easy and profitable? Finally, they knew that being "fair and balanced" by repeating email email EMAIL would be profitable.

Now, the MSM knows that "reporting" on Trump is profitable. Being "fair and balanced" by making some idiotic false equivalency about Weinstein is profitable.

Everyone on DU knows this all too well. I just needed to vent. We live in a time when corporate media shapes the news for profit and hides their agenda.

[chervilant]

51. Thanks for pointing out

that the M$M represents the corporate megalomaniacs -- as well as the pernicious consequences of our species' hedonism. We collectively writhe in the putrid abyss of our emotional and intellectual turpitude, addicted to glamorous visual imagery within the comfort of our own homes and overwhelmed by the fear, depression and anxiety engendered by our unfolding extinction events.

Too many of us are addicted to the news du jour -- topical, ofttimes irrelevant "news" delivered by beautiful young talking heads embedded in rapid-fire graphics, Snipes, crawls and advertisements. I have to shake my head at those who still swallow the red herrings promulgated by our obscenely wealthy corporate overlords -- are we all such pitiable individuals, so easily distracted from the issues that really matter, like to whence go the multitudes of refugees from our relentless wars and flooded, overpopulated coastal areas? Where will we grow the (increasingly void of nutrients) crops required to sustain our burgeoning world population? How many more mega storms per year are we going to have to survive? Why do we sustain economic behavior that concentrates the vital resources of our planet in the hands of a minuscule number of greedy "corporatists"?

I cannot help but point out, as I feel you have somewhat tangentially, that the M$M plays us like cheap violins. (One of the many reasons I don't own a television...)

[spanone]

15. K&R...

[mcar]

16. K & f'ing R!

[coolsandy]

17. NanceGreggs you are a treasure. i have been following you for a long time. Never stop!

[seta1950]

18. Bravo !

Very well said it’s like you read my mind , thank you.

[George II]

19. Excellent letter. Incidentally, first thing this morning CNN started in again...

...with their "pundits" whining about how it took so long for Clinton and Obama to make comments. ONLY Clinton and Obama!

Interesting that they never said a peep about all the prominent current office holders who haven't said a word yet, most notably.........

[LittleGirl]

21. That's what I keep asking!

What took them (CNN) so long, god damn it.
hugs.

[malaise]

22. CNN should post Groper Don the Con's thoughts on Roger Ailes

after he was exposed as a sexual predator.

CNN should ask ReTHUGs about Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly. If they don't we may have to ask if they're afraid someone might ask what's going on inside CNN.

[mnhtnbb]

24. Well said, Nance.

[stonecutter357]

25. K&R

[Enoki33]

26. So eloquently expressed and on target at some of what Ted

Turner feared when he later regretted selling CNN. Thankfully there is MSNBC.

[Sanity Claws]

27. If they are concerned about silence

why don't they harp on Twitler's failure to comment on the assassination of the 4 servicemen in Niger?
His silence on the California wildfire?
His silence on any number of issues that really matter?
Why are they focused on a Hollywood producer?

[oberliner]

29. "Whatboutism"

The sexual harassment and degradation of women (and others) by wealthy, powerful men is a major problem that should be discussed (or "harped on" ) regardless of the other issues going on in this country. This is an issue that "really matters" and will never change unless people force the change.

[Sanity Claws]

30. Yes but this thread is about

When Hillary commented on Weinstein.
It is not focused on Weinstein's behavior. If you are concerned about misogyny, then be concerned about how they shifted the discussion to Hillary.

[oberliner]

39. I respectfully disagree with that assessment

I think that all those who are concerned about misogyny should continue to speak out against Weinstein and others like him. I am glad Hillary made the statement that she did. She is a role model for so many people in this country, so I feel that it was important for her to have done so.

[CatMor]

32. The sexual harassment and degradation of women..

isn't just a problem with wealthy, powerful men it is a problem with men from all walks of life. Both Hillary and the Obamas made statements and I agree with Nance they are private citizens and are under no obligation to do so. I hardly think their statements will change the problem. Millions of people voted for Trump knowing he is a sexual predator and they did not care. Men are the only ones who can change their ways and I doubt it will ever happen.

[oberliner]

40. Agreed

It is a problem in all walks of life, that's for sure.

However, where I disagree is that I do feel like Hillary and the Obamas have an obligation to speak out about Weinstein. They are high profile voices in the Democratic Party and are role models looked up to by millions of Americans.

I am glad they made the statements they made.

[LanternWaste]

69. You continue repeating the same premise, but fail to support it with any objective evidence.

"I do feel like Hillary and the Obamas have an obligation to speak out about Weinstein..."

You continue repeating the same premise, but fail to support it with any objective evidence, only editorial.

[sprinkleeninow]

77. Ow, my head! 🤕 Holy frickkken mackeral.

(Not directed at you!)

[ehrnst]

99. You keep posting in circular logic, and won't define what you mean

in terms of action.

[treestar]

68. +10000

[maddiemom]

31. Exactly! Perfectly expressed.

[linnknee]

33. Thank for from the bottom of my heart

That was so well said and 1 million times accurate. It is dispressing living under this Dotard and the complicant Congress of downright MEAN and greedy people. Educated and moral people are at their wits ends. Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks

[Paladin]

34. And Chris Cillizza can eat a bowl of fuck, for the same reason. (nt)

[CrispyQ]

35. Kick. -nt

[BarbD]

36. Right on!

By changing the conversation from sexual assault on women to the timing of a private citizen's response is irresponsible journalism.

[Irish_Dem]

37. Con artists always try to deflect from their wrong doing by accusing innocent people of bad behavior

Standard MO. So now we can talk about how bad Obama and Hillary are, two people who
do not molest women.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

41. +1

And shame on CNN for enabling them to attack people whom have nothing to do with the Weinstein situation.

[chervilant]

55. Red herrings...

or, should I say, salacious red herrings for the voracious consumers of our media du jour?

[niyad]

44. k and r + several gazillion

[bitterross]

45. I thought they all wanted Hillary to shut up and go away

They are all such freaking tools.

[ismnotwasm]

47. K&R

[happy feet]

48. Amen

[MoonRiver]

49. Wow, this is TRUTH!

[FreeStateDemocrat]

50. CNN's BS false equivalence that helped elect the groper-in-chief whose behavior is not mentioned

[Skidmore]

53. MSNBC has done the same thing.

They need to be included.

[Lifelong Protester]

54. K & R!

[treestar]

66. Thank you. I saw that and it pissed me off

what about how Obama and Hillary should go away and not say anything?

Anyone who voted for Donald of Orange has no leg to stand on to make demands anyone disapprove this type of behavior.

[samplegirl]

70. The difference is Weinstein

Was not running for president...and if he were we would of not elected him!

[Scarsdale]

71. Exactly.

Maybe they were waiting for confirmation, rather than jumping on the bandwagon before everything was confirmed? Thank goodness, Weinstein is not running for president. THAT is what concerns me, a sexual predator (proven) in the WH.

[yonder]

72. K&R!!

It couldn't have been said any better -- right fucking on, and thanks

[sprinkleeninow]

75. Most excellent! You enunciated everything we feel and hold true. A heartfelt thank you.

They sweep his crap under the rug and put unwarranted dirty lies and innuendo naming those on our side in their 'floodlight'.
The worship/idolatry love of money and position makes one do abhorrent things.

[Vinca]

76. You nailed it! I hope they see it.

[TexasBushwhacker]

78. "What took them so long?"

There have been casting couch stories for as long as there has been a Hollywood. What about their own industry? Why wasn't Bill Cosby exposed a long time ago? They don't call them "open secrets" for nothing. It seems to me that it is the media that has dropped the ball on these allegations, not the Clintons and the Obamas.

[Thinkingabout]

79. I am happy Hillary has made a statement, she was timely and did not tweet before more facts

had come out, they fired him. This is a subject which has been overlooked much too long. Hillary has been an advocate for many different issues, women's rights has been right at the top. I wish they could hold Trump to the same standard they hold Hillary, maybe he would be a better president.

[katmondoo]

80. Thank you Nancy one thousand times again and again

[lunamagica]

81. That was beautiful! Thank you!

[ProudProgressiveNow]

82. K&R nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

83. I mean what is the time frame for comment from private citizens? Is it written down somewhere?

If Lemon and Burnett know where it's kept, I sure would like to see it.

[calimary]

84. AGAIN, Nance. Again you nail it and speak for me!

SO spot-on. Superb. Every single sentence is superb!

BRAVA!!!

[FairWinds]

85. Dear Nance - thank you for the excellent post . .

But I do have one thing to add to your litany of CNN (etc)
failings, which is of vital importance.

Trump campaigned openly and very frequently to make
torture the official policy of the USG - a fact that was never
highlighted by the MSM or CNN

As a Vietnam vet, I find this beyond appalling.

Keep up the fine work !!

[bigtree]

86. k&r

[Gothmog]

87. Great thread

[SeattlePop]

88. CNN - MSNBC Gave Us Trump - WE Won't Forget

ever.

[BSdetect]

91. I hate the entire media and all those idiots who ply their trade in it.