john king...worse journalist in the world?

[spanone]

he asked mr gingrich a serious question concerning his character.

didn't newt lead the house impeachment of bill clinton?

doesn't this make this question even more pertinent?

why didn't john king follow up after being chastised by gingrich?

why?

[madaboutharry]

1. Because John King isn't that smart.

He doesn't think on his feet. I've seen him at a loss for words in the past.

[spanone]

3. but it didn't involve thinking on his feet. he had to know how gingrich would react

he shoudh have had some kind of follow up question at the ready...that doesn't require smarts

[PRETZEL]

7. but a confrontation between Gingrich and King

would have only reinforced the RW talking point.

Yeah, King probably knew how Newt was going to react, probably expected it.

But he could have very well been told to sit there and take it like a man.

[gratuitous]

2. His question wasn't intended to get a direct answer

It was intended to provide Gingrich an opportunity to put on his victim mantle, and scold the proles for their prurient interest in his private life. King knew his role was to submit the question. let Gingrich rant, and the crowd goes wild.

[think]

11. great synopsis of the staged rage

[zonkers]

13. King could've simply have said, Hey Newt, don't shoot the messenger.

Instead, he got pwned. By design, you are right.

[gateley]

4. No kidding. Maybe he's not even aware of how Gingrich went after Clinton. Even worse!

Thomas just laid it out perfectly on MSNBC with the head of the SC Republicans when he came back with a similar response. Gingrich, Clinton, hypocrisy - ticked them off the list. VERY well done.

[russspeakeasy]

5. I think you are being generous with the term "journalist".

Mr. King seems like a very likeable person, but "journalist" ? Come on..

[spanone]

6. it's the role he plays.

[russspeakeasy]

8. I know...but I couldn't find the sarcasm thingy.

[KharmaTrain]

9. IRC He Was The White House Correspondant

During the Clinton inquisition and he damned well knew not only that Cadrich along with DeLay were spearheading things but I'll bet a bright shiny dime he knew about Gnewt's doodling around with Cialis...his then "intern".

The above poster nailed it...King threw that out knowing that the Gnewtmeister would pounce all over it and get the crowd all rockin'. Remember, this isn't journalism...that's done in a board room or one on one...not in front of one thousand partisans. This was a teevee show where the more raucous the higher the ratings. It was all a dog and pony show as almost all debates, even Democratic ones, are.

[Sugarcoated]

10. I think CNN did it for ratings

and by giving the Grinch a righteous soap box, right out of the gate, makes the race more exciting. They know the debates are Grinchies thing, his poll numbers go up. If he wins or comes very close in SC it's more exciting to cover and present to on their shows. King is doing what he's told. What make me gag the most was the over-the-top rah-rah start to the show and King saying we're "blessed" or something along those lines. Journalists should leave the religion out of their reporting. The media is a joke.

[Sugarcoated]

12. I think maybe John King did us a favor

[underpants]

14. It was the obvious topic to lead with

other than that it would have been a wake talking about Perry exiting.

Newt new it was coming and ( I suspect) he had his plants in the audience to start a standing ovation just like the last debate.

Newt dug his hole deeper in the general election. He has no chance of winning - Fox New and CNN positive coverage included.

[alphafemale]

15. I don't think that was his role in this format. This wasn't an interview.

I also don't think a follow-up question was necessary.

Newt is playing to a 20% and repulsing the rest of people with responses like that.

[Raine]

16. That would've only given Noot more chance to cry out about being a victim

and the audience more chances to applaud and give more standing O's. King let it go at the right time IMO, no purpose would've been served.